Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
The Ethnicity of the Sea Peoples
2
3
THE ETHNICITY OF THE SEA PEOPLES
DE ETNICITEIT VAN DE ZEEVOLKEN
Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam op gezag van de
rector magnificus
Prof.dr. S.W.J. Lamberts
en volgens besluit van het College voor Promoties. De openbare verdediging zal plaatsvinden op
vrijdag 28 april 2006 om 13.30 uur
door
Frederik Christiaan Woudhuizen
geboren te Zutphen
4
Promotiecommissie
Promotor: Prof.dr. W.M.J. van Binsbergen
Overige leden: Prof.dr. R.F. Docter Prof.dr. J. de Mul Prof.dr. J. de Roos
5
To my parents
“Dieser Befund legt somit die Auffassung nahe, daß zumindest für den Kern der ‘Seevölker’-Bewegung des 14.-12. Jh. v. Chr. mit Krieger-Stammesgruppen von ausgeprägter ethnischer Identität – und nicht lediglich mit einem diffus fluktuierenden Piratentum – zu rechnen ist.” (Lehmann 1985: 58)
7
CONTENTS
Preface ................................................................................................................................................................................9 Note on the Transcription, especially of Proper Names.................................................................................................... 11 List of Figures................................................................................................................................................................... 12 List of Tables .................................................................................................................................................................... 13 1. Defining Ethnicity....................................................................................................................................................... 15 2. Ethnicity and Protohistory .......................................................................................................................................... 21 3. Historical Setting ........................................................................................................................................................ 29 4. An Historiographic Outline......................................................................................................................................... 35 5. Contemporary Sources................................................................................................................................................ 43 6. Lukka and the Lukka Lands........................................................................................................................................ 57 7. Ethnogenesis of the Greeks......................................................................................................................................... 59 8. The Rise and Fall of the Mycenaean Greeks............................................................................................................... 69 9. From Danaoi to Dan.................................................................................................................................................... 77 10. Etruscan Origins.......................................................................................................................................................... 79 11. The Aeneas’ Saga: Etruscan Origins in parvo ............................................................................................................ 89 12. Philistines and Pelasgians ........................................................................................................................................... 95 13. Teukroi, Akamas, and Trojan Grey Ware ................................................................................................................. 107 14. The Central Mediterranean Contribution .................................................................................................................. 111 15. Concluding Remarks................................................................................................................................................. 117
Appendix I. On the Decipherment of Cretan Hieroglyphic ............................................................................................ 123 Appendix II. On the Position of Etruscan ....................................................................................................................... 135 Appendix III. A Luwian Trifunctional Divine Triad Recorded for Crete ....................................................................... 141 Appendix IV. Pelasgian Demeter and Zeus .................................................................................................................... 143
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................................... 147
Nederlandse Samenvatting: De Etniciteit van de Zeevolken .......................................................................................... 163 Curriculum Vitae Frederik Christiaan Woudhuizen........................................................................................................ 167
9
PREFACE
Significance of the topic
Bringing down the Hittite empire and dealing Egypt a blow from which it never recovered, the Sea Peoples’ epi-sode at the end of the Bronze Age was crucial for a shift of the economic and political centre of gravity of the Mediter-ranean world away from the Levant and towards Greece, Africa Minor, and Italy. Soon this shift was to give rise to the splendors of archaic and classical Greece developing into Hellenism, Carthage, Etruscan civilization, Rome, the Roman empire, early Christianity, and, in the long run, the emergence the modern western European civilization, dominated by speakers of Indo-European languages, but greatly influenced by a Levantine religion (Judaism). For better or worse, the Sea Peoples’ episode was one of the few major turning points in world history, comparable to the period of the great migrations which led to the collapse of the Roman empire, or the rise and early spread of Islam.
The present book’s argument
With the help of modern anthropological theories about ethnicity, I seek, in the present study, to determine whether the enigmatic Sea Peoples were merely a bunch of pirates or whether they constituted a set of coherent ethnic enti-ties, temporarily making common cause in pursuit of the richnesses of, and hence a better life in, the Near East.
Of vital importance to this endeavour is the question of the homelands of the various groups which make up the Sea Peoples. In order to tackle this problem, an inter-disciplinary proto-historical method has been applied, which makes full use of the available archaeological, his-torical, and linguistic data as provided by Egyptian, Levan-tine, Anatolian, Aegean, and central Mediterranean sources.
As such, the work aspires at an historical synthesis, in which the Masperonian thesis of a homeland for the Sea Peoples in Asia Minor and the Aegean is balanced with the opinion of others who rather attribute such a role to the is-lands of Sardinia and Sicily and the Italian peninsula in the central Mediterranean. It will be shown that both the “Ana-tolian thesis” and the “central Mediterranean antithesis” are partly valid, and that some of the groups of the Sea Peoples originated from Anatolia and the Aegean, whereas others rather came from the central Mediterranean region.
It will further be argued that the ‘‘prime mover’’, which set into motion the whole process leading to the upheavals of the Sea peoples, is formed by the truly massive migra-tion of bearers of the central European Urnfield culture into the Italian peninsula c. 1200 BC.
Building upon over a century of scholarly Sea Peo-ples’ research, and offering a combination of various spe-cialist (and therefore often relatively inaccessible) approaches from a variety of disciplines, this study will of-fer the reader synthetic perspectives onto a crucial period of human history.
Acknowledgments
The work I have been engaged with let us say about the last eight years could not have been accomplished without the help of good friends and colleagues. First of all, my sincere feelings of gratitude are due to my supervisor Wim van Binsbergen, who initiated the project, arranged a sti-pendium to work it out granted by the Erasmus University, and, in addition to stimulating supervision, provided a theoretical framework on ethnicity suitable for the analysis of the Mediterranean in the Late Bronze Age. Next, the Indo-Europeanist Frits Waanders was so kind to proofread an early draft of the entire manuscript and save me from many errors in spelling and judgment – needless to say that remaining ones are my sole responsibility. Furthermore, I am greatly indebted to the specialist in Linear A, Jan Best, who so to say raised me in the interdisciplinary field of protohistory and kindly proofread an early draft of the sec-tions on the Greeks and the Pelasgians. For the systemati-zation of the transliteration of the Ugaritic texts, I am much obliged to the Assyriologist Frans Wiggermans, whereas in matters of Egyptian hieroglyphic I was guided by the Egyptologists J.F Borghouts and Willem van Haar-lem. Also of much help was the letter (d.d. 11 January 2002) by the archaeologist Manfred Bietak on the sensa-tional find of Minoan tephra at Tell el-Dab‘a/Avaris. Un-failing support came from the members of the editorial board of Talanta, consisting of Jan de Boer, Ton Bruijns, Roald Docter, Jorrit Kelder, Vladimir Stissi, Jan Stronk, Reinier Telling, and Maarten de Weerd, which not only generously facilitated a prepublication of the section on the Etruscans, but also brought to my attention relevant litera-ture and, where necessary, severe criticism. My work also
10
profited from the collaboration with Winfried Achterberg, Kees Enzler, and Lia Rietveld, as duly acknowledged in the bibliography. Further, my thanks are due to the Etrus-cologist Bauke van der Meer, the Classical archeologist Eric Moorman, and the Mediterranean archeologist Jacques Vanschoonwinkel, for kindly bringing relevant lit-erature to my attention.
Finally, I am indebted to Ulrich Seeger (cf. 2002) and Peter Broers for allowing me to use their fonts Bock and Kefas2, respectively, as sources of special characters.
11
NOTE ON THE TRANSCRIPTION, ESPECIALLY OF PROPER NAMES
In the transcription of proper names, I have in most in-stances preferred one closest to the Greek original: thus Akhaians, Herakles, Herodotos, Homeros, Korinthos, etc. Encouraged by the German saying that “Jeder Kon-zequenz führt zum Teufel”, however, I have not aimed at being entirely systematic in this respect, since I found it hard to transform the current English forms of Cilicia, Crete, Crimea, Cyclades, Mycenae, Thucydides, Tiryns, Troy, Tyre, etc. into less familiar ones closer to the Greek original. The same license has been adopted with respect to the ending of the ethnonyms, now using the Greek one, as with Danaoi and Teukroi, then using the English one,
as with Pelasgians. When originating from a Latin source, the Latin forms of the proper names are preferred, as in the section on the Aeneas’ saga. As far as possible, I have preferred to use (in general discussions outside the con-text of my presentation of original texts) the simple s in-stead of the cumbersome sh for the transcription of the sibilant š in Hittite personal names and Philistine place names, thus Hattusilis, Suppiuliumas and Askalon, As-dod. However, for the sake of clarity sh is maintained for Eshtaol, Kadesh, and Laish as well as for the ethnonyms of the Sea Peoples from the Egyptian sources, hence Ek-wesh, Teresh, etc.
12
LIST OF FIGURES
Frontispiece. Rowers depicted on a Late Helladic IIIC sherd from Seraglio on Kos (from Sandars 1980: 131, afb. 92)..................................................................... 5
Fig. 1a. Diagram of the extremities in the spec-trum of possibilities of the relation between ethnic groups and the indicia language, religion, and material culture ............................................................................ 16
Fig. 1b. Diagram of the partial relationship between ethnicity and its indicia, kinship, material culture, lan-guage, and religion......................................................... 21
Fig. 2. Distribution of the Greek dialects (from Hall 1997: 154, Fig. 25)......................................................... 23
Fig. 3. The ethnonyms of the Sea Peoples in Egyp-tian writing, transliteration, and standardized transcription (from Kitchen 1982: IV, 4 and Kitchen 1983: V, 40) .... 36
Fig. 4. Plan of Ramesses III’s temple at Medinet Habu, Thebes (after Cifola 1991: 12) ............................ 51
Fig. 5. Land battle scene of Medinet Habu (from Oren 2000: 96, Fig. 5.5)................................................. 53
Fig. 6. Sea battle scene of Medinet Habu (from Oren 2000: 98, Fig. 5.6).......................................................... 53
Fig. 7. Prisoners of war: (a) Hittite, (b) Amorite, (c) Tjeker, (d) Sherden, (e) Shasu, and (f) Teresh (from Nibbi 1975: Pl. I) ..................................................................... 53
Fig. 8. Map of Lycia (from Mellink 1995)............. 58 Fig. 9. Distribution of centres of radiation of Late
Helladic I material. (a) Pottery in combination with archi-tectural remains (Pylos, Kirrha, Thebes, Eleusis, and Ath-ens); (b) pottery in shaft graves, tholos- and chamber tombs (Koryphasion, Peristeria, Epidauros Limera, Lerna, Mycenae, Prosymna, and Thorikos). Sources: van Royen & Isaac 1979 and Hope Simpson 1981 .......................... 63
Fig. 10. Reconstruction of the split between Greek and Thraco-Phrygian on the basis of the development of the mediae aspiratae (after Haas 1966: 209) .................. 66
Fig. 11. Sites in southern and central Greece de-stroyed and/or abandoned at the end of Late Helladic IIIB. 1. Teikhos Dymaion, 2. Pylos, 3. Nikhoria, 4. Mene-laion, 5. Ayios Stephanos, 6. Krisa, 7. Tsoungiza, 8. Mycenae, 9. Zygouries, 10. Berbati, 11. Prosymna, 12. Midea/Dendra, 13. Tiryns, 14. Orkhomenos, 15. Iria, 16. Gla, 17. Eutresis, 18. Thebes, 19. Brauron. Source: Hope Simpson & Dickinson 1979 ........................................... 72
Fig. 12. Sites and cemeteries (a) in Late Helladic IIIB and (b) in Late Helladic IIIC (from Popham 2001: 282-3) ............................................................................ 75
Fig. 13. Distribution of biconical urns in the Urnfield world (from Hencken 1968: 441, fig. 452) .................... 81
Fig. 14. Distribution of house urns (from Bouzek 1997: fig. 49) ................................................................. 82
Fig. 15. Distribution of (a) proto-Villanovan and (b) Villanovan sites (after Hencken 1968: fig. 466) ............ 83
Fig. 16. The Heroon of Aeneas at Lavinium (from Somella 1974: Taf. VII)................................................. 90
Fig. 17. Settlement of the Sea Peoples in the Levant and the remains of the Egyptian sphere of influence (from Bietak 1993: 295, Fig. 4) ............................................... 96
Fig. 18. Figurines from (a) Asdod, (b) Cyprus, and (c) Mycenae (from Sandars 1980: 165, afb. 116) .......... 97
Fig. 19. Comparison of (a) Philistine chamber tombs from Tell Fara with (b) Mycenaean prototypes (from Waldbaum 1966: 332, Ill. 1; 336, Ills. 11-14)................ 97
Fig. 20. Late Helladic IIIC1b ware with “antithetic horns” and “bird looking backwards”: (a) Crete, (b) Cy -prus , and (c ) Ph i l i s t i a (after Schachermeyr 1979:160, Abb. 41a; Noort 1994: 122, Abb. 36; 115, Abb. 38)....................................................................................... 98
Fig. 21. Distribution of Trojan grey ware (from Heuck Allen 1994)....................................................... 110
Fig. 22. Sherden in the Egyptian reliefs from the reigns of Ramesses II and Ramesses III with (a) long slashing swords and round shields, and (b) javelins (from Sandars 1980: 29, afb. 12 and 32, afb. 14) .................. 111
Fig. 23. Statue-menhirs from Corsica: (a) Cauria (with horns reconstructed on the helmets), (b) Scalsa Murta (from Grosjean 1966b, Fig. 5; Sandars 1980: 99, afb. 60)......................................................................... 113
Fig. 24. Distribution of Urnfield culture and the route of the Sea Peoples; (a) c. 1180 BC; (b) 12th-10th century BC (after Kimmig 1964: 269-70, Abb. 17-8) .............. 116
Fig. 25. Origins of the Cretan hieroglyphic script. (a) Luwian hieroglyphic (56 signs); (b) Egyptian hiero-glyphic (14 signs) ........................................................ 128
Fig. 26. Cretan hieroglyphic seals with the categories “man’s name”, “title”, and “place or country name” (drawings of the original publications, except in the case of # 309) ................................................................130-133
13
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Overview of the mention of the Sea Peoples in the various Egy pt ian sources from the Late Bronze Age ................................................................................ 56
Table 2. Literary traditions with a bearing on the transition from Middle Helladic to Late Helladic I, c.1600 BC. ....................................................................... 63
Table 3. Developments in the innovative group of Indo-European languages related to the progressive use of the horse ........................................................................ 67
Table 4. Correspondences between Cretan hiero-glyphic and Luwian hieroglyphic (values in square brack-ets attested for Cretan hieroglyphic only) ............. 124-125
Table 5. Correspondences between Cretan hiero-glyphic and Egyptian hieroglyphic (values as attested for Cretan hieroglyphic) .................................................... 125
Table 6. Correspondences between Cretan hiero-glyphic and Cretan Linear ........................................... 127
Table 7. Correspondences between Cretan hiero-glyphic and Cypro-Minoan.......................................... 127
Table 8. Seals with the categories “man’s name”, “ti-tle”, and “place or country name”................................ 130
Table 9. Trifunctional divine triads among various Indo-European speaking groups. ................................ 142
15
1. DEFINING ETHNICITY
In a work which deals with the ethnicity of the Mediterra-nean population groups which attacked Egypt at the end of the Bronze Age, commonly referred to as the Sea Peoples, it should first of all be specified what “ethnicity” actually means and how we will put this concept into practice. To this aim, it is interesting to note that the word is derived from Greek ethnos (plural ethn ), “number of people living together, body of men; nation, people; foreign, barbarious nations; class of men, caste, tribe”.1 According to Werner Sollors in his Theories of Ethnicity, A Classical Reader of 1996, the modern formation ethnicity came into use during the Second World War (1940-1945), being first attested in a publication by W. Lloyd Warner (p. vii). As a definition of this term, the same author presents the one formulated by R.A. Schermerhorn in 1970, which runs as follows (ibid., p. xii):
“An ethnic group is … a collectivity within a larger society having real or putative common ancestry, memories of a shared historical past, and a cultural focus on one or more symbolic elements defined as the epitome of their peoplehood. Examples of such symbolic elements are: kinship patterns, physical contiguity (as in localism or sectionalism), religious affiliation, language or dialect forms, tribal affilia-tion, nationality, phenotypal features, or any combi-nation of these. A necessary accompaniment is some consciousness of kind among members of the group.”
Not explicitly mentioned in this definition, but of vital importance to our subject, is the fact that ethnic groups are in most of the cases referred to by a name, coined either by themselves or by outsiders, which we call an ethnonym.
In the study of ethnicity, various approaches can be encountered. In the first place, the ethnic group under con-sideration can be studied from the perspective of the mem-bers of this group themselves. This approach is called emic. Alternatively, the ethnic group under consideration can be studied from the perspective of outsiders. The latter approach is called etic. As explained by Wim van Binsber-gen, these terms are rooted in the field of linguistics, where phonetics furnishes a purely external description of a lan-guage (hence -etic), and phonemics deals with the smallest
1 LSJ, s.v.; in modern literature, one also finds the plural ethnoi or ethn s (from singular ethn ) or the originally French form ethnieused for both singular and plural.
units of speech sound distinguished by the language users themselves (hence -emic).2 Another pair of concepts is formed by primordialism and instrumentalism. According to the primordial approach, the ethnic features of a specific group are immutable qualities, inherited from father to son and mother to daughter, and thus a historically “given”. As opposed to this, the instrumentalist approach, initiated by Frederik Barth in his classic Ethnic Groups and Bounda-ries of 1969, holds that ethnic features can be manipulated for certain causes by the members of a specific group and that hence the ethnic boundaries are permeable. Accord-ingly, instrumentalists will stress the dynamic and negotia-ble nature of ethnicity, whereas primordialists will do the opposite. In reality, the truth lies somewhere in between these opposites, some ethnic boundaries being difficult to cross or even impermeable in a certain period of time, es-pecially when there is a high ethnic conscience (= ethnici-zation), and others, or the same but in a period of time when there is a low ethnic conscience, being easy to cross. Furthermore, dynamism also needs to be called into play in order to account for the fact that an ethnos can die out (= ethnothanasia) or be newly created (= ethnogenesis).
The determination of an ethnic identity is in essence an historical process. As we will be working in the proto-history, which lacks contemporary works of history, the definition of ethnicity needs to be translated into protohis-torical categories of evidence. In addition, these categories of evidence should be workable in the context of the east-ern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age, which with societies ranging from highly developed multiethnic em-pires through individual kingdoms and city leagues to merely tribal forms of organization3 is far more complex than, for example, the modern African one where the vari-ous ethnic groups are all of a similar degree of organiza-tion – in the words of van Binsbergen: like cookies shaped with different cookie moulds from one and the same large rolled out slab of dough.4 Hence, following in the tracks of
2 Van Binsbergen 1999: 43.
3 For the definition of tribe as “an ethnic group within the global space but outside the politically dominant civilization”, see van Binsbergen, forthc. 10.
4 Van Binsbergen 1999: 69; the same observation to some extent
16
Jonathan Hall in his Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity of 1997, we might – apart from ethnonyms – suitably adopt the following indicia for the distinction of ethnic groups: 1. kinship or “race”, 2. language or dialect, 3. religion, and 4. material culture (= the materialisation of shared cultural traits).5 As we will see in the next section, these indicia for ethnic groups are very close to the categories of evidence distinguished by the ancients themselves to this aim.
Of the given indicia for the distinction of ethnic groups, the first one, kinship or “race” is a tricky one, as one has to steer carefully between the Scylla of “Blut und Boden” theory of indigenous development and the Charybdis of an invading “Herrenvolk”. In effect, how-ever, although Egyptian artists do distinguish phenotypal features in their reliefs, the eastern Mediterranean in the Late Bronze Age appears to be not particularly preoccu-pied with the “race” issue.6 To all probability, this results from the fact that the eastern Mediterranean population is thoroughly mixed: even the Ionians, who were so proud of their pure blood, had killed the male Carians and taken the female ones as their wives at the time of their colonization of western Asia Minor, as Herodotos slily remarks (Histo-ries I, 146). In the course of our investigations, we will ex-perience that in all cases of a migration some measure of mixing between the invaders and the indigenous popula-tion took place, so that the category of “race” will not fig-ure prominently in our treatment – not in the least also because we lack the sources whether the population groups under discussion considered themselves of pure descent (= emic point of view).
A complicating factor in our work with the remaining three indicia for the distinction of ethnic groups is the fact that, as duly stressed by Hall, the boundaries of speech communities, religious entities, and material cultures are not always coterminous. Thus, to stipulate the extremities of the entire spectrum of possibilities, a language can be shared by two or more ethnic groups, like in the case of the English and the Americans or the formerly west- and east-Germans, or a single ethnic group can be characterized by
also holds good for Europe during the Bronze Age.
5 Hall 1997: 19 ff. I consulted Jones 1997, but did not grasp her coming up with a protohistorical method. For a definition of culture as “everything one acquires as a member of society”, see van Binsbergen, forthc. 11.
6 Cf. Snowden’s (1997: 121) characterization of the Graeco-Roman world as a “society which (…) never made color the basis for judging a man.” But see now Isaac 2004.
two or more languages, like the Franks on the east (Ger-manic) and the west (Romance) side of the Rhine or the Swiss (German, French, and Italian). Similarly, a religion can be shared by two or more ethnic groups, like in the case of the Orthodox religion adhered to by the Greeks and numerous Slavic population groups, or a single ethnic group can be characterized by two or more religions, like the Dutch by Protestantism and Catholicism. In certain cases, the differences of religion may cause a once united people to break up into different ethnic groups, like in the case of the former Yugoslavia, now being split up into Serbia (Orthodox), Croatia (Catholic), and Bosnia (partly Muslim). And finally, a material culture can be shared by two or more ethnic groups, like in the case of the Flemings and the Walloons in Belgium, or a single ethnic group can be characterized by two or more material cultures, like in the case of the Phrygians using grey ware in the west and so-called mattpainted ware in the east (see Fig. 1a).7
language 1religion 1culture 1
language 1religion 1culture 1
language 2religion 2culture 2
ethnos 1 ethnos 2 ethnos 1
Fig. 1a. Diagram of the extremities in the spectrum of possibilities
of the relation between ethnic groups and the indicia language, re-
ligion, and material culture.8
Given this complicating factor, it cannot be denied, however, that the different indicia for the distinction of ethnic groups often overlap and that precisely here we may find a nucleus of an ethnic group (see Fig. 1b, below): if we would assume otherwise we would throw away the child with the bathwater (for an elaboration of this point of view, see section 2)! The latter observation should not be mixed up with Gustav Kosinna’s adagium that “cultural provinces clearly outlined archaeologically coincide in all periods with precise peoples or tribes”,9 which simplifies the actual state of affairs in an irresponsible manner. In
7 Haas 1966: 17.
8 I am indebted to Wim van Binsbergen for drawing this diagram.
9 Demoule 1999: 194.
17
similar vein, to accuse Georges Dumézil of racialism, as Tim Cornell does,10 because he discovered the remnants of a tripartite Indo-European religious ideology among vari-ous peoples speaking an Indo-European tongue, means an irresponsible mixing up between the categories of kinship or “race” and religion, elements of the latter of which namely can also be inherited by genetically mixed descen-dants. On the other hand, we cannot rule out the possibility that in the overlap of our protohistoric indicia for ethnic groups lurks yet another ethnic group, which, notwith-standing the fact that it shares in with the same phenotype, language, religion, and material culture of a particular eth-nic group, simply considers itself distinct, like some of the Dryopes in Greece11 or the Asturians – who, while speak-ing Spanish, being Catholic, and sharing the Spanish mate-rial culture, consider themselves Celtiberians – in Spain.12
As we will also see in the next section, here our protohis-toric method by its mere definition simply fails to help us out.
As cogently argued by van Binsbergen, the shortcom-ings of our protohistorical method can be partly compen-sated by working within a theoretical framework, based on experience with ethnic studies from the historical period. In the following, then, I will present a summary of van Binsbergen’s attempt at such a framework in his Ethnicityin eastern Mediterranean protohistory, Reflections on the-ory and method (forthc.), sections 1-3.
Starting point is the realization that ethnicity is not just a classification of human individuals in terms of an ethnic lable, but a way of creating a wide-ranging, supra-local socially structured space as a context for social, eco-nomic, political, military, and ritual interaction over a rela-tively vast area. To underline this, there can be distinguished three constituent aspects to make clear what ethnicity is about:
1. a system of classification into a finite number of specific ethnic names;
2. a socio-political structure, notably the devise to turn the overall, neutral geographical space into an ethni-cally structured space, accommodating a number of
10 Cornell 1997: 14, note 18.
11 Hall 1997: 74-7.
12 Fernandez 2000.
concrete named groups in interaction; and 3. a process, involving both the interaction of these
ethnic groups over time, and the dynamics (emer-gence, maturation, change, decline, replacement, etc.) of the overall ethnic space they constitute to-gether; of this process, we distinguish at least three important movements:
a. ethnogenesis, as the redefinition (through changes in the classification system) of the over-all ethnic space so as to accommodate a new ethnic group (often with repercussions for the other groups already recognized within that space);
b. ethnicization, as the internal process of “taking consciousness” through which members of an essentially non-ethnic category in the socio-economic-political space redefine their identity increasingly in ethnic terms (usually under the influence of a local elite);
c. ethnothanasia, the decline and eventually loss of ethnic consciousness by an ethnic group, which merges with another ethnic group already exist-ing in the same geographic space or having newly arrived there.
Much of the structure and dynamics of ethnicity de-pends on the framing of communities into wider organiza-tional settings, be they states, regional cultic networks, or commercial networks. In themselves, these latter forms of organization are alternative, and hence competing, ways of structuring wider socio-political space.
The ethnic name may be either geographically based or referring to some quality of the designated group as per-cepted by others or the group itself. The process of naming is contrastive: by calling the other category “A”, one’s own category in any case is identified as “not-A”. The lat-ter is usually also given a name, “B”, by those which it has called “A”, and third parties within the social space can ei-ther adopt this nomenclature or replace it by one of their own invention. With the naming, a classification system is imposed. Obviously, it is impossible for an ethnic system to comprise only one ethnic group (in that case the group usually identifies itself simply as “humans”) – the plurality of subsets is a precondition for ethnicity. The distinction between ethnic groups, side by side in the same social space, tends to involve an element of subordination and hi-erarchy, at least from the perspective of the historical ac-tors themselves.
We would call a named set of people an “ethnic
18
group” only if certain additional characteristics are present, namely:
when individual membership is primarily derived from a birth right (ascription);when the set of people consciously and explicitly dis-tinguishes itself from other such sets by reference to specific cultural differences; and when the members of such a set identify with one an-other on the basis of a shared historical experience.
The social process creates boundaries, but also in or-der to cut across them. Thus, most ethnic groups include a minority of members who have gained their membership not at birth but only later in life, in a context of marriage, migration, language acquisition, adoption, the assumption of a new identity and new life style, religious conversion, etc.
Boundary markers include:
a distinct ethnic name; a distinct home territory (although many members of any ethnic group may have taken up residence, tem-porarily or permanently, outside that territory); associated with the home territory, a distinct language or dialect (although many if not most adults will be at least bilingual); distinct traditional authorities (kings, chiefs, head-men); distinct details of custom, especially in the sphere of expressive, ceremonial, and ritual production (music, dance, puberty rites, other life crisis ritual, patterns of sacrification, hairstyle and clothing, royal ritual) which may be taken as distinguishing ethnic markers between adjacent ethnic groups even though in fact the spatial distribution of the custom in question may be much more widespread.
In general, ethnicity is conceived as holistic and bun-dled, involving language, cultural customs, somatic fea-tures, territory, and political leadership, which integrated package is claimed to determine the total mode of being of that person. In reality, however, ethnic groups often differ from each other only with respect to a very limited selec-tion of cultural features functioning as boundary markers. Now, ethnicization displays a remarkable dialectics which one might consider its engine: on the one hand, the binary
opposition through nomenclature offers a logical structure, which is further ossified through ascription (i.e. being made into a birth right) and which presents itself as uncon-ditioned, bounded, inescapable, and timeless (= primor-dial); on the other hand, the actual processual realization (through the construction of a culture coinciding with the group boundary, through distinctive cultural symbols, through a shared historical consciousness, through that part of membership which is non-ascriptive but acquired) means flexibility, choice, constructedness, and recent change (= instrumental). Both, entirely contradictory, as-pects of ethnicization belong to ethnicity. As a result, eth-nicity is often of a highly kaleidoscopic nature, constantly changing in shape and difficult to pin down to specific, general analytical formulae. Above all, it should be real-ized that for every set of historical actors involved their particular vision on ethnic relations and ethnic history is per definition that of partisans, and therefore must be sub-jected to severe historical criticism before it can be used as an historical source.
The given
(1) model of nominal ethnicity within a continuous cultural space
is only one of several very distinct shapes that the ethnic space can take in different periods and in different regions. Several major alternative models are:
(2) The immigrant model, found in all continents throughout history, where a set of immigrants (not necessarily less numerous than the original population) have managed to insert themselves into the local geographic space, and while re-taining a selection of linguistic and cultural spe-cific traits (often as a result of continued contacts with these immigrants’ original home, which may be quite distant, and both culturally and linguistically very distinct from their new host society), have begun to function as an inte-gral part of that host society’s ethnic space.
(3) The conquest model, found in all continents throughout history as a variant of the immigrant model, in situations where an immigrant domi-nant minority (of pastoralists, metal-workers, warriors with superior skills and weapons, etc.) has imposed itself as a distinct ethnic minority
19
upon a pre-existing local population, retaining its distinct identity and thus its prerogatives of inequality through a package that, in addition to military, technological superiority, may include a language and customs different from the local majority, special ritual functions, and a strategy of endogamy.
(4) The millet system that was the standard form of ethnic space under the Ottoman empire in the Middle East and eastern Europe from the late Middle Ages to the early 20th century AD (al-though in fact this may be traced back to the Babylonian, Assyrian, and Achaemenid empires of the second and first millennium BC, as medi-ated through Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, and early Islamic empires): the state’s overall political and military space encompasses a number of distinct ethnic groups (Turks, Jews, Greeks, Circassians, etc.) each of which are largely self-contained in cultural, linguistic, marital, judicial, and religious matters, and each of which displays – both in life-style and in physical appearance – a distinct identity (per-petuated over time because these ethnic groups are endogamous), although they share the over-all public economic space production, exchange and state appropriation, often against the back-ground of a lingua franca.
(5) The colonial plural societies of Asia, Africa, and Latin America in the 19th and 20th centu-ries AD, which mutatis mutandis are rather similar to the millet system, but whose top-ranking ethnic groups in terms of political power (the European civil servants, agricultural settlers, and industrialists, with their secondary entourage from the distant metropolitan coloniz-ing country) in fact function as an example of the conquest model (3).
(6) The melting-pot model of the urban society of North America in the late 19th and 20th centu-ries AD, where very heterogenous sets of nu-merous first-generation immigrants rapidly shed much of the cultural specificity of their society of origin, although it is true to say that the de-scendants of many of these immigrant groups, rather than disappearing in the great melting pot of Americanness, continue to stand out with a
distinct ethnic identity, to inform especially the more private, intimate aspects of life (family, reproduction, recreation, religion) and main-tained by a selection of language and custom and a tendency to endogamy.
(7) Very common and widespread (e.g. in south Central Africa, Central Asia, the Ottoman em-pire, medieval Europe, the Bronze Age Mediter-ranean, etc.) is the specialization model where, within an extended ethnic space, each ethnic group is associated with a specific specialization in the field of production, circulation or ser-vices, so that the ethnic system is largely also a system of social, economic, and political inter-dependence, exchange, and appropriation. Agri-culture, animal husbandry, fishing, hunting, trading, banking, military, judicial, royal, reli-gious, recreational, performative, artistic func-tions may each be associated (in actual practice, or merely in ideology) with specific ethnic groups. Often such a specialization model is combined with, or is a particular application of, some of the other systems listed above.
More models could easily be added to this list. Each of these models displays a different mix, a different pack-age of cultural, linguistic, and ritual elements, with differ-ing degrees of explicit ethnic consciousness at the level of the social actors involved. It is therefore important to re-peat that the specific composition of the distinct package in a concrete ethnic situation in space and time, can never be taken for granted and needs to be established by empirical research in each individual case.
21
2. ETHNICITY AND PROTOHISTORY
The study of the Sea Peoples, whose attack on Egypt and the Levant marks the watershed between palace-bound Late Bronze Age empires and more or less polis-oriented Early Iron Age societies, leads us into the field of Mediter-ranean protohistory as there are not yet any contemporary works of history to inform us about the course of events. As a result of this, we have to content ourselves with piecemeal preserved epigraphical records, often of a propagandistic nature, or bits of information from literary sources of a later date, which can be supplemented by relevant archaeological data. However, as the title of this monograph suggests, our aim is not merely to study the protohistorical Sea Peoples as such, but in particular to fo-cus on their ethnicity, thus stimulating us to combine the methods of ethnic studies with that of protohistory.
The factors which play a role in the definition of eth-nicity are neatly summed up by Herodotos when he makes the Athenians answer to the Spartan envoys, who feared that Athens might come to terms with Persia:
“There is not enough gold in the world, nor any land so beautiful, that we would accept it in return for col-luding with the Persians and bringing Hellas into slavery. There are many important reasons to prevent us from doing so, even if we wished to … there is a Greek nation – our shared blood and language, our common temples and rituals, our similar way of life.”13
In similar vein, Jonathan Hall distinguishes “race”, language, religion, and shared culture as factors in the self-expression of ethnic groups. Rightly, he stresses in this connection that these factors are not defining criteria of ethnicity, but indicia, as he goes to great length to show that, for example, a language may have a more restricted distribution than the ethnic group or, vice versa, may have a wider distribution than the ethnic group, or that the eth-nic group may be bilingual or multilingual, or change from one language to another altogether (cf. section 1).14
Another point rightly emphasized by Hall is that the determination of ethnic identity is in essence an historical process. Thus it can happen that individuals consider themselves as members of an ethnic group without distin-guishing themselves from other ethnic groups by any of
13 Histories VIII, 144; cf. Hall 1989: 165.
14 Hall 1997: 19-26.
the ethnic indicia: “Someone is a Lue [= ethnic group in Thailand] by virtue of believing and calling himself a Lue”.15 It is clear that we are at a loss to trace this type of ethnic group with a protohistorical method, as the contem-porary epigraphical records or literary sources of a later period we will be working with often fall short in present-ing the so-called emic point of view.16 The best thing we can do is to reconstruct distribution patterns of language groups and archaeological cultures, and assume that where these two overlap the nucleus of an ethnic entity will to all probability be lurking at the background (cf. Fig. 1b).
religion cultureethnicity
kinship
language
Fig. 1b. Diagram of the partial relationship between ethnicity and
its indicia, kinship, material culture, language, and religion.17
According to Hall, this latter approach is fallacious, because linguistic and cultural boundaries are seldom co-terminous.18 However, in my view that is overstating the evidence: there are numerous instances in which archaeo-logical cultures overlap with language groups, especially in contrastive situations like, for example, the colonization by the Greeks of culturally different regions in the Early Iron Age.
As far as the Black Sea area is concerned, there is un-
15 Hall 1997: 24.
16 Cf. Lomas 1997: 2.
17 I am indebted to Wim van Binsbergen for drawing this diagram.
18 Hall 1997: 23.
22
certainty about the 8th century BC colonization of Sinope and Trapezus on the northern Anatolian coast, because this cannot be backed up by archaeological evidence. But the refoundation of Sinope by the Milesians Kretinos and Koos after the period of the Kimmerian invasion coincides with late 7th century BC east-Greek and a little Korinthian pottery from graves. Similarly, the Milesian colonization of Histria in present-day Romania, which is variously dated to 656/5 (Eusebios) or the late 7th century BC (pseudo-Skymnos), is archaeologically matched by Middle Wild Goat (= east-Greek) style pottery dating from c. 630 BC onwards. Furthermore, the likewise Milesian colony at Borysthenes or Berezan, an emporion near the mouth of the river Bug, the foundation of which is dated to 646/5 BC by Eusebios, produced a wide variety of east-Greek (besides some Attic and Korinthian) pottery from occupa-tion deposits dating from the second quarter of the 7th cen-tury BC onwards. Here were also found Milesian coins (late 7th century BC) and a Greek inscription on a bone plaque (late 6th or early 5th century BC). As a final exam-ple from the Black Sea region, we may point to Khersone-sos in the Crimea, which was founded by Dorians from Herakleia Pontica (the latter being a Megarian colony) in 422/1 BC, but used already before this date as a trading station. Next to burials in amphorae from Samos and Thasos dated to the beginning of the 5th century BC, “os-traka” from about the same time were found here inscribed first in the Megarian alphabet and later in the Milesian one with Dorian personal names.19
If we turn to Egypt, it so happens that pharaoh Psam-metichos I (664-610 BC) granted Greeks, who had served him as mercenaries, the right to settle in a trading colony called Naukratis – a site 3 km from present day el-Niqrâš along the western branch of the Nile delta. The validity of this historical information is underlined by the fact that Greek pottery is attested for the earliest layer of the site dating from c. 630 BC onwards. The privileged position of the Greeks at Naukratis is subsequently reinforced by Amasis (570-526 BC), under whose rule the Greeks built a joint sanctuary, the Hellenion. In this sanctuary pottery has been found inscribed with the Greek text “to the gods of the Greeks”. Next, there have been excavated temples of individual states, like that of Aphrodite (Chian), Hera (Samian), Apollo (Milesian), and the Dioskouroi (unspeci-
19 Tsetskhladze 1994: 115-23; for the Berezan inscription on a bone plaque, see Onyshkevych 2002.
fied), whereas pottery finds range from Rhodian, Chian (one inscribed with a dedication by Sostratos [= Aeginetan trader who also dedicated an inscription at Graviscae in Etruria] to Aphrodite), Samian, Clazomenian, Lesbian (bucchero) from the Aegean islands to Spartan, Korinthian, and Attic from the Greek mainland. Interesting also is a fa-ience factory producing scarabs and other Aegyptiaca for the Greek market.20
Finally, the Greeks also expanded into the western Mediterranean. The earliest site in this area is Pithecussae on the island of Ischia before the coast of present-day Naples. This emporion produced Euboian and Korinthian ware next to Greek inscriptions (among which the famous Nestor cup) dating from c. 770-675 BC, which coincides nicely with the fact that according to literary evidence Euboians from Khalkis and Eretria were once stationed here. Of these two Greek population groups, the Khalkidi-ans went over to the Italian mainland and settled at Cumae – “the oldest of all the Sicilian and Italiotic cities”21 – , an event reflected in the archaeological record by Greek in-humation graves dating from c. 725 BC onwards.22 But as Naxos in Sicily is the earliest Greek colonial foundation in the west, we should refrain from considering Pithecussae and Cumae as purely Greek enterprises. In Pithecussae, next to Greek inscriptions, Aramaic and proto-Etruscan ones came to light, indicating the presence of Aramaean and Tyrrhenian merchants and/or resident aliens from North Syria and the Aegean, respectively, whereas Cumae is named after Kume in Aiolia on the coast of western Anatolia, and, next to Greek graves, produced a very rich Etruscan cremation burial, the so-called fondo Artiaco, and an Etruscan inscription in the earliest period of its exis-tence.23 The story of the subsequent colonization of Naxos (by the Khalkidians, 734 BC), Syracuse (by the Korin-thians, 733 BC) and the other sites in Sicily, and their im-portance for the absolute chronology of Greek (especially Korinthian) pottery, may be considered familiar by now.24
Still interesting to adduce is that the historical tradition of the Phokaians from Aiolia in western Anatolia sailing all
20 Boardman 1994; cf. Boardman 1999: 118-33.
21 Strabo, Geography V, 4, 4.
22 Boardman 1999: 165-9.
23 Buchner 1982: 293; Woudhuizen 1992a: 154-64; Woudhuizen 1998-9: 176-8 (cf. section 10, esp. notes 298 and 303-5 below).
24 Boardman 1999: 169 ff; cf. Dunbabin 1999 (esp. 435-8).
23
the way to Tartessos just outside the pillars of Herakles in southern Iberia is reflected in the archaeological record of Huelva by north-Ionian bird bowls and Aiolian bucchero dating from c. 630-580 BC.25 Apparently to accommodate this long-distance trade the Phokaians founded colonies along the route at Marseilles (= Massalia, c. 600 BC) and Ampurias (= Emporion, also c. 600 BC).26
With a view to linguistics, it deserves our attention that there can be distinguished four types of names for the Greek colonies in general: (1) after or derived from geo-graphic names in the motherland, like Cumae, Megara Hy-blaia, and Naxos; (2) based on Greek divine names, like Apollonia, Herakleia, and Posidonia; (3) based on Greek vocabulary words, like Emporion, Naukratis, Olbia, and Khersonesos; or (4) derived from local geographic (espe-cially river) names, like Borysthenes, Gela, Histria, and Sybaris.
Fig. 2. Distribution of the Greek dialects (from Hall 1997: 154,
Fig. 25).
Thus far our interdisciplinary method to detect proto-historical ethnic groups, notwithstanding its shortcomings, seems to work fairly well. But what about less contrastive situations, when a population shift takes place from one point to another within a cultural continuum? The best ex-ample of such a case is the migration of the Dorians from various regions in Phokis and Thessaly to the Peloponne-sos under the leadership of Heraklid kings, who, as the
25 Cabrera & Olmos 1985; cf. Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 150.
26 Shefton 1994: 61-3 (east-Greek and Korinthian wares reported for the earliest layer); 70-1
myth goes, return to their ancestral lands some time after the Trojan war. In fact, the evaluation of the historicity of this event is a central theme in Hall’s study of ethnicity in antiquity.
The problem of the coming of the Dorians and the re-turn of the Heraklids involves three categories of evidence: linguistic, historical (or mythical),27 and archaeological. The linguistic thesis is presented by the map of the distri-bution of the Greek dialects (see Fig. 2). What strikes us about this distribution is that speakers of Arkado-Cyprian – which is the dialect closest to the Mycenaean Greek lan-guage as attested for Linear B tablets from the Late Bronze Age – besides their extension to Cyprus (not on the map), are locked up in the Arkadian upland plain in the centre of the Pelopponesos and entirely surrounded by speakers of the West Greek or Doric dialect. From this distribution pat-tern it may be extrapolated that Arkado-Cyprian was once spoken in a wider area including the coastal regions of the Pelopponesos in order to explain the maritime connection with Cyprus, and that West Greek or Doric is a latecomer in the region, having been introduced in the Pelopponesos and spread to Crete, the Dodekanesos, southwest Asia Mi-nor, and Rhodes after the downfall of the Mycenaean civi-lization.
The historical antithesis consists of mythical tradi-tions that the Dorians once lived in various regions of Thessaly (first Phthia in the south and later Histiaiotis ei-ther at the foot of the Pindos mountain in the midwest or between mounts Ossa and Olympos in the northeast) and Phokis (Dryopis, later called Doris). In Thessaly, the Dori-ans became associated with a royal house descended from Herakles, who during his labors visited the region of His-tiaiotis and helped the Dorians to defeat their enemies, the Lapiths, in return of which he received a third share of the land and the kingship from them. Now, Herakles is, like Eurystheus, who through the wiles of Hera became king in his place, a member of the Perseid dynasty of Mycenae. This latter dynasty was subsequently replaced by the house of Pelops, to which Agamemnon, the king of Mycenae at the time of the Trojan war, belongs. After a futile attempt of the Heraklids to regain their throne under Herakles’ son Hyllos, the great-grandson of the latter, Temenos, together
27 In general, concerning the category the historical or mythical evidence as presented by the literary sources, Forsdyke’s (1957: 162) adagium that “Plausible fiction can only be distinguished from fact by external evidence (…).” should be applied whenever possible.
24
with the Heraklids Kresphontes and Aristodemos, led an army of Dorians to the Pelopponesos, drove out the last representative of the Pelopids, Teisamenes, the son of Orestes, and divided the Pelopponesos in three parts, Te-menos himself taking Argos, the sons of Aristodemos (whose father had been killed by a thunderbolt) receiving Sparta, and Kresphontes being allotted Messenia.
Apparently, the literary traditions tally very well with the linguistic evidence, but the missing link to solve the riddle of the Dorian invasion once and for all is formed by the archaeological side of the story. Like others before him, Hall is not able to find archaeological evidence for a migration from the region of Thessaly to the Pelopponesos and gets so frustrated that he altogether denounces the mythical stories as inventions of later date (whether, and if so, how he revaluates the evidence of the dialects is not clear).28 The solution of this problem, however, has been presented by Birgitta Eder in a thorough study of the ar-chaeological evidence from the Argolid, Lakonia, and Messenia from the end of the Late Bronze Age to the Pro-togeometric period. As Eder convincingly shows, all three regions of the Pelopponesos suffer from heavy depopula-tion during the Submycenaean period (= dearth of material evidence) and receive new population impulses at the end of the Submycenaean and beginning of the Protogeometric period (= reappearance of material evidence). In the course of this latter process, there are some traces of discontinuity in material culture with that of the previous Mycenaean one in the form of graves for individual burials dug in for-mer habitation areas (Mycenae and Tiryns), the introduc-tion of handmade ware with affinities to pottery of middle Greece (Tiryns and Asine), and the (re)introduction of ap-sidal houses.29 As after the low ebb in material finds from the Submycenaean period the archaeological culture in the regions of the Pelopponesos under discussion develops without a break from the Protogeometric period to the Classical one and beyond, Eder rightly concludes that this is the time that the ancestors of the historical Dorians have arrived – and, we would like to add to this conclusion, that the ancestors of the historical Dryopes, a distinct ethnic group inhabiting Asine in the Argolid until the end of the 8th century BC, might be among them!30
28 Hall 1997: 56-65; 184-5; Hall 2002: 73-89.
29 Eder 1998: esp. 57 (Mycenae); 58-62 (Tiryns); 67-8 (Asine).
30 On the Dryopes, see Strid 1999.
Instead of addressing Eder’s archaeological results, however, Hall energetically persists in his disqualification of the literary traditions on the return of the Heraklids and the coming of the Dorians as mere inventions – a very un-satisfactory point of view for an adherent of what he calls the “historically positivist” school like myself.31 And he puts some venom in this, when he associates the interdisci-plinary method propagated here – in his words the “cul-ture-historical” approach – with its nationalistically colored application by Gustav Kossinna and the subse-quent abuse of the latter’s views for the “Blut und Boden” propaganda of the German Nazi’s.32 In section 1 above we have seen how Kosinna’s adagium that “cultural provinces clearly outlined archaeologically coincide in all periods with precise peoples or tribes” falls short of explaining the complexities of reality and that the different categories of evidence need to be tackled individually.
If, for the sake of argument, we would join Hall in his rejection of the interdisciplinary method propagated here notwithstanding its noted shortcomings and deficiencies, the immediate consequence would be that the phenomenon of ethnic groups detectable for the historical period did not exist in protohistorical and prehistorical times – a basically improbable assumption. The more so, because already in this early period we are confronted with ethnonyms – those of the Sea Peoples being at the heart and core of the inves-tigation we are presently embarking on – , which Hall him-self considered “a vital component of ethnic conscious-ness”.33
Homeros and History
An important literary source for the reconstruction of the early history of the region of Greece and the Aegean is formed by Homeros’ epics the Iliad and the Odyssey. As related forms of six from the total of nine ethnonyms of the Sea Peoples figure in them, the Homeric poems also have a direct bearing on our topic.34 The fundamental question is, however, which period do the Iliad and the Odyssey re-flect, the Late Bronze Age or the Early Iron Age, or both,
31 Hall 2002: 73-89; Hall 1997: 41.
32 Hall 1997: 129; Hall 2002: 38.
33 Hall 2002: 55.
34 Akhaioi-Ekwesh, Danaoi-Denye(n), Lukioi-Lukka, Pelasgoi-Peleset, Sikeloi-Shekelesh, and Teukros-Tjeker.
25
or none at all? A lot of ink has been spilled on this question, and I
am not aiming to present an exhaustive treatment of the relevant literature, but only to briefly adstruct my own po-sition in this matter. One work needs to be mentioned here, however, and that is Martin Persson Nilsson’s Homer and Mycenae (1933), which, in my opinion, offers the best in-troduction to the Homeric question.35 As the latter author goes at great length to explain, the Homeric poems are the result of a long lasting epic tradition, in which bards con-stantly rehandled their material for instant public perform-ances and old and new elements are mixed together like currants and raisins in a well-kneaded dough. Conse-quently, the efforts made by many a scholar to distinguish early and late passages are altogether futile: there can, with the help of archaeological, historical, and linguistic data, only be distinguished early and late elements!
Among the late elements, the first that comes to mind is iron. This metal is mentioned 23x in the Iliad and 25x in the Odyssey.36 Now, it is clear that in the Homeric poems a conscious attempt is made at archaizing by having the weapons made of bronze. Only in two instances, Iliad IV, 123 and Odyssey XIX, 13, the poet (= poetic tradition epitomized in Homeros) makes a slip of the tongue and speaks of weapons of iron. In this respect, then, the Iliad and the Odyssey may be assumed to have reached their fi-nal form in about the same period and not the one earlier than the other as is often assumed. Note further in this connection that the iron club of Areïthoös (Iliad VII, 141-4) is a special case: it may have been made of meteoric iron, which was already known in the Bronze Age, or it may be one of those rare objects of mined iron on the pro-duction of which the Hittites had a monopoly during the Late Bronze Age.
Another definite Early Iron Age element is formed by the close association of the Phoenicians with the Sidonians – the latter being mentioned 4x in the Iliad and 13x in the Odyssey. Although George Bass makes a strong case for Canaanite shipping to Greece and the central Mediterra-nean already in the Late Bronze Age on the basis of the shipwrecks found by him off the coast of Lycia at Ulubu-run near Ka (c. 1300 BC) and at cape Gelidonya near
35 Other pertinent literature: Page 1959, Webster 1960, and Latacz 2003.
36 Gehring 1901, s.v. sid reios, sid reos, sid ros.
Finike (c. 1200 BC),37 Jacob Katzenstein convingingly demonstrates that the prominent position of the Sidonians among the Phoenicians dates from the refoundation of Tyre by the Sidonians in 1197 BC to the Assyrian con-quest of the city at the end of the reign of Eloulaios, 694 BC: in this period the kings of Tyre were addressed as “king of the Sidonians”.38
Next, it so happens that the standard burial rite in the Homeric poems is cremation. The latter rite is already known in the Late Bronze Age for Hittite royal burials,39
and there are more than 200 cinerary urns reported for the cemetery of Troy VIh.40 But for Greece, one is especially reminded of the burial of the hero of Lefkandi in the 10th century BC and the burials at the west gate of Eretria from the 8th century BC.41 In general, it may be stated that the popularity of the rite of cremation in Greece is an Early Iron Age feature.
A further Early Iron Age feature is the use of the term basileus as a mere substitute for anaks “king”. Both these titles are already found in Linear B, where they occur as qa-si-re-u and wa-na-ka, respectively, but only the latter renders the meaning “king” here, whereas the former de-notes a functionary of lower rank in, so far specified, the bronze industry.42 It is interesting to observe in this con-nection that the titular expression anaks andr n, with only one exception in which it is associated with Eumelos of Iolkos (Iliad XXIII, 288), is reserved for the supreme commander of the Greeks, Agamemnon.
Also in the field of armory and fighting methods Early Iron Age elements have slipped in. Thus the warriors are often equipped with a round shield, two spears, and greaves – the latter in one instance from tin (Iliad XVIII, 613). As Robert Drews cogently argues, the innovative round shield is introduced into the eastern Mediterranean by Sherden mercenaries from Sardinia fighting in the Egyptian army from the beginning of the 13th century BC onwards. Its earliest attestation in Greece is on the warrior vase from Mycenae, dated to Late Helladic IIIC, i.e. just
37 Bass 1997.
38 Katzenstein 1973: 58-63; 130-2.
39 Haas 2000 (esp. 66-7).
40 Vanschoonwinkel 1991: 195.
41 Popham, Touloupa & Sackett 1982; Bérard 1970 (cf. section 10, esp. note 288 below).
42 Ventris & Chadwick 1973: glossary, s.v.
26
after the end of the Bronze Age.43 Drews further shows that the round shield is used together with a slashing sword, two spears or javelins, and metal greaves in hand-to-hand fighting by skirmishers.44 In an earlier period, Greek infanterists were used to the towershield, which covered the entire body. The latter shield also turns up in the Iliad particularly in association with the Salaminian hero Aias. But sometimes the poet (= poetic tradition epitomized in Homeros) gets confused and calls the tower-shield (sakos) “small” (Iliad XIV, 376) and wrongly asso-ciates it with greaves (Iliad III, 330-5), whereas the round shield (aspis) is stated to “reach the feet” (Iliad XV, 645-6).45 Another striking Late Bronze Age reminiscent be-sides the towershield is the boar’s tusk helmet (Iliad X, 261-5). An important factor, however, in Late Bronze Age fighting is formed by the chariot. In Egyptian reliefs it is shown that the chariot was used as a mobile platform to shoot arrows with the composite bow.46 In the Iliad the chariots are sometimes used for fighting with a long lance or spear, just as it is depicted on a Late Helladic IIA seal from Vapheio in the Argolid.47 But in general the original use of the chariot as a mobile platform from which the warrior actually fights seems no longer clear to the poet and he stages it, in line with pictorial evidence from Late Helladic IIIC,48 as a taxi for elite warriors to move to the front, where they get out and fight on foot as infanterists (note, however, that in some instances, as at the beginning of Iliad XII, this tactic is merely determined by the terrain, because the chariots cannot possibly cross the ditch in front of the wall near the ships of the Greek camp).
43 Drews 1993a: 177-9.
44 Drews 1993a: 176-208.
45 For the erroneous coalescence of these data into a very “big round shield” which can only be carried by fairy tale heroes, see van Wees 1992: 17-22.
46 Drews 1993a: 104-34; Drews 1988: 84 ff.
47 Crouwel 1981: Pl. 11; cf. Wiesner 1968: F 27; F 95.
48 E.g. Crouwel 1981: Pl. 59; note that Crouwel’s (1981: 119 ff.) downplaying of the early evidence for Mycenaean warriors actu-ally fighting from the chariot, reducing it to the scene of the seal from Vapheio just mentioned to the neglect of, for example, the scenes on the stelae from the shaft graves (Crouwel 1981: Pls. 35-7), is induced by his preoccupation with the most common Ho-meric use of the chariot as a taxi, so that his conclusion (Crouwel 1981: 151) that the iconographic evidence agrees with this particu-lar Homeric use is not only a simplification of the state of affairs but in effect rests on circular reasoning.
The palace-bound civilization of Late Bronze Age Greece was characterized by an intricate system of admini-stration on clay tablets inscribed in Linear B. Homeros, on the other hand, is totally unaware of this script – his only reference to a regular script, the s mata lugra “baneful signs” in the Bellerophon story (Iliad VI, 168), defines this as an exotic phenomenon.
It also seems reasonable to suggest that the use of clothing pins or fibulae, as referred to in both the Iliad (X, 133; XIV, 180 [both verbal forms]) and the Odyssey (XIX, 226; 256), constitutes an Early Iron Age feature, because these objects only turn up in graves from the latter period. Note in this connection that the peron according to Hero-dotos is a characteristic feature of Doric dress.49
Finally, there are some names paralleled only for Early Iron Age texts. This has a bearing on the Arimoi in the territory where Typhoeus is situated, which probably refers to the volcanic island of Pithecussae off the coast of present-day Naples in Italy, and hence we are likely to be dealing here with Aramaeans (Iliad II, 781-3);50 the Kim-merians, who invaded Anatolia and northern Mesopotamia from the Russian Crimea at the end of the 8th century BC and therefore are thoroughly out of place in the context of Odysseus’ visit to the underworld somewhere in the central Mediterranean (Odyssey XI, 14); lake Gygaia in Maeonia, likely to be named after the Lydian tyrant Gyges, who ruled from 685 to 657 BC (Iliad XX, 390-1; cf. II, 865);51
and the Dorians on Crete, who, as we have shown above, can only be surmised to have colonized the island at the end of the Submycenaean or beginning of the Proto-geometric period (Odyssey XIX, 177).
Notwithstanding these Early Iron Age features, which have filtered in during the hundreds of years of improvised epic performances by the bards and which no doubt can be multiplied by closer study, the heart and core of the Ho-meric poems reflects a Late Bronze Age politico-historical setting. One of the strongest arguments to underline this statement is formed by the fact that Heinrich Schliemann on the basis of the geographical information in Homeros’ epics excavated the citadels of Troy (1870), Mycenae (1876), and Tiryns (1884) – an empirical approach in the
49 Lorimer 1950: 337; cf. also porp mentioned in Iliad XVIII, 401. For the Dark Ages in general, see Desborough 1972 and Snodgrass 2000.
50 Bernal 1991: 192.
51 Kullmann 1999: 192.
27
humaniora which comes closest to experiment in the natu-ral sciences. To these epoch-making finds, Carl Blegen supplemented the discovery of the Mycenaean palace of Pylos (1939), which was destroyed at the end of the Late Bronze Age and therefore cannot possibly be accommo-dated in an Early Iron Age environment. To this comes that the king of Mycenae, Agamemnon, is endowed with the power to call all the other Greek kings from both the mainland and the Aegean islands to service in war – which presumes a political unity reflected in the archaeological record by the so-called Mycenaean koin of Late Helladic IIIB, but never reached again until the unification of Greece by Alexander the Great at the start of the Hellenis-tic period.
The historical validity of the supreme power of the king of Mycenae is further emphasized by the recognition of the king of A®®iyawa (= Greek Akhaians) as a great king in correspondence with the Hittites, namely in the so-called Tawagalawas-letter from presumably the reign of the Hittite great king Muwatallis II (1295-1271 BC). The latter source of evidence further affirms the historicity of Agamemnon’s father and predecessor, Atreus, who appears in the so-called Indictment of Madduwattas from the reigns of Tud®aliyas II (1390-1370 BC) and Arnuwandas I (1370-1355 BC) as Attarissiyas, the man of A®®iy (= a short-hand variant of A®®iyawa). Moreover, in a treaty also from the reign of Muwatallis II the kingdom of Troy is referred to as Wilusa, the Hittite equivalent of Greek Ilios (< *Wilios), and turns out to be headed by a king named Alaksandus, the Hittite equivalent of Greek Aleksandros.As a matter of fact, in the aforesaid Tawagalawas-letter, a conflict between the Hittite king and his A®®iyawan col-league over Wilusa is explicitly mentioned – an incident which inflated in Greek memory to the famous Trojan war (see further section 8 below)!
In alignment with the Hittite evidence, it is of no little consequence for the historicity of the Trojan war that the Hittites, as first realized by Thomas Webster, are staged in Homeros’ account of it as allies of Troy in two capacities: first in the enumeration of the Trojan allies at the end of book II of the Iliad as Halyzones from far away Alybe – a city, like the Hittite capital Hattusa, associated with silver – (Iliad II, 856); and second as K teioi, whose leader Eu-rypylos, the son of the Mysian king Telephos, is killed by Akhilleus’ son Neoptolemos (Odyssey XI, 521).52 To this
52 Webster 1960: 67; Meyer 1968: 12 identifies Alybe with the
may also be added53 the mythical Amazones, an enemy whom the Phrygians run up against when trying to carve out a territorium for themselves along the Sangarios river in Anatolia at the time when Priamos still fought himself (Iliad III, 184) and whom Bellerophon stumbles upon dur-ing his adventures inland from Lycia (Iliad VI, 186).
Furthermore, another strong argument in favor of the Late Bronze Age politico-historical setting of the Homeric poems is provided by the catalogue of the ships. As far as the Greek mainland is concerned, it stands out that Aitolia and Thessaly are represented, but northwest Greece is not. This coincides with the distribution of Late Helladic IIIB ware in connection with settlements and chamber tombs with multiple burials, from which northwest Greece is ex-cluded: apparently the latter region is not Hellenized be-fore the Early Iron Age.54 Similarly, as duly stressed by Joachim Latacz, the Cyclades and the west coast of Asia Minor are also not represented, which, as far as the last mentioned area is concerned, is historically correct since the Aiolian, Ionian, and Doric migrations to western Ana-tolia date from the Submycenaean period onwards. A prob-lem is posed, however, by the position of Miletos (= Hittite Millawanda), which according to Homeros is inhabited by Carians and sides with the Trojans (Iliad II, 686), whereas it definitely belonged to the Mycenaean (archaeologically) or Akhaian (historically) sphere of influence at the time of the Trojan war (c. 1280 BC). As Millawanda is in the Hit-tite records reported to have changed sides during the reign of Tud®aliyas IV (1239-1209 BC), the Homeric position of
Khalybes from the Black Sea coast, which is linguistically possi-ble, but chronologically inadequate as these latter are only attested for the Early Iron Age. Note in this connection that Hittite invol-vement in Mysia is assured by their foundation of Sarawa there, see Woudhuizen 1992a: 138.
53 Smit 1988-9: 54, with reference to Garstang 1929: 86 f. for the Amazones and 172 for the Keteioi; see further Leonhard 1911: 15-6. Note with Gindin 1999: 225-6 that the relation between Keteioi and Amazones is enhanced by the fact that the name of the leader of the former, Eurypylos, is a masculine variant of that of the queen of the latter, Eurypyle. The same author also rightly stressed the relation of the name Telephos with the Hittite royal name Tele-pinus (p. 248-9), and that of his second son Tarkh n with the Lu-wian divine name Tar® unt (p. 225). The close knit fabric of mythical associations is further elaborated by the fact that the wife of Telephos is recorded to fight from the chariot like an Amazone(Gindin 1999: 248-9). On top of this, the leader of the Keteioi is called a megas basileus “great king” by Quintus of Smyrna, see Gindin 1999: 231.
54 Smit 1989: esp. 180 (map); cf. Latacz 2003: 266, Abb. 22, and section 8, Fig. 12a below.
28
Miletos may be due to an historical hypercorrection.55
Finally, the close contacts of the Mycenaean Ak-haians with the Hittites as attested for Hittite correspon-dence can be further illustrated by the fact that Homeros in two instances has applied a standard expression from Hit-tite texts in annalistic tradition according to which the chief deity, in the case of the Hittites the stormgod, runs before the king and his army in battle to secure victory.56
Thus, in one passage Apollo, the chief god of the Trojans, mentioned in form of Appaliunas as one of the local oath-gods in the Alaksandus-treaty,57 precedes the Trojans with the aegis in their attempt to storm the Greek wall (IliadXV, 307-11), and in another Athena, one of the deities on the Greek side, precedes Akhilleus when he conquers Lyrnessos and Pedasos to the south of mount Ida (IliadXX, 94-6)!
55 Latacz 2003: 278 ff.; 339 f. See further section 8 below.
56 For the earliest example, see Bryce 1998: 135 (annals of Tud®aliyas I, 1430-1400 BC); Woudhuizen 1994-5: 181, note 131; Woudhuizen 2004a: 38, note 42 (the literal translation of Hittite píran ® uya- or ® uw (i)- is “to run before”); see Yalburt, phrases 4, 7, 11, and 32 for Luwian hieroglyphic examples.
57 Latacz 2003: 58; 138 (§ 20).
29
3. HISTORICAL SETTING
In this section I will present a brief overview of the main historical developments in the Near East with a bearing on the Levant from the catastrophic events at the end of the reign of Narâm-Sin of Akkad and during the First Interme-diary Period in Egypt to those marking the end of the Bronze Age. In doing so, I will base myself on Redford 1992 (with chronology adapted to Kitchen 1989) and Bryce 1998, unless indicated otherwise.
At the end of his reign, Narâm-Sin of Akkad (2291-2255 BC) was defeated by a group of mountain dwellers called the Guti, who conquered Babylon and ruled it for a period of about one century. At the time of their onslaught on Babylon, these Guti came from the mountainous region of the Lower Z b in western Iran. A later source from the time of Hammurabi (1792-1750 BC) reports that part of their land was called Tukri. From this piece of information, W.B. Henning deduced that we may well be dealing with the Tocharians inhabiting the Tarim basin along the west-ern border of China in the historical period, who addressed themselves both as Tugri and as Ku i (< Guti).58 If this is correct, we actually have here the first historical evidence about a group of Indo-Europeans.
In about the same time as the Gutian onslaught on Akkad, at the end of Early Bronze Age II, there is massive evidence for large-scale destruction of settlements in Ana-tolia, especially in the Konya region and Cilicia later oc-cupied by Luwians. The subsequent lack of reoccupation suggested to James Mellaart that the affected regions be-came the grazing grounds of nomads.59 The origin of the nomads in question may perhaps be indicated by the evi-dence of the royal burials at Alaca Höyük, which are of similar type as those of the later Mycenaeans and Phry-gians, and characterized by solar discs and theriomorphic standards recalling counterparts from Horoztepe and Mahmatlar in the Pontic region: all these elements have been attributed by Ekrem Akurgal to Indo-Europeans60 – nomadic cattle-breeders and herdsmen originating from61
the steppe zone north of the Black Sea, the Caucasus, and
58 Henning 1978.
59 Mellaart 1971: 406-10.
60 Akurgal 1992: 1-5.
61 Mallory 1989.
beyond. Accordingly, we appear to be confronted with two concerted invasions by Indo-Europeans in the 23rd century BC: one by the ancestors of the later Tocharians across the Caucasus into Mesopotamia and another by the ancestors of the later Hittites, Luwians, and Palaians across the Bosporus into the Anatolian highland and along the west-ern and southern coasts into the plains of Konya and Cilicia – the latter event marked by the spread of Trojan IIg ware with as its “Leitmotiv” the so-called depas am-phikupellon.
The upheavals at the end of Late Bronze Age II in the 23rd century BC also affected the Greek mainland, Crete, and the Levant. In Greece, for instance the “House of the Tiles” at Lerna was burned down and covered by a tumu-lus – a burial custom characteristic of the Kurgan culture of the Russian steppe. This event is commonly associated with the arrival of the earliest Indo-Europeans in southern Greece (see further section 7). As far as Crete is con-cerned, the flourishing settlements at Vasiliki near the bay of Mirabello and Myrtos (Fournou Korifi) along the south coast were destroyed by fire and the ruins of the first cov-ered by simple hovels and that of the second by a peak-sanctuary – a completely new phenomenon for the is-land.62 Against the background of the events in Anatolia and Greece, it seems not farfetched to assume that the Indo-European invasions also affected eastern Crete – an assumption which would allow us to explain the evidence for the Luwian language in Cretan hieroglyphic documents dating from the Middle Bronze Age onwards (see further section 12 and appendix I). Finally, the Levant bears testi-mony of a similar lapse to nomadism as Anatolia: if Indo-Europeans were responsible for this development, as Marija Gimbutas argued on the basis of Kurgan-like shaft-tombs (among which a twin catacomb grave) at Bâb edh-Drâ east of the Dead Sea, these have not been traced in the records which surface again from the Middle Bronze Age onwards.63
62 Caskey 1971: 803; Best 1981b: 8-9. Note that according to Hiller 1985 : 127 there was no peak-sanctuary at Myrtos after its destruction, even though Warren 1972: 92 does suggest such a function for an Early Minoan III arc-shaped building.
63 Gimbutas 1973 groups these Indo-European migrations together as her “second wave of Indo-Europeanization”. As opposed to this, Best 1976: 218 associates these graves with the apsidal hou-
30
It lies at hand to correlate the fall of central authority during the First Intermediate Period in Egypt, assigned to about 2140 BC, with the upheavals at the end of Early Bronze Age II.
Under the 11th dynasty the unity of Egypt was re-stored and the country rose to great power during the 12th dynasty. At that time Byblos in the Levant was drawn within the orbit of Egyptian influence, as can be deduced from inscriptions by its rulers in Egyptian hieroglyphic and the influence of the latter script on the indigenous Byblian proto-Linear script. Synchronous with the rise of Egypt under the 12th dynasty (= 20th and 19th centuries BC) was the regular trade connection between Assyria and Anatolia as examplified by Assyrian trading colonies or k ru asso-ciated with major Anatolian towns. The cuneiform tablets from the k ru inform us that the Assyrian merchants im-ported annukum “tin” and woolen textiles in exchange for Anatolian metals, especially silver and gold. The metal tin played a crucial role in international trade from c. 2000 BC onwards, when the bronze industry went over from arsenic bronze to the much harder alloy of copper and tin for the production of weapons and other artefacts. In response to the introduction of cuneiform writing by the Assyrian trad-ers, the indigenous Anatolians – who on the basis of ono-mastic evidence were to a large extent Indo-European, incasu Hittite and Luwian – developed their own writing system, the so-called Luwian hieroglyphic, which to some extent follows the model of Egyptian hieroglyphic but de-rives its values acrophonically from the indigenous Anato-lian vocabulary.64 Under influence of the international tin trade, the island Crete, which lies on a junction of mari-time trade routes, acquired great wealth and developed a palatial civilization,65 with a script to write down the eco-nomic transactions basically derived from Luwian hiero-glyphic but with a more substantial Egyptian component than the original received either through the medium of
ses of Meser, dated c. 3300 BC, which by and large coincides with the early 3rd millennium BC date of a comparable twin catacomb grave at Palermo in Sicily (Conca d’Oro culture) and catacomb grave with a single chamber of the Rinaldone culture in Tuscany, see de Vries 1976. At any rate, early Indo-European presence in the region is indicated by the river name Jordan, based on Proto-Indo-European *d nu- “river”, see Rosenkranz 1966: 136.
64 Woudhuizen 1990-1; Woudhuizen 2004a: appendix I.
65 Note that the Mari-texts from the reign of Zimri-lim (early 18th century BC) bear testimony of kaptaraim “Cretans” (< Kaptara- = Biblical Kaphtor “Crete”) involved in the tin-trade, see Dossin 1970: 99.
Byblos or through direct contacts with Egypt itself (see further section 12 and appendix I).
The period of the Assyrian merchant colonies ended in destruction, and when the smoke screen rose, a new era had arrived. From a military point of view, a dominant fac-tor in this new era was formed by the war chariot, which maintained its central position untill the end of the Bronze Age. It is true that experiments with the chariot are already recorded for the Karum-period, as the Anatolian king Anit-tas, who ruled in the late 19th century BC and is consid-ered the founder of the Hittite royal house, reported his acquisition of forty teams of horses in the course of his capture of the town Salatiwara – teams of horses which no doubt pulled war chariots.66 Now, the war chariot was in-troduced in the Near East by Indo-Europeans, to be more specific speakers of Indo-Aryan, the forerunner of Indo-Iranian. These Indo-Aryan chariot fighters, thanks to their military superiority, conquered the Hurritic population liv-ing along the upper Euphrates river, and established a royal house here. At least, this course of events is deduci-ble from the fact that the 14th century BC text by a Mitan-nian horse trainer named Kikkuli contains Indo-Aryan technical terms, that the Mitannian royal house was char-acterized by personal names with the Indo-Aryan element ratha- “chariot”, and that the Mitannian nobility consisted of maryannu, an Indo-Aryan indication of chariot fighters. Next, they went on to the Levant and even further to Egypt in the south, where they founded the royal house of the Hyksos (= “foreign ruler”), also known as the 15th dynasty (c. 1720-1550 BC), which was centred at Tell el-Dab‘a/Avaris in the eastern Delta.67 The connection of the Hyksos with the Levant is stressed by the fact that in the lowest levels of their capital Tell el-Dab‘a/Avaris so-called Tel el-Jehudiya ware has been found comparable to that of Byblos, and that, when they were finally kicked out by Ahmose, the founder of the 18th dynasty who had organ-ized his own chariot force, a remnant of their regime fled to Sharuhen on the coast south of Gaza. Yet another Indo-Aryan conquest with the help of the chariot is that of Babylon by the Kassites, who, in the wake of the Hittite king Mursilis I’s sack of the latter city in 1595 BC, took over control and founded a royal dynasty here. Finally, as
66 Drews 1988: 101-2.
67 See now Oren 1997, and note especially the warrior graves and introduction of the horse as characteristic elements of Hyksos culture.
31
evidenced by the decoration of their stone stelae the rulers buried in the shaftgraves at Mycenae in Greece around 1600 BC were chariot fighters, and therefore likely foreign conquerors.
In his eager to whipe out the last remnants of the hated Hyksos, Ahmose (1550-1525 BC) grabbed the op-portunity to conquer Palestine in toto and brought back Byblos into the Egyptian sphere of influence, thus laying the foundations for the Empire period. This imperial policy of territorial expansion was subsequently continued by Ahmose’s successor, Amenhotep I (1525-1504 BC), who conquered Tunip along the upper Orontes river, and Tuth-moses I (1504-1492 BC), who campaigned up to the Eu-phrates river. However, after a lull especially during the reign of Hatshepsut (1479-1457 BC), it reached its zenith under Tuthmoses III (1479-1425 BC), who even crossed the Euphrates, defeated Mitanni, and incorporated North Syria up to and including Ugarit, where a garrison was sta-tioned. As a corollary to Tuthmoses III’s defeat of Mitanni, the latter sought a truce with Egypt, which materialized under Amenhotep II (1427-1400 BC) in an alliance ce-mented by the marriage of Amenhotep II’s son, the later Tuthmoses IV, with the daughter of the Mitannian king Ar-tatama I. What followed is a period of consolidation by di-plomacy, vividly described in the Amarna tablets covering the period from the later part of the reign of Amenhotep III (1390-1352 BC) to the reign of Tutankhamon (1336-1327 BC).68 Most striking in this correspondence is the reluc-tance of Akhenaten (1352-1336 BC) to comply with the desparate appeals by his loyal vassal king of Byblos, Rib-addi, and curb the encroachments on the latter’s territory by the upcoming power of Amurru under the leadership of Abdi-asirta and his son Aziru. The story ended with the death of Rib-addi by the hand of Aziru. The Amarna tab-lets also provide early mentions of some groups of the Sea Peoples, namely the Lukka and the Sherden – the first as pirates raiding Alasiya (= Cyprus)69 and the coast of Egypt and the second as body guards or mercenaries of Rib-addi of Byblos.70
68 Moran 1992: xxxv.
69 Hellbing 1979; note, however, that Egyptian ’Isy is not an alter-native indication of Cyprus, as the author maintains, but a refe-rence to the western Anatolian region Asiya or Assuwa, see section 8.
70 The earliest mention of the Lukka occurs in an Egyptian hiero-glyphic text on an obelisk from Byblos dated c. 2000 BC, which
In the long run, however, the major concurrent of the Egyptians for control in North Syria was not the kingdom of Mitanni, but that of the Hittites. These had already cam-paigned in the region under the kings of the Old Kingdom, Hattusilis I (1640-1620 BC), who burned down Alalakh along the lower Orontes river, and Mursilis I (1620-1590 BC), who, as we have already noted, went all the way to Babylon, but both were not able to consolidate their con-quests. The same holds good for Tud®aliyas I (1430-1400 BC) of the New Kingdom, who is recorded to have made peace with Aleppo, probably after a campaign in the wake of Tuthmoses III’s defeat of Mitanni. After a period of se-rious troubles under Tud®aliyas III (1360-1344 BC), in which the Hittite realm had to be rebuilt from scratch, the Hittites manifested themselves again in the North Syrian theatre during the reign of Suppiluliumas I (1344-1322 BC). The latter defeated Mitanni decisively and was sub-sequently able to draw Mitanni’s dependencies in North Syria within his orbit. But that is not all, Suppiluliumas I also extended his sphere of influence to Kadesh, Amurru, and Ugarit, which fell under Egyptian suzerainty. When he beleaguered Karkamis along the Euphrates river and ex-pected retaliation by the Egyptians for his transgression in their dominions, a miracle happened: the Egyptian queen, whose husband Tutankhamun had been murdered, asked Suppiluliumas I for a son to be remarried with, which would mean not only an alliance but also that a Hittite prince became king of Egypt. Unfortunately, the son which Suppiluliumas I sent for the marriage got killed by machi-nations of the Egyptian court. Nevertheless, he was able to consolidate his foothold in North Syria without the danger of Egyptian retaliation, and, after the capture of the city, he appointed one of his sons, Piyassilis, as king of Karkamis, who under the Hurritic throne-name Sarri-Kusu® ruled from here as viceroy over the dependencies in North Syria – an arrangement which through the latter’s heirs would last to the end of what now truly may be called the Hittite Empire.
After the untimely death of his elder brother, the youngest son of Suppiluliumas I inherited the throne and ruled as Mursilis II (1321-1295 BC). His main achieve-ment was the conquest of Arzawa in western Anatolia, from where he deported as much as 65,000 or 66,000 pris-oners of war to other parts of the Hittite realm. Further-
renders the sequence kwkwn s rwqq “Kukkunis, son of the Ly-cian”, see Albright 1959; but cf. van Seeters 1966: 79, note 24, who dates this inscription c. 1700 BC.
32
more, he rearranged the western province into four Arzawa lands, Mira-Kuwaliya, the Se®a River Land, Hapalla-Appawiya, and Wilusa, each under a vassal king – an ar-rangement which lasted to at least an advanced stage of the reign of Tud®aliyas IV near the end of the 13th century BC, its resilience being due largely to the fact that it was cemented by dynastic marriages so that the vassal kings in question became members of the royal family themselves. Mursilis II was followed by his son and successor, Muwa-tallis II (1295-1272 BC). By this time, the Egyptian throne had come into the hands of a new and militant dynasty, founded by a former general, Ramesses I (1295-1294 BC). With the accession of his descendant Ramesses II (1279-1223 BC), it became clear that Egypt wanted to regain its former dependencies in North Syria by force. In anticipa-tion of the coming war with Egypt, Muwatallis II moved the Hittite capital from the somewhat eccentric Hattusa to Tar®untassa in the south. Furthermore, to gather allied forces or mercenaries he launched a campaign in the west. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that at the inevitable showdown of forces which eventually took place near Kadesh in the fifth year of Ramesses II’s reign (1274 BC), the Hittites according to the Egyptian records were, interalia, aided by troops from Arzawa ( later Lydia), Darda-nia (= Troas), Masa (= Mysia), Karkisa (= Karia), and Lukka (= Lycia). (Interesting for our purposes is that the same records bear testimony of Sherden mercenaries on the Egyptian side.) During his campaign in the west, how-ever, Muwatallis II wanted to avoid a conflict with the A®®iyawans (= Akhaians or Mycenaean Greeks), who were in control of Millawanda (= Miletos) at the time, and for this reason settled his dispute in diplomatic terms, ad-dressing the king of A®®iyawa as his brother and hence in-cluding him into the illustrious ranks of the great kings (see further section 8). According to the Egyptian records, again, the Hittite forces at the ensuing battle of Kadesh numbered in total 3,500 chariotry and 37,000 infantry. The propaganda of Ramesses II claimed the outcome as an out-standing victory for the Egyptians, but at the end of the day the bone of contention, Kadesh, remained within the sphere of influence of the Hittites!
The eldest son of Muwatallis II, Ur®itesup, who on his ascendance took the throne-name Mursilis III, occupied the throne only for a brief period (1272-1267 BC), before he was deposed by his uncle Hattusilis III (1267-1239 BC). The latter distinguished himself particularly in interna-tional diplomacy, as he was responsible for the peace
treaty with Egypt of 1259 BC – an entente between the two great powers which lasted till the end of the Bronze Age. Furthermore, his wife Pudu®epa played a vital role in ce-menting the relationship by dynastic marriages, which boiled down to a one-sided affair in which Hatti dispatched princesses to the harem of the pharaoh, but the latter did not return the favor as no princesses of Egypt were allowed to be betrothed to a foreigner – with all possible conse-quences for foreign claims on the throne (the request by the widow of Tutankhamun for a Hittite prince to remarry with mentioned above was quite exceptional, indeed, and, as we have seen, doomed to fail). In the reign of HattusilisIII mention was first made of shipments of grain from Egypt to Hatti, which later under Merneptah became so important that they were claimed “to keep Hatti alive”. Evidently, the Hittite Empire suffered from food shortage, but it is a longstanding problem which cannot be hold re-sponsible, as it often is, for its final downfall.
The son and successor of Hattusilis III, Tud®aliyas IV (1239-1209 BC) exercized an active military policy in the west. In the text of a bronze tablet found during the late 80s of the last century in the capital Bo azköy/Hattusa,which meticulously describes the borders of the viceregal province of Tar®untassa under his uncle Kuruntas, a cam-paign against Par®a (= Perge) along the Kastaraya (= Kestros) in Pamphylia to the west of Tar®untassa was an-ticipated, the spoils of which would fall to Kuruntas. Next, a Luwian hieroglyphic text from Yalburt commemorizes a campaign in the Xanthos river valley of Lycia, where the towns Talawa (= Tl s), Pinata (= Pinara), and Awarna (= Arinna) were subdued, as Tud®aliyas IV proudly claims, for the first time in Hittite history. After this, the so-called Milawata-letter informs us that the governor of Milla-wanda (= Miletos), which formerly resided under the king of A®®iyawa (= Akhaia or Mycenaean Greece), turned sides and joined the Hittites.71 In this manner, then, a long-standing source of troubles in the west was eventually eliminated. Tud®aliyas IV’s next move was in the east: in a
71 In the Milawata Letter mention is made of an exchange of hos-tages from Pina(ta) and Awarna with those from Atria and Utima, which can only be situated after Tud®aliyas IV’s Lycian campaign. Also prior to, and as a kind of conditio sine qua non for, the change of sides by Millawanda is Tud®aliyas IV’s campaign against Tar®undaradus of the Se®a River Land (= the Meander val-ley) as reported in his Chronicle, when A®®iyawa is specified to have withdrawn, see Garstang & Gurney 1959: 120-1 (note that according to Güterbock’s (1992) improved translation of this text, Tar®undaradus is stated to have relied on the king of A®®iyawa.)
33
treaty with Sausgamuwa of Amurru he forbade the latter to serve as an intermediary for trade between A®®iyawa and Assyria – the new enemy in the east since Suppiluliumas I’s decisive victory over Mitanni. Bereft of his stronghold in western Anatolia, the king of A®®iyawa was no longer considered a great king, which must have been a recent development as he was first enumerated among the great kings in the text of the Sausgamuwa treaty but then de-leted. The ultimate goal of Tud®aliyas IV’s campaigns in the west, and a further guarantee for the success of his economic boycot against the maritime trade between A®®iyawa and Assyria, was the conquest of Alasiya (= Cyprus), which he achieved near the end of his reign. Notwithstanding a serious defeat against the Assyrians un-der the able leadership of Tikulta-Ninurta (1233-1197 BC) somewhere in between of the given events, we cannot avoid the conclusion that the reign of Tud®aliyas IV marked a high point in the history of the Hittite Empire.
After the death of Tud®aliyas IV, there was a short reign of his eldest son, Arnuwandas III (1209-1205 BC). In this period, to be more exact the fifth year of Merneptah (1213-1203 BC), the Egyptians had to deal with an attack by the Libyan king Meryey, who was supported by merce-naries from various groups of the so-called “Sea Peoples”, viz. the Sherden, Shekelesh, Ekwesh, Lukka, and Teresh.Merneptah succeeded in defeating this coalition and in preventing the Libyan king Meryey to settle himself in the Nile-delta – apparently the latter’s ultimate objective.
Arnuwandas III was succeeded by his brother Sup-piluliumas II (1205-1180? BC). The latter was forced to reconquer Cyprus-Alasiya, again, which apparently had taken advantage of the mishap during the short reign of Arnuwandas III. After his victory, he set up a memorial (= Ni anta at Bo azköy/Hattusa) also for that of his father, who did not have the time to do so. Later in his reign, Sup-piluliumas II was forced to conduct a campaign in western Anatolia against, inter alia, Masa (= Mysia), Wiyana-wanda (= Oinoanda in the upper Xanthos valley), and Lukka (= Lycia), the ensuing victory of which he com-memorated in the Südburg monument at Bo az-köy/Hattusa. The same Luwian hieroglyphic inscription, however, shows him very much in control of the imperial machinery in provinces like Pala, Walma, and Tar®untassa.72 The final downfall caused by the Sea Peo-
72 On the Yalburt and Südburg texts, see Woudhuizen 2004a, sec-tions 3 and 7, respectively.
ples (this time the Peleset, Tjeker, Shekelesh, Denye(n),and Weshesh) as vividly described by the letters from Ras Shamra/Ugarit and Ramesses III’s (1184-1153 BC) memo-rial at Medinet Habu, came as a flash of lightning in a clear sky by total surprise.
Under the energetic leadership of Ramesses III, the second pharaoh of the 20th dynasty, Egypt survived the onslaught by the Sea Peoples, who, unsuccesful in their plan to settle in Egypt, took up their abode in various places along the Levant, especially in the Philistine penta-polis. In the former Hittite Empire, there was some conti-nuity in the earliest phase of the Iron Age at Karkamis, where the viceregal family planted by Suppiluliumas I maintained its position through Aritesup and Initesup, and in the former province of Tar®untassa, where likewise a descendant of the Hittite royal family, Hartapus, son of Mursilis, is recorded. According to their inscriptions in Luwian hieroglyphic, both these branches of the Hittite royal family claimed the imperial title of great king. Only after this imperial afterglow, a dearth of material sets in which lasts to the beginning of the 10th century BC, when a new royal house at Karkamis under great king Uratar®undas entered the stage.73
73 See Woudhuizen 1992-3 and Woudhuizen 2004a: appendix V.
35
4. AN HISTORIOGRAPHIC OUTLINE
In this section we will present an outline of the most im-portant modern literature on the Sea Peoples. Special atten-tion in this historiographic outline will be given to the identification of the individual population groups, which is still a matter of debate. Another point of interest is the cause (or causes) of their sudden appearance on the stage during the period aptly called the catastrophe at the end of the Late Bronze Age. Our main purpose, to determine whether the shortlived coalition of forces which we call the Sea Peoples consists of a number of individual cohesive ethn , is a question barely touched upon in the literature: it surfaces only in the discussion between Gustav Adolf Lehmann and Wolfgang Helck in the 1980s and in Drews 1993. For convenience’s sake, I will in the following use standardized transcriptions for the ethnonyms of the Sea Peoples as commonly used in the English language. An example of how these ethnonyms can be written in Egyp-tian hieroglyphic – the writing is not standardized and therefore can vary per attestation – and their proper trans-literation is rendered in figure 3.74 Note that the eth-nonyms are distinguished as such by the determinative of foreign people (Gardiner 1994: T14 + A1).
The modern literature on the Sea Peoples commences with the decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphic by Jean-François Champollion in the first half of the 19th century AD. In his Grammaire égyptienne of 1836 he proposed to identify the Peleset as mentioned in the texts of Ramesses III (1184-1153 BC) in his mortuary temple at Medinet Habu (Thebes) with the Biblical Philistines – an identifica-tion which goes unchallenged till the present day. Follow-ing in his footsteps, Emmanuel de Rougé set out in his contribution to the Revue Archéologique 16 of 1867 to connect the other ethnonyms in the same texts and in the one of Merneptah (1213-1203 BC) on a wall of the main temple at Karnak (Thebes) with names of known Mediter-ranean peoples or locations on the basis of similarity in sound (“Gleichklang”). Thus he proposed to identify the Teresh with the Tyrrhenians or Etruscans, the Shekelesh with the Sicels, the Sherden with the Sardinians, all in the
74 As the Egyptologist J.F. Borghouts assures me, the use of Gar-diner 1994: T 12 “bowstring” (phonetic value 3r) for Gardiner 1994: V 4 “lasso” (phonetic value w3) in the ethnonym Ekwesh is a peculiarity of the Karnak text, paralleled, for example, in the wri-ting of Meswesh.
central Mediterranean, the Ekwesh with the Akhaians in mainland Greece, and the Lukka with the Lycians in south-west Asia Minor. These suggestions were subsequently amplified by François Chabas in his Études sur l’Antiquité Historique d’après les sources égyptiennes et les monu-ments réputés préhistoriques of 1872, who connected the Tjeker with the Teukroi of the Troas in northwest Asia Minor, the Denye(n) with the Daunians and the Weshesh with the Oscans, the latter two both at home in Italy. Moreover, he ventured to equal the Peleset, which we have seen to be identified with the Biblical Philistines since the time of Champollion, with the Pelasgians of Greek literary sources – an equation, as far as the Philistines are con-cerned, with a respectable history, first being put forward by Etienne Fourmont in 1747.
The proposals of de Rougé and Chabas, with identifi-cations of the ethnonyms of the Sea Peoples running as widely as from the western part of Asia Minor in the east via mainland Greece in the centre to Sicily, Italy, and Sar-dinia in the west were almost directly challenged by Gas-ton Maspero – who, by the way, coined the term Sea Peoples (“peuples de la mer”) in 1881, which is an apt form of address considering the association of these peo-ples with the sea and islands in the midst of the sea in the Egyptian texts – in review articles of the former authors’ works and, more elaborately, in his monographs Histoire Ancienne des peuples de l’orient classique of 1875 and Struggle of the Nations, Egypt, Syria and Assyria of 1910. In Maspero’s view, then, the homeland of the Sea Peoples should be restricted to western Anatolia and mainland Greece. Thus, apart from embracing the equation of the Ekwesh with the Akhaians of mainland Greece, the Sher-den were supposed to be linked up with the Lydian capital Sardis, the Shekelesh with the Pisidian town of Sagalassos, and the Weshesh with the Carian place name Wassos. His main reason for the central position of Anatolia in his re-constructions was formed by Herodotos’ location of the ul-timate homeland of the Tyrrhenians in Lydia (Histories I, 94). Like in the case of the Tyrrhenians, these Anatolian peoples were suggested to have moved after their attack on Egypt to their later Central Mediterranean homelands. Only the Philistines were supposed to have turned east and settled in Canaan.
36
(a)
(b)
Ino.
IIhieroglyphics
transliteration(Borghouts)
vocalization as employed in the present study
1* š3rdn Sherden
2* š3krš3 Shekelesh
3* k3w3š3 Ekwesh
4* rkw Lukka
5* twrš3 Teresh
1 prwst Peleset
2 t3k3r Tjeker
3 š3krš3 Shekelesh
4 d3 n w Denyen
5 w3š3š3 Weshesh
Fig. 3. The ethnonyms of the Sea Peoples in Egyptian writing, transliteration, and standardized transcription (from Kitchen 1982: IV, 4 and Kitchen 1983: V, 40).75
(a) Merneptah, Karnak, marked with * in column I above
(b) Ramesses III, Medinet Habu
75 I am indebted to J.F. Borghouts for providing the transliteration, and to Wim van Binsbergen for identifying the specific transliteratedstrings with the hieroglyphic sections, and preparing and tabulating the graphics in this table.
37
The view of Maspero that the Sea Peoples originated solely from the eastern Mediterranean has had a great in-fluence on his successors, even up to the present day (cf. Redford 1992: 246). At any rate, it has been taken over without much critical reflection by H.R. Hall, who domi-nated the field in the first half of the 20th century AD. In a first contribution to the Annual of the British School at Athens 8 of 1901-2, he expressed himself in favor of Mas-pero’s identifications with the only noted exception of Weshesh, which he preferred to connect with Cretan Wak-sioi instead of Carian Wassos. Next, in a collection of pa-pers to the memory of Champollion which appeared in 1922 Hall presented a useful summary of the literature on the topic of the Sea Peoples up to that moment. In this summary, he proposed to identify the Denye(n), whom Maspero had equated with the Danaoi of the Argolid in mainland Greece, with the Danuna of Cilicia as mentioned in the El-Amarna texts from the reigns of Amenhotep III (1390-1352 BC) and Akhenaten (1352-1336 BC). Hall’s work culminates in his contribution to the first edition of the Cambridge Ancient History, which appeared in 1926. Here he expressly distinguished the Sea Peoples, which, as we have seen, according to him originated from western Anatolia and mainland Greece, from the Keftiu, i.e. the designation of the Cretans in Egyptian texts. Confronted with the Biblical sources, according to which the Peleset originated from Crete, he came up with the solution that they had come from Asia Minor via Crete. Furthermore, he noted in alignment with his earlier association of the De-nye(n) with the Danuna, that some of the Sea Peoples, like the Sherden and the Lukka, were already mentioned in the El-Amarna texts. Of them, the Sherden were stipulated to have fought both on the Egyptian side and that of the Sea Peoples in the upheavals at the time of Ramesses III. Fi-nally, in true Masperonian way, he envisioned the Sherden, Shekelesh, and Teresh, after their failing attack on Egypt, as being on their way to their ultimate homes in the central Mediterranean. The career of Hall ended with his “going Caucasian” so to say: in his last contribution on the subject of 1929 he explained all ethnonyms of the Sea Peoples as reflections of similar sounding Caucasian tribal names – a fine example of the dangers of the etymological approach when applied without further backing.
After the second World War, the first to take up the subject of the Sea Peoples again, was Alan Gardiner. In his Ancient Egyptian Onomastica of 1947 he meticulously de-scribed all that was known at the time of a number of the ethnonyms, especially so of the Sherden and the Peleset.
Remarkable is that in connection with the Denye(n) he spoke against their relation with the Danuna in Cilicia and in favor of that with the Danaoi of the Argolid in mainland Greece. Moreover, he sided with Hall in his opinion that the Peleset were not originally at home in Crete, but used this island as an intermediary station in their way to the Levant. In connection with the Sherden, finally, he re-marked, with reference to an earlier contribution by Wainwright (1939: 148), that the Teresh were known to the Hittite world (probably implying a linguistic relation of the ethnonym with Tarwisa (= Troy), which, however, is dubious), but the Sherden and the Shekelesh not and hence that the latter might be assumed to originate from outside of it – the first rudimentary attempt to bring the contro-versy between de Rougé and Chabas on the one hand and Maspero on the other to a higher level.
Next, Paul Mertens presented in the Chroniqued’Égypte 35 of 1960 a nice overview of the Egyptian sources on the Sea Peoples from their first occurrence in the El-Amarna texts and those of Ramesses II (1279-1212 BC) up to their alignment with the Libyan king Meryre (= Meryey) in the reign of Merneptah and their ultimate at-tack on Egypt in the reign of Ramesses III. However, as far as origins are concerned, he did not choose between the central to east Mediterranean thesis of de Rougé and the solely east Mediterranean antithesis of Maspero, whereas, in connection with the Peleset, he followed Bonfante (1946) in identifying them as Illyrians who migrated to the Levant via Crete.
The first to address the question what caused the up-heavals of the Sea Peoples at the end of the Late Bronze Age was Wolfgang Kimmig in a lengthy paper in the Fest-schrift Tackenberg of 1964. In his view, these are a mere function of the expansion of the Urnfield peoples of central and eastern Europe into all directions, so also to the Medi-terranean in the south. As Kimmig keenly observed, the contribution of bearers of the Urnfield culture to the movement of the Sea Peoples is indicated by their ships as depicted in the reliefs at Medinet Habu having bird head protomes at the stern as well as the prow – a typical Urn-field feature. He further rightly stipulated that some of the Sea Peoples were already in contact with the Near East when the expansion of the Urnfielders motivated them to look for new homelands in an agreeable surrounding. Al-though he tried to avoid the vexed question of the origins of the Sea Peoples as much as possible, Kimmig restricted his Urnfield model for the cause of the latters’ movement to the eastern Mediterranean: an incursion of Urnfielders
38
into mainland Greece in his eyes set the whole process in motion.
Against the background of Kimmig’s answer to the question of causality, Richard D. Barnett’s treatment of the Sea Peoples in the 3rd edition of the Cambridge Ancient History, which first appeared as a separate issue in 1969 and subsequently as an integral part of Volume II, 2 in 1975, means a step back to the level of identifications on the basis of likeness in sound, in which the author sides with Maspero’s eastern Mediterranean thesis: thus the Teresh are said to originate from Lydia, the Shekelesh to be on their way to Sicily, whereas for the Sherden a home-land in Cyprus is taken into consideration, from where, of course, they departed to colonize Sardinia. As far as the Peleset are concerned, he saw no problem in identifying them with the Philistines and having them colonize cities in Canaan – in his view Gaza, Askelon, Asdod and Dor – from Crete. From an historical point of view, Barnett pointed to the fact that the famine reported by Herodotos (Histories I, 94) as the cause of part of the Lydian popula-tion to leave their country and settle in Etruria might be a reflection of the grain shipments by Merneptah to keep the country of Hatti alive. Furthermore, he suggested that the naval victory of the last Hittite great king Suppiluliumas II (1205-1180? BC) against the island of Alasiya has a bear-ing on his battle against the Sea Peoples having gained themselves a foothold on Cyprus.76
In the same year that Barnett’s contribution first ap-peared, Rainer Stadelmann put forward an interesting pa-per in Saeculum 19 in which he offered an alternative answer to what caused the upheavals of the Sea Peoples. In his view the prime move is made by the Phrygians, who, originating from the Balkans, overran the Anatolian pla-teau at the end of the Late Bronze Age and destroyed the Hittite Empire. As a corollary to this migration, the Philis-tines joined the Phrygians in their movement from the Bal-kans to Asia Minor, but, instead of settling here, they moved on to the Levant and Egypt via Crete and Cyprus. Having been defeated by Ramesses III, the Philistines set-tled in Palestine – an event which was previously assumed by Albright (1932) and Alt (1944) to have been orchestred by the Egyptian pharaoh, but, taking the evidence at face value, the latter appeared no longer in control of this re-
76 For a critical review of Barnett’s contribution to the CambridgeAncient History, pointing out numerous instances of sloppiness, see Astour 1972.
gion. As opposed to this, Stadelmann assumed that the Sherden, Shekelesh, and Teresh went to the central Medi-terranean to find their new homes in Sardinia, Sicily, and central Italy, from where they maintained trade contacts with their former comrades in arms in the Levant up to the time that the Phoenicians seized the opportunity to take these over.
The following years are dominated by a German scholar, Gustav Adolf Lehmann. In a series of works, start-ing in 1970 and continuing to 1996, he tried to reconstruct an historical outline of the events that led to and made up the catastrophe at the end of the Late Bronze Age, using a wide range of sources from Egyptian hieroglyphic through Ugaritic alphabetic up to Hittite cuneiform. With only slight adaptations, this historical picture forms the basic background for my own studies on the ethnicity of the Sea Peoples; for a brief summary of the main events, see sec-tion 3 above. Two points are of special interest to us here, namely Lehmanns’ position on the cause (or causes) of the upheavals of the Sea Peoples and that on their ethnic rele-vance. Now, as to what caused the catastrophe, it can be deduced from the distribution map of groups of the Sea Peoples in the central and eastern Mediterranean in Die mykenisch-frühgriechische Welt und der östliche Mittel-meerraum in der Zeit der “Seevölker”-Invasionen um 1200 v. Chr. of 1985 (p. 47) and the accompanying text (pp. 43-9) that he considered the Adriatic as the source of trouble for the wider Mediterranean, population groups here possi-bly being uprooted by developments in the Danubian area. As against this model, it might be objected that the afore-said distribution map rather reflects the situation after the catastrophe, when the Sea Peoples had been subject to a widespread diaspora. With respect to the ethnic relevance of the ethnonyms, Lehmann pointed out that the Egyptian depictions of the Sherden in reliefs from the reigns of Ramesses II and Ramesses III with very specific features testifies to the fact that at least the nucleus of the Sea Peo-ples consisted of pronounced ethnic groups (p. 58; see also our motto). In a review article of Lehmann’s work of 1985 in Gnomon 58 of 1986, Wolfgang Helck reacted against this inference with the words that
“Der Gedanke, daß wir es mit reinen ‘Seeräuber’ zu tun haben, die sich – durch eine Naturkatastrophe veranlaßt – in den Ausgangszentren des bisher von ihnen nur auf See geplünderten Handels festsetzen, wird nicht herausgezogen.” (p. 628).
Hand-in-hand with this degradation of the Sea Peo-
39
ples as mere pirates goes Helck’s denial of a migrational aspect to the period of the upheavals set in motion by the expansion of the bearers of the Urnfield culture – whereas in his Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. of 1971 he still held the Phrygian migrations from the Balkans to Anatolia responsible as a prime mover for the ensuing catastrophe.
An even more extreme position with reference to the migrational aspect of the upheavals of the Sea Peoples than the one maintained by Helck was presented by Alexandra Nibbi in her The Sea Peoples and Egypt of 1975. Accord-ing to this author the Sea Peoples are all Asiatics living in the Nile delta, with the exception of the Peleset, the identi-fication of whom with the Philistines from Palestine as proposed already by Champollion she accepts. At the background of Nibbi’s views lurks the interpretation of what is generally considered as the Egyptian words for the Mediterranean sea (w3d-wr “great green”), islands ( ww),and sea (ym) as references to the Nile delta and inland lakes here. She even went as far as to suggest that Retenu,which is generally considered as an indication of the Le-vant, is a reference to the Nile delta, too. I think it is not advisable to follow Nibbi in her extremist standpoint.77
In the next year, 1976, August Strobel published his Der Spätbronzezeitliche Seevölkersturm, Ein Forschungs-überblick mit Folgerungen zur biblischen Exodusthematik,which offers a wealth of detailed information on the indi-vidual groups of the Sea Peoples and the Near Eastern texts in which they appear, and hence may serve us as a valuable reference book. However, it is less outspoken about the matters which primarily concern us here, like the origins of the Sea Peoples, the causes for the catastrophe – though Strobel favors a severe drought in this respect – and the articulation of the Sea Peoples’ ethnicity.
Still a classic in the field is Nancy K. Sandars The Sea Peoples, Warriors of the ancient Mediterranean 1250-1150 BC of 1978, which two years afterwards appeared in Dutch translation as De Zeevolken, Egypte en Voor-Azië bedreigd, 1250-1150 v.C. – both editions being highly
77 In variant form Nibbi’s extremist point of view has recently been embraced by Yves Duhoux, according to whom (2003: 272) “la base opérationelle des envahisseurs était le centre du Delta”.Although I am not challenging the fact that, for example, w3d-wr“great green” in certain contexts does refer to the Nile and the Red Sea, it certainly goes too far to deny that in other contexts, like that of the Sea Peoples, it clearly denotes the Mediterranean Sea.
valuable for their rich illustrations.78 However, as far as the origins of the individual population groups are con-cerned, the author happens to be wavering between the views of de Rougé on the one hand and Maspero on the other hand. Thus the Sherden are in first instance linked up with either Sardinia or Sardis, whereas later they are sup-posed to have migrated from Cyprus or North Syria to Sar-dinia. Similarly, the Shekelesh are now associated with Anatolia and then with southern Italy and Sicily. Only with respect to the Teresh Sandars straightforwardly committed herself to an Anatolian homeland, be it Lydia or the Troas. The latter region is also considered the place of origin of the Tjeker and, less persuasively, of the Weshesh, whilst the Lukka, the Ekwesh, and the Denye(n) are more or less conventionally identified as the Lycians of southwest Ana-tolia, the Akhaians of western Anatolia, the Aegean islands or mainland Greece, and the Danuna of Cilicia, respec-tively. Finally, the Peleset are, like the Teresh, traced back to an Anatolian homeland. Also as far as the causes of the catastrophe are concerned, Sandars’ position is rather dif-fuse, now stressing internecine war and internal decay (= systems collapse), then economic crisis and last but not least attacks from hostile tribes or states along the borders. This unsatisfactory mixture of causes of the catastrophe should not surprise us, because, as long as the problem of the origins of the Sea Peoples remains unsolved, the re-lated problem of these causes can in fact not possibly be adequately dealt with.
In his book on Caphtor/Keftiu, subtitled A new Inves-tigation, from 1980, John Strange also pays some attention to the Sea Peoples (pp. 138-142; 157-165). In doing so, he is exceptional in presenting the spelling of the five eth-nonyms recorded for Medinet Habu in Egyptian hiero-glyphic writing. As far as the origins of the Sea Peoples are concerned, however, he adheres to common views in the literature at the time according to which most of them originated from Asia Minor (Denye(n)), particularly its western outskirts (Lukka, Shekelesh, Teresh, Tjeker), but some came from farther west, the Aegean (Ekwesh), or north, the Caucasus (Sherden), and the Balkans (Peleset). Crucial to his main theme, the identification of Biblical Kaphtor and Egyptian Keftiu with Cyprus, is the fact that a substantial number of the Sea Peoples can be shown to have colonized the Syro-Palestine coast from the latter is-
78 Cf. the reviews of this book by Muhly 1979 and Snodgrass 1978.
40
land, which Strange correlates to the well-known Biblical information that the Philistines originated from Kaphtor, hence his adagium Kaphtor = Cyprus. Although Cyprus may have functioned as a way station for some of the Sea Peoples in their trek to the Levant, it is an oversimplifica-tion of the evidence to consider it as their main sallying point – as we will see, the diagnostic ceramics in the form of Mycenaean IIIC1b ware have a much wider distribution, including Crete and western Anatolia. To this comes that there is positive evidence, duly assembled by Strange him-self, indicating that Alasiya is the Late Bronze Age name of Cyprus, and Kaptara (> Kaphtor) or Keftiu that of Crete.
In line with Lehmann’s view on the cause of the up-heavals of the Sea Peoples, Fritz Schachermeyr in his DieLevant im Zeitalter der Wanderungen, Vom 13. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert v.Chr. of 1982 traces the origin of some of the Sea Peoples back to the Adriatic, in particular Illyria, from where the Shekelesh and Sherden are supposed to have migrated to the Levant by sea, uprooting the Mycenaean Greeks along the route, and the Tjeker and Peleset to have done the same by land, in this way causing the fall of the Hittite empire.
Another milestone in the study of the Sea Peoples next to Sandars’ work is formed by Trude Dothan’s The Philistines and their Material Culture of 1982, which pro-vides the archaeological evidence of the settlements in Palestine on a site to site basis – an indispensable working tool. For a more popular representation of this material, fo-cussing on the personal contribution of Trude and her hus-band Moshe Dothan to the excavation of Philistine sites, see Trude Dothan & Moshe Dothan, People of the Sea, The Search of the Philistines of 1992.
In the next year, 1983, Günther Hölbl argued em-phatically for the historical relevance of the Egyptian texts on the Sea Peoples by Merneptah at Karnak and by Ramesses III at Medinet Habu in his contribution to the Zwettl Symposium – dedicated to the Aegean and the Le-vant during the period of the Dark Age. In doing so, he was able to distinguish two phases in the period of the up-heavals of the Sea Peoples: (1) a strictly military one at the time of Merneptah in which the groups of the Sea Peoples mentioned act as mercenaries or auxiliaries to the Libyan king Meryre (= Meryey) – who himself takes with him his wife and children with the obvious intent of settling in the Egyptian delta; and (2) a migratory one at the time of Ramesses III in which at least some of the groups of the Sea Peoples mentioned are decided to settle in the Egytian
delta as evidenced by the fact that they take with them their wives and children in oxcarts.
In 1984 appeared the Lexicon der Ägyptologie, Band V, edited by Wolfgang Helck and Eberhard Otto, which contains the lemma Seevölker written by Rainer Stadel-mann. This section is well-referenced and therefore still handy to consult, notwithstanding its Masperonian bias (e.g. the Sherden are traced back to Sardis, and, with the Shekelesh and Teresh, believed to have reached the central Mediterranean only after the resurrections at the end of the Bronze Age) and the mistaken opinion that the Sherden only fought on the side of the Egyptians in the land- and sea-battles of Ramesses III’s years 5 and 8 (as a distinction the Sherden on the side of the enemies wear horned hel-mets without a sun-disc in between them).
Subsequently, Jacques Vanschoonwinkel dedicated a section to the Sea Peoples in his L’Égée et la Méditerranée orientale à la fin du IIe millénaire of 1991. In this section, he decisively refuted Nibbi’s thesis according to which the Sea Peoples (with the noted exception of the Philistines) are Asiatics who had already been living in the Nile delta for a long time. As it comes to the question of the origins of the Sea Peoples, however, Vanschoonwinkel merely sums up the various possibilities circulating since the times of de Rougé and Maspero without showing any preference for the one or the other. No wonder, therefore, that his view on the cause or causes of the catastrophe is as diffuse as that of Sandars – adding in particular violent earth-quakes.
One of the most important and stimulating contribu-tions on our topic is formed by Robert Drews’ The End of the Bronze Age, Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 B.C. of 1993. In this work, the author set out to treat the various causes of the catastrophe as suggested in the relevant literature, like earthquakes, drought, systems collapse, and migrations, in order to refute them all; in his criticism of the migrational explanation, he launched a ve-hement attack on Maspero’s identification of the Sherden, Shekelesh, and Teresh with peoples from Anatolia, main-taining instead that these are just persons from Sardinia, Sicily, and Etruria. As indicated by the subtitle of his book, according to Drews the real explanation of the catas-trophe at the end of the Late Bronze Age constitutes a mili-tary innovation. In the palatial societies of the Late Bronze Age empires, chariot warfare formed the heart and core of the army, being supplemented only by infantry auxiliaries, particularly handy for special tasks like guarding the camp
41
site or manoeuvring in mountainous terrain. At the end of the Bronze Age, however, a new style of infantry is intro-duced with, amongst others, round shields, slashing swords, metal greaves, and javelins, which can outmatch the until then unchallenged chariotry, especially by elimi-nating the horses with javelins thrown in full run. In gen-eral, this shift from chariotry to infantry warfare during the period from the end of the Late Bronze Age to the early phase of the Iron Age is undisputable. But it did take place more gradually than Drews wants us to believe. In the first place, especially the Egyptian pharaohs from the time of Ramesses II onwards were quick to adapt to the military innovations by hiring Sherden mercenaries from (as we will argue) Sardinia, who were specialists in the new style of fighting. Secondly, certain groups that overran the Late Bronze Age states during the catastrophe, like the Kaskans of Anatolia and the Philistines of Palestine, still used chariots in their army during the Early Iron Age. This be-ing so, it should not be overlooked that one of the greatest military assets of the Sea Peoples was (as their name im-plies) their sea power: once they had cleared the waters of the eastern Mediterranean from enemy ships, they could, just like the Vikings in a later age, attack any location of their choosing by hit and run actions, thus leaving the land-locked imperial armies no chance at a proper defence! An-other point of criticism of Drews’ views concerns his denial of a migratory aspect to the catastrophe, which leads him to the assertion that the Peleset and Tjeker were al-ready living in Palestine during the Late Bronze Age – a supposition which, insofar as the period of Ramesses III is concerned, is simply untenable. As Drews himself admits, the innovative infantry is only effective when applied in “overwhelming numbers” (p. 211). Furthermore, the Pele-set and the Tjeker are never mentioned in contemporary Late Bronze Age texts, thanks to which the situation in the Levant before the catastrophe is reasonably clear; for the Peleset, Drews can only fall back on the Biblical account of the Philistine ruler Abimelech from the times of Abra-ham and Isaac, which, however, is a patent anachronism. Finally, as we have just noted, in the period of Ramesses III some of the groups of the Sea Peoples clearly had the intention to settle in the Egyptian delta as evidenced by the oxcarts with women and children depicted on the enemy’s side in the reliefs of Medinet Habu. Of special interest to our main theme is the fact that Drews denies that the per-sons referred to by the ethnonyms which belonged to the Sea Peoples “were ever a cohesive group” (p. 71; my ital-
ics). In my opinion, his military explanation of the catas-trophe, stressing the advancement of infantry, would gain a lot if the groups were indeed cohesive. In a contribution to the Journal of Near Eastern Studies 59 of 2000, Drews elaborates his anti-migratory view on the catastrophe at the end of the Bronze Age.
The treatment of the Philistines by Ed Noort in hisDie Seevölker in Palästina of 1994 is, like the work of Drews just discussed, characterized by the modern fashion to minimalize the migratory aspect of the catastrophe. In the end, however, he cannot but admit that the Philistine culture of the Early Iron Age is a mixture of an intrusive element from Crete, the Peleset, with the indigenous Late Bronze Age population of Canaan. Consistently within this frame of reference, he considers the mention of Abimelech in the Bible as a Philistine ruler in the period of the Patri-archs an anachronism.
In his work of 1999 on Ugarit, Cyprus and the Ae-gean, Hans-Günter Buchholz, specifically discussed the problem of the Sea Peoples, especially in his concluding remarks (pp. 708-741), where he presents a wealth of re-cent literature. Like many of his predecessors, however, he considers it an open question whether the Sherden and the Shekelesh originated from the West or not.
In 2000 appeared a collection of papers edited by Eliezer D. Oren entitled The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment.79 Most shocking news is that Annie Caubet informs us that the famous oven in Ras Shamra/Ugarit, in which tablets were found which pre-sumably had a bearing on the last days of Ugarit, is not an oven at all but a ceiling from an upper storey. In addition to this, Peter Machinist presents a valuable overview of the sources on the Philistines in their pentapolis of Asdod, As-kelon, Gaza, Ekron, and Gath. Also worthy of note here, finally, is the fact that Shelley Wachsmann takes up the suggestion by Kimmig, again, that the ship(s) of the Sea Peoples as depicted at Medinet Habu are characterized by Urnfield influence for their having a bird head ornament at the stern as well as the prow.
The latest publication on the topic I know of is Eric H. Cline’s and David O’Connor’s contribution to a collec-tion of papers edited by David O’Connor and Stephen Quirke entitled Mysterious Lands, which appeared in 2003. This presents a handy and up-to-date overview of the Egyptian sources on the Sea Peoples, but, as it leaves out
79 Cf. Barako 2004.
42
all the relevant evidence from other sources, it fails to an-swer the question of their origins – not to mention that of their ethnicity.
Whilst we are writing this overview of the literature of the Sea Peoples, a new major study on the topic has been announced by Killebrew et al. (in preparation), but it had not yet appeared.
43
5. CONTEMPORARY SOURCES
The contemporary sources with a bearing on the period of
the upheavals of the Sea Peoples at the end of the Late
Bronze Age are threefold: Egyptian, Cypro-Minoan, and
Ugaritic. Egyptian records inform us about the Libyan at-
tack supported by allies or mercenaries from the Sea Peo-
ples in year 5 of the reign of Merneptah (= 1208 BC),
about the ultimate combined land- and seaborne attack of
the Sea Peoples themselves in years 5 and 8 of the reign of
Ramesses III (= 1179 BC and 1176 BC), and, in the form
of the Wen Amon story, about the immediate aftermath of
the crisis. Next, in Cypro-Minoan documents we encounter
representatives of the Sea Peoples engaged in maritime
trade in the interlude between the Libyan invasion from the
reign of Merneptah and the ultimate combined land- and
seaborne attack from the reign of Ramesses III. Finally,
Ugaritic letters vividly describe the situation just before
the ultimate attack by the Sea Peoples on Egypt in the
reign of Ramesses III. I will present the Cypro-Minoan and
Ugaritic texts both in transliteration and translation,
whereas in connection with the Egyptian ones I will con-
fine myself to the translation only as a transliteration of the
full set is, to the best of my knowledge, yet to be pub-
lished.
Egyptian
The chief source on the Lybian invasion is formed by the
great historical inscription of Merneptah (1213-1203 BC)
inscribed on a wall of the main temple at Karnak (Thebes).
The inscription consists of 79 lines in sum, but unfortu-
nately the text is only lacunarily preserved, about half of it
being lost.80 The following two passages are relevant to
our subject:
Karnak inscription
Lines 13-15
80 Schulman 1987: 23.
“[Year 5, 2nd month of] Summer, day (1), as follows: the wretched, fallen chief of Libya, Meryey, son of Ded, has fallen upon the country of Tehenu with his bowmen (…) Sherden, Shekelesh, Ekwesh, Lukka,Teresh, taking the best of every warrior and every man of war of his country. He has brought his wife and his children (…) leaders of the camp, and he has reached the western boundary in the fields of Per-ire.”81
In conjunction with the information from the so-called
Athribis stele (numbers between parentheses), the count of
the victims (lines 52-54) can be reconstructed as follows:
Libyans 6359, Shekelesh 222 (200), Teresh 742 (722), Ekwesh (2201), Sherden – ( – ).82
Note that the allies of the Sea Peoples are explicitly re-
ferred to as being circumcised, for which reason their
hands instead of their penises are cut off and counted.83
Cypro-Minoan
The Cypro-Minoan documents bearing testimony of repre-
sentatives of the Sea Peoples engaged in maritime trade
come from Enkomi (cylinder seal Inv. no. 19.10) and
Kalavassos (cylinder seal K-AD 389) in Cyprus and Ras
Shamra/Ugarit (tablet RS 20.25) on the adjacent coast of
the Levant. Of these documents, two were discovered in a
datable context, the Kalavassos cylinder seal in an ashlar
(= dressed stone) building abandoned at the end of Late
Cypriote IIC and the tablet from Ras Shamra/Ugarit in the
remains of an archive of a villa in the residential area east
of the palace, destroyed, like the entire town, at the end of
the Late Bronze Age.84 Accordingly, we arrive at a date of
c. 1180 BC as a terminus ante quem for the recording of
81 Breasted 1927: Vol. III, no. 574; Davies 1997: 155; cf. Drews 1993a: 49.
82 Breasted 1927: Vol. III, nos. 588, 601; Davies 1997: 163; cf. Lehmann 1979: 490; Drews 1993a: 49.
83 Widmer 1975: 71, note 23.
84 For the exact location of tablet RS 20.25, see Buchholz 1999: 134-5, Abb. 34 (TCM).
44
these texts.85 That the Enkomi cylinder seal belongs to the
same chronological horizon is indicated by the fact that
some of the persons mentioned in its text also figure in the
texts of the Kalavassos cylinder seal and the tablet from
Ras Shamra/Ugarit.
The relationship between these three texts not only
involves the mention of the same persons, but also entails
the underlying structure of recording.86 Thus, in all three
there can be distinguished basically four types of informa-
tion, (1) heading(s), (2) indications of deliverers, (3) indi-
cations of recipients, and (4) indications of products. The
headings are mostly singled out as such by the locative in
-ti: Umi(a)tisiti “at Amathus” in the texts of the Enkomi
and Kalavassos cylinder seals, and Lamiyaneti kapariti “at
the Lamiyan trade centre” in the text of the tablet from Ras
Shamra/Ugarit.87 Of the deliverers, only the name of the
scribe, who identifies himself by the Luwian personal pro-
noun of the 1st person singular emu or -mu “I”, is pur-
posely put in the nominative – written without its proper
ending -s according to the standards in Linear B and Lu-
wian hieroglyphic at the time. Thus: Pika, tamika Likike -mu “Pi®as, I, trader from Lycia” in the text of the Enkomi
cylinder seal, emu Sanema “I, Sanemas” in the text of the
Kalavassos cylinder seal, and Wesa -mu “I, Wesas” in the
text of the tablet from Ras Shamra/Ugarit. As opposed to
this, the main deliverer next to the scribe is written in the
Luwian dative in -i,88 to stress that the transactions are re-
85 Yon 1992: 120 dates the destruction of Ras Shamra-Ugarit bet-ween 1195 and 1185 BC, but note that her dates of the Egyptian pharaohs are 4 years higher than the ones presented by Kitchen 1989, which are followed here. The destructions in Cyprus at the end of Late Cypriote II, assigned by Karageorghis 1992: 80 to c.1190 BC, are likely to be synchronized with the destruction of Ras Shamra/Ugarit.
86 For a full treatment, see Woudhuizen 1992a: 94-145 and Woudhuizen 1994.
87 This ending corresponds with the Luwian hieroglyphic locative singular in –ti, as attested for the Cekke text, see Woudhuizen 2005: section 1.
88 Bulgarmaden, phrase 10: Muti MASANAWATIti “for the divine mountain Muti”, Bo ça, phrase 4: MASANARUWANTti “to, for Runt”, Karaburun, phrases 8 and 9: Sapi HANTAWATti “for king Sapis”, Bo ça, phrase 2: MASANATARHUNTti “for Tar®unt”, see Hawkins 2000: passim; Çineköy, phrase 10: parnàwai “for the house”, see Teko lu & Lemaire 2000: 988, etc.; also cf. Woud-huizen 2004b.
corded “on behalf” of the person in question: samuri
mane<si>kaasi “on behalf of the Samian, representative of
the Maeonians (?)” in the text of the Enkomi cylinder seal,
Remi taasa wetuti wasaka “on behalf of Remus, governor
of this town” in the text of the Kalavassos seal, and Akami
pini Mali ati pini Apesa “on behalf of Akamas, representa-
tive of Malos and representative of Ephesos” in the text of
the tablet from Ras Shamra/Ugarit.89 If there are more de-
liverers, as in the case of the Enkomi and Kalavassos cyl-
inder seals, these are likewise intended to be in the dative –
even if this case is not always properly indicated by over-
sight or because of sloppiness. The recipients, distin-
guished as such by the fact that they follow the deliverers
after a punctuation mark and/or a transaction term (telu, PI,
etc.), are also rendered in the dative case, either in -ti90 or
in -we91 as in the text of the Enkomi cylinder seal, or also
in -i as in the text of the Kalavassos seal, or exclusively in
-i as in the text of the tablet from Ras Shamra/Ugarit –
with only a few exceptions from oversight or sloppiness.
E.g.: Sanemeti Sikerisikaasi “to Sanemas, representative of
the Shekelesh” and Lemapesiti Talimetu/natewe Sekeriya-
kati “to Lemapesi from Talmitesup’s town in Sangaria” in
the text of the Enkomi cylinder seal, Isimiriti mitisa “to the
servant from Smyrna” and tameki Pese<we>we “to the
Pisidian trader” in the text of the Kalavassos seal, and Isi-
pali “to Isiba‘al” in the text of the tablet from Ras
Shamra/Ugarit. Finally, the indications of products, often
occurring in abbreviation and in combination with num-
bers, so far identifiable appear to have a bearing on the
cloth industry: ketu “cotton”, MA for maru “wool”, PA for
pharweha “cloth”, pupuru “purple (colored cloth)”, RI for
linon “linen”, and SA for sarara “spun flax” – with the ex-
ception of E for elaiwon “(linseed) oil” in the text of the
Enkomi cylinder seal and WA or wane “wine” in the texts
of the Kalavassos cylinder seal and the tablet from Ras
Shamra/Ugarit.
89 For the improvement of our interpretation of this phrase, see section 13, note 530 below.
90 This ending corresponds with the Luwian hieroglyphic dative singular of the pronoun in -ti, see Meriggi 1980: 322-3.
91 This ending corresponds with the Sidetic dative singular in -vaas attested for the form Trata eva “for Tratases” in Sid. no. 3, line 1, see Woudhuizen 1984-5: 124.
45
Enkomi cylinder seal (Inv. no. 19.10)
1. u-mi-a-ti-si-ti˚ “At Amathus.” 2. ya-sa.sa-ne-me-ti/i “(On behalf of) Iasos: to Sanemas, this, 3. te/ma-li-ki-pi-ti/E delivery to Malkipi(ya)s, (linseed) oil” 4. i1-ma-[..].pe-pa-e-ru- “I-ma-??: to Pe-pa-e-ru,5. ti/RI1[/]sa-mu-ri. linen” “On behalf of the Samian: 6. i/ti-pa-pi-ti/PA/ this to Tispapi(ya)s, cloth 7. ke-tu/.PA/e1-ma-pi- (and) cotton,: cloth to Ermapi(ya)s, 8. ti/SA/pi-ka.E/ spun flax” “Pi®as: (linseed) oil 9. sa-ne-me-ti/li-ki-ke(-) to Sanemas” “I, trader from 10. mu/ta-mi-ka.pu-pu- Lycia: purple (colored) cloth 11. ru/u-li-mu-te-we/u- to U(wa)s from Urimu(wa)s’ 12. we/MA1/le(?)-ma1-pe-si- town, wool to Le-ma1-pe-si13. ti/ta-li-me-tu(or na)-te-we from Talmitesup’s town 14. se-ke-ri1-ya-ka-ti ta- in Sangaria” “Trader (from 15. mi-ka.se-wa-ru a- Lycia): (to) lord Akamas, 16. ka-mu a-pe-si-ka-a- representative of Ephesos, 17. si ta-mi-ka.mi-we-tu(or na)- trader (from Lycia): to Mi-we-18. we pa-ma1-ti -ma 2 I a- tu/na and Ba‘am 2 (units of) I”19. ka-i1-ru-tu(or na).wa1-we- “(On behalf of) A-ka-i-ru-tu/na: to20. ru-ti/ya-ru/ri1-ti- Wa1-we-ru, master (?) from the 21. si-te-we/e1-ka-ta-ti town of Rhytiassos (and) to E1-ka-22. pe-lu ka-ta-ri[-te]-ti ta, lord from the town of Gadara; 23. ta-mi-ka.se-wa-ru-ti trader (from Lycia): to the lord 24. ka-ta-ri-te 3 PA ma-ne<-si>- from Gadara, 3 (units of) cloth” 25. ka-a-si sa-mu-ri.te-lu “On behalf of the Samian, representative of the Maeonians 26. sa-ne-me-ti si-ke-ri- (?), delivery to Sanemas, 27. si-ka-a-si sa-mu-ri representative of the Shekelesh” “On behalf of the Samian”
Kalavassos cylinder seal (K-AD 389)
12. u-mi-ti-si-ti sa-mi- “At Amathus, for the Samian 13. ya we-tu-ti.i-le-mi town.” “On behalf of Ilm (he brings) 14. i se-mi/a ne-si- this for Samos, i.e. for the Hittite 15. ri sa-re-ki/[I] SA. from Sarawa: I (and) spun flax.” 16. i-ya/pi-ti(?)[ “These (products) he gives (…) 17. [ ]/a[ (…), i.e. (…:)” 18. i-le-mi/[le(?)]-mu-ne[-ti] “On behalf of Ilm to (the servant from) Lemnos, 1. i-le-mi/i-si-mi-ri-ti on behalf of Ilm to the servant 2. mi[-ti]-sa/i-a 2 I/SA; from Smyrna: these 2 (units of) I
46
(and) spun flax;” 3. re-mi/a-wa/mu1-sa-se “On behalf of Remus he brings 4. wa-ne/e-we1/a-ti-mi-we1 divine wine in veneration to 5. mu1-sa/wa-si-ri-ti1 the goddess Artemis” 6. e-mu sa-ne-ma/ya-sa-ti “I, Sanemas, to Iasos, 7. re-mi/ta-a-sa/we[-tu]-ti on behalf of Remus, governor of 8. wa-sa-ka/i-si-mi-ri[-ti] this town, to Smyrna: 9. I SA.wa-sa-ka I (and) spun flax.”10. e-pe[-se]/pi-mi-se/i2 “(On behalf of) the governor himself being given 11. ta-me-ki/pe-se-we1 PA this to the Pisidian trader: cloth”
Tablet RS 20.25 from Ras Shamra/Ugarit Side A
1. a-ka-mi/pi-ni/ma-li “On behalf of Akamas, representative of Malos 2. a-ti pi-ni/a-pe-sa PI. and representative of Ephesos, he (= Wasas) gives 3. i-si1-pa-li. to Isiba‘al; 4. a-we1-ri/ma-ka-pi-ti1 (at) the entrepôt of the frontier outpost 5. a-ta-ta-ne/pi-ni/ta-si-ri to Adadanu, representative of tasiri;6. i-si-pa-ti/pi-ni/u-ri2-ka-si1 to Sipat, representative of urikasi;7. pi-ni/u-wa1-ri. to the representative of the frontier outpost.” 8. a wa1-sa PI/pi-ni/ka-pi-li “Wasas, representative of the municipal 9. wa1-ta-ri.i-li-si-ri/wa1-si-ri-ti1 cloth industry, gives in veneration to the Syrian god (?); 10. ta-pa-ri/pi-ni/i-li-ta-ma-ne to Tabaris, representative of ilitamane;11. a-we-si-ri/pi-ni/me-ni-wa-ri to Awesiri, representative of meniwari.”
Side B 12. la-mi-ya-ne-ti/ka-pa-ri-ti1 “At the Lamiyan trade centre: 13. we-sa -mu PI I, Wesas, give 14. i-li-ma-li-ki/pi-ni/la-mi-ya-ti to Ilimalik, representative of Lamiya; 15. a-ka-mi PI/pi-ni/ma-ki on behalf of Akamas I give to 16. u-we1-ta-sa-li/ Uwatasalis, representative of the customs collector;
a-mu PI ma-sa-we-li I give to Masawalis 17. a-pe-mu -ma/ZITI-si/ma-ki and Apamuwas, officers (?) of the customs collector:
3 PA NE WA1 3 (units of) cloth, NE (and) wine; 18. ya-me-ri/pi-ni/ma-ki to Yameri, representative of the customs collector; 19. sa-si1-ma-li-ki/ME 2 NE/PA to Sasimalik: 2 (units of) ME, NE (and) cloth.”
The fragmentarily preserved tablet 1687 from Enkomi, in-scribed in the so-called Cypro-Minoan II script or Linear D, appears to contain correspondence dealing with a naval battle in the waters of southwest Asia Minor,92 and hence may plausibly be assigned to the same period as the Uga ritic correspondence given below. The tablet is found in
92 Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 98-110; Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 64, note 39; Woudhuizen 1992a: 117.
the foundation course of a hearth outside its proper context in an Enkomi IIIA (= Late Cypriote IIIA) level, postdating the period of upheavals of the Sea Peoples.93
93 Dikaios 1971: 885; Pl. 317.
47
Tablet 1687 from Enkomi
Side A
(15) a-ka-mu[/]e-le-ki/nu-ka-ru-ra/ “Akamas of Ilion, the great enemy, smote me.” tu-pa-ta -mu
Note that the phonetic reading of lúKUR2.ME in Ugaritic is nakr “enemies”, the root of which occurs here in variant nukar-characterized by a/u-vowel change in combination with a suffixed form of Luwian ura- “great”.
Ugaritic
The advent of the Sea Peoples in the eastern Mediterranean waters is vividly described in four Ugaritic letters, three of which (RS L 1, RS 20.238, RS 20.18) belong to the so-called Rap’anu-archive, named after an Ugaritic dignitary living in the residential area east of the palace (Lehmann 1979: 53; 59; cf. von Reden 1992: 266, Fig. 32), whereas one (RS 34.129) originates from an archive which came to light as a result of military defense works in the south of the city (Lehmann 1979: 481; Lehmann 1985: 32, note 64). Although the destruction of Ras Shamra/Ugarit c. 1180 BC only serves as a terminus ante quem for both archives, it
seems clear from the contents that all four letters actually have a bearing on the city’s last days.
The transcription of the texts, which varies in the dif-ferent publications, has been systematized and improved by the Assyriologist Frans A.M. Wiggermann (letter d.d. 27 December 2003).
Contrary to the sequence of their publication, I belief, with Hoftijzer & van Soldt (1998: 343), that letter RS L 1 precedes RS 20.238, because in the latter an answer is given to the question from the former where the troops and the chariotry of the king of Ugarit are stationed.
RS 34.12994
1. um-ma dUTU-ši-m[a] “Thus says His Majesty, the LUGAL GAL-ú Great King. a-na lúsà-ki-in-ni Speak to the Prefect: qí-bi-ma ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
5. a-n[u]-um-ma it-tu-ka Now, (there) with you, the LUG[AL] EN-ka se-®e-er king your lord is (still too) mi-i[m-m]a la-a i-de young. He knows nothing. ù a-na-ku dUTU-ši And I, His Majesty, had a-na UGU-® i-šu um-da-e-ra-šu issued him an order
10. aš-šum mib-na-du-šu concerning Ibnadušu, ša LU2.MEŠ kur.uruši-ka-la-iu-ú whom the people from
i[s]-bu-tu-šu-ú-ni Šikala – who live on ša i-na UGU-® i gišMA2.ME[Š] ships – had abducted.
us-bu-ú-ni¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
15. a-nu-um-ma n[i-i]r-ga-i-li Herewith I send Nirga’ili,it-tu-ia who is kartappu with me, to lúkar-tap-pu you.
94 Malbran-Labat 1991: 38-9; cf. Dietrich & Loretz 1978.
48
a-na UGU-® i-ka um-da-e-ra-ku 20. ù at-ta mib-na-du-šu And you, send Ibnadušu,
ša LU2.MEŠ kur.uruši-ka-la-ú whom the people from Šikalais-bu-tu-šu-ni had abducted, to me. a-na UGU-® i-iašu-up-ra-šu
25. a-ma-te ša kur.uruši-ki-la I will question him about the a-ša-al-šu land Šikala,ù a-na ku-ta-li-šu and afterwards he may leave a-na kur.uruu-ga-ri-ta for Ugarit again.” i-tu-ur-ra
30. i-ta-la-ka ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
(three erased lines)
RS L 195
1. u[m-m]a LUGAL-ma “Thus says the king [of a-na mam-mu-ra-pí Alashiya]. Speak to LUGAL kurú-ga-rít Ammurapi, king of Ugarit: qí-bi-ma¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
5. lu-ú š[u]l-mu a-na UGU-® i-ka May you be well! May the DINGIR-nu a-na šul-ma-ni gods keep you in good health! PAP-ru-ka¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ša tàš-pu-ra ma-a gišMA2.MEŠKUR2 Concerning what you wrote to i-na ŠA3 A.AB.BA me: “They have spotted
10. i-ta-am-ru-m[a] enemy ships at sea”; ù šúm-ma ki-it-tu if they have indeed spotted gišMA2.MEŠ i-ta-am-ru ships, make yourself as ù lu dú-nu-na[-ta] strong as possible.dan-níš i-na-an-n[a] Now, where are your own
15. at-tu-ka [(x-x)] troops (and) chariotry ERIN2.MEŠ-ka gišGIGIR.M[EŠ-ka] stationed? a-ia-ka-ma-aaš-bu ul it-ta-ka-ma-a Are they not stationed with aš-bu i-i[a]-nu-um-ma-a you? If not, who will deliver
20. i-na ® i?!-re-et lúKUR you from the enemy forces?ma-am-ma ú-nam-maš-ka Surround your towns with URU.DIDLI.HI.A-ka BAD3.MEŠ walls;li-i-miERIN2.MEŠ ù gišGIGIR.MEŠ bring troops and chariotry
25. i-na ŠA3 šu-ri-ib inside. (Then) wait at fullpa-ni lúKUR dú-gu5-ul strength for the enemy.”
95 Nougayrol 1968: 83-9.
49
ù dú-nu-na-tadan-n횯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
RS 20.238
1. a-na LUGAL kura-la-ši-ia “Speak to the king ofa-bi- ia qí-bi-ma Alashiya, my father: Thus um-ma LUGAL kuru-ga-ri-it says the king of Ugarit, DUMU-ka-ma your son. ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
5. a-na GIR3.MEŠ a-bi-ia a[m-qu]t I fall at the feet of my father. a-na UGU-® i a-bi-ia lu-ú š[u]l-m[u May my father be well! a-na E2.HI.A-ka NITLAM4.MEŠ-k[a] May your estates, your ERIN2-ka consorts, your troops,a-na gab-bi [m]im-mu-ú everything that belongs to the ša LUGAL kura-la-ši-i[a] king of Alashiya, my father,
10. a-bi- ia d[a]n-níš dan-níš be very, very well! lu-ú šul-m[u] ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯a-bi a-nu-ma gišMA2.MEŠ My father, now enemy ships ša lú.mešKUR2 il-l[a]-ka are coming (and) they burn [U]RU.HI.A-ia i-na IZI : i-ša-ti down my towns with fire.
15. i-ša-ri-ip They have done unseemly ù a-ma-at things in the land![la]-a ba-ni-ta[i-n]a ŠA3-bi KUR i-te-e[p]-šúa-bu-ia ú-ul i-[d]e My father is not aware of the
20. ki-i gab-bu ERIN2.MEŠ E[N] fact that all the troops of my a-bi-ia father’s overlord arei-na kur®a-at-ti stationed in Hatti and that allaš-bu ù gab-bu gišMA2.MEŠ-[ i]a my ships are stationed in i-na ku[r]lu-uk-ka-a Lukk . They still have not aš-bu [a-d]i-ni ul ik-šu-da-ni arrived and the country is lying like that!
25. ù KUR-[t]u4 ka-am-ma na-da-at My father should know thesea-bu-ia a-ma-at an-ni-ta5 things.[l]u-ú i-de i-na-an-na Now, the seven enemy 7 gišMA2.MEŠ ša lú.mešKUR2 ships that are approaching [š]a il-la-ka-a[n]-ni have done evil things to us.
30. ù a-ma-at maš-ik-ta it-ep-šu-na-a-šii-na-an-na šum-ma gišMA2.[MEŠ] Now then, if there are any ša lú.mešKUR2 ša-na-t[u4] other enemy ships send me a i-ba-aš-ši-mi †é-m[a] report somehow, so that I will
35. [a-i]a-ka-am-ma šu-up-r[a]-ni know.”ù lu-ú i-de4
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
50
RS 20.18
1. um-ma me-šu-wa-ra “Thus says Eshuwara, the lúMAŠKIM GAL ša kura-la-ši-a chief prefect of Alashiya.
a-na LUGAL kurú-ga-ri-it Speak to the king of Ugarit:
qí-bi-ma
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
5 a-na ku-a-ša KUR-t[i]-ka4-ma May you and your country be
lu-ú šul-mu well.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
aš-šum a-ba-te.ME ša lúKUR2.ME As for the matter concerning
al-lu-ti DUMU.ME KUR-ti-ka4 those enemies: (it was) the gišMA2.ME-ka4-ma people from your country (and) your own ships (who)
10. a-ba-ta an-ni-ta did this!
i-te-ep-šu-ni
ù i-te-eq-ta an-nu-ti And (it was) the people
DUMU.MEŠ KUR-ti-ka4 i-[t]e-ep-šu from your country (who) committed these transgres-
sion(s).
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
ù it-ti-ia-ma So do not be angry with me!
15. lu la te-ze-em-me
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
ù i-na-an-na But now, (the) twenty enemy
20 gišMA2.MEŠ ša lúKUR2.ME ships – even before they
i-na HUR.S[A]G.ME la-a-ma would reach the mountain
it-ta[l-ka]-ni-me (shore) – have not stayed
20. ù l[a] it-ta-za-za around, but have quickly ù ®a-mut-ta moved on, and where they
it-ta-mu-uš-me have pitched camp we do not
ù a-šar it-ta-dú-ú know.
la ni-i-de4-me
25. aš-šum ud-dá-i-ka4 I am writing to you to inform
aš-šum na-sa-ri-ka4 and protect you. Be aware!”
al-tap-ra-ku
lu-ú ti-i-de4-me¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Translation of all four Ugaritic texts according to Hoftijzer & van Soldt 1998: 343-4
Egyptian
Our main source on the upheavals of the Sea Peoples is Ramesses III’s mortuary tempel at Medinet Habu,96 which
96 i.e. Thebes.
offers depictions of the battles and their description in text. However, the monument commemorates not only the wars with the Sea Peoples from years 5 and 8 of Ramesses III’s reign (= 1179 BC and 1176 BC), but also preceding ones against the Nubians (considered to be fictitious) and the
51
Libyans (year 5) as well as successive ones against the Libyans (year 11), again, and the Asiatics (considered to be fictitious).97 The depictions of the land- and sea battle against the Sea Peoples are located central on the outer east side of the monument (nos. 31 and 37-9), whereas the texts describing the wars of year 5 and year 8 are situated on the inner west side of court 2 (nos. 27-8) and inner north side of court 1 (nos. 44 and 46), respectively. Yet another text referring to a military engagement with Sea Peoples – this time in year 12 –, the so-called Südstele, can be found on the outer south side of the temple (no. 107) (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4. Plan of Ramesses III’s temple at Medinet Habu, Thebes (af-
ter Cifola 1991: 12).
The scenes of the land- and sea battles are embedded in a pictorial narrative, which starts with the religious (1. command of the god, 2. pharaoh leaves the temple) and military (1. equipping the troops, 2. king’s departure, 3. march) preparations and ends with the military (1. seizure of prisoners, 2. celebration of victory, 3. return in triumph) and religious (presentation of prisoners to the god) out-come. The central military action in form of the land- and sea battle is broken in two by a lion hunt in the middle,
97 Widmer 1975: 68.
whereas this cluster is followed by a town siege.98
The information on the wars with the Sea Peoples of Ramesses III’s Medinet Habu memorial is supplemented by the text of the Stele from Deir el Medineh and the Pa-pyrus Harris.
Medinet Habu
Inscription of year 5 (= 1179 BC)
“The northern countries quivered in their bodies, namely the Peleset, Tjek[er, …]. They were cut off <from> their land, coming, their spirit broken. They were thr-warriors on land; another (group) was on the sea. Those who came on [land were overthrown and slaughtered]; Amon-Re was after them, destroying them. They that entered the Nile mouths were like birds ensnared in the net (…). Their hearts are re-moved, taken away, no longer in their bodies. Their leaders were carried off and slain; they were cast down and made into pinioned ones (…).”99
Inscription of year 8 (= 1176 BC)
“As for the foreign countries, they made a conspiracy in their isles. Removed and scattered in the fray were the lands at one time. No land could stand before their arms, from Hatti, Kodi, Karkemis, Yereth [= Arzawa], and Yeres [= Alasiya] on, (but they were) cut off at (one time). A camp (was set up) in one place in Amor. They desolated its people, and its land was like that which has never come into being. They were coming, while the flame was prepared before them, forward toward Egypt. Their confederation was the Peleset, Tjeker, Shekelesh, Denye(n), and Wesh-esh, lands united. They laid their hands upon the lands to the (very) circuit of the earth, their hearts confident and trusting ‘our plans will succeed!’
Now the heart of this god, the Lord of the Gods, was prepared, ready to ensnare them like birds. He made my strength to exist, while my plans succeed. (…). I organized my frontier in Zahi [= southern Le-vant], prepared before them, (to wit,) the princes, the commanders of the garrisons, and the Mariannu [= charioteers]. I caused the Nile mouth to be prepared like a strong wall with warships, galleys, and coast-ers, equipped, for they were manned completely from bow to stern with valiant warriors, with their weap-ons; the militia consisting of every picked man of Egypt, were like lions roaring upon the mountain tops. The chariotry consisted of runners, of picked men, of every good and capable chariot-warrior. Their horses were quivering in every part of their bodies, ready to crush the countries under their hoofs.
98 Cifola 1991: 15-6.
99 Edgerton & Wilson 1936: 30; cf. Breasted 1927: Vol. IV, no. 44; Pritchard 1969: 263; Strobel 1976: 8; Peden 1994: 17.
52
I was the valiant Montu [= war-god], standing fast at their head, so that they might gaze upon the capturing of my two hands; King of Upper and Lower Egypt: Usermare-Meriamon; Son of Re: Ramses III.
As for those who reached my frontier, their seed is not, their heart and soul are finished forever and ever. As for those who came forward together on the sea, the full flame was in front of them at the Nile mouths, while a stockade of lances surrounded them on the shore, (so that they were) dragged (ashore), hemmed in, prostrated on the beach, slain, and made into heaps from tail to head. Their ships and their goods were as if fallen into the water.
I made the lands turn back from mentioning Egypt; for when they pronounce my name in their land, then they are burned up. Since I have sat upon the throne of Harakhte [= manifestation of Horus] and the Great Enchantress [= uraeus] was fixed upon my head like Re, I have not let the countries behold the frontiers of Egypt, to boast thereof to the Nine Bows [= Egypts traditional enemies]. I have taken away their land, their frontiers being added to mine. Their chiefs and their tribespeople are mine with praise, for I am upon the ways of the plans of the All-Lord, my august, divine father, the Lord of Gods.”100
Text to the scene of the land battle (Fig. 5)
“His majesty sets out for Zahi like unto Montu, to crush every country that violates his frontier. His troops are like bulls ready on the field of battle; his horses are like falcons in the midst of small birds be-fore the Nine Bows, bearing victory. Amon, his au-gust father, is a shield for him; King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Ruler of the Nine Bows, Lord of the Two Lands (…).”101
Text to the scene of the sea battle (Fig. 6)
“Now the northern countries, which were in their isles, were quivering in their bodies. They penetrated the channels of the Nile mouths. Their nostrils have ceased (to function, so that) their desire is <to> breathe the breath. His majesty is gone forth like a whirlwind against them, fighting on the battle field like a runner. The dread of him and the terror of him have entered in their bodies; (they are) capsized and overwhelmed in their places. Their hearts are taken away; their soul is flown away. Their weapons are scattered in the sea. His arrow pierces him whom he has wished among them, while the fugitive is become one fallen into the water. His majesty is like an en-raged lion, attacking his assailant with his pawns; plundering on his right hand and powerful on his left hand, like Set[h] destroying the serpent ‘Evil of
100 Edgerton & Wilson 1936: 53-6; cf. Breasted 1927: Vol. IV, no. 64; Pritchard 1969: 262-3; Strobel 1976: 14; Drews 1993a: 51; Peden 1994: 29-31.
101 Edgerton & Wilson 1936: 38; cf. Pritchard 1969: 263.
Character’. It is Amon-Re who has overthrown for him the lands and has crushed for him every land un-der his feet; King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands: Usermare-Meriamon.”102
Depicted prisoners of war (Fig. 7):1. chief of Hatti, 2. chief of Amor, 3. chieftain of the foe of the Tjeker, 4. Sherden of the sea, 5. chieftain of the foe Sha[su], 6. Teresh of the sea, 7. chieftain of the Pe(leset).103
Südstele, year 12 (= 1172 BC). Mention of Tjeker, Peleset, Denyen, Weshesh and Shekelesh.104
Stele from Deir el Medineh
Pharaoh boasts of having defeated Peleset and Teresh who attacked Egypt.105
Papyrus Harris
“I extended all the boundaries of Egypt: I overthrew those who invaded them from (or: in) their lands. I slew the Denyen in (= who are in) their isles, the Tjeker and the Peleset were made ashes. The Sherdenand the Weshesh of the sea, they were made as those that exist not, taken captive at one time, brought as captives to Egypt, like the sand of the shore. I settled them in strongholds, bound in my name. Numerous were their classes like hundred-thousands. I taxed them all, in clothing and grain from the storehouses and granaries each year.” 106
The Wenamon story, as preserved on the Golenischeff papyrus, informs us about the period after the wars with the Sea Peoples, in which Egypt can no longer exert its power in its former dependencies along the coastal region of the Levant.
102 Edgerton & Wilson 1936: 41-2; cf. Pritchard 1963: 263.
103 Strobel 1976: 18; Sandars 1980: 106-7, afb. 68.
104 Kitchen 1983: no. 73, 9 f.; cf. Lehmann 1985: 23-4.
105 Lepsius 1900: Vol. III, 218c; Drews 1993a: 51.
106 Breasted 1927: Vol. IV, no. 403; Strobel 1976: 18.
53
Fig. 5. Land battle scene of Medinet Habu (from Oren 2000: 96, Fig. 5.5).
Fig. 6. Sea battle scene of Medinet Habu (from Oren 2000: 98, Fig. 5.6).
Fig. 7. Prisoners of war: (a) Hittite, (b) Amorite, (c) Tjeker, (d) Sherden, (e) Shasu, and (f) Teresh (from Nibbi 1975: Pl. I).
54
Golenischeff papyrus
“Year 5, 4th month of the 3rd season, day 16 [= 23rd year of Ramesses XI (1099-1069 BC)]: the day on which Wen-Amon, the Senior of the Forecourt of the House of Amon, [Lord of the Thrones] of the Two Lands, set out to fetch the woodwork for the great and august barque of Amon-Re, King of Gods, which is on [the River and which is named:] “User-her-Amon.” On the day when I reached Tanis, the place [where Ne-su-Ba-neb]-Ded and Ta-net-Amon were, I gave them the letters of Amon-Re, King of the Gods, and they had them read in their presence. And they said: “Yes, I will do as Amon-Re, King of the Gods, our [lord], has said!” I spent up to the 4th month of the 3rd season in Tanis. And Ne-su-Ba-neb-Ded and Ta-net-Amon sent me off with the ship captain Mengebet, and I embarked on the great Syrian sea in the 1st month of the 3rd sea-son, day 1. I reached Dor, a town of the Tjeker, and Beder, its prince, had 50 loaves of bread, one jug of wine, and one leg of beef brought to me. And a man of my ship ran away and stole one [vessel] of gold, amounting to 5 de-ben, four jars of silver, amounting to 20 deben, and a sack of 11 deben of silver. [Total of what] he [stole]: 5 deben of gold and 31 deben of silver. I got up in the morning, and I went to the place where the Prince was, and I said to him: “I have been robbed in your harbor. Now you are the prince of this land, and you are its investigator who should look for my silver. Now about this silver – it belongs to Amon-Re, King of the Gods, the lord of the lands; it belongs to you; it be-longs to Ne-su-Ba-neb-Ded; it belongs to Heri-Hor, my lord, and the other great men of Egypt! It belongs to you; it belongs to Weret; it belongs to Mekmer; it be-longs to Zakar-Baal, the Prince of Byblos!” And he said to me: “Whether you are important or whether you are eminent – look here, I do not recognize this accusation which you have made to me! Suppose it had been a thief who belonged to my land who went on your boat and stole your silver, I should have repaid it to you from my treasury, until they had found this thief of yours – whoever he may be. Now about the thief who robbed you – he belongs to you! He belongs to your ship! Spend a few days visiting me, so that I may look for him.” I spent nine days moored (in) his harbor, and I went (to) call on him, and I said to him: “Look, you have not found my silver. [Just let] me [go] with the ship cap-tains and with those who go (to) sea!” But he said to me: “Be quiet! (…).” (…) I went out of Tyre at the break of dawn (…). Za-kar-Baal, the prince of Byblos, (…) ship. I found 30 deben of silver in it, and I seized upon it. [And I said to the Tjeker: “I have seized upon] your silver, and it will stay with me [until] you find [my silver or the thief] who stole it! Even though you have not stolen, I shall take it. But as for you, (…).” So they went away, and I joined my triumph [in] a tent (on) the shore of the [sea], (in) the harbor of Byblos. And [I hid] Amon-of-the-Road, and I put his property inside him.
And the [Prince] of Byblos sent to me, saying: “Get [out of my] harbor!” And I sent to him, saying: “Where should [I go to]? (…) If [you have a ship] to carry me, have me taken to Egypt again!” So I spent twenty-nine days in his [harbor, while] he [spent] the time sending to me every day to say: “Get out (of) my harbor!” Now while he was making offering to his gods, the god seized one of his youths and made him possessed. And he said to him: “Bring up [the] god! Bring the messen-ger who is carrying him! Amon is the one who sent him out! He is the one who made him come!” And while the possessed (youth) was having his frenzy on this night, I had (already) found a ship headed for Egypt and had loaded everything that I had into it. While I was watch-ing for the darkness, thinking that when I descended I would load the god (also), so that no other eye might see him, the harbor master came to me, saying: “Wait until morning – so says the Prince.” So I said to him: “Aren’t you the one who spend the time coming to me every day to say: ‘Get out (of) my harbor’? Aren’t you saying ‘Wait’ tonight in order to let the ship which I have found get away – and (then) you will come again (to) say: ‘Go away!’?” So he went and told it to the Prince. And the Prince sent to the captain of the ship to say: “Wait until morning – so says the Prince!” When morning came, he sent and brought me up, but the god stayed in the tent where he was, (on) the shore of the sea. And I found him sitting (in) his upper room, with his back turned to a window, so that the waves of the great Syrian sea broke against the back of his head. So I said to him: “May Amon favor you!” But he said to me “How long, up to today, since you came from the place where Amon is?” So I said to him: “Five months and one day up to now.” And he said to me: “Well, you’re truthful! Where is the letter of Amon which (should be) in your hand? Where is the dispatch of the High Priest of Amon which (should be) in your hand?” And I told him: “I gave them to Ne-su-Ba-neb-Ded and Ta-net-Amon.” And he was very, very angry, and he said to me: “Now see – neither letters nor dispatches are in your hand! Where is the cedar ship which Ne-su-Ba-neb-Ded gave to you? Where is its Syrian crew? Didn’t he turn you over to this foreign ship captain to have him kill you and throw you into the sea? (Then) with whom would they have looked for the god? And you too – with whom would they have looked for you too?” So he spoke to me. But I said to him: “Wasn’t it an Egyptian ship? Now it is Egyptian crews which sail under Ne-su-Ba-neb-Ded! He has no Syrian crews.” And he said to me: “Aren’t there twenty ships here in my harbor which are in commercial relations with Ne-su-Ba-neb-Ded? As to Sidon, the other (place) which you have passed, aren’t there fifty more ships there which are in commercial re-lations with Werket-El, and which are drawn up to his house?” And I was silent in this great time. And he answered and said to me: “On what business have you come?” So I told him: “I have come after the woodwork for the great and august barque of Amon-Re, King of the Gods. Your father did (it), your grandfather did (it), and you will do it too!” So I spoke to him. But
55
he said to me: “To be sure, they did it! And if you give me (something) for doing it, I will do it! Why, when my people carried out this commission, Pharaoh – life, prosperity, health! – sent six ships loaded with Egyp-tian goods, and they unloaded them into their store-houses! You – what is it that you’re bringing me – me also?” And he had the journal rolls of his fathers brought, and he had them read out in my presence, and they found a thousand deben and all kind of things in his scrolls. So he said to me: “If the ruler of Egypt were the lord of mine, and I were his servant also, he would not have to send silver and gold, saying: ‘Carry out the commission of Amon!’ There would be no carrying of a royal-gift, such as they used to do for my father. As for me – me also – I am not your servant! I am not the servant of him who sent you either! If I cry out to the Lebanon, the heavens open up, and the logs are here lying (on) the shore of the sea! Give me the sails which you have brought to carry your ships which would hold the logs for (Egypt)! Give me the ropes [which] you have brought [to lash the cedar] logs which I am to cut down to make you (…) which I shall make for you (as) the sails of your boats, and the spars will be (too) heavy and will break, and you will die in the middle of the sea! See, Amon made thunder in the sky when he put Seth near him. Now when Amon founded all lands, in founding them he founded first the land of Egypt, from which you come; for craftsmanship came out of it, to reach the place where I am, and learning came out of it, to reach the place where I am. What are these silly trips which they have had you make?” And I said to him: “(That’s) not true! What I am on are no ‘silly trips’ at all! There is no ship upon the River which does not belong to Amon! The sea is his, and the Lebanon is his, of which you say: ‘It is mine!’ It forms the nursery for User-het-Amon, the lord of [every] ship! Why, he spoke – Amon-Re, King of the Gods – and said to Heri-Hor, my master: ‘Send me forth!’ So he had me come, carrying this great god. But see, you have made this great god spend these twenty-nine days moored (in) your harbor, although you did not know (it). Isn’t he here? Isn’t he the (same) as he was? You are stationed (here) to carry on the commerce of the Li-banon with Amon, its lord. As for your saying that the former kings sent silver and gold – suppose that they had life and health; (then) they would not have had such things sent! (But) they had such things sent to your fathers in place of life and health! Now as for Amon-Re, King of the Gods – he is the lord of this life and health, and he was the lord of your fathers. They spent their lifetimes making offering to Amon. And you also – you are the servant of Amon! If you say to Amon: ‘Yes, I will do (it)!’ and you carry out his com-mission, you will live, you will be prosperous, you will be healthy, and you will be good to your entire land and your people! (But) don’t wish for yourself anything be-longing to Amon-Re, (King of) the Gods. Why, a lion wants his own property! Have your secretary brought to me, say that I may send him to Ne-su-Ba-neb-Ded and
Ta-net-Amon, the officers whom Amon put in the north of his land, and they will have all kinds of things sent. I shall send him to them to say: ‘Let it be brought until I shall go (back again) to the south, and I shall (then) have every bit of the debt still (due to you) brought to you.’” So I spoke to him. So he entrusted my letter to his messenger, and he loaded in the keel, the bow-post, the stern-post, along with four other hewn timbers – seven in all – and he had them taken to Egypt. And in the first month of the second season his messenger who had gone to Egypt came back to me in Syria. And Ne-su-Ba-neb-Ded and Ta-net-Amon sent: 4 jars and 1 kak-men of gold; 5 jars of silver; 10 pieces of clothing in royal linen; 10 kherdof good Upper Egyptian linen; 500 (rolls of) finished papyrus; 500 cowhides; 500 ropes; 20 sacks of lentils; 30 baskets of fish. And she [= Ta-net-Amon] sent to me (personally): 5 pieces of clothing in good Upper Egyp-tian linen; 5 kherd of good Upper Egyptian linen; 1 sack of lentils; and 5 baskets of fish. And the Prince was glad, and he detailed three hundred men and three hundred cattle, and he put supervisors at their head, to have them cut down the timber. So they cut them down, and they spent the second season lying there.In the third month of the third season they dragged them (to) the shore of the sea, and the Prince came out and stood by them. And he sent to me, saying: “Come!” Now when I presented myself near him, the shadow of his lotus-blossom fell upon me. And Pen-Amon, a but-ler who belonged to him, cut me off, saying: “The shadow of Pharaoh – life, prosperity, health! – your lord, has fallen on you!” But he [= Zakar-Baal] was an-gry at him, saying: “Let him alone!” So I presented myself near him, and he answered and said to me: “See, the commission which my fathers car-ried out formerly, I have carried out (also), even though you have not done for me what your fathers would have done for me, and you too (should have done)! See, the last of your woodwork has arrived and is lying (here). Do as I wish, and come to load it in – for aren’t they going to give it to you? Don’t come to look at the terror of the sea! If you look at the terror of the sea, you will see my own (too)! Why, I have not done to you what was done to the messengers of Kha-em-Waset, when they spent seventeen years in this land – they died (where) they were!” And he said to his butler: “Take him and show him their tomb in which they are lying.” But I said to him: “Don’t show it to me! As for Kha-em-Waset – they were men who he sent to you as mes-sengers and he was a man himself. You do not have one of his messengers (here in me), when you say: ‘Go and see your companions!’ Now, shouldn’t you rejoice and have a stela [made] for yourself and say on it: ‘Amon-Re, King of the Gods, sent to me Amon-of-the-Road, his messenger – [life], prosperity, health! – and Wen-Amon, his human messenger, after the woodwork for the great and august barque of Amon-Re, King of the Gods, I cut it down. I loaded it in. I provided it (with) my ships and my crews. I caused them to reach Egypt,
56
in order to ask fifty years of life from Amon for myself, over and above my fate.’ And it shall come to pass that, after another time, a messenger may come from the land of Egypt who knows writing, and he may read your name on the stela. And you will receive water (in) the West, like the gods who are here!” And he said to me: “This which you have said to me is a great testimony of words!” So I said to him: “As for the many things which you have said to me, if I reach the place where the High Priest of Amon is and he sees how you have (carried out this) commission, it is your (carrying out of this) commission (which) will draw outsomething for you.” And I went (to) the shore of the sea, to the place where the timber was lying, and I spied eleven ships belong-ing to the Tjeker coming in from the sea, in order to say: “Arrest him! Don’t let a ship of his (go) to the land of Egypt!” Then I sat down and wept. And the letter scribe of the Prince came out to me, and he said to me: “What is the matter with you?” And I said to him: “Ha-ven’t you seen the birds go down to Egypt a second time? Look at them – how they travel to the cool pools! (But) how long shall I be left here! Now don’t you see those who are coming to arrest me?” So he went and told it to the Prince. And the Prince be-gan to weep because of the words which were said to him, for they were painful. And he sent out to me his letter scribe, and he brought to me two jugs of wine and one ram. And he sent to me Ta-net-Not, an Egyptian singer who was with him, saying: “Sing to him! Don’t let his heart take on cares!” And he sent to me, say: “Eat and drink! Don’t let your heart take on cares, for tomorrow you shall hear whatever I have to say.” When morning came, he had his assembly summoned and he stood in their midst, and he said to the Tjeker:“What have you come (for)?” And they said to him:
“We have come after the blasted ships which you are sending to Egypt with our opponents!” But he said to them: “I cannot arrest the messenger of Amon inside my land. Let me send him away, and you go after him to arrest him.” So he loaded me in, and he sent me away from there at the harbor of the sea. And the wind cast me on the land of Alashiya [= Cyprus]. And they of the town came out against me to kill me, but I forced my way through them to the place where Heteb, the princess of the town, was. I met her as she was going out of one house of hers and going into another of hers. So I greeted her, and I said to the people who were standing near her: “Isn’t there one of you who under-stands Egyptian?” And one of them said: “I understand (it).” So I said to him: “Tell my lady that I have heard, as far away as Thebes, the place where Amon is, that injustice is done in every town but justice is done in the land of Alashiya. Yet injustice is done here every day!” And she said: “Why, what do you (mean) by saying it?” So I told her: “If the sea is stormy and the wind casts me on the land where you are, you should not let them take me in charge to kill me. For I am a messen-ger of Amon. Look here – as for me, they will search for me all the time! As to the crew of the Prince of By-blos which they are bent on killing, won’t its lord find ten crews of yours, and he also kills them?” So she had the people summoned, and they stood (there). And she said to me: “Spend the night (…).” (…)”
At this point the papyrus breaks off. Since the tale is told in the first person, it is fair to assume that Wenamon returned to Egypt to tell his story, in some measure of safety or success (Pritchard 1969: 25-9).
El-Amarna Ramesses II Merneptah Ramesses III
Lukka x x x
Sherden x x x x
Shekelesh x x
Teresh x x
Ekwesh x
Denye(n) x
Tjeker x
Peleset x
Weshesh x
Table 1. Overview of the mention of the Sea Peoples in the various Egyptian sources from the Late Bronze Age.
57
6. LUKKA AND THE LUKKA LANDS
Since the time of Emmanuel de Rougé, who wrote in 1867, the Lukka have straightforwardly been identified with the Lycians.107 The latter are known from Homeros onwards to inhabit the valley of the Xanthos river and its immediate surroundings in Anatolia.108 As to the precise habitat of their equivalents in Hittite texts, Trevor Bryce has put for-ward two specific theses, namely (1) Lycaonia to the east and (2) Caria to the west of classical Lycia. Of these two theses, the first one is primarily based on the fact that in a fragment of Hattusilis III’s (1264-1239 BC) annals, Keil-schrifturkunden aus Boghazköy (= KUB) XXI 6a, the Lukka lands (KUR.KURMEŠ URULuqqa) appear in a para-graph preceding one on military campaigns against coun-tries like Walma, San®ata, and Walwara known from the border description of the province of Tar®untassa – a Hit-tite province situated to the east of (the) Lukka (lands).109
The second thesis takes as its starting point that in the so-called Tawagalawas-letter (KUB XIV 3), probably from the reign of Muwatallis II (1295-1271 BC),110 people from Lukka (LUMEŠ URULuqqa) are mentioned directly follow-ing the destruction of Attarima. In the same letter Attarima is associated with Iyalanda, which for its association with Atriya must be located close to Millawanda (or Milawata). If Millawanda (or Milawata) may be identified with classi-cal Miletos (as is commonly asserted by now), it follows according to this line of reasoning that people from Lukka must be situated in its immediate Carian hinterland.111
What strikes us about these suggestions is that precisely the region of the Xanthos valley and its immediate sur-roundings in the middle are left out – a situation which, for the lack of remains of Late Bronze Age settlements here, appears to be neatly reflected in the archaeological record (but as we will see deceitfully so).112
Bryce makes an exception, though, for the Lycian
107 De Rougé 1867: 39.
108 Bryce 1986: 13 “There can be little doubt that for Homer Ly-cia and the Xanthos valley were one and the same”.
109 Bryce 1974: 397 (with reference to Cornelius); Bryce 1992: 121-3; cf. Otten 1988: 37-8.
110 Smit 1990-1 ; Gurney 1990.
111 Bryce 1974: 398-403; Bryce 1992: 123-6.
112 Bryce 1974: 130; cf. Keen 1998: 214.
coast. This seems to have formed part of Lukka according to the combined evidence of El-Amarna text no. 38 and RS 20.238 from Ras Shamra/Ugarit.113 Of these texts, the first one bears reference to piratical raids on Alasiya (= Cyprus) and apparently on the Egyptian coast by the people of the land of Lukki, which is therefore likely to have had a coastal zone. The second informs us that the king of Ugarit has sent his entire fleet to the waters off the coast of Lukka,presumably, as suggested by Michael Astour, in an attempt to ward off the passage of the Sea Peoples from the Ae-gean into the eastern Mediterranean.114 If this latter sug-gestion is correct, we are dealing here with the Lycian coast, indeed.
A dramatic change in the state of affairs as presented by Bryce occurred thanks to the recent discovery of a monumental hieroglyphic inscription from the reign of Tud®aliyas IV (1239-1209 BC) at Yalburt in the neighbor-hood of Ilgın. As demonstrated by Massimo Poetto, this text, which deals with a military campaign in the Lukka lands (lúkaUTNAi), bears reference to the place names Pi-nata, Awarna, Talawa, and Patara, which are identifiable with classical Pinale or Pinara, Arñne or Arna, Tlawa or Tl s, and Pttara or Patara situated in the valley of the lower Xanthos river.115 It further mentions the place names Luwanda and Hwalatarna, which correspond to classical Loanda and bide or Kaunos in the valley of the Indus river.116 There can be little doubt, therefore, that, re-gardless the blank in the archaeological record, the Lukka lands are situated precisely within the confines of classical Lycia proper. This conlusion receives even further empha-sis if Machteld Mellink is right in her identification of the Siyanta river, which figures in the border description of Mira in Mursilis II’s (1321-1295 BC) treaty with Kupanta-kuruntas, with the Xanthos river.117
A question which remains to be answered is whether the expression “Lukka lands” designates the same geo-
113 Bryce 1992: 128-9; for EA no. 38, see Moran 1992: 111.
114 Astour 1965a: 255; cf. Otten 1993; Keen 1998: 27.
115 Poetto 1993: 47-8 (block 9); 78-80. Note that these identifica-tions are only partly followed by Keen 1998: 214-20.
116 Woudhuizen 1994-5: 174; Woudhuizen 2004a: 30-1.
117 Mellink 1995: 35-6.
58
graphical range as Lukka or a wider one. To answer this question, we have little evidence to go on, as the Lukka lands are mentioned only twice, (1) in the fragment of the annals of Hattusilis III, KUB XXI 6a,118 and (2) the annal-istic hieroglyphic Yalburt text from the reign of Tud®aliyas IV. Now, it is interesting to observe that in the introductory section of the Yalburt text Wiyanawanda (= classical Oinoanda in the upper Xanthos valley) appears to be included in the Lukka lands,119 whereas in the hiero-glyphic inscription of Suppiluliumas II (1205-1180? BC) from the Südburg in Bo azköy/Hattusa the same place name occurs alongside Lukka as a separate entity.120 This distinction may be further illustrated by the fact that in the afore-mentioned treaty of Mursilis II with Kupantakurun-tas (CTH 68) Wiyanawanda is staged as a border town of the latter’s province Mira.121 Next, as we have noted above, in the Yalburt text the region of Loanda and bideor Kaunos in the valley of the Indus river is likewise in-cluded into the Lukka lands. Finally, in KUB XXI 6a the hostile Lukka lands are mentioned in one and the same paragraph as Par®a, which is convincingly identified by Heinrich Otten with classical Perg in Pamphylia, on the eastern border of classical Lycia.122 It is interesting to ob-serve in this connection that in his treaty with Kuruntas on the Bronze Tablet from Bo azköy/Hattusa, Tud®aliyas IV is announcing a military campaign against the land of Par®a, which, when conquered, will be included in the ter-ritory of Kuruntas’ province Tar®untassa.123 If we take this evidence at face value, it may reasonably be argued that Lukka refers solely to the lower Xanthos valley with Patara, Awarna, Pinata, and Talawa, whereas the Lukka lands includes the regions to the north, west, and east of Lukka proper.
In the Yalburt text Tud®aliyas IV proudly stipulates:
i-tá-i -pa-wa UTNA-ná-i URA+HANTAWAT-i HÁ(TI)UTNA
à-mi-i mTÁ(TI) HUHA-i na4-à HWA- -sa-®a HWÁ- -tá
118 Note that Steiner 1993: 129 draws attention to yet another ins-tance of the Lukka lands in Hittite cuneiform (KUB XXI 31), but the context is too fragmentary to be of any use here.
119 Poetto 1993: 48-9 (block 9); 80; cf. Woudhuizen 1994-5: 176 (phrase 4); Woudhuizen 2004a: 28; 32.
120 Hawkins 1995: 22-3 (phrases 1 and 4); 29; 54; cf. Woudhuizen 1994-5: 200 (phrases 1 and 4); Woudhuizen 2004a: 78; 83-4.
121 Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 201; cf. del Monte & Tischler, s.v.
122 Otten 1988: 37-8; VIII, 60-2; Par®a along the Kaštarayariver, corresponding to classical Perg along the Kestros in Pam-phylia.
123 Otten 1988: VIII, 63-4.
“in these lands, the great kings of Hatti, my fathers (and) grandfathers, no one has marched”,
with which reference is made to the region of Awarna, Pinata, and Talawa in the lower Xanthos valley.124 As opposed to this, the earlier section of his campaign in the Indus valley concerns an uprising of territory already within the Empire, as it is ex-pressly stated to be apa muwa- “reconquer(ed)”.125
The inclusion of the land of Par®a in the Empire, as hinted at in the Bronze Tablet from Bo az-köy/Hattusa, plausibly antedates Tud®aliyas IV’s Ly-cian campaign as recorded for the Yalburt text. Finally, as we have seen, Wiyanawanda already fig-ures as a border town of the province of Mira in the times of Mursilis II. From this sequence of affairs, we may safely deduce that the Hittites slowly, but confi-dently, encircled the region of the lower Xanthos val-ley before they ultimately went over to conquer it. The rationale behind this is easily explained by the geographic situation, according to which the lower Xanthos valley is separated from the surrounding re-gions by a spur of the formidable Taurus mountains (see Fig. 8). As I have argued elsewhere, the con-quest of the lower Xanthos valley is not an objective per se, but a prelude to Tud®aliyas IV’s Cyprus-Alasiya campaign, launched by him in the final years of his reign and made more permanent by his son Suppiluliumas II.126
Fig. 8. Map of Lycia (from Mellink 1995).
124 Woudhuizen 1994-5: 179; Woudhuizen 2004a: 35-6 (phrase 42). Note that the mention of hostages from Pina (= hieroglyphic Pinata) and Awarna in the Milawata-letter (KUB XIX 55) plausi-bly postdates Tud®aliyas IV’s Lycian campaign as recorded for the Yalburt text, see Woudhuizen 2005: 115.
125 Woudhuizen 1994-5: 176; Woudhuizen 2004a: 42 (phrase 12).
126 Woudhuizen 1994-5: 175; cf. Woudhuizen 1994: 524-6; Woudhuizen 2004a: 31-2.
59
7. ETHNOGENESIS OF THE GREEKS
The decipherment of Linear B by the British architect Mi-chael Ventris has proved that Greek existed as a language from the second half of the 15th century BC onwards: the earliest tablets are in fact from the Late Minoan II-IIIA1 period at Knossos in Crete (= c. 1450-1350 BC).127 The question which will be addressed here is: when did the Greek language, and hence probably the Greek ethnos – in later times at least the Greek language is one of the most distinctive features of the Greek ethnos – , come into be-ing? Was it the result of an immigration by proto-Greeks into the region we call Greece, or are there other processes at work? In order to tackle this question, we will look at the relevant archaeological, historical, and linguistic evi-dence.
From an archaeological point of view, there are three periods which might be of relevance to our question: first the transition from Early Helladic II to Early Helladic III (c. 2300 BC), then the transition from Early Helladic III to Middle Helladic (c. 2000 BC), and finally the transition from Middle Helladic to Late Helladic I (c. 1600 BC) (for alternative opinions focussing on different periods, see ad-ditional note at the end of this section). All these three transitional periods in varying degrees show evidence of discontinuity in occupation. The type site for the transition from Early Helladic II to Early Helladic III is Lerna, ex-pertly excavated by the Americans under the leadership of John Caskey. Here the so-called “House of the Tiles” went up in flames and was covered by a tumulus, new house forms were introduced, characterized by apsidal ends, a new pottery style was developed, first hand-made only, which is baptized Minyan ware, and a new type of burial came into fashion, namely individual burials in cist graves. In the following transition from Early Helladic III to Mid-dle Helladic, the new features characteristic of Lerna and some other sites, are also introduced at places that re-mained untouched in the first transitional period, some-times, as at Eutresis, after a violent conflagration. Although related cultural traits were introduced at both pe-
127 For the correlation of archaeological phases and absolute chronology, see Warren & Hankey 1989; note however that the lowering of the dates of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten as per Kitchen 1989 has its repercussions for the date of the transition from Late Minoan IIIA1 to Late Minoan IIIA2, which should likewise be lowered from c. 1370 BC to c. 1350 BC.
riods, what distinguishes the transition at c. 2000 BC from the previous one at c. 2300 BC is the presence at some sites of Mattpainted ware, originating from the Cycladic islands, and a little imported or locally imitated Middle Minoan IA ware. It further deserves notice that at Lerna in a context to be dated after the destruction of the “House of the Tiles” bones have been found, first, in the Early Hella-dic III period, of a horse-like animal and later, in the Mid-dle Helladic period, of a true horse.
A majority of the archaeologists, led by Caskey, is of the opinion that in the two aforesaid transitional periods a new people arrived in Greece, coming from the north or east or both, which spoke an Indo-European language, if not already Greek then at least about to become Greek.128
This majority standpoint is challenged by the penetrating study of René van Royen & Benjamin Isaac, who convinc-ingly demonstrated that the transition from Middle Hella-dic to Late Helladic I, usually considered to be without a true break, shows evidence of discontinuity in occupation in about the same way as the two foregoing transitional pe-riods. Thus it happens that sites are abandoned (Argos) or destroyed by fire (Eleusis, Kirrha) at the time of the intro-duction of the Minoanizing Late Helladic I ware.129 An-other new feature of this period, next to the Minoanizing pottery style, is the introduction of new types of graves: shaft graves, tholos- and chamber tombs – the latter for multiple burials. Of these, the shaft graves at Mycenae de-serve special mention for their extremely rich contents: clearly here were buried valiant warriors who appreciated luxuries inspired by as far away a country as Egypt (think of the daggers with Nilotic scenes, the gold masks and Heinrich Schliemann’s observation that one of the corpses was mummified). As manifest from the scenes on the ste-lae which marked their graves, the dignitaries in question were specialized in chariot warfare. In line with these find-ings, there has come into being a minority view according to which the arrival of the proto-Greeks in Greece consists of a so-called takeover by a comparatively small but well-organized chariot-brigade in the transitional period from Middle Helladic to Late Helladic I. As a variant, more
128 Caskey 1973.
129 Van Royen & Isaac 1979.
60
closely linked up with the given majority view, these in-vaders are also considered non-Greek foreigners.
In order to decide between these conflicting views, it may be of relevance to determine who were the inhabitants of Greece before the arrival of the proto-Greeks. The most serious attempt to tackle this question is formed by Jan Best’s investigation into the origins of the cultural traits of the Middle Helladic period, in casu Minyan ware, cist graves with individual burials and apsidal houses. The closest parallels for these three features he was able to trace in the northern Balkans in the period antedating their introduction into Greece. As this region in historical times is inhabited by Thracian tribes, Best extrapolated that bearers of the Middle Helladic culture in Greece were kinsmen of the latter.130 This conclusion could be backed up by literary tradition, according to which, as first noted by Stanley Casson, central Greece had once been inhabited by Thracians.131 Thus it is recorded that the Thracians with Eumolpos and his son Ismaros were driven from Eleusis by the Athenian Erekhtheus, and that they took refuge at the court of the Thracian king Tegyrios in Boeo-tian Tegyra.132 Furthermore, the Thracian king Tereus is of old situated at Daulis in Phokis, and the likewise Odry-sian royal name Sitalkas is recorded as an epiklesis of Apollo at Delphi.133 The presence of the Thracian tribe of the Odrysians in Phokis is strikingly confirmed by evi-dence from Linear B. On an inscribed stirrup jar from the destruction layer of the “House of Kadmos” at Thebes, dated c. 1350 BC, the ethnonym o-du-ru-wi-jo “Odrysian” is recorded. As another inscribed stirrup jar was found in Orkhomenos, it seems not unlikely to assume that the stir-rup jars from the “House of Kadmos”, which in fact are of
130 Best in Best & Yadin 1973; cf. Coles & Harding 1979: 132 f. To the three given comparanda should be added the tumulus for elite burials as attested for Vraca in Bulgaria during the Early Bronze Age, i.e. either previous to or simultaneous with its intro-duction in southern Greece, see Coles & Harding 1979: 136, Fig. 47. Note that the tumulus ultimately constitutes a North Pontic steppe or Kurgan element, further represented by sherds of corded ware as recorded for Armenokhori in eastern Macedonia, Eutresis in Boeotia, and Agia Marina in Phokis at the end of the Early Bronze Age, see Sakellariou 1980: 151.
131 Casson 1968: 102-3.
132 Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopädie, s.v. Eumolpos.
133 Note in this connection that one of the harbors of Delphi, Krisa, exemplifies a Thracian toponym originating from Proto-Indo-European [= PIE] *krs- “black”, see Detschew 1976, s.v. Krisos.
Cretan type and of which as many as 120 in sum have been found, served export purposes for the at that time still pre-dominantly Minyan hinterland of Thebes.134 Finally, the Thracian nature of the ancient population of Phokis may be further enhanced by the fact that the Thracian tribe of the Abantes are recorded to have moved from their city Abai in Phokis to Euboeia across the Euripos.
It is rightly stipulated by Casson that there is also evi-dence of Phrygians among the earliest inhabitants of Greece. Most famous in this respect is, of course, the case of Pelops, after whom the Peloponnesos (= “island of Pelops”) is named. In later times, the presence of the Phry-gian Pelops in southern Greece was no longer understood and he was considered an immigrant from Anatolia – the later habitat of the Phrygians. But the fact that the Phry-gians were originally at home in southern Greece is duly indicated by scores of Phrygian place names (Azania, Mideia, Mopsopia, Olympia, Phrikion, Phrixa, Phrixos, Phrygia) and personal names (Adrastos, Akrisios,135
Atreus, Azan, Azeus, Kelainos, Kharites,136 Khl ris,137
Phorkys, Phrixos, Proitos) attested in the historical records. In some instances, like a-da-ra-te-ja (= Greek Adr steja)or a-da-ra-ti-jo (= Greek Adr stijos), u-ru-pi-ja (= Greek Olumpia), ke-ra-no (= Greek Kelainos), and mo-qo-so (= Greek Mopsos) the ancient nature of these names can be emphasized by their occurrence or of that of related forms in Linear B.138 With the Thracians and the Phrygians, we have by no means exhausted the historical documentaries on the earliest inhabitants of Greece. Yet another group which figures prominently in the sources is that of the Leleges, who Herodotos (Histories I, 171) identifies with the Carians from the Cycladic islands. Their presence in southern and central Greece may perhaps be reflected in
134 Woudhuizen 1989.
135 Brother of Proitos, see Sakellariou 1986: 133; cf. Akrisias, the Phrygian name for Kronos according to a gloss by Hesykhios, see Diakonoff & Neroznak 1985: 91.
136 Cult installed by Eteokles of Orkhomenos, see Pausanias, Guide to Greece IX, 35, 1; cf. Old Phrygian agaritoi “ungracious (D. sg.)” in G-02, see Brixhe & Lejeune 1984.
137 Wife of Neleus, descendant of the Minyan royal house of Ork-homenos, see Pausanias, Guide to Greece IX, 36, 4 – 37, 1; cf. the Phrygian gloss glouros “gold” (< PIE *ghl ro- or *g hel-), see Haas 1966: 144, 209 and cf. Gamkrelizdge & Ivanov 1995: 618, from which it follows that the personal name is of the same type as Greek Khruseïs and English Goldy.
138 Woudhuizen 1993b.
61
the archaeological record by the Mattpainted ware, which, as we have seen above, originates from the Cyclades as well and of which the introduction, as we have just seen, distinguishes the transition from Early Helladic III to Mid-dle Helladic. As a complicating factor, it should be real-ized that there are still more population groups mentioned in the historical sources which cannot positively be as-signed to either of the three tribes identified so far for the lack of evidence. On the whole, however, it may safely be stated that with the Thracians, Phrygians, and Leleges/Carians we have discussed the most prominent of the population groups present in Greece before the Greeks or living there simultaneously with the Greeks in their ear-liest history.
From a linguistic point of view, it deserves attention that the Thracian language, although barely known, is con-sidered of Indo-European stock and most closely related to Phrygian, this to the extent that one speaks of the Thraco-Phrygian language group.139 As opposed to this, Carian, which, it must be admitted, also largely eludes us because the script in which the language is recorded still goes un-deciphered, is generally assumed to be a member of the Indo-European Anatolian group of languages, together with Hittite, Luwian, and Palaic. As such, it may be held responsible for place names in -ss- and -nth- in Greece, which are decidedly of Indo-European Anatolian type.140
Furthermore, one may be tempted to point to related Ly-cian type of names like Glaukos (= Linear B ka-ra-u-ko),Lykaon, Pandion, Sandion, and Leda. At any rate, we ob-viously have to reckon with at least two distinct pre-Greek linguistic layers of Indo-European (= IE) stock, namely Thraco-Phrygian and IE Anatolian.
If the bearers of the Minyan culture of Middle Hella-dic Greece are rightly identified as Thraco-Phrygians, then it necessarily follows that the view according to which the Greeks arrived or otherwise came into being in the only remaining transition from Middle Helladic to Late Helladic I at c. 1600 BC must be correct. Therefore, let us take a look at the various theories proposed. In the first place, Robert Drews in his stimulating monograph on the subject argued that the proto-Greeks were a chariot gang who came by boat from Pontos to Thessaly, from where they
139 Crossland 1971: 857; contra Polomé 1982a: 888.
140 Laroche 1957: 7; Laroche 1961a: 91; cf. Woudhuizen 1989: 193-4.
colonized the rest of Greece.141 Secondly, Jan Best de-fended the thesis that the proto-Greeks were identical with the Hyksos, the foreign conquerors of lower Egypt in the Second Intermediary Period (c. 1720-1550 BC), who were driven from the country by the founder of the 18th dy-nasty, Ahmose, and with their kinsmen from Canaan and Syria took refuge to the southern shores of Greece.142 Fi-nally, Frank Stubbings likewise painted the picture of a conquest of the Argolid by displaced Hyksos leaders from Egypt, only he did not consider them proto-Greeks, but a foreign warrior caste who, like they did in Egypt, adapted to the culture and language of the host country.143 Of these three theories, the last two take into consideration the well-known historical evidence of Danaos, the ancestor of the Danaoi, coming from Egypt to the Argolid, and of Kadmos with his Phoenicians founding the city of Thebes. The va-lidity of this literary evidence is strengthened a great deal by the fact that the Mycenaean Greeks are referred to by the name Tanayu (T n3y) “Danaoi” in the Egyptian hiero-glyphic inscriptions from the funerary temple of Amenho-tep III (1390-1352 BC) at Kom el-Hetan in Egyptian Thebes.144
Which of the three models about what happened in Greece c. 1600 BC is the right one? In order to answer this question, we will examine them a little closer, starting with the one presented by Drews. This author takes as his start-ing point the view of the linguists Thomas Gamkrelidze & Vja eslav Ivanov, who argued that the Greek language is closely related to Armenian on the one hand and Indo-Iranian on the other hand, and that the homeland of the proto-Greeks accordingly must be sought somewhere in the region of what was once Armenia, just south of the Caucasus. Here they found in abundance the different sorts of wood to build their chariots and the horses to drive them.145 A problem posed by this view is that at the time that Greek is supposed to have split off from the parent language and the proto-Greeks are supposed to have under-taken their journey to their new home in Greece, the Ar-
141 Drews 1988.
142 Best in Best & Yadin 1973.
143 Stubbings 1973.
144 Edel 1966; cf. Woudhuizen 1992a: 73; pace Strange 1980: 22, note 33; 148.
145 Drews 1988: 32 ff.; 200-1; since 1995 the work of Gamkre-lidze & Ivanov is available in English translation.
62
menians are not yet living in Armenia! As related by Herodotos (Histories VII, 73), the Armenians are an apoikia of the Phrygians, who prior to their migration to the Anatolian plateau inhabited the Olympos region in the borderland of northern Thessaly and southern Macedonia on the European continent, and before this, as we have seen above, even the region as far south as the Peloponne-sos. There is some evidence that the Phrygians entered Anatolia already in the Late Bronze Age, as according to Homeros they are situated along the banks of the Sangarios in the period before the Trojan war (c. 1280 BC). More-over, a Hittite text from the reign of Tud®aliyas II (1390-1370 BC) or Arnuwandas I (1370-1355 BC) makes men-tion of a certain Mita (= Phrygian Midas) of Pa®®uwa, a region to the northeast of the Hittite capital Bo az-köy/Hattusa.146 However, there can be no doubt that the greatest surge of Phrygians into the highland of Anatolia took place only after the fall of the Hittite empire at the end of the Bronze Age, when, under the name of Muski, they are recorded by the annals of the Assyrian king Ti-glathpileser I (1115-1077 BC) to have reached the region of the upper Euphrates in great numbers. As cogently ar-gued by Igor Diakonoff, this particular historical event triggers the formative phase of the Armenian people, in a country formerly inhabited by Luwians and Hurrians.147
Another weakness in the scenario presented by Drews is formed by the crucial role he attributes to the Thessalian plain in the colonization of Greece by the proto-Greeks. Thus it is assumed that the proto-Greeks first arrive in Thessaly and from there go on to take over central and southern Greece.148 This view is contradicted by the ar-chaeological evidence, which clearly shows that the Mycenaean culture first develops in the Argolid and only at a later time spreads to more northerly regions like Thes-saly.149 In fact, the plain of Thessaly, just like the hinter-land of Thebes, remains predominantly Minyan in
146 Woudhuizen 1993b; contra Drews 1993b, who also denies the European origin of the Phrygians on account of the fact that ar-chaeological evidence, for which he is tendentiously looking only c. 1200 BC, is lacking.
147 Diakonoff 1984 (65; 117 assigns a date of c. 1165 BC to the invasion of the Muski, which is incompatible with the reign of Ti-glathpileser I, but suits their first mention in the Assyrian records, see Vanschoonwinkel 1991: 463).
148 Drews 1988: 192-4.
149 Dickinson 1977: 24.
character up to well in Late Helladic III. The centre from which Mycenaean influence radiates, ancient Iolkos in the south, is still characterized by Minyan cist graves as late as the Late Helladic IIB-IIIA period, whereas a Mycenaean palace is reported here only from Late Helladic IIB or IIIA1 onwards.150 From an historical point of view, the persistence of Middle Helladic traditions in Iolkos during the earlier phase of the Mycenaean period coincides with the “Minysche Schicht” of its royal house as represented by Kretheus, Pelias (= the brother of Neleus who with Pe-lasgians settles at Pylos c. 1600 BC, see further below), and Akastos.151
Finally, it is noteworthy that Drews heavily leans on the linguistic thesis put forward by William Wyatt, who maintains that the Indo-European invaders of Greece knew the chariot and the horse when they first entered Greece. Wyatt arrived at this conclusion by comparing the words for chariot and its major parts to that for the four-wheel mule wagon, from which comparison it appeared that the first category is based on Indo-European roots, whereas the latter is not. However, the conclusion that the Greeks in-troduced these Indo-European words is only valid in case there is no evidence of Indo-European speech in Greece prior to the Greeks, as Wyatt explicitly asserts.152 In the previous pages, we have seen reason to believe that there were Indo-European speaking tribes in Greece before the arrival of the Greeks or their otherwise coming into being. This nullifies Wyatt’s reasoning. As we have noted in the foregoing, the horse was already known in Greece from c.2300 BC onwards. In line with this observation, it is of in-terest to note that the Greeks have preserved the old cen-tum form for “horse”, Mycenaean i-qo (= later Greek hippos), instead of taking over the new Indo-Aryan satem form a va- which came in vogue in other regions under the influence of the from the late 18th century BC onwards modern chariot warfare (cf. Luwian asuwa-).153 Further-more, the Greeks preferred their own word for the chariot itself, Mycenaean a-mo (= later Greek harma), instead of
150 Hope Simpson 1981: 161; Vanschoonwinkel 1991: 135; Papa-dimitriou 2001: 129; cf. Smit 1989. Note that Stubbings 1973: 642 is mistaken in assigning the Mycenaean palace at Iolkos to the transition from Middle Helladic to Late Helladic I.
151 Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopädie, s.v. Iolkos.
152 Wyatt 1970.
153 In the centum languages the palatals k, g, and g h develop into gutturals, whereas in the satem languages they become assibilized.
63
adopting the then modern Indo-Aryan indication ratha-.More in general, I do not understand why Wyatt does not take into account the evidence from Kassite, where the parts of the chariot, with only one exception, are all indi-cated by Akkadian instead of Kassite words (Balkan 1954: 127-30).
If we next turn to the scenario presented by Best, it first deserves our attention that identification of the proto-Greeks with the Hyksos from Egypt and their kinsmen from Canaan and Syria, contrary to Drews’ thesis, is in ba-
sic outline in harmony with the relevant archaeological and historical data. In order to estimate its validity, however, we have to go more into detail. As we have noted earlier, the transition from Middle Helladic to Late Helladic I c.1600 BC shows evidence of discontinuity in occupation. From an historical point of view, it is highly interesting to observe that precisely the sites which show discontinuity of occupation figure prominently in the stories about the foundation of new royal houses or a memorable war (see Fig. 9). The evidence may be summarized as follows:
site conqueror(s) subjected or expelled source 1. Argos Danaos from Egypt Pelasgos or Pelasgio-
tans Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopädie, s.v. Da-naos.
2. Thebes Kadmos with Phoenicians Hyantes and Aones Pausanias, Guide to Greece IX, 5, 1.3 Kirrha-
KrisaCretans from Knossos women & daughters Homeric Hymn to Pythian Apollo 388 ff.
4. Pylos Neleus with Pelasgians from Iolkos
Pylos with Leleges Pausanias, Guide to Greece IV, 36, 1.
5. Eleusis Erekhtheus from Athens Eumolpos with Thracians
Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopädie, s.v. Eumolpos.
Table 2. Literary traditions with a bearing on the transition from Middle Helladic to Late Helladic I, c. 1600 BC.
Fig. 9. Distribution of centres of radiation of Late Helladic I mate-
rial.
Square symbols: pottery in combination with architectural remains
(Pylos, Kirrha, Thebes, Eleusis, and Athens). Triangular symbols:
pottery in shaft graves, tholos- and chamber tombs (Koryphasion,
Peristeria, Epidauros Limera, Lerna, Mycenae, Prosymna, and
Thorikos). Sources: van Royen & Isaac 1979 and Hope Simpson
1981.
With respect to this overview it must be admitted that the association of Danaos with Argos is problematic, since the latter site is abandoned in the earliest phase of the Mycenaean period. Probably Argos has seized the myth at the expense of some other site in the Argolid. Furthermore, Thebes is not included in the list of sites which lent itself to a continuity/discontinuity analysis by van Royen & Isaac, even though it might be pointed out that the different orientation of the earliest Mycenaean walls as compared to their Middle Helladic predecessors rather suggests discon-
64
tinuity.154 However this may be, what primarily concerns us here is the fact that in three instances the conquerors are explicitly identified as foreigners, whereas in two instances these are just locals from Greece itself. From an archaeo-logical point of view, the latter adapted to the Mycenaean culture developed under the influence of the foreign invad-ers pretty quickly, so that they may fruitfully be consid-ered as local allies. In linguistic terms, these local allies can, of course, not be held responsible for the introduction of the Greek language in Greece, which, in line with Best’s scenario, must have been the privilige of the foreign invad-ers. Hence, let us take a closer look at them.
What can be said about the language(s) of the foreign invaders? One group, which settled in Krisa, is straight-forwardly identified as Cretans from Knossos. These may safely be assumed to have spoken one of the languages current on the island before the introduction of Linear B c.1450 BC, recorded for documents in Linear A and Cretan hieroglyphic, respectively. A good case can be made that Linear A contains a west-Semitic idiom, whereas Cretan hieroglyphic probably bears testimony of both west-Semitic and Luwian (see further section 12 below).155 At any rate, one thing is clear: our Cretans from Knossos did not speak a Greek vernacular. Next comes Kadmos with his Phoenicians. Taking this tradition at face value, the conquerors of Thebes are likely to have spoken a Semitic tongue. In fact, the name of Kadmos himself has been co-gently interpreted as representing the Semitic root qdm“east”, whereas that of his sister Europa, whom he was so desparately looking for, may likewise be based on a Se-mitic stem, viz. ‘rb “west” (in Astour’s explanation, these names stand for the morning and evening star, respec-tively, of which the one seems to follow the other end-lessly). Furthermore, Kadmos is held responsible for the introduction of the mystery cult of the Kabeiroi, the great gods whose name recalls Semitic kbr “great”.156 Again, not a trace of the Greek language. Remains the case of Danaos, after whom the Greeks were named Danaoi. First of all, it is interesting to note that the royal house he founded in Mycenae ends with the reign of Eurystheus, af-ter whom the originally Phrygian, but by now fully Myce-naeanized, Pelopids take over: a clear instance of a reflux,
154 Symeonoglou 1973: 14-5; fig. 3.
155 Best & Woudhuizen 1988; Best & Woudhuizen 1989; Woud-huizen 2001b.
156 Astour 1965b; cf. Edwards 1979.
effectuated by intermarriage (the mother of Eurystheus, Nikippe, is claimed to be a daughter of Pelops). On the ba-sis of the probable mention of Atreus in an Hittite text from the reigns of Tud®aliyas II (1390-1370 BC) and Ar-nuwandas I (1370-1355 BC), where he occurs in the form of Attarissiyas, this takeover by the Pelopids may safely be assumed to be anterior to the late 15th century BC or be-ginning of the 14th century BC – in fact it may perhaps even be surmised to have its archaeological reflection in the shift from shaft graves to tholos tombs, which occurred in Late Helladic IIA.157 Because Danaos is reported to have come from Egypt, it has been plausibly assumed that he represents a conquest of the Argolid by the Hyksos, the foreign rulers of lower Egypt who were kicked out at about the time of the shaft graves in Mycenae.
Our question, therefore, is: who were the Hyksos? For sure, there was a Semitic component among them, as the first element of the name of one of their kings, Yakob-Har, strikingly recalls Biblical Jakob.158 In addition to this, there may have been a Hurrian component among them: as pointed out by Wolfgang Helck, the sister and daughter of the Hyksos king Apophis bore Hurrian names.159 It is even possible that there was an Indo-European component among them, to be more specific of the Indo-Aryan type: thus Drews draws our attention to the fact that the Indo-Aryan term marya is used in Egyptian texts to indicate a charioteer or chariot fighter160 (note in this connection that the distribution of Indo-Aryan names [especially with the elements a va- and ratha-] and terms over the Near East is intrinsically linked up with the spread of chariot warfare – the latter being introduced in Egypt by the Hyksos).161
157 Hope Simpson 1981: 14.
158 Redford 1992: 98-122.
159 Helck 1971: 101; contra van Seters 1966: 182-3, who consi-ders the names in question west-Semitic. It is interesting to note in this connection that, as remarked by Stubbings 1973: 637, the Egyptian name Apophis occurs in Greek mythology in form of Epaphos (or Epopeus).
160 Drews 1988: 151.
161 Mayrhofer 1974; considering the personal names Tar®undaradus, Piyamaradus, and Rhadamanthys, apparently based on the onomastic element ratha- “chariot”, the Indo-Aryan influence may even be assumed to have radiated to the Aegean, though, as we have seen, not to the Greek mainland. This latter suggestion is further enhanced by Schachermeyr’s (1984 : 98) and Latacz’s (2003: 312) identification of the Cretan personal name Meriones as a reflex of Indo-Aryan maryannu. As duly stressed by
65
Evidently, the Hyksos were a highly mixed company. But of all the things it may be, there is not a shred of evidence for proto-Greek among them (the comparison of the Uga-ritic royal name Niqmadu to Greek Nikomedes is an ingen-ious but futile attempt, not taking into account the fact that, considering the royal name Niqmepu as attested for Aleppo, the first element of the name appears to be Niqm-).162 And this is exactly the component which ac-cording to the scenario of Best was so dominant that it planted its language on the whole population of Greece. If proto-Greeks were present among the Hyksos at all, and if they entered Greece, I think their numbers must be as-sumed to have thinned out to homeopathic proportions!
The third and final model is that of Stubbings, who, in line with Best, paints the picture of a military conquest of the Argolid by displaced Hyksos rulers, but, contrary to Best, does not consider them proto-Greeks but simply for-eigners who were not numerous enough to cause a lan-guage shift. The immediate consequence of this view is that Greek developed from the languages of the population groups already present in Greece at the time of the take-over by the foreign military caste, in casu Thraco-Phrygian and IE Anatolian. As a matter of fact, of these two lan-guages Thraco-Phrygian is so closely related to Greek that it must be assumed to have once formed a linguistic con-tinuum with the latter. The similarity of Greek to Phrygian was noted already by the ancient Greeks themselves. Thus Plato makes Socrates remark in a dialogue that the Phry-gians have the same word slightly changed for pur “fire”, hud r “water” and kunes “dogs” and many other words.163
Especially the case of kunes (< PIE *k(u)won-) is interest-ing, because it demonstrates that Phrygian, like Greek, is a
Drews 1988: 96-7, the temporary military superiority of the Indo-Aryan invaders, probably originating from the Transcaucasian steppes, during the late 18th and early 17th centuries BC is based on their combination of the Near Eastern war-chariot with horse-control in the form of the bit – a steppe innovation – , of which the seal impressions and seal depicted in Littauer & Crouwel 1979: figs. 33-4 and 36 bear testimony, whereas their Near Eastern op-ponents up to that time were accustomed to the technical inferior nose-ring, see, for example, the sealing depicted in Littauer & Crouwel 1979: fig. 29.
162 Best 1992-3. Note, however, that the ethnonym Danaoi is like-ly to be based on the PIE root *d nu- “river” as exemplified by the Old European and North Pontic steppe river names Danube, Don, Dnieper, and Dniester (see Sakellariou 1980: 175-7), which would explain the mythical identification of the daughters of Danaos as waternymphs.
163 Plato, Cratylus 410.
centum language.164 The same holds good for Thracian, which in an early inscription from Kjolmen shows the form ekoa “mare” (< PIE *ekwo-).165 Another outstanding feature is formed by the relative pronoun, in which respect Phrygian with the form ios or yos exhibits a particular af-finity to the Mycenaean forerunner of later Greek hos, i.e. jo- as represented in the composite jo-qi (the use of these forms instead of reflexes of PIE *kwi- or *kwo- is an inno-vation which Greek and Phrygian share with Indo-Iranian, which has ya-).166 This Phrygian affinity to particularly Mycenaean Greek can be further illustrated by the se-quence lavagtaei vanaktei (D sg. in -i) from a dating for-mula, the roots of which strikingly recall the Mycenaean titulary expressions ra-wa-ke-ta (= Greek l v get s)“leader of the host” and wa-na-ka (= Greek (v)anaks)“king”, respectively. The preservation of the wau, a typical archaic feature, also characterizes Phrygian forms like ev(e)- (cf. Greek eu- “good”), venavtun (cf. Greek heauton“himself”), vetei (cf. Greek etos “year”), otuvoi (cf. Greek ogdoos “eighth”), etc.167 Of these forms venavtun (with first element ven- < PIE *swe-) is also interesting in an-other respect, as it shows the loss of the initial s which in Greek becomes h (a development which Greek has in common with Iranian and Armenian).168 Furthermore, it may be pointed out that both Phrygian and Thracian share with Greek the use of the augment in the indicative of the past tense, cf. Phrygian edaes “he dedicated” and Thracian edakat “he made” (this is again an innovation which Greek and this time Thraco-Phrygian share with this time San-skrit).169 If we realize, finally, that medio-passive forms in -tor reported for Neo-Phrygian are problematic as Old
164 Note, however, that in New Phrygian satem influences as wit-nessed by the form seiti < PIE *kei- “to lie, to be put to rest” may have slipped in, see Diakonoff & Neroznak 1985: 132-3.
165 Woudhuizen 2000-1. Like it is the case with Phrygian (see the previous note), in the late period satem influences, as represented by esbi- “horse”, may have slipped in, see Detschew 1976: 171.
166 Crossland 1971: 866; cf. Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995: 339; 345.
167 Woudhuizen 1993b. The given examples are based on the Old Phrygian texts (8th-6th centuries BC) as discussed in Woudhuizen 1993a. I have purposely avoided to make use of parallels from New Phrygian texts (2nd-3rd centuries AD), because, under the overwhelming influence of Hellenism, this is actually on the way of becoming a provincial form of Greek.
168 Crossland 1971: 853.
169 Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995: 312.
66
Phrygian already bears testimony of the innovative middle forms in -toy or -toi, Phrygian may well be considered to side with Greek with respect to the loss of the medio-passive in -r- as well (yet another innovation which Greek and Phrygian share with Indo-Iranian).170 Against the background of this considerable overlap in lexicon, phono-logical, and grammatical features between Greek and Thraco-Phrygian, then, I think it is not farfetched to as-sume that Greek came into being as a split from Thraco-Phrygian under the impetus of foreign tongue(s) intro-duced, as we have seen, by conquerors from Egypt, Phoe-nicia, and Crete in the transition from Middle Helladic to Late Helladic I (c. 1600 BC) (see Fig. 10).
time scale:
PIE *bhr ter- *bhrug- *dh - *ghl ro-
c. 1600 BC
Linear B
Iron Age phrat r bratere phruges Briges tith mi edaes khl ros glouros
teke
Fig. 10. Reconstruction of the split between Greek and Thraco-
Phrygian on the basis of the development of the mediae aspiratae
(after Haas 1966: 209). 171
In retrospect, it may be concluded that our investiga-tion into the theories on the ethnogenesis of the Greeks has led us to a point of view which is very close to the one held by the majority of scholars and expressed by the con-tributors to the prestigious Cambridge Ancient History.
170 Note that the supposed medio-passive forms addaketor and abberetor turn up instead of active addaket in variants of the pro-tasis of the damnation formula, which usually runs as follows: ios ni semoun tou knoumanei kakoun addaket “whoever will bring any damage to this grave”, see Diakonoff & Neroznak 1985: 31; contra Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995: 341-3; 345. For the middle forms in -toy or -toi, see Woudhuizen 1993a: 5-6. It should be stressed in this connection, however, that passive forms in -r- have been preserved in Armenian as well, see Haas 1966: 247.
171 I am indebted to Wim van Binsbergen for drawing this dia-gram.
Thus, it appears that Caskey is essentially right in his as-sumption that in the transitional periods from Early Hella-dic II to Early Helladic III (c. 2300 BC) and from Early Helladic III to Middle Helladic (c. 2000 BC), a new people arrived in Greece which spoke an Indo-European language which was later to become Greek. And Stubbings is essen-tially right in his assumption that in the transitional period from Middle Helladic to Late Helladic I (c. 1600 BC) Greece was conquered by foreign invaders from Egypt and Palestine who, however, were not numerous enough to plant their language(s) on the at that time indigenous popu-lation. The only ingredients which we have added is that, in accordance with Best’s view, the bearers of the Minyan culture were Thracian and Phrygian tribes, and that Greek is a split from Thraco-Phrygian taking place in southern and central Greece under the influence of foreign tongue(s) introduced by the conquering warrior caste of expert charioteers who take over control of these areas c. 1600 BC. I can only hope that these new ingredients have been presented in such a manner that they will become as influ-ential as the old ones.
Additional note: Remaining models
In the above, I have not treated all models, only the his-torically viable ones. Remaining models for the ethnogene-sis of the Greeks are:
(1) during the Neolithic, c. 6000 BC (Renfrew);172
(2) at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age, c. 3200 BC (Coleman);173
(3) at the end of the Late Bronze Age, c. 1200 BC (Gru-mach, Hood).174
Of these models, the Neolithic option has become “en vogue” lately, being further propagated by Robert Drews in his collection of papers by various scholars entitled Greater Anatolia.175 In theory, however, a connection be-tween the spread of Neolithic agricultural economy with that of the Indo-European languages as defended by Colin Renfrew would lead us to assume a gradual diffusion of
172 Renfrew 1987.
173 Coleman 2000.
174 Grumach 1969; Hood 1974.
175 Drews 2001.
67
linguistic features from an hypothetical centre, Anatolia in Renfrew’s view, to the outlying districts (= wave of ad-vance). Hence, it cannot explain the intrusion of a more developed Indo-European layer as represented by Phrygian and Greek in between conservative IE Anatolian on the one hand and an as yet undivided Italo-Celtic in eastern and central Europe on the other hand:176 like the presence of an Hungarian speaking “island” in a Slavic speaking “sea”, this distribution pattern indicates disruption by im-migrants from elsewhere than the hypothetical centre Ana-tolia – the more so because it is repeated to the east, with innovative Indo-Iranian in between conservative IE Anato-lian on the one hand and Tocharian on the other hand. Moreover, the more developed features of Phrygian and Greek, which these have in common with Sanskrit, like the relative *yo-, the augment in the indicative of the past tense, and the loss of medio-passive -r-, or with Iranian, like the loss of initial s, are unlikely to have been crystal-ized already as early as the beginning of the Early Bronze Age. My reconstruction of the relatively late split between Phrygian and Greek on the one hand and Indo-Iranian on the other would be as follows:
progressive use of the horse
developments in the innovative group of Indo-European lan-
guages
domesticated horse at-tested in mainland
Greece
augment relative *yo-loss of medio-
passive -r-loss of initial s
split of Indo-Iranian from Phrygo-Greek
chariot satem Indo-Iranian only
Table 3. Developments in the innovative group of Indo-European
languages related to the progressive use of the horse
To this comes that the hiatus between the Neolithic
176 For the reflex of PIE *kwi- or *kwo- in Celtic, cf. the Celtibe-rian indefinite kuekue- “whosoever” in kuekuetikui (D sg. in -i) “to whomsoever it may concern” as attested for the so-called rebronze, see Meid 1996: 30-1; Meid 2000: 12; for the reflex of PIE *swe- in Celtic, cf. the Gallic reflexive pronoun of the 3rd person sue- “self-”, see Meid 1996: 31, and the possibly related Celtibe-rian forms ue and ue , see Meid 1993, Glossar s.v. Note, how-ever, that the significance of the relative *yo- for the innovative group of Indo-European languages is somewhat undermined by the fact that its reflex is also attested for conservative (also medio-passive -r and centum, see Meid 1993: 59 and 44, respectively) Celtiberian, see Meid 1993: 96.
and Early Bronze Age in Greece would seriously hamper the transmission of the pre-Greek place names in -ss- and -nth-, no inhabitants being left to execute this transmission. Finally, arrival of the Greeks at the end of the Bronze Age is definitely ruled out by the decipherment of Linear B as an old form of Greek.
69
8. THE RISE AND FALL OF THE MYCENAEAN GREEKS
In the history of the Greeks from the time of their forma-tion to that of the downfall of the Mycenaean palaces, we can distinguish three major phases: 1. the period of the Minoan thalassocracy (c. 1550-1450 BC), 2. the Minoan-Mycenaean transitional period (c. 1450-1350 BC), and 3. the period of the Mycenaean koin (c. 1350-1185 BC).
In the period of the Minoan thalassocracy, the Greek mainland appears to have been at least partly subject to Minoan overlords. This is suggested by the Attic tradition according to which in the time of king Aigeus, the father of the Athenian hero Theseus, a yearly tribute of seven young girls and seven boys was due to the Cretan king Minos. These girls and boys, so the story goes, were to be sacri-ficed to the Minotaur of the labyrinth in king Minos’ pal-ace at Knossos. That Theseus, with the help of Ariadne, the daughter of king Minos, slayed the Minotaur and freed Athens from the ignominious yoke of Minoan domination, does not, of course, alter the fact that the Athenians were tributaries beforehand.177
The period of Minoan thalassocracy ends with the for the Minoans disastrous eruption of the Santorini volcano. The discussion on the chronology of this event – and hence its impact – has recently received a new impetus by Man-fred Bietak’s sensational find of tephra from the Minoan eruption of the Santorini volcano in Tel el-Dab‘a/Avaris in a layer dated to the reign of Tuthmosis III (1479-1425 BC). As the reign of the latter pharaoh synchronizes with Late Minoan IB, the eruption in question can now safely be held responsible for the massive destructions at the end of this particular period (c. 1450 BC).178 Having lost the ships of their fleet because of this disaster, the Minoans were an easy prey to the Mycenaeans of mainland Greece.
Soon after the eruption of the Santorini volcano, the Mycenaeans, archaeologically traceable by warrior graves of mainland type and their predilection for so-called Ephy-raean goblets, took over control of the island of Crete,
177 Woudhuizen 1992a: 55.
178 Bietak 2000: 194; this evidence now supersedes that presented by Driessen & Macdonald 1997 (end of Late Minoan IA, c. 1500 BC) and Manning 1999 (1628 BC). For an overview of the pro-blem of the Santorini eruption, see Woudhuizen 1992a: 47-79.
which they ruled from the palace of Knossos.179 As first pointed out by Fritz Schachermeyr, this takeover of power in Crete has its reflection in the wall paintings of Aegean embassies in the graves of Egyptian dignitaries. Thus, in the tomb of Rekhmare, which was finished early in the reign of Tuthmosis III’s successor Amenhotep II (1427-1400 BC), the Minoan kilts with “codpieces” are replaced by Mycenaean ones without “codpieces”, whereas in the slightly later tomb of Menkheperreseneb a prince of the land of Keftiu (= Crete) is depicted in altogether Mycena-ean style with a beard.180 Further proof is afforded by the Linear B tablets from Knossos, which are accidentally pre-served by the fire that destroyed the palace at the end of our Minoan-Mycenaean transitional period (= Late Minoan IIIA1/2, c. 1350 BC). Owing to the decipherment of Linear B by Michael Ventris in 1952, we know namely that this script was used to write Greek.181 At the same time, how-ever, a Minoan rest group is allowed to continue their own traditions in the Mesara plain, of which fact modest Linear A archives of about 150 tablets in sum at Hagia Triada (= HT) and two Cretan hieroglyphic inscriptions, the famous discus of Phaistos and the double-axe of Arkalokhori, bear testimony (see further section 12 below).
Within the frame of international politics, our Mi-noan-Mycenaean transitional period can itself be subdi-vided into three distinct subphases.182 The first subphase is characterized by the vicissitudes of the so-called Assuwian league – a short lived coalition of forces from Troy in the north to Lycia in the south of western Anatolia under the leadership of the royal house of the later kingdom of Ar-zawa and named after the Asios leim n “Asian field” near the latter’s capital Apasa (= Ephesos). As indicated by a retrospective passage in a Hittite text of later date, the in-fluence of this league radiated to the islands (Luwian gur-sawara) of the Aegean.183 Among these islands may well
179 Woudhuizen 1992a: 66-77.
180 Schachermeyr 1960; Schachermeyr 1980: 457-8.
181 Ventris & Chadwick 1973.
182 See on this subdivision Achterberg, Best, Enzler, Rietveld & Woudhuizen 2004, section 8.
183 Starke 1981.
70
have been Crete, since in the text of the Phaistos disc (if we are allowed to make use of the reading and interpreta-tion of the latter document recently put forward by a group of Dutch scholars, referred to in note 182) this town is called “Assuwian” (B 10-11) and in the tablets of Hagia Triada mention is made of a-si-ja-ka u-mi-na-si “of the Asian town” (HT 28a), which likely refers to Phaistos, again.184 The radiation of Assuwa’s influence to Crete might also account for its occurrence in form of Asiya(’Isy) in the annals of Tuthmoses III for the years just after the eruption of the Santorini volcano (in casu 1445 and 1441-1440 BC). This subphase ends with the defeat of the Assuwian league by the Hittite king Tud®aliyas I (1430-1400 BC).
With the elimination of the Assuwian league by the Hittites again a vacuum of power is created in the Aegean region – thus marking the start of our second subphase. One of the parties taking advantage of this situation is At-tarissiyas, the man of A®®iy , in whom we may recognize Atreus, the father of Agamemnon, king of Mycenae and leader of the Akhaians at the time of the Trojan war. Ac-cording to the annals of the Hittite kings Tud®aliyas II (1390-1370 BC) and Arnuwandas I (1370-1355 BC), this Akhaian ruler repeatedly attacked Madduwattas – a Hittite vassal in the region of southwest Anatolia – and with the latter held a raid on the island of Alasiya (= Cyprus), using as much as 100 chariots.185
The third and final subphase of the Minoan-Mycenaean transitional period is characterized by the re-newed prominence of Arzawa under its king Tar®unda-radus. This king corresponded with the Egyptian pharaoh Amenhotep III (1390-1352 BC) about the marriage of his daughter to the latter. In this correspondence, recovered at Tell El-Amarna, it is stipulated that the land of Hatti is “shattered”.186 The latter situation is plausibly connected with the historical preamble to a decree of Hattusilis III (1264-1239 BC) according to which before the reign of Suppiluliumas I (1344-1322 BC) the realm of Arzawa
184 Meijer 1982: 97. For Luwian umina- “town”, see Laroche 1960a: *228; Woudhuizen 1994-5: 183; Woudhuizen 2004a: 41.
185 Note the diffusion of Mycenaean ware from the Argolid, rea-ching Kos in Late Helladic IIB and Ialysos in Rhodes in Late Hel-ladic IIB-IIIA1, thus providing us with stepping stones for Attarissiyas’ actions in southwest Anatolia and Cyprus, see Vans-choonwinkel 1991: 164-5.
186 Moran 1992: 101 (= EA no. 31); cf. Mercer 1939: EA no. 31 (“zersplittert”).
reached to Uda and Tuwanuwa, which means to the terri-tory south of the Halys river deep in the ancestral Hattilands. Furthermore, the Egyptian pharaoh requests Tar®undaradus to send Kaskans, a people situated to the north of the Hittite capital Bo azköy/Hattusa, but at the time even occupying Nenassa south of the Halys bow. The marriage of Amenhotep III with a daughter of Tar®undaradus was part of a grander scheme, namely to curb Hittite power both in the east and the west. Another part of this scheme was formed by the political support rendered to the Mycenaean Greeks. As argued by Eric Cline, this support is emanating from the discovery of scarabs and faïence plaques of Amenhotep III and his wife Tiyi in the Aegean region, a concentration of which was found in the capital Mycenae itself. Moreover, there is a remarkable correspondence between the findspots of these Egyptian imports and the places mentioned in the list of Aegean place names on a statue base found in Amenhotep III’s temple tomb at Kom el-Hetan, Thebes, which, though starting and ending in Crete, likewise attributes a central position to the Greek mainland if not actually to Mycenae itself. Interestingly, the distribution of the Egyptian im-ports plausibly suggested to reflect political support in-cludes western Asia Minor, as a scarab of Amenhotep III has been discovered at Panaztepe in the Hermos valley, which conceivably belonged to the realm of Tar®unda-radus.187 The rationale behind lending political support to both Tar®undaradus and the Mycenaean Greeks in a con-tainment policy of the Hittites may perhaps be provided by the information from the discus of Phaistos – if, at least, one is allowed to make use of the aforesaid reading and in-terpretation of this hieroglyphic text as recently offered by a group of Dutch scholars.188 Here great king Tar®unda-radus, who, although not mentioned explicitly by name, is likely to be identified as the sender of the letter, is staged as the overlord of the Mycenaeans in Crete under leader-ship of king Nestor of Pylos in mainland Greece189 – the
187 Cline 1987; Cline 2001; note, however, that a scarab of queen Tiyi has also been found outside the Aegean proper in Cyprus, see Kenna 1971: 24, no. 47.
188 Achterberg, Best, Enzler, Rietveld & Woudhuizen 2004.
189 On the relation of Pylos with Crete, see Hiller 1996: 81-2 with reference to tablet fragments in Knossian scribal tradition from the old palace at Pylos and the mention in the Pylos tablets of the Cre-tan towns Aminiso “Amnisos” (PY 943) and Kotuwe “Gortys (D)” (PY An 233, etc.).
71
latter no doubt also a vassal of the king of Mycenae.190
Hence, the political destinies of great king Tar®undaradusof Arzawa and the Mycenaean Greeks are intricately linked up with each other. An interesting detail in this con-nection is that with the specification of Phaistos as Assu-wian Tar®undaradus refers back to the Assuwian league of his predecessor of about a generation ago in order to le-gitimize his claim on Crete.
This intricate political situation in which Nestor of Pylos, who, as we have just noted, was a vassal of the king of Mycenae, ruled over Crete in his capacity as vassal of great king Tar®undaradus of Arzawa, and in which there was some room for the continuity of Minoan traditions, was abruptly put to an end by the Mycenaeans from the Argolid at the beginning of Late Helladic IIIA2 (c. 1350 BC), when these burned down the palace of Knossos and introduced megaron houses and standardized types of pot-tery, the so-called Mycenaean koin , all over the island.191
This expansionism of Mycenaeans from the Argolid coin-cides with their conquest of Thebes – which had strong Cretan connections as examplified by the inscribed stirrup jars! – and the setting up of Orkhomenos as a Minyan (= non-Greek) satellite state in central Greece.192 Further-more, the Mycenaeanization of Thessaly to the northeast probably sets in from Late Minoan IIIA2 onwards.193 Fi-nally, the Mycenaeans from the Argolid extend their influ-ence over the Aegean islands and as far east as Miletos – a former Minoan colony named after Milatos in Crete194 – on the west coast of Asia Minor. 195
190 Note in this connection that according to Homeros, Iliad XI, 690-3 Herakles defeated the Pylian king Neleus and killed 11 of his 12 sons, leaving only Nestor as his successor.
191 Schachermeyr 1980: 446; Woudhuizen 1992a: 75.
192 Woudhuizen 1989: 199-202.
193 Smit 1989, who, unfortunately, does not distinguish between Late Minoan IIIA1 and 2.
194 Niemeier 1998a: 27 ff. first building phase, Late Minoa IA to Late Minoan IB; cf. Fick 1905: 29; 117.
195 Niemeier 1998a: 33 second building phase, Late Helladic IIIA2 to Late Helladic IIIB. Note that the extension of the Myce-naean sphere of influence in the eastern Aegean is reflected in the later Pylos tablets by ethnica like Kinidija, Miratija, Raminija,Kisiwija, and Aswija, bearing reference to what appear to be female captives from Knidos, Miletos, Lemnos, Chios, and Asia/Assuwa, respectively, see Parker 1999. Note further that Miratijo “man of Miletos, Milesian” figures prominently in the recently edited Theban tablets, see Aravantinos, Godart & Sacconi 2001: Fq 177, 198, [214], 244, 254+255, 269, and 276.
The history of the Mycenaeans during the period of the koin can be followed from the sidelines by their role in the Hittite sources, where they are addressed as A®®iyawa “Akhaians”.196 Basic to this role is the fact that with Millawanda (= Miletos) they have a foothold in west-ern Asia Minor. This history begins with a major setback, since, according to his annals, the Hittite great king Mur-silis II (1321-1295 BC) razed Millawanda down to the ground in the third year of his reign, which information agrees with an archaeologically detected destruction layer for Miletos in the Late Helladic IIIA2 to Late Helladic IIIB transitional period.197 The Mycenaeans, however, retained their hold on the site, as in the next episode, under the Hit-tite great king Muwatallis II (1295-1271 BC), a certain Pi-yamaradus, who is the father-in-law of the governor of Millawanda, Atpas, raided Hittite territory apparently with the backing of the king of A®®iyawa. Muwatallis II, who was preparing himself for the battle of Kadesh with Egypt (1274 BC), preferred to settle the matter in diplomatic terms, and, in doing so, addressed the king of A®®iyawa as his “brother”, which means recognition as an equal and hence great king. His A®®iyawan colleague was of the same mood, as with respect to a former conflict about Wilusa (= Homeric Ilios or Ilion) he is stated to have re-marked:
LUGAL KUR ®a-at-ti- ua-an-aš-kán ú-ug 8. ku-e-da-niA.NA [INI]M URU ui-l[u]-[š]a še-ir ku-ru-ur 9. e-šu-u-en nu- ua-[m]u a-p[í]-e-[d]a-ni INIM-ni la-ak-nu-ut10. nu- ua ták-šu-la-u-en X (X) X- ua-an-na-aš ku-ru-ur a-a-ra
“In der Angelegenheit von Wilusa, der entwegen der König des Landes Hattusa und ich uns feind waren, in der hat er mich umgestimmt, und wir haben uns vertragen. Ein … Krieg ist Unrecht für uns.”198
As it seems, this sidely remarked conflict about Wilusa became conflated in Greek memory as the Trojan [214], 244, 254+255, 269, and 276.
196 This identification, already implied in the discussion of Atta-rissiyas above, is now commonly accepted; note, however, that Heinhold-Krahmer 2003 is still hesitating about it.
197 Niemeier 1998a: 38; Niemeier 1998b: 150-1 end of second building period.
198 Sommer 1932: KUB XIV 3 iv 7-10 (cited without the nume-rous question marks for uncertain signs). For the dating of the Ta-wagalawas-letter to the reign of Muwatallis II and an overview of the discussion about this, see Smit 1990-1 and, most recently, Gurney 2002.
72
war199 – a suggestion further emphasized by the fact that the name of the king of Wilusa at the time of Muwatallis II, Alaksandus, corresponds to Greek Alexandros/Paris;200
at any rate, a date of say c. 1280 BC for this conflict corre-lates perfectly with the archaeologically established de-struction of Troy VI, usually assigned to c. 1300 BC.
Fig. 11 (see next page). Sites in southern and central Greece de-
stroyed and/or abandoned at the end of Late Helladic IIIB. Source:
Hope Simpson & Dickinson 1979.
shown are the following sites: Teikhos Dymaion, Pylos, Nikhoria,
Menelaion, Ayios Stephanos, Krisa, Tsoungiza, Mycenae, Zy-
199 So also Bryce 2003: 208, who, however, wrongly dates the Tawagalawas-letter to the reign of Hattusilis III. It is interesting to note in this connection that according to Webster 1960: 67 the Hit-tites are mentioned in Homeros among the Trojan allies as 1. Ha-lyzones from Alybe – a city, like Hattusa, associated with silver – (Iliad II, 856) [but note that Meyer 1968: 12 connects Alybe with the Khalybians of the Early Iron Age], and 2. Keteians (OdysseyXI, 521); they may further appear as adversaries of the Phrygians along the Sangarios in form of Amazones in a retrospective pas-sage referring to the time that Priamos still fought himself (IliadIII, 184) – the same Amazones upon whom Bellerophon stumbles during his adventures in the hinterland of Lycia (Iliad VI, 186), cf. Leonhard 1911: 15-6. See also section 2, notes 52 and 53 above.
200 Note that a reflection of these events is preserved by Stephanos of Byzantion’s remark in his Ethnika, s.v. Samylia that Motylos, after founding this Carian city, received Helena and Paris there, see Riemschneider 1954: 40.
gouries, Berbati, Prosymna, Midea/Dendra, Tiryns, Orkhomenos,
Iria, Gla, Eutresis, Thebes, Brauron.
After this glorious episode, however, it goes down with the image of the Mycenaean king in the eyes of the Hittites. It has been argued that in the reign of the Hittite great king Tud®aliyas IV (1239-1209 BC) the Mycenaeans had lost their Anatolian bridgehead in the region of Mile-tos. Thus there is documentary evidence that the ruler of Milawata (= variant of Millawanda) at the time turned sides and went over to the Hittite camp.201 In the archaeo-logical record this seems to be reflected by Hittite features in the material culture of Miletos in the second half of the 13th century BC.202 Whatever the extent of these argu-ments, fact is that in a treaty with Sausgamuwa of Amurru, in which Tud®aliyas IV ordered a ban on traffic between A®®iyawa and Assyria via the harbors of Amurru, the name of the king of A®®iyawa, initially summed up among the kings equal in rank with the Hittite great king, has been erased.203 Evidently, the king of A®®iyawa was down-graded in the eyes of the Hittites as compared to the situa-tion at the time of Muwatallis II. To this comes that the ban on traffic of A®®iyawa as referred to in the Sausga-muwa-treaty may have become more serious in the course of time. Tud®aliyas IV had a program of incorporating all of southwest Anatolia into his realm: early in his reign he announced the plan to conquer the territory west of Par®aalong the Kastaraya (= Perge along the Kestros in Pam-phylia) and to add the newly won territory to the province of Tar®untassa (= Cilicia Aspera).204 At a later stage in his reign, he conquered the region of the lower Xanthos valley in Lycia – a country where no one of his ancestors had ever marched.205 The rationale behind this scheme is to clear the sea from pirates – the Lycians were notorious for this activity already in the time of the El-Amarna archive in the 14th century BC – as a preparation for his ultimate goal: the conquest of Alasiya (= Cyprus). In the final years of his reign, then, he ultimately launched a campaign against the island of Alasiya, but a definite result was reached only by his son and successor, Suppiluliumas II (1205-1180? BC), who also set up a memorial for this
201 Bryce 1998: 339-42 (Milawata-letter).
202 Niemeier 1998b: 153.
203 Bryce 1998: 342-4.
204 Otten 1988: VIII, 62-4 and commentary.
205 Poetto 1993; Woudhuizen 1994-5: 168-179; Woudhuizen 2004a: section 3 ; see section 6 above.
73
campaign.206 Now, most of the inscriptions in Cypro-Minoan date to the period of Hittite rule, say c. 1210-1180? BC, if not actually from the last days before the conquest by the Sea Peoples. The larger texts among the inscriptions are bills of lading, registering the sea-borne traffic between western Anatolia and the Near East, espe-cially Ras Shamra/Ugarit.207 What really strikes us about these documents is the absence of Greek names. Of course, a Greek trader may be hidden behind geographically in-spired indications like “Iasos” or “the Samian”, but the same absence of Greek names also characterizes the much more substantial archives at Ras Shamra/ Ugarit.208 At any rate, it is clear that the responsible persons specified by ethnonyms are men like Pi®as,209 trader from Lycia, Sanemas,210 representative of the Shekelesh, or Akamas, representative of Ephesos and a place plausibly situated in the Troad (see section 13) – members of Sea Peoples who later knew their way to the Orient, but decidedly no Greeks! Accordingly, the evidence amounts to a serious ban of the Mycenaean Greeks from the waters bordering the Anatolian peninsula in the west and the south during the final phase of the Hittite Empire period.211
Just antedating the coming to power of Suppiuliumas II, in year 5 of Merneptah (= 1208 BC), the Akhaians in form of Ekwesh – the final -sh is likely to be identified as a suffix also present in Shekelesh (= Sicels) and Weshesh (= Ausones or Osci)212 – are recorded to have taken part in the campaign of the Libyan king Meryey against Egypt. In this campaign the Akhaians served as foreign allies or
206 Güterbock 1967; Woudhuizen 1994: 524-6; Woudhuizen 1994-5: 175; Woudhuizen 2004a: 32; the memorial in question is Ni anta in Bo azköy/Hattusa, see Woudhuizen 2004a: 72-5.
207 Woudhuizen 1992a: 94-145; Woudhuizen 1994.
208 Astour 1964; Sandars 1980: 35; 46. Note, however, that Ugari-tic Yman likely refers to Ionia, see Dietrich & Loretz 1998: 337-46, of which the related ethnonym, contrary to the opinion of Die-trich & Loretz 1998: 344, is already attested for Linear B in form of Ijawone “Ionians”, see Ventris & Chadwick 1973, glossary, s.v. and cf. Driessen 1998-9.
209 For Luwian hieroglyphic seals bearing testimony of the MN Pi®as, see Güterbock 1942: 68, no. 66; Kennedy 1959: 160, no. 39.
210 Note that this name is strikingly paralleled for a Cretan hiero-glyphic sealing from Gortys (# 196), reading, with the cross at the start and hence from right to left, 019-061-E74 sa-ná-ma.
211 Cf. Cline 1991.
212 Wainwright 1961: 72; Redford 1992: 252, note 54; cf. Hittite Karkisa alongside Karkiya “Caria”. On the identification of the Sea Peoples in question, see section 14 below.
mercenaries alongside the Teresh, Lukka, Sherden, and Shekelesh. The only one planning to settle in the Egyptian delta was the Libyan king himself who is reported to have been accompanied by his family and to have carried with him all his possessions.213 As such the Libyan campaign is clearly distinct from the later attacks by the Sea Peoples in the reign of Ramesses III (years 1179 and 1176 BC), when, according to the reliefs at Medinet Habu, the Sea Peoples themselves carried with them ox-drawn carts with their wives and children.214 Interesting to observe in this connection is that the Greeks are referred to in the Egyp-tian records of the Libyan campaign by a reflex of their Hittite name, A®® iyawa, instead of their usual Egyptian designation Tanayu, which in variant form Denye(n) is re-introduced by Ramesses III (see section 9). Another strange thing is that the fallen of the Ekwesh are explicitly stated to have been circumcized (hence their hands were cut off as a trophy instead of their penises) – a rite well-attested for the Egyptians and the Semites, but so far not for the Mycenaean Greeks.215
The period of the Mycenaean koin ends in massive destructions and/or abandonment of sites on the Greek mainland: in southern and central Greece 10 important sites show a destruction layer at the end of Late Helladic IIIB (c. 1185 BC),216 5 of which are abandoned after-wards, whereas at least 9 more important sites are just abandoned at the time (see Fig. 11 on the previous page).217 In view of these figures, the transition from Late Helladic IIIB to Late Helladic IIIC is much more discon-tinuous than preceding periods of an archaeological break discussed in the foregoing section (but note that the density of the Late Helladic IIIB sites is higher than ever before). Yet, as we know from later records, the language spoken in Greece remains Greek and the inhabitants of the Early Iron Age and following periods are Greeks, thus in this sense –
213 Sandars 1980: 101.
214 Sandars 1980: 117, afb. 77; 118-20. As we have seen in sec-tion 4 above, the given distinction was particularly made by Hölbl 1983.
215 Barnett 1969: 11; note that the Philistines from Crete were also not circumcized, see section 12.
216 Warren & Hankey 1989: 161 association of Late Helladic IIIB with Tewosret 1188-1186 BC at Deir ‘Alla.
217 Hope Simpson & Dickinson 1979; cf. Shelmerdine 1997: 581. See also Betancourt 1976: 40 with even larger figures, but without specification of the names of the sites in question.
74
give and take a few dialectal reshuffles – there is no real break, but only continuity.218 As an explanation of this paradox between archaeological evidence and linguistic data, it has been suggested that the enemy which attacked the Mycenaeans at the end of Late Helladic IIIB wasted the country but – apart from some minor exceptions indi-cated by the presence of handmade foreign ware (see also sections 10 and 14)219 – did not come to settle in it.220 At any rate, the Pylos tablets indicate that the enemy came by sea from the northwest, as ships are sent to cape Pleuron in Aitolia to cope with the emergency situation.221 This does not exclude, however, a simultaneous or slightly posterior attack from the north over land, to which the large scale destructions in Thessaly bear testimony (see Fig. 12)222
and against which the inhabitants of the Peloponnesos tried to protect themselves by building a wall on the Isthmos.223
As a result of the breakdown of the Mycenaean civili-zation, a number of people from the Peloponnesos decided to join the seaborne attackers and took the boat to the Ori-ent in order to settle in Cyprus and in the region of Adana on the adjacent side of the mainland. For the last men-tioned region this is proved by the recently discovered Luwian hieroglyphic-Phoenician bilingual inscription of Çineköy, dated to the reign of Urikki in the late 8th cen-tury BC, in which the land of Adana is called H i wa, the
218 For religious continuity, see Nilsson 1927: 400-14; Schnapp-Gourbeillon 2002: Chapitre IV.
219 Rutter 1975; Deger-Jalkotzy 1983; Popham 2001; for further literature, see section 14, note 600.
220 Desborough 1964: 224; cf. Betancourt 1976: 41.
221 Ventris & Chadwick 1973: 185-6: PY An 12 ereta Pereuro-nade ijote (= Greek eretai Pleur nade iontes) “rowers to go to Pleuron”. Further maritime measures are forthcoming from the oka-tablets, which, notwithstanding the linguistic criticism by Risch 1958: 354 and Palmer 1998: 154, deal with holkades “ships for transportation”, see Pugliese Carratelli 1954: 469; Mühlenstein 1956: 36 ff.; cf. Best 1996-7: 120-7; for the state of emergency exemplified by these tablets, one of which is headed by the phraseouruto opia2ra epikowo (= Greek (h) (s) wruntoi opi(h)ala epi-kouroi) “Thus the watchers are guarding the coast” (PY An 657), see Palmer 1956; Palmer 1965: 143-54.
222 Schachermeyr 1980: 393; Popham 2001: 282-3 (figs.). As a historical parallel one might point to the fact that when Dionysios of Syracuse raided the Caeretan harbor Pyrgi in 384 BC, the Celts in the hinterland seized the opportunity to attack the Etruscans from the rear.
223 Sandars 1980: 173; Vanschoonwinkel 1991: 108-9 (Late Hel-ladic IIIB/C transitional period).
Luwian hieroglyphic equivalent of Hittite A®®iyawa, char-acterized, just like it is the case for the text of the Phaistos disc, by aphaeresis.224 In the archaeological record, this event is reflected in the destruction of Tarsus at the end of the Late Bronze Age and the subsequent introduction of Late Helladic IIIC ware of Argive background.225 Another branch of the Mycenaean Greeks, referred to as Denye(n) by the Egyptians and Dan by the Hebrews, went further south and settled initially in the region of Tel Qasile – a new foundation – in Canaan, perhaps some time after the settlement of the Philistines (see section 9).226 Both these migrations, however, were not massive enough to plant the Greek language: the Akhaians in the region of Adana went over to Luwian and the Danaoi of Canaan to Semitic.
Apart from emigration to Cyprus and the Orient, which may have been an ongoing process from Late Hel-ladic IIIC to Submycenaean,227 there can be observed a clustering together of the population in Greece itself into refuge areas during this time. These refuge areas, like Ak-haia, Kephalenia, and Attica, but especially the Aegean is-lands Naxos, Kos, and Rhodes, could bear testimony to a considerable degree of recovery.228 Moreover, the popula-tion in Crete withdrew to mountain sites like Karphi, Vro-kastro, and Kastri.229 From Attica the Ionian emigration to the region of Miletos in western Asia Minor took place, probably in the Submycenaean period;230 the Aiolian mi-
224 Teko lu & Lemaire 2000; for the Phaistos disc, see Achter-berg, Best, Enzler, Rietveld & Woudhuizen 2004: 85; 98; 110.
225 Goldman 1956: 63; 350-1; Mee 1978: 150, who stipulates that the number of Late Helladic IIIC sherds (875 in sum) allows for the actual presence of Mycenaeans. Cf. Strabo, Geography XIV, 5, 12, according to which Tarsus is colonized from Argos.
226 For the absence of Late Helladic IIIC1b ware here, see Bietak 1993: 257-8.
227 Dikaios 1971: 519 (Late Helladic IIIC1b from the Argolid); Catling 1973; Vanschoonwinkel 304-5 (Paphos, Late Helladic IIIC); Schachermeyr 1980: 380 (sub-Mycenaean from the Pelo-ponnesos). The earliest evidence of the Greek language on Cyprus is provided by the Opheltas-obelos, dating to the middle of the 11th century BC, which bears testimony of the Arcado-Cyprian genitive (Opeletau), see Masson 1983: 408.
228 Desborough 1964: 226 ff.; Betancourt 1976: 40; Schacher-meyr 1980: 51.
229 Vanschoonwinkel 1991: 156-9.
230 Schachermeyr 1980: 375; cf. Herodotos, Histories I, 146, who stipulates that the Ionians killed the male Carians and married with their wives.
75
gration from Boeotia and Thessaly to the coastal zone of Mysia may well have occurred in about the same period or just a little afterwards.231 The Dorians, who repopulated an almost deserted Peloponnesos at the end of the Submyce-naean or the beginning of the Protogeometric period,232
followed in the footsteps of their Ionian and Aiolian tribesmen, colonizing Crete, Rhodes, and the region of Halikarnassos still later. Not for a long time, however, the Greeks were to reach a degree of unity as we have experi-enced for the period of the Mycenaean koin – and then only under foreign pressure!
(a)
(b)
Fig. 12. Sites and cemeteries (a) in Late Helladic IIIB and (b) in
Late Helladic IIIC (from Popham 2001: 282-3).
231 Spencer 1995: 275-7 (repopulation of Mytilene and Pyrrha on Lesbos during the Protogeometric period).
232 Eder 1998. See also section 2 above.
77
9. FROM DANAOI TO DAN
In Homeros there are three indications of the Mycenaean Greeks: Akhaioi (= Akhaians in our English transcription), Argeioi, and Danaoi.233 As we have seen in the preceding section, a reflection of the first of these ethnonyms, A®® iyawa, is used by the Hittites to refer to the Mycena-ean Greeks. As opposed to this, the Egyptians rather pre-ferred reflections of the third ethnonym, Tanayu or Denye(n). The interesting thing about this Egyptian prefer-ence is that the ethnonym Danaoi is derived from the heros eponym Danaos, who according to myth originated from Egypt. Thus it is reported that Danaos, son of Belos, fled before his brother Aigyptos from Egypt to Argos in Greece.234 Taking this myth at face value, the name Danaoi may at first have had a bearing on the inhabitants of the Argolid only, in order to receive a wider connotation in the course of time. This would tally with the information provided by Pindaros, according to which Danaoi refers to the pre-Doric inhabitants of Argos, Mycenae, and Lace-daimon.235
Egyptian Tanayu is first attested for the annals of Tuthmoses III (1479-1425 BC).236 Next, it occurs on a base of a column of the royal temple tomb of Amenhotep III (1390-1352 BC) at Kom el-Hetan (Thebes) in direct as-sociation with place names from the Greek mainland like Mycenae, Thebes, Messenia, and Nauplia.237 After an in-termezzo in the reign of Merneptah (1213-1203 BC), in which in line with the Hittites a reflection of Akhaioi (= Ekwesh) is used, the related form Denye(n) turns up amongst the attackers of Egypt in year eight of Ramesses III (1184-1153 BC). This latter ethnonym has been identi-fied with the Danaoi since the time of Emmanuel de Rougé.238 As noted by Alan Gardiner, this identification receives further emphasis from the fact that the name in question also occurs in shorthand variant Denye without
233 Hall 2002: 53, note 98 (with specification of their frequency).
234 Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopädie, s.v. Danaos.
235 Pindaros, Pythian Odes 4, 85 f.
236 Mégalomatis 1996: 811.
237 Edel 1966; Edel 1988.
238 De Rougé 1861: 145.
repetition of the n. 239
In the relevant literature, the Denye(n) are often, to-gether with the Danaoi, identified with the Danuna of the El-Amarna texts (in casu the letters by Rib-addi of Byblos and Abimilki of Tyre).240 However, the form Danuna cor-responds to the root of Dnnym “people of Adana” as re-corded for the Phoenician version of the bilingual Karatepe text (late 8th century BC), and has nothing to do with the Danaoi of mainland Greece.241 This conclusion is further substantiated by the fact that, according to the Ugaritic texts, the line of defence against the Sea Peoples is organ-ized in the waters of Lycia in southwest Anatolia: there is no question of a revolt in the Hittite province of Kizzu-watna – to which the town of Adana belongs – at the time. Only after the period of the resurrection of the Sea Peoples and the fall of the Hittite Empire, the region of Adana is colonized by a number of Greek settlers – an historical fact of which the recently found Luwian hieroglyphic-Phoenician bilingual inscription from Çineköy (late 8th century BC) bears testimony, in which the land of Adana is referred to by the name H i wa, i.e. the Luwian equivalent of Hittite A®®iyawa “Akhaian”,242 and which is further-more reflected in the archaeological record by the intro-duction of Late Helladic IIIC ware of Argive background in the region after the destruction of Tarsus (see also sec-tion 8)!243
Next to this settlement by a branch of Mycenaean Greeks under the name of Akhaians in the region of Adana, another group under the name of Dan (< Danaoi) went further south and settled initially in the region of Tel Qasile – a new foundation – in Canaan, perhaps, for the lack of Late Helladic IIIC1b ware, some time after the set-tlement of the Philistines.244 As suggested by Yigael
239 Gardiner 1947: 126.
240 EA no. 117, 90 ff.; EA no. 151, 52; cf. Hall 1926: 281; Gar-diner 1947: 125; Laroche 1958: 263-75; Barnett 1969: 9; Strobel 1976: 202; etc.
241Cf. Schachermeyr 1982 : 193 ff.
242 Teko lu & Lemaire 2000.
243 Goldman 1956: 63; 350-1; Mee 1978: 150.
244 Bietak 1993: 257-8; cf. Singer 1985: 114-5 who for this ab-sence altogether doubts the colonization of the site by Dan.
78
Yadin, a line from the song of Deborah, running as fol-lows: “And Dan, why did he remain in ships?”, preserves the memory of the precolonial stage in the history of the tribe of Dan.245 At any rate, historical sources locate the Danites on the coast between Asdod in the south and Dor in the north,246 and more specifically situate the region of their inheritance near Joppa.247 In the course of time, then, the Danites expanded their territory to Zora and Eshtaol in the hinterland of Tel Qasile and Joppa, from where they are recorded to have conquered Laish in the sphere of in-fluence of Sidon to the north, of which they changed the name into Dan.248 This latter event may well be linked up with the fact that the foundation layer of Tel Qasile (stra-tum XII) ends with a destruction of the site.249
245 Bible, Judges V, 17; Yadin in Best & Yadin 1973: 69.
246 Josephus, Antiquities V, 87.
247 Bible, Joshua XIX, 40-8.
248 Bible, Judges XVIII, 1-31.
249 Yadin in Best & Yadin 1973: 70.
79
10. ETRUSCAN ORIGINS
Models
The problem of Etruscan origins has received scholarly at-tention already in antiquity. First of all, there is the testi-mony of Herodotos of Halikarnassos (5th century BC) according to which the Etruscans were Lydian colonists from western Asia Minor. Hard pressed by a famine, so the story goes, half of the Lydian population under the leader-ship of king Atys’ son Tyrsenos mustered on ships at Smyrna and sailed to Italy, where they settled in the terri-tory of the Umbrians.250 As opposed to this, we have the opinion of Dionysios of Halikarnassos (1st century BC), who, on the basis of a comparison between the customs and the languages of the Etruscans and the Lydians, reached the conclusion that these two peoples were unre-lated. He extrapolated from this conclusion that the Etrus-cans were no Lydian colonists, but had always lived in Italy.251
As divided as opinions were on the subject of Etrus-can origins in antiquity, so they are in our present era. A majority among scholars in the field holds that the Etrus-cans were autochthonous. In accordance with this view, the Etruscans are considered a remnant population surviving the onset of Indo-European migrations which brought the Umbrians, Oscans, Latins, and Faliscans to the Italian pen-insula. Their language, so this line of appraoch continues, is not comparable to any other in the world, except for the one attested for the famous stele from Kaminia on the is-land of Lemnos in the Aegean. This only linguistic rela-tionship acknowledged by the adherents of the autochthonous thesis receives meaningful explanation in two ways. In the first place, Lemnian is, on the analogy of Etruscan in Italy, considered a remnant of a once widely dispersed Mediterranean language surviving the onset of Indo-European migrations into the Aegean basin.252 Sec-ond, Lemnian is seen as the result of a colonization by Etruscans from Italy into the north-Aegean region.253
A minority among scholars, but a persistent one, is of the opinion that the Etruscans were colonists from western
250 Histories I, 94.
251 Roman Antiquities I, 25-30.
252 Pallottino 1988: 98.
253 Gras 1976; Drews 1992; de Simone 1996.
Asia Minor. These so-called orientalists can be subdivided into two groups: those who situate the colonization of Etruria at the end of the Late Bronze Age (c. 1200 BC),254
and those who rather place this event in the Early Iron Age (c. 750-675 BC).255 A representative of the first mentioned group of orientalists is the Indo-Europeanist Robert Beekes. However, he is exceptional in combining the idea of an oriental origin with the linguistic analysis of the ad-herents of the autochthonous thesis. Thus, Beekes likewise considers Etruscan and Lemnian relics of a language once spoken in the Aegean before the Indo-European migra-tions.256 Much more common among orientalists is it to consider Etruscan related to the Indo-European languages of Asia Minor, and in particular to Luwian.257 The latter language was spoken in southern and western Anatolia during the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, and, in its western extremity, was subject to a dialectal development which resulted in Lycian and Lydian of the Classical pe-riod.258
Now, there is some evidence of non-Indo-European languages in Asia Minor, originally going back to the time before the Indo-European migrations. In the first place, mention should be made of Hattic, the language of the in-habitants of Hattusa before this city was taken over by the Hittites, as recorded in Hittite texts dating from the 2nd millennium BC. Next, there is Hurrian, the language of the realm of Mitanni, once a formidable rival of the Hittites in their strive for hegemony in eastern Anatolia and North Syria. This language developed into Urartian of the Early Iron Age. Finally, we cannot omit the Semitic language, which in the form of Akkadian was used as a lingua francafor international correspondence between the empires of the 2nd millennium BC – a function taken over by Ara-maic during the Early Iron Age. But, except for some bi-linguals with Aramaic for Lycian and Lydian, this evidence has a bearing on eastern Asia Minor only. In
254 Hencken 1968.
255 Schachermeyr 1929.
256 Beekes & van der Meer 1991; Beekes 1993; Beekes 2002: 219-20; cf. Steinbauer 1999: 389.
257 Meriggi 1937; Laroche 1961b.
258 For Lydian as a Luwian dialect, see Woudhuizen 1984-5a; Woudhuizen 1990 ; Woudhuizen 2005 : appendix IV.
80
western Asia Minor the linguistic situation is much less complicated. Here we find evidence of two language groups, both of them Indo-European, namely Luwian, which, as we have seen, developed into Lycian and Lydian of the Classical period, and Thraco-Phrygian, presumably the vernacular of the common people of the Troas already in the Bronze Age (see section 13, especially note 520, be-low) and, after the fall of the Hittite Empire c. 1180 BC, introduced further east into the Anatolian highland. If, for the sake of argument, we have to allow for remnants of a non-Indo-European language in western Anatolia, this can only entail small pockets, uncapable of providing the amount of people necessary for the colonization of Etruria as envisaged by the orientalists. As a matter of fact, Beekes’ tenet of non-Indo-European survivals in the Ae-gean is entirely based on the linguistic analysis of the Lemnos stele as common among the adherents of the autochthonous thesis.
Autochthonous thesis
The statement by Dionysios of Halikarnassos that the Etruscans differed in customs and language from the Lydi-ans is perfectly true for the period in which he lived, the 1st century BC. But, if a colonization of Etruria from Lydia had taken place, as Herodotos wants us to believe, then this event happened some 6 to 11 centuries in the past. During this period, we must believe that the customs and language had developed independently in Lydia and Etru-ria, which would explain the differences. It is of much greater importance, therefore, to know whether the Etrus-can customs and language were more closely related to those of the Lydians when these first manifested them-selves, in the late 8th and early 7th century BC.
At the same time, it is interesting to determine what exactly is Dionysios’ drive to disconnect the Tyrrhenians, as the Etruscans are called by the Greeks, from the Pelas-gians. In previous sources, like, for instance, Thucydides (5th century BC), these two population groups are persis-tently identified.259 The answer to this question is given by Dionysios himself in the introduction to his work: he wants to prove that the founding fathers of Rome were actually Greeks.260 Now, the Pelasgians, who played a role in the 259 Peloponnesian War IV, 109, 4.
260 Roman Antiquities I, 5, 1; cf. I, 17, 1; I, 60, 3. This point of view is common among Hellenistic poets, see Sakellariou 1977:
earliest history of Rome, according to literary tradition originate from Greece. For Dionysios, this is reason to as-sume that they are in fact a Greek ethnos. In reality, how-ever, the Pelasgians are a pre-Greek population group, already present in Greece before the Greeks came into be-ing. As they are so different from the Greeks, Dionysios cannot use the Tyrrhenians to the same effect: to declare them Greeks would be preposterous. The unprecedented and rather forced distinction between Tyrrhenians and Pelasgians leads to absurd consequences, like, for instance, the assumption that the language of the inhabitants of Cor-tona, whom Dionysios considers to be Pelasgians, was dis-tinct from that of the Tyrrhenians.261 Dozens of inscriptions disprove this: the language of the inhabitants of Cortona was straightforwardly Etruscan.262 Another question which arises from Dionysios’ distinction between Pelasgians and Tyrrhenians is where the latter were living at the time that the Pelasgians are said to have occupied their country.263 Finally, the way in which Dionysios dis-poses of the Pelasgians in order to make room for the Tyr-rhenians is extremely suspect: he simply, so to say, lets them evaporate into thin air!264 In short, the story on which the adherents of the autochthonous thesis base themselves suffers from many flaws.
Also the explanation of the relationship between Etruscan and Lemnian within the frame of the autochtho-nous thesis leads up to unsurmountable difficulties. The first option, according to which the Etruscans and Lem-nians were both remnants of population groups surviving the onset of Indo-European immigrations, runs up against the fact that the two languages were so closely related that such a long period of independent development is highly inconceivable (the Indo-European invasions in the Aegean date back to at least c. 2300 BC, see section 3). The second option, according to which the north-Aegean region was colonized by Etruscans from Italy in the late 8th or early
98, note 3.
261 Roman Antiquities I, 29, 3; this view, based on a misreading of †Crotoniats for Crestoniats in the manuscript of Herodotos’ text, is followed, amongst others, by Briquel 1984: 101-140 (esp. 126 ff.) and Beekes 2002: 221, in the latter case without realizing the con-sequence. For futher literature, see Sakellariou 1977: 88, note 6.
262 Rix 1991: 301-4; Agostiniani & Nicosia 2000; cf. Briquel 1984: 133.
263 Roman Antiquities I, 20, 5.
264 Roman Antiquities I, 24, 4; 26. 1
81
7th century BC, is, considering the slight dialectal differ-ences, a priori possible, but lacks a proper archaeological and historical basis.
Colonization at the end of the Bronze Age
If the autochthonous thesis turns out to be flawed, what about the thesis of oriental origins? As we have seen, one group of orientalists situates the colonization of Etruria from Asia Minor at the end of the Bronze Age. These scholars base themselves on the chronology of Herodotos, who places the rulers descending from Atys’ son Lydos prior to those of the Heraklids. The reign of the latter, Herodotos continues, lasted as many as 22 generations or 505 years in sum before the last representative, Kandaules, was set aside by Gyges, the first ruler of the Mermnades, at the beginning of the 7th century BC.265 Accordingly, it follows that the descendants of Atys’ son Lydos were in power before the beginning of the 12th century BC. Hero-dotos, however, amplifies this information with the remark that the population of Sardis and its surroundings were called Lydians after Lydos, whereas prior to his rule they were known as Maeonians. Now, Maeonians is the form of address for the Lydians in the epic songs of Homeros, which, as we have seen in section 2, primarily reflects Late Bronze Age history. Hence the name Lydians can only be surmised to have come into currency in the Early Iron Age. Ergo: Herodotos’ chronology is flawed.
Fig. 13. Distribution of biconical urns in the Urnfield world (from
Hencken 1968: 441, fig. 452).
265 Histories I, 7.
Also from an archaeological perspective the coloniza-tion of Etruria at the end of the Bronze Age is highly unlikely. It is true that at this time Italy is characterized by the introduction of a new culture, the so-called proto-Villanovan (= an earlier phase of Villanovan),266 but, as demonstrated convincingly by Hugh Hencken, the latter shows close affinities with the European Urnfields. Thus the typical biconical urns relate to counterparts primarily discovered in the region of Oltenia and the Banat, Hungary (see Fig. 13).267 Furthermore, the house urns, which are so well-known a feature of the Latial variant of (proto-)Villa-novan, find their closests parallels in northern Germany (see Fig. 14).268 In line with these observations, it seems reasonable to assume that new population groups have en-tered Italy, as Hencken does, only not from the Aegean, but from Europe. These new population groups can plausi-bly be identified as the forefathers of the historical Italic peoples of the Umbrians, Oscans,269 Latins, and Faliscans, whose languages show the closest affinity to Celtic and Germanic. At any rate, the Umbrians have the same name as the German tribe of the Ambrones (Jutland in Den-mark),270 branches of which can, on the basis of related place and river names, be traced as far afield as France, Spain, and even northern Italy,271 whereas that of the Oscans or Ausones is obviously related to the Celtic eth-nonyms Ausci (near Auch in southern France) and Ausetani (in Ausa-Vich, Catalonia).272 (As demonstrated by Hans Krahe, both ethnonyms are rooted in his Old European river names, the first being based on *embh-,*ombh- “moist, water” and the second on *av-, *au-
266 Note that Hencken 1968 wrongly applies the term pre-Villanovan instead; cf. Fugazzola Delpino 1979; Ridgway 1988: 628 ff.
267 Hencken 1968: 441, fig. 452.
268 Behn 1924: 90-1; Tafel 6, d-e; note, however, that the north German house urns postdate the Latial ones.
269 Note in this connection that the introduction of proto-Villanovan in Lipari and at Milazzo in Sicily is attributed to the Ausones (= variant form of Osci) who according to Diodoros of Sicily, Library of History V, 7, invaded Lipari and Sicily from the Italian peninsula, see Hencken 1955: 31.
270 Altheim 1950: 56-7.
271 Schmoll 1959: 83; 119, note 1.
272 Bosch-Gimpera 1939: 40.
82
“source, stream”).273
Fig. 14. Distribution of house urns (from Bouzek 1997: fig. 49).
The distinction between open and closed map symbols is immate-
rial in the present connection
This reconstruction of Italian prehistory at the end of the Bronze Age, which assumes a relation between Urn-field culture and the historical peoples of the Umbrians, Oscans, Latins, and Faliscans, collides with the view of the foremost representant of the autochthonous thesis, Mas-simo Pallottino. The latter put much effort in an attempt to disconnect the Italic Indo-European languages from the (proto-)Villanovan culture, the bearers of which he consid-ers to be the forebears of the Etruscans. To this end he pre-sents a map showing the distribution of archaeological cultures of Italy in the 9th and 8th centuries BC, which he compares with the distribution of the various languages as attested in about the 5th century BC.274 This is a danger-
273 Krahe1964: 90-1; 43-4.
274 Pallottino 1988: 68; Abb. 1-2.
ous procedure. In the first place, it leaves out the proto-Villanovan phase, which cannot be dissociated from Villa-novan and which spread far to the south, reaching Apulia, the Lipari islands and even northern Sicily – regions where later evidence of Italic languages are found (see Fig. 15).275 Secondly, the use of the distinction between crema-tion and inhumation burial rites as an ethnic marker is, as far as the 8th century BC is concerned, an oversimplifica-tion. After the introduction of proto-Villanovan at the end of the Bronze Age, there is a revival of the rite of inhuma-tion spreading from the south of Italy to the north, reaching Caere in the 9th and 8th centuries BC. Similarly, the Etruscans are also acquainted with both rites – be it that their cremation burials are clearly distinct from the Villa-novan ones (see further below). Hence, the distinction is rather Villanovan style cremations and inhumations versus Etruscan style cremations and inhumations – a line of ap-proach actually applied by Ingrid Pohl in her publication of the Iron Age cemetery of Caere.276 Finally, the identifica-tion of the bearers of Villanovan culture in Etruria with the forebears of the Etruscans disregards the historical evi-dence according to which the Etruscans colonized the land of the Umbrians and drove them out of their original habi-tat.277 As a matter of fact, there are numerous reminis-cences of the Umbrians originally inhabiting the region later called Etruria, like the river name Umbro, the region called tractus Umbriae, the association of the Umbrian tribes of the Camartes and Sarsinates with the inland towns Clusium and Perugia, and the identification of Cor-tona as an Umbrian town.278 At any rate, the sites which have yielded Umbrian inscriptions mostly lie along the eastern fringe of the Villanovan style cremation area,279
and there even have been found Umbrian type inscriptions in Picenum on the other side of the Appenines, whereas literary sources speak of Umbrians in Ancona, Ariminum, Ravenna, and Spina to the north280 – regions where
275 For Ausones (= Oscans) on the Lipari islands and in Milazzo, see Diodoros of Sicily, The Library of History V, 7.
276 Pohl 1972.
277 Plinius, Natural History III, 14, 112.
278 Altheim 1950: 22-3.
279 Poultney 1959: 3.
280 Pseudo-Skylaks, Periplus 16; Strabo, Geography V, 1, 11; V, 2, 1; Justinus, Epitoma historiarum philippicarum Pompei TrogiXX, 1, 11; cf. Briquel 1984: 33; 51; 88; Salmon 1988: 701.
83
(proto-)Villanovan is attested (cf. Fig. 15).
Fig. 15. Distribution of (a) proto-Villanovan and (b) Villanovan
sites (after Hencken 1968: fig. 466).
The repercussions of the Urnfield migrations into It-aly are archaeologically traceable to well into the Aegean region. Thus Urnfield material of Italian or European type is attested for the islands Crete, Kos, and Euboia as well as for various locations on the Greek mainland.281 Appar-ently, some population groups in Italy were displaced at the time, or some of the European immigrants, whose maritime nature has already been extrapolated by Hencken,282 went straight on to the Aegean. This is ex-actly the situation recorded by the Egyptian sources on the so-called Sea Peoples, which inform us about raids by the Shekelesh, Sherden, and Weshesh, in which we can recog-nize the Italic peoples of the Sicilians, Sardinians, and Oscans (see section 14 below).283 These western raiders
281 Popham 2001.
282 Hencken 1968: 634.
283 For the identification of the Weshesh as Oscans, see Chabas
made common cause with colleagues from the east-Mediterranean basin, like the Ekwesh or Akhaians from the Greek mainland, Peleset or Pelasgians from the Ae-gean, Tjeker or Teukrians from the Troas, and Lukka or Lycians from western Asia Minor. The importance of bearers of the Urnfield culture, like we have suggested for the Oscans, among these Sea Peoples is stressed by the fact that their boat(s) as depicted in Ramesses III’s memorial at Medinet Habu are characterized by bird-head devices at both the bow and the stern – as convincingly shown by Shelley Wachsmann a typical Urnfield feature.284 Fur-thermore, this element among the Sea Peoples can even be shown to have settled in the Levant at Hamath, where Urn-field cemeteries with more than 1000 urns have been dug up.285 Within the frame of the autochthonous thesis, the Teresh or Tyrsenians (= Tyrrhenians) are, on the analogy of the Sicilians and Sardinians, likewise supposed to have come from Italy, but considering their Aegean location in early Greek literary sources this is unlikely (see section 12). At any rate, the direction of the migrations at the end of the Bronze Age is clearly from west to east, and not the other way round. Therefore, the colonization by the Etrus-cans of Italy from Asia Minor as recorded by Herodotos does not fit into the period of the Sea Peoples.
Colonization in the Early Iron Age
The question which remains to be answered is whether the colonization by the Etruscans of Italy from Asia Minor as recorded by Herodotos does fit into the period of the Early Iron Age. This is the period of exploration and coloniza-tion of the west-Mediterranean basin by Phoenicians and Greeks. Was there among these explorers and colonists of the far west a third party, namely Luwians from western Anatolia?
First of all, it is important to note that only from c.700 BC onwards Etruria is characterized by an archaeo-logical culture that with certainty can be identified as
1872: 299; cf. Reinach 1910: 36, note 3; Macalister 1913: 25; see further section 14 below.
284 Wachsmann 1998: 178 (with reference to de Boer 1991 who, with due reference to Hencken 1968 [in turn going back to Kim-mig 1964: 223-4, Abb. 1], already noted the connection); Wach-smann 2000: 122.
285 Wachsmann 2000: 123; Drews 1993: 201, note 104 stipulates that a substantial number of the European Naue type II sword, mostly of iron, were found in these cremation graves.
84
Etruscan, because from that date onwards inscriptions con-ducted in the Etruscan language are found.286 One of the most outstanding features of this Etruscan culture is formed by the chamber tomb under tumulus for multiple burials. The burial rites may consist of inhumation or a special form of cremation, according to which the remains of the pyre are collected in a gold or silver container which, wrapped in a purple linen cloth, is placed in a locu-lus of the grave. The closest parallels for such elite-cremations are found in Anatolian style chamber tombs under tumulus at Salamis on Cyprus.287 The rite in ques-tion is meticulously described by Homeros in connection with the burial of Patroklos, for which reason one often speaks of an Homeric burial. As far as mainland Greece is concerned, similar elite-cremations are attested for the hero of Lefkandi and the burials at the west gate of Eretria. The element which is missing here, however, is the characteris-tic chamber tomb under tumulus (the hero of Lefkandi is discovered in an apsidal building secondarily used as a grave and covered by a tumulus).288
Chamber tombs under tumulus for multiple burials are a typical Mycenaean feature. During the Late Bronze Age this type of burial is disseminated by Mycenaean colonists from mainland Greece to western Asia Minor, where it is subsequently taken over by indigenous population groups like the Carians, Lycians, Lydians, and ultimately the Phrygians. The earliest indigenous examples are pseudo-cupolas in Caria, dated to the period of c. 1000 to 800 BC. These graves are characterized by a rectangular ground-plan and a concentrically vaulted roof. The problem of the dome resting on a square is solved by the so-called pendentive. This very same construction is typical of chamber tombs in Populonia during the 7th century BC.289
Similarly, in Lydia a chamber tomb has been found with a roof vaulting lenghtwise in the same way as for example the famous Regolini-Galassi tomb at Caere, dating to the 7th century BC. Furthermore, Mysia has produced a cham-
286 Hencken 1968: 631.
287 D’Agostino 1977: 57-8; note that the Etruscan nature of the elite-cremations at Pontecagnano is deducible from the fact that the earliest inscriptions from this site are conducted in the Etrus-can language, see Rix 1991: Cm 2.2, Cm 2.7, and Cm 2.19, all of 6th century BC date.
288 Bérard 1970; Popham, Touloupa & Sackett 1982.
289 Schachermeyr 1929: 89-91; 100-1; cf. Demus-Quatember 1958: 63.
ber tomb which is entirely hewn out of the soft tufa with mock roof beams in place as if it were a wooden construc-tion. The same technique is so common for Etruria that if the photos of the Mysian example would have had no cap-tion one could easily be mistaken to be dealing with an Etruscan grave.290 Unfortunately, the Anatolian examples in the last mentioned two cases were so thoroughly robbed that they cannot be properly dated. Next, it deserves our attention that Lycia from the 6th century BC onwards is typified by façade graves hewn out of the natural rock, which bring to mind the façade graves hewn out of the natural rock of Norchia and its immediate surroundings to which a similar date is assigned as the Lycian counter-parts.291 Like the Mysian tomb mentioned above, the fa-çade graves imitate wooden constructions. Hence, it is interesting to note that actual wooden constructions have been dug up in Phrygia. Here large wooden boxes dating to the late 8th and early 7th centuries BC serve as a replace-ment of the stone built chamber tomb in like manner as in Vetulonia during the 7th century BC. Finally, mention should be made of a Lycian chamber tomb from the 5th century BC with paintings which bear a strong resem-blance to the Etruscan ones in Tarquinia – be it that the Lycian paintings, in contrast to their Etruscan counterparts, show Persian motifs.292
In summary, on the basis of the preceding survey of relations in funeral architecture one gains the impression that Etruria was in close contact with various regions of western Anatolia during the Early Orientalizing period and beyond.293 Possibly, a crucial role was played by Mysia, the Aiolian coast, and the offshore islands like Lesbos, be-cause here the typical local pottery, just like in Etruria from the 7th century BC onwards, consists of bucchero.294
The inference that colonists from various regions of western Asia Minor migrated to Etruria may receive fur-ther emphasis if we take a look at the script. As mentioned in the above the earliest inscriptions in the Etruscan lan-guage date from c. 700 BC onwards. In general, it is as- 290 Kaspar 1970: 71-83.
291 Contra Åkerström 1934: 104-7.
292 Mellink 1972: 263 ff.
293 This contact needs to be distinguished from and can at the same time be underlined by Etruscan post-colonial trade with the Aegean as attested by the presence of Etruscan bucchero at, amongst other sites, Smyrna and Pitane, see Briquel 1991: 80.
294 Pfuhl 1923: 153 f.
85
sumed that the Etruscans have borrowed their alphabet from the Greeks, in particular from the Euboeians at Pith-ecussae and Cumae. This view, however, runs up against serious difficulties, since the local Etruscan alphabets are characterized by signs and sign-forms unparalleled for Greek inscriptions. In the first place we have to consider in this connection the sign for the expression of the value [f] as attested for an early 7th century BC inscription from Vetulonia (Vn 1.1) in north-Etruria, which consists of a vertical stroke with a small circle on either top. As time goes by, this sign develops into the well-known figure-of-eight [f], which spreads from the north of Etruria to the south ultimately to replace the digraph of wau and ta (< h ta) for the same sound in the south-Etruscan alphabets. The origin of this sign can be traced back to the Lydian al-phabet, where during the same time it knows exactly the same development! Next, a late 7th century BC inscription from Caere (Cr 9.1) in south-Etruria bears testimony of a variant of the tsade which is closer in form to the Phoeni-cian original than the Greek san. The closest parallel for this sign can be discovered in the local script of Side in Pamphylia. On the basis of these observations it lies at hand to infer that various groups of colonists from various regions in western Asia Minor, ranging from Lydia in the north to Side in the south, simply have taken (features of) their script with them.295
The colonists not only introduced their own type of grave and their own type of alphabet, they also settled themselves, just like the Phoenicians and Greeks, in urban centres founded according to neatly circumscribed ritu-als.296 An often heard argument in favor of the continuity between the Villanovan and Etruscan Orientalizing periods is that the Etruscan cities are founded on locations where in the previous period Villanovan villages are situated.297
It should be realized, however, that the Greek colony in Cumae is also preceded by an indigenous Italic settlement and that there is ample evidence for intermingling between the original inhabitants and the new arrivals.298 The same
295 Woudhuizen 1982-3: 97; for the Sidetic tsade, see Woudhui-zen 1984-5b: 117, fig. 5.
296 Woudhuizen 1998: 178-9.
297 Hencken 1968: 636.
298 Müller-Karpe 1959: 36-9; note that there are also Etruscans among the new settlers as indicated by the Etruscan nature of an elite-cremation in the so-called fondo Artiaco dated c. 700 BC, see Strøm 1971: 146 and Strøm 1990, and an Etruscan inscription da-
model is applicable to the Etruscan colonization, as sug-gested by the large number of Italic names in Etruscan in-scriptions dating from the 7th and 6th centuries BC onwards. To give some examples, one might point to: Cventi, Eknate, Venelus, Vete, Vipie, Kavie, Kaisie, Ma-merce, Numesie, Petrus, Punpu, Pupaia, Puplie, Spurie,Flavie, and tribal names like Latinie, Sapina, and Sarsina.299 As a matter of fact, the colonists from western Asia Minor constitute an elite, who impose their superior culture on the by far more numerous indigenous Italic population. A vital component of the colonial culture is formed by their language.
A first hint at the nature of the language can be de-rived from the name of some of the newly founded cities. Thus Tarquinia (= Etruscan Tar na-) is, on the analogy of Greek colonial names like Posidonia, Apollonia, and Herakleia, which are also based on a divine name, named after the Luwian storm-god Tar®unt-.300 In addition, a number of Etruscan personal names, like Arn , Mezentie,Mu sie, ifarie or efarie, can be traced back to Luwian counterparts (Arnuwanta-, Mukasa-) or Luwian onomastic elements (masana- “god”, Tiwata- or Tiwara- “sun-god”); the same applies to family names like Camitlna (< Luwian ®anta- “in front of”) and Velave na (< Luwian walwa-“lion”), be it that the diagnostic element -na- though originating from Luwian hieroglyphic ná- “son”301 is an Etruscan innovation unparalleled for Anatolian onomas-tics. Furthermore, Etruscan vocabulary shows many corre-spondences with Luwian, like for instance the very common verb muluvane- or muluvani- “to offer as a vow”, the root of which is related to Luwian maluwa- “thank-offering”. Of a more profound nature are similarities in morphology (adjectival suffixes -s- and -l-), the system of
ted c. 700-675 BC which is not included in the corpus Rix 1991, see Woudhuizen 1992a: 158-61.
299 Cf. Vetter 1953.
300 Evidence for a Tar®unt-cult in western Anatolia is provided by Lycian Trqqñt- or Trqqas (Houwink ten Cate 1961: 126), whereas the remains of such a cult are indicated by the demos Tarkundara at Mylasa in Caria (Woudhuizen 1992a: 7, note 28a), the epiklesis Targu nos of Zeus in Lydia (Woudhuizen 1990: 101), and the heroic name Tarkh n as reported for Mysia by Lykophron, Aleksandra 1248. The attempts by Briquel 1984: 181 ff. (who does not even refer to the long standing [since Herbig 1914: 20-1] and well-known equation of Etruscan Tar na- to Lu-wian Tar®unt- in a note) to dissociate Mysian Tarkh n from its proper Anatolian background are altogether futile.
301 Woudhuizen 2005 : 19-20.
86
(pro)nominal declension (genitive-dative singular in -s or -l, ablative-locative in - (i) or -r(i), nominative plural in -i,genitive plural in -ai > -e) and verbal conjugation (3rd per-son singular of the present-future in - (i)), the use of sen-tence introductory particles (va-, nac, nu-), enclitic conjunctions (-c or - , -m), negative adverbs (nes or nis),etc. On the basis of these features, Etruscan can be classi-fied as most closely related to Luwian hieroglyphic of the Early Iron Age (adjectival suffixes -asi- and -ali-, sentence introdutory particle wa-, negative adverb nas), but in cer-tain aspects already showing developments characteristic of Lycian (genitive plural in -ãi > -e1) and Lydian (dative singular in -l1, loss of closing vowel in the ablative-locative ending, sentence introductory particle nak, enclitic conjunction -k) of the Classical period. Finally, Etruscan shows a number of deviations from Luwian which it shares with Lemnian, like the 3rd person singular ending of the past tense in -ce, -ke or - e, the vocabulary word avi(l)-“year”, and the enclitic conjunction -m “and”. Considering the fact that the Lemnos stele contains a dating-formula bearing reference to a certain Holaie from Phokaia, who is specified as king (vanacasial < Greek (v)anaks) over the Myrinians and Seronians, the places of which, on the anal-ogy of Phokaia, are likely to be situated in Aiolia, these deviations may plausibly be ascribed to the dialect of the indigenous population of Mysia.302 If so, the linguistic evidence coincides remarkably with the results from our archaeological investigation according to which we were already able to posit a crucial role for Mysia in the coloni-zation process. Notwithstanding his mistaken chronology, Herodotos, while not telling the whole story in all its nu-ances, has certainly transmitted a tradition which in its nu-cleus may safely be considered historically correct!
We still have to answer the following question: why did Luwian population groups from western Asia Minor take the boat and sail to Italy in order to settle in the coun-try of the Umbrians? In an attempt to address this question, it is important to note that the excavations at the island of Pithecussae, alongside Phoenician (to be more specific Aramaic)303 and Greek inscriptions, have produced what should be called proto-Etruscan ones dating to the period of c. 750 to 700 BC.304 Apparently, the Luwians of west-
302 Best & Woudhuizen 1989; Woudhuizen 1992b; Woudhuizen 1998; Woudhuizen 2001a. See further appendix II.
303 Buchner 1982: 293.
304 Woudhuizen 1992b: 154 ff. Contra Johnston 1983: 63, who
ern Asia Minor were involved in trade with the indigenous population of Italy for the same reasons as the Phoenicians (to be more specific: Aramaeans)305 and Greeks: the met-alliferous (especially iron) nature of the regions of the Tolfa hills near Tarquinia, Elba, and Populonia. This situa-tion of precolonial offshore trade in Italy is described by one of our earliest sources with respect to the Tyrsenians, namely Hesiodos. In his Theogony, which dates from the 8th century BC, he informs us that the indigenous kings Agrios and Latinos ruled over the famous Tyrsenians who live very far off mukh i n s n hiera n “in a recess of the holy islands”!306 The motivation to let these trade contacts culminate into actual colonization comes from domestic difficulties: at the end of the 8th century BC Anatolia suf-fered heavily from the Kimmerian invasion, which over-threw the Phrygian realm of king Midas and terrorized the Lydian realm of the tyrant Gyges.307 If you were living along the coast and were acquainted with the route to more peaceful regions, this was the time to pick up your belong-ings, board on a ship and settle in the metalliferous zone of Italy, where, from a military point of view, the indigenous population was by far inferior!
Additional note: The Indo-Europeanization of Tuscany
There is archaeological and linguistic evidence for a still earlier layer in the process of Indo-Europeanization of Tuscany than the ones discussed above.
Thus in the early 3rd millennium BC, Tuscany is characterized by the Rinaldone culture. Typical for this culture is the Tomb of the Widow at Porte San Pietro, which consisted of a single chambered stone-cut catacomb
tries to get rid of the un-Greek features by reading the combination of sigma and san in one inscription as sigma and four stroked uns-temmed mu and by emending the sequence ]mi maion[ in another inscription as ei]mi + MN [in the genitive, but the four stroked unstemmed mu occurs only in inscriptions of later date (as in the maker-formula ]inos m’epoiese from c. 700-675 BC) and the ver-bal form e(i)mi, in all of its occurrences in Jeffery 1998, turns up after the personal name it is associated with. Similar criticism also applies to Barton k & Buchner 1995.
305 Bernal 1991: 192 (with reference to Homeros, Iliad II, 783). For the distinction of Phoenicians at Pithecussae by their burial ri-tes, see now Docter 2000.
306 Theogony 1011-6.
307 Sauter 2000.
87
grave of North Pontic steppe type, in which a man was buried with his wife. The skeleton of the man was associ-ated with a stone battle-axe, copper daggers, an arrowhead, and a pot. Skull injuries attested for the skeleton of the woman suggest that she was dispatched on the death of her husband to accompany him in the afterlife according to the likewise North Pontic rite of suttee. Other Rinaldone tombs produced horse remains – a feature pointing once again in the direction of the North Pontic steppe where the animal in question was not only abundantly found but also suggested to have been already domesticated from the 4th millennium BC onwards.308
From a linguistic point of view, it has been observed by Hans Krahe that Tuscany, with names like Alma, Ar-menta, Aventia, Albinia, Arnus, Elsa, Auser, Ausenna, and Visentios, is included in the distribution of his Old Euro-pean river names.309 These names, which are based on well-attested Proto-Indo-European roots, may well be rooted in the 3rd millennium BC, as their overall distribu-tion, as rightly stressed by Peter Kitson, coincides re-markably with that of the Bell Beaker culture.310
Accordingly, the bearers of the Rinaldone culture are likely to be held responsible for the given layer of Old European river names in Tuscany.
All in all, then, there can be distinguished at least three different layers in the process of Indo-Europeaniza-tion of Tuscany: (1) the bearers of the Rinaldone culture of North Pontic steppe affiliations (3rd millennium BC on-wards), (2) the Osco-Umbrians and Latin-Faliscans, which we have held responsible for the introduction of the Euro-pean Urnfield culture in Italy (12th century BC onwards), and (3) Luwian population groups originating from the
308 Mallory 1989: 93-4; 198-201; in my opinion Drews 2004: 15-9 goes too far in discrediting the Dereivka bone cheekpieces as evidence for horse control.
309 Krahe 1962: 304; note that Auser and Ausenna may have been introduced later by the Ausones or Oscans, just like the Ombroneis likely to be named by the Umbrians. The Tiber is the Etruscan and hence latest name of the foremost river in Tuscany (< Luwian Tiwat/ra- “sun-god”), which used to be called Albula (< PIE *albh-“white”) in an earlier period, see Krahe 1964: 53.
310 Kitson 1997: 204-5; cf. Tovar 1977: maps 1-6 with Harrison 1988: 12, map 1. Note that Tuscany is not included in the distribu-tion of the Bell Beaker culture, but the inclusion of the region of Palermo, where a twin catacomb grave from the Aeneolithic Conca d’Oro culture has been found (see de Vries 1976: 210-11), may suggest a connection between the Bell Beaker culture on the one hand and the catacomb culture on the other.
north-Aegean and southwest Anatolia, introducing the Ori-entalizing culture (c. 700 BC onwards). And all this in a region which Massimo Pallottino in a lifelong effort would have us believe (and succeeded in making his fellow Etruscologists believe) to be the home of a pre-Indo-European rest group!
PostscriptumIn an article about Etruscan origins which appeared in BABesch 79 (2004) 51-7, the Etruscologist Bauke van der Meer speaks out in favor of the orientalist thesis, but he does not choose between the two variant models of coloni-zation as presented here, viz. at the end of the Bronze Age or during an advanced stage of the Early Iron Age: in fact, he posits three waves of colonization in sum, namely one c. 1100 BC, a second c. 900 BC, and the third c. 700 BC (p. 55).
89
11. THE AENEAS’ SAGA: ETRUSCAN ORIGINS IN PARVO
If we are right in our conclusion that Luwian population groups from western Asia Minor colonized Etruria in the late 8th or early 7th century BC, there may also well be a kernel of truth in the colonization by Trojans of the coastal region of Latium as transmitted to us by the famous Ae-neas’ saga.
According to Vergilius’ version of this myth, the Tro-jans set out with 20 ships from Antandros, which lies at the northern side of the same bay that also harbors Smyrna – the starting point, as we have seen, of the Lydians in their colonization of Etruria according to Herodotos. From here, they first go to the Thracian coast, where they build a city called Aeneadae after their leader Aeneas (in Hellanikos’ version this first stopping place is specified as Pallene in Khalkidike).311 Next, the journey proceeds via Delos to Crete, where again the Trojans build a city, this time called Pergamea after Pergama – an alternative name of their hometown Troy. After this intermezzo, they move on to the realm of Hellenus in Chaonia, Epirus, which is inhab-ited by kinsmen who likewise escaped from Troy after the fall of the city at the end of the Trojan war.312 Sailing along the eastern coast of Italy and Sicily, their next major stopping place is the realm of Acestes in the region of Eryx and Segesta, northwest Sicily, where, just like in Chaonia, the population consists of kinsmen from Troy. As a matter of fact, in the part of the trip between Crete and Sicily the main concern of the expedition is to avoid the hostile Greek settlements along the shores and on the islands of the Ionian sea. After their stay with Acestes, Aeneas and his companions are driven by a storm to the coast of Af-rica, where they visit Carthago, the town newly founded by Phoenicians from Tyre under the leadership of queen Dido.313 From here, they return to the realm of Acestes in Sicily, where games are held in honor of Aeneas’ father Anchises, who had died there during their first stay.314 Fi-nally, after a visit of the underworld in the region of the
311 Fragmente der griechischen Historiker 4 F 31; cf. Galinsky 1969: 111-2.
312 Vergilius, Aeneid III.
313 Vergilius, Aeneid I; IV.
314 Vergilius, Aeneid V.
Euboeian colony Cumae,315 Aeneas and his Trojan colo-nists reach their final destination, Latium at the mouth of the Tiber.316
Having pitched their camp in Latium, there evolves a war with the local population, who want to get rid of the intruders. The war entails a truly epic coalition of forces. On the side of the Latins fight the Caeretan king Mezentius with his son Lausus, who had been driven out of their hometown and had taken refuge with the Rutulians, Aventinus with followers from the Aventine hill, Catillus and Corus with followers from Tibur, Caeculus with fol-lowers from Praeneste, Messapus with Faliscan Aequi, Clausus with Sabins, Halaesus with Osci from the region of Cales and the Volturnus, Oebalus with Teleboans from Capri, Ufens with Aequiculi, Umbro from the Marsian hills, Virbius from Egeria’s woods, Camilla with Volsci, Volcens with Latins, and Turnus with his Rutulians.317
The help of the Greek hero Diomedes (Aeneas’ foe in the Trojan war), residing at Arpi, is called upon, but he refuses to join in. On the side of the Trojans fight Evander with his Arcadians, declared enemies of the Latins, Tarchon with an Etruscan army of undetermined origin, Massicus with followers from Clusium and Cosae, Abas with men from Populonia and Elba, Asilas with men from Pisae, Astyr with followers from Caere, Pyrgi and Graviscae, Cinyrus with Ligurians, and Ocnus and Aulestis with an army from Mantua. In sum, this basically Etruscan coalition is re-ported to comprise 30 ships.318 The war ends with the death of the leader of the Italic coalition, Turnus, by the hand of the Trojan leader, Aeneas. (In the version by Dio-nysios of Halikarnassos, Aeneas – who is married with Latinus’ daughter Lavinia and rules both the Trojans and the Latins at the time of the war with the Rutulians and Mezentius – simply disappears, and the Latins subse-quently build a hero-shrine for him.)319 In the course of the following peace, preluded to in Vergilius’ version of the myth, the native Latins will not change their name into
315 Vergilius, Aeneid VI.
316 Vergilius, Aeneid VII.
317 Vergilius, Aeneid VII, 647-817; IX, 367-70.
318 Vergilius, Aeneid X, 146-214.
319 Roman Antiquities I, 64.
90
Trojans, nor will they change their language and alter their attire and customs, but the Trojans will sink down and merge in the mass, leaving them only the introduction of some new religious rites.320
Some of the elements of the Aeneas’ saga as summa-rized above can be corroborated by archaeological, epi-graphical or historical data. Thus, the reported sojourn of Aeneas with his Trojans on the Thracian coast, according to Hellanikos in Pallene on the Khalkidike, is reflected in the archaeological record by tetradrachms from the nearby city of Aineia, dated to the period before 525 BC, which depict the flight of Aeneas and his wife Creusa from Troy.321 Next, their stay at the court of Dido in the newly founded city of Carthago can only be dated to the period after 814/3 or 813/2 BC – the historical foundation date of the city according to Timaios.322 As the fact that, accord-ing to Homeros’ Iliad, Aeneas already fought in the Trojan war, which may well be assigned to c. 1280 BC, is incom-patible with a visit by the same person of Carthago in the late 9th or early 8th century BC, i.e. some 5 centuries later, Dionysios of Halikarnassos, whose focus is on chronology, quite consistently rejected the historical validity of this event.323 It should be realized, however, that we are deal-ing with myth and that in this category of evidence epi-sodes from various periods can be telescoped into a single lifetime. Furthermore, the historical validity of one of the adversaries of the Trojans in their war with the Latins is greatly enhanced by the discovery of an Etruscan inscrip-tion from Caere, dated to c. 680/675-650/640 BC, reading
mi Laucies Mezenties
“I (am) of Lucius Mezentius”.324
Again, this evidence points to a date in the Early Iron Age of the vicissitudes of Aeneas and his Trojans in the west. Finally, in Lavinium, 100 metres southeast of the 13 altars of the Latin League, a heroon has been found dated to the 4th century BC, which has been identified as the hero-shrine of Aeneas reported by Dionysios of Halikarnassos
320 Vergilius, Aeneid XII, 819-43.
321 Galinsky 1969: 111-2, Fig. 87.
322 Der Neue Pauly, s.v. Karthago; cf. Dionysios of Halikarnas-sos, Roman Antiquities I, 74,1.
323 Loeb edition, p.160-1, note 1.
324 Heurgon 1992: 24. Note that this name corresponds with Lau-sus, the son of Mezentius, in the literary tradition.
in his version of the myth. Now, this heroon is connected with a grave from c. 675-650 BC, containing a few frag-ments of bone, some 60 vases of impasto and bucchero sot-tile, and the remnants of a chariot (see Fig. 16).325 Clearly, it was believed that the person commemorated by means of the heroon had been buried in the grave underlying the monument, which once again points to a date in the Early Iron Age of Aeneas’ arrival in Latium.
Fig. 16. The Heroon of Aeneas at Lavinium (from Somella 1974:
Taf. VII).
More in general, the alliance of Aeneas with the Etruscans finds its expression in the archaeological record in a scarab326 and a large number of vases from Etruria with scenes from the Aeneas legend, dated to the late 6th and/or early 5th century BC.327 The Etruscan town of Veii even produced cult statues depicting Aeneas carrying his father Anchises, dated to the early or mid 5th century BC.328 As it seems, then, the Etruscans considered the Ae-neas saga as part of their cultural heritage. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that the poet who fashioned the legend into its most famous form, Publius Vergilius Maro from Mantua, ultimately originates from an Etruscan back-ground, his family name being derived from Etruscan Ver-cna-.329 Yet, the aforesaid heroon at Lavinium should warn us against the oversimplified conclusion of Karl Ga-linsky, written, it must be admitted, before this sensational find, that “when Aeneas appeared in Italy, (…) he be-
325 Somella 1974; Ross Holloway 1994: 135-8.
326 Galinsky 1969: 60; 103; Fig. 44.
327 Galinsky 1969: 122-3.
328 Galinsky 1969: 125; 133; Fig. 111.
329 Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopädie, s.v. Vergilius; Schulze 1966: 101; 379; cf. Rix 1991: s.v. (esp. Perugia).
91
longed to the Etruscans.”330 Rather, we are dealing with a genuinely Latial tradition, which radiated to south Etruria.
The earliest historical source connecting Aeneas with the west is provided by the work of Stesikhoros (early 6th century BC) as preserved for the Tabula Iliaca, which shows Aeneas with his father Anchises (holding the cista sacra) and son Ascanius bording a ship eis t n Hespe-rian.331 Next, Hellanikos of Lesbos holds that Aeneas came to Italy from the land of the Molossians, either with Odysseus or after him, and founded the city of Rome, which he named after a Trojan woman called R m .332
When the date of the foundation of Rome became fixed at 753 BC, however, chronographers and historians faced the problem that one person could not possibly be staged as a combattant in the Trojan war and at the same time be held responsible for the foundation of Rome some five centuries later. Hence, authors from the 4th century BC onwards prefer to attribute the foundation of Rome to a descendant of Aeneas (or of a woman from his Trojan followers),333
culminating into Dionysios of Halikarnassos’ calculation that Romulus is the 17th in descent from Aeneas!334 This process of filling up the time between the Late Bronze Age and an advanced stage of the Early Iron Age is of doubtful historical value: the Italic people had, for instance, no rec-ollection at all of the arrival of the ancestors of the Umbri-ans and Oscans in Italy c. 1200 BC. Rather, therefore, we should face the fact that, as noted above, Aeneas as a hero and saint became associated in myth with widely separated historical episodes.
Considering the aforesaid hero-shrine, the association of Aeneas with Lavinium seems prior to the one with Rome. According to the inscription reported by Dionysios of Halikarnassos to belong to this hero-shrine, Aeneas was worshipped here as a god.335 Further evidence for an Ae-neas cult is provided by a cippus from Tor Tignosa, 5 miles inland from Lavinium, dated to the late 4th or early 330 Galinsky 1969: 131.
331 Galinsky 1969: 106-7; Figs. 85-6.
332 Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman Antiquities I, 72, 2; cf. Galinski 1969: 103.
333 Galinsky 1969: 142-3; cf. Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman Antiquities I, 72, 5.
334 Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman Antiquities I, 45, 3; see for the discussion of the intervening kings ibid. I, 71 and cf. Livius, History of Rome I, 3, 6-11: all very shadowy figures, indeed.
335 Roman Antiquities I, 64, 5.
3rd century BC, which carries the legend
Lare Aineia d(onum)
“Dedication to Lar Aineias”.336
One of the outstanding deeds with which Aeneas is cred-ited concerns his introduction of the cult of the ancestral Trojan gods, the Penates.337 According to the imagery, he is responsible for saving the sacra of the Penates, carried either by his father Anchises in a cista338 or by his wife Creusa in a doliolum,339 from destruction at the time of the fall of Troy. Now, Timaios (early 3rd century BC) informs us that the holy objects of the sanctuary at Lavinium were kept in a keramos Tr ikos “a Trojan earthen jar”.340
Rightly, Galinsky connected this information with Livius’ account that during the Gallic invasion in 390 BC the sa-cra of the Roman Penates were placed in two doliola,earthen jars.341 That the sanctuary of the Latin League at Lavinium with its 13 altars, which, as we have noted above, lies at a 100 metre distance of Aeneas’ heroon, was indeed dedicated (at least partly) to the cult of the Penates is confirmed by a 6th century BC inscription associated with altar no. 8, reading
Castorei Podlouquei-que qurois
“to the kouroi Castor and Pollux”;342
the Greek Dioskouroi, namely, were identified in literary tradition with the Penates.343 In Etruria, these were also venerated as testified by an early 5th century BC inscrip-tion from Tarquinia, reading
itun turuce Venel Atelinas Tinas cliniiaras
336 Galinsky 1969: 158.
337 See Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman Antiquities I, 69, 4 for their identifcation with the Kabeiroi or Megaloi Theoi of Samo-thrace.
338 See note 326 above.
339 Galinsky 1969: Fig. 45.
340 Fragmente der griechischen Historiker 566 F 59; cf. Galinsky 1969: 155.
341 History of Rome V, 40, 7-8.
342 Gordon 1983: 76-7; cf. Galinsky 1969: 151; 154.
343 Cassius Hemina frg. 6 = Servius ad Aeneid I, 378; cf. Galinsky 1969: 154; Fig. 119 (Dioscuri) = Fig. 120 (Penates).
92
“Venel Atelinas has given this to the sons of Tin”.344
It is therefore no contradiction that the inscription of the Dioskouroi is Greek inspired, whereas the altars of the sanctuary are of Etruscan type.345 On the contrary, this threefold identification facilitates us to further explain the popularity of the Aeneas’ saga in southern Etruria.
In our summary of Vergilius’ Aeneid, we have seen that as a corollary to the peace between the Trojan colo-nists and the native Latins, there will, with the exception of some new religious rites, be no change of the name of the inhabitants of Latium, nor in their language, customs, and dress. Evidently, the Trojan colonists, in contrast to their Lydian colleagues in Etruria, were not numerous enough to cause a language shift: at any rate the epigraphical evi-dence shows decisively that the current language remained Latin, not to say that there is not a trace of the language of the Trojan colonists left. What could it have been? To an-swer this question, it is interesting to note that the name “Trojans” is used to indicate a motley crowd from various regions. Most explicit is the distinction of Lycians, whose ships are stipulated to be under the command of Oron-tes.346 But there are also names of Lydian (Atys, Gyges, Palmus)347 and Thracian (Ismarus [of a Maeonian = Lydian], Tereus, Thamyrus)348 type. Both latter elements may be expected in the Troad, as the region was overrun by Thraco-Phrygians from the Balkans at the end of the Bronze Age349 and under the control of the Lydians at the time of Gyges.350 The only hard evidence comes from an-other direction: Elymian. In this language, once spoken by
344 Rix 1991: Ta 3.2 (= TLE 156); note in this connection that ac-cording to Myrsilos of Lesbos (3rd century BC) F 8 the Kabeiroi of Samothrace are considered Tyrrhenian gods, see Lochner-Hüttenbach 1960: 102.
345 Alföldi 1963: 266; Pl. XVI; cf. Woudhuizen 1992a: 194, note 104.
346 Vergilius, Aeneid, I, 113; VI, 334; cf. X, 751; XII, 516.
347 Vergilius, Aeneid V, 568; IX, 762; X, 697, 699; cf. Gusmani 1964, s.v. (note that †q = p).
348 Vergilius, Aeneid X, 139; XI, 675; XII, 341; cf. Detschew 1976, s.v.
349 For the Balkan affinities of the Trojan “Buckel” ceramic (= Troy VIIb2), see Rutter 1975.
350 Strabo, Geography XIII, 22, 1; cf. Pedley 1972: 19 (Milesians asking for permission from Gyges to colonize Abydos on the Hel-lespont); note also with Briquel 1991: 83 that Daskyleion in the Troad is called after the father of Gyges, Daskylos.
the, according to literary tradition, related population of Eryx and Segesta in northwest Sicily, some inscriptions have been found, among which coin legends. One of these coin legends consists of a bilingual, according to which Elymian Erukaziie corresponds to Greek Erukin n “of the Erycinians”; the other, Segestazie, shows exactly the same formation, but then for the town Segesta.351 Now, these Elymian legends are characterized by the Lycian ethnic formation in -z(i)- (Sppartazi “Spartans”; Atãnazi “Atheni-ans”) and likewise Lycian ending of the genitive plural -e1
(Pttaraze1 “of the Patarians”)352 – a combination which is also attested for Etruscan Kar azie “of the Carthagin-ians”.353 Apparently, therefore, the language of these par-ticular Trojans, and hence probably of followers of Aeneas related to them as well, was closely related to Lycian, i.e. of Luwian type. This inference coincides with the fact that the place name Roma is based on the same root as that of the Lycian heroic name Romos, being likewise derived from the Luwian name for the stag-god, Rum/nt-.354
To conclude, the main contribution of the Trojan colonists is the introduction of the cult of their ancestral gods, the Penates. Furthermore, there may be a grain of thruth in the tradition that leading families of Rome traced their origin back to a Trojan follower of Aeneas, like the Atii from Atys,355 Sergii from Sergestus356 – a Phrygian or Lydian name357 – , and the Cluentii from Cloanthus,358
though the identification of Aeneas’ son Ascanius with Iu-lus, the ancestor of the Iulii, seems, on the basis of the double naming, a little bit forced.359
351 Lejeune 1969.
352 Kinch 1888: 193-4; cf. Melchert 1993, s.v.
353 Rix 1991: Carthago Af 3.1 (= TLE 724); Woudhuizen 1992b: 83; 90; 95.
354 Herbig 1914: 28; Houwink ten Cate 1961: 128-31.
355 Vergilius, Aeneid V, 568-9; cf. Briquel 1991: 471-6.
356 Vergilius, Aeneid V, 121.
357 Beekes 2002: 214, with reference to Phrygian Surgastoy, see Brixhe & Lejeune 1984: Dd-102, and Lydian Srkstu-, see Gusmani 1964, s.v. For the related Thracian Sergesteus, see Detschew 1976, s.v.
358 Vergilius, Aeneid V, 122-3.
359 Vergilius, Aeneid I, 267, etc.
93
Additional note 1: Aeneas’ realm in the Troad
In the preceding section, we have observed that Aeneas and his Trojan followers boarded their ships in Antandros, which is situated on the southern coast of the Troad, just south of mount Ida, looking out over the Aiolian gulf. Now, Aeneas is particularly linked up with the region of mount Ida in the southern Troad, as this is the spot where he is reported to have been conceived by Ankhises and Aphrodite.360 However, if we want to be more specific, it is interesting to observe that according to a passage in Homeros’ Iliad Aeneas is said at a time before the Trojan war to have been driven from the Ida, where he guarded the cattle herd, by Akhilleus, who next plundered Lyrnes-sos and Pedasos in the plain of Adramytion – an attack from which Aeneas is saved by the protection of Zeus.361
This passage, then, seems to suggest an association of Ae-neas, not only with the region of mount Ida itself, but also with the river valley to the south of it.
This very same region south of mount Ida with which Aeneas seems to be associated, is also reported to be in-habited by Leleges and/or Kilikes. Thus according to one passage, Altes, the king of the Leleges, is stated to have his residence in Pedasos along the river Satnioeis,362 whereas according to another Eëtion, king of the Kilikes, once lived in Thebes at the foot of the wooded Plakos, where he was killed by Akhilleus during the latter’s afore-mentioned raid in the region.363 Both the ethnonyms Leleges and Kilikes are indicative of Luwian speaking population groups – the Kilikes for their origin from Cilicia and the Leleges for their being identified with Carians.364 The latter inference receives further confirmation from the fact that the region south of mount Ida is characterized by place names in -ss-
360 Homeros, Iliad II, 819-21.
361 Homeros, Iliad XX, 89-93; 188-194. This ties in with an ear-lier section of the Iliad, in which Akhilleus is stated to have captu-red Briseïs in Lyrnessos and to have demolished the walls of Thebes in the same plain, killing the local leaders Mynes and Epis-trophos, the sons of Euenos, Homeros, Iliad II, 688-93.
362 Homeros, Iliad XXI, 86-7.
363 Homeros, Iliad VI, 396-7; 415-6.
364 Herodotos, Histories I, 171.
(Lyrnessos) and -nth- (Sminthe).365 Evidently, we are dealing here with settlers from Luwian speaking areas to the south and southeast, who moved across the language border as determined by Dainis (< Luwian t ini- “oily”) being the indigenous name of later Greek Elaia (= harbor of Pergamon)366 into a presumably Thraco-Phrygian mi-lieu.367
If our association of Aeneas with a Luwian speaking region south of mount Ida is correct, the information from the Homeric hymn to Aphrodite that the Trojan language as spoken by Aeneas’ father Ankhises is other than Phry-gian need not be representative for the entire Troad.368
Furthermore, his later relationship to the Etruscans in Italy receives a meaningful explanation as being one of a kin-ship nature!
Additional note 2: Dardanians: a form of Etruscan self-designation
Confirmation of our inference that the Etruscans consid-ered the Aeneas’ saga as part of their cultural heritage is provided by a set of eight identical Etruscan inscriptions on three boundary stones from Smindja in the territory of Carthago. These inscribed boundary stones were set up by the followers of the democratic consul Gn. Papirius Car-bone from the Etruscan city of Chiusi who fled from their hometown to Africa in 82 BC after having sided with Marius in the civil war between the latter and the ulti-mately victorious Sulla.369
The inscriptions run in retrograde direction and read
365 Woudhuizen 1989: 194, Fig. 2; 197. See also section 7, note 140 above.
366 Starke 1997: 457; Högemann 2000: 10.
367 For the Thraco-Phrygian nature of the Trojan language, see Gindin 1999 and section 13, note 520 below. For another Luwian speaking enclave in the Troas, cf. the Lycians under the leadership of Pandaros along the Aisepos and in Zeleia, see Homeros, Iliad II, 824-7; IV, 88; 103; 121; for the Lycian nature of Pandaros, see Homeros, Iliad V, 105 (Luki then) and cf. Strabo, GeographyXIV, 3, 5 reporting his temenos at Pinara in the Xanthos valley; furthermore, his name corresponds to Lycian *Pñtra- (Melchert 1993, s.v. Pñtreñne/i-). Both Luwian speaking areas are already acknowledged by Gindin 1999: 261.
368 Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite 111-5.
369 Heurgon 1969: 286; Colonna 1980: 4.
94
as follows:370
1. M(arce) Vnata
“Marcus Unata Zutas
2. Zvtas tvl(ar) (dedicated) the boundaries (of 3. Dardanivm the territory) of the Dardanians 4. Tins to Dionysos, 5. F 1000 (paces).”
In this text, then, the Etruscan settlers in question call themselves Dardanians (Dardanivm, characterized by the Latin genitive plural -om in Etruscan disguise),371 after Dardanos, the mythical ancestor of Aeneas.372 Now, in form of Drdny the latter ethnonym is first recorded as an indication of the allies of the Hittites from the Troad in the Egyptian memorial of the battle at Kadesh (1274 BC).373
Furthermore, Dardanians is synonymous with Trojans in Homeros’ Iliad,374 and more in specific used here for the followers of Aeneas.375 The ultimate homeland of their mythical ancestor Dardanos is reported by the literary sources to be situated in Arkadia in the Greek Peloponne-sos – which coincides with our assumption that the inhabi-tants of the Troad were kinsmen of the Thraco-Phrygian or Pelasgian population groups of Middle Helladic Greece.376
Whatever the extent of this latter deduction, there can be little doubt that Vergilius’ location of Dardanos’ ultimate homeland in Italy results from a secondary intervention to stage Aeneas’ peregrination as a return to his ancestral lands.377
370 Rix 1991: Africa 8.1-8.8.
371 Colonna 1980: 3; cf. Leuhmann 1977: 428; note also the adhoc device for the distinction of the un-Etruscan sound [d] from regular [t]. For the identification of Tins as Dionysos, see Woud-huizen 1998: 26, note 56, but note that a mixing-up between Tins(= Dionysos) and Tinia (= Zeus) – the latter being the protector of the territorium according to the corpus of gromatici veteres (see Camporeale 2003: 203) – in this late period is altogether possible; for the interpretation of the symbol F as 1000 passuum, see Heur-gon 1969: 285 and cf. Bonfante & Bonfante 2002: 184-5.
372 Der Neue Pauly, s.v. Dardanidae.
373 See section 13 below.
374 Iliad III, 456; VII, 348.
375 Iliad II, 819 ff.
376 See section 13 below.
377 Aeneid III, 167-71; VII, 205-11.
95
12. PHILISTINES AND PELASGIANS
One of the most significant groups among the Sea Peoples who attacked Egypt in the fifth and eighth year of Ramesses III (= 1179 and 1176 BC) is the Peleset. This ethnonym, which has no earlier occurrence in the Egyptian sources, has been identified with the Biblical Philistines by Jean-François Champollion soon after his decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphic – an identification which goes un-challenged up to the present day.378 Now, the Philistines are generally considered newcomers in the Levant, settling in their pentapolis consisting of the towns Asdod, Askelon, Gaza, Ekron, and Gath at the time of the upheavals of the Sea Peoples. Thus the Bible informs us that they originated from Kaphtor,379 which on the basis of its correspondence to Akkadian Kaptara and Egyptian Keftiu is plausibly identified as the island Crete; or they are even straightfor-wardly addressed here as Cretans.380 Moreover, they are considered an alien race for the fact that, in contrast to the local Semites, they do not abide to the rite of circumci-sion.381 Finally, the Philistines are reported by the Bible to have replaced the ancient Canaanite population of the Av-vim in their original habitat.382
This information from the literary sources can be backed up by evidence from archaeology. It occurs, namely, that the archaeological culture of Philistia shows signs of discontinuity in the transitional period from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age. Asdod, its harbor Tel Mor, and Askelon are characterized by destruction lay-ers,383 and Ekron by at least some local destruction at the time.384 The level after the destruction at these sites (with the exception of Tel Mor) contains locally produced Mycenaean IIIC1b pottery – the hallmark of the settlement of Sea Peoples – , which subsequently develops without a break into the so-called Philistine ware.385 Moreover, the
378 Champollion 1836: 180; cf. Gardiner 1947: 201.
379 Amos 9, 7; Jeremiah 47, 4.
380 Ezekiel 25, 16; Zephaniah 2, 5.
381 Gardiner 1947: 201; Machinist 2000: 63.
382 Deuteronomium 2, 23.
383 Dothan 1982: 36; 43; 35.
384 Bietak 1993: 300.
385 Bietak 1993: 297-8.
Egyptian influence which typifies the Canaanite material culture from before the break does not recur. As it appears, then, conquerors from the Aegean region (including Cy-prus), where Mycenaean IIIC1b is “en vogue” at the time, have wasted existing Canaanite sites, driven out most of the original inhabitants and settled themselves instead. Considering this close correspondence between literary and archaeological data, the projection of the Philistines back in time to the period of the patriarchs probably con-stitutes an anachronism.386
In the Papyrus Harris, Ramesses III claims to have settled the vanquished Sea Peoples, among which our Pe-leset or Philistines, in strongholds bound in his name. This has induced scholars like Albrecht Alt and William Fox-well Albright to assume that the settlement of the Philis-tines in Canaan took place under Egyptian supervision.387
Rightly, Manfred Bietak pointed out that the absence of Egyptian influence in the material culture after the break indicates otherwise. Nevertheless, the continuity of Egyp-tian influence in the hinterland of the Philistine pentapolis might suggest to us that the Egyptian pharaoh maintained a nominal claim on the land conquered by the Philistines and considered them as vassals guarding his frontiers in like manner as the Frankish kings did with the Normans in the European Middle Ages (see Fig. 17)!388
As duly stressed by Ed Noort, the break between the Canaanite Late Bronze Age and Philistine Early Iron Age in the region under discussion is not an absolute one: the continuity of Canaanite pottery in the Philistine sites indi-cates that to a certain extent the newcomers from the Ae-gean mixed with the local Avvim population.389 To this comes that four of the five place names of the Philistine pentapolis, viz. Gaza, Askelon, Asdod, and Gath, are al-ready recorded for Egyptian sources from the El-Amarna period.390
386 Genesis 21, 22-34; cf. Machinist 2000: 54-5; contra Gordon 1956: 22 and others.
387 Alt 1944; Albright 1975: 509; cf. Singer 1985.
388 Bietak 1993; esp. 295, Fig. 4.
389 Noort 1994.
390 Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopädie, s.v. Philister.
96
Fig. 17. Settlement of the Sea Peoples in the Levant and the re-
mains of the Egyptian sphere of influence (from Bietak 1993: 295,
Fig. 4).
After their settlement in Palestine, the Philistines rose to a position of power in the region owing to their military superiority over the local population, as exemplified by the famous engagement between David and Goliath – which the first mentioned miraculously won against all odds. This military superiority of the Philistines was based on their monopoly of iron production in the region as recorded by the Bible.391 In the end, however, they were outmatched by a coalition between the Hebrews and the Phoenicians, and became subject to a rapid process of assimilation. There is little information about the Philistine language – we only know that the cities of their pentapolis were
391 I Samuel 13, 19-23. For the distribution of iron objects in the eastern Mediterranean largely neglecting Anatolia, see Buchholz 1999: 710-11, Abb. 109-10.
headed by a local magistrate called seren and that k ba‘was their word for “helmet”, which is usually compared to Hittite kupa® i- for the same meaning392 – , whereas the deities they are reported to have worshipped, Dagon, As-tarte, and Ba‘al Zeb l, appear to be of a local Canaanite nature.393 What remains, apart from their characteristic pottery, are only small hints to their Aegean origin: figu-rines for house-cults as discovered in Asdod, recalling Mycenaean counterparts (Fig. 18);394 hearths as unearthed in Ekron, reminiscent of Mycenaean and Cyprian exam-ples;395 chamber tombs at Tell Fara modelled after Mycenaean prototypes (Fig. 19);396 altars with horns of consecration from Ekron, again, suggestive of the Minoan type;397 the headdress with which the Peleset are depicted in the Egyptian memorial at Medinet Habu, which bears a striking resemblance to that of glyph D 02 of the discus of Phaistos, Crete;398 royal names like Yamani “the Ionian” for a king of Asdod399 and ’kyš, related to either Akhaiosor Ankhises, for a king of Ekron;400 and, finally, the identi-fication of Gaza as Minoa, which is substantiated by evi-dence from coins, and of its local god Marna (= Aramaic “our Lord”) as Crete-born.401
The question remains: is the Cretan origin of the Phil-istines as related by the Bible historically valid? In order
392 Bonfante 1946: 258; Machinist 2000: 63-4.
393 Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopädie, s.v. Philister; Barnett 1969: 17; Machinist 2000: 59-61; 64.
394 Barnett 1969: 17; Sandars 1980: 165, fig. 116 (with intermedi-ary form from Cyprus); cf. Noort 1994: 134-7.
395 Noort 1994: 146; for Cyprus, see Karageorghis 1992: 81 (new element during Late Cypriote IIIC).
396 Waldbaum 1966.
397 Gitin 1993: 249-50; for Cyprus see Loulloupis 1973 and Kara-georghis 1992: 81 (new element during Late Cypriote IIIC).
398 Reinach 1910; Hall 1926: 278; Gardiner 1947: 202; Bérard 1951: 138; Mertens 1960: 83; Redford 1992: 252. A representa-tion of the feathered headdress has recently been found on sherds from Askelon, see Stager 1998: 164, ill. A, a reference I owe to Romey 2003: 68.
399 Gitin, Dothan & Naveh 1997: 11; note with Weidner 1939: 932-3 that the ethnic Iaman “Ionian” on the basis of the onomastic evidence may include reference to Lycians.
400 Gitin, Dothan & Naveh 1997: 11; Byrne 2002: 11-2.
401 Stephanos of Byzantion, Ethnica, s.v. Gaza; cf. Macalister 1913: 15; Gardiner 1947: 202; Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopädie, s.v. Philister; Strobel 1976: 160.
97
to answer this question it needs to be determined
a b c Fig. 18. Figurines from (a) Asdod, (b) Cyprus, and (c) Mycenae
(from Sandars 1980: 165, afb. 116).
(a)
(b)
Fig. 19. Comparison of (a) Philistine chamber tombs from Tell
Fara with (b) Mycenaean prototypes (from Waldbaum 1966: 332,
Ill. 1; 336, Ills. 11-14).
whether Philistines can be traced on Crete. The answer to the latter question is no. The only way in which we can ac-count for a migration of the Biblical Philistines from Crete is when the latter are identical to the Pelasgiansfrom Greek literary sources – a view first ventilated by Etienne Fourmont in 1747 and since then defended by a substantial number of scholars.402 The Pelasgians, namely, are recorded among the population groups on Crete since the time of Homeros, who, as we have seen in section 2, in many respects reflects Late Bronze Age history.403 Now, the Pelasgians are a population group which inhabited mainland Greece prior to the first Greeks, and were driven by them first to Thessaly and later to the Aegean islands and the western coast of Asia Minor. As far as the evi-dence goes, the Pelasgians came to Crete under the leader-ship of Teutamos (corrupted into †Tektamos in most manuscripts), who married the daughter of the Cretan king Kretheus and with her begat Asterios, the father of the later kings Minos, Rhadamanthys, and Sarpedon.404 As king Minos epitomizes the period of the Cretan thalassocracy, the Pelasgian colonization of Crete must hence have oc-curred before c. 1600-1450 BC. This emigration from Thessaly to Crete can be backed up by toponymic evi-dence, since the region of Gortyn in the Mesara plain is characterized by a number of place names, like Lethaios,Boibe, Magnesia, Phalanna, and Phaistos, which are also recorded for Thessaly, whereas an alternative name of Gortyn is Larisa – a typical Pelasgian place name.405
Moreover, Gortyn itself is based on the same root as Thes-
402 Fourmont 1747: 254; Hitzig 1845; Chabas 1872: 296, Lichtenberger 1911: 28; Macalister 1913: 2; Meyer 1928: 562; Georgiev 1950-1: 137; Bérard 1951; Wainwright 1962: 151; Kitchen 1973: 56; Albright 1975: 512; Strobel 1976: 159; Singer 1988: 241-2; for further literature, see Sakellariou 1977: 102, note 8.
403 Odyssey XIX, 177; note that, as argued in section 2, the men-tion of the Dorians in this passage probably constitutes a later in-terpolation.
404 Andron of Halikarnassos in Strabo, Geography X, 4, 6; Diodo-ros of Sicily, The Library of History IV, 60, 2; cf. ibid. V, 80, 1.
405 Fick 1905: 13-15; cf. Sakellariou 1977: 212; 137 (addition of Pyl ros and B n ); for other instances of the place name Larisaconnected with Pelasgians – to which may be added Larision pe-dion in the territory of Hierapytna on Crete (Fick 1905: 11) – , see Strabo, Geography IX, 5, 6 and XIII, 3, 2 f.; cf. Sakellariou 1977: 133-4.
98
salian Gyrtone.406 On the basis of this evidence, the Pelas-gians referred to by Homeros are likely to be considered as (a component of) the Late Bronze Age population of the Mesara plain – a region, by the way, which like the rest of Crete is characterized by Mycenaean IIIC1b ware in the period of the upheavals of the Sea Peoples (Fig. 20).407
Another advantage of the identification of the Biblical Philistines with the Pelasgians from Greek literary sources is that we can account for the alternative tradition as re-corded for the Lydian historian Xanthos according to which the Philistines originated from Lydia.408 This tradi-tion has come down to us in two forms, both of which fo-cus on the Philistine town Askelon. First, Athenaios remarks that according to Xanthos the Lydian Mopsos cap-tured Atargatis and sunk her with her son Ikhthys in the lake of Askelon.409 Secondly, Stephanos of Byzantion notes with respect to Askelon that according to Xanthos this town was founded by Askelos, the son of Hymenaios and brother of Tantalos, in the reign of the Lydian king Akiamos.410
Now, these traditions only make sense if we realize that the Pelasgians which in Homeros’ Iliad II, 840-3 sided with the Trojans are plausibly situated by Strabo in the re-gion of Larisa Phrikonis along the Hermos river – far
406 In casu Proto-Indo-European (= PIE) *ghordh- “town”, which is also present in the Italian TN’s, reportedly diffused by the Pe-lasgians, Croton and Cortona, Phrygian Gordion, Slavonic grad-,etc., see Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995: 647; Phoenician qrt- as in Carthago (< qrthdšt “New Town”), see Eisler 1939.
407 Schachermeyr 1979: 122-3 so-called “Nobelware” with “anti-thetic horns” and “bird looking backwards” motifs attested for Hagia Triada, Phaistos, and Gortyn; for Mycenaean IIIC1b exam-ples of “antithetic horns” from Sinda, Cyprus, and Askelon, Philis-tia, see Noort 1994: 122, Abb. 36 and 114, Abb. 37; of “bird looking backwards” from Geser, Philistia, see Noort 1994: 115, Abb. 38.
408 Albright 1975: 512.
409 Deipnosophistai VIII, 346e. Note that the personal name Mop-sos, which on the basis of the related geographical name Mopsopiaoriginates from *Mopsops, belongs to the same type as Phrygian Pelops, Phainops, and Merops, all showing as second element a reflex of PIE *h3ekw- “to see”. Hence, the Phrygian place name Moxoupolis and the ethnonym Moxolanoi, with the breakdown of the original labiovelar [kw] (cf. Linear B Moqoso) into velar [k] like in Luwian hieroglyphic Muksas instead of into labial [p] like in Greek Mopsos and Phoenician Mpš. For attestations of Mopsos in the intermediary regions of Pamphylia and Cilicia, see Van-schoonwinkel 1991: 316-22.
410 Ethnica, s.v. Askel n.
enough from Troy to justify the use of the word t le “far away (from his home town Larisa)” in connection with the death of the Pelasgian leader Hippothoos.411
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 20. Late Helladic IIIC1b ware with “antithetic horns” and
“bird looking backwards”: (a) Crete, (b) Cyprus, and (c) Philistia
(after Schachermeyr 1979: 160, Abb. 41a; Noort 1994: 122, Abb.
36; 115, Abb. 38).
From an archaeological point of view, it is worth mentioning in this connection that the region of Larisa
411 Strabo, Geography XIII, 3, 2; Homeros, Iliad XVII, 301.
99
Phrikonis (in casu Pitane and Larisa itself) produced some Mycenaean IIIC1b ware (as we have noted above the hallmark of the settlement of Sea Peoples in the Levant), reported to be connected with the foundation of Emborio on Chios412 – likewise inhabited by Pelasgians at the time!413 As such, then, it is certainly possible that the Pe-lasgians, either from Crete and/or the west coast of Lydia (especially for Askelon), are responsible for the introduc-tion of Mycenaean IIIC1b ware in Philistia.
If our identification of the Biblical Philistines with the Pelasgians from Greek literary sources applies, we enlarge our basis for linguistic analysis considerably. According to Herodotos, the Pelasgians of Kreston, who originated from Thessaly, speak the same language as their tribesmen in Plakia and Skylake on the Hellespont, who once lived with the Athenians.414 Thucydides adds to this information that the Pelasgians of Akte, who are of origin Tyrrhenians once living in Lemnos and Attica, are bilingual and speak Greek next to their own language.415 Now, as the Pelasgians in mainland Greece appear to be ancestral to their kinsmen in the north-Aegean region (and western Anatolia), it seems advisable to have a look at them first. An interesting tradi-tion in this respect is formed by the story of the Pelasgian king of Argos,416 Akrisios, son of Abas and brother of Proitos, who in fear of his grandson Perseus flees from his hometown to Larisa in Thessaly under the rule of the like-wise Pelasgian king Teutamias.417 Here we encounter at least one clearly Indo-European name, Teutamias, which is based on the PIE stem *teut - “society, folk, people”.418
412 Mee 1978: 148; cf. Hope Simpson 1981: 206, who distin-guishes as many as three building phases in Mycenaean IIIC1b for Emborio.
413 Strabo, Geography XIII, 3, 3; Dionysios Pieregetes as presen-ted by Lochner-Hüttenbach 1960: 59.
414 Histories I, 57.
415 Peloponnesian War IV, 109.
416 Since the expression Pelasgikon Argos is used both for the Thessalian (Homeros, Iliad II, 682) and Argive (Sakellariou 1977: 205, note 4) town of this name, Argos (< PIE *h2erg- “bright white”) may well be considered a Pelasgian place name, which would add further substance to the Indo-European nature of this people.
417 Lochner-Hüttenbach 1960: 3 (Pherekydes of Athens, Frag-mente der griechischen Historiker 3 F 12); 4 (Hellanikos of Les-bos F 91); 29-30 (Apollodoros of Athens); cf. 23 (Kallimachos); 160 (general discussion).
418 Lochner-Hüttenbach 1960: 151-3; Sakellariou 1977: 132-3;
The same root is also attested for the name of the leader of the Thessalian Pelasgians in their journey to Crete, Teuta-mos, referred to above,419 and that of the grandfather of the Pelasgian leaders in the Trojan war, Teutamid s,probably a patronymic.420 It is particularly relevant to our purposes to note that this root occurs in the New Phrygian form teutous and in the Thracian man’s name (= MN) Tautomedes, etc.421 Furthermore, Abas is the heros epo-nym of the Abantes, a Thracian tribe.422 Finally, Akrisiosand Proitos have closely related Phrygian counterparts in the divine name Akrisias423 and the root of the magistracy proitavos,424 respectively. The impression we gain from these examples, is that Pelasgian, insofar as onomastics is significant in this respect, may well be an Indo-European language of Thraco-Phrygian type. Further instances can be adduced to emphasize this point, like Adrastos,425 cor-responding to the Phrygian MN Adrastos,426 and Arkas,427
related to the root of the Phrygian patronymic Arkiae-vas.428
The situation is different with the Pelasgians in west-ern Anatolia. Thus, it is reported by Strabo that at the time
Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995: 33; 652; 835; pace Beekes 1998.
419 See note 404 above.
420 Homeros, Iliad II, 840-3. Note that the Late Bronze Age date of this onomastic element is emphasized by its presence in Linear B te-u-ta-ra-ko-ro, see Chantraine 1958: 127.
421 Haas 1966: 95; Detschew 1976, s.v.
422 Homeros, Iliad II, 536-45; Strabo, Geography X, 1, 3; cf. Woudhuizen 1989: 196.
423 Diakonoff & Neroznak 1985: 91; based on the PIE root *akr-“high”, see Lochner-Hüttenbach 1960: 160-1 and cf. Sakellariou 1980: 207-10, or *aker-, see Haas 1966: 145, 213 and cf. Gamkre-lidze & Ivanov 1995: 96.
424 Brixhe & Lejeune 1984: M-01b; Woudhuizen 1993b; based on the PIE roots *pro “before” and *ei- “to go” (cf. Sakellariou 1980: 207-10). For other instances of magistracies used as personal na-mes, cf. Hittite Labarnas < labarna- “king”, Lydian Kandaules < Luwian ®antawat- “king”, Etruscan Porsenna < pur ne “pryta-nos”, Etruscan Camitlna < camthi (title), Etruscan Macstrna < La-tin magister “magistrate”, Latin Lucius < Etruscan lucumo “king”, Phoenician Malchus < mlk- “king”, and, from Homeros, Palmus < Lydian pal1ml1u- “kingship” and Prutanis < prutanos, again.
425 Lochner-Hüttenbach 1960: 13 (Euripides).
426 Herodotos, Histories I, 34-5; Woudhuizen 1993b. Cf. Lydian Atra ta-, see Gusmani 1964, s.v.
427 Lochner-Hüttenbach 1960: 68 (Hesychius Alexandrinus).
428 Brixhe & Lejeune 1984: M-01a; Woudhuizen 1993b.
100
of their foundation of Kume, the Aiolian Greeks have to cope with the resistence of the local Pelasgians under the leadership of Piasos.429 The latter personal name is clearly based on the root of Luwian piya- “to give” as present in Luwian names of the type Piyamaradus and Natrbije1mi-(= the Lycian equivalent of Greek Apollodoros or Apollo-dotos).430 An Anatolian background seems also plausible for the Pelasgians who according to Hellanikos of Lesbos under the leadership of Nanas, son of Teutamides, are re-ported to have colonized Cortona in Italy.431 At any rate, the personal name Nanas, which is paralleled for Lydian, Lycian, and Cilician sources, ultimately originates from the Luwian kinship term nani- “brother” – a typical Lu-wian reflex of PIE *n-genh1-.432 Finally, it deserves atten-tion in this connection that the king of the Pelasgians at Lemnos at the time of the invasion by the Athenian Miltiades (c. 510 BC) is called Herm n433 – a name paral-leled for a Lydian king434 and likely to be based upon the Luwian onomastic element Arma-.435 If we confine our-selves to this latter class of evidence, the Pelasgian lan-guage might well come into consideration as an Indo-European vernacular of Luwian type.
Is it feasible to assume that the Pelasgians from Greece, who at the outset spoke a Thraco-Phrygian lan-guage, with the change of their habitat to western Anatolia also went over to speak a Luwian dialect? We can go into this matter a little further if we realize that the distinction of the Pelasgians from the Tyrrhenians is a futile one: for almost every location where Tyrrhenians are attested,436
429 Geography XIII, 3, 3.
430 Laroche 1966, s.v. Piyamaradu-; Carruba 2002: 76-7; 81-2.
431 As preserved by Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman Antiqui-ties I, 28, 3.
432 Neumann 1991: 65; Woudhuizen 1998-9; contra Beekes 2002: 222 (“Lallname”).
433 Lochner-Hüttenbach 1960: 61 (Zenobius Paroemiographus 3, 85).
434 Strabo, Geography XIII, 1, 65; Beekes 2002: 214.
435 Houwink ten Cate 1961: 131-4.
436 Thucydides, Peloponnesian War IV, 109 (Attica, Lemnos, Akte), Stephanos of Byzantion, Ethnica, s.v. Metaon = town na-med after the Tyrrhenian Metas (Lesbos), Philogoros, frg. 5 (Im-bros), Neanthes, frg. 30: the brother of Pythagoras is called Turr nos (Samos), Suidas, s.v. Termeria kaka (Termerion on the coast of Caria), Stephanos of Byzantion, Ethnica, s.v. Elymia(coast of Macedonia), Lycophron, Alexandra 1245-9 (Mysia), He-
one finds evidence for Pelasgians as well.437 Apparently, Thucydides is right in considering the Tyrrhenians a sub-group of the Pelasgians – who after all have a wider distri-bution over the Aegean. In line with this deduction, the Lemnos stele (c. 600 BC), which is generally agreed to be conducted in the Tyrrhenian language, may inform us about Pelasgian just as well. At any rate, the two versions of the dating formula inform us that the monument was erected during the reign of the Phokaian Holaie (= Pelas-gian Holaias!),438 who is specified as king over the Myrinians and Seronians in the Aiolian coastal zone of Mysia – i.e. precisely the region where we situate the Pe-lasgian allies of the Trojans at the time of the Trojan war (see above).439 Now, the language of the Lemnos stele shows some features, like the titular expression *vanaca-“king” and the 3rd person singular of the past tense in -ke,which are unparalleled for Luwian and rather point to a re-lationship with Phrygian (dating formula midai lavagtaei vanaktei “during the military leadership and kingship of Midas”)440 and/or Greek (Mycenaean wa-na-ka, Homeric anaks “king”; kappa-perfectum).441 This relation of the Tyrrhenian or Pelasgian language with (pre-)Greek can be further illustrated by pointing to the correspondence of Etruscan hu “4”, net vis or netsvis “haruspex”, puia“wife”, pur ne or purtsna “prytanis”, turan (form of ad-
rodotos, Histories I, 94 (Lydia), and Konon, Fragmente der grie-chischen Historiker 26 F 1 (Kyzikos), cf. Schachermeyr 1929: 262-76, Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopädie, s.v. Tyrrhener, and Beekes 2002: 226-7.
437 Herodotos, Histories I, 137-40 (Attica, Lemnos), ibid. I, 57 (Kreston in Akte), Diodoros of Sicily, The Library of History 5, 2, 4 (Lesbos), Herodotos, Histories V, 26, Antikleides of Athens in Strabo, Geography V, 2, 4 (Imbros), Dionysios Periegetes (Sa-mos), Menekrates of Elaia (Mykale in Caria), Strabo, GeographyXIII, 3, 2-3 (Larisa Phrikonis), Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem (Adramyttion), Konon, Fragmente der griechischen Historiker 26 F 1 (Antandros, Kyzikos), cf. Lochner-Hüttenbach 1960, passim.
438 Fick 1905: 104.
439 Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 139-53; Woudhuizen 1998: 109-11. For the settlement of Lemnos by Pelasgians from the east, incasu Tenedos, see Hellanikos of Lesbos Fragmente der griechis-chen Historiker 4, 71 (not in Lochner-Hüttenbach 1960). Proba-bly, this took place in the late 8th or early 7th century BC – the foundation date of Hephaistia, see Beschi 1994; cf. Beekes 2001: 362.
440 Brixhe & Lejeune 1984: M-01; Woudhuizen 1993a: 2.
441 Charsekin 1963: 28; 48; 65 compares Etruscan turuce to Greek ded r ke (< d rein “to give”); for code-mixing in a bilingual envi-ronment, see Adams, Janse & Swain 2002.
101
dress of Aphrodite), to (pre-)Greek Hutt nia “Tetrapolis”, n dus “entrails”, opui “to take as wife”, prutanis “ruler”, and turannos “tyrant”, respectively.442 On the basis of this evidence, then, it may safely be concluded that the Tyrrhe-nian or Pelasgian ancestors of the later Etruscans, although basically speaking a Luwian vernacular at least since the time of their move to western Anatolia,443 had a long his-tory of contact with (pre-)Greek, which can only be ac-counted for if the literary tradition about the original habitat of the Tyrrheno-Pelasgians in Attica is historically valid.444
What remains to be discussed is the language of the Pelasgians whom we have seen reason to identify as (a component of) the Late Bronze Age population of the Me-sara plain in Crete. Now, there are three types of script re-corded for Crete: hieroglyphic, Linear A, and Linear B. Of these, Linear B is either introduced from the Greek mainland or developed at Knossos after the period of the desastrous Santorini-eruption at the end of Late Minoan IB (c. 1450 BC), which marks the end of the Minoan thalas-socracy and presents the Mycenaean Greeks the opportu-nity to take over control of the weakened island. It is found mainly in the palace of Knossos, but also at Khania.445
Since its decipherment by the British architect Michael Ventris in 1952, we know that it is used to write an early form of the Greek language, the so-called Mycenaean Greek.446 Simultaneously with the Linear B archives at Knossos, which date to the period of Late Minoan II to Late Minoan IIIA1/2 ( c. 1450-1350 BC), modest Linear A archives of about 150 tablets in sum are found in Hagia Triada – the harbor town of the palace of Phaistos in the Mesara.447 This latter script is recorded for Phaistos from the Middle Minoan II period (c. 1800-1700 BC) on-
442 Schachermeyr 1929: 248; van der Meer 1992: 68; see further appendix II.
443 See section 10 on Etruscan origins above.
444 Note that if the story of the building of the wall on the Athe-nian acropolis by the Pelasgians (Herodotos, Histories VI, 137-40) is correct, their presence in Attica can even be dated archaeologi-cally to the period of the 15th to 13th century BC, see Broneer 1956: 12-3.
445 Hallager 1992.
446 Ventris & Chadwick 1973.
447 Best 1981b: 37-45; Achterberg, Best, Enzler, Rietveld & Woudhuizen 2004, section 3. For the Hagia Triada tablets, see Meijer 1982.
wards,448 but in the course of time spread all over the is-land and, in the time of the Minoan thalassocracy, even beyond to the islands in the Aegean, Ayios Stephanos in mainland Greece, and Miletos and Troy in western Asia Minor.449 As first suggested by Cyrus Gordon, Linear A is used to write a Semitic language. Thus, Gordon pointed out that the Linear A equivalent in the Hagia Triada (= HT) corpus of Linear B to-so “total”, in his reading with Linear B values ku-ro, corresponds to Hebrew kull “all”. Furthermore, he convincingly identified pot names, which appear in direct association with their image on tablet HT 31, with Semitic counterparts.450 This work was supple-mented by Jan Best, who, amongst others, showed that the Linear A equivalents in the HT corpus of Linear B a-pu-do-si “delivery” and o-pe-ro “deficit” read, with their original Linear A values, te-l and ki-l , which forms re-call Akkadian t lû “Einkünfte, Ertrag” and kalû(m) as in eqla kalû(m) “Pachtabgabe schuldig bleiben”, respec-tively.451 In addition to this, he compared the transaction term pu-k in HT 31 to Akkadian p ®u “exchange” and the element p -t , which is used in association with ku-lon the back side of tablet HT 122 in a similar way as Lin-ear B pa with to-so for to-so-pa “grand total”, to Akkadian p tu “front side”, leading to the interpretation of p -tu-ku-l as “total with the front side included”.452 Definite proof, however, of the west-Semitic nature of the language of Linear A came with Best’s unravelling of the libation for-mula frequently attested for wash-hand stone-basins from peak-sanctuaries destroyed at the end of Middle Minoan III (c. 1600 BC), which presents a full phrase and reads
(y)a-ta-n -t wa/u-ya (y)a-d ® i-te-te (y)a-sa-sa-ra-ma/e
“I have given (Ugaritic ytn/’tn, -t) and (Ugaritic w/u, -y) my hand (Ugaritic yd/d, - ) has made an expiatory offering (Ugaritic ®t , -t), Oh Assara (Hebrew GN
448 Vandenabeele 1985: 18.
449 Vandenabeele 1985: 18 (Kea, Melos, Thera, Kythera); Nie-meier 1996 (Miletos); Godart 1994 and Faure 1996 (Troy).
450 Gordon 1957; Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 1-7.
451 Best 1973: 54-5.
452 Best 2000: 29, note 8. For the identification of the transaction on HT 31 as an exchange of tens of vessels for silver and hundreds and thousands of vessels for gold, respectively, see Best & Woud-huizen 1989: 1-7.
102
Asherah, Ugaritic y-, -m)!”.453
As a final eample, it deserves our attention that even the typical Semitic dative by the prefix l is attested for Linear A in form of a-re as occurring in the phrase
a-ta-nu-t de-ka a-re ma-re-na ti-ti-ku
“I, Titikos, have given this to our guild-master”
on a pithos from Epano Zakro, usually assigned to the the end of Late Minoan IB (c. 1450 BC).454
However, the fact that Linear A records a west-Semitic language is not the end of our inquiry into the lan-guages of Crete. We still need to discuss the hieroglyphic script. This is found from the beginning of the Old Palace phase in the Early Minoan III/Middle Minoan IA transi-tional period (c. 2000 BC) onwards both in the regions of Knossos and Malia in the north and the Mesara plain in the south.455 Hieroglyphic archives are attested for the palaces of Knossos and Malia in the Middle Minoan II (c. 1800-1700 BC) period, when the script is even exported to Samothrace in the north-Aegean.456 Most of the seals with an hieroglyphic legend consist of chance finds, and are therefore not archaeologically datable. But from the fact that some of the hieroglyphic signs are taken over by the Cyprians at the time they devised the Cypro-Minoan script (= c. 1525-1425 BC), it can be deduced that the use of the script continued into the Late Minoan I period (c. 1550-1450 BC).457 Finally, the double-axe of Arkalokhori and the famous discus of Phaistos, which bear hieroglyphic in-scriptions of unusual length, can positively be assigned to the period of Late Minoan II to Late Minoan IIIA1/2 (c.1450-1350 BC).458 After this period, the tradition of writ-
453 Best 1981a; Best 1981b: 17-20; Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 26; Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 25; cf. Hiller 1985: 125-7.
454 Best 1982-3a; for yet another Linear A inscription with a-re,see the gold ring from Mavro Spelio (= Best 1982-3b: 22-5).
455 Grumach 1968: 9; cf. Poursat in Olivier & Godart 1996: 31 who dates from Middle Minoan IA onwards.
456 Poursat in Olivier & Godart 1996: 29-30.
457 Woudhuizen 2001b: 610.
458 Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 137-8; Woudhuizen 1992c: 201; Achterberg, Best, Enzler, Rietveld & Woudhuizen 2004, section 3. As the double-axe from Arkalokhori is dedicated by a ruler of the hinterland of Phaistos from the time of the father of the sender of the letter on the Phaistos disc, it antedates the latter by one genera-
ing in hieroglyphs, like that of Linear A, is discontinued – having succumbed to the Mycenaean koin .
Among the earliest hieroglyphic seals, there is a small group with the so-called libation formula – one example stemming from the Mesara plain – , which is connected with the later Linear A formula discussed above and con-sists of hieroglyphic forerunners of Linear A signs from its final section, reading with the Linear A values a-sa-sa-ra-me “Oh Assara!”. On the basis of the presence of a corre-sponding form of the Ugaritic emphatic particle -m, the language of this text may be identified as Semitic.459 For our understanding of the hieroglyphic inscriptions more in general, however, it is important to realize that the signary is basically related to that of Luwian hieroglyphic from primarily southern Asia Minor and North Syria, which is already attested from the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 2000 BC) onwards.460 On Crete, the signs of Lu-wian hieroglyphic origin were supplemented by loans from Egyptian hieroglyphic, like the bee- and “trowel”-signs,461
and, from Middle Minoan II (c. 1800-1700) onwards, by hieroglyphically drawn signs from Linear A.462 This being the case, we should rather apply the term “Luwianizing” for this class of Cretan documents. At any rate, if we fill in the Luwian values for their Cretan counterparts, we are confronted with three categories of evidence on the seals with what I have called profane formulas: (1) titles, (2) names of places and countries, and (3) personal names. Confining ourselves to the evidence with a bearing on the Mesara, two seals are of importance to our purposes. In the first place # 271 from Malia, which dates to the earliest phase of the script (no signs from Linear A!) and reads:
1. SASA UTNA/, 2. /sà-®ur-wa/ 3. la+PÁRANA TARKU-MUWA
“seal (with respect to) the land (of) Skheria, king Tarkumuwas”.
As Skheria can be identified as the ancient name of Hagia Triada, the seal, although found in Malia, nonethe-
tion.
459 Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 25-6; Woudhuizen 2001b: 608-9.
460 Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 30-89; Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 65-137; Woudhuizen 1990-1; Woudhuizen 1992c: pl. 26; Woud-huizen 2004a : 112-20; 129-43; Woudhuizen forthc. 1.
461 Woudhuizen 1997; Woudhuizen 2002b.
462 Woudhuizen 1992c: pl. 24; Woudhuizen forthc. 1.
103
less informs us about the situation in the Mesara.463 The second seal is # 296 of undetermined findspot, which for the use of three Linear A signs may be assigned to the pe-riod after c. 1800 BC and reads:
1. SASA UTNA SARU, 2. PÁRA-tá-rú, 3. pi-ni, 4. pa3-ya-ki
“seal (with respect to) the land (and) official(s) (of) the Phaiakians, representative Bartaras”.
Here Hagia Triada is referred to by the ethnonym Phaiakians (= Homeric Phaiakes), the root of which is also present in the name of nearby Phaistos.464 From a linguis-tic point of view, it is interesting to note that the personal names are Luwian, the first corresponding to Luwian Tarkim s or Tarkom s,465 and the second to Lydian Barta-ra .466 Furthermore, the title in the first instance is like-wise Anatolian, being identical to Hittite labarna-,467
whereas the second seal is characterized by a Semitic title, recalling Ugaritic bn in expressions like bn lky “representa-tive of the Lycians”, etc.468 The impression we gain from this evidence is that the region of Hagia Triada and Phais-tos in the Old Palace phase is inhabited by Luwians, who adopted the Semitic language in religious and official mat-ters in order to adapt to the international standards of the time.
The foregoing conclusion can be further underlined if we take a look at the evidence from the Late Minoan IIIA1 period. As noted above, the corpus of Hagia Triada texts is conducted in the Semitic language. From slips of the pen, however, it is deducible that the primary language of the scribes happens to be Luwian. Thus, in the sequence te-lda-ku-se-ne-ti “delivery to Taku-šenni” from HT 104 the dative singular is expressed by the ending -ti, which recalls the Luwian hieroglyphic pronominal ending of the dative
463 Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 115-8; Woudhuizen 2004a: 139-43; Woudhuizen forthc. 1.
464 Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 126; Best 2000: 29; Woudhuizen forthc. 2; see further appendix I.
465 Houwink ten Cate 1961: 127.
466 Gusmani 1964, s.v. Bartara- (Lyd. no. 40).
467 Laroche 1960a: *277; as a personal name, this title is used for the first king of the Hittites, Labarnas (1680-1650 BC); in variant form of labarsa- it is already attested for the Kültepe-Kanesh phase (c. 1910-1780 BC), see Woudhuizen 1990-1: 146.
468 Gordon 1955: glossary, s.v. bn; Astour 1964: 194. On Cretan hieroglyphic, see further appendix I.
singular – used in the realm of the noun as well in the re-lated Cyprian dialect (te-lu sa-ne-me-ti “delivery to Sane-mas”).469 Furthermore, in HT 28 and 117 mention is made of u-mi-na-si, which appears to be an adjectival derivative of the Luwian hieroglyphic root umina- “town”.470 Finally, the functionary in the heading of HT 31 is designated as mi-ti-sa – an honorific title paralleled for Luwian hiero-glyphic texts.471 The Luwian nature of the primary lan-guage of the inhabitants of the Mesara plain is further examplified by the hieroglyphic inscriptions of the double-axe from Arkalokhori and the Phaistos disc, especially the latter of which bears testimony of a local Luwian dialect (a-tu instead of à-tá “in”, u-pa instead of APA-à “after, be-hind”).472 Now the Phaistos disc, which, as we have seen in section 8, according to the reading and interpretation re-cently put forward by a Dutch group of scholars (cf. note 472) consists of a letter to the Akhaian king Nestor by an Anatolian great king likely to be identified as Tar®undaradus of Arzawa, is particularly of interest to our purposes as it informs us that the king of Phaistos is called Kunawa. This name, which in the form ku-ne-u is also at-tested for the Linear B tablets from Knossos,473 bears a close resemblance to Gouneus, the leader of the Peraibians and the people from Dodona and the Peneios region in Thessaly at the time of the Trojan war.474 To all probabil-ity, then, we are dealing here with a Pelasgian personal name, thus confirming that there are Pelasgians among the
469 Meijer 1982: 60; Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 123; Woudhuizen 1992a: 96. See also section 5, note 90, above.
470 Cf. Laroche 1960a: *228; Woudhuizen 1994-5: 183; Woud-huizen 2004a: 41.
471 Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 4. For Luwian hieroglyphic, see Karkamis A6, phrase 7; Kululu I, phrase 1; Sultanhan, phrases 1 and 13; Karatepe, phrase 1; Bulgarmaden, phrase 1, as presented in Hawkins 2000; in the light of the Luwian hieroglyphic evi-dence, the final syllable -sa is the communal nominative singular ending. On the topic of code-switching in a bilingual environment, see Adams, Janse & Swain 2002.
472 Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 97-104; Woudhuizen 1992a: 11-41. For an extensive treatment of the Phaistos disc, see Achterberg, Best, Enzler, Rietveld & Woudhuizen 2004.
473 Ventris & Chadwick 1973: glossary, s.v.
474 Homeros, Iliad II, 748-55; Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 76; 83. According to Simonides (= Strabo, Geography IX, 5, 20) the Per-rhaibians (= Homeric Peraibians) are Pelasgiotes. Note that the Dodona in question must be the one near Skotussa in Pelasgiotis, see Lochner-Hüttenbach 1960: 42. For further evidence on Pelas-gian presence in Crete, see appendix IV.
104
inhabitants of the Mesara plain at the time! To recapitulate our evidence on the language of the
Pelasgians, we have experienced the following. First, at the time that the Pelagians formed part of the earliest recorded inhabitants of Greece, they probably spoke a Thraco-Phrygian language. Second, when – driven out by the Greeks – they migrated to western Anatolia, the Pelasgians adapted to the local language and went over to speak a Luwian vernacular, which, however, still bore testimony of a long history with (pre-)Greek. Third, those Pelasgians which went to the Mesara plain in Crete likewise adapted to the local linguistic situation, using Luwian as their pri-mary language and Semitic in religious and official matters in order to keep up with the international standards at the time. Evidently, the migrations of the Pelasgians were not massive enough to alter the existing linguistic situation in the new homeland. The latter conclusion ties in with the fact that the Pelasgians in western Anatolia were not so important as to enter into the Hittite records as a distinct population group. As a closing remark to this section, it may be of interest to note that all three linguistic layers discussed are demonstrable for the Philistines in their new home in the Levant: Thraco-Phrygian in the place name Ekron, which bears witness of the PIE root *akr- or *aker- “high”, Luwian in the personal name Goliath, which re-calls Lydian names of the type Alyattes, Sadyattes, etc.,475
and Semitic in the divine name ’šrt “Asherah (with Phoe-nician feminine ending -t)” as recorded for Ekron.476 As it seems, then, the Pelasgian ancestors of the Philistines pre-served their ethnic identity during the period of the Mycenaean koin (c. 1350-1200 BC)!
Additional note 1: Pelasgians in It-alyPelasgian population groups are not only recorded for the Aegean, but also for Italy.477 Of the latter, it is absolutely clear that they ultimately originated from the Aegean, and hence bear testimony of migration from east to west. When did such a migration take place? In order to answer this
475 Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopädie, s.v. Philister; Dothan 1982: 22; Machinist 2000: 63-4; Indo-European more in general is the genitive in -š as recorded for the patronyms in a Philistine inscrip-tion from Tell Gemme, dated to the 7th century BC, see Garbini 1997: 244.
476 Gitin 1993: 250-2, with note 37; cf. Merlo 1998.
477 For an overview, see Briquel 1984.
question it is relevant to note that Pelasgians colonizing the north of Italy were confronted with Umbrians,478 whereas their colleagues preferring the south had to drive out Auronissi (= variant form of Aurunci, a Latin indication of Oscans).479 Accordingly, the migration in question can only be situated after the arrival of the Urnfield ancestors of the Oscans and Umbrians in Italy at the end of the Bronze Age (see section 10), which means in the course of the Early Iron Age. In southern Etruria and Latium, the Pe-lasgians are reported to have stumbled upon Sicels,480
which is more problematic to situate in the Early Iron Age, because the latter were already kicked out of this environ-ment by the Umbrians and the Opicans (= Greek indication of the Oscans) apparently at the turn of the Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age.481 Their presence in central Italy at the arrival of the Pelasgians may therefore well be due to an anachronism of our source, Dionysios of Halikarnassos, basing himself on antiquarian relics.482
As we have seen in the above, there is reason to be-lieve that the Pelasgians in the Aegean region are actually identical with the Tyrrhenians recorded for the same area. This identification by and large holds good for their kins-men in Italy as well, but not in every case. Thus, the Pe-lasgian presence at Caere is clearly distinct from the subsequent one of the Tyrrhenians, identified as Lydians. At the time of the Pelasgians, the site is called Agylla. When the Lydians attacked the site, so the story goes, one of them asked how it is called. A Pelasgian, not under-standing the question, saluted him in Greek: khaire. As a consequence, the Lydians believed the site to be called like
478 Justinus, Epitoma historiarum philippicarum Pompei TrogiXX, 1, 11 (Spina); Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman AntiquitiesI, 20, 4 (Cortona); II, 49, 1 (ager Reatinus).
479 Dionysios of Halikarnasso, Roman Antiquities I, 21, 3.
480 Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman Antiquities I, 20, 4-5; cf. Briquel 1984: 175, note 31 (Caere); 298-9 (Pisa, Saturnia, Al-sium); Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman Antiquities I, 21; cf. Briquel 1984: 351-2 (ager Faliscus); Briquel 1984: 361, note 14 (various locations in Latium).
481 Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman Antiquities I, 22, 4-5.
482 Cf. Briquel 1984: 300-1. Note in this connection the Sicel na-ture ascribed to Saturnus at Cutiliae in the text of an oracle once given to the Pelasgians about their future homeland and recorded on a tripod from their sanctuary at Dodona (Dionysios of Halikar-nassos, Roman Antiquities I, 19), whereas, as we have seen in note 478 above, the population of the ager Reatinus, to which Cutiliae belongs, in effect consisted of Umbrians at the time of its actual colonization by Pelasgians.
105
this and rebaptized it Caere.483 Similarly, the Arkadians at Rome headed by Evander, who are likely to be identified with the Pelasgians reported for the same site,484 are clearly distinct from the Tyrrhenians to the north at the time of the arrival of Aeneas and his Trojan companions (see section 11). As a final example of relevance here, it may be put forward that the Pelasgians at Pisa, called Teu-tones, Teutoni or Teutae, are considered to be Greek speaking, whereas at a later time the dominant language here became Lydian.485
If we realize that the name of the leader of the Pelas-gians at Rome, Evander, constitutes a Greek formation, be-ing a compound of eu “good” with an r (G andros) “man”, the distinctive feature of these Pelasgian groups as opposed to the Tyrrhenians appears to be their Greek or Greek-like language. In the present section, however, we have experi-enced that language is not a defining “criterium” for Pelas-gians in the Aegean during the Late Bronze Age, as they may speak either Greek-like Thraco-Phrygian when in an European environment or Luwian when in an Anatolian environment, or even Semitic as a secondary language when in a Cretan environment to keep up with the interna-tional standards of the time. As such, the distinction be-tween Pelasgians and Tyrrhenians in the given Italian situations results from secondary interference by later his-torians. Nevertheless, it allows us to assume that the home-land of some Pelasgians must be sought in those sections of the Aegean where Greek or Greek-like Thraco-Phrygian was spoken at the time of departure, whereas that of others in sections of the Aegean where Luwian or Luwian-like then predominated. Finally, it deserves our attention that the Greek-like language of some of the Pelasgians in Italy for the presence of the roots *h2n r- “man, strength”, *sal-or *seh2l- “salt” (as in the TN Alsium), and *teut - “soci-ety, folk, people” may further underline its overall Indo-European nature.
483 Strabo, Geography V, 2, 3.
484 Eustathius in his commentary on Dionysios Periegetes 347; cf. Briquel 1984: 456, esp. note 83. Note that according to Strabo, Geography V, 2, 4 an Arkadian origin is already attributed to the Pelasgians by Hesiodos.
485 Briquel 1984: 304-5.
Additional note 2: The inventor of the trumpet: Tyrrhenian, Pelas-gian, or Lydian?
In his Geography, Strabo informs us about Regisvilla – the harbor of Vulci – that it once used to be the seat of the pal-ace of Maleos, a Pelasgian king. After having reigned here, this king is said to have moved with his Pelasgian follow-ing to Athens.486 In line with the latter reference, it is in-teresting to note that a Tyrrhenian Maleos or Maleot s is actually recorded for Attica in connection with the feast of Aiora.487 Now, the Tyrrhenians who once lived with the Athenians were notorious for their piracy,488 and it hence comes as no surprise that an excellent site for piratical raids like cape Malea is reported to have been named after their leader Maleos. This very same Maleos, then, is also credited with the invention of the trumpet – a handy in-strument for the coordination of military and/or piratical action.489 (The dedication of a stone in the harbor of Phais-tos to Poseidon is also ascribed to a certain Maleos, but we do not know whether this refers to one and the same per-son.490 Note in this connection that in form of Marewa or Marewo (genitive) or Mareu the name in question is al-ready attested for Linear B inscriptions from Malia and Py-los, respectively.491)
The invention of the trumpet, however, is not only as-cribed to the Pelasgian or Tyrrhenian Maleos, but also to the Tyrrhenian Pisaios492 or Tyrrhenos or his son – which evidently keeps us in the sphere of influence of the Tyr-rheno-Pelasgians493 – or the Lydian M las, a son of Herakles and Omphale.494 The latter name cannot be dis-
486 Strabo, Geography V, 2, 8.
487 Hesykhios, s.v. Ai ra; Etymologicum Magnum, s.v. Al tis; cf. Briquel 1984: 264-5.
488 Hesykhios, s.v. Tyrrh noi desmoi and desmoi Tyrrh nikoi; cf. Müller & Deecke 1877, I: 79, note 31.
489 Scholiast ad Statius, Thebaid IV, 224; VII, 16; VI, 382; cf. Briquel 1984: 266.
490 Soudas, s.v. Maleos; cf. Briquel 1984: 266.
491 Best 1996-7: 123 (who less likely connects Mareus, etc.).
492 Photios, s.v. l istosalpigktas; cf. Briquel 1991: 365, note 92.
493 Hyginus, Fabulae 274; Pausanias, Guide to Greece II, 21, 3; cf. Briquel 1991: 322.
494 Scholiast ad Homeros, Iliad XVIII, 219; cf. Briquel 1991: 332, note 53.
106
sociated from that of M l s, a predecessor of the Lydian king Kandaules (= the one murdered by the first ruler of the Mermnads, Gyges) who ruled in the second half of the 8th century BC.495 The Lydian nature of this name is fur-ther emphasized by the attestation in an epichoric Lydian inscription of Me1llali-, an adjectival derivative in -li- of Me1l1a .496
Given the relationship of the name Maleos to Lydian Melas or Meles, the Tyrrheno-Pelasgian and Lydian tradi-tions about the inventor of the trumpet appear to be not competitive in nature, but mere variants of one and the same story. Evidently, this story must be assigned to the period in which Lydia was not yet a landlocked power, as in the time of the reign of king Kroisos (559-547 BC),497
but still actively involved in maritime trade – with the Pon-tic region as indicated by the Lydian supremacy over Aby-dos and Daskyleion in the northern Troad recorded for the reign of Gyges (687-649 BC),498 and with on the one hand Al Mina in North Syria in the southeast (via Smyrna) and on the other hand the island of Pithecussae in the south-west as indicated by archaeological and epigraphical evi-dence from the late 8th century BC. 499
Anyhow, whatever the merits of the Tyrrheno-Pelasgian or Lydian claims, one thing seems clear, namely that the priority of the use of the trompet lies with the Egyptians, as in the reliefs of Medinet Habu we see an Egyptian trompeteer coordinating the movements of a con-tingent of foreign (in casu Sherden and other Sea Peoples’) mercenaries (see Fig. 22b)!
495 Radet 1892: 76-9; Pedley 1972: 14; cf. Briquel 1984: 267; Briquel 1991: 332-3.
496 Gusmani 1964, s.v.; cf. Briquel 1991: 333, note 58. According to Gusmani, loc. cit., Lydian Me1l1a (and hence the related Tyrr-heno-Pelasgian Maleos or Meleos [Briquel 1984: 268]) derives from Luwian Mala- as in Malazitis, see Laroche 1966, s.v.
497 Herodotos, Histories I, 27; cf. Briquel 1991: 85.
498 Strabo, Geography 22, 1; Pedley 1972: 19; Briquel 1991: 82-3 and note 285.
499 Woudhuizen 1982-3: 99-100, Fig. 7a-c (distinct type of mean-der); Woudhuizen 1992a: 155-7, Fig. 2 (inscription mi Maion).
107
13. TEUKROI, AKAMAS, AND TROJAN GREY WARE
The Tjeker of the Egyptian sources, who are mentioned among the Sea Peoples attacking Egypt in the fifth and eighth year of Ramesses III (= 1179 and 1176 BC), and are later recorded in the Wen Amon story (1076-1074 BC) as inhabitants of the region of Dor in the Levant, have been identified with the Teukroi of Greek literary tradition by Lauth in 1867.500 This identification was subsequently taken over by François Chabas,501 and after him, the ma-jority of the authors on the topic.502 As a minority view, however, it has been proposed by H.R. Hall to identify the Tjeker rather with the Sikeloi of Greek literary tradition.503
The latter view received new impetus by Elmar Edel’s ar-gument that Egyptian [t] as a rule corresponds with the Hebrew samekh.504 However, a serious disadvantage of the latter line of approach is that the Shekelesh would re-main without proper identification. Moreover, the equation of Tjeker with the Teukroi receives further emphasis from archaeological as well as historical evidence (see below), whereas the one with the Sikeloi does not, for which rea-son in the following we will stick to the majority view.
The Teukroi and their heros eponym Teukros are definitely at home in the Troad. According to Herodotos, remnants of the ancient Teukroi are, under the name of Gergithai, still traceable for the Troad at the beginning of the 5th century BC.505 A problem is posed, however, by the fact that the Teukroi are not straightforwardly associ-ated with the Troad in our Late Bronze Age sources. Thus,506 in the Egyptian list of the Hittite allies at the bat-tle of Kadesh (1274 BC) troops from the region of the Troad are referred to as Drdny “Dardanians”. It is, of
500 Wainwright 1961: 75.
501 Chabas 1872: 296.
502 Hall 1901-2: 184; von Lichtenberg 1911: 18; Wainwright 1961: 75; Barnett 1969: 19; Albright 1975: 508; Strobel 1976: 54; Mégalomitis 1991: 811; Redford 1992: 252; cf. Gardiner 1947: 199-200 (undecided).
503 Hall 1922: 301; cf. Gardiner 1947: 199-200 (undecided).
504 Edel 1984; cf. Lehmann 1985: 34-5 (critical, but undecided). Edel’s view is now backed up by Drews 2000: 178-80, who here-with withdraws his earlier (1993: 52, note 13) objection.
505 Herodotos, Histories V, 122; VII, 43.
506 Barnett 1969: 4.
course, possible that, like in the case of the Mycenaean Greeks being called Tanayu “Danaoi” by the Egyptians but A®® iyawa “Akhaians” by the Hittites, the Egyptians pre-ferred a different ethnonym from the Hittites, but because of the silence in the Hittite sources on this point we do not know for sure. What the Hittite sources do tell us is that in the reign of the Hittite great king Muwatallis II (1295-1271 BC) the region of Wilusa (= Greek Ilion) is reigned by a certain Alaksandus, whose name recalls the Homeric Alex-andros alias Paris.507 Now, in Herodotos’ version of the story of the abduction of Helena, according to which an unfavorable wind brings Paris and his company to Egypt, Paris is called of Teukrian birth.508 In this manner, then, a direct link between Alaksandus of Wilusa from the Hittite sources and the Teukroi from the Greek ones can be estab-lished.
As far as the ultimate origins of the Teukroi are con-cerned, there are three different versions of myth. In the first place, we have the autochthonous version according to which the heros eponym Teukros is the son of the river-god Skamandros and a nymph of mount Ida; in this version his daughter Bateia married with Dardanos, the heros epo-nym of the Dardanians – as we have seen the Egyptian de-nomination of the inhabitants of the Troad.509 Secondly, we have the Cretan version which holds that the Teukroi were colonists from Crete who settled in Hamaxitos510 and introduced the cult of the goddess Kybele.511 In archaeo-logical terms, this version of the myth might be linked up with the radiation of Minoan influence to nearby Samothrace as deducible from the discovery of Cretan hi-eroglyphic sealings of the “libation formula”-type, dated to the end of Middle Minoan II or to Middle Minoan III,512
and even to Troy itself in form of Linear A inscriptions
507 Gurney 1990: 46.
508 Herodotos, Histories II, 114.
509 Apollodoros, Library III, 12, 1; Diodoros of Sicily, Library of History IV, 75, 1; cf. Strobel 1976: 50.
510 Strabo, Geography XIII, 1, 48; Strobel 1976: 50-1.
511 Vergilius, Aeneid III, 104 ff.; Vürtheim 1913: 4-8; Strobel 1976: 50.
512 Olivier & Godart 1996: 30 (# 135-7); cf. Matsas 1991: 168.
108
found here.513 It is interesting to note in this connection that Phrygian Kybele is attested in Luwian form Kupapa for a magic spell to conjure the Asiatic pox in the language of the Keftiu (= Cretans) as preserved in an Egyptian medical papyrus presumably from the reign of Amenhotep III (1390-1352 BC) or one of his forerunners.514 Thirdly, there is the Athenian version according to which Teukros ultimately originates from the Attic deme Xytepê515 or is staged as the son of Telamon, king of Salamis in Greece.516 As duly noted by Einar Gjerstad, this last men-tioned form of the myth may have received emphasis from the Athenian policy vis-à-vis Cyprus in the 5th century BC.517 At any rate, from an archaeological point of view the mythical relation between the Troad and southern Greece might be reflected in the formal resemblance of the so-called Minyan ware, characteristic of mainland Greece for the Early Helladic III and Middle Helladic periods, with Trojan grey ware (from the beginning of Troy VI on-wards)518 – a relation which in fact is so close that numer-ous archaeologists used the term Minyan ware for the latter as well.519 This would lead us to the assumption that the inhabitants of the Troad from c. 1800 BC onwards are kinsmen of the Thraco-Phrygian population groups of Middle Helladic Greece – a thesis materialized to some ex-tent by Leonid Gindin.520 Note in this connection that in
513 Godart 1994; Faure 1996.
514 Woudhuizen 1992a: 1-10; see also appendix III below.
515 Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman Antiquities I, 61; Strabo, Geography XIII, 1, 48; Vürtheim 1913: 8-11; Strobel 1976: 50.
516 Euripides, Helen 87-8.
517 Gjerstad 1944: 119; cf. Strobel 1976: 52.
518 Blegen 1963: 111 who attributes the introduction of grey Mi-nyan to the arrival of a new population.
519 Heuck Allen 1994: 39 with reference, amongst others, to Schliemann, Blegen, Caskey.
520 Gindin 1999: 57-8 (Skaiai gates); 62-4 (Kebrion s); 263 (Laomed n ho Phrux, and his wife Strum ), to which may be ad-ded the Thracian nature of the personal name Paris, cf. Detschew 1976, s.v., and the Phrygian descent of Priamos’ wife Hekab(Iliad XVI, 718). Note that the analysis of Priamos < Luwian Pa-riya-muwas by Watkins 1986: 54 is dubious and that the first ele-ment of this personal name is rather linked up with that of local place names like Priapos, Pri n and Phrygian Prietas as stipula-ted by Kullmann 1999: 197 and Neumann 1999: 16, note 3, and/or the root of the New Phrygian vocabulary word prieis “carae” as per Haas 1966: 225, the latter from the PIE root *priyá-“(be)love(d)”, cf. Mayrhofer 1974: 18-9.
section 7 above on the ethnogenesis of the Greeks we have seen reason for Thraco-Phrygian population groups of Middle Helladic Greece who wanted to stay free to seek new homes among their kinsmen to the north and northeast as a result of the arrival of foreign conquerors from the be-ginning of Late Helladic I (c. 1600 BC) onwards.521
Which of these three scenarios applies, cannot be deter-mined in the present state of the evidence. Therefore, it may suffice for our present purposes to observe that ac-cording to Greek literary sources “Teukroi” is the oldest designation of the population of the Troad, followed by “Dardanians” (after Dardanos) and “Trojans” (after Tros).522
The literary tradition on Teukros also contains a num-ber of what appear to be dim reflections of the Tjeker’s partaking in the upheavals of the Sea Peoples. Thus, it is related that Teukros, after the sack of Troy and the ban-ishment from Salamis in Greece by his father Telamon, visited Egypt where he received an oracle about his ulti-mate destination, Salamis in Cyprus.523 Next, the story goes that Teukros visited Sidon on his way to Cyprus and received help from its king Belos (< Semitic Ba‘al “lord”) in the colonization of Salamis.524 Finally, tradition has it that Teukros takes Gergines from the Troad and Mysia with him as prisoners of war during the colonization of Sa-lamis in Cyprus.525 Considering the fact that Gergines is an ancient form of Gergithae,526 under which name, as we
521 The expansion of the Mycenaean civilization to the north and northeast coincides with population pressure in the direction of northwest Anatolia. Thus, according to Homeros, Iliad III, 184-7, Phrygian forces originating from the European continent had already mustered along the banks of the Sangarios about a genera-tion before the Trojan war (c. 1280 BC). Furthermore, the Kas-kans, who are characterized by a Thracian type of onomastics (see Woudhuizen 1993b: passim), became a growing threat to the Hitti-tes from the beginning of the Middle Kingdom period (= early in the 15th century BC), onwards, see von Schuler 1965: 27. Finally, Phrygian penetration into the province of Azzi-Hayasa to the northeast of the Hittite capital Bo azköy/Hattusa in the times of Tud®alias II (1390-1370 BC) and Arnuwandas I (1370-1355 BC) is personified by Mita of Pa®®uwa, see section 7, esp. note 146, above.
522 Diodorus Siculus, Library of History IV, 75, 1; cf. Apollodo-ros, Library III, 12, 1.
523 Euripides, Helen 87 ff.
524 Vergilius, Aeneid I, 619 ff.
525 Athenaios, Deipnosophistai VI, 68, 256b.
526 Athenaios, Deipnosophistai VI, 68, 256c.
109
have seen, the Teukroi were living in the Troad at the be-ginning of the 5th century BC, their being taken as prison-ers of war probably results from a rationalization which tries to cope with the situation that Teukros, although be-ing at home in the Troad, fights on the Greek side in the Il-iad.
Like the Philistines and Danaoi, a part of the Teukroi evidently founded themselves new homes in the coastal zone of the Levant. At least, in the Wen Amon story from the first half of the 11th century BC, we are confronted with Tjeker settled at Dor. According to Wen Amon’s vivid testimony, they still were a maritime force to reckon with at that time, since eleven Tjeker ships were blocking his way from the harbor of Byblos when, having accom-plished his mission, he wanted to return to Egypt.527
The maritime adventures of the Teukroi presumably dating to the period of the upheavals of the Sea Peoples call to mind the career of the Trojan hero Akamas as re-corded in Cypro-Minoan texts from Enkomi and Ras Shamra/Ugarit dated to the final phase of the Late Bronze Age.528 Here we encounter Akamas at first in Linear C texts as a representative of what appears to be the Trojan town Malos (between Palaescepsis and Achaeium, oppo-site the island of Tenedos) and of Ephesos engaged in maritime trade, receiving goods at Enkomi529 and deliver-ing goods at Ras Shamra/Ugarit.530 Next, he turns up in the more evolved Linear D texts as Akamu Ilu “the Ilian Akamas”531 and Akamu Eleki nukar -ura “Akamas of Ilion, the great enemy”, who in the latter instance is re-corded to have defeated (tupata “he smote”) the principal
527 Pritchard 1969: 25-9; see section 5 above.
528 Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 108; 116-7; Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 53-4; 59; 62; 64.
529 Cylinder seal Inv no. 19.10, see Woudhuizen 1992a: 110 ff.; 115, lines 15-7; cf. section 5 above. Like that of Alexandros (< Greek alex “to ward off, protect” and an r “man”), the name of Akamas is of Greek type, being derived from Greek akamas “unti-ring”, see LSJ, s.v. This cannot be attributed to poetic license of Homeros, as these names, next to in the Homeric epics, appear in contemporary texts. Apparently, therefore, representatives of the Trojan nobility had intermarried with Greek colleagues as early as the Late Bronze Age – be it on a voluntary basis or involuntarily as examplified by Alexandros/Paris’ rape of Helena.
530 Tablet RS 20.25, see Woudhuizen 1994: 519; 530, lines 1-2; 15; cf. section 5 above. For Malos in the Troad, see Cramer 1971: 88. In line with a suggestion by Jan Best, the element ati in atipiniis interpreted as a reflex of PIE *éti “and” as represented in Greek eti, Phrygian eti- and Latin et, see Frisk 1973, s.v., as well as Cel-tic eti, see Delamarre 2003, s.v.
531 Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 104 (Tablet Inv. no. 1193, line 3).
of the text (-mu “me”) in what from the context appears to be a naval battle.532 This last mentioned passage strikingly correlates to the information from the correspondence be-tween the king of Ugarit and his superior, the king of Cy-prus-Alasiya, as unearthed in Ras Shamra/Ugarit, according to which the Ugaritic fleet is stationed in the coastal region of Lycia, but enemy ships nonetheless have broken through the defense line and are now threatening the coasts of the eastern Mediterranean.533 Anyhow, it is clear that Akamas from Ilion in the course of events had grasped the opportunity and turned his maritime profession from trader into raider – a common change in the history of Mediterranean shipping.534
The expansion of the Trojans, first by means of trade to Cyprus and Ras Shamra/Ugarit, and subsequently by ac-tual colonization to Cyprus, again, and the Levant, is archaeologically traceable in the distribution of Trojan grey ware – not a widely desired export product, but evi-dence of real presence of Trojan traders and/or settlers. This ware is found in concentrations on Cyprus, especially at Kition and Hala Sultan Tekke, in Ras Shamra/Ugarit, and Tell Abu Hawam (= Haifa) in the neighborhood of the Tjeker town Dor, in a variety dated to the late 13th or early 12th century BC (see Fig. 21).535 The impetus for the Tro-jans to find new homes abroad is formed by the invasion of their territory by new settlers from the European continent, causing the destruction of Troy VIIa (c. 1180 BC)536 and the subsequent (in Troy VIIb1-2) introduction of buckle ceramic.537 Unfortunately, the Tjeker town Dor is not well excavated: at least it seems clear that the site was de-stroyed in the Late Bronze Age and subsequently charac-terized by Philistine ware.538 As opposed to this, the nearby Tell Abu Hawam has been better explored and shows, next to a destruction layer at
532 Best & woudhuizen 1988: 105 (Tablet Inv. no. 1687, line 15); cf. section 5 above.
533 Hoftijzer & van Soldt 1998: 343-4, RS L 1, RS 20.238, and RS 20.18; cf. section 5 above.
534 Ormerod 1924; cf. Woudhuizen 1992a: 117-8.
535 Buchholz 1973: 179-84; Heuck Allen 1994: 42.
536 For the twofold destruction of Troy, first at the end of VIh (c.1280 BC) by the Mycenaean Greeks and then in the time of the upheavals of the Sea Peoples at the end of VIIa (c. 1180 BC), see Schachermeyr 1980: 460 ; Schachermeyr 1982 : 106.
537 Rutter 1975, who likewise attributes the presence of this ware in southern Greece at the beginning of Late Helladic IIIC to Bal-kan invaders.
538 Dothan 1982: 69.
110
Fig. 21. Distribution of Trojan grey ware (from Heuck Allen 1994).
the end of the Late Bronze Age, some, no doubt sub-sequent, Late Helladic IIIC1b ware – the hallmark of the settlement of Sea Peoples.539 If I understand Susan Heuck Allen correctly in that the Trojan grey ware arrived in Tell Abu Hawam already before the aforesaid destruction layer,540 the Trojans
539 Sandars 1980: 161; 165.
540 Heuck Allen 1994: 40; and note 8: Trojan grey ware is not found in association with Late Helladic IIIC1b.
evidently prospected the site in the period of their trade connections with the Levant and hence very well knew where to go to find themselves a better place to stay!
111
14. THE CENTRAL MEDITERRANEAN CONTRIBUTION
Sherden
The Sherden541 are first mentioned in the correspondence of the king of Byblos, Rib-addi, with the Egyptian phar-aoh, presumably Akhenaten (1352-1336 BC), as preserved for the El-Amarna archive. Thus a Shirdan-man is staged in the context of a futile assault on Rib-addi, possibly as the latter’s body-guard.542 Furthermore, Rib-addi com-plains that people of Sutu – a contigent of mercenaries of the Egyptian pharaoh – have killed men of Sherdan.543
The use of Sherden for their fighting skill in the Levant can be further illustrated by texts from Ras Shamra/Ugarit, roughly dated to the 14th or 13th century BC, where in al-phabetic form trtnm they occur in the context of tnnm“hand-to-hand fighters or skirmishers”, mrjnm “chariot fighters” and mdrglm “guardians”.544 Interesting detail is that when specified by name, as in case of Amar-Addu, son of Mutba‘al, the Sherden can be shown to be fully accul-turated to their new Semitic milieu.545
After the El-Amarna interlude, the Sherden appear as seaborne raiders of Egyptian territory in the reign of Ramesses II (1279-1213 BC), who in the Tanis stele speaks of “the rebellious-hearted Sherden” “in their war-ships from the midst of the sea”, “none [being] able to stand before them”.546 This information coincides with the text of a stele from Assuwan, dated to the second year of Ramesses II (= 1277 BC), in which the pharaoh claims to have “destroyed warriors of the Great Green (= the Medi-terranean sea)” so that “Lower Egypt spends the night sleeping (peacefully)”.547 As it seems, then, Ramesses II had to deal with piratical raids by the Sherden early in his reign. Having defeated them, he next enlisted the survivors
541 Gardiner 1947: 194-7; Strobel 1976: 190-4; Lehmann 1979: 485; 488; 493-4, note 49; Lehmann 1983: 80-5; Drews 1993a: 152-5.
542 Moran 1992: 150 (EA 81: 16); Mercer 1939: EA no. 81.
543 Moran 1992: 201-2 (EA 122: 35; 123: 15); Mercer 1939: EA nos. 122-3.
544 Loretz 1995: 128-32; cf. Drews 1993a: 155 (RS 15.103).
545 Drews 1993a: 155.
546 Gardiner 1961: 259; Drews 1993a: 153; cf. Breasted 1927: Vol. IV, no. 491.
547 Gardiner 1947: 195.
as mercenaries in his army, for in the memorial of the bat-tle of Kadesh, which took place in the fifth year of his reign (= 1274 BC), Ramesses II reports that a contingent of Sherden fought on his side (“His Majesty had made ready his infantry and his chariotry, and the Sherden of His Maj-esty’s capturing whom he had brought back by victory of his strong arm”).548 On the basis of close scrutiny of the Egyptian reliefs from the reigns of Ramesses II to Ramesses III, Robert Drews attributed the introduction in the orient of innovations in infantry warfare, like the round shield, the javelins, and the long slashing sword, which, when deployed in sufficient numbers, could outmatch the up to that moment unchallenged chariotry, to the Sherden, identifiable as such by their characteristic horned helmet (see Fig. 22).549
(a)
(b)
Fig. 22. Sherden in the Egyptian reliefs from the reigns of
Ramesses II and Ramesses III with (a) long slashing swords and
round shields, and (b) javelins (from Sandars 1980: 29, afb. 12 and
32, afb. 14).
548 Gardiner 1960: P25-30; Drews 1993a: 131; cf. Breasted 1927: Vol. III, no. 307.
549 Drews 1993: 178-9; 184 (with reference to Sandars 1980: 32, afb. 14); 199 (with reference to Sandars 1980: 29, afb. 12).
112
The story continues with the Sherden fighting, like the Shekelesh, Ekwesh, Lukka, and Teresh, as allies or mercenaries on the side of the Libyans, who, under the leadership of their king Meryey, made an attempt to invade the Egyptian delta in order to settle there in the fifth year of the reign of Merneptah (= 1208 BC).550 Subsequently, in the memorial of the invasion of the Sea Peoples in year eight of Ramesses III (= 1176 BC) at Medinet Habu, we encounter the Sherden both as attackers and as mercenaries on the Egyptian side.551 The service of Sherden in the Egyptian army can be shown to continue into the reign of Ramesses V (1147-1143 BC), when members of this ethnic group are staged as proprietors of land granted to them by the pharaoh. As in the case of their kinsmen in the Levant, the Sherden in Egypt by then had acculturated to the extent that they all bore Egyptian names.552
The final mention of Sherden in the Near East is pro-vided by the Onomasticon of Amenope, which reflects the political situation in the 11th century BC. Here the Sher-den occur in an enumeration followed by the Tjeker and Peleset. From this enumeration one has deduced that there were Sherden living to the north of the Tjeker at Dor and the Peleset in their Philistine pentapolis at the time, in a lo-cation plausibly identified with Akko.553 In archaeological terms, their settlement here may well be reflected in Late Helladic IIIC1b pottery554 – as we have noted before, the hallmark of settlement of Sea Peoples in the Levant.
Having reviewed the history of Sherden in the Near East, the question remains to be answered: where did they come from? As we have seen, the Egyptian sources inform us that they came overseas. Now, two propositions have been put forward as to the origin of the Sherden: the island of Sardinia in the central Mediterranean and the region of Sardis in western Anatolia. The first option was proposed by Emmanuel de Rougé already in 1867.555 Some years later, in 1873, his view was challenged by Gaston Mas-
550 Breasted 1927: Vol. III, no. 574; Drews 1993a: 49.
551 Strobel 1976: 18; Sandars 1980: 106-7, afb. 68. For their pre-sence on the Egyptian side, see Helck 1971: 226, note 10, and Drews 1993a: 153 citing from Edgerton & Wilson 1936: plate 29.
552 Gardiner 1947: 195; for a full survey of the references to Sherden in Egyptian texts, see Kahl 1995.
553 Moshe Dothan 1986; Bikai 1992: 133.
554 Bietak 1993: 297-8.
555 De Rougé 1867: 39.
pero. The latter argued that, on the analogy of the fact that the original homeland of the Tyrsenians is traced back to Lydia by ancient authors, the Sherden are more likely to originate from western Anatolia as well, where the name of the capital of the Lydians, Sardis, and related toponyms like mount Sardena and the Sardanion plain and an eth-nonym like Sardonians would be reminiscent of their pres-ence.556 Accordingly, the Sherden were considered to be on their way from their original home in Lydia to their later home in Sardinia at the time of the upheavals of the Sea Peoples.557 The revised view of Maspero has been par-ticularly influential. Thus a cautious scholar like the Egyp-tologist Alan Gardiner concluded: “Provisionally it seems plausible to accept the identification of the name Sherden with that of Sardinia, and the identification of the name Tursha with that of the Tyrs noi, but to regard Sardinia and Etruria as much later homes of the peoples in ques-tion.”558 Similarly, Margaret Guido in her book on Sar-dinia, after weighing the pro’s and con’s, is inclined to an eastern origin of the Sherden.559 As we have seen in sec-tion 10 above, there is considerable evidence that Mas-pero’s eastern origin of the Tyrsenians is correct. In the case of the Sherden, however, the literary evidence from ancient authors to back up their eastern origin is absent: here Maspero’s thesis rests upon nothing more than a like-ness in names, which might be spurious. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that de Rougé’s identification of the Sherden as Sardinians can still count on some supporters up to the present day, like Richard D. Barnett in his contri-bution to the third edition of the Cambridge Ancient His-tory560 and Drews in his book on the end of the Bronze Age.561
As it comes to the actual facts, it must be admitted that these are meagre, indeed. The often referred to men-tion of Šrdn “Sardinia” in a Phoenician inscription on a stele from Nora, dated to the 9th century BC, can only provide us with a terminus a quo for the name of the is-
556 Maspero 1873: 84-6; Maspero 1875: 195; Maspero 1910: 360, note 2; cf. Burn 1930: 12-3; Gardiner 1947: 197-8; Redford 1992: 243, note 13; 246.
557 Hall 1926: 282.
558 Gardiner 1947: 198.
559 Guido 1963: 187-91.
560 Barnett 1969: 12.
561 Drews 1993a: 53-61; 70-2.
113
land.562 More revealing is the archaeological evidence pre-sented by Roger Grosjean. He drew our attention to simi-larities of the depictions of Sherden at Medinet with statue-menhirs from southern Corsica,563 depicting so-called Torre-builders, who are identical with the Nuraghe-builders from Sardinia.564 These entail: (1) the helmet with horns, the latter element of which can be reconstructed for some statue-menhirs on the basis of shallow holes once holding another material;565 (2) the corselet with five rib-bons;566 and (3) the long sword (see Fig. 23).567
(a)
(b)
Fig. 23. Statue-menhirs from Corsica: (a) Cauria (with horns re-
constructed on the helmets), (b) Scalsa Murta (from Grosjean
1966b, Fig. 5; Sandars 1980: 99, afb. 60).
The statue-menhirs in question are assigned on the
562 Donner & Röllig 1964: 63, nr. 46; cf. Dupont Sommer 1948 & 1974.
563 Grosjean 1966a: 70-1.
564 Grosjean 1966b: 194.
565 Grosjean 1966a: pls. 44-6.
566 Grosjean 1966a: pl. 46.
567 Grosjean 1966a: pls. 35-6; 40-1.
basis of C14 datings to the period between 1400 and 1000 BC, with a margin of error of 200 years.568 They give the impression of a society of which the members are proud of their martial qualities and hence excellently fit for service as mercenaries, in which capacity we encountered the Sherden in the Egyptian and Levantine sources.
Remaining archaeological evidence is of a circum-stantial nature. As shown by Birgitta Pålsson Hallager, contacts between Sardinia and the eastern Mediterranean, especially Crete, can be detected for the later Bronze Age in the form of Mycenaean IIIB and C (including Late Hel-ladic IIIC1b) material discovered foremostly in the nur-aghe Antigori in the south of Sardinia,569 and, as later distinguished by Joseph Shaw, Italian or Sardinian pottery from Late Minoan IIIA2-B contexts unearthed in Kommos, a harbor town in southern Crete.570 Particularly tantalizing are the oxhide ingots with Cypro-Minoan signs from the nuraghi Serra Ilixi and Sant’Antioco in Sardinia, which are variously dated between the 15th and 11th century BC.571
According to Guido, one of such Sardinian type of oxhide ingot was found in Crete, where, in her words, it may be-long to the thirteenth-twelfth centuries BC.572 As it seems, then, Sardinia was a source of raw materials (copper) for the international market (the Cypro-Minoan signs have only meaningful use as markers for the handling of the ox-hide ingots in the eastern Mediterranean!).573 Finally, it deserves our attention that Sardinia constitutes a backward area – note in this connection that a Bronze Age culture lingered into the Roman period – ,574 comparable to a third world country in our present era, which is likely to provide the more developed eastern Mediterranean with mercenar-ies and raw materials.
568 Grosjean 1966a: 90; cf. Grosjean 1966b: 190 (from c. 1500 BC onwards).
569 Pålsson Hallager 1985; Dothan & Dothan 1992: 214.
570 Shaw 1998: 15; cf. Vagnetti 2000: 317; 2001: 88 who is more outspoken about the Sardinian nature of the dark burnished ware at Kommos.
571 Guido 1963: 110; cf. Muhly, Maddin & Stech 1988: 283, who consider the association of oxhide ingots with Mycenaean pottery likely, even though it is not straightforwardly attested. Note, ho-wever, that Buchholz 1999 : 222 variously dates the oxhide ingots to the period of 1200 to 700 BC.
572 Guido 1963: 110-1; cf. Pålsson Hallager 1985: 304.
573 So also Buchholz 1999 : 229.
574 Guido 1963: 156.
114
On the basis of the combined evidence from Corsica and Sardinia, the one presenting the closest parallels for Sherden as depicted in the Egyptian memorial at Medinet Habu and the other furnishing evidence for contacts with the eastern Mediterranean during the later Bronze Age, it seems viable to conclude that the Sherden originated from this part of the Central Mediterranean.
Shekelesh575
The earliest attestation of the Shekelesh concerns their par-taking as allies or mercenaries in the Lybian campaign against Egypt as recorded for the fifth year of Merneptah (= 1208 BC).576 In the count of the dead bodies after the battle, the Shekelesh – together with the Ekwesh, Teresh, and Sherden, and in contrast to the Peleset from the time of Ramesses III – , are specified as being circumcised.577
Next, a representative of the Shekelesh turns up in maritime trade as recorded by Cypro-Minoan cylinder seals from Kalavassos (K-AD 389) and Enkomi (Inv. no. 19.10), which we have seen reason in section 8 above to assign to the period of the Hittite domination of Cy-prus/Alasiya during the reign of Suppiluliumas II (1205-1180? BC).578 The man in question, Sanemas, singles him-self out as the author of the Kalavassos seal, and hence can be shown to master the Luwian language.
This peaceful episode is followed by one of maritime agression. A first indication of this is formed by a letter from the destruction layer of Ras Shamra/Ugarit (RS 34.129), in which the Hittite great king, who must be iden-tified as Suppiluliumas II, urgently requests information about the Šikal y “who live in boats” and about their homeland Šikila from a certain Lunadusu or Ibnadusu who had been taken prisoner by them.579 (Note in this connec-tion that Sikalayu and Sikela are variant forms of Sheke-lesh without the additional suffix -sh also attested for Ekwesh and Weshesh,580 and that we have seen reason not to follow Elmar Edel in his proposal to identify Sikela with
575 Lehmann 1979: 492-4.
576 See note 551 above.
577 Widmer 1975: 71, note 23.
578 Woudhuizen 1992a: 94-145; Woudhuizen 1994: 524-6.
579 Dietrich & Loretz 1978; Hoftijzer & van Soldt 1998: 343.
580 Wainwright 1961: 72; see section 8, note 212 above.
Tjeker.)581 Little later, we encounter the Shekelesh among the Sea Peoples who invaded Egypt in the eighth year of Ramesses III (= 1176 BC).582 In the memorial for Ramesses III’s victory at Medinet Habu, the Shekelesh are distinguished by a special headdress, the “nach hinten ge-bogene Mutze”.583
As to the origin of the Shekelesh, two suggestions have been put forward. In the first place, de Rougé pro-posed to identify them as inhabitants of the island of Sic-ily.584 As opposed to this, Maspero rather connected the name of the Shekelesh with the place name Sagalassos in Pisidia – a region in between the Hittite province Tar®untassa and the Lukka lands in southern Anatolia.585
Like in the case of the Sherden, the Shekelesh were as-sumed according to this view to be on their way from their original home to their later home Sicily at the time of the Sea Peoples. Maspero’s Anatolian thesis was enthousiasti-cally received by H.R. Hall, who wrote: “The next tribe, the Shekelesha, are undoubtedly, as Maspero concluded twenty years ago, the Sagalassians of Pisidia. (…) The identification absolutely hits the nail on the head. (…) And the Sagalassians are not too far off, as de Rougé’s Sicels were.”586 It echoes on into recent literature, as in, for ex-ample, Ronald Redford’s monograph on Egypt’s relations with the Levant.587 The problem with Maspero’s Anatolian thesis, however, is that, as we have seen above, the Hittite great king Suppiluliumas II happens to be unacquainted with the Sikalayu or Shekelesh, whereas, as we have seen earlier (see section 8), he is in full control of western Asia Minor. In other words: if the Shekelesh were Sagalassians, the Hittite great king would have known them. Conse-quently, it seems preferable to opt for de Rougé’s solution and identify the Shekelesh with the inhabitants of Sicily in the central Mediterranean.
Now, Sicily was in contact with the Mycenaean world during the Late Bronze Age, as Mycenaean pottery has been found in Sicilian sites. As argued by Pålsson Hal-
581 Edel 1984; see section 13 above.
582 Pritchard 1969: 262-3; cf. Breasted 1927: Vol. IV, no. 64; Ed-gerton & Wilson 1936: 53; Strobel 19 76: 14; Drews 1993: 51.
583 Widmer 1973: 73-4.
584 See note 555 above.
585 Maspero 1873: 84-6; Maspero 1910: 432, note 2.
586 Hall 1901-2: 181.
587 Redford 1992: 246.
115
lager, these contacts may have been especially close with Crete in view of the amount of Minoan pottery discovered in Thapsos. Vice versa, Khania, Knossos, and Kommos in Crete have produced Italian (no distinction is made for Sic-ily) ware during the later phase of the Late Bronze Age (Late Minoan IIIA2-B for Kommos and Late Minoan IIIB-C for Khania).588 To this comes that the Sicilians are known to the Homeric world (which, as we have seen in section 2 above, mainly reflects Late Bronze Age politico-historical conditions) as sturdy traders, specialized in the slave trade.589
In our literary sources, the Sicilians or Sicels are as-sumed to have once inhabited the mainland of Italy, up to Latium and southern Etruria, and to have crossed over to Sicily either some time before the Trojan war590 or 300 years before the arrival of the first Greeks, which means in the 11th century BC.591 They are specified to have been driven out of their original habitat by either Umbrians (to-gether with Pelasgians) or Opicans (= Greek indication of the Oscans), who, as we have seen in section 10 and will further elaborate below, both make their entrance in the Italian peninsula from Urnfield Europe at the end of the Bronze Age. Therefore, Minoan and Mycenaean ware found in the Italian mainland may also be indicative of contacts of the Aegean region with the Sicels, or vice versa.592 According to inscriptions from the Archaic pe-riod, the language of the Sicels was closely related to Oscan at the time.593
Weshesh
The Weshesh figure only in the attack launched by the Sea
588 Pålsson Hallager 1985; Shaw 1998: 15. For Cyprian material at Thapsos, see van Wijngaarden 1999: 362, note 48; note that Drews 1993a: 218, basing himself upon Ross Holloway 1981: 87, identifies Thapsos during the 13th century BC as a Cyprian trading post.
589 Homeros, Odyssey XX, 382-3.
590 Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman Antiquities I, 9; 16; 20 ff.
591 Thucydides, Peloponnesian War VI, 2, 5; cf. Dionysios of Ha-likarnassos, Roman Antiquities I, 22, 5.
592 For the distribution of Mycenaean ware in Italy, see Buchholz 1999 : 83, Abb. 23.
593 Vetter 1953: 359-60, no. 514 (Centuripa vase, 5th century BC): bratome; cf. Oscan brat or bratom (= Latin gratum “pleasant, grateful”), see Pulgram 1978: 72-3; 151.
Peoples in the eighth year of Ramesses III (= 1176 BC).594
According to a proposition by François Chabas, they have been identified as Oscans.595 In order to fully grasp the va-lidity of this suggestion, it is important to note that the fi-nal -sh of Weshesh constitutes a suffix, also present, as we have seen, in Ekwesh (< Akhaia) and Shekelesh (< Sikela), and that the root hence consists of Wesh-.596 Furthermore, in spite of its general derivation from earlier *Opsci,597 the root of the Italic ethnonym Oscans consists of Os- as ex-amplified by its variant form Aus- or rhotacized Aur- in Ausones or Aurunci, respectively. This root, then, is used in combination with the typically Italic suffix for the for-mation of ethnics, -ci (cf. Aurunci, Etrusci, Falisci, Graeci, Umbrici, Volsci, etc.). Alternatively, inspired by Mas-pero’s pan-Anatolianism with respect to the homeland of the Sea Peoples, which led him to associate the ethnonym Weshesh with the place name Wassos in Caria, it has been suggested by Hall to compare the root of this same eth-nonym to that of the place name Waksos in Crete.598
The identification of the Weshesh with the Italic Oscans can be bolstered by archaelogical evidence. As we have seen in section 10 above, the Italic peninsula is char-acterized at the end of the Late Bronze Age by a new ma-terial culture called proto-Villanovan, which, as convinc-ingly demonstrated by Hugh Hencken, shows close affinities with Urnfield Europe and, as we have argued, is likely to be introduced by the ancestors of the historical Umbrians, Oscan, Latins, and Faliscans, whose languages are most intimately related to Celtic and Germanic. Now, as pointed out most recently by Shelley Wachsmann, the fact that the boat(s) of the Sea Peoples as depicted in Ramesses III’s memorial at Medinet Habu is(/are) charac-terized by bird-head devices at both the bow and the stern constitutes a typical Urnfield feature.599 As it seems, then, there were bearers of the Urnfield culture among the Sea Peoples, which conclusion only applies if we are right in
594 See note 582 above.
595 Chabas 1872: 299; cf. Reinach 1910: 36, note 3; Macalister 1913: 25.
596 See note 580 above.
597 As based on Greek Opikoi and Ennius’ Opscus.
598 Hall 1901-2: 184; cf. Reinach 1910: 36; Albright 1975: 508; Redford 1992: 246.
599 Wachsmann 1998: 178; Wachsmann 2000: 122; cf. Kimmig 1964: 223-4, Abb. 1; de Boer 1991.
116
our identification of the Weshesh with the Italic Oscans. The connection thus achieved with the developments
in Urnfield Europe at the time, also go a long way in pro-viding us with a model to explain the resurrections of the Sea Peoples. The invasion of Italy by bearers of the Urn-field culture – a true mass migration – caused great disrup-tion of peoples living in the area, as the displacement of the Sicels living in Latium and southern Etruria mentioned in the above, who in turn were forced to displace other population groups in their search for new homes. More-over, the finds of handmade barbarian ware either linked up with Italy or Urnfield Europe in various locations of the Aegean at the end of the Late Bronze Age600 and the growing popularity of the rite of cremation from that time onwards,601 suggest that some of the invaders, like we pos-ited for the Oscans, made common cause with population groups they displaced and went with them straight on to the eastern Mediterranean, with which the original popula-tion of Italy and the central Mediterranean islands, as we have seen, had been in contact. This resulted in a domino-effect. First, the region of Pylos in Greece was attacked with devastating results, ultimately causing Akhaians to join the eastern move and look for new homes in Cyprus and the Cilician plain. Next, the Hittite fleet stationed along the coast of Lycia to ward off the entrance of the Sea Peoples from the Aegean into the eastern Mediterranean waters was utterly defeated and the island of Cy-prus/Alasiya, the southern Anatolian coast, and that of the Levant lay undefended as an easy prey for looting and plunder, and eventually settlement. Finally, as we know by now, an attempt was made to invade the richest country in the Near East, Egypt, with appetizing prospects for plunder and settlement (see Fig. 24). Only this last stage in the up-heavals of the Sea Peoples failed….
I am not suggesting that the foregoing model explains everything. It is highly unlikely that the Sea Peoples are responsible for, to name but two examples, the devasta-tions in Thessaly and the fall of the Hittite capital Bo az-köy/Hattusa. The upheavals of the Sea Peoples ultimately caused by the movement of bearers of the Urnfield culture into Italy works as a catalyst to set in motion other devel-
600 Rutter 1975; Deger-Jalkotzy 1983; Vanschoonwinkel 1991: 233-42, carte 8; Popham 2001; for barbarian ware in Cyprus, see Karageorghis 1986 and Pilides 1994; for further literature on the topic, see Eder 1998, 20, esp. note 25.
601 Vanschoonwinkel 1991: 191-6, carte 7.
opments. Thus the devastations in Thessaly are likely to be ascribed to warlike Balkan tribes bordering to the north of the Mycenaean realm, always looking for an opportunity to plunder their much richer neighbor. Furthermore, the sack-ers of the Hittite capital Bo azköy/Hattusa are likely to be identified as Kaskans and Phrygians, who, when the smoke-screen had disappeared, turned up in great numbers along the Assyrian border at the time of Tiglathpileser I (1115-1070 BC).602 As an historical parallel for these de-velopments one could point to the fact that when Diony-sios I of Syracuse wanted to attack the Etruscans of Caere, he made a common cause with the Celts in their hinterland, who, just like the northern neigbors of the Greeks and the Kaskans and Phrygians in Anatolia, were only waiting for the opportunity to plunder the lands of their hated oppres-sor.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 24. Distribution of Urnfield culture and the route of the Sea
Peoples; (a) c. 1180 BC; (b) 12th-10th century BC (after Kimmig
1964: 269-70, Abb. 17-8).
602 Lehmann 1970: 34; Diakonoff 1984: 123; see also section 7, esp. note 147.
117
15. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Having reached the end of our quest into the vicissitudes of the Sea Peoples, it seems worthwhile to summarize the re-sults with respect to their ethnicity.
As far as the Lukka are concerned, there can be little doubt that they originate from the lower Xanthos valley in later Lycia. This area looks out onto the Mediterranean sea in the south, but is otherwise separated from the surround-ing regions by a spur of the formidable Taurus mountains. From this geographical situation alone it seems permissible to assume that the Lukka formed a close knit ethnic com-munity. At any rate, this is the case with their Early Iron Age descendants, who call themselves Termilai and write in a distinct dialect of Luwian, the so-called Lycian A. From an archaeological point of view, however, our infer-ence about the ethnic coherence of the Lukka cannot be backed up by a distinct material culture because archaeo-logical data from the lower Xanthos valley are thus far lacking for the Late Bronze Age period.
The Ekwesh and Denye(n) are alternative indications for the Late Bronze Age Greeks, corresponding to Ho-meric Akhaians and Danaoi. Of these indications, the one, in form of A®®iyawa, is preferred by the Hittites, while the other, in form of Tanayu, is most of the time preferred by the Egyptians. In archaeological terms, the ethnic coher-ence of the Late Bronze Age Greeks is strongly indicated by the so-called Mycenaean koin of Late Helladic IIIB – a cultural unity unparalleled for Greece until the Hellenistic period. The latter archaeological culture cannot be dissoci-ated from the records in Linear B, which are conducted in a distinct Greek dialect most closely related to Arcado-Cyprian of later date. That the Late Bronze Age Greeks in-deed considered themselves as Akhaians may be further il-lustrated by an episode in Herodotos’ Histories (V, 72), according to which the Spartan king Kleomenes, being re-fused entrance into the temple on the acropolis of Athens by the priestess on the ground that he was considered a Dorian, replied that he was not a Dorian, but an Akhaian – a point of view which tallies with the fact that the Dorians from central Greece, when taking possession of the Pelo-ponnesos at the end of the Submycenaean and beginning of the Protogeometric periods, are led by Heraklid kings with a legitimate claim on the Mycenaean throne as descendants of Perseus, who return to their ancestral lands. The cultural and linguistic unity of Late Bronze Age Greece should not
induce us, however, to exclude a certain amount of ethnic diversity, as Linear B texts, next to the geographic name Akawija (KN) “Akhaia”, already bear testimony of the ethnonyms Rakedamonijo (TH) “Lacedaimonian”, Ijawone(KN) “Ionians”, and the personal name related to an eth-nonym Dorijewe (PY) “Dorieus (dative)”.603 After the fall of their palatial civilization, some of the Mycenaean Greeks took the boat and looked for new homes in the eastern Mediterranean, one group under the name of H i wa “Akhaians” colonizing the Cilician plain in Anato-lia, and an other group under the name of Dan “Danaoi” colonizing various locations in the Levant. These migra-tions were not numerous enough, however, to plant the Greek language in the given regions, the Akhaians in the Cilician plain going over to Luwian and the Danaoi in the Levant resorting to Semitic. This being the case, the Greeks in question may safely be assumed to have mixed to a significant extent with the indigenous population.
If the literary traditions about the Philistines originat-ing from Crete and/or Lydia in western Asia Minor are correct, this particular people is likely to be identified with the Pelasgians of Greek sources. The latter were one of the various population groups living in mainland Greece be-fore the Greek ethnos came into being, and hence at least partly responsible for the Middle Helladic culture with its characteristic Minyan ware. As far as can be determined from the evidence of place and personal names, the Pelas-gians were of Indo-European tongue, to be more specific of a Thraco-Phrygian type. When southern and central Greece were conquered by foreign invaders from Egypt and the Levant, Pelasgian population groups who wanted to preserve their independence fled to the north into Thes-saly, which remained predominantly Minyan up till Late Helladic IIIA, and to the region of Larisa Phrikonis in the Mysian-Lydian borderland of western Asia Minor. On the basis of the evidence from personal names, again, the latter group was not numerous enough to cause a language shift, but went over to the local Luwian dialect. As opposed to their kinsmen who had fled, Pelasgian population groups which stayed in southern and central Greece became thor-oughly Mycenaeanized and in this process, as Herodotos
603 Ventris & Chadwick 1973: glossary, s.v.; Shelmerdine 1997: 564; cf. Driessen 1998-9 and Vanschoonwinkel 1991: 361.
118
(Histories I, 57) reports, adopted the Greek language – which, considering our view that Greek is a split from Thraco-Phrygian under foreign influences, is only a small step. The exact date of the migration of Pelasgians to Crete as recorded in the literary sources and backed up by place, divine, and personal names eludes us, but, at any rate it is clear that these latter became fully Minoanized and, like their fellow Cretans, used a Luwian dialect as their first language and a Semitic one for religious and administra-tive purposes in order to keep up with the current interna-tional standards. At the time of their migration to the Levant and settling down in the Philistine pentapolis, the Pelasgians of Crete were in close contact with their kins-men of western Anatolia, both producing Late Helladic IIIC1b pottery – as we have seen, the hallmark of the set-tlement of Sea Peoples in the Levant. This may be a sign of their ethnic coherence, though it must be admitted that the same material culture is shared with the Mycenaean Greeks. It goes without saying that the Pelasgians during their colonization of the Philistine pentapolis mixed with the local population and went over to the local Semitic dia-lect – with which the Cretan branch was already familiar anyway.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Teresh and Peleset are explicitly distinguished in one Egyptian text, it seems highly attractive to consider the related ethnonyms of the Tyrrhenians and Pelasgians from Greek literary sources, on the analogy of Akhaians and Danaoi being alternative means to refer to the Mycenaean Greeks, as competing forms of address of one and the same population group.604
Under the related name of Etruscans, the Tyrrhenians are especially known to us as an archaeologically, epigraphi-cally, and linguistically traceable entity from c. 700 BC in Italy. In all these aspects, however, their homeland can be traced back to the Aegean region and western Anatolia. A crown witness of their early history is formed by their lan-guage, which, although basically of Luwian nature, shows clear signs of a long early history with Greek – a linguistic deep layer explicable only if the literary traditions of the Tyrrhenians once living in Attica are correct. Mutatis mu-tandis, the evidence of the Etruscan language also goes a
604 As we have stipulated in section 10 above, Herodotos, Histo-ries I, 57, distinguishes the language of the Pelasgians from that of the Tyrrhenians, but, as we have seen in section 12, language is not a defining “criterium” for Pelasgians, so that Greek-like and Luwian-like speaking representatives may all belong to one and the same ethnic entity.
long way in backing up our reconstruction of Pelasgians originally speaking a Thraco-Phrygian vernacular, but go-ing over to Luwian with their migration from mainland Greece to western Anatolia. A distinct branch of migrants from western Anatolia to Italy is formed by the Trojan fol-lowers of Aeneas. As these are likely originating from the region south of mount Ida, where to all probability a Lu-wian dialect was spoken, we are seemingly dealing here with kinsmen of the Tyrrhenians. However, contrary to the situation in Etruria, the Trojan followers of Aeneas, for mere lack of numbers, did not plant their name, language, culture, and customs in Latium, but were only held respon-sible for the introduction of the cult of the Penates here.
Tjeker or Teukroi is an indication of the population of the Troad, which alternatively can be addressed as Drdnyor Dardanians. To all probability this people spoke a Thraco-Phrygian language, and hence they likely were kinsmen of the pre-Greek population groups of Greece like the Phrygians, Thracians, and Pelasgians. The latter infer-ence gains weight from the fact that the characteristic Tro-jan grey ware is closely related to the so-called Minyan ware of Middle Helladic Greece. At the end of the Late Bronze Age, this grey ware, attested from the beginning of Troy VI onwards, is distributed to Cyprus and the Levant, thus enabling us to trace the epigraphically and historically recorded trade contacts and migrations of the Teukroi archaeologically. All in all, the Teukroi form a clear case of a coherent ethnic entity according to our protohistoric criteria.
The homeland of the Sherden is likely to be located in Sardinia in the central Mediterranean, as we find statue-menhirs in this region (in casu nearby Corsica) depicting the same type of warriors as the Egyptian reliefs associated with this ethnonym. The specificity of the outfit of the Sardinian warriors seems to indicate a strong ethnic bond. On the analogy of the fact that an Hittite princess betrothed to Ramesses II is rebaptized with an Egyptian name on the event of her marriage,605 the Semitic and Egyptian names for individual Sherden mentioned in the Akkadian cunei-form and Egyptian texts bear testimony only of their accul-turation in their new homelands, and tell us nothing of the Sardinian language, about which, for the lack of epichoric texts or even glosses in Greek or Latin, we are totally igno-rant.
605 Bryce 1998: 312; compare Greeks in Hellenistic Egypt taking Egyptian names, on which see Goudriaan 1988.
119
About the origin of the Shekelesh we have only cir-cumstantial evidence that their homeland is unlikely to be situated in Anatolia, as the last of the Hittite great kings, Suppiluliumas II, is unfamiliar with them. As opposed to this negative evidence, an association with Sicily in the central Mediterranean can be underlined by the fact that the latter island was in contact with Greece, Crete, and Cyprus during the Late Bronze Age. A representative of the Shekelesh involved in trade with Cyprus and the east-ern Mediterranean singles himself out as mastering the Cypro-Minoan script and the Luwian language, but this does not help us very much in determining his native Sicil-ian language about which we only know that in the archaic period it was closely related to Oscan. For the question whether the Sicilians had a pronounced idea about their ethnicity we can only draw back to the fact that the Egyp-tians depicted them with a special type of headdress, the “nach hinten gebogene Mutze”, which, to say the least, is meagre evidence.
The identification of the Weshesh with the Oscans is crucial for our understanding of the catastrophic events at the end of the Bronze Age. The invasion of Italy by bear-ers of the European Urnfield culture, which we have seen reason to identify with the speakers of the Italic dialects or languages Osco-Umbrian and Latin-Faliscan, entails a true mass migration which caused serious disruption of peoples living in the region, whose displacement in turn formed the “prime mover” for what we call the upheavals of the Sea Peoples. Even though the Oscans may have been numeri-cally a relatively small party among the coalition of the Sea Peoples, they nonetheless may be considered like the leaven in the Biblical bread. Thus the ships of the Sea Peoples with bird-head devices at both the bow and the stern of a typically Urnfield type, the spread of handmade barbarian ware of proto-Villanovan Italian or European Urnfield backgrounds, and the growing popularity of the rite of cremation during and after the catastrophic events may be attributed to the influence of our Oscan partici-pants. Considering their highly specific cultural and lin-guistic traits, the Oscans are likely to be considered a coherent ethnic entity according to our protohistoric crite-ria.
By means of conclusion, we seem to be confronted with various ethnic groups, each having their own specific material culture – though Late Helladic IIIC1b appears to be a combining factor, being attested for the homeland of almost every Sea People, from western Anatolia (Pitane
and Larisa Phrikonis) in the east to Sardinia (nuraghe An-tigori) in the west – and language. That these ethnic groups were indeed cohesive entities appears from the fact that, after their abortive attempt to conquer Egypt, they settled separately in various locations in the Levant: the Peleset or Philistines in their pentapolis, the Tjeker or Teukroi in Dor, the Sherden or Sardinians in Akko, Denye(n) or Dan in Joppa and later in Laish, European Urnfielders likely to be identified with the Weshesh or Oscans in Hamath, and Ekwesh or Akhaians in the Cilician plain. Nevertheless, this conglomerate of cultures and languages was able to work together very effectively for some time, as the down-fall of palatial empires caused by them may illustrate. In order to demonstrate that a multi-lingual coalition is a pri-ori possible, one may point to the fact that the Trojan side in Homeros’ Iliad consisted of a multi-lingual coalition as well.606
In his Ethnicity in eastern Mediterranean proto-history: Reflections on theory and method (forthc.), chap-ter 6, Wim van Binsbergen formulates three hypotheses which are of relevance to our subject.
HYPOTHESIS 1. In the Late Bronze Age, by the time of the appearance of the Sea Peoples, the geographical space of the eastern Mediterranean was ethnically structured in this sense, that an overall system of eth-nic classification was generally known and generally subscribed to.
The validity of this hypothesis can be underlined by the fact that some of the groups of the Sea Peoples are re-ferred to by the same ethnonym in various sources, like the Ekwesh as A®® iyawa in Hittite and Shekelesh as Šikal yin Ugaritic and as Sikeri- in Cypro-Minoan: this proves that we are not dealing with the whim of an individual Egyptian scribe, but a classificatory system with a wider geographical range shared by the Egyptians with the Hit-tites, Ugaritians, and Cyprians. Even the fact that there are competing indications for the same ethnic group, like in case of the Egyptian preference of Tanayu or Denye(n)“Danaoi” over Ekwesh “Akhaians”, or their indication of the Trojans as Drdny alongside Tjeker does not undermine such a conclusion, as it rather signals the sophistication of this classificatory system. As to the origin of the different ethnonyms, it is interesting to note that Sherden and Sheke-
606 Iliad II, 804; IV, 437-8. Note that in this respect the title of my book The Language of the Sea Peoples is oversimplifying the rea-lity.
120
lesh are geographically based, being derived from the names of the islands Sardinia and Sicily, respectively, whereas for example Weshesh “Ausones” or “Osci” and Tanayu or Denye(n) are ultimately rooted in the hydro-nymy of Europe and the North Pontic steppe (PIE *av- or *au- “source, stream” and *d nu- “river”) and hence may safely be assumed to have been introduced by the people in question themselves from that region into their new homeland.607
HYPOTHESIS 2A. The mobilization process that led to the emergence and exploits of the Sea Peoples was a process of only partial ethnogenesis; it was not in origin an ethnically-driven process, in the sense that no role was played, in this mobilization process, by any prior ethnic identification between the various constituent peripheral groups that ultimately coa-lesced, albeit never completely, into the Sea Peoples.
Given the fact that, as we have noted above, various groups of the Sea Peoples settled separately in various lo-cations of the Levant, and that they have distinct names and features in the Egyptian sources, this negative hy-pothesis appears to come nearer to the truth than the posi-tive hypothesis 2B below. As a consequence, we may conclude that to a certain extent a process of ethnogenesis took place (= the emergence of the Sea Peoples as a dis-tinct phenomenon), but was not followed by ethnicization (i.e. that prospective Sea Peoples, each in their own corner of the Mediterranean, took ideological consciousness of the fact that they had so much in common with the other eight groups that they could adopt a common destiny).
HYPOTHESIS 2B. The mobilization process bringing the nine groups to ultimately constitute the Sea Peo-ples, was in part based on some pre-existing basis for mutual ethnic identification between these nine groups already prior to the beginning of the Sea Peo-ples’ mobilization and exploits.
An argument in favor of hypothesis 2B, which we consider less likely than hypothesis 2A, might be provided by the fact that the boats of the Sea Peoples are of a com-mon type with a bird head at bow and stern, which, as we have noted, is a typical Urnfield feature. It should be noted in this context, however, that Shelley Wachsmann sug-gested that the Egyptian artist who drew the boats of the Sea Peoples took one example as the norm, so that the ap-parent unity in type of ship may be illusory. At any rate, an Urnfield ideology would be secondary to all groups of the
607 Cf. Rosenkranz 1966: 136; Brown 1985: 131-2.
Sea Peoples with the exception of the Weshesh if our iden-tification of the latter with the Ausones or Oscans applies. Another unifying element may have been formed by the fact that all members of the Sea Peoples might ultimately be of Indo-European stock. But this is by no means sure for the Sherden and the Shekelesh, and, if these might turn out to be Indo-Europeans after all, the differences between the various groups are already too pronounced to allow for the perception of a common heritage as a binding factor.
Finally, there is the question of how to classify the post-conflict ethnic situation of the various constituent Sea Peoples in the various regions of the Levant where they ended up after their unsuccessful sea- and land battles against Ramesses III. When we scan the range of possible models which van Binsbergen derived from general ethnic theory for specific application to the Sea Peoples case, it is striking that no one specific model seems to fit the bill once and for all.
One might be tempted to classify the post-conflict lo-cal accommodation between Sea People settlers and their host groups with the melting pot model (no. 6 in our sec-tion 1), with this proviso that the colonists, contrary to the situation in the modern Americas, merge with the indige-nous population to the extent that they ultimately become extinct as a separate ethnic group (= ethnothanasia).608
However, even if locally, in the Levant, all sense of a dis-tinct Sea Peoples identity was ultimately lost, there are in-dications that yet some knowledge of distant Central Mediterranean origins lingered on, laying the foundations for the subsequent Phoenician exploration and colonization of the Central Mediterranean in the Early Iron Age. Per-haps their knowledge of the central Mediterranean waters stimulated the Phoenicians to explore these regions and beyond in the course of the Early Iron Age.
In the Levant itself, however, total local accommoda-
608 Of the remaining cases of colonization assumed in the preced-ing sections, the Pelasgian ones from presumably c. 1600 BC on-wards to western Asia Minor and Crete and the one by the Trojan followers of Aeneas to Italy in the Early Iron Age seem closest to the immigrant model (no. 2 in our section 1), with the noted ad-justment that the former emigrate to higher developed societies, whereas the latter arrive in a lower developed one. As opposed to this, the coming of charioteering Hyksos elements to Greece c.1600 BC and that of the Tyrsenians to Tuscany from c. 700 BC onwards rather adhere to the conquest model (no. 3 in our section 1), with the noted adjustment that the Hyksos elements, in contrast to the Tyrsenians, do not plant their own language(s), but adapt to that of the indigenous Thraco-Phrygian population groups.
121
tion of the immigrant Sea Peoples groups could only have been the ultimate outcome of a prolonged process that, typically, would traverse some of the other types in our range of models:
a. immediately after local settlement, the most likely model would be that of conquest(model 3), which, as a result of progressive subsequent political and social accommoda-tion, would soon give way to
b. the immigrant model (model 2) – to end, in most cases, with
c. a quasi-melting pot situation (model 6) where most specific Sea People cultural and nomenclatural traits would have been shed, in preparation of the total eclipse of any reminiscence of a Sea Peoples past, among the incorporated vestiges of a formerly Sea People population in the Levant.
123
APPENDIX I: ON THE DECIPHERMENT OF CRETAN HIEROGLYPHIC
As there are only two other hieroglyphic writing systems current in the region, from a comparative point of view the Cretan hieroglyphic (= CH) script may be assumed to be related to either Egyptian hieroglyphic (= Eg.) to the southeast of Crete or Luwian hieroglyphic (= LH) from Anatolia to the northeast of Crete. Both these two possible lines of approach have been put into practice in the past. Thus Arthur Evans, the discoverer of the script, started to compare Cretan hieroglyphic signs to Luwian counter-parts,609 whereas at a later stage he rather preferred to look for correspondences with Egyptian.610 Next, three of the pioneers in the deciphering process of Luwian hiero-glyphic, Ignace Gelb,611 Helmuth Bossert,612 and Piero Meriggi,613 pointed out numerous relationships of Cretan hieroglyphic with the script they were engaged with. Since then, Turkish scholars like Sedat Alp614 and Nimet Özgüç, who were involved in the earliest manifestations of the Luwian hieroglyphic script during the Middle Bronze Age, showed an awareness of Cretan connections.
The whole matter received renewed attention at the time that Jan Best definitely succeeded to place the famous discus of Phaistos in an Anatolian context, first by demon-strating the relationship of signs D 11 and D 39 to the Lu-wian symbols of royalty, winged sun-disc (LH *190), and of lightning (LH *199),615 and later by embedding the Luwian connection in a network of internal evidence in the form of a doublet and triplets and a vowel analysis.616
Working out this relationship, it turned out that of the total amount of 47 signs on the discus, 29 can convincingly be
609 Evans 1895: 33 ff.
610 Evans 1909.
611 Gelb 1931: 79 ff.
612 Bossert 1932: 5 ff.
613 Vergessene Städte am Indus, Frühe Kulturen in Pakistan vom 8. bis 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr., Mainz am Rhein, Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1987, p. 204, Abb. 177.
614 Alp 1968: 276.
615 Best 1981b: 49-56; numbering of the Luwian hieroglyphic signs according to Laroche 1960a.
616 Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 30-53.
linked up with a Luwian hieroglyphic counterpart.617
However, as soon realized, the script of the discus is not an isolated phenomenon on Crete, but further attested for a double-axe from Arkalokhori and an altar-stone from Ma-lia.618 As a matter of fact, as indicated by the 14 corre-spondences in sum listed in table 4 below, it is nothing but a manifestation – be it on the largest extant scale – of Cre-tan hieroglyphic itself.619 Mutatis mutandis, the possible relationship of the latter script with Luwian hieroglyphic comes to the fore again.
This relationship is a viable one, as I hope to show in my table 4 below. In this table I present a list of corre-spondences between Cretan hieroglyphic and Luwian hi-eroglyphic for signs which occur in a reasonably clear context. This list, which is an elaboration of earlier ef-forts,620 includes signs from the discus of Phaistos and the aforesaid double-axe from Arkalokhori, which texts, for reasons beyond my comprehension, are omitted from the recent corpus of Cretan hieroglyphic inscriptions (= CHIC).621 In order to overcome this omission, I have as-signed to these two texts a number adding up to the last one recorded for CHIC, thus the double-axe of Arkalo-khori becomes # 332 and the discus of Phaistos # 333. I further present the numbering of the signs according to Evans’ original publication (1909) next to that of CHIC, because in a number of instances he distinguishes a sign which is not recognized as such by CHIC. Finally, for brevity’s sake I refer to standard formulas by an abbrevia-tion, thus the libation formula is referred to as LF and the profane formulas as PF 1-7.622
617 Achterberg, Best, Enzler, Rietveld & Woudhuizen 2004, sec-tion 4.
618 Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 87, fig. 1b; Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 74, fig. 1b; 77, fig. 2c.
619 Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 86-9; Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 73-7; 97-128.
620 Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 87, fig. 3; Woudhuizen 1992c: Pl. XXVI.
621 Olivier & Godart 1996.
622 Woudhuizen 2001b: 608-12 (= LF & PF 1-6); Woudhuizen 2002a: 124 (= PF 7).
124
Evans CHIC LH value attestation 1. 2 001 1 AMU # 310 2. – – 10 HARMAH I, [®ar] # 332,623 # 333 3a. 73 018 13 PÁRA # 255, # 296, # 314, #332 3b. 14 PÁRANA # 271 4. – – 15 mi4 # 333 5. 3 002624 19 á # 332, # 333 6. 16 007625 29 tá # 296, # 314 7. 7 006 31 H ISH IA, [® i] # 246, # 333 8. 58 040 35 na # 309, # 333626
9. 10 095 41 tà # 332 10. – – 56-7 KATA, kà # 333 11. 9 009 66 PIA, pi # 003 , # 139 12. 27 057 80-1 SARU PF 7 (8x), # 333 13. 11 010 82 ta6 PF 5 (41x), # 258 14. – – 85 l(a) # 332 15. – – 90 TIWA, ti # 333 16. – – 97 WALWA, ú # 333 17. 65 016 101 TARKU # 193, # 271, # 310 18. 99 028 102-3 KURUNT, rú627 # 255, # 296 19. 63 011 104 sà # 271 20. 62 012 107 MUWA, mu # 253, # 271 21. – – 108 SURNA, sú # 333 22. 64 013 109 MALIA, ma6 # 139, # 312 23. 67 – 110 ma # 333 24. – – 111 HAWA, ®a4 # 328 25. 77 – 125 lí # 333 26. 82 – 128 TINTAPU, ti5 # 314, # 333 27. 80 – 130-3 ARA, ra LF (7x), # 333 28. 59 – 138 [wa] # 333 29. 92 031 153 nú PF 5 (25x), PF 6 (11x) 30. – – 160 WIANA, wi # 333 31. – – 167 [PARNA, pa] # 333 32. 96 – 175 LALA, la # 271628
33. – – 181 TURPI, [tu] # 333 34. – – 189 WASU, [wa1] # 333 35. – – 190 sol suus # 333
623 Note that the sign is rendered in this text “en face” instead of “en profile” as is usually the case.
624 Note that both Evans and CHIC present only the xoanon sign, not the man’s head itself.
625 Note that this particular form of the arm sign is represented without the dagger, as it occurs in # 314.
626 Note that the ship sign appears both with and without a mast as well as in form of an hippocamp.
627 Value attested already for seals or sealings from the Late Bronze Age period, see Herbordt 1998: 313; 317, fig. 4, 3-4.
628 Note that the sign is rendered here in a lengthened and extremely slim way so that it is almost not recognizable anymore as a tongue, but the three knobs on the top side are decisive for its identification.
125
36. 5 005 191 TIWATA, [ti] PF 2 (35x), PF 3 (4x) 37. – – 199 TARHUNT, ®à # 333 38. 115 061/069 212 HAPA, ná # 196, # 333 39. – – 223 s6 # 333 40. 114 034 228 UTNA, tu5 PF 7 (10x), # 333 41. 41 041 267 WANA, [wa6] # 246, # 271, # 309 42. – 032 268 scalprum # 328 43. 17 – 278 li # 333 44. 12 043 283-4 custos # 314, # 333 Evans CHIC LH value attestation 45. 300 gens # 277 46. 15 051 312-3 ZITI, zi # 328 47. 24 056 327 SASA, sa5 PF 7 (10x), # 193, # 255, # 328 48. – – 369 vita (= Cretan knot), cf. Bossert 1932: 12-3 49. – – 370 ASU, as, su # 333 50. 14 050 383, 1 (determ. of PN) # 310, # 314, # 333 51. – – 383, 2 [+ta/i], +ra/i # 332, # 333 52. 122 077 415 sa # 003 , # 139 53. – – 419 mà, mì LF (1x) 54. 138 – 438 magistratus # 193 55. – – 451 ®ur # 271 56. 19 036 488 ta5 PF 6 (17x), # 255
Table 4. Correspondences between Cretan hieroglyphic and Luwian hieroglyphic (values in square brackets attested for Cretan hieroglyphic
only).
Evans CHIC Eg. value attestation 1. 2 001 A 1 AMU # 310 12. 27 057 A 21 SARU PF 7 (8x) 13. 11 010 D 56 ta6 PF 5 (41x) 57. 85-6 020-1 L 2 bi’ty # 003 , # 018, # 039, # 139, # 310 58. – – M 23 nswt # 018, # 039 59. 116 *156 M 43 WAINU, wa # 274, # 314 60. 109 – N 5 sol # 310 40. 114 034 N 26 UTNA, tu5 PF 7 (10x), # 333 41. 41 041 O 11 WANA, wa6 # 246, # 271, # 309 48. – – S 34 vita (= Cretan knot) 61. 21 046 U 21 t PF 4 (7x) 62. 18 044 X 8 pi (< PIA) PF 1 (72x), PF 2 (35x), PF 3 (4x), PF 4 (7x), # 255 63. 31 076 Y 3 TUPA<LA>, du # 312 35. – – – sol suus # 333
Table 5. Correspondences between Cretan hieroglyphic and Egyptian hieroglyphic (values as attested for Cretan hieroglyphic).
126
Notwithstanding the fact that Cretan hieroglyphic is basi-
cally related to Luwian hieroglyphic, there are a number of
cases in which Egyptian hieroglyphic provides the closest
comparative evidence. This concerns first of all the bee-
sign, which – apart from a singular occurrence – goes un-
represented among the Luwian hieroglyphic repertoire.
Like in Egyptian, the latter sign turns up in combination
with a floral motif, to indicate the king of Lower and Up-
per Egypt. This royal title is also attested for Middle
Bronze Age inscriptions from Byblos, which was subject
to strong Egyptian influences at the time.629 In Crete, the
bee-sign undergoes a typical local treatment in the sense
that, apart from its regular depiction from the side (CHIC
no. 20), it also tends to be represented from the top (CHIC
no. 21). 630 Besides the bee-sign, the symbol of royalty in
form of a winged sun-disc, mentioned among the Luwian
correspondences, ultimately originates from Egyptian hi-
eroglyphic as well, but its ductus in Crete betrays Anato-
lian influences in the fact that the sun-disc is represented
as a rosette. The same holds good for the ankh-sign, which,
like it is the case in Anatolia, in Crete is characterized by
two side stems (note, however, that in Anatolia the central
stem is lost, whereas in Crete this is preserved). Appar-
ently, these two signs, belonging to the oldest layer of Lu-
wian hieroglyphic during the Middle Bronze Age,631
reached Crete via an Anatolian intermediary.
The indirect route for signs originating from Egyptian
hieroglyphic may further be illustrated by the trowel-sign
(CHIC no. 040). In ductus this is closest to a Byblian par-
allel; it also receives a value based on the translation of its
Egyptian meaning, d “to give”, into Luwian, hence pi as
acrophonically derived from piya- “to give”.632 A similar
adaptation of the value can be observed for the wine ideo-
gram (CHIC *156), representing Semitic wainu instead of
Egyptian rp, the tablet-sign (Evans no. 31),633 rendering
the syllabic value du as acrophonically derived from Se-
629 Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 8, fig. 7.
630 Woudhuizen 1997.
631 Woudhuizen, forthc. 2.
632 Woudhuizen 2002b.
633 Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 8, fig. 8; 13, fig. 17; 15-6.
mitic tuppu “tablet”,634 and the palace-sign (CHIC no. 41),
of which the acrophonic value wa6 can only be explained
in terms of a mixing-up with its Luwian hieroglyphic look-
alike wana “stele, altar” (LH *267). Although direct con-
tact between Egypt and Crete cannot be excluded, the
given evidence is conducive to the conclusion that Egyp-
tian signs reached Crete through the intermediary of the
Levant and/or Anatolia. Or, at the very least, the handling
of this category of signs in Crete is “more loose” than the
one received by the category of signs originating from
Luwian hieroglyphic.
In table 5 I present a list of correspondences between
Cretan hieroglyphic and Egyptian hieroglyphic for signs
which occur in a reasonably clear context.635
A third source for signs from Cretan hieroglyphic is
formed by Cretan Linear A (= CL). It is a general miscon-
ception that Cretan hieroglyphic constitutes a forerunner of
Linear A: this is particularly true in case of the libation
formula, which develops in the course of time into its Lin-
ear A descendant as attested for wash-hand stone-basins
from peak-sanctuaries the destruction of which is usually
assigned to the Middle Minoan III/Late Minoan I transi-
tional period (c. 1600 BC).636 In most other instances,
however, the representation of Linear A signs among Cre-
tan hieroglyphic results from a merger between the two
scripts, which started from the time of the earliest attesta-
tion of Linear A in Middle Minoan II (c. 1800-1700 BC)
onwards, thus providing us with a terminus post quem for
seals showing Linear A influences other than the libation
formula.637
Table 6 below presents correspondences between Cre-
tan hieroglyphic and Cretan Linear (A) for signs which oc-
cur in a reasonably clear context.638
634 Friedrich 1946: Wörterverzeichnisse III, s.v.
635 Numbering of the Egyptian hieroglyphic signs according to Gardiner 1994.
636 Woudhuizen 2001b: 608.
637 Vandenabeele 1985: 18.
638 Cf. Woudhuizen 1992c: Pl. XXIV; numbering of the Linear A signs according to Meijer 1982: 38-47.
127
Evans CHIC CL value attestation 64. 46 039 L 1 pa3 # 296 65. 112 070 L 22 l # 310 (note that this seal presents a variant of the sign in ques-
tion catalogued separately by Evans as his no. 91), # 328 20. 62 012 L 27 mu # 253, # 271 66. 101 029 L 30 da # 328 67. 60 019 L 31 sa LF (14x), # 193, # 196, # 277 68. 44 038 L 32 ya PF 5 (41 x), # 258, # 296, # 310, # 328 69. 36 042 L 52 a LF (14x), # 255, # 309, # 310 27. 80 – L 53 ra LF (7x), # 333 70. 30 092 L 55 ru PF 6 (17x) 57. 85 021 L 56 pi (< bi’ty) # 310 71. 103 024 L 60 NIKULEON , ni # 122 72. 40 052 [L 61] me LF (6x) 73. – – L 78 ti # 328 59. 116 *156 L 82 WAINU, wa # 274, # 314 (note that this seal presents a variant of the sign
in question catalogued separately by Evans as his no. 4) 61. 21 046 L 88 t PF 4 (7x) 74. 97 025 L 92 te # 328 63. 31 076 L 93 du # 312 75. 74 – L 95 ma # 196, # 257, # 309 76. 47 053 L 103 ki # 296, # 309
Table 6. Correspondences between Cretan hieroglyphic and Cretan Linear.
The relationship of Cretan hieroglyphic with Cypro-Minoan (= CM) has no bearing on the origins of Cretan hi-eroglyphic, but only on the date of its continuation, prov-ing that it still florished at the time of the earliest attestations of Cypro-Minoan in the late 16th or early 15th
century BC (Woudhuizen 1992a: 87-90; Woudhuizen 2001b: 610).
The Cretan hieroglyphic contribution to Cypro-Minoan entails the following signs:
Evans CHIC CM value attestation 77. 13 049 28 ni PF 1 (72x), PF 3 (4x), # 255, # 312 62. 18 044 51 pi PF 1 (72x), PF 2 (35x), PF 3 (4x), PF 4 (7x) 78. 54 047 76 le # 258, # 310, # 312 36. 5 005 116 ti PF 2 (35x), PF 3 (4x)
Table 7. Correspondences between Cretan hieroglyphic with Cypro-Minoan.
In his attempt639 to present a model for the origins of the Cretan hieroglyphic script, Wim van Binsbergen took the analysis of Jan Best as his starting point. Best main-tains that Egyptian hieroglyphic contributed as many as 35 signs to Cretan hieroglyphic, Luwian hieroglyphic only 30 signs, and the Byblos script 10 signs. He did not back up this analysis, however, by a further specification. As shown above, our analysis of the situation is different, with Luwian hieroglyphic providing the bulk of the material (56 signs), and Egyptian hieroglyphic (14 signs, of which 7 go without attestation in Luwian hieroglyphic) and Cretan Linear A (19 signs, of which 13 do not originate from ei-
639 Van Binsbergen 1996-7: 134-42.
ther Luwian hieroglyphic or Egyptian hieroglyphic) ren-dering supplementary services only. This does not dimin-ish the usability of van Binsbergen’s models as an aid to develop our own – slightly adapted – version, according to which a large arrow from Cappadocia and/or North Syria represents the Luwian hieroglyphic contribution, and small arrows from Egypt directly to Crete and from Egypt via Byblos to Crete represent the subsidiary Egyptian contri-bution (see Fig. 25).640
640 I am not going into the problem of the origins of Cretan Linear A, but, as we have seen, this certainly contains signs originating from Luwian hieroglyphic and from Egyptian hieroglyphic.
128
Fig. 25. Origins of the Cretan hieroglyphic script. (a) Luwian hiero-
glyphic (56 signs); (b) Egyptian hieroglyphic (14 signs).641
1 Egypt; 2 Byblos; 3 Cyprus; 4 Asia Minor; 5 Crete; 6 mainland
Greece
As to the linguistic context of the signs discussed above, this has been dealt with elsewhere as far as the dis-cus of Phaistos (# 333),642 the double-axe from Arkalok-hori (# 332), the altar-stone from Malia (# 328), the seals from Zyro (# 193, # 277), Malia (# 271), Neapolis (# 314),643 and Sitia (# 310),644 and the recurrent formulas are concerned. It therefore may suffice here, as an example of what the analysis of the signs may lead up to in the field of linguistics, to present an overview of seals recording the categories (1) “man’s name” (= MN) and (2) “title” or (1) “MN”, (2) “title”, and (3) “place or country name” (see ta-ble 8 and Fig. 26) – categories to be expected on seals in the light of the parallels: compare, for example, the Lu-wian hieroglyphic part of the Tarkondemos seal, bearing the legend TARKU-tí+mi HANTAWAT mi+r(a)-àUTNA “Tar-kondemos, king (of) the land Mira”,645 or that of the seal of Kuzitesup from Lidarhöyük, reading ku-zi!-TESUP-paHANTAWAT ká+r-ka-mi-sà TAL-mi-TESUP-pa HANTAWAT
ká+r-ka-mi-sà (…) infans “Kuzitesup, king of Karkamis,
641 Diagram drawn by Wim van Binsbergen.
642 Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 30-84; Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 65-97; Woudhuizen 1992a: 11-41; Achterberg, Best, Enzler, Rietveld & Woudhuizen 2004.
643 Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 97-128.
644 Woudhuizen 2002a.
645 Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 108-11; cf. Hawkins 2003: 144, Fig. 1a and Woudhuizen 2005 : appendix I.
son of Talmitesup, king of Karkamis, (…)”.646
Most of the MNs are of Luwian type: Muwas (cf. Hit-tite Muwatallis),647 Partarus (= Lydian Bartara ),648 Nu-was (cf. Cappadocian reduplicated Nuwanuwas),649
Taparas (= Lycian Daparas),650 Tarkus, Tarkumuwas (= Cilician Tarkom s),651 and possibly Manas (= Lydian Manes).652 Next, one is of Kaskan type: Pitaparas (= Kas-kan Pittaparas),653 whereas the first element of Ankiwasseems to recall that of Trojan Ankhises.654 Furthermore, under consideration of the fact that Cretan hieroglyphic [l] may also express [r], Yatale corresponds to Ugaritic Ytr as in Bnytr (Bin-ia-ta-ri), Ytrhd (Yatar-addu), Ytršp (Ia-tar-rašap), etc.655 Finally, under consideration of the aforesaid interchangeability of [l] with [r] and on the analogy of Luwian hieroglyphic Mur<si>lis and Ha<ttusi>lis,656
Manile may657 be analyzed as an abridged form of Egyp-tian Men<-kheper>-r‘.
Of the titles, laparnas (= Hittite labarnas)658, PÁRA-custos “viceroy” (cf. titles like Latin pro-consul), and tupa<la>- “scribe”659 are of Anatolian type. Next, pinicorresponds to Semitic bn as in Ugaritic bn Lky “represen-tative of the Lycians”.660 Finally, bi’ty or pit or piti is
646 Hawkins 2000: 574-5; cf. Hawkins 2003, 144, Fig. 1c.
647 Hawkins 2003: 144, Fig. 1b.
648 Gusmani, 1964: 264, no. 40, 2; cf. Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 126; Woudhuizen forthc. 2.
649 Laroche 1966, s.v.; cf. Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 126.
650 Friedrich 1932: 55, TL 6, 1; cf. Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 126.
651 Houwink ten Cate 1961: 127.
652 Gusmani 1964: 250, no. 1, 3; 252, no. 4a, 1 and no. 4b, 1; cf. Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 126. I cannot resist the temptation to suggest that we may actually be dealing here with the Cretan royal name Minos; note in this connection that # 257 is the most beauti-ful seal, used by Evans for the cover of his book on the topic!
653 Von Schuler 1965: Indices, 2. Personennamen, s.v.
654 Homeros, Iliad II, 820, etc.
655 Gröndahl 1967, s.v. ytr.
656 Beran 1967: nos. 180 (um+r<-si>-li) and 186 (®á<-tu-si>+li).
657 Ranke 1935, s.v. mn-®pr-r‘.
658 Friedrich 1991, s.v.; cf. Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 117-8.
659 Laroche 1960a: *326.
660 Gordon 1955: glossary, s.v.; Astour 1964: 194; Woudhuizen
129
identical to Egyptian bi’ty “king of Lower Egypt”,661 so that pinipiti actually constitutes a Semito-Egyptian calque of Luwian hieroglyphic infans +HANTAWAT- “prince”.662
The geographic name Sa®urwa is attested in writing variant Sa®arwa for other Cretan hieroglyphic inscrip-tions, and occurs, in adjectival derivative, in Linear B as Sakarijo or Saqarejo. It has been plausibly identified with Homeric Skheria, which in turn appears to be the ancient name of Hagia Triada in the western part of the Mesara.663
Next, the frequent Tarunu is, considering the fact that Cre-tan hieroglyphic [r] may also express [l] and, as we have just seen, vice versa, and on the analogy of Tìtarma being the Luwian hieroglyphic form of Hittite Attarima, likely to be read Atlunu – which resembles Plato’s mythical Atlantistoo much to be dismissed as accidental. On the basis of the distribution of the seals with this geographic name, it probably refers to the northern zone of Crete from Knossos to Kato Zakro.664 Furthermore, Ayal , which turns up in variant form Ayalu in Linear A, is for its association with Semitic ajalu “stag”, ingeniously explained by Best as the Semitic designation of modern Malia, otherwise indicated in Cretan hieroglyphic by a deer with prominent antlers or, as a pars pro toto, by the antlers themselves (028). As the deer or antlers render the value rú, an abbreviation of Lin-ear B Rukito “Lyktos” lies at hand, which name is men-tioned in the itinerary of Aegean place names from Amenhotep III’s (1390-1352 BC) temple tomb at Kom el-Hetan (Thebes) in between Amnisos and Sitia – i.e. exactly where we would expect665 the mention of the ancient name of Malia. Finally, for its striking resemblance to Homeric Phaiakes, the form Payaki is likely to be considered an ethnonym referring to the inhabitants of Skheria – the an-cient name, as we have just suggested, of Hagia Triada.666
If for the sake of completeness we add that anu in the legend of seal # 255 is a Cretan dialectal variant of Luwian hieroglyphic anan “under”, characterized by a/u-vowel 1994: 512.
661 Gardiner 1957: L 2; cf. Best 1996-7: 118-9; Woudhuizen 1997: 107.
662 Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 123-4; Woudhuizen 1992b: 197-8; Woudhuizen 1997: 107; Woudhuizen 2001b: 611; cf. Laroche 1960a: *46.
663 Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 118; Woudhuizen 1992a: 32-3.
664 Woudhuizen 1992a: 78-9; Woudhuizen 2001b: 612-3.
665 Best 1996-7: 116; Woudhuizen 2002a: 126-7.
666 Best 2000: 29; see section 12 above.
shift,667 that Taruni in the same legend bears testimony of the dative singular in -i of Tarunu “Atlunu” as paralleled for Luwian hieroglyphic,668 that yatanu in the legend of seals # 257, # 312, and # 314 corresponds to Ugaritic ytn“he as given”,669 and that pititi in the legend of seal # 314 shows the dative singular in -ti as attested for Linear A (tel Dakuseneti “delivery to Taku-šenni”) and Cypro-Minoan (telu Sanemeti “delivery to Sanemas”),670 we ar-rive in sum at the following transliteration and interpreta-tion of the legends of our 10 Minoan seals (cf. Fig. 26).
Remaining seals or sealings used in our discussion of the signs are # 003 and # 139 from Knossos, which read bi’ty ma6-sa PIA “the king has given to the god(s)”, with masa representing either D sg. in -a or D pl. in -ai of Lu-wian hieroglyphic masa(na)- “god”, # 196, presenting the personal name sa-ná-ma, and # 246 from Kritsa, which reads pi-ti ® i-a-wa6 “king (of) Akhaia”, thus presenting671
the earliest recorded reference to the Greek mainland.
667 Laroche 1960a: *57, 2; cf. atu “in”, corresponding to Luwian hieroglyphic ata, and upa “behind”, corresponding to Luwian hi-eroglyphic apa, from the text of the Phaistos disc, see Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 79-82.
668 See section 5, note 88 above.
669 Gordon 1955: 70; Segert 1984: 44; 74; cf. Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 127; Woudhuizen 2001b: 612. Note that this element is par-alleled by the presence of “the hand that gives” pia (Laroche 1960a: *66) in the legends of Middle Bronze Age Luwian hiero-glyphic seals, see Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 135-6; Woudhuizen 2001b: 612; Woudhuizen 2004a: 119-20.
670 Woudhuizen 1992a: 96. The ending in -ti originates from the Luwian hieroglyphic dative singular of the pronoun, see Meriggi 1980: 322-3. For another instance of a Luwian hieroglyphic case ending in the legend of a Minoan seal, cf. the dative singular in -imentioned above and the genitive singular in -sa as attested for # 193 from Zyro, reading SASA magistratus TARKU-sa “seal of the magistrate Tarkus” (Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 113-5, esp. note 88). These endings indicate that the legend of the seal in question, notwithstanding the use of Egyptianisms and Semitisms, is conducted in the Luwian language.
671 Note that this legend strikingly recalls “to the gods of the Greeks” in inscriptions on pottery from the Hellenion at Naukratis dating from the Archaic period, see Boardman 1994: 142; cf. sec-tion 2 above.
130
CHIC MN title place/country 1. # 253 muwa pi-ni-pi-ti2. # 255 pi-ta5-PÁRA pi-t ta5-rú-ni3. # 257 ma-ná? (if the “snake” (Evans no.
84) may be identified with “coiling water” (Evans no. 115, CHIC 069))
pi-t ta5-ru-nú
4. # 258 'ya-ta6-le pi-ni ta5-ru-nú5. # 271 TARKU-MUWA la+PÁRANA sà-®ur-wa6
6. # 296 PÁRA-tá-rú pi-ni pa3-ya-ki7. # 309 a-na-ki-wa6 pi-ti ta5-ru-nú8. # 310 'TARKU bi’ty/pi-t a-ya-l9. # 312 ma6-ni-le TUPA<LA> ta5-ru-nú10. # 314 'tá-PÁRA pi-ni 'nú-wa PÁRA-custos pi-ni<-pi>-ti ta5-ru-nú
Table 8. Seals with the categories “man’s name”, “title”, and “place or country name”.
Seal no. Text (the numbers indicate the various sides of the seal)
# 253
1 2 3 1. MUWA ya-ta6<-nú> 2. pi-ni- 3. pi-ti “prince Muwas has granted”
# 255
1 2 3 1. a-nú SASA ta5-rú-ni 2. pi-ta5-PÁRA 3. pi-t “under the seal with respect to Atlunu, king Pittaparas”
# 257
1 2 3 1. ma-ná ya-ta6-nú 2. pi-t 3. ta5-ru-nú “Manes has granted, king (of) Atlunu”
131
# 258
1 2 3 1. 'ya-ta6-le 2. pi-ni 3. ta5-ru-nú “Yatar, representative (of) Atlunu”
# 271
1 2 31. SASA UTNA 2. sà-®ur-wa6 3. la+PÁRANA TARKU-MUWA “seal (with respect to) the land (of) Skheria (= Hagia Triada), king Tarkumuwas”
# 296
1 2 3 4 1. SASA UTNA SARU 2. PÁRA-tá-rú 3. pi-ni 4. pa3-ya-ki “seal (with respect to) the land (and) official(s) (of) the
Phaiakians, representative Bartaras”
# 309
1 2
3 4 1. a-na-ki-wa6 2. pi-ti ma 3. ta5-ru-nú 4. ya-ta6-nú “Ankiwas, king (of) Atlunu, has granted”
132
# 310
1 2
3 4 1. SASA UTNA le SARU 2. a-ya-l 3. AMU 'TARKU sol (3X) 4. bi’ty/pi-t “seal (with respect to) the sun-blessed land
(and) official(s) (of) Ayalu (= Malia), I (am) king Tarkus, (person) blessed by the sun-god”
# 312
1 2
3 4 1. ma6-ni-le 2. ma6 TUPA<LA> 3. ta5-ru-nú 4. ya-ta6-nú “Men<-kheper>-r‘, scribe (of) Atlunu, has granted”
133
# 314
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. 'tá-PÁRA 2. pi-ni 3. 'nú-wa 4. PÁRA-custos <pi>-ti- 5. pi-ni PÁRA-custos 6. ta5-ru-nú 7. ya-ta6-nú 8. pi-ti5-t“Daparas, son of Nuwas, viceroy, prince, viceroy (of) Atlunu, has granted on behalf of the king”
Fig. 26. Cretan hieroglyphic seals with the categories “man’s name”, “title”, and “place or country name” (drawings from original publica-
tions, except in the case of # 309).
135
APPENDIX II: ON THE POSITION OF THE ETRUSCAN LANGUAGE
The following list of comparanda for the Etruscan lan-guage is based on Woudhuizen 1992b and Woudhuizen 1998 (with references to earlier literature), and supple-mented by Steinbauer 1999 as discussed in Woudhuizen 2001a. For the comparisons with Greek and Latin I have made use of Charsekin 1963, especially 24-8, amplified, as far as Greek is concerned, by Schachermeyr 1929: 248, Fi-esel 1931: 43; 51-2, and van der Meer 1992: 68. The meaning of the Etruscan words, elements and endings is in most instances secured by a comprehensive interpretation of the texts in which these appear.
HITTITE ETRUSCAN
vocabulary672
1. aku-, eku- “to drink” acun-, ecun-2. ®ašt i- “bones” cas ia-3. ® ila- “enclosure” cleva-4. Gulšeš (divinities of fate) Culsans-5. gurta- “citadel” Curtun-6. iya- “to make” ia-7. -ma “but, and” -m8. man (optative particle) man9. maniya®® - “to handle,
administer” mena-, meni-
10. neku- “to diminish, be-come twilight”
nace-, ne -
11. newa®® - “to renew” nuca-673
12. nu- (introductory particle) nu-13. parku- “high” par i-14. purullia- “new year’s
feast” ril
15. sannapi “sporadic” snuia16. wal® - “to strike, hit,
smite” Velc-, Vel -
17. weda-, wete- “to build” vatie-
672 This category also includes onomastic material relevant to the subject, except for the subsections on the comparisons with Greek and Latin/Italic.
673 Note that the treatment of Hittite -®® - is not consistent in Etruscan, being omitted in mena-, meni- < Hittite maniya®® -, but represented by -c- in nuca- < Hittite newa®® -.
CUNEIFORM LUWIAN ETRUSCAN
vocabulary 18. nnan “under” ana, en-19. nta “in” inte-20. ppan “behind; re-” apa, epn21. Aššiya- “Assiya [GN]” Asi-22. aw - “to come” av-, ev-, hev-23. -®a “and; also” -c, -24. ®andawat(i)- “king” cam i-, can -25. ® ®®a- “grandfather” ce a-, ce i-26. ®ui(ya)- “to run, march” cu(vu)-27. kattawatnalli- “vindictive,
revengeful”qutef-
28. kui- “who, what” - va-29. maššani- “god(dess)” masan-30. mawa- “4” muva-31. nani- “brother” Nana-32. niš “not” nes, ne , nis33. -pa “but, and” -pa34. parran, par “before, pre-” per-35. p (ya)- “to give” p-36. sarl tta- “libation-offering” sela- (< *serla-)37. samnai-, samniya- “to
found”hamai-, amei-
38. Tar®unt- “Tar®unt [GN]” Tar na-39. Tiwat- “sun-god [GN]” tiur-40. d p(a)i- “to strike, hit” tupi41. t wa- “to place, put” tva-42. wa- (introductory particle) va-, fa-43. walli(ya)- “to elevate” fal(a)-44. walwa- “lion” Velave na-45. wanatt(i)- “woman,
mother” Uni-
46. wini(ya)- “vine, wine” vina-word formation 47. adjectival -ašši- -s-, - -48. adjectival -alli- -l-49. ethnic -wanni- -ni-50. factitive -nu(wa)- -nv-, -nu-51. iterative -š(š)- -s-, - -, -z-
136
52. “-ship” -® i- -c-, - -(pro)nominal declension & verbal conjugation 53. N(m/f) sg. -š – , -s (gentilicium) 54. A(m/f) sg. -n – , -n (pronoun) 55. D sg. -i, -iya -a, -i56. Abl. sg. -ti - , -r(i)57. N-A(n) pl. -a -a58. 3rd pers. sg. pres./fut. -ti - (i)59. 3rd pers. pl. pres./fut. -nti -nt
LUWIAN HIEROGLYPHIC ETRUSCAN
vocabulary 18. ANANnana “under” ana, en-20. APAna “behind; re-” apa, epn60. àrma- “altar” heram(v)-61. ARAnu(wa)ta- “Arnuwandas
[MN]” Arn -
62. ASA(NU)- “to settle” he n-21. ás(i) - “to love” Asi-19. àntá “in” inte-22. áawa- “to come” av-, ev-, hev-24. HANTAWAT- “king” cam i-, can -23. -®a(wa) “and; also” -c, -25. HUHA®a- “grandfather” ce a-63. HWA “when; because” -cve28. HWA- “who, what” - va-26. HWÁ- “to run, march” cu(vu)-64. HWAr “when; because” cver65. la- “to (be) favor(ed)” ila-66. KATANA- “bowl” qutum-, qutun-67. kutúpili- “fire offering” Cau a- 7. -ma “but, and” -m68. maluwa- “thank-offering” muluva-8. man (optative particle) man29. MASANA- “god(dess)” masan-30. MAUWA- “4” muva-69. *mek- “5” ma -70. *mek- “numerous” me -71. mi- “my” mi-72. mukasa- “Muksas [MN]” Mu sie- 31. nana- “brother” Nana-32. na4sa “not” nes, ne , nis34. PÁRA “before, pre-” per-33. -pa(wa) “but, and; or” -pa35. PIA- “to give” p-
73. sa5r- “smoke offering” seril (adjective)674
36. SARLAsa5rlata4- “libation offering”
sela- (< *serla-)
74. SURA(R)sura/i- “abundance” uri-75. tàma- “precinct” tmia-76. ta4ma- “to build” amu-38. TARHUNT- “Tar®unt [GN]” Tar na-77. TARHUNT+UMINA-
“Tar®untassa [TN]” Tar umenaia-
78. tà a- “stele; grave” tesi-39. TIWATA- “sun-god” tiur-79. tiwat/ra- (onomastic ele-
ment) efarie-
40. tupi- “to strike, hit” tupi41. TUWA- “to place, put” tva-80. tuwa- “2” u-, tu-42. wa- (introductory particle) va-, fa-43. wáli - “to elevate” fal(a)- 44. WALWA “lion” Velave na-45. WANATInati4- “mother;
woman”Uni-
81. war - “to help” v r-675
82. wasa5r(i)ti “by the grace of”
user
83. WATA- “water” utu-46. WIANAwa na- “vine” vina-word formation 47. adjectival -sa- -s-, - -48. adjectival -ali- -l-49. ethnic -wana- -ni-50. factitive -nu(wa)- -nv-, -nu-51. iterative -s- -s-, - -, -z-52. “-ship” -® i- -c-, - -(pro)nominal declension & verbal conjugation 53. N(m/f) sg. -sa – , -s (gentilicium) 54. A(m/f) sg. -na – , -n (pronoun) 55. D sg. - , -i -a, -i84. G sg. -sa -s (D-G) 56. Abl. sg. -ti, -ri - , -r(i)85. N(m/f) pl. -i -i57. N-A(n) pl. -a -a
674 Not yet in Woudhuizen 1998.
675 Agostiniani & Nicosia 2000: 54 (= Tabula Cortonensis, sec-tion II) .
137
86. D pl. -a -e (< *-ai [D-G]) 58. 3rd pers. sg. pres./fut. -ti - (i)59. 3rd pers. pl. pres./fut. -nti -nt LYCIAN/SIDETIC ETRUSCAN
Vocabulary 20. epñ “behind; re-” apa, epn18. e1ne1 “under” ana, en-87. ese “with” s-88. e1tri- “lower, inferior” etera-37. hm1me-, m1mai-,
m1mei(ye)- “to found” hamai-, amei-
60. hrm1ma- “altar” heram(v)-6. iye- “to make” ia-23. -ke “and; also” -c, -68. malvam1a- “thank-
offering”muluva-
89. me- (introductory particle) me-71. m1i “me” mi-31. neni- “brother” Nana-32. ni “not” nes, ne , nis19. ñte “in” inte-35. piye- “to give” p-3. qla- “precinct” cleva-28. ti- “who, what” - va-90. tibe(i) “or” tev<i>91. tlli- “to pay” tle-40. tub(e)i- “to strike, hit” tupiword formation 47. adjectival -hi- -s-, - -48. adjectival -li- -l-49. ethnic -(v)ñni- -ni-92. ethnic -zi- - -, -z-93. ethnic -de- - e-, -te-(pro)nominal declension & verbal conjugation 53. N(m/f) sg. – , -s – , -s (gentilicium) 54. A(m/f) sg. – , -ñ – , -n (pronoun) 55. D sg. -a, -i -a, -i84. G sg. -h -s (D-G) 56. Abl. sg. -di, -de - -r(i)85. N(m/f) pl. -i -i94. A(m/f) pl. -as, -is -es, -is57. N-A(n) -ã, -e1 -a86. D pl. -a, -e (< *-ai) -e (< *-ai [D-G]) 95. G pl. -ãi, -e1 -ai58. 3rd pers. sg. pres./fut. -ti,
-di- (i)
59. 3rd pers. pl. pres./fut. -ñti -nt
LYDIAN ETRUSCAN
vocabulary 21. Asi1i- “Asia [GN] Asi-96. Baki- “Bakkhos [GN]” Pa ie-14. borl-, forl- “year” ril35. bi- “to give” p-71. emi1 “me” mi42. fa- (introductory particle) va-, fa- 97. isl- “first” esl-, sal, zal 23. -k “and; also” -c, -24. Kandaules “Kandaules
[MN]” cam i-, can -
7. -m “but, and” -m68. ml1ve1nd- “thank-
offering”muluva-
98. nak (introductory particle) nac31. Nanna- “Nanas [MN]” Nana-32. ni “not” nes, ne , nis 99. palmu- “king” (toga) palmata
(Lat.)28. pe-, pi- “who, what” - va-100. silu- (magistracy) zila-75. tam- “precinct” tmia-78. ta e- “stele; grave” tesi-79. Tivadali- “Tivdalis [MN]” efarie- 41. t1uv(e)- “to place, put” tva-40. ut1ba- “to strike, hit” tupi17. vit1i1- “to build” vatie-word formation 47. adjectival -si- -s-, - -48. adjectival -li- -l-101. ethnic -k -52. “-ship” -k- -c-, - -(pro)nominal declension & verbal conjugation 53. N(m/f) sg. -s – , -s (gentilicium)54. A(m/f) sg. -n – , -n (pronoun)102. D sg. -l1 -l (D-G)103. G sg. -l -l (D-G)56. Abl. sg. -di1, -d, -l1 - , -r(i) 85. N(m/f) pl. -i1 -i57. N-A(n) pl. -a -a86. D pl. -ai1 -e (< *-ai [D-G])95. G pl. -ai1 -ai58. 3rd pers. sg. pres./fut. -d - (i)
138
59. 3rd pers. pl. pres./fut. -nt -nt
LEMNIAN ETRUSCAN
vocabulary104. avi- “year” avil-23. -c “and” -c, -41. o- “to place, put” tva-7. -m “but, and” -m69. mara- “5” ma -105. na o - “grandson” neft-106. sia- “6” a-, e-107. tavar io, toveronarom
(magistracy) tevera
108. vanaca- “king” vanec-word formation47. adjectival -si-, - i- -s-, - -109. -l vei- (multiples of ten) -l l-(pro)nominal declension & verbal conjugation55. D sg. -i -a, -i 84. (D-)G sg. - -s102-103.
D-G sg. -l -l
110. Loc. sg. - - (i) 85. N(m/f) pl. -i -i86. D pl. -ai -e (< *-ai [D-G])111. 3rd pers. sg. past tense -ke -ce, - e
GREEK ETRUSCAN
vocabulary104. a(v)elios “sun” avil- “year”676
112. hals, (G halos) “salt, sea” als-113. askos “wineskin” aska (vase name)114. Aphrios (month name) apiras-96. Bakkhos “Bakkhos” Pa ie-115. bront “roar, thunder” fronta-677
116 deinos “round vessel” ina (vase name)76. dem “to built” am (u)- 117. d re “to give” tur(u)- 118. hekatomb “sacrifice of
hundred oxen” im m-
119. elai(v) “olive” eleiva-
676 Maresch 1957, who further points out that related words for “sun”, like Latin sol, are also used for “year”.
677 Note the preservation of the Greek [o] in the Etruscan form.
120. emmenai “to be” (Aiolic) am-121. epiouros“guardian,
watcher, ward” epiur-, epru-678
108. (v)anaks “king” vanec-122. themeros “holy” tameresc- “holy gift”123. themis “law, custom, right” emi-124. kl n “twig, spray, slip” clan “son”125. kulikhn “small cup” culi na, uli na
(vase name)66. k th n “drinking vessel” qutum (vase name)126. la(v)os “host, people” lavt- “freedman”127. le(v) n “lion” lev128. l kuthos “oil-flask” le tumuza (vase
name)129. brotos (< *mrtos) “mortal” mur- “to die”10. nekus “corps” nace-, ne - “dimin-
ishing”105. nepous, pl. nepodes “chil-
dren”neft- “grandson”
130. n dus “stomach, belly, womb”
ne -, net-, ni u-“entrails”
131. opui “to marry, take to wife”
puia- “wife”
132. polos “pole-(star)” pulum- “star(s)”133. prokhous “vessel for pour-
ing out” pru um (vase name)
134. prutanis “ruler, lord” pru -, pur -135. spondeion “cup for pouring
a drink- offering”spanti “libation bowl, plate”
136. tauros “bull” evru 137. tris “thrice” trais-138. turannos “tyrant” turan (divine form of
address) 679
139. hupnos “sleep, slumber” hupnina “tomb”140. Hutt nia (= Tetrapolis) hu , hut “4”141. kharist rion “thank-
offering”arste[r]iun
142. khoros “dance” urvar “month of the dances”
143. pharthenos “girl, virgin” (Aiolic)
far na-
678 Correspondence used by Agostiniani & Nicosia 2000: 105 without due reference to the original source Charsekin 1963.
679 Possibly related with Luwian hieroglyphic tarwana- “law-giver”.
139
verbal conjugation111. 3rd pers. sg. perfect (or ao-
rist) -ke-ce, - e
LATIN/ITALIC ETRUSCAN
vocabulary144. capio “to take (away)” capi-145. esuna- “offering” aisna-146. idus (middle of the month) etul-147. kletram “bier” cletram 127. leo “lion” lev148. lustrum “lustrum” lurs -149. magister (magistracy) macstrev- 150. maro- (magistracy) maru-151. mundus “bothros” mun -129. morior “to die” mur-152. munus “offering, tribute,
duty” munist-
105. nepos “grandson” neft-153. patina “plate” pa na-154. pro-nepos “great-grandson” prumt-155. ritus “rite” rita-, ri (a)- 135. spondeum “cup for pouring
a drink- offering” spanti “libation bowl, plate”
156. subulu “fluteplayer” suplu157. suus (reflexive pronoun,
3rd pers.) sva-
158. teneo “to hold (a magis-tracy)”
en(u)-, ten(u)-
159. touto-, tuta- “people” uta-, tu -46. vinum “wine” vina-
verbal conjugation160. 3rd pers. pl. passive pres.
-ntur-n(a) ur (now also Agostiniani & Nico-sia 2000: 54 (= Tabula Cortonensis, section III)
161. infinitive passive -ri -ri
PHOENICIAN/HEBREW ETRUSCAN
vocabulary162. Asherah Aisera (note that this
of old inherited form of the Phoenician di-vine name Astarteneeds to be distin-guished from Astre-in the inscriptions on the Pyrgi gold tab-lets, which is an adhoc attempt to render ‘štrt in the Phoeni-cian version of the text)
142. krr “month of the dances” urvar, urve, uru163. mlh “beautiful” mla (G mlakas)164. slt- “power” seleita- “sultanate”
The salient points from this list are the following: (1) Correspondences of Etruscan with Hittite have a
bearing on vocabulary alone: hence Etruscan is not to be identified with Hittite, as Vladimir Georgiev wants to have it.
(2) Considering the fact that the correspondences of Etruscan with Luwian hieroglyphic outmatch all other categories, Etruscan shows the closest affin-ity with Luwian hieroglyphic. Note especially that the shared use of the endings of the N(m/f) pl. in -i and D pl. in -ai exclude a particularly close re-lationship with cuneiform Luwian, which is characterized by N(m/f) pl. -nzi and D pl. -nza.Yet another feature which stresses the relationship of Etruscan with Luwian hieroglyphic is the phe-
Etruscan with Luwian hieroglyphic is the phe-nomenon of rhotacism of the dental, as attested for the onomastic element tiwat/ra- and the end-ing of the Abl. sg. -t/ri.
(3) Nevertheless, Etruscan is not to be identified as a dialect of Luwian hieroglyphic, as it shares the loss of the N(m/f) sg. -s and A(m/f) sg. -n in the realm of the noun with Lycian, which also pro-vides comparative evidence for the A(m/f) pl. in -es or -is. To this comes that Etruscan shows some evidence of the typical Lycian phonetic develop-ment [s] > [h] in the case of the verb hamai-/amei- “to found” < cuneiform Luwian samnai-.Another deviation from the Luwian hieroglyphic
140
pattern is formed by the G pl. in -ai, which Etrus-can shares with Lycian and Lydian. Finally, Etruscan has in common with Lydian the use of the D-G sg. in -l and the dropping of the final vowel with respect to the endings of the Abl. sg. and the 3rd person sg. and pl. of the present/future tense. Obviously, this leads us to the conclusion that Etruscan is a Luwian dialect sui generis.
(4) About the time that Etruscan separated from the related Luwian dialects it is relevant to note that, considering the form of the relative being - va-, it has not participated in the labiovelar development which characterizes Lycian ti- and Lydian pe- or pi-. On the other hand, we have seen that Etruscan shows some evidence of the typical Lycian pho-netic development [s] > [h]. Hence, the separation likely dates to after the 8th century BC, when Luwian hieroglyphic dies out, and before the first evidence of Lycian and Lydian in the late 7th cen-tury BC.
(5) The large amount of correspondences with Greek, which cannot be explained in an Italian context, indicate an Aegean location of Etruscan when still in the Anatolian motherland. On the basis of the Aiolisms, this location may perhaps even be fine-tuned as in the neighborhood of Aiolia. Note that the influence of Greek on Etruscan, in view of the origin of the ending of the 3rd person sg. of the past tense in -ce or - e from the Greek kappa-perfect (or -aorist), amounted to the level of code-mixing.680
(6) The correspondences with Italic and Latin are eas-ily explained by the Italian context of Etruscan from the 7th century BC onwards. Note that, in view of the 3rd person pl. of the passive of the present tense in -n(a) ur and the passive infini-tive -ri, the interaction with the Italici also amounted to the level of code-mixing.
(7) The correspondences with Phoenician indicate a direct contact of Etruscans with Phoenicians.
680 Adams, Janse & Swain 2002.
141
APPENDIX III: A LUWIAN TRIFUNCTIONAL DIVINE TRIAD RECORDED FOR CRETE
The Egyptian hieroglyphic text of a medical papyrus,
probably stemming from to the reign of Amenhotep III
(1390-1352 BC), preserves a magical spell against the Asi-
atic pox in the language of the Keftiu. In transliteration,
this text reads:
snt k3pwpyw3y ym‘nt rk3k3r,
or, in the vocalized transliteration as adopted by
Wolfgang Helck:
sa-n-ta-ka-pu-pi-wa-ya-’a-ya-ma-n-ta-ra-kú-ka-ra.
As argued at length in my contribution on the topic
from 1992 (with references), the formula can be subdi-
vided into six individual entities, four of which render
three divine names in sum, viz. Santas, Kupapa, and Tarku
Kara, and the remaining two of which consist of vocabu-
lary words, viz. waya (w3y) and ’ayaman ( ym‘n).681 The
three divine names are all of Luwian background,682
681 Woudhuizen 1992a: 1-10; according to the expert Egyptologist J.F. Borghouts, the sign Gardiner 1994: N 31 “road” does not ren-der a phonetic value in the present context.
682 For Luwian hieroglyphic, see Sava 1998: 41-2 (Santas); 17-29 (Kupapa); 47-63 (Tar®unt); note that Tar®u(nt) is represented as Trqqñt- or Trqqas in Lycian inscriptions, see Melchert 1993, s.v., and as Zeus Targu nos in Lydia, see Woudhuizen 1990: 101; Santas and Kupapa are recorded in form of ãnt2a and Kufad in Lydian no. 4, see Gusmani 1964. Related onomastic elements of these three divine names together are attested for the archives of Tell Atchana/Alalakh (Goetze 1954: 74, 78; Laroche 1960b: 116) and Ras Shamra/Ugarit (Gordon 1965: glossary nos. 1186, 1777, 2607 and 2609) in North Syria (cf. Strange 1980: 132), i.e. preci-sely the region from where Luwian hieroglyphic disseminates in the beginning of the second millennium BC (Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 108-20; 128-37). At Karkamis in this very same region also a divine triad is venerated, this time consisting of Tar®u(nt) (or its Hurritic equivalent Tešup or its Semitic counterpart Adad), Ku-papa and the stag-god Kar®u®as, see Laroche 1960b: 120; this lat-ter divine triad is mentioned together in, amongst others, a Luwian hieroglyphic inscription on a stone bowl dedicated by the Phrygian king Midas and hence dating to the late 8th century BC, which was transported as a spolia from Karkamis to Babylon, see Hawkins 2000: 394-6 and Woudhuizen 2004b: 105-6 (= Babylon 2).
whereas the vocabulary words, in conformity with the
situation in Cretan Linear A, are Semitic, waya corre-
sponding to wy “and” as recorded for a Phoenician inscrip-
tion from Cyprus and ’ayaman to ‘immanu “with us” as in
Biblical ‘immanu’el “with us god”, so that in its entirety
the translation of the formula runs as follows: “Santas, Ku-papa, and with us Carian Tar®u(nt)”.
Of the three gods in question, Tar®u(nt) is the storm-
or weather-god, often depicted with the symbol of light-
ning in his hand. Next, Kupapa, who is likely to be identi-
fied with the Phrygian Magna Mater, Kybele, no doubt
likewise represents agricultural richness and procreation.
Finally, there is some evidence to consider Santas as a
war-god, because (1) he is depicted armed with a bow, (2)
in his capacity as chief god of Tarsus during the Classical
period he is identified with the Greek war-hero par excel-
lence, Herakles, and (3) in a Hittite text he is staged as
dressed in bloodred cloths – red being the color of the war-
rior class.683 At this point, one cannot help to be reminded
of Georges Dumézil’s epoch-making thesis of a trifunc-tional ideology of the Indo-Europeans, Tar®u(nt) repre-
senting royal sovereignty (= F1), Santas standing as a
protagonist for the class of warriors (= F2), and Kupapa
acting as protectress of the class of agricultural producers
(= F3). At any rate, the parallels from the pantheon of
other Indo-European peoples like the Romans, the Indians,
and the Germans for trifunctional divine triads are conspi-
cious:684
683 Melchert 2002: 241-2; Kammenhuber 1940: 193; cf. Dumézil 1958: 26.
684 Dumézil 1958: 48 f. (Roman); 34 (Indic); 58 (Germanic); ac-cording to Littleton 1973: 12 the Germanic evidence should rather be analysed as follows: F1 Othinn, F2 Th rr, and F 3 Freyr.
142
LUWIAN ROMAN INDIC GERMANIC
F1 Tarku Kara Jupiter Mitra-Varuna Thor F2 Santas Mars Indra Wodan F3 Kupapa Quirinus Nasatya-A vin Freyr
Table 9. Trifunctional divine triads among various Indo-European speaking groups.
Now, the present Luwian divine triad is not the only evi-dence for trifunctionalism in Crete. Recently, Chris Lynn and Dean Miller argued that the cup with a man with a staff (= F1), the rhyton with a depiction of boxers and other sports (= F2), and the vase with a procession of farmers (= F3) from one and the same Late Minoan IB context at Hagia Triada present yet another instance of this typical Indo-European ideology.685 Contrary to the opin-ion of the latter authors, however, I would not attribute this example of trifunctionalism to the Mycenaean Greeks, who only gained possession of the island of Crete after the dis-astrous Santorini eruption at the end of Late Minoan IB (c.1450 BC), but to the Luwian population groups which pre-sumably arrived with the Indo-European incursions in the east-Mediterranean region at the end of the Early Bronze Age II, c. 2300 BC.686
According to the late Edgar Polomé, there is no evi-dence of trifunctionalism among the Indo-European popu-lation groups of Anatolia, which would underline their aberrant position in the field of linguistics as exemplified by the unique preservation of a reflex of laryngeal [h2].687
As shown in the above, however, this evidence is blatantly provided by the most southernly fringe of the Luwians, i.e. those inhabiting the island of Crete. Such a conclusion co-incides markedly with the straightforwardly Indo-European nature of the Luwian language as attested for the hieroglyphic monuments, which, apart from some individ-ual developments like the loss of the voiced velars, is par-ticularly related to the conservative group among the Indo-European languages consisting, next to the other IE Anato-
685 Lynn & Miller 1999.
686 Mellaart 1971; Gimbutas 1973; Best 1981: 8-9; see section 3 above.
687 Polomé 1982b: 169 “(…) nothing reminds us of the trifunctio-nal pattern in the traditions of the Luwians, Hittites, and other In-do-Europeans of the Old Kingdom, (…)”. An exception to this statement is be formed by the trifunctional colors (F1 white, F2 red, and F3 blue) enumerated in a Hittite ritual, see Littleton 1973: 95 and cf. note 683 above.
lian languages Hittite and Palaic, of Celtic, Italic, and Tocharian.688 Hence, the preservation of a reflex of laryn-geal [h2] in IE Anatolian may safely be ascribed to the in-fluence of the indigenous Anatolian languages like Hatticand Hurritic on that of the Indo-European intruders. No need, therefore, to saddle the Indo-Europeans of Anatolia up with 1700 years of fictitious history, as Robert Drews, in the wake of the linguists Thomas Gamkrelidze & Va-eslav Ivanov, does in his Greater Anatolia!689
688 Woudhuizen 2004a: section 9.
689 Drews 2001.
143
APPENDIX IV: PELASGIAN DEMETER AND ZEUS
The earliest attestation of the divine name Demeter is on a stone laddle inscribed with the Linear A legend da-ma-tefrom a peak-sanctuary at Kythera, dated to the transition from Middle Minoan III to Late Minoan I, c. 1600 BC.690
According to Herodotos, the cult of Demeter originated from Egypt, and the rites were taught by the daughters of Danaos to Pelasgian women.691 As the arrival in Greece of Danaos with his daughters from Egypt can be situated in the period of the shaft-graves at Mycenae c. 1600 BC, this tallies well with the afore-mentioned date of the earliest epigraphical evidence for the divine name Demeter. In the variant of the myth by Pausanias, however, Demeter is welcomed in his home by Pelasgos, the mythical ancestor of the Pelasgians who ruled the Argolid before the arrival of Danaos and his daughters and thus brings us back to sometime in the Middle Bronze Age.692
The name Demeter or Damater is variously analyzed by linguists, but all agree that the second element consists of a reflex of PIE *méh2t r “mother”.693 Generally, this is taken for evidence of the Greek language, but the interpre-tation of Linear B ma-ka as Ma Ga “Mother Earth” mili-tates against a Greek solution along the line of da- in Damater being a reflex of Greek ga or g “earth”.694 To this comes that the Phrygian language, which, as we have seen in section 7 above, was presumably spoken by pre-Greek population groups of mainland Greece, is likewise characterized by a reflex of PIE *méh2t r as exemplified by the Old Phrygian expression matar Kubileya or matar Kubeleya “mother Kybele”.695 Hence, the divine name Demeter may well date back to the time before the Greek language came into being and be of Pelasgian origin as Pausanias’ version of the myth suggests.696
690 Sakellarakis & Olivier 1994 (= KY Za 2); Duhoux 1994-5: 290-1; Suter 2002: 164.
691 Histories II, 171.
692 Guide to Greece 1, 14, 2.
693 Suter 2002: 160-1.
694 Aravantinos, Godart & Sacconi 2001: 184; 358; cf. Douhoux 1994-5: 290.
695 Brixhe & Lejeune 1984: W-04; B-01.
696 Cf. Pausanias, Guide to Greece 2, 22, 1: D m t r Pelasgis
Another deity attributed with a Pelasgian origin is Zeus. Thus already in Homeros’ Iliad, which, as we have seen in section 2 above, basically reflects Late Bronze Age history, Zeus of Dodona – at that time still the one near Skotussa in Thessaly – is referred to by Akhilleus in a prayer as “Pelasgian” (Zeu D d naie Pelasgike).697 Now, the linguistic analysis of the divine name Zeus is undis-puted, all specialists tracing it back to the PIE root *Dy wsfor the sky-god.698 If, then, Zeus’ mythical Pelasgian ori-gin applies, we are confronted with a second pre-Greek di-vine name based on a PIE root.
The Pelasgian nature of Demeter and Zeus may well account for their incorporation in the Lydian pantheon as Lametru- and Lev or Lef , respectively.699 As we have seen in section 12 above, namely, Pelasgians were living in the region of Larisa Phrikonis at the time of the Trojan war and for this reason may be assumed to have been in close contact with the ancestors of the historical Lydians, in which process they evidently radiated their cult of Demeter and Zeus.
The identification of Demeter and Zeus as Pelasgian gods does not exclude their ultimate Cretan origin as sug-gested by the Homeric hymn to Demeter700 and Hesiodos’ Theogony,701 which squares with the earliest attestation of Demeter in a Linear A inscription from a Minoan peak-sanctuary at Kythera, and the myth of Zeus being born in the cave of Dikte:702 as we have already noted with respect to Demeter, the cult of these gods may have radiated to the Greek mainland already in Middle Helladic times! From a
“Pelasgian Demeter”.
697 Homeros, Iliad XVI, 233; cf. Strabo, Geography V, 2, 4.
698 Sihler 1995: 58; cf. Beekes 1990: 96.
699 Gusmani 1964, s.v.
700 Homeric Hymn to Demeter 123; cf. Nilsson 1927: 506.
701 Theogony 969-74, with Iasi n as parhedros; for the Minyan nature of the root of the latter name, cf. the royal names Iasos as attested for Orkhomenos and Iason as reported for Iolkos, on which see Sakellariou 1977: 116-7.
702 Apollonios of Rhodes, Argonautika I, 605-6; for the associa-tion of his birth with mount Ida, see ibid., II, 1559-61; cf. Nilsson 1927: 393-4. Note in this connection that in Homeros’ Iliad Zeus is frequently associated with the Trojan mount Ida.
144
linguistic point of view, however, the names Demeter and Zeus should be assigned to a Pelasgian layer or group in Cretan society.
Additional note 1: Linear A I-DA-MA-TE
Two double-axes, one of gold and the other of silver, from the cave of Arkalokhori are inscribed with the Linear A legend L 100a-30-95-92, reading, with the values of their Linear B counterparts, i-da-ma-te.703 This legend has re-ceived various interpretations by the different authors. In the first place, the excavator of the find, Nikolaos Boufidis, suggested to consider it as the equivalent of Greek Ida h mat r “The Idaian Mother”.704 Secondly, the editor princeps of the inscription on the gold axe, Maurice Pope, took it for a variant of the pre-Greek divine name D m t r characterized by an enigmatic prefix i-.705
Thirdly, Franco Crevatin explained the second part of the legend as a reflex of the onomastic element -martis as at-tested for the pre-Greek Cretan divine name Britomar-tis.706 In the fourth place, finally, Paul Faure proposed to split up the second part of the legend in a theonym Ma and a reflex of the Greek vocabulary word theos.707
Of these interpretations, the last two have a bearing only on the second element -ma-te, which the authors in question try to disconnect from PIE *méh2t r “mother”. In my view, these attempts are highly dubious (we would have expected †-ma-ti and †-ma-te-o, respectively) and at any rate unsuccessful in explaining the legend in full. The latter remark also holds good for Pope’s interpretation, which, although recognizing the plausible relation of ma-tewith PIE *méh2t r, saddles us up with an enigmatic prefix i-.708 This leaves us, by means of deduction, with the only
703 Godart & Olivier 1982: 142-3, AR Zf 1-2; for the numbering of the Linear A signs, see Meijer 1982: 38-47.
704 Boufidis 1953-4.
705 Pope 1956.
706 Crevatin 1975.
707 Faure 2002: 78. Cf. Duhoux 1994-5: 289-90; Kaczynska 2002: 138.
708 Duhoux 1994-5: 291-2 connects the supposed prefix i- with Linear y- as in ya-sa-sa-ra-me alongside a-sa-sa-ra-me, but, as we have noted in section 12 above, this concerns the Semitic vocative particle y- and, although hybrid formations are not altogether impossible, would nonetheless collide with the PIE nature of the
comprehensive elucidation by Boufidis as “Idaian Mother”. According to Elwira Kaczynska, this runs up
against the fact that the Cretan oronym Ida originates from *Wida, and hence an initial digamma should be expected for the Linear A legend709 – an inference which even re-ceives further support if the related Greek id “timber-tree” (leading to the interpretation of Ida as “wooded hill”)710
ultimately derives from PIE *uidhu- “tree”.711 However,
the man’s name Idaios, which, of course, cannot be dis-connected from the mountain name Ida, appears in Linear B as i-da-i-jo, that is to say without an initial digamma.712
As it seems, then, the initial digamma has been dropped al-ready in the 14th century BC, which, needless to say, seri-ously undermines Kaczynska’s objection.
The validity of Boufidis’ interpretation can be further supported by circumstantial evidence. As indicated in the above, the legend is inscribed on double-axes. Now, the double-axe is the symbol par excellence of the foremost Cretan goddess, which according to her Semitic form of address is called Assara. This goddess, especially known from libation inscriptions on wash-hand stone-basins from peak-sanctuaries, is depicted on a seal with the double-axe on her head. Furthermore, her name is written with the double-axe sign for the expression of the initial vowel, which in one instance is placed between punctuation marks to stress its symbolic value as a totem for the goddess.713
According to three Cretan hieroglyphic sealings with the
possible, would nonetheless collide with the PIE nature of the rest of the legend.
709 Kaczynska 2002: 138.
710 LSJ, s.v. Note in this connection that in Homeros, Iliad XXIII, 110-28 and in Dictys of Crete’s work on the Trojan war (III, 12 and IV, 13) the Trojan mount Ida is referred to as a source of wood for cremation burials.
711 Pokorny 1994: I, 1177; cf. Delamarre 2003: 319 for Celtic ui-du- “tree, wood”.
712 Ventris & Chadwick 1973: glossary, s.v.; cf. also i-da-me-na-ja, the female counterpart of Homeric Idomeneus, which latter is plausibly interpreted by Kretschmer (Pauly-Wissowa Realency-clopädie, s.v.) as “der Mann vom Ida gebirge” and hence likely bears testimony of the Hittite ethnic suffix -umana-, see Laroche 1960c: 171. Note that this linguistic analysis receives further em-phasis by the fact that Idomeneus’ mother is called Ida according to literary tradition, see Gindin 1999: 90. For the loss of the wau,cf. Linear A a-si-ja-ka as compared to Linear B a-si-wi-jo, both forms bearing testimony of the Anatolian geographic name Assu-wa “Asia”.
713 Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 19-21, esp. figs. 19 and 20a.
145
first part of the name of the goddess from Samothrace, her cult was exported to the north-Aegean region in the Middle Minoan II or III period.714 If we realize, then, that for the Luwian population of Crete the form of address for this foremost Cretan goddess was Kapupi, a local dialectal variant of Luwian Kupapa,715 it seems not farfetched to assume that the Kybela (= Phrygian form of Luwian Ku-papa) cult at the Trojan mount Ida was introduced from Crete in this particular period. If so, our connection of the double-axe with the “Idaian Mother” is substantially en-hanced.
The question remains to be answered to which lin-guistic layer on Crete Linear A i-da-ma-te “Idaian Mother” should be ascribed. To this aim, it is important to deter-mine the date of the inscribed double-axes. This can be achieved by their association with pottery from the same cave, which according to Pierce Blegen runs on from Early Minoan to Late Minoan IA or perhaps even Late Minoan IB and Late Minoan II.716 If the latest possible date ap-plies, the two Linear A legends may well be assumed to have been produced in consigment of a Greek customer, because, as we have seen in section 8, the Mycenaean Greeks have earned themselves a foothold in Crete after the desastrous Santorini-eruption at the end of Late Mi-noan IB (c. 1450 BC). If, however, the double-axes belong to an earlier period, an attribution to the Pelasgian layer or group in Cretan society, which we have just seen to be re-sponsible for the divine name Demeter, seems preferable. At any rate, to suggest that for the presence of the divine name “Idaian Mother” in two Linear A inscriptions this script in its entirety notates an Indo-European language of the Greek or Thraco-Phrygian type bears testimony of a grave methodological error and a reductio ad absurdum of the complexities of Cretan society during the Middle and Late Bronze Age.717
714 Olivier & Godart 1996: 192, # 135-7.
715 Woudhuizen 1992a: 4-5; see also appendix III.
716 Vandenabeele 1985: 5 “and the decoration of the double axes belongs to the type which furnished the inspiration for the second period of the Palace Style pottery ca. 1450-1400 BC”.
717 Owens 1996: 174-5; Owens 1999: 34; 49 (claims that Minoan [in casu Linear A] is the oldest example of Indo-European); Owens 2000: 249.
Additional note 2: Poseidon “con-sort of Da”
In his stimulating monograph on the Greek deity Poseidon,Fritz Schachermeyr followed the linguistic analysis of this divine name by Paul Kretschmer as a compound of Greek potis or posis “consort” of PIE nature (cf. Latin potis, San-skrit pátih) with a form of address of mother earth, Da,hence leading to the interpretation of the entire form as “consort of Da”.718 Now, the second element da-, which is also present in the divine name Damat r or D m t r (< da-+ PIE *méh2t r), may well come into consideration as the Pelasgian indication of “earth”, related to Greek ga or gand originating from the common proto-form *gda- as at-tested for the Phrygian place name Gdanmaa,719 Demeter being the earth-mother par excellence. If so, the divine name Poseidon, just like Demeter, is likely to be attributed with Pelasgian antecedents.
The latter inference gains weight by the fact that ac-cording to literary tradition Poseidon, together with Deme-ter, was venerated in Arkadian Thelpusa and some other locations in horse shape720 – a feature which Schacher-meyr plausibly explains as ultimately rooted in the time of the introduction of the horse in Greece,721 which, as we have seen in section 7, took place in two distinct phases during the Early Helladic III (horse-like animal) and Mid-dle Helladic (true horse) periods. Interesting to note in this connection is that the prominent position of the horse in Middle Helladic times clearly appears from the horse bur-ial associated with a royal tumulus at Marathon.722 Con-trary to Schachermeyr, however, and in line with a suggestion by Joost Crouwel, I think it is unlikely that this prominent position of the horse in Middle Helladic times is solely based on its function as food provider (milk and 718 Schachermeyr 1950: 13-4; cf. Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995: 26, etc.
719 Haas 1966: 215 (ascribes this name to Pisidian influence, but unlikely so as Pisidian belongs to the Luwian language group).
720 Pausanias, Guide to Greece 8, 25, 5 f.
721 Schachermeyr 1950: 64; 143.
722 Marinaotos 1973: Pls. 13-4; Papadimitriou 2001: figs. 44-7. Doubts have been raised about the Middle Helladic date of this horse burial, and it is considered by some an intrusive element from the Turkish period, but it should be noted in this context that single horse burial is paralleled for the Middle Bronze Age at La-pithos in Cyprus, see Gjerstad 1926 : 81 (Politiko tomb 3) and cf. Herscher 1978 : 793.
146
meat) or as a sacred animal per se:723 it must have had al-ready military significance in this early period and hence have been used for riding724 (note in this connection that the outcome of the sacred marriage between Poseidon and Demeter in horse shape at Thelpusa, the divine horse Areion, is reported to have been mounted by Adrastos, i.e. a king with a Phrygian name whose antecedents hence may likewise go back to Middle Helladic times, in the mythical war of the seven heroes from the Argolid against Thebes).725
The ultimately Pelasgian origins of Poseidon can be further underlined by other literary evidence. First of all, it is conspicuous that Poseidon is particularly worshipped in the regions where we have situated the local allies of the foreign invaders which arrived in Greece c. 1600 BC, viz. in Pylos (Nestor is sacrificing to Poseidon when Tele-makhos visits him in the Odyssey),726 Attica (think of the contest between Athena and Poseidon, which the former won because of her gift of the olive tree),727 and Iolkos (as mythical father of Pelias and Neleus).728 Next, Poseidon is directly associated in myth with Phrygians (Pelops, at Olympia, and the nymph Mideia),729 or Thracians (Eu-molpos, Kykhreus, the Abantes and Aones, the Eteo-butades),730 or pre-Greeks more in general (Pelasgos, Minyas).731
In the light of the given associations with the horse
723 Schachermeyr 1950: 53-4; 121.
724 Crouwel 1981: 46 “It is not impossible that some of the single horses buried [among which the one at Marathon – notwithstan-ding Crouwel’s second thoughts still considered Middle Helladic in Papadimitriou 2001, be it with doubts expressed in a note] were riding animals.” This does not collide with Drews’ recent thesis (2004) that riding became military effective in the form of cavalry units only after the Bronze Age. Note that this single horse burial from the Middle Helladic period contrasts with double horse buri-als as discovered at Dendra (Protonotariou-Deilaki 1990), which cannot be dissociated from the war-chariot and hence must be as-signed to the period from c. 1600 BC onwards.
725 Pausanias, Guide to Greece 8, 25, 7-9; cf. Wiesner 1968: F. 111.
726 Homeros, Odyssey III, 1 ff.
727 Herodotos, Histories VIII, 55.
728 Schachermeyr 1950: 43.
729 Schachermeyr 1950: 22; 41.
730 Schachermeyr 1950: 36-7; 41; cf. Detschew 1976, s.v. Bout sand Kukhris, and Woudhuizen 1989: 196.
731 Schachermeyr 1950: 41; 43.
and with pre-Greek population groups in Greece, the con-nection of Poseidon with the chariot (Pelops at Olympia, Onkhestos, the two horses of Peleus named Xanthos and Balios)732 – as we have seen in section 7, the military weapon newly introduced by the foreign invaders c. 1600 BC – and with the ones who are responsible for its intro-duction in Greece (Kadmos),733 appears to be of secondary nature.
Just like Demeter and Zeus, Poseidon is also attested for Crete. Thus, in the genitive form po-se-da-o-ne he oc-curs together with other deities on a Linear B tablet from Knossos (KN V 52).734 Furthermore, if our location of Skheria and the Phaiakians in the western part of the Me-sara valley holds good, it is noteworthy that Poseidon had a temple here and is considered to be the father of Nau-sithoös, the founding father of the Phaiakians.735 At any rate, this latter evidence ties in perfectly with our indica-tions of Pelasgian presence in the very same region of Crete as presented in section 12 above!
732 Schachermeyr 1950: 22; 39; 42.
733 Schachermeyr 1950: 170.
734 Ventris & Chadwick 1973: 311-2.
735 Schachermeyr 1950: 172. Note in this connection that striking evidence for the cult of Poseidon in the region in question is pro-vided by the remark in the Souda, s.v. Maleos that the latter had dedicated a stone at the entrance of the harbor of Phaistos to Po-seidon, cf. Briquel 1984: 266.
147
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Achterberg, Winfried, Best, Jan, Enzler, Kees, Rietveld, Lia, & Woudhuizen, Fred, 2004, The Phaistos Disc: A Luwian Letter to Nestor. Publications of the Henri Frankfort Foundation 13. Amsterdam: Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society.
Adams, J.N., Janse, Mark, & Swain, Simon, 2002, Bilingualism in Ancient Society, Language Contact and the Written Word.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Agostiniani, Luciano, & Nicosia, Francesco, 2000, Tabula Corto-nensis. Roma: «L’Erma» di Bretschneider.
Agostino, Bruno d’, 1977, Tombe «Principesche» dell’ orientaliz-zante antico da Pontecagnano. Monumenti Antichi, Serie miscellanea Volume II, 1. Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei.
Åkerstrøm, Åke, 1934, Studien über die Etruskischen Gräber, Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Entwicklung des Kammergrabes. Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup.
Akurgal, Ekrem, 1992, ‘L’Art Hatti’. In: Hittite and Other Anato-lian and Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Sedat Alp, eds. Heinrich Otten, Hayri Ertem, Ekrem Akurgal & Aygül Süel. Pp. 1-5. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
Albright, William Foxwell, 1932, The Excavations of Tell Beit Mirsim in Palestine, I: The Pottery of the First Three Cam-paigns. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 12.
––– , 1959, ‘Dunand’s new Byblos Volume: A Lycian at the By-blian court’. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Re-search 155. Pp. 31-34.
––– , 1975, ‘Syria, the Philistines, and Phoenicia’. In: CambridgeAncient History II, 2, Chapter 33. Pp. 507-536. Cambridge: At the University Press (3rd edition).
Alföldi, Andreas, 1963, Early Rome and the Latins. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Alp, Sedat, 1968, Zylinder- und Stempelsiegel aus Karahöyük bei Konya. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
Alt, Albrecht, 1944, ‘Ägyptische Tempel in Palästina und die Landnahme der Philister’. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 67. Pp. 1-20.
Altheim, Franz, 1950, Der Ursprung der Etrusker. Baden-Baden: Verlag für Kunst und Wissenschaft.
Aravantinos, Vassilis L., Godart, Louis, & Sacconi, Anna, 2001, Thèbes, Fouilles de la Cadmée I, Les tablettes en linéaire B de la o d o s P e l o p i d o u , Édition et commentaire. Pisa-Roma: Istituti editoriale e poligrafici internazionali.
Astour, Michael C., 1964, ‘Greek Names in the Semitic World and Semitic Names in the Greek World’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 23. Pp. 193-201.
––– , 1965a, ‘New Evidence on the Last Days of Ugarit’. Ameri-
can Journal of Archaeology 69. Pp. 253-258.
––– , 1965b, Hellenosemitica, An Ethnic and Cultural Study in West Semitic Impact on Mycenaean Greece. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
––– , 1972, ‘Some Recent Works on Ancient Syria and the Sea People’. Journal of the American Oriental Society 92. Pp. 447-459.
Balkan, Kemal, 1954, Kassitenstudien I: Die Sprache der Kas-siten. New Haven, Connecticut: American Oriental Society.
Barako, Tristan J., 2004, [Review of: Eliezer D. Oren, The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment]. American Jour-nal of Archaeology, 108: 453-455.
Barnett, Richard D., 1969, ‘The Sea Peoples’. In: Cambridge An-cient History II, 2, Chapter 28. Pp. 3-21. Cambridge: At the University Press (3rd edition).
––– , 1975, ‘The Sea Peoples’. In: Cambridge Ancient History II,2, Chapter 28. Pp. 359-378. Cambridge: At the University Press (3rd edition).
Barth, Frederik, 1969, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Bergen-Oslo: Universitets Forlaget. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Barton k, Antonín, & Buchner, Georgio, 1995, ‘Die ältesten griechischen Inschriften von Pithekoussai (2. Hälfte des VIII. bis 1. Hälfte des VII. Jh.)’. Die Sprache, Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 37:2. Pp. 129-231.
Bass, George, 1997, ‘Beneath the Wine Dark Sea: Nautical Ar-chaeology and the Phoenicians of the Odyssey’. In: Greeksand Barbarians, Essays on the Interaction between Greeks and Non-Greeks in Antiquity and the Consequences of Eurocentrism, eds. John E. Coleman & Clark A. Walz. Pp. 71-101. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press.
Beekes, Robert S.P., 1990, Vergelijkende taalwetenschap, Tussen Sanskrit en Nederlands (= Aula Paperback 176). Utrecht: Uitgeverij Het Spectrum BV.
––– , 1993, ‘The Position of Etruscan’. In: Indogermanica et Italica, Festschrift für Helmut Rix zum 65. Geburtstag, Hrsg. Gerhard Meisner. Pp. 46-60. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.
––– , 1998, ‘The origin of Lat. aqua, and of *teut “people”’. Journal of Indo-European Studies 26. Pp. 459-466.
––– , 2001, [Review of C. De Simone, I Tirreni a Lemnos, Evi-denza linguistica e tradizioni storiche, Firenze, Olschki 1996]. Mnemosyne 54. Pp. 359-364.
––– , 2002, ‘The Prehistory of the Lydians, the Origin of the Etrus-cans, Troy and Aeneas’. Bibliotheca Orientalis 59, 3/4 mei- augustus. Pp. 205-239.
Beekes, Robert S.P., & Meer, L. Bauke van der, 1991, DeEtrusken Spreken. Muiderberg: Coutinho.
148
Behn, Friedrich, 1924, Hausurnen. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Beran, Thomas, 1967, Die Hethitische Glyptik von Bo azköy I.Berlin: Verlag Gbr. Mann.
Bérard, C., 1970, Eretria, Fouilles et recherches, III L’Hérôon à la port de l’ouest. Bern: Éditions Francke Berne.
Bérard, Jean, 1951, ‘Philistins et Préhéllènes’. Revue Archéologi-que 37. Pp. 124- 142.
Bernal, Martin, 1991, Black Athena, The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, II: The Archaeological and Documen-tary Evidence. London: Free Association Books.
Beschi, Luigi, 1994, ‘I Tirreni di Lemno alla luce dei recenti dati di scavo’. Magna Graeca, Etruschi, Fenici. Pp. 23-56. Tar-anto.
Best, Jan G.P., 1973, ‘Six contributions to the decipherment of Linear A—I. The Semitic equivalents of Mycenaean a-pu-do-si and o-pe-ro’. Ugarit-Forschungen 5. Pp. 53-59.
––– , 1976, ‘The Foreign Relations of the Apsis-House Culture in Palestine’. In: Pulpudeva, Semaines philippopolitaines de l’histoire et de la culture thrace, Plovdiv, 4-19 octobre 1976.Pp. 205-209.
––– , 1981a, ‘YAŠŠARAM!’. Ugarit-Forschungen 13. Pp. 291-293.
––– , 1981b, Supplementum Epigraphicum Mediterraneum ad Ta-lanta, Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Histori-cal Society 13.
––– , 1982-3a, ‘The Zakro Pithos Inscription, Again’. Talanta, Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical So-ciety 14-15. Pp. 9- 15.
––– , 1982-3b, ‘Two Traditions in Spiral Inscriptions with Linear A Texts’. Talanta, Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 14-15. Pp. 17-25.
––– , 1992-3, ‘Racism in Classical Archaeology’. Talanta, Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 24-25. Pp. 7-10.
––– , 1996-7, ‘The Ancient Toponyms of Mallia: A post-Eurocentric reading of Egyptianising Bronze Age documents’. Black Athena: Ten Years After, Talanta, Proceedings of the Dutch, Archaeological and Historical Society 28-29, ed. Wim M.J. van Binsbergen. Pp. 99-129.
––– , 2000, ‘The First Inscription in Punic, Vowel Differences be-tween Linear A and B’. Ugarit-Forschungen 32. Pp. 27-35.
Best, Jan, & Woudhuizen, Fred, 1988, Ancient Scripts from Crete and Cyprus. Publications of the Henri Frankfort Foundation 9. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
––– , 1989, Lost Languages from the Mediterranean. Publications of the Henri Frankfort Foundation 10. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Best, Jan G.P., & Yadin, Yigael, 1973, The Arrival of the Greeks.Publications of the Henri Frankfort Foundation 1. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert.
Betancourt, Philip P., 1976, ‘The End of the Bronze Age’. Antiq-
uity 50. Pp. 40-47.
Bietak, Manfred, 1993, ‘The Sea Peoples and the End of the Egyp-tian Administration in Canaan’. In: Biblical Archaeology To-day, 1990, Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, June-July 1990, eds. Avraham Biran & Joseph Aviram. Pp. 292-306. Jerusalem: Is-rael Exploration Society.
––– , 2000, ‘“Rich beyond the dreams of Avaris: Tell el-Dab‘a and the Aegean World—A Guide for the Perplexed”: a response to Eric H. Cline’. Annual of the British School at Athens 95. Pp. 185-205.
Bikai, Patricia Maynor, 1992, ‘The Phoenicians’. In: The Crisis Years: The 12th century B.C. From Beyond the Danube to the Tigris, eds. William A. Ward & Martha Sharp Joukowsky. Pp. 132-141. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Binsbergen, Wim M.J. van, 1996-7, ‘Alternative Models of Intercontinental Interaction Towards the Earliest Cretan Script’. Black Athena: Ten Years After, Talanta, Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 28-29, ed. Wim M.J. van Binsbergen. Pp. 131-148.
––– , 1999, ‘‘Cultures do not exist’, Exploding self-evidences in the investigation of Interculturality’. Quest, An African Jour-nal of Philosophy XIII, no. 1-2, Special Issue: Languge & Culture. Pp. 37-114.
––– , forthc., ‘Ethnicity in eastern Mediterranean protohistory: Re-flections on theory and method’, in: Binsbergen, Wim M.J. van, & Woudhuizen, Fred C., Ethnicity in Mediterranean Pro-tohistory, Oxford: BAR (British Archaeological Reports) In-ternational Series.
Blegen, Carl W., 1963, Troy and the Trojans. London: Thames and Hudson.
Boardman, John, 1994, ‘Settlement for Trade and Land in North Africa: problems of identity’. In: The Archaeology of Greek Colonisation, Essays dedicated to Sir John Boardman, eds. Gocha R. Tsetskhladze & Franco De Angelis. Pp. 137-149. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology.
––– , 1999, The Greeks Overseas, their early colonies and trade.London: Thames and Hudson (Fourth edition).
Boer, Jan de, 1991, ‘A Double Figure-Headed Boat-Type in the Eastern Mediterranean and Central Europe during the Late Bronze Ages’. Actes de Symposium Thracia Pontica IV, So-zopol, October 6-12, 1988. Pp. 43-50. Sofia.
Bonfante, Guliano, 1946, ‘Who were the Philistines?’. American Journal of Archaeology 50. Pp. 257-262.
Bonfante, Giuliano, & Bonfante, Larissa, 2002, The Etruscan Language, An Introduction. Manchester: Manchester Univer-sity Press (2nd edition).
Bosch-Gimpera, Pedro, 1939, Two Celtic Waves in Spain. The Sir John Rh s Memorial Lecture, British Academy. London: Humphrey Milford Amen House, E.C.
Bossert, Helmuth, 1932, Šantaš und Kupapa. Mitteilungen der Altorientalischen Gesellschaft VI, 3. Leipzig: Verlag von Otto
149
Harrassowitz.
Boufidis, Nikolaos Kr., 1953-4, ‘Kritomikinaikai epigraphai eks Arkalokh riou’, Arkhaiologiki Ephimeris 2. Pp. 61-74.
Bouzek, Jan, 1997, Greece, Anatolia and Europe: Cultural Inter-relations during the Early Iron Age. Studies in Mediterranean Archeology CXXII. Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag.
Breasted, James Henry, 1927, Ancient Records of Egypt, Histori-cal Documents from the earliest times to the Persian Con-quest, collected, edited, and translated with commentary.Chicago: University of Chicago Press (3rd impresssion).
Briquel, Dominique, 1984, Les Pélasges en Italie, Recherches sur l’histoire de la légende. Rome: École Française de Rome.
––– , 1991, L’Origine Lydienne des Étrusques, Histoire de la doc-trine dans l’Antiquité. Rome: École Française de Rome.
Brixhe, Claude, & Lejeune, Michel, 1984, Corpus des Inscriptions Paleo-Phrygiennes I-II. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
Broneer, Oscar, 1956, ‘Athens in the Late Bronze Age’. Antiquity30. Pp. 9-18.
Brown, Raymond A., 1985, Evidence for Pre-Greek Speech on Crete from Greek Alphabetic Sources. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert-Publisher.
Bryce, Trevor R., 1974, ‘The Lukka Problem—and a possible so-lution’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 33. Pp. 395-404.
––– , 1986, The Lycians in Literary and Epigraphic Sources. Co-penhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.
––– , 1989, ‘Ahhiyawans and Mycenaeans—an Anatolian view-point’. Journal of Oxford Archaeology 8. Pp. 297-310.
––– , 1992, ‘Lukka Revisited’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies51. Pp. 121-130.
––– , 1998, The Kingdom of the Hittites. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
––– , 2003, Letters of the Great Kings of the Ancient Near East, The Royal Correspondence of the Late Bronze Age. London-New York: Routledge.
Buchholz, Hans-Günter, 1973, ‘Grey Trojan Ware in Cyprus and North Syria’. In: Bronze Age Migrations in the Aegean: Ar-chaeological and linguistic problems in Greek prehistory, Proceedings of the First International Colloquium on Aegean Prehistory, Sheffield, eds. R. A. Crossland & Ann Birchall. Pp. 179-187. London: Duckworth.
–––, 1999, Ugarit, Zypern und Ägäis, Kulturbeziehungen im zweiten Jahrtausend v.Chr. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Buchner, Giorgio, 1982, ‘Die Beziehungen zwischen der euböischen Kolonie Pithekoussai auf der Insel Ischia und dem nordwest semitischen Mittelmeerraum in der zweiten Hälfte des 8. Jhs. v. Chr.’. In: Phönizier im Westen, Die Beiträge des Internationalen Symposiums über “Die phönizische Expansion im westlichem Mittelmeerraum” in Köln vom 24. bis 27. April 1979, ed. Hans Georg Niemeyer. Pp. 277-306. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.
Burn, A.R., 1930, Minoans, Philistines and Greeks, B.C. 1400-900. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd.
Byrne, Ryan, 2002, ‘Philistine Semitics and Dynastic History at Ekron’. Ugarit- Forschungen 34. Pp. 1-23.
Cabrera, Paloma, & Olmos, Ricardo, 1985, ‘Die Griechen in Huelva, Zum Stand der Diskussion’. Madrider Mitteilungen26. Pp. 63-74.
Camporeale, Giovannangelo, 2003, Die Etrusker, Geschichte und Kultur. Düsseldorp-Zürich: Artemis & Winkler Verlag.
Carruba, Onofrio, 2002, ‘Cario Natri ed egizio ntr ‘dio’’. In: Novalis Indogermanica, Festschrift für Günter Neumann zum 80. Geburtstag, Hrsg. Matthias Fritz & Susanna Zeilfelder. Pp. 75-84. Graz: Leykam.
Caskey, John L., 1971, ‘Greece, Crete, and the Aegean Islands in the Early Bronze Age’. Cambridge Ancient History I, 2. Pp. 771-807. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (3rd edi-tion).
––– , 1973, ‘Greece and the Aegean Islands in the Middle Bronze Age’. Cambridge Ancient History II, 1. Pp. 117-140. Cam-bridge: At the University Press (3rd edition).
Casson, Stanley, 1968, Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria. Groningen: Bouma’s Boekhuis N.V. Publishers.
Catling, Hector, 1973, ‘The Achaean Settlement of Cyprus’. In: Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium “The Mycenaeans in the Eastern Mediterranean”, Nicosia 27th March – 2nd April 1972. Pp. 34-39. Nicosia: Zavallis Press Ltd.
Caubet, Annie, 2000, ‘Ras Shamra-Ugarit Before the Sea Peoples’. In: The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment, ed. Eliezer D. Oren. Pp. 35-51. Philadelphia: The University Mu-seum.
Chabas, François, 1872, Études sur l’Antiquité Historique d’après les sources égyptiennes et les monuments réputés préhistori-que. Chalon-s-S.: Dejussien. Paris: Maissonneuve et Cie.
––– , 1873, Recherches pour servir à l’Histoire d’Égypte sous la XXe Dynastie.
Champollion, Jean-François, 1836, Grammaire égyptienne, ou principes généraux de l’écriture sacrée Égyptienne appliquée à la représentation de la langue parlée. Paris: Didot.
Chantraine, Pierre, 1958, ‘Mycénien Te-u-ta-ra-ko-ro’. In: Minoica, Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von Johannes Sundwall, Hrsg. Ernst Grumach. Pp. 123-127. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Charsekin, A.I., 1963, Zur Deutung etruskischer Sprachdenkmäler. Untersuchungen zur Römischen Geschichte III. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.
Cifola, Barbara, 1991, ‘The Terminology of Ramses III’s Histori-cal Records, with a Formal Analyses of the War Scenes’. Ori-entalia 60. Pp. 9- 57.
Cline, Eric H., 1987, ‘Amenhotep III and the Aegean: A Reas-sessment of Egypto-Aegean Relations in the Fourteenth Cen-
150
tury B.C’. Orientalia 56. Pp. 1-36.
––– , 1991, ‘A Possible Hittite Embargo against the Mycenaeans’. Historia 40. Pp. 1-9.
––– , 2001, ‘Amenhotep III, the Aegean, and Anatolia’. In: Amen-hotep III, Perspectives on His Reign, eds. David O’Connor & Eric H. Cline. Pp. 236-250. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Cline, Eric H., & O’Connor, David, 2003, ‘The Mystery of the ‘Sea Peoples’’. In: Mysterious Lands, eds. David O’Connor & Stephen Quirke. Pp. 107-138. University College London: In-stitute of Archaeology.
Coleman, J.E., 2000, ‘An Archaeological Scenario for the “Com-ing of the Greeks” ca. 3200 B.C.’. Journal of Indo-European Studies 28. Pp. 101- 153.
Coles, J.M., & Harding, A.F., 1979, The Bronze Age in Europe.London: Methuen & Co.
Colonna, Giovanni, 1980, ‘Virgilio, Cortona e la leggenda etrusca di Dardano’. Archeologia Classica 32. Pp. 1-14.
Cornell, Tim, 1997, ‘Ethnicity as a factor in early Roman history’. In: Gender & Ethnicity in ancient Italy, Accordia Specialist Studies on Italy Vol. 6, eds. Tim Cornell & Kathryn Lomas. Pp. 9-21. University of London: Accordia Research Institute.
Cramer, J.A., 1971, A Geographical and Historical Description of Asia Minor. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert-Publisher (Re-print).
Crevatin, Franco., 1975, ‘La lingua «minoico»: metodi d’indagine e problemi’. In: Studi Triestini di Antichità in onore di Luigia Achillea Stella. Pp. 1-63. Trieste: Facolta di Lettere e Filosofia.
Crossland, Ronald A., 1971, ‘Immigrants from the North’. Cam-bridge Ancient History I, 2. Pp. 824-876. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press (3rd edition).
Crouwel, Joost H., 1981, Chariots and other means of land trans-port in Bronze Age Greece. Allard Pierson Series 3. Amster-dam: Allard Pierson Series.
Davies, Benedict G., 1997, Egyptian Historical Inscriptions of the Nineteenth Dynasty. Jonsered: Paul Åströms förlag.
Deger-Jalkotzy, Sigrid, 1983, ‘Das Problem der “Handmade Burnished Ware” von Myk. IIIC’. In: Griechenland, Die Ägäis und die Levante während der “Dark Ages” vom 12. bis zum 9. Jh. v. Chr., Akten des Symposions von Stift Zwettl (NÖ), 11.-14. Oktober 1980, Hrsg. Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy. Pp. 161-178. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Delamarre, Xavier, 2003, Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise, Une approche linguistique du vieux-celtique continental. Paris: Editions Errance (2e édition revue et augmentée).
Demoule, Jean-Paul, 1999, ‘Ethnicity, culture and identity: French archaeologists and historians’. Antiquity 73. Pp. 190-198.
Demus-Quatember, Margarete, 1958, EtruskischeGrabarchitektur, Typologie und Ursprungsfrage. Baden-
Baden: Bruno Grimm Verlag für Kunst und Wissenschaften.
Desborough, Vincent R. d’A., 1964, The Last Mycenaeans and their Successors. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
––– , 1972, The Greek Dark Ages. London: Ernst Benn Limited.
Detschew, Dimiter, 1976, Die Thrakischen Sprachreste. 2. Auflage mit Bibliographie 1955-1974 von Zivka Velkova. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Diakonoff, Igor Mikhailovich, 1984, The Prehistory of the Armenian people. Delmar-New York: Caravan Books.
Diakonoff, Igor Mikhailovich, & Neroznak, Vladimir Petrovich, 1985, Phrygian. Delmar-New York: Caravan Books.
Dickinson, Oliver T.P.K., 1977, The Origins of Mycenaean Civili-zation. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 49. Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag.
Dietrich, Manfried & Loretz, Oswald, 1978, ‘Das ‘Seefahrende Volk’ von Šikila (RS 34.129)’. Ugarit-Forschungen 10. Pp. 53-56.
––– , 1998, ‘Amurru, Yaman und die ägäischen Inseln nach den ugaritischen Texten’. Israel Oriental Studies 18. Pp. 335-363.
Dikaios, Porphyrios, 1971, Enkomi, Excavations 1948-1958, II: Chronology, Summary and Conclusions, Catalogue, Appendices. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.
Docter, Roald F., 2000, ‘Pottery, Graves and Ritual I: Phoenicians of the First Generation in Pithekoussai’. In: La ceramica feni-cia di Sardegna, Dati, problematiche, confronti, Atti del Pri-mo Congresso Internazionale Sulcitano, Sant’Antioco, 19-21 Settembre 1997, eds. Piero Bartoloni & Lorenza Campanella. Pp. 135-149. Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerce.
Donner, H., & Röllig, W., 1964, Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (3. Auflage).
Dossin, G., 1970, ‘La Route de l’étain en Mésopotamie au temps de Zimri-Lim’. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archeologie Orien-tale 64. Pp. 97- 106.
Dothan, Moshe, 1986, ‘Sardinia at Akko?’. In: Studies in Sardin-ian Archaeology II, Sardinia in the Mediterranean, ed. M.S. Balmuth. Pp. 105- 115. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Dothan, Trude, 1982, The Philistines and their Material Culture.New Haven-London: Yale University Press.
Dothan, Moshe, & Dothan, Trude, 1992, People of the Sea, The Search for the Philistines. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Drews, Robert, 1988, The Coming of the Greeks, Indo-European Conquests in the Aegean and Near East. Princeton, New Jer-sey: Princeton University Press.
––– , 1992, ‘Herodotus 1.94, the Drought ca. 1200 BC, and the Origin of the Etruscans’. Historia 41. Pp. 14-39.
––– , 1993a, The End of the Bronze Age, Changes in warfare and the catastrophe ca. 1200 B.C. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
151
––– , 1993b, ‘Myths of Midas and the Phrygian Migration from Europe’. Klio 75. Pp. 9-26.
––– , 2000, ‘Medinet Habu: Oxcarts, Ships, and Migration Theo-ries’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 59. Pp. 161-190.
––– , 2001, ‘Greater Anatolia, Proto-Anatolian, Proto-Indo-Hittite, and Beyond’. In: Greater Anatolia and the Indo-Hittite Lan-guage Family, Papers Presented at a Colloquium Hosted by the University of Richmond, March 18-19, 2000, ed. Robert Drews. Pp. 248-283. Washington D.C.: The Institute for the Study of Man.
––– , 2004, Early Riders, The Beginnings of Mounted Warfare in Asia and Europe. New York-London: Routledge.
Driessen, Jan, 1998-9, ‘Kretes and Iawones, Some Observations on the Identity of Late Bronze Age Knossians’. Minos 33-34. Pp. 83-105.,
Driessen, Jan, & Macdonald, Colin F., 1997, The Troubled Island, Minoan Crete before and after the Santorini Eruption. Ae-geum 17. Université de Liège.
Duhoux, Yves, 1994-5, ‘LA > B DA-MA-TE = Déméter? Sur la langue du linéaire A’. Minos 29-30. Pp. 289-294.
––– , 2003, Des Minoens en Égypte? «Keftiou» et «les îles aux mi-lieu du Grand Vert». Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters Press.
Dumézil, Georges, 1958, L’idéologie tripartie des Indo-Européens. Bruxelles: Latomus, Revue d’Études Latines.
Dunbabin, T.J., 1999, The Western Greeks, The History of Sicily and South Italy from the Foundation of the Greek Colonies to 480 B.C. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press (Sandpiper reprint).
Dupont-Sommer, André, 1948, ‘Nouvelle lecture d’une inscription phénicien archaïque de Nora en Sardaigne (C.I.S. I, 144)’. Comptes Rendu des Séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres 1948. Pp. 12-22.
––– , 1974, ‘Les Phéniciens à Chypre’. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus. Pp. 75-94.
Edel, Elmar, 1966, Die Ortsnamenliste aus dem Totentempel Ame-nophis III. Bonn: Hanstein.
––– , 1984, ‘Die Sikeloi in den ägyptischen Seevölkertexten und in Keilschrifturkunden’. Biblische Notizen 23. Pp. 7-8.
––– , 1988, ‘Der Name di-q!j-j-s in der minoisch-mykenischen Liste ENli 8 gleich Th bais?’. Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 115, 1. Pp. 30-35.
Eder, Birgitta, 1998, Argolis, Lakonien, Messenien, Vom Ende der mykenischen Palastzeit bis zur Einwanderung der Dorier.Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Edgerton, William F., & Wilson, John A., 1936, HistoricalRecords of Ramses III, The Texts in Medinet Habu, Volumes I and II, Translated with explanatory notes. Chicago: Univer-sity of Chicago Press.
Edwards, Ruth B., 1979, Kadmos the Phoenician, A Study in Greek Legends and the Mycenaean Age. Amsterdam: Adolf
M. Hakkert Publisher.
Eisler, Robert, 1939, ‘Loan-words in Semitic Languages meaning “Town”’. Antiquity 13. Pp. 449-455.
Evans, Sir Arthur J., 1895, Cretan Pictographs and Prae-Phoenician Script. London: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.
––– , 1909, Scripta Minoa I. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press.
Faure, Paul, 1996, ‘Deux inscriptions en écriture Linéaire A dé-couvertes à Troie par Schliemann’. Cretan Studies 5. Pp. 137-146.
––– , 2002, ‘Écritures préhelléniques dans dix cavernes de Crète’. Cretan Studies 7. Pp. 75-87.
Fernandez, James W., 2000, ‘Peripheral wisdom’. In: SignifyingIdentities, Anthropological perspectives on boundaries and contested values, ed. Anthony P. Cohen. Pp. 117-144. London-New York: Routledge.
Fick, August, 1905, Vorgriechische Ortsnamen als Quelle für die Vorgeschichte Griechenlands. Göttingen.
Fiesel, Eva, 1931, Etruskisch. In: Grundriss der indogermanischen Sprach- und Altertumskunde, Hrsgbs. Albert Debrunner & Ferdinand Sommer (= Band 5, Lieferung 4). Berlin-Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter.
Forrer, Emil, 1924, ‘Vorhomerische Griechen in den Keilschriften von Boghazköi’. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin 63. Pp. 1-22.
Forsdyke, John, 1957, Greece before Homer, Ancient chronology and mythology. London: Max Parrish (2nd impression).
Fourmont, Etienne, 1747, Réflections critiques sur l’origine, l’histoire et la succession des ancient peuples chaldéens, hé-breux, phéniciens, égyptiennes, grecs … jusqu’au temps de Cyrus. Paris.
Friedrich, Johannes, 1932, Kleinasiatische Sprachdenkmäler.Berlin: Verlag von Walter de Gruyter & Co.
––– , 1946, Hethitisches Elementarbuch II. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
––– , 1991, Kurzgefaßtes Hethitisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
Frisk, Hjalmar, 1973, Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch.Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
Fugazzola Delpino, M.A., 1979, ‘The Proto-Villanovan: A Sur-vey’. In: Italy Before the Romans, The Iron Age, Orientalizing and Etruscan periods, eds. David & Francesca Ridgway. Pp. 31-51. London-New York-San Francisco: Academic Press.
Galinsky, G. Karl, 1969, Aeneas, Sicily, and Rome. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Gamkrelidze, Thomas V., & Ivanov, Vja eslav V., 1995, Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans, A Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and a Proto- Cul-ture, Part I: Text, Part II: Bibliography, Indexes. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Garbini, Giovanni, 1997, I Filistei. Milano: Rusconi.
152
Gardiner, Alan H., 1947, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
––– , 1960, The Inscriptions of Ramesses II. Oxford: Printed for the Griffith Institute at the University Press by Vivian Ridler.
––– , 1961, Egypt of the Pharaohs. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press.
––– , 1994, Egyptian Grammar. Oxford: Griffith Institute, Ash-molean Museum (3rd edition).
Garstang, John, 1929, The Hittite Empire, being a survey of the history, geography and monuments of Hittite Asia Minor and Syria. London: Constable and Company Ltd.
Garstang, John, & Gurney, O.R., 1959, The Geography of the Hit-tite Empire. London: The British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.
Gehring, Augustus, 1901, Index Homericus. Lipsiae: In Aedibus B.G. Teubneri.
Gelb, Ignace, 1931, Hittite Hieroglyphs I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Georgiev, Vladimir, 1950-1, ‘Sur l’origine et la langue des Pélas-ges, des Philistins, des Danaens et des Achéens’. Jahrbuch für Kleinasiatische Forschung 1. Pp. 136-141.
Gimbutas, Marija, 1973, ‘The destruction of Aegean and East Mediterranean urban civilization around 2300 B.C.’. In: Bronze Age Migrations in the Aegean, Archaeological and linguistic problems in Greek prehistory, eds. R.A. Crossland & Ann Birchall. Pp. 129-139. London: Duckworth.
Gindin, Leonid A., 1999, Troja, Thrakien und die Völker Altkleinasiens, Versuch einer historisch-philologischen Untersuchung. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft.
Gitin, Seymour, 1993, ‘Seventh Century B.C.E. Cultic Elements at Ekron’. In: Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990, Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, June-July 1990, eds. Avraham Biran & Joseph Aviram. Pp. 248-258. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Gitin, Seymore, Dothan, Trude, & Naveh, Joseph, 1997, ‘A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron’. Israel Exploration Jour-nal 47. Pp. 1-16.
Gjerstad, Einar, 1926, Studies on Prehistoric Cyprus, Uppsala: A.-B. Lundequistska Bokhandeln.
––– , 1944, ‘The Colonization of Cyprus in Greek Legend’. Opus-cula Archaeologica III. Pp. 107-123.
Godart, Louis, 1994, ‘La scrittura di Troia’. Rendiconti dell’Academia dei Lincei, serie 9, vol. 5. Pp. 457-460.
Godart, Louis, & Olivier, Jean-Pierre, 1982, Recueil des Inscrip-tions en linéaire A, Volume 4: Autres Documents. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.
Goetze, Albrecht, 1954, ‘The Linguistic Continuity of Anatolia as Shown by its Proper Names’. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 8. Pp. 74-81.
Goldman, Hetty, 1956, Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus II, From the Neolithic through the Bronze Age. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Gordon, Arthur E., 1983, Illustrated Introduction to Latin Epigra-phy. Berkeley, Los Angeles-London: University of California Press.
Gordon, Cyrus Herzl, 1955, Ugaritic Handbook, I: Grammar.Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.
––– , 1956, ‘The Rôle of the Philistines’. Antiqity 30. Pp. 22-26.
––– , 1957, ‘Notes on Minoan Linear A’. Antiquity 31. Pp. 124-130.
––– , 1965, Ugaritic Textbook. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
Goudriaan, Koen, 1988, Ethnicity in Ptolemaic Egypt. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, Publisher.
Gras, Michel, 1976, ‘La piraterie tyrrhénienne en mer Egée: mythe ou réalité?’. In: Mélanges offerts à J. Heurgon I. Pp. 341-370. Rome.
Gröndahl, Frauke, 1967, Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit. Rom: Päpstliches Bibelinstitut.
Grosjean, Roger, 1966a, La Corse avant l’histoire. Paris: Éditions Klincksieck.
––– , 1966b, ‘Recent Work in Corsica’. Antiquity 40. Pp. 190-198, Pls. 29- 31.
Grumach, Ernst, 1968, ‘The Minoan Libation Formula—Again’. Kadmos 7. Pp. 7-26.
––– , 1969, ‘The Coming of the Greeks’. Bulletin of the John Ry-lands Library 51. Manchester.
Guido, Margaret, 1963, Sardinia. London: Thames and Hudson.
Gurney, Oliver R., 1990, The Hittites. London: Penguin Books.
––– , 2002, ‘The Authorship of the Tawagalawas Letter’. In: SilvaAnatolica, Anatolian Studies Presented to Maciej Popko on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. Piotr Taracha. Pp. 133-141. Warsaw: Agade.
Gusmani, Roberto, 1964, Lydisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
Güterbock, Hans Gustav, 1942, Siegel aus Bo azköy II. Die Königssiegel von 1939 und die übrigen Hieroglyphensiegel.Berlin: Im Selbstverlage des Herausgebers.
––– , 1967, ‘The Hittite Conquest of Cyprus Reconsidered’. Jour-nal of Near Eastern Studies 26, 2. Pp. 73-81.
––– , 1983, ‘The Hittites and the Aegean World: Part 1. The Ahhi-yawa Problem Reconsidered’. American Journal of Archae-ology 87. Pp. 133-138.
–––, 1992, ‘A new look at one A®®iyawa text’. In: Hittite and Other Anatolian and Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Sedat Alp, eds. Heinrich Otten, Hayri Ertem, Ekrem Akurgal & Ay-gül Süel. Pp. 235-243. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
Haas, Otto, 1966, Die Phrygischen Sprachdenkmäler. Linguistique
153
Balkanique X. Sofia: Academie Bulgare des Sciences.
Haas, Volkert, 2000, ‘Hethitische Bestattungsbräuche’. Altorientalische Forschungen 27, 1. Pp. 52-67.
Hall, Edith, 1989, Inventing the Barbarian, Greek Self-Definition through Tragedy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hall, H.R., 1901-2, ‘Keftiu and the Peoples of the Sea’. Annual of the British School at Athens 8. Pp. 157-189.
––– , 1922, ‘The Peoples of the Sea, A Chapter of the History of Egyptology’. In: Recueil d’Études Égyptologiques dédiées à la mémoire de Jean-François Champollion à l’occasion du centenaire de la lettre à M. Dacier relative à l’alphabet des hiéroglyphes phonétiques lue à l’accadémie des inscriptions et belles lettres le 27 septembre 1822. Pp. 297-329. Paris: Li-brairie ancienne honoré Champion Édouard Champion.
––– , 1926, ‘The Keftians, Philistines and other Peoples of the Le-vant’. In: Cambridge Ancient History II, Chapter 12. Pp. 275-295. Cambridge: At the University Press.
––– , 1929, ‘The Caucasian Relations of the Peoples of the Sea’. Klio 22. Pp. 335-344.
Hall, Jonathan M., 1997, Ethnic identity in Greek antiquity. Cam-bridge: University Press.
––– , 2002, Hellenicity, Between Ethnicity and Culture. Chicago-London: The University of Chicago Press.
Hallager, Erik, 1992, ‘New Linear B Tablets from Chania’. Kad-mos 31. Pp. 61-87.
Harrisson, Richard J., 1988, The Beaker Folk, Copper Age ar-chaeology in Western Europe. London: Thames and Hudson.
Hawkins, John David, 1990, ‘The New Inscription from the Süd-burg of Bo azköy-Hattusa’. Archäologischer Anzeiger 1990. Pp. 305-314.
––– , 1995, The Hieroglyphic Inscription of the Sacred Pool Com-plex at Hattusa (SÜDBURG), With an Archaeological Intro-duction by Peter Neve. Studien zu den Bo azköy-Texten, Beiheft 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
––– , 2000, Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, Vol. I: Inscriptions of the Iron Age, Parts 1-3. Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter.
––– , 2003, ‘Scripts and Texts’. The Luwians, Handbook of Orien-tal Studies 68, ed. H. Craig Melchert. Pp. 128-169. Leiden-Boston: Brill.
Heinhold-Krahmer, Susanne, 1977, Arzawa, Untersuchungen zu seiner Geschichte nach den hethitischen Quellen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
––– , 2003, ‘A®®iyawa—Land der homerischen Achäer im Krieg mit Wiluša?’. In: Der neue Streit um Troia, Eine Bilanz, Hrsg. Christoph Ulf . Pp. 193-214. München: C.H. Beck.
Helck, Wolfgang, 1971, Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz (2., verbesserte Auflage).
––– , 1986, [Review of G.A. Lehmann, Die mykenisch-
frühgriechische Welt und der östliche Mittelmeerraum in der Zeit der ‘Seevölker’-Invasionen um 1200 v. Chr.]. Gnomon58. Pp. 626-629.
Helck, Wolfgang, & Otto, Eberhard, 1984, Lexicon der Ägyptologie, Band V, s.v. Seevölker. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Hellbing, Lennart, 1979, Alasia Problems. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 57. Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag.
Hencken, Hugh, 1955, Indo-European Languages and Archaeology. Memoirs of the American Anthropological As-sociation 57, No. 84.
––– , 1968, Tarquinia, Villanovans and Early Etruscans. Cam-bridge Massachusetts: The Peabody Museum.
Henning, W.B., 1978, ‘The First Indo-Europeans in History’. In: Society and History, Essays in Honor of Karl August Wittfogel, ed. G.L. Ulmen. Pp. 215-230. The Hague-Paris-New York: Mouton Publishers.
Herbig, Gustav, 1914, ‘Kleinasiatisch-etruskische Namengleichungen. Sitzungsberichte der bayrischen Akademie, Phil.-Hist. Klasse. Pp. 3-39.
Herbordt, Suzanne, 1998, ‘Seals and Sealings of Hittite Officials from the Ni antepe Archive, Bo azköy’. In: Acts of the IIIrd International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum, September 16-22, 1996, eds. Sedat Alp & Aygül Süel. Pp. 309-318. Ankara.
Herscher, Ellen Carol, 1978, The Bronze Age Cemetery at Lapithos, Vrysi tou Barba, Cyprus, Parts 1-2. [No place:] University of Pennsylvania (PH.D.).
Heuck Allen, Susan, 1994, ‘Trojan Grey Ware at Tel Miqne-Ekron’. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Re-search 293. Pp. 39-51.
Heurgon, Jacques, 1969, ‘Les Dardaniens en Afrique’. Revue des Études Latines 47. Pp. 284-294.
––– , 1992, ‘Les Étrusques et l’Europe’. Archeologia 284. Pp. 19-24.
Hiller, Stefan, 1985, [Review of Jan G.P. Best, Supplementum Epi-graphicum Mediterraneum ad Talanta, Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 13 (1981)]. Ar-chiv für Orientforschung 32. Pp. 125-127.
––– , 1996, ‘Knossos and Pylos, A Case of Special Relationship’. Cretan Studies 5. Pp. 73-83.
Hitzig, Ferdinand, 1845, Urgeschichte und Mythologie der Philister. Leipzig: Weidmann.
Hoftijzer, J., & Soldt, W.H. van, 1998, ‘Texts from Ugarit Pertain-ing to Seafaring’. In: Seagoing Ships & Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant, ed. Shelley Wachsmann. Pp. 333-344. College Station: Texas A & M University Press.
Högemann, Peter, 2000, ‘Der Iliasdichter, Anatolien und der griechische Adel’. Klio 82. Pp. 7-39.
Hölbl, Günther, 1983, ‘Die historischen Aussagen der Ägyptischen Seevölkerinschriften’. In: Griechenland, Die
154
Ägäis und die Levante während der “Dark Ages” vom 12. bis zum 9. Jh. v. Chr., Akten des Symposions von Stift Zwettl (NÖ), 11.-14. Oktober 1980, Hrsg. Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy. Pp. 121-143. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Holloway, R. Ross, 1981, Italy and the Aegean 3000-700 B.C. Louvain-la-Neuve: Collège Erasme.
Hood, Sinclair, 1974, The Home of the Heroes, The Aegean before the Greeks. London: Thames and Hudson (reprinted version).
Hope Simpson, Richard, 1981, Mycenaean Greece. New Jersey: Noyes Press.
Hope Simpson, Richard, & Dickinson, Oliver T.K.P., 1979, AGazetteer of Aegean Civilisation in the Bronze Age I: The Mainland and islands. Göteborg: Paul Åström Förlag.
Houwink ten Cate, Philo Hendrik Jan, 1961, The Luwian Popula-tion Groups of Lycia and Cilicia Aspera during the Hellenis-tic Period. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Isaac, Benjamin, 2004, The Invention of Racism in Classical An-tiquity. Princeton-Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Jeffery, Lilian H., 1998, The Local Scrips of Archaic Greece, A study of the origin of the Greek alphabet and its development from the eighth to the fifth centuries B.C. Oxford: Clarendon Press (Revised edition with a supplement by Alan W. Johns-ton).
Johnston, Alan W., 1983, ‘The Extent and Use of Literacy; the Ar-chaeological Evidence’. In: The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century B.C.: Tradition and Innovation, Proceedings of the Second International Symposium at the Swedish Insti-tute in Athens, 1-5 June, 1981, ed. Robin Hägg. Pp. 63-68. Stockholm: Paul Åströms Förlag.
Jones, Siân, 1997, The Archaeology of Ethnicity, Constructing Identities in the past and present. London-New York: Routledge.
Kaczynska, Elwira, 2002, ‘Greek ‘Battle, Fight, Combat’: A Term of Minoan Origin?’ Kadmos 41. Pp. 137-140.
Kahl, Jochem, 1995, ‘Les témoignages textuels sur les Shardana, Annexe à Oswald Loretz, Les Šerdan et la fin d’Ougarit, À propos des documents d’Égypte, de Byblos et d’Ougarit rela-tifs aux Shardana’. In: Le pays d’Ougarit autour de 1200 av. J.-C., Ras Shamra-Ougarit XI, Actes du Colloque Internatio-nal, Paris, 28 juin-1er juillet 1993, eds. Marguerite Yon, Mau-rice Sznycer & Pierre Bordreuil. Pp. 137-140. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilations.
Kammenhuber, Annelies, 1940, ‘Marduk und Santa in der hethitischen Überlieferung des 2. Jt.s v. Chr.’. Orientalia 59. Pp. 188-195.
Karageorghis, Vassos, 1986, ‘“Barbarian” Ware in Cyprus’. In: Acts of the International Symposium “Cyprus between the Orient and Occident”, Nicosia, 8-14 September 1985, ed. V. Karageorghis. Pp. 246-258. Nicosia: Zavallis Press Ltd.
––– , 1992, ‘The Crisis Years: Cyprus’. In: The Crisis Years, The 12th Century B.C. From Beyond the Danube to the Tigris,
eds. William A. Ward & Martha Sharp Joukowsky. Pp. 79-86. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Kaspar, S., 1970, ‘Eine Nekropole Nordwestlich von Soma’. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts,Archäologischer Anzeiger 85. Pp. 71-83.
Katzenstein, H. Jacob, 1973, The History of Tyre, From the Begin-ning of the Second Millennium B.C.E. until the Fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 538 B.C.E. Jerusalem: The Schocken Institute for Jewish Research.
Keen, Antony G., 1998, Dynastic Lycia, A Political History of the Lycians & Their Relations with Foreign Powers, c. 545-362 BC. Leiden-Boston-Köln: Brill.
Kenna, Victor E.G., 1971, Catalogue of the Cypriote Seals of the Bronze Age in the British Museum. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology XX, 3. Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag.
Kennedy, D.A., 1959, ‘Sceaux hittites conservés à Paris’. RevueHittite et Asianique 65. Pp. 147-172.
Killebrew, A.E., Lehmann, G., & Artzy, M., in preparation, Philis-tines and other “Sea Peoples”: In Text and Archaeology, Lei-den: Brill.
Kimmig, Wolfgang, 1964, ‘Seevölkerbewegung und Urnenfelderkultur, Ein Archäologisch-Historischer Versuch’. In: Studien aus Alteuropa I (= Festschrift K. Tackenberg). Pp. 220-283.
Kinch, K.F., 1888, ‘Die Sprache der sicilischen Elymer’. Zeitschrift für Numismatik 16. Pp. 187-207.
Kitchen, Kenneth A., 1973, ‘The Philistines’. In: Peoples of Old Testament Times, ed. D.J. Wiseman. Pp. 53-78. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press.
––– , 1983, Ramesside Inscriptions V. Oxford: Blackwell.
––– , 1989, ‘The Basics of Egyptian Chronology in Relation to the Bronze Age’. In: High, Middle or Low, Acts of an Interna-tional Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the Uni-versity of Gothenburg, 20th-22nd August 1987. Pp. 37-55. Gothenburg: Paul Åströms Förlag.
Kitson, Peter R., 1997, ‘Reconstruction, typology, and the “origi-nal homeland” of the Indo-Europeans’. In: Linguistic Recon-struction and Typology, ed. Jacek Fisiak. Pp. 183-239. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Krahe, Hans, 1962, ‘Die Struktur der alteuropäischen Hydronymie’. Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz, Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, Jahrgang 1962, Nr. 5. Pp. 287-341.
––– , 1964, Unsere ältesten Flussnamen. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Kullmann, W., 1999, ‘Homer und Kleinasien’. In: Euphrosyne, Studies in Ancient Epic and Its Legacy in Honor of Dimitris N. Maronitis, Hrsg. J.N. Kazazis & A. Rengakos. Pp. 189-201. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Laroche, Emmanuel, 1957, ‘Notes de Toponymie Anatolienne’. In:
155
Mn mis Charin, Gedenkschrift Paul Kretschmer, 2. Mai 1866– 9. März 1956. Pp. 1-7. Wien: Bruder Hollinek; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
––– , 1958, ‘Études sur les hiéroglyphes hittites’. Syria 35. Pp. 252-283.
––– , 1960a, Les hiéroglyphes hittites. Première partie: L’écriture.Paris: Éditions du centre national de la recherche scientifique.
––– , 1960b, ‘Koubaba, déesse anatolienne, et le problème des origines de Cybèle’. In: Éléments orienteaux dans la religion Grecque ancienne, Colloque de Strasbourg, 22-24 mai 1958.Pp. 113- 128. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
––– , 1960c, ‘Comparaison du Louvite et du Lycien II’. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 55. Pp. 155-185.
––– , 1961a, ‘Études de Toponymie Anatolienne’. Revue Hittite et Asianique 69. Pp. 57-91.
––– , 1961b, ‘Réflexions sur des problèmes de linguistique étrus-que’. Revue Études Latines 38. Pp. 70-72.
––– , 1966, Les Noms des Hittites. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck.
––– , 1971, Catalogue des Textes Hittites (= CTH). Paris: Éditions Klincksieck.
Latacz, Joachim, 2003, Troia und Homer, Der Weg zur Lösung eines alten Rätsels. München: Piper Verlag GmbH (Taschenbuchausgabe).
Lehmann, Gustav Adolf, 1970, ‘Der Untergang des hethitischen Grossreiches und die neuen Texte aus Ugarit’. Ugarit-Forschungen 2. Pp. 29-73.
––– , 1979, ‘Die Šikal y —Ein neues Zeugnis zu den “Seevölker”- heerfahrten im späten 13. Jh. v. Chr. (RS 34.129)’. Ugarit- Forschungen 11. Pp. 481-494.
––– , 1983, ‘Zum Auftreten von “Seevölker”-Gruppen im östlichen Mittelmeerraum—Eine Zwischenbilanz’. In: Griechenland, Die Ägäis und die Levante während der “Dark Ages” vom 12. bis zum 9. Jh. v. Chr., Akten des Symposions von Stift Zwettl (NÖ), 11.-14. Oktober 1980, Hrsg. Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy. Pp. 79-97. Wien: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
––– , 1985, Die mykenisch-frühgriechische Welt und der östliche Mittelmeerraum in der Zeit der “Seevölker”-Invasionen um 1200 v. Chr. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
––– , 1996, ‘Umbrüche und Zäsuren im östlichen Mittelmeerraum und Vorderasien zur Zeit der “Seevölker”-Invasionen um und nach 1200 v. Chr.’. Historische Zeitschrift 262, 1. Pp. 1-38.
Lejeune, Michel, 1969, ‘Observations sur l’épigraphie Élyme’.Revue des Études Latines 47. Pp. 133-183.
Leonhard, Walther, 1911, Hettiter und Amazonen, Die griechische Tradition über die “Chatti” und ein Versuch zu ihrer historischen Verwertung. Leipzig-Berlin: Druck und Verlag von B.G. Teubner.
Lepsius, Richard, 1900, Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien III. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung.
Leumann, Manu, 1977, Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre.München: C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Lichtenberger, Reinhold Freihernn von, 1911, Einflüsse der ägäischen Kultur auf Ägypten und Palästina. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung.
Liddell, Henri George, Scott, Robert, & Jones, Henry Stuart (= LSJ), A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press.
Littauer, Mary A., & Crouwel, Joost H., 1979, Wheeled Vehicles and Ridden Animals in the Ancient Near East. Leiden-Köln: E.J. Brill.
Littleton, C. Scott, 1973, The New Comparative Mythology, An Anthroplogical Assessment of the Theories of Georges Dumé-zil. Berkeley-Los Angeles: University of California Press (re-vised edition).
Lochner-Hüttenbach, Fritz, 1960, Die Pelasger. Wien: Gerold & Co.
Lomas, Kathryn, 1997, ‘Introduction’. In: Gender & Ethnicity in ancient Italy, Accordia Specialist Studies on Italy, Vol. 6, eds. Tim Cornell & Kathryn Lomas. Pp. 1-8. University of Lon-don: Accordia Research Institute.
Loretz, Oswald, 1995, ‘Les Šerdan et la fin d’Ougarit, Apropos des documents d’Égypte, de Byblos et d’Ougarit relatifs aux Shardana’. In: Le pays d’Ougarit autour de 1200 av. J.-C., Ras Shamra-Ougarit XI, Actes du Colloque International, Pa-ris, 28 juin-1er juillet 1993, eds. Marguerite Yon, Maurice Sznycer & Pierre Bordreuil. Pp. 125-136. Paris: Éditions Re-cherche sur les Civilisations.
Lorimer, H.L., 1950, Homer and the Monuments. London: Mac-millan & Co. Ltd.
Loulloupis, M., 1973, ‘Mycenaean ‘Horns of Consecration’ in Cy-prus’. In: Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium “The Mycenaeans in the Eastern Mediterranean”, Nicosia 27th March–2nd April 1972. Pp. 225-244, Pls. XXVIII-XXIX. Nicosia: Zavallis Press Ltd.
Lynn, Chris, & Miller, Dean , 1999, ‘Three Carved Vases from the Minoan Villa at Aghia Triada, Crete: a Trifunctional Set?’ Journal of Indo-European Studies 27, 3-4. Pp. 335-353.
Macalister, R.A. Stewart, 1913, The Philistines, Their History and Civilization. London: Oxford University Press.
Machinist, Peter, 2000, ‘Biblical Traditions: The Philistines and Israelite History’. In: The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment, ed. Eliezer D. Oren. Pp. 53-83. Philadelphia: The University Museum.
Malbran-Labat, Florence, 1991, ‘Lettres’. In: Une bibliothèque au sud de la ville, Ras Shamra-Ougarit VII, ed. Pierre Bordreuil. Pp. 27-64. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
Mallory, James P., 1989, In Search of the Indo-Europeans. Lan-guage, Archaeology and Myth. London: Thames and Hudson.
Manning, Sturt W., 1999, A Test of Time, The Volcano of Thera and the Chronology and History of the Aegean and east Medi-
156
terranean in the mid second millennium BC. Oxbow Books: Oxford and Oakville.
Maresch, Gustav, 1957, ‘Etruskisch avil’. In: Mn mis Charin, Gedenkschrift Paul Kretschmer, 2. Mai 1866—9. März 1956.Pp. 27-8. Wien: Otto Harrassowitz Wiesbaden-Bruder Hollinek Wien.
Marinatos, Spyridon, 1973, ‘The first ‘Mycenaeans’ in Greece’. In: Bronze Age Migrations in the Aegean, Archaeological and linguistic problems in Greek prehistory, eds. R.A. Crossland & Ann Birchall. Pp. 107-113. London: Duckworth.
Maspero, Gaston, 1873, [Review of Chabas’ Études]. Revue Criti-que d’Histoire et de Littérature. Pp. 81-86.
––– , 1875, Histoire Ancienne des peuples de l’orient classique.Paris: Librairie Hachette et Cie.
––– , 1878, [Review of de Rougé’s Inscriptions hiéroglyphique].Revue Critique d’Histoire et de Litterature. Pp. 317-321.
––– , 1881, ‘Notes sur quelques points de Grammaire et d’Histoire’. Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Alter-thumskunde 19. Pp. 116-131.
––– , 1910, The Struggle of the Nations, Egypt, Syria and Assyria.London: Society for promoting Christian knowledge.
Masson, Olivier, 1983, Les inscriptions Chypriotes syllabiques.Paris: Éditions E. de Boccard.
Matsas, D., 1991, ‘Samothrace and the Northeastern Aegean: the Minoan Connection’. Studia Troica 1. Pp. 159-179.
Mayrhofer, Manfred, 1974, ‘Die Arier im vorderen Orient—Ein Mythos?’. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften,Philosophisch-historische Sitzungsberichte, Bd. 294, Abhandlung 3. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Mee, Christopher, 1978, ‘Aegean Trade and Settlement in Anatolia in the Second Millennium BC’. Anatolian Studies28. Pp. 121-156.
Meer, L. Bauke van der, 1992, ‘The Stele of Lemnos and Etruscan Origins’. Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden 72. Pp. 61-71.
Mégalomatis, Cosimo. 1996, ‘Les peuples de la mer et la fin du monde mycenien, essai de synthese historique’. Atti e Memo-rie del Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, Roma-Napoli, 14-20 ottobre. Pp. 805-814. Roma: Gruppo Editoriale Internazionale.
Meid, Wolfgang, 1993, Die erste Botorrita-Inschrift, Interpreta-tion eines keltiberischen Sprachdenkmals. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.
––– , 1996, Kleinere keltiberische Sprachdenkmäler. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.
––– , 2000, ‘Forschungsbericht, Altkeltische Sprachen, 3. Keltiberisch’. Kratylos 45. Pp. 1-28.
Melchert, H. Craig, 1993, Lycian Lexicon. Chapel Hill, N.C.
––– , 2002, ‘The God Sanda in Lycia?’. In: Silva Anatolica, Ana-
tolian Studies Presented to Maciej Popko on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. Piotr Taracha. Pp. 241-251. Warsaw: Agade.
Mellaart, James, 1971, ‘Anatolia c. 4000-2300 B.C.’. CambridgeAncient History I, 2. Pp. 363-416. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (3rd edition).
Mellink, Machteld J. , 1972, ‘Excavations at Karata -Semayük and Elmalı, Lycia , 1971’. American Journal of Archaeology 76. Pp. 257-269.
––– , 1995, ‘Homer, Lycia, and Lukka’. In: The Ages of Homer, A Tribute to Emily Townsend Vermeule, eds. Jane B. Carter & Sarah P. Morris. Pp. 33-43. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Mercer, S.A.B., 1939, The Tell El-Amarna Tablets I-II. Toronto: Macmillan.
Meriggi, Piero, 1937, ‘Osservazioni sull’Etrusco’. Studi Etruschi11. Pp. 129-201.
––– , 1967, Manuale di eteo geroglifico. Parte II: Testi-1e serie, I testi neo-etei più o meno completi. Roma: Edizioni dell’Ateneo.
––– , 1980, Schizzo grammaticale dell’Anatolico. Roma: Accade-mia Nazionale dei Lincei.
Merlo, Paolo, 1998, La dea Ašratum – Atiratu – Ašera. Un contri-buto allo storia della religione semitica del Nord. Mursia: Pontificia Università Lateranense.
Mertens, Paul, 1960, ‘Les Peuples de la Mer’. Chronique d’Égypte35. Pp. 65-88.
Meijer, Louk C., 1982, Eine strukturelle Analyse der Hagia Triada-Tafeln—Ein Beitrag zur Linear A-Forschung.Publications of the Henri Frankfort Foundation 8. Amsterdam: B.R. Grüner Publishing Co.
Meyer, Eduard, 1928, Geschichte des Altertums 2, 1., Stuttgart-Berlin: J.G. Cotta’sche Buchhandlung, Nachfolger.
––– , 1968, Geschichte des Koenigreichs Pontos. Chicago: Argonaut, Inc., Publishers (Reprint of the Leipzig 1879 Edition).
Monte, Giuseppe F. del, & Tischler, Johann, 1978, Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der hethitischen Texte. Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes 6. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert.
Moran, William L., 1992, The Amarna Letters. Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkin’s University Press.
Mühlestein, H., 1956, Die oka-Tafeln von Pylos. Basel: Selbstver-lag.
Muhly, J.D., 1979,[Review of: Sanders, N.K., The Sea Peoples].American Journal of Archaeology, 83: 355-356.
Muhly, J.D., Maddin, R., & Stech, T., 1988, ‘Copper Ox-hide In-gots and the Bronze Age Metal Trade’. Report of the Depart-ment of Antiquities, Cyprus. Pp. 281- 298.
Müller, Karl Otfried, & Deecke, Wilhelm, 1877, Die Etrusker I-II.Stuttgart: Verlag von Albert Heitz.
157
Müller-Karpe, Hermann, 1959, Beiträge zur Chronologie der Urnenfelderzeit Nördlich und Südlich der Alpen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Neumann, Günter, 1991, ‘Hethitisch negna- ‘Bruder’’. HistorischeSprachforschung 104. Pp. 63-66.
––– , 1999, ‘Wie haben die Troer im 13. Jahrhundert gesprochen?’. Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft, Neue Folge 23. Pp. 15-23.
Nibbi, Alexandra, 1975, The Sea Peoples and Egypt. Park Ridge, New Jersey: Noyes Press.
Niemeier, Wolf-Dietrich, 1996, ‘A Linear A Inscription from Mi-letos (MIL Zb 1)’. Kadmos 35. Pp. 87-99.
––– , 1998a, ‘The Mycenaeans in Western Anatolia and the Prob-lem of the Origins of the Sea Peoples’. Mediterranean Peo-ples in Transition, Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE, In honor of Professor Trude Dothan, eds. Seymor Gitin, Ami-hai Mazar & Ephraim Stern. Pp. 17-65. Jerusalem: Israel Ex-ploration Society.
––– , 1998b, ‘Mycenaeans and Hittites in War in Western Asia Minor’. In: Polemos, Le contexte guerrier en Égée à l’âge du Bronze, Actes de la 7e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Université de Liège, 14-17 avril 1998, ed. Robert Laffineur. Pp. 141- 156. Eupen: Université de Liège-Program in Aegean Scripts and Prehistory, The University of Texas Austin.
Nilsson, Martin Persson, 1927, The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and its Survival in Greek Religion. Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup.
––– , 1933, Homer and Mycenae. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.
Noort, Ed, 1994, Die Seevölker in Palästina. Kampen: Kok Pharos Publishing House.
Nougayrol, Jean, 1968, ‘Ugarit et Alašia’. Ugaritica V, ed. Claude F.A. Schaeffer. Pp. 83-89. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.
Olivier, Jean-Pierre, & Godart, Louis, 1996, Corpus Hieroglyphi-carum Inscriptionum Cretae. Paris: De Boccard Édition-Diffusion.
Onyshkevych, Lada, 2002, ‘Interpreting the Berezan Bone Graf-fito’. In: Oikistes, Studies in Constitutions, Colonies, and Military Power in the Ancient World Offered in Honor of A.J. Graham, eds. Vanessa B. Gorman & Eric W. Robinson. Pp. 161-179. Leiden-Boston-Köln: Brill.
Oren, Eliezer, 1997, The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeo-logical Perspectives. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum.
Ormerod, H.A., 1924, Piracy in the Ancient World. Liverpool: University Press of Liverpool.
Otten, Heinrich, 1988, Die Bronzetafel aus Bo azköy, Ein Staatsvertrag Tud®alijas IV. Studien zur Bo azköy Texte, Beiheft 1, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
––– , 1989, ‘Die hieroglyphen-luwische Inschrift, Ausgrabungen in Bo azköy-Hattuša 1988’. Archäologischer Anzeiger 1989. Pp. 333-337.
––– , 1993, ‘Das Land Lukka in der hethitischen Topographie’. In: Akten des II. Internationalen Lykien-Symposions, eds. Jürgen Borchhardt & Gerhard Dobesch. Pp. 117-121. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Owens, Gareth Alun, 1996, ‘New Evidence for Minoan ‘Deme-ter’’. Kadmos 35. Pp. 172- 175.
––– , 1999, ‘The Structure of the Minoan Language’. Journal of Indo-European Studies 27: 1&2, Spring/Summer. Pp. 15-49.
––– , 2000, ‘Pre-Hellenic Language(s) of Crete: Debate and Discussion, Comments on the Paper by Yves Duhoux in The Journal of Indo-European Studies Volume 26: 1-2, Spring/Summer 1998, 1-40’. Journal of Indo-European Stud-ies 28: 1-2, Spring/Summer. Pp. 237-253.
Page, Denys L., 1959, History and the Homeric Iliad. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Pallottino, Massimo, 1968, Testimonia Linguae Etruscae (= TLE).Firenze: «La Nuova Italia» Editrice (2a edizione).
––– , 1988, Etruskologie, Geschichte und Kultur der Etrusker.Basel-Boston-Berlin: Birkhäuser Verlag.
Palmer, Leonard Robert, 1956, ‘Military Arrangements for the De-fence of Pylos’. Minos 4. Pp. 120-145.
––– , 1965, Mycenaeans and Minoans. Aegean Prehistory in the Light of the Linear B Tablets. London: Faber and Faber Ltd (second edition).
––– , 1998, The Interpretation of Mycenaean Greek Texts. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press (Sandpiper reprint).
Papadimitriou, Nikolas, 2001, Built Chamber Tombs of Middle and Late Bronze Age Date in Mainland Greece and the Is-lands. BAR International Series 925. Oxford.
Parker, Victor, 1999, ‘Die Aktivitäten der Mykenäer in der Ostägäis im Lichte der Linear B Tafeln’. In: Floreant Studia Mycenaea, Akten des X. Internationalen Mykenologischen Colloquiums in Salzburg vom 1.-5. Mai 1995, Hrsg. Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy, Stefan Hiller & Oswald Panagl. Pp. 495-502. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Pålsson Hallager, Birgitta, 1985, ‘Crete and Italy in the Late Bronze Age III Period’. American Journal of Archaeology 89. Pp. 293-305.
Peden, A.J., 1994, Egyptian Historical Inscriptions of the Twenti-eth Dynasty. Jonsered: Paul Åströms förlag.
Pedley, John Griffiths, 1972, Ancient Literary Sources on Sardis.Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Pfuhl, Ernst, 1923, Malerei und Zeichnung der Griechen I.München: F. Bruchmann A.-G.
Pilides, D., 1994, Handmade Burnished Wares of the Late Bronze Age in Cyprus. Studies in Mediterranean Archeaology 105. Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag.
Poetto, Massimo, 1993, L’iscrizione luvio-geroglifica di Yalburt, Nuove acquisizioni relative alla geografia dell’anatolia sud-
158
occidentale. Studia Mediterranea 8. Pavia: Gianni Iuculano Editore.
Pohl, Ingrid, 1972, The Iron Age Necropolis of Sorbo at Cerveteri.Skrifter Utgivna Svenska Institutet I Rom, 4º, 32. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet I Rom.
Pokorny, Julius, 1994, Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörter-buch. Tübingen-Basel: Francke Verlag (3. Auflage).
Polomé, Edgar C., 1982a, ‘Balkan Languages (Illyrian, Thracian and Daco-Moesian)’. Cambridge Ancient History III, 1. Pp. 866-888. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (3rd edi-tion).
––– , 1982b, ‘Indo-European Culture, With Special Attention to Religion’. In: The Indo-Europeans of the Fourth and Third Millennia, ed. Edgar C. Polomé. Pp. 156-172. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers, Inc.
Pope, Maurice, 1956, ‘Cretan Axe-Heads with Linear A Inscrip-tions’, Annual of the British School at Athens 51. Pp. 132-135.
Popham, Mervyn, 2001, ‘The Collapse of Aegean Civilization at the End of the Late Bronze Age’. In: The Oxford Illustrated History of Prehistoric Europe, ed. Barry Cunliffe. Pp. 277-303. Oxford: Oxford University Press (reissued paperback edition of 1997).
Popham, Mervyn, Touloupa, E., & Sackett, L.H., 1982, ‘The Hero of Lefkandi’. Antiquity 56. Pp. 169-174.
Poultney, James Wilson, 1959, The Bronze Tables of Iguvium. Illi-nois: American Philological Association.
Pritchard, James B., 1969, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press (3rd edition).
Protonotariou-Deilaki, Evangelia, 1990, ‘The Tumuli of Mycenae and Dendra’. In: Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid, Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 11-13 June, 1988, eds. Robin Hägg & Gallög C. Nordquist. Pp. 85-106. Stockholm: Paul Åströms Förlag.
Pugliese Carratelli, Giovanni, 1954, [Review of H. Mühlestein, Olympia in Pylos, Basel 1954]. La Parola del Passato 9. Pp. 468-471.
Pulgram, Ernst, 1978, Italic, Latin, Italian, 600 B.C. to A.D. 1260, Text and commentaries. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universi-tätsverlag.
Radet, Georges, 1892, La Lydie et le monde Grec au temps des Mermnades (687- 546). Paris: Thorin & Fils Éditeurs.
Ranke, Hermann, 1935, Die Ägyptischen Personennamen.Glückstadt: Verlag von J.J. Augustin.
Reden, Sibylle von, 1992, Ugarit und seine Welt, Die Entdeckung einer der ältesten Handelsmetropolen am Mittelmeer. Ber-gisch Gladbach: Gustav Lübbe Verlag.
Redford, Donald B., 1992, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Reinach, A.J., 1910, ‘Le disque de Phaistos et les Peuples de la
mer’. Revue Archéologique 15. Pp. 1-65.
Renfrew, Colin, 1987, Archaeology and Language, The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. London: Jonathan Cape.
Ridgway, David, 1988, ‘Italy from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age’. Cambridge Ancient History IV. Pp. 623-633. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press (2nd edition).
Riemschneider, Margarete, 1954, Die Welt der Hethiter. Zürich: Fretz & Wasmuth Verlag AG.
Risch, Ernst, 1958, ‘L’interprétation de la série des tablettes caractérisées par le mot o-ka (PY AN 519, 654, 656, 657, 661)’. Athenaeum 46. Pp. 334-359.
Rix, Helmut, 1991, Etruskische Texte, Editio minor. I: Einleitung, Konkordanz, Indices, II: Texte. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Ver-lag.
Romey, Kristin, 2003, ‘The Vogelbarke of Medinet Habu’, MA thesis, archaeology, Texas A&M University.
Rosenkranz, Bernhard, 1966, ‘Fluß- und Gewässername in Anatolien’. Beiträge zur Namenforschung, neue Folge 1. Pp. 124-144.
Ross Holloway, R., 1994, The Archaeology of Early Rome and Latium. London-New York: Routledge.
Rougé, Emmanuel de, 1861, Oeuvres Diverses IV.
––– , 1867, ‘Extraits d’un mémoire sur les attaques dirigées contre l’égypte par les peuples de la méditerranée’. Revue Archéologique 16. Pp. 35-45.
Royen, René A. van, & Isaac, Benjamin H., 1979, The Arrival of the Greeks, The Evidence from the Settlements. Publications of the Henri Frankfort Foundation 5. Amsterdam: B.R. Grüner Publishing Co.
Rutter, Jeremy, 1975, ‘Ceramic Evidence for Northern Intruders in Southern Greece at the Beginning of the Late Helladic IIIC Period’. American Journal of Archaeology 79. Pp. 17-32.
Sakellarakis, Iannis, & Olivier, Jean-Pierre, 1994, ‘Un vase en pierre avec inscription en linéaire A du sanctuaire de sommet minoen de Cythère’. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique118. Pp. 343-351.
Sakellariou, Michel B., 1977, Peuples préhelléniques d’origine indo-européenne. Athens: Ekdotikè Athenon S.A.
––– , 1980, Les Proto-Grecs. Athens: Ekdotikè Athenon S.A.
Salmon, Edward Togo, 1988, ‘The Iron Age: The Peoples of It-aly’. Cambridge Ancient History IV. Pp. 676-719. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2nd edition).
Sandars, Nancy K., 1978, The Sea Peoples, Warriors of the an-cient Mediterranean 1250-1150 BC. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd.
––– , 1980, De Zeevolken, Egypte en Voor-Azië bedreigd, 1250-1150 v.C. Haarlem: Fibula-Van Dishoeck.
Sauter, Hermann, 2000, Studien zum Kimmerierproblem.Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 72. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH.
159
Sava , Özkan Sava , 1998, Divine, Personal and Geographical Names in the Anatolian (Hittite-Luwian) Hieroglyphic In-scriptions. Istanbul.
Schachermeyr, Fritz, 1929, Etruskische Frühgeschichte. Berlin-Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
––– , 1950, Poseidon und die Entstehung des griechischen Götterglaubens. Bern: A. Francke AG. Verlag.
––– , 1960, ‘Das Keftiu-Problem und die Frage des ersten Auftretens einer griechischen Herrenschicht im minoischen Kreta’. Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes 45. Pp. 44-68.
––– , 1979, Kreta zur Zeit der Wanderungen, vom Ausgang der minoischen Ära bis zur dorisierung der Insel. Die Ägäische Frühzeit, 3. Band. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
––– , 1980, Griechenland im Zeitalter der Wanderungen, Vom Ende der mykenischen Ära bis auf die Dorier. Die Ägäische Frühzeit, 4. Band. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
–––, 1982, Die Levante im Zeitalter der Wanderungen, Vom 13. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert v.Chr. Die Ägäische Frühzeit, 5. Band. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
–––, 1984, Griechische Frühgeschichte, Ein Versuch, frühe Geschichte wenigstens in Umrissen verständlich zu machen.Wien: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Schermerhorn, R.A., 1970, Comparative Ethnic Relations; A Framework for Theory and Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Schmoll, Ulrich, 1959, Die Sprachen der vorkeltischen Indogermanen Hispaniens und das Keltiberische. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Schnapp-Gourbeillon, Annie, 2002, Aux origines de la Grèce (XIIIe-VIIIe siècles avant notre ère), La genèse du politique.Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Schuler, Einar von, 1965, Die Kaškäer, Ein Beitrag zur Ethnographie des Alten Kleinasien. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Schulman, Alan R., 1987, ‘The Great Historical Inscription of Merneptah at Karnak: A Partial Reappraisal’. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 24. Pp. 21-34.
Schulze, W., 1966, Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen.Berlin-Zürich-Dublin: Weidmann (2. unveränderte Auflage).
Seeger, Ulrich, n.d. [2002], ‘Fonts apt to the transcription of Se-mitic texts’, at: http://semitistik.uni-hd.de/seeger/english/fonts_e.htm#anfang
Segert, Stanislav, 1984, A Basic Grammar of the Ugaritic Lan-guage. Berkeley, California.
Seters, John van, 1966, The Hyksos, A New Investigation. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Shaw, Joseph W., 1998, ‘Kommos in Southern Crete: an Aegean
Barometer for East-West Interconnections’. In: Eastern Medi-terranean, Cyprus- Dodecanese-Crete 16th -6th cent. B.C., Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Rethym-non - Crete in May 1997, eds. V. Karageorghis & N. Chr. Stampolidis. Pp. 13- 27. Athens: University of Crete-A. G. Leventis Foundation.
Shefton, B.B., 1994, ‘Massalia and Colonization in the North-Western Mediterranean’. In: The Archaeology of Greek Colo-nisation, Essays dedicated to Sir John Boardman, ed. Gocha R. Tsetskhladze & Franco De Angelis. Pp. 61-86. Oxford: Ox-ford University Committee for Archaeology.
Shelmerdine, Cynthia W., 1997, ‘The Palatial Bronze Age of the Southern and Central Greek Mainland’. American Journal of Archaeology 101. Pp. 537- 585.
Sihler, Andrew L., 1995, New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. New York-Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Simone, Carlo de, 1996, I Tirreni a Lemnos, Evidenza linguistica e tradizioni storiche. Firenze: Leo Olschki Editore.
Singer, Itamar, 1985, ‘The Beginning of Philistine Settlement in Canaan and the Northern Boundary of Philistia’. Tel Aviv 12. Pp. 109-122.
––– , 1988, ‘The Origin of the Sea Peoples and their Settlement on the coast of Canaan’. In: Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500-1000 B.C.), eds. M. Heltzer & E. Lip-i ski. Pp. 239-250. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters.
Smit, Daniel W., 1989, ‘Mycenaean Penetration into Northern Greece’. In: Thracians and Mycenaeans, Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Thracology, Rotterdam, 24-26 September 1984, eds. Jan Best & Nanny de Vries. Publica-tions of the Henri Frankfort Foundation 11. Pp. 174-180. Lei-den: E.J. Brill.
––– , 1988-9, ‘Achilles, Aeneas and the Hittites, A Hittite model for Iliad XX 191-194?’. Talanta, Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 20-21. Pp. 53-64.
––– , 1990-1, ‘KUB XIV 3 and Hittite History, A Historical Ap-proach to the Tawagalawa-letter’. Talanta, Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 22-23. Pp. 79-111.
Snodgrass, Anthony M., 1978, [Review of: Sanders, N.K., The Sea Peoples]. Antiquity, 52: 161.
––– , 2000, The Dark Age of Greece, An archaeological survey of the eleventh to eighth centuries BC. Edinburgh: At the Uni-versity Press (reprint of 1971 edition).
Snowden, Jr., Frank, 1997, ‘Greeks and Ethiopians’. In: Greeksand Barbarians, Essays on the Interaction between Greeks and Non-Greeks in Antiquity and the Consequences for Euro-centrism, eds. John E. Coleman & Clark A. Waltz. Pp. 103-121. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press.
Sollors, Werner, 1996, Theories of Ethnicity, A Classical Reader.New York: New York University Press.
Somella, Paolo, 1974, ‘Das Heroon des Aeneas und die Topog-raphie des antiken Lavinium’. Gymnasium 81, 4. Pp. 273-297.
160
Sommer, Ferdinand, 1932, Die A®® ijav -Urkunden. München: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Spencer, Nigel, 1995, ‘Early Lesbos between East and West: A ‘Grey Area’ of Aegean Archaeology’. Annual of the British School at Athens 90. Pp. 269-306.
Stadelmann, Rainer, 1969, ‘Die Abwehr der Seevölker unter Ram-ses III’. Saeculum 19. Pp. 156-171.
Stager, Larry, 1998. ‘Forging an Identity: The Emergence of An-cient Israel.’ In: The Oxford History of the Biblical World, ed. M.D. Coogan. Pp. 123-75. New York: Oxford University Press.
Starke, Frank, 1981, ‘Die Keilschrift-luwischen Wörter für Insel und Lampe’. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft95. Pp. 142-152.
––– , 1997, ‘Troia im Kontext des historisch-politischen Umfeldes Kleinasiens im 2. Jahrtausend’. Studia Troica 7. Pp. 447-487.
Steinbauer, Dieter H., 1999, Neues Handbuch des Etruskischen.St. Katharinen: Scripta Mercaturae.
Steiner, Gerd, 1993, ‘Die historische Rolle der “Lukk ”’. In: Akten des II. Internationalen Lykien-Symposions, eds. Jürgen Borchhardt & Gerhard Dobesch. Pp. 123-137. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Strid, Ove, 1999, Die Dryoper, Eine Untersuchung der Überlieferung. Uppsala.
Strange, John, 1980, Kaphtor/Keftiu, A new investigation. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Strobel, August, 1976, Der spätbronzezeitliche Seevölkersturm, Ein Forschungsüberblick mit Folgerungen zur biblischen Exodusthematik. Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Strøm, Ingrid, 1971, Problems Concerning the Origin and Early Development of the Etruscan Orientalizing Style. Odense: Odense University Press.
––– , 1990, ‘Relations between Etruria and Campania around 700 BC’. In: Greek Colonists and Native Populations, ed. Jean-Paul Descoeudres. Pp. 87-97. Canberra: Humanities Research Centre. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Stubbings, Frank H., 1973, ‘The Rise of Mycenaean Civilization’. Cambridge Ancient History II, 1. Pp. 627-658. Cambridge: At the University Press (3rd edition).
Suter, Ann, 2002, The Narcissus and the Pomegranate, An Ar-chaeology of the Homeric Hymn to Demeter. Ann Arbor: Uni-versity of Michigan Press.
Symeonoglou, S., 1973, Kadmeia I, Mycenaean Finds from Thebes, Greece, excavation at 14 Oedipusstreet. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 35. Göteborg: Paul Åströms För-lag.
Teko lu, Recai, & Lemaire, André, 2000, ‘La bilingue royale Lou-vito-Phénicienne de Çineköy’. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 2000. Pp. 961-1006.
Tovar, Antonio, 1977, Krahes alteuropäische Hydronymie und die westindogermanischen Sprachen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
Tsetskhladze, Gocha R., 1994, ‘Greek Penetration of the Black Sea’. In: The Archaeology of Greek Colonisation, Essays dedicated to Sir John Boardman, ed. Gocha R. Tsetskhladze & Franco De Angelis. Pp. 111-135. Oxford: Oxford Univer-sity Committee for Archaeology.
Vagnetti, Lucia, 2000, ‘Western Mediterranean Overview: Penin-sular Italy, Sicily and Sardinia at the Time of the Sea Peoples’. In: The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment, ed. Eliezer D. Oren. Pp. 305-326. Philadelphia: The University Museum.
––– , 2001, ‘Some Observations on Late Cypriot Pottery from the Central Mediterranean’. In: Italy and Cyprus in Antiquity: 1550-450 BC, Proceedings of an International Symposium held at the Italian Academy for Advanced Studies in America at Columbia University, November 16-18, 2000, eds. Larissa Bonfante & Vassos Karageorghis. Pp. 77-96. Nicosia: The Costakis and Leto Severis Foundation.
Vandenabeele, Frieda, 1985, ‘La chronologie des documents en Linéaire A’. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 109. Pp. 3-20.
Vanschoonwinkel, Jacques, 1991, L’Égée et la méditerranée orientale à la fin du IIe millénaire, Témoignages archéologi-ques et sources écrites. Louvain-la-Neuve: Université Catho-lique de Louvain. Providence (Rhode Island): Brown University.
Ventris, Michael, & Chadwick, John, 1973, Documents in Mycenaean Greek. Cambridge: At the University Press (2nd edition).
Vetter, Emile, 1953, Handbuch der italischen Dialekte.Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
Vries, Nanny M.W. de, 1976, ‘Three Twin Catacomb-graves’. In: Pulpudeva, Semaines philippopolitaines de l’histoire et de la culture thrace, Plovdiv, 4-18 octobre 1976. Pp. 210-214.
Vürtheim, J.J.G., 1913, Teukros und Teukrer, Untersuchung der Homerischen und der Nachhomerischen Ueberlieferung.Rotterdam: Verlag W.L. & J. Brusse.
Wachsmann, Shelley, 1998, Seagoing Ships & Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant. College Station: Texas A & M University Press.
––– , 2000, ‘To the Sea of the Philistines’. In: The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment, ed. Eliezer D. Oren. Pp. 103-143. Philadelphia: The University Museum.
Wainwright, G.A., 1959, ‘The Teresh, the Etruscans and Asia Mi-nor’. Anatolian Studies 9. Pp. 197-213.
––– , 1961, ‘Some Sea-Peoples’. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology47. Pp. 71-90.
––– , 1962, ‘A Teucrian at Salamis in Cyprus’. Journal of Hellenic Studies 83. Pp. 146-151.
161
Waldbaum, Jane C., 1966, ‘Philistine Tombs at Tell Fara and their Aegean Prototypes’. American Journal of Archaeology 70. Pp. 331-340.
Warren, Peter, 1972, Myrtos, An Early Bronze Age Settlement inCrete. Oxford: Thames and Hudson, The British School of Archaeology at Athens.
Warren, Peter, & Hankey, Vronwy, 1989, Aegean Bronge Age Chronology. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press.
Watkins, Calvert, 1986, ‘The Language of the Trojans’. In: Troyand the Trojan War, A Symposium held at Bryn Mawr Col-lege, October 1984, ed. Machteld Mellink. Pp. 45-62. Bryn Mawr, P.A.: Bryn Mawr College.
Webster, Thomas B.L., 1960, From Mycenae to Homer. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd. (2nd edition).
Wees, Hans van, 1992, Status Warriors, War Violence and Society in Homer and History. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, Publisher.
Weidner, Ernst F., 1939, ‘Jojachim, König von Juda, in babylonischen Keilschrifttexten’. In: Mélanges Syriens offerts à Monsieur René Dussaud, Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique XXX. Pp. 923-935. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.
Whatmough, Joshua, 1968, The Pre-Italic Dialects of Italy.Hildesheim: Georg-Olm Verlagsbuchhandlung (Reprograhischer Nachdruck der Ausgabe Cambridge 1933).
Widmer, W., 1975, ‘Zur Darstellung der Seevölker am Großen Tempel von Medinet Habu’. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache 102. Pp. 67-77.
Wiesner, Joseph, 1968, Fahren und Reiten, Archaeologia Homerica, Denkmäler und das frühgriechische Epos, Band I, Kapitel F, Hrsg. Friedrich Matz & Hans-Günter Buchholz. Göttingen: Van den Hoeck & Ruprecht.
Woudhuizen, Fred C., 1982-3, ‘Etruscan Origins: The Epigraphic Evidence’. Talanta, Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 14-15. Pp. 91-117.
––– , 1984-5a, ‘Lydian: Separated from Luwian by three signs’. Talanta, Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 16-17. Pp. 91-113.
––– , 1984-5b, ‘Origins of the Sidetic Script’. Talanta, Proceed-ings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 16-17. Pp. 115- 127.
––– , 1989, ‘Thracians, Luwians and Greeks in Bronze Age Cen-tral Greece’. In: Thracians and Mycenaeans, Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Thracology, Rotterdam, 24-26 September 1984, eds. Jan Best & Nanny de Vries. Pub-lications of the Henri Frankfort Foundation 11. Pp. 191- 204. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
––– , 1990, ‘The Sardis Bilingue Reconsidered’. Orpheus, Journal of Indo-European, Palaeo-Balkan and Thracian Studies 0. Pp. 90-106.
––– , 1990-1, ‘The Dawn of Indo-European Literacy’. Talanta, Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical So-
ciety 22-23. Pp. 139-149.
––– , 1992a, The Language of the Sea Peoples. Publications of the Henri Frankfort Foundation 12. Amsterdam: Najade Press bv.
––– , 1992b, Linguistica Tyrrhenica, A Compendium of Recent Re-sults in Etruscan Linguistics. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, Pub-lisher.
––– , 1992c, ‘Evidence of Bilinguism in Cretan Hieroglyphic’. Cretan Studies 3. Pp. 191-201; Pls. XXIV-XXVII.
––– , 1992-3, ‘On the Dating of Luwian Great Kings’. Talanta,Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical So-ciety 24-25. Pp. 167-201.
––– , 1993a, ‘Old Phrygian: Some Texts and Relations’. Journal of Indo-European Studies 21. Pp. 1-25.
––– , 1993b, ‘Historical Backgrounds to the Old Phrygian-Greek Linguistic Relationship’. In: Atti del IVº Congresso Internazi-onale di Tracologia, Palma de Mallorca 24-28 March 1992,ed. Alexander Fol. Pp. 377-394. Roma: Nagard.
––– , 1994, ‘Tablet RS 20.25 from Ugarit, Evidence of Maritime Trade in the Final Years of the Bronze Age’. Ugarit-Forschungen 26. Pp. 509-538.
––– , 1994-5, ‘Luwian Hieroglyphic Monumental Rock and Stone Inscriptions from the Hittite Empire Period’. Talanta, Pro-ceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society26-27. Pp. 153-217.
––– , 1997, ‘The Bee-sign (Evans no. 86): An Instance of Egyptian Influence on Cretan Hieroglyphic’. Kadmos 36. Pp. 97-110.
––– , 1998, Linguistica Tyrrhenica II, The Etruscan Liturgical Calendar from Capua, Addenda et Corrigenda ad Volume I.Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, Publisher.
––– , 1998-9, ‘Nanas, A Luwian Personal Name in the West’. Ta-lanta, Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Histori-cal Society 30-31. Pp. 175-179.
––– , 2000-1, ‘The Earliest Inscription from Thrace’. In: The Black Sea Region in the Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Period, eds. Gocha R. Tsetskhladze & Jan G. de Boer (= Talanta, Pro-ceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society32-33). Pp. 289-305.
––– , 2001a, [Review of Dieter H. Steinbauer, Neues Handbuch des Etruskischen, Mercaturae, St. Katharinen 1999]. Journal of Indo-European Studies 29. Pp. 499-508.
––– , 2001b, ‘Defining Atlantis in Space and Time’. Ugarit-Forschungen 33. Pp. 605-620.
––– , 2002a, ‘A Minoan Royal Seal Issued at Malia’. Kadmos 41. Pp. 123- 128.
––– , 2002b, ‘The “Trowel”-Sign (Evans no. 18): Another instance of Egyptian influence on Cretan hieroglyphic’. Kadmos 41. Pp. 129-130.
––– , 2004a, Luwian Hieroglyphic Monumental Rock and Stone Inscriptions from the Hittite Empire Period. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft.
162
––– , 2004b, Woudhuizen, Fred C., Selected Luwian Hieroglyphic Texts, Innsbruck: Innbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft.
––– , 2005, Woudhuizen, Fred C., Selected Luwian Hieroglyphic Texts 2, Innsbruck: Innbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft.
––– , forthc. 1, ‘Middle Bronze Age Luwian Hieroglyphic and its Ramifications to Crete’, Acts of the Vth International Con-gress of Hittitology, Çorum, September 2-8, 2002, ed. Aygül Süel.
––– , forthc. 2, ‘Untying the Cretan Hieroglyphic Knot’. AncientWest & East 5.
Wijngaarden, Gert Jan Maria van, 1999, Use and Appreciation of Mycenaean Pottery outside Greece, Contexts of LHI-LHIIIB finds in the Levant, Cyprus and Italy. Amsterdam (disserta-tion).
Wyatt, William F., 1970, ‘The Indo-Europeanization of Greece’. In: Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans, Papers Presented at the Third Indo-European Conference at the University of Pennsylvania, eds. George Cardona, Henry M. Hoenigswald & Alfred Senn. Pp. 89-111. Philadelphia: University of Penn-sylvania Press.
Yon, Marguerite, 1992, ‘The End of the Kingdom of Ugarit’. In: The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C. From Beyond the Danube to the Tigris, eds. William A. Ward & Martha Sharp Joukowsky. Pp. 111-122. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Pub-lishing Company.
Zgusta, Ladislav, 1984, Kleinasiatische Ortsnamen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
163
NEDERLANDSE SAMENVATTING: DE ETNICITEIT VAN DE ZEEVOLKEN
De episode van de Zeevolken aan het eind van de Bronstijd leidt tot de val, dan wel de verzwakking, van de grote rijken in het Nabije Oosten zoals dat van de Hettieten en de Egyptenaren. Tevens betekent het een keerpunt in de historie, als gevolg waarvan het econo-mische en politieke centrum uiteindelijk wordt verlegd van het Nabije Oosten naar de centraal Mediterrane regio.
De centrale vraag in het onderhavige onderzoek is in hoeverre de Zeevolken uit coherente etnische groepen bestaan. Alvorens deze vraag te kunnen beantwoorden, dienen we ons af te vragen: wat is etniciteit en wie waren de Zeevolken?
Voor het begrip etniciteit bestaan mooie moderne de-finities, maar de belangrijkste kenmerken worden in al hun eenvoud opgesomd in een passage uit Herodotos’ Historiën. Daarin laat Herodotos de Atheners aan de voo-ravond van de Perzische inval in Griekenland van 480 voor Christus de Spartaanse gezanten, die bezorgd zijn voor een Atheens vergelijk met de Perzen, als volgt ant-woorden:
“Dat de Lakedaimoniërs bang zijn, dat wij met de barbaren een overeenkomst sluiten, is volkomen be-grijpelijk. Maar gij blijkt de gezindheid der Atheners wel bijzonder slecht te kennen, dat gij u daarover zorgen maakt, want nergens ter wereld bestaat er zoveel goud en er bestaat geen land, hoezeer het in schoonheid en voortreffelijkheid ook alle andere mag overtreffen, dat wij het zouden willen aanne-men als prijs voor Perzische gezindheid en onder-werping van Griekenland. Er zijn immers vele belangrijke redenen, die ons, zelfs al wilden we het, daarvan zouden weerhouden: (…) de bloed- en taal-verwantschap van het Griekse volk, de gemeens-chappelijke heiligdommen der goden en offerplechtigheden en onze gelijksoortige zeden (…).” (Herodotos, Historiën VIII, 144, vertaling Onno Damsté)
De vier kenmerken van etniciteit die hier worden opgesomd zijn: verwantschap in bloed of gezamenlijke herkomst, verwantschap in taal, religie en zeden.
Het bepalen van een etnische identiteit aan de hand van deze vier indicia kan in de moderne tijd vrij gemakke-lijk plaatsvinden, omdat er voldoende informatie is en wij in de meeste gevallen de mensen die het betreft ook zelf nog kunnen vragen wat ze er van vinden. Als we een te-ruggaan in de tijd, echter, valt deze laatste mogelijkheid al snel weg. In het geval van de Zeevolken, wier activiteiten voornamelijk aan het eind van de Bronstijd gesitueerd zijn (ca. 1200 voor Christus), wordt het bepalen van etnische identiteiten nog verder bemoeilijkt omdat we ons niet meer in de historische periode bevinden, maar in de pro-tohistorie. Dit betekent dat er geen contemporaine ges-chiedwerken zijn overgeleverd, zoals dat van de vader van de geschiedenis, Herodotos, over de Perzische oorlo-gen of Thucidydes over de Peloponnesische oorlog, maar dat wij ons moeten behelpen met literaire overleveringen uit de historische periode die lijken terug te verwijzen naar de Bronstijd. Voorzover er in deze periode al cultu-ren bestaan die een vorm van schrift kennen, zoals Egypte met zijn hierogliefen en het Nabije Oosten met zijn cunei-form, kunnen we deze informatie aanvullen met die van de contemporaine inscripties, die echter vaak van propa-gandistische aard zijn. Tenslotte, beschikken we voor de protohistorische periode nog over de archeologische res-ten die door opgravingen aan het licht zijn gekomen en als het ware een gestold surrogaat voor ons historische begrip cultuur leveren, namelijk de materiële cultuur.
Om kort te gaan: voor de periode van de Late Brons-tijd zullen we ons onderzoek naar etniciteit moeten ver-richten met behulp van een aangepaste protohistorische methode, waarin informatie over gezamenlijke herkomst en verwantschap in taal, religie en zeden van de Zeevol-ken voor zover mogelijk wordt ontleend aan latere mythes en sagen, epigrafische bronnen en de resten van materiële culturen. Bij deze methode wordt aangenomen dat een ethnische groep kan worden geïdentificeerd daar waar bijvoorbeeld een bepaalde taalgroep en een bepaalde ma-teriële cultuur met elkaar overlappen (zie figuur 1b). Of dit juist is, kan nooit op waterdichte wijze worden bewe-zen: wij kunnen de betreffende mensen niet meer vragen of zij zich inderdaad allemaal als leden van een etnische identiteit beschouwen. In principe is het mogelijk dat er mensen zijn die tot dezelfde taalgroep behoren en de-zelfde materiële cultuur hebben, maar zich toch tot een
164
hele andere etnische groep rekenen. Evenzeer is het mo-gelijk dat mensen met verschillende talen en materiële culturen zich toch tot dezelfde etnische groep rekenen.
Dit in ogenschouw nemend, dienen wij dan ook afs-tand te nemen van Gustav Kosinna’s opvatting, die later door de Nazi’s is misbruikt voor hun “Blut und Boden” theorie, dat iedere vastomlijnde archeologische cultuur precies samenvalt met het woongebied van een specifieke etnische bevolkingsgroep. Zoals we hebben gezien, is de werkelijkheid veel complexer. Maar om daartegenover te stellen dat het onderscheid van archeologische culturen in geen enkele relatie staat met dat van etnische groeperin-gen die in de betreffende regio gewoond hebben is eve-neens onhoudbaar: op deze manier gooien we het kind weg met het badwater. Per geval zal met een open oog moeten worden bekeken in hoeverre onze protohistorische methode werkt.
De periode van de woelingen van de Zeevolken kent twee duidelijk onderscheiden fasen. De eerste fase bestaat uit een aanval van de Libische koning Meryey op de wes-telijke Nijl delta in het vijfde jaar van de Egyptische farao Merneptah, dat wil zeggen in 1208 voor Christus, waarin de Libische koning zich gesteund weet door huurlingen van de Zeevolken. Onder deze Zeevolken bevinden zich volgens Merneptah’s verslag van de gebeurtenis te Kar-nak in Egyptische hoofdstad Thebe de Sherden, Sheke-lesh, Ekwesh, Lukka en Teresh. Uit de begeleidende tekst blijkt dat het doel van de Libische koning Meryey was om zich met zijn gevolg in Egypte te vestigen, maar helaas voor hem werd de aanval door Merneptah afgeslagen. De tweede fase wordt gekenmerkt door een aanval op de Nijl delta over zee en over land door de Zeevolken in het vijfde en achste jaar van de Egyptische farao Ramesses III, dat wil zeggen in 1179 en 1176 voor Christus. Uit de afbeeldingen van deze gecombineerde zee- en landslag van Ramesses III te Medinet Habu in de Egyptische hoofdstad Thebe (zie figuren 5 en 6) en de begeleidende tekst kunnen we afleiden dat de Zeevolken in kwestie, in navolging van de Libische koning Meryey, nu van plan waren zich te vestigen in het rijke Egypte. Ook in dit ge-val, echter, wordt de aanval afgeslagen door Ramesses III, en vestigen de Zeevolken zich in de regio van waaruit zij hun gecombineerde land- en zeeslag hadden georgani-seerd, de Levant. De in deze fase betrokken Zeevolken waren de Peleset, Tjeker, Shekelesh, Denye(n) en Wes-hesh. Gegeven het feit dat de Shekelesh bij beide fasen van de woelingen van de Zeevolken betrokken waren, kunnen we concluderen dat er in de Egyptische bronnen
dus in totaal negen Zeevolken onderscheiden worden. Alvorens we ons met de vraag kunnen bezighouden
of de Zeevolken hetzij uit coherente etnische groepen bes-tonden hetzij uit bijeengeraapte piraten bendes, dienen we te bepalen waar zij vandaan kwamen. Vanaf het begin van de literatuur over de Zeevolken, die aanvangt met de ont-cijfering van het Egyptisch hiëroglifisch door François Champollion, is hier verschillend over gedacht. De eerste onderzoekers, zoals Emmanuel de Rougé en François Chabas, dachten aan een coalitie van krachten uit zowel de centrale als oostelijke Mediterrane regio op basis van hun associatie van aan de ene kant de Shekelesh, Sherdenen Teresh met Sicilië, Sardinië en Etrurië, en aan de an-dere kant de Ekwesh en Lukka met de Akhaïsche Grieken en de Lyciërs. Daartegenover stelde Gaston Maspero, aan wie we de term “Zeevolken” te danken hebben – een zeer terechte benaming als we bedenken dat deze tegenstan-ders volgens de teksten als Vikingen met schepen overzee van hun eilanden in de Mediterrane regio naar Egypte kwamen om aanvallen uit te voeren – , dat alle Zeevolken uit het oostelijke Mediterrane gebied afkomstig waren. Uitgangspunt voor dit idee was dat de Tyrsenoi of Etrus-ken volgens Herodotos uit westelijk Anatolië (= het hui-dige Turkije) afkomstig waren. In overeenstemming hiermee, associeerde Maspero de Sherden met de latere Lydische hoofdstad Sardis, de Shekelesh met Sagalassos in Pisidië en de Weshesh met Wassos in Karië. Na hun mislukte aanval op Egypte, zouden deze Anatolische Zeevolken naar hun uiteindelijke verblijfplaatsen in Sar-dinië, Sicilië en Etrurië geëmigreerd zijn.
Als we alle beschikbare gegevens met betrekking tot de oorsprong van de verschillende groepen van de Zee-volken op een rijtje zetten, dan blijkt dat Maspero’s pan-oost-Mediterrane these niet houdbaar is. Het is zeker een feit dat een aantal van de Zeevolken uit westelijk Anatolië afkomstig is. Dit geldt voor de Lukka, die niet anders als als Lyciërs geïdentificeerd kunnen worden, en voor de Tjeker, waarin we de Trojaanse Teukriden kunnen her-kennen. Voorts is het zeer aannemelijk dat Ekwesh en Denye(n) concurrerende benamingen voor de Myceense Grieken zijn, corresponderend met de Homerische varia-tie tussen Akhaioi en Danaoi als aanduiding voor deze zelfde bevolkingsgroep (vergelijk in dit verband Germa-nia, Allemagne en Deutschland voor onze oosterburen). Ten derde valt er veel voor te zeggen dat de Peleset of Fi-listijnen, die uit Lydië dan wel Kreta afkomstig zouden zijn, in de Griekse literaire overleveringen als Pelasgen aangeduid worden, een voor-Griekse bevolkingsgroep die
165
tijdens de verovering van het Griekse vasteland door de aartsvaders van de Grieken is uitgeweken naar de Egeïs-che eilanden en westelijk Anatolië en ook voor Kreta geattesteerd is. Omdat het ethnonym Pelasgen in de vroegste Griekse literaire bronnen een concurrerende be-naming voor de Tyrsenoi is, waarmee de Teresh in het al-gemeen geassocieerd worden, staat het buiten kijf dat Maspero de herkomst van laatstgenoemd Zeevolk terecht in het Egeïsche gebied traceert en aanneemt dat deze la-ter, na de Bronstijd, naar Italië zijn verhuist. Maar dit al-les laat onverlet dat er graviterende redenen zijn om met Maspero’s tegenstanders van het eerste uur aan te nemen dat de Sherden, Shekelesh en Weshesh uit de centraal Me-diterrane regio afkomstig zijn en gewoon refereren aan Sardiniërs, Siciliërs en Osken of Ausones. In deze zin is mijn oplossing voor het vraagstuk van de herkomst der Zeevolken een compromis tussen de these van de Rougé en Chabas en de antithese van Maspero: de laatste had ge-lijk in zijn idee over de oorsprong der Etrusken, die in de Egeïs en Anatolië gesitueerd moet worden, maar gaat te ver wanneer hij vervolgens de centrale Mediterrane regio uitsluit als herkomstoord van sommige der Zeevolken en deze ook uit Anatolië laat komen.
Als ik gelijk heb in deze oplossing van het vraagstuk naar de herkomst van de verschillende groepen der Zee-volken, dan zijn wij ook dichter bij het antwoord naar de oorzaak van de woelingen van de Zeevolken periode. Het feit wil, namelijk, dat het Italische schiereiland aan het eind van de Bronstijd wordt gekenmerkt door een massale immigratie van dragers van de Europese urnenvelden-cultuur, waartoe de Osken of Ausones behoren. Deze nieuwkomers verdrijven deels de zittende bevolking, die op drift raakt, en gaan deels met deze op drift geraakte bevolkingsgroepen op zoek naar betere oorden, die in het veel rijkere oostelijke Mediterrane gebied gezocht wor-den, waar de oorsponkelijke bewoners van Italië, Sardinië en Sicilië onder andere door handel mee in contact ston-den. Op hun drift naar het oosten wordt het paleis van Py-los in de westelijke Peloponnesos in de as gelegd en de lokale Myceense bevolking ten dele in de trek naar het oosten meegezogen. Vervolgens wordt de maritieme ver-dedigingslijn van het Hettitische rijk, die westelijk van de kust van Lycië gelegen was, doorbroken en is de vrije doortocht naar de Levant en uiteindelijk Egypte gegaran-deerd (zie figuur 24). In het kielzog van dit gebeuren, worden wederom lokale bevolkingsgroepen in de trek naar het oosten meegezogen.
Nu komen wij tot de hamvraag: waren de Zeevolken
slechts diffuse piraten bendes of coherente ethnische groepen. Een eerste aanwijzing voor het antwoord dat wij wel degelijk met coherente ethnische groepen te maken hebben is gelegen in het feit dat zij door de Egyptenaren met onderscheiden ethnonymen worden aangeduid. Voorts worden zij in de afbeeldingen met fenotypische en culturele kenmerken afgebeeld. Zo dragen de Sherden een helm met horens, de Shekelesh een naar achteren gebogen muts en de Peleset een vederen hoofddeksel. Maar het be-langrijkste argument is dat de verschillende groepen van de Zeevolken zich, na de afgeslagen aanval op de Nijl delta, afzonderlijk vestigen in bepaalde regio’s van de Le-vant, te weten van zuid naar noord: de Peleset of Filistij-nen in hun zogenaamde pentapolis in Palestina (Gaza, Askelon, Asdod, Ekron en Gath), de Tjeker of Teukriden in Dor, de Sherden of Sardiniërs in Akko, de Denye(n) of Danaoi in Joppa en later in Laïsh, de dragers van de Eu-ropese urnenvelden-cultuur, waaronder mogelijk de Wes-hes of Osken in Hamath, en de Ekwesh of Akhaioi in de Cilicische vlakte (cf. figuur 17). Kennelijk wilden de on-derscheiden groepen zich, ondanks hun gezamelijke op-treden tijdens de woelingen van de Zeevolken, niet mengen maar zich alleen temidden van hun eigen stamgenoten vestigen!
De woelingen van de Zeevolken aan het eind van de Bronstijd brengen niet alleen maar verwoestingen met zich mee, maar ook vernieuwingen. Zo introduceren de Sherden een nieuwe strijdwijze voor de infanterie, met ronde schilden en lange zwaarden, die, bij voldoende aan-tallen, opgewassen is tegen de strijdwagens van de oude Bronstijd rijken – de aanzet tot de latere Griekse falanx. Voorts zijn de Peleset of Filistijnen, volgens de overleve-ring van de Bijbel, gespecialiseerd in de bewerking van ijzer – het metaal van het nieuwe tijdperk, de IJzertijd. Tenslotte lijkt het waarschijnlijk dat de kennis van de Zeevolken uit de centrale Mediterrane regio met betrek-king tot de wateren in dit gebied de Feniciërs in de vroege IJzertijd heeft gefaciliteerd bij hun fascinerende explora-tie en kolonisatie van het west Mediterrane bekken.
167
CURRICULUM VITAE VAN FREDERIK CHRISTIAANWOUDHUIZEN
Geboorteplaats Zutphen (provincie Gelderland) Geboortedag 13 februari 1959 Nationaliteit Nederlandse Adres Het Hoekstuk 69, NL-1852 KX Heiloo 1977 Gymnasium B 1982 Kandidaatsexamen geschiedenis 1985 Doctoraalexamen oude geschiedenis (cum laude) 1990-1 Stipendium van het Institute for Thracology, in Sofia, Bulgarije 1991-2000 werkzaam in het bedrijfsleven 2000- werkzaam als onafhankelijk onderzoeker op het gebied van de Mediterrane pre- en protohistorie2002-2003 Promotiebeurs Erasmus Universiteit, Rotterdam
gepubliceerde boeken:
1988 coauteur van Ancient Scripts from Crete and Cyprus, Leiden: Brill 1989 coauteur van Lost Languages of the Mediterranean, Leiden: Brill 1992 Linguistica Tyrrhenica, A Compendium of Recent Results in Etruscan Linguistics, Amsterdam:
Gieben1992 The Language of the Sea Peoples, Amsterdam: Najade Press. 1998 Linguistica Tyrrhenica II: The Etruscan Liturgical Calendar from Capua, Addenda et Corrigenda
ad Volume I, Amsterdam: Gieben. 2004 coauteur van The Phaistos Disc: A Luwian Letter to Nestor. Publications of the Henri Frankfort
Foundation 13. Amsterdam: Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society. 2004 Luwian Hieroglyphic Monumental Rock and Stone Inscriptions from the Hittite Empire Period,
Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft Selected Luwian Hieroglyphic Texts, Inn-sbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft.
2004-2005 Selected Luwian Heroglyphic Texts I-II, Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft Selected Luwian Hieroglyphic Texts, Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft.
gepubliceerde artikelen:
de bibliografie bij het onderhavige proefschrift geeft een ruime selectie
1
Lat. hister, -tri, histrio, -onis ‘attore’: un prestito dal greco mediato dall’etrusco di Mario Alinei in Studi linguistici in onore di Roberto Gusmani, a cura di R. Bombi, G. Cifoletti, F. Fusco, L. Innocente, V. Orioles, Alessandria, Edizioni dell’Orso, 2006, pp. 13-18. La tesi dell’origine etrusca di lat. hister histrio, sostenuta da WALDE-HOFFMANN (LEW s.v.), risale agli scrittori classici: Tito Livio aveva affermato (7,2,6) “hister Tusco verbo ludio vocabatur”, Valerio Massimo (2,4, 4) “ludius apud eos [= Tusci] hister appellatur”, e in Plutarco (qu. Rom. p. 289) si trovano analoghi accenni. ERNOUT e MEILLET (DELL s.v.) notano l’analogia morfologica di histrio con ludio, ma sulle origini della parola non prendono posizione, limitandosi a citare, accanto alla tesi etrusca di Tito Livio, quella di Pomponio Festo (89, 25), che faceva derivare la parola e la cosa dall’Istria (“ex Histria venerint”). Ora, se è sempre legittimo dubitare del valore di un’etimologia proposta da un autore latino, è invece difficile dubitare della sostanziale identità semantica di histrio con ludio, affermata così chiaramente sia da Tito Livio che da Valerio Massimo. E di questa identità, a mio avviso, non si è finora tenuto sufficiente conto. Lo sviluppo da ludo e ludus del significato di ludio, in effetti, mi pare abbia rilevanti implicazioni per l’etimologia del suo sinonimo histrio. Se infatti il tipo ludio, e la sua variante più comune ludius, hanno esattamente lo stesso significato di histrio, cioè ‘attore, commediante, pantomimo’, essi ne differiscono, fra l’altro (v. oltre), per l’origine trasparente, che è il verbo ludo ‘giocare, scherzare, rappresentare una parte’ ecc., da cui anche ludus ‘gioco’ (di azione, con finalità anche imitativa, opposto a iocus ‘gioco verbale’ (cfr. DELL), ma anche ‘gioco pubblico’ (scenico, circense, gladiatorio, funebre ecc.), e ‘scuola (per principanti)’ ecc. Sul complesso semantico di ludo e derivati ci sarebbe molto da dire, ed è peccato che Benveniste, nelle sue Institutions (BENVENISTE 1976), non l’abbia trattato. Il passaggio semantico da ‘giocare’ a ‘rappresentare, mimare una parte, recitare’ mi sembra comunque oltremodo significativo, ed è anche tipico, per esempio, sia del francese che delle lingue germaniche: fr. Jouer, ingl. play, ted. spielen, ned. spelen, sved. spela, dan. spillen ecc., tutti ‘giocare’, ’suonare’ e ‘recitare’. Inoltre, va ricordato che alle origini del concetto del ‘gioco’ vi è molto spesso la nozione della ‘danza’ (cfr. BUCK 1949, 16.26), ciò che permette di spiegare anche lo sviluppo di ludio fino a ‘pantomimo’. E infine va sottolineato che alla figura del ludio ludius ‘attore, commediante, pantomimo di professione, narratore’, fanno da sfondo sia il ludus pubblico, nelle sue diverse categorie, soprattutto sceniche, sia il ludus come ‘scuola’ (cfr. magister ludi o ludi magister ‘maestro di scuola’, ludum habere, ludum exercere, ludum aperire ‘tenere’ e ‘aprire una scuola’). Sicché l’attore, in ultima analisi, va visto come ‘colui che, avendola studiata, conosce la propria parte ed è in grado di ripeterla’. Il graduale slittamento di ludius, attraverso la fase dell’’attore vagabondo’ (v. oltre), fino al significato dell’’imbonitore’, rappresenterà, naturalmente, uno sviluppo secondario. Il nucleo comune alle due nozioni dell’ histrio e del ludio, insomma, rappresenta il punto di incontro fra diversi campi semantico-concettuali: (i) il ‘gioco’, in generale, inteso come ripetizione di un rito sui generis sulla base di un complesso di regole; (ii) tutte le diverse forme concrete del ‘gioco’, cioè principalmente la ‘recitazione’, il ‘mimo’, la ‘danza’, la ‘musica’ e ogni forma di ‘competizione’ o ‘gara’, sia intellettuale che fisica; (iii) la ‘scuola’, intesa come luogo in cui si imparano tutte le regole.
Inutile dire che su questo complesso di significati sarebbe utile istituire un più ampio discorso a livello antropologico e storico-culturale, dato che esso non può essere giustamente apprezzato senza tenere ben presenti la natura e la funzione del gioco, della danza, del mimo, della recitazione e della narrazione nelle società antiche e in quelle tradizionali.
2
In assenza di studi sintetici su questo aspetto particolare del gioco, e per non perderci nel mare delle ricerche dedicate a singole aree, ci basterà tuttavia ricordare i migliori studi sul ‘gioco’ in senso assoluto, che hanno tenuto conto anche del ‘gioco’ in senso antropologico: come il classico Homo ludens di JOHAN HUIZINGA (1939), che mirando a “integrare il concetto di gioco in quello di cultura”, concludeva che “cultura vera non può esistere senza una certa qualità ludica”, e che “la cultura vuole … essere giocata dopo comune accordo, secondo date regole” (e, fra le argomentazioni, adduceva anche un capitolo dedicato a una vera e propria ricerca onomasiologica sulla nozione del ‘gioco’ nelle diverse lingue). O il più recente libro The ambiguity of play (1997) di BRIAN SUTTON-SMITH, con vasta bibliografia: in cui il tema dell’ambiguità del gioco emerge, fra l’altro, dall’alternarsi di volta in volta, nel ruolo dei giocatori, di bambini, insegnanti, atleti, attori, comici, prestigiatori, giocolieri, gente comune e giocatori di azzardo.
A queste considerazioni di ordine generale, che ci illuminano sulla complessità della nozione del ‘gioco’ e sulla vastità dello spazio semantico comune ai due termini di ludio e histrio, ne vanno poi aggiunte altre, più specifiche, che riguardano questa volta le differenze fra i due termini, anziché la loro somiglianza.
Anzitutto, va tenuto presente che a differenza dei ludii o ludiones gli histriones non erano cittadini romani, ma potevano essere schiavi, liberti o stranieri. Soprattutto quest’ultima categoria mi sembra particolarmente significativa: Plutarco, per esempio, in Marcus Brutus (21) ci racconta come Bruto, dopo l’uccisione di Cesare, cercò di riguadagnare la popolarità persa organizzando spettacoli fastosi, e per trovare gli attori più bravi, che erano quelli greci, andò fino a Napoli, e cercò anche di far venire il greco Canuzio.
In secondo luogo, accanto all’area semantica comune ai due termini – che, come abbiamo visto, è quella di ‘attore/ballerino/mimo’ - i due termini differiscono per due significati, esclusivi di ciascuno dei due: ludio mostra quello del ‘dicitore, saltimbanco, giocoliere, prestigiatore ecc.’, che ballava e recitava sulle pubbliche strade o nel circo (cfr. e.g. RICH 1869). Ciò che rappresenta una semplice specializzazione del significato di base e, non aggiungendo nulla di rilevante, non richiede illustrazioni particolari. Histrio, invece, si caratterizza soprattutto come ‘attore drammatico’, sia della tragedia (Plinio, HN 35, 46) che della commedia (Plinio HN 7, 54).
Ora, se ci soffermiamo su queste due caratteristiche dell’histrio, che lo contrappongono nettamente a ludiu/ ludio, cosa notiamo? Che tutte e due sembrano orientare verso la Grecia: (A) il suo compito più rinomato era quello di attore specializzato nella ‘commedia’ e nella ‘tragedia’, cioè in rappresentazioni teatrali di chiara origine greca; (B) i migliori histriones, che non erano comunque mai cittadini romani, erano quelli greci.
Partendo da questa osservazione, non si può fare a meno di chiedersi se anche l’origine dei termini latini hister e histrio non sia per caso greca, piuttosto che etrusca: ipotesi, quest’ultima, che come vedremo è proprio smentita dalla documentazione etrusca.
E la risposta sembra positiva, perché un etimo greco, alla luce delle osservazioni finora svolte, si lascia individuare facilmente: l’aggettivo gr. [στωρ ‘che sa, colto, abile, esperto, bravo’ (il sostantivo, come è noto, si specializza in ‘colui che conosce la legge e il diritto, arbitro, giudice, testimonio’), da cui ιςτορέω ‘ricercare, indagare, osservare, esaminare, domandare, chiedere, interrogare; venire a sapere, scoprire, conoscere, sapere, riferire quanto si è appreso, raccontare’; @ιστορία ‘ricerca, indagine, osservazione; cosa venuta a sapere, notizia, conoscenza, scienza, documentazione; rappresentazione, relazione, racconto; @ιστορήμα ‘narrazione, racconto’; @ιστορικός ‘esatto, preciso, scientifico; storico; versato nella storia’.
Inoltre, poiché la radice di questa famiglia lessicale, come è noto (cfr. DELG s.v.), è quella del gr. ο&ιδα, da PIE *wid- ‘sapere’ (cfr. sanscr. véda, got. wait, lat. video ecc. ), ed esprime quindi il ‘sapere’ basato sull’ ‘aver visto’, sulla ‘testimonianza’, [στωρ si lascia definire, in ultima analisi, come ‘colui che sa’ (in quanto ‘ha visto’), e per questo si concretizza, come aggettivo, in ‘abile, esperto, sapiente, bravo’ ecc., e come sostantivo, in ‘arbitro’ ‘testimone’ ‘garante’ (cfr. anche DELG e BENVENISTE 1976, p. 414).
3
Di questi termini greci, infine, occorre sottolineare che in latino classico si sono affermati proprio historia e historicus; e che il primo, oltre al tipico arretramento dell’accento, mostra quel restringimento di significato in senso ‘narrativo’, cioè di ‘notizia, racconto, narrazione, favola, mito’, poi passato a tutte le lingue occidentali; mentre il significato del secondo è ormai è quello moderno di ‘storico’.
Mi soffermerei, quindi, sulla congruenza fra il significato di ‘colui che recita’ di lat. hister histr(i)o - che implica, sul piano antropologico culturale, il ruolo di chi conosce testi e tradizioni orali ed è deputato a farlo per la comunità o per un pubblico - e quello, squisitamente narrativo, del lat. historia.
Se la semantica dell’etimologia proposta non mi pare faccia difficoltà, ed anzi sia produttiva sul piano esplicativo, una conferma formale della nuova etimologia sembra provenire, inaspettamente, dall’area germanica: dove la forma del ted. antiquato Storger ‘vagabondo, venditore ambulante’ (cfr. ted. storgen ‘vagabondare’), che viene considerato appunto un prestito da lat. histrio (cfr. KLUGE-MITZKA 1960, s.v.), implica l’esistenza di una variante *historio (cfr. anche DELL e LEW s.v. histrio), che si avvicina, formalmente, sia al lat. historia, che al nostro etimo gr. [στωρ, con l’aggiuna del suffisso –io.
Si potrebbe quindi concludere che il latino conosceva, accanto a historia e historicus, anche una formazione *historio, -onis, il cui significato originario doveva essere ‘narratore’, e che sarà stata la base per lo sviluppo delle varianti hister histro e histrio.
Come spiegare, a questo punto, l’apparizione dell’etrusco nelle ipotesi degli scrittori latini sulle origini della parola?
Anche a questo quesito la risposta sembra facile: se infatti assumiamo il greco [στωρ come l’origine ultima del termine latino hister histro, avremmo comunque bisogno di ipotizzare una mediazione etrusca per spiegare il prestito, dato che sia hister che histro, rispetto al gr. [στωρ, mostrano tratti avvicinabili a quelli studiati da de Simone nella sua ricerca fondamentale sui prestiti greci in etrusco (DE SIMONE 1968-1970): per la metatesi di histro rispetto a [στωρ, cfr. per es. gr. Κάστωρ > etr. Kasutru >, gr. Πολύκτωρ > etr. Puluctre; e per il vocalismo finale di hister, cfr. gr. ’Αλέξανδρος > etr. Alcsentre, Elsntre, Elcsntre ecc.; ed etr. Amuke, Carpe, Vikare, Kukne, Licantre, Pilunice, Puce, Sature, Sime, Taitle, Truile ecc., tutti da nomi greci in –ος (idem II §§ 70, 73, 118, 119).
Ed anche per histr-io, a parte la possibilità di un suo accostamento a lat. lud-io (già ipotizzato da DELL s.v.), si potrebbe pensare, forse più semplicemente, a uno spostamento dell’accento di *historio sulla vocale iniziale, che è ben nota norma dell’etrusco.
In altre parole, historia historicus e *historio sarebbero normali grecismi latini. Mentre hister histro histrio sarebbero grecismi latini mutuati dall’etrusco.
Hister histro histrio andrebbero quindi aggiunti al già consistente elenco di grecismi introdotti in latino tramite l’etrusco, studiati da DEVOTO già nel 1928, e da DE SIMONE nel 1968-70: come per esempio groma, nome dello strumento degli antichi gromatici o agrimensori, l'alidada, che, come è noto fin dagli inizi dell’etruscologia (cfr. THULIN 1904-9, III, p. 26, DEVOTO 1928, p. 331 ss., LAMBRECHTS 1970, p. 90, DE SIMONE cit. §231), deriva dal gr. γνώμων, e il cui gruppo gr- è dovuto a una tipica tendenza dell'etrusco a trasformare la -n- postconsonantica in –r (cfr. gr. Μέμνων > etr. Memro, gr.’Αγαμέμνων > etr. Agamemro (DE SIMONE cit. §231)); norma ‘squadra’, che deriva dallo stesso etimo greco γνώμων di groma, ma dall’accusativo γνώμωνα (DELL s.v.), con caduta della g- iniziale e della –o- atona (*nomna), e successiva metatesi di –mn- > –mr- in –rm- (diversamente in AEI e DE SIMONE cit. §225); amurca ‘morchia dell’olio’, da gr. αμόργη; sporta ‘sporta, cesta’, da gr. σπυρίδα (accus.), che mostrano tutti e due l’assordamento della sonora greca, obbligatorio in etrusco (AEI s.vv., DE SIMONE cit. §226-7); ancora ‘àncora’, da gr. #aγκυ –ρα, che mostra l’abbreviamento della vocale interna lunga, tipica dell’etrusco (AEI s.v., DE SIMONE cit. §226); e forma, dal gr. μορφή, che mostra una tendenza alla metatesi di –r-, molto frequente in etrusco (diversamente DE SIMONE cit. §225).
4
Forse più importante, ai fini della determinazione dell’origine della parola, è poi la stessa evidenza etrusca.
In etrusco, infatti, il termine histro appare nell’iscrizione bilingue su tegola Aθ trepi θanasa AR TREBI HISTRO (TLE 541, ET Cl 1.2552). Ma vi appare come termine latino, non etrusco! Nella parte etrusca (che è la prima dell’iscrizione), infatti, l’antroponimo Aθ Trepi viene seguito da θanasa, che ovviamente dev’essere il termine etrusco per ‘histro’; mentre in quella latina (la seconda), l’antroponimo AR TREBI è seguito da HISTRO. E’ quindi del tutto arbitrario pensare (come sembra fare, senza alcun argomento, LEW s.v.) che il termine etrusco sia histr(i)o.
A questa argomentazione, che mi sembra del tutto sufficiente per avvalorare l’origine greca, e smentire quella etrusca di lat. histrio, si può aggiungere ancora – sia pure con tutte le riserve del caso, trattandosi di una tesi nuova - quanto si ricava dalla mia recente ricerca sulle origini ugriche dell’etrusco (ALINEI 2003). Nel quadro di questa tesi, infatti, il termine etrusco θanasa si lascerebbe ricondurre a ungh. tan- 'insegnare, imparare’, da cui tanit 'insegnare', tanár ‘professore, insegnante, docente’, tanul 'imparare', tanács 'consiglio’ (anche nel senso di ‘insieme di consiglieri’), tanú 'testimone' ecc., tutti da turc. orientale tanu ‘conoscere’, mturc. tanu ‘comunicare, ammonire, esortare’ (EWU, EWT); interpretazione che pare convalidata da un’analoga traduzione della stessa radice in altre iscrizioni etrusche (ALINEI cit.)
Alla luce di questa corrispondenza, il greco-latino hister histr(i)o ‘colui che sa’, si lascerebbe interpretare come un semplice calco iconimico (motivazionale) dall’etrusco θanasa ‘colui che conosce, che sa, testimone, insegnante’.
5
BIBLIOGRAFIA AEI = G. DEVOTO, Avviamento alla etimologia italiana, Dizionario Etimologico, Le Monnier,
Firenze, 1967. ALINEI 2003 = M. ALINEI, Etrusco: una forma arcaica di ungherese, Il Mulino, Bologna 2003. BENVENISTE 1976 = E. BENVENISTE , Il Vocabolario delle Istituzioni Indoeuropee, Einaudi Editore,
Torino 1976, III BUCK 1949 = C.D. BUCK, A dictionary of selected synonyms in the principal Indo-European
languages, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago Illinois 1949. DELG = P. CHANTRAINE, PIERRE, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque histoire des
mots, Editions Klincksieck, Paris 1968, II. DELL = A. ERNOUT, A. MEILLET, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. Histoire des mots,
Librairie C. Klincksieck, Paris 1959-1960, II. DE SIMONE 1968-1970 = C. DE SIMONE, Die Griechischen Entlehnungen im Etruskischen,
Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 1968-1970, II. DEVOTO 1928 = G. DEVOTO, L'etrusco come intermediario di parole greche in latino, in SE 2
(1928), pp. 307-341. ET = Etruskische Texte, Editio Minor, a cura di H. RIX (ScriptOralia 23, Reihe A, Bd 6), Gunter
Narr Verlag, Tübingen 1991, II. EWT = M. RÄSÄNEN, Versuch eines Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Türksprachen, Helsinki 1969,
II. EWU = Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Ungarischen, herausgeber L. BENKŐ, Akadémiai Kiadó,
Budapest, 1993-1997, III. HUIZINGA 1946 = J. HUIZINGA, Homo ludens, Einaudi, Torino (trad. dell’ed. olandese del 1939). KLUGE-MITZKA 1960 = F. KLUGE, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen sprache, 18. Auflage
bearbeitet von Walther Mitzka, Walter de Gruyterr & Co, Berlin 1960. LAMBRECHTS 1970 = R. LAMBRECHTS, Les inscriptions avec le mot «tular» et le bornage étrusques,
Olschki, Firenze 1970. LEW = A. WALDE, J.B. HOFMANN, Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Carl Winter's
Universitätsbuchhandlung, Heidelberg 1938, III. RICH 1869 = A. RICH, Dizionario delle antichità greche e romane, Milano. SUTTON-SMITH 1997 = B. SUTTON-SMITH, The ambiguity of play, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Mass., London 1997. THULIN 1905-1909 = C. O. THULIN, Die etruskische Disciplin, “Göteborgs Högskolas Årsskrift”,
1905-1909, III. TLE = Testimonia Linguae Etruscae selegit recognovit indice verborum instruxit Maximus
Pallottino, La Nuova Italia, Firenze, 19682. Aggiunta 2007: La tesi, presentata in modo inadeguato, è già in Alessio, Nuove etimologie latine e romanze, in
Ioanni Dominico Serra ex munere laeto inferiae, Raccolta di studi linguistici in onore di G.D. Serra, Liguori, Napoli 1959, p. 74-75.
1
ADDENDA ETRUSCO-TURCO-UGRICI di Mario Alinei
forthcoming in “Quaderni di Semantica”, 51, 2 (2005)
1 Premessa In questo articolo discuto i recenti risultati della ricerca genetica sugli Etruschi - che come mi attendevo corrispondono abbastanza da vicino a quanto la mia tesi etrusco-ungherese predice -, e ritengo utile illustrare anche quelli delle ricerche linguistiche da me terminate fra il 2003, quando è uscito il mio libro (Alinei 2003), ed oggi. Di questi ultimi risultati solo il primo è stato parzialmente inserito nella traduzione del mio libro in ungherese (Alinei 2005). Gli altri sono inediti, e vanno ad arricchire la documentazione già raccolta nel mio volume.
2 La genetica toscana, quella etrusca e quella ungherese La ricerca sulla genetica dei Toscani di Murlo, condotta da Alberto Piazza negli anni Novanta, anche se tuttora inedita, era già nota al pubblico, perché di essa si è lungo parlato nella stampa di quegli anni. Come si ricorderà, il principale risultato di questa ricerca, concepita da Piazza con la consueta originalità, stava nel carattere fondamentalmente isolato dei Toscani di Murlo, e in misura minore, dei Toscani, rispetto agli altri Italiani. Sebbene non ancora pubblicata (ma ora vicina alla pubblicazione, come mi ha comunicato l’Autore), la conclusione sull’isolamento dei Toscani apriva già una promettente prospettiva per la mia tesi etrusco-ungherese, basata sulla Teoria della Continuità dal Paleolitico (PCT), in quanto si poteva presupporre che i Toscani, per la TCP di ceppo italide, come gruppo autoctono maggiormente influenzato dalle popolazioni etrusche, per me intrusive ed ungheresi, avessero conservato almeno alcune caratteristiche genetiche dei loro invasori, e quindi si fossero differenziati dalle altre popolazioni italidi autoctone.
Ora risulta che la ricerca di Piazza, pressoché terminata e prossima alla pubblicazione1, ha prodotto risultati che per me sono di estremo intereresse. Il risultato principale è infatti che “esiste ed è consistente” una componente turca degli abitanti di Murlo (da Piazza opportunamente selezionati per escludere la componente longobarda più recente). E la presenza della stessa componente turca viene confermata, anche se con intensità minore, in altri campioni toscani.
Questo risultato è tanto più importante in quanto anticipa, ripete e conferma il risultato di un’altra ricerca, condotta da un altro noto e brillante genetista italiano, Guido Barbujani, assieme ai suoi collaboratori, ma riguardante il DNA degli Etruschi stessi, studiato sulla base dei loro resti fossili (Vernesi et al. 2004). Sebbene la ricerca sia stata per alcuni suoi aspetti tecnici criticata da altri genetisti, e per il suo obiettivo stesso (il DNA antico) sia irta di difficoltà, il suo principale risultato è che la maggiore affinità degli Etruschi è con i Turchi, almeno per quanto riguarda le sequenze mitocondriali, cioè di linea femminile, sulle quali si è necessariamente basata la ricerca.
Questi due risultati, che sia per i Toscani che per gli Etruschi mostrano un’affinità di fondo con i Turchi, rappresentano per me un’inattesa ed importante conferma: sia perché nella mia visione, così come in quella tradizionale (cronologia a parte)2, gli Ungheresi hanno conquistato l’Ungheria guidati da Turchi asiatici (che io chiamo, più precisamente, Turcici, per distinguerli, analogamente all’uso inglese (Turkish/Turkic), e russo (Turézkiy/Tiurski#)), dai Turchi Ottomani europei), che li avevano acculturati precedentemente. Sia perché la mia lettura dell’etrusco in
1 .Comunicazione personale 2 . La mia cronologia è molto più alta di quella tradizionale, e come è noto coincide con l’invasione dell’Ungheria da parte di gruppi kurgan turcofoni, alla guida di quelli che sono ormai proto-Ungheresi, cioè Ugri separati dagli altri popoli ugrici della Siberia occidentale, alla fine del III millennio.
2
chiave ungherese (lingua ricchissima di turchismi preistorici) ha rivelato un notevole numero di parole turciche, naturalmente condivise dall’ungherese, per alcune nozioni emblematiche dell’etrusco, e già identificate come tali dall’etruscologia ermeneutica: come lo zila ‘il capo della comunità etrusca’, il kamthe , il ‘re’, ambedue di origine turcica, il latino balteus (di origine etrusca), cintura per la balta, l’ascia da combattimento turcica, la cui variante ciuvascia (lingua turcica) è purtə, altro emblema etrusco; Tarχun ‘antico titolo magistratuale turcico (da cui Tarquinia), cep- insegna onorifica, parχis ‘possidente, patrizio’, puia ‘moglie (turca), e tanti altri.
Anche le altre conclusioni della ricerca di Barbujani, a mio avviso, coincidono con alcuni assunti della mia teoria sulle origini etrusche: (1) il carattere omogeneo, e non misto, sia nello spazio che nel tempo, degli Etruschi (Verseri et al. 2005, 699); ciò che a mio avviso implica anche, necessariamente: (2) il loro carattere intrusivo, di invasori, e non di autoctoni; (3) una meno stretta affinità con i Turchi dei Toscani, rispetto agli Etruschi, e una loro maggiore affinità con le altre popolazioni italiane; ciò che ha condotto Barbujani e la sua équipe alla conclusione che i Toscani non sono i diretti discendenti degli Etruschi. Conclusione che ha destato grande sorpresa nei media (e immagino fra gli etruscologi), ma non ha assolutamente sorpreso me: ovviamente, se gli Etruschi sono gli invasori e i Toscani sono gli autoctoni, questi non discendono direttamente da quelli! (5) Indirettamente, il carattere elitario degli Etruschi, che nel quadro della mia lettura dell’etrusco, tuttavia, non si deduce dal fatto che le tombe etrusche degli scheletri studiati erano ricche, come ipotizza Barbujani (Verseri et al. 2005, 702; in una comunicazione personale, Barbujani contrappone Etruschi elitari a “Etruschi della strada”), ma dal semplice fatto che nell’Età del Bronzo tutti i gruppi invasori – Celti o Etruschi o Balti o Sciti che fossero – erano per definizione elitari, come esito di quel processo di formazione delle società stratificate che caratterizza le Età dei Metalli. In questa epoca, in altre parole, coloro che disponevano di cavalli e di armi metalliche per intraprendere campagne di invasione di un territorio straniero erano per definizione i ricchi e i potenti. Ecco perché, a mio avviso, “Etruschi della strada” distinti dalle élites non sono realistici. Come gruppo omogeneo di invasori – per definizione elitari - gli Etruschi dovettero semplicemente sovrapporsi alle popolazioni autoctone toscane, ibridandole senza però assimilarle completamente. Il maggiore o minore grado di ibridazione fra i gruppi elitari invasori e le masse degli autoctoni dipende poi, ovviamente, dalle circostanze dell’invasione, dalla durata dell’occupazione, dal grado di commistione e da altre variabili.
Anche se Barbujani, sul rapporto fra Etruschi e Latino-Italici lascia aperte “parecchie possibilità” di spiegazione3, a me sembra invece del tutto evidente che la ricerca ne ammetta solo una e confermi così, in modo irrefutabile, un assunto fondamentale della mia teoria: il carattere intrusivo degli Etruschi rispetto ai Latini e agli Italici autoctoni, compresi gli attuali Toscani. Nella TCP, così come l’ho illustrata nei miei due volumi sulle origini delle lingue europee (Alinei 1996 e 2000) e successive ricerche, gli Italidi o Italoidi parlano infatti lingue affini al latino e alle lingue italiche fin da quando si sono differenziati dagli altri gruppi IE, nelle ultime fasi del Paleolitico.
Le soluzioni esplicitamente menzionate da Barbujani sono invece due: o gli Etruschi erano invasori non IE, che hanno invaso un’Italia IE (cioè appunto ciò che assume la TCP), o gli Etruschi erano invasori IE, che hanno invaso un’Italia non-IE (scenario che nessuno ha mai ipotizzato finora). In astratto, ovviamente, ambedue le soluzioni sono possibili. Non a caso, anche per le origini IE esistono esattamente le due stesse ipotesi, e nello stesso rapporto inverso: o gli IE sono invasori che assimilano le popolazioni non-IE precedenti (come sostengono Gimbutas, Renfrew Cavalli Sforza), o gli invasori inventori dell’agricoltura sono non-IE che sono stati assimilati dagli invasi IE, da sempre in Eurasia (come sostiene la TCP).
Per quanto riguarda gli Etruschi, tuttavia, il problema è molto più semplice, perché la documentazione linguistica è più che sufficiente per eliminare una delle due spiegazioni alternative: l’ipotesi che gli Etruschi siano invasori IE, assimilati da una maggioranza non IE, urta infatti contro un’enorme ostacolo linguistico, che sfugge ai genetisti per insufficiente competenza, ma che
3 Comunicazione personale
3
certamente salta agli occhi degli etruscologi: non solo la lingua etrusca ma anche la toponomastica (Felsina, Volsinii, Tarquinia, Fufluna, ecc. ecc.), l’antroponimia (Lar, Vel, Arnth, Arri, Sethre ecc., ecc.) e la teonimia etrusca (Tinia, Thesan, Cath, Cel, Letham, Turms, Cauta, Laran, Maris, Culsus, Cilens, Fufluns ecc.), sono chiaramente non IE: mentre non solo le lingue italiche, ma anche la loro toponomastica, l’ antroponimia e la teonimia sono IE. Se allora, come pare, la genetica dimostra una differenza di fondo fra i due gruppi, rovesciare il rapporto, e fare degli Etruschi gli autoctoni IE e i Latini gli invasori non IE è quindi assolutamente impossibile, se non si vuole violare qualunque tipo di logica in uso nella ricerca scientifica, oltre al senso comune. L’unica spiegazione possibile, come ho già detto, è che gli Etruschi sono invasori non IE, e i Toscani sono quel particolare gruppo di Italidi, IE autoctoni, che è stato maggiormente influenzato e geneticamente ibridato dagli invasori.
E a me pare anche difficile conciliare la citata ipotesi di Barbujani con la precisa affermazione che leggo nel suo articolo (Verseri et al. 2005): “If the upper class had indeed somewhat distinct DNAs, our results could mean that this elite class became largely extinct, while the rest of the population, whose DNA we do not know, may well have contributed to the modern gene of Tuscany” (702). Non vedo come si possa affermare questo e allo stesso tempo, sapendo ciò che sappiamo sulla lingua etrusca e sul latino, arrivare a un’altra conclusione che non sia quella da me sostenuta.
Non a caso, del resto, lo stesso Barbujani deduce dalla sua ricerca che gli Etruschi non erano molto diversi dai Toscani, ma non erano neanche i loro diretti antenati. Di qui i curiosi titoli dei giornali e delle trasmissioni radiotelevisive: i Toscani non discendono dagli Etruschi! Come se i Toscani parlassero ancora etrusco, e non parlassero, invece, una loro variante specifica di latino popolare! La verità non è ovviamente quella che i linguisti hanno sempre ‘desiderato’ (senza mai poterlo dimostrare) – cioè che gli Etruschi sono gli autoctoni e gli IE gli invasori - ma è proprio l’inverso: gli Etruschi, come popolo non IE, hanno anzitutto invaso un’ Italia del Nord e del Centro latinofone (o italicofone); successivamente, poiché i loro più importanti e più stabili insediamenti sono avvenuti in Toscana e in parte del Lazio, hanno ibridato profondamente solo queste, senza però assimilarle completamente. Anzi, venendone a loro volta gradualmente assimilate. Torno più oltre su questo punto, per elaborarlo ulteriormente. Che le conclusioni dei genetisti difettino di adeguate conoscenze interdisciplinari (come ha ammesso Barbujani4), non può stupire. Colpiscono invece, nelle reazioni degli etruscologi che ho potuto seguire su internet, due cose: (1) da un lato, una notevole confusione d’idee e – almeno fino ad ora - l’incapacità di cogliere quanto di nuovo, e anzi di sconvolgente per la visione tradizionale, c’è in questi risultati della ricerce genetica; (2) dall’altro, il silenzio sulla mia recente tesi etrusco-ungherese (Alinei 2003, Alinei 2005), tanto più ingiustificato, a mio parere, in quanto i risultati della ricerca genetica sembrano fatti apposta per avvalorarla, o per lo meno per aprire un dibattito serio su di essa.
Ma vediamo più da vicino le reazioni degli etruscologi. Giovannangelo Camporeale, in un dibattito con Alberto Piazza avvenuto al Museo Civico di Rovereto il 5 ottobre 2004, la insistito sulla linea ufficiale della ‘formazione mista’ e della probabile autoctonia degli Etruschi, senza rendersi conto che uno dei principali risultati della ricerca genetica sta proprio nella dimostrazione che gli Etruschi non erano misti ma omogenei. Opporre ai dati del DNA, come ha fatto lui - con una interminabile serie di diapositive -, i vari manufatti di tipo sardo, o greco, o di altra origine, della civiltà etrusca, è come opporsi alla comune identità genetica dei membri di una famiglia invocando la presenza di oggetti di varia provenienza nell’arredamento della loro abitazione. Per quanto riguarda le affinità degli Etruschi con i Turchi, Camporeale ha poi invocato, come ci si poteva aspettare e come tutti hanno poi regolarmente fatto, il racconto di Erodoto sulla provenienza degli Etruschi dalla Lidia. In realtà, in questo sono stati tutti anticipati dagli stessi genetisti, sia da
4 Comunicazione personale
4
Barbujani che da Piazza, che naturalmente non ignorano le varie teorie antiche sulle origini etrusche, e hanno quindi citato il racconto erodoteo come spiegazione plausibile (anche se Barbujani ha invocato relazioni commerciali di più ampio raggio con il Mediterraneo orientale, discostandosi così dal racconto erodoteo (Verseri et al. 2005, 702).
A questo comune richiamo ad Erodoto, e ai termini in cui è stato fatto, io vorrei però avanzare delle riserve: (1) sia da parte dei genetisti che da parte degli etruscologi, si è parlato più spesso di popolazioni ‘anatoliche’ che di Turchi. Questo non è del tutto corretto, perché i confronti e i controlli genetici riguardano, per definizione, i popoli viventi, che in questo caso sono i Turchi, e non gli Anatolici. Con quest’ultimo termine, infatti, linguisti e storici intendono popoli preistorici, sia IE che non IE, ma certamente non turchi! “Anatolico” è quindi termine piuttosto infelice, se non del tutto fuorviante, in questo contesto. (2) Inoltre, sembra che nessuno si sia ricordato che i Turchi, nella visione tradizionale - fino ad ora mai discussa, e tanto meno contestata, né dagli studiosi tradizionali, né da Renfrew -, sarebbero arrivati in Asia Centrale soltanto nei primi secoli della nostra era, e in Turchia addirittura nel Medio Evo (una delle tante ‘invasioni immaginarie’ della ricerca tradizionale, simile a quella slava e a quella celtica!). Per cui l’Anatolia, all’inizio del I millennio e prima, quando gli Etruschi avrebbero dovuto lasciarla per invadere l’Italia, non era certamente abitata da Turchi, bensì da Assiri, Ittiti, Cappadoci, Cari, Frigi, Panfili, Lici, Cilici, Lidi, Misi, Paflagoni e chi più ne ha più ne metta, e più tardi da Sciti e Cimmeri provenienti dalle steppe.
Come si può quindi invocare il racconto di Erodoto senza allo stesso tempo rivoluzionare la visione tradizionale, collocando i Turchi in Turchia già nel II millennio? Personalmente, io sarei certo favorevole a prendere in considerazione un’ipotesi simile, ma solo perché, quale sostenitore della TCP, considero tutte le popolazioni eurasiatiche moderne come le dirette continuatrici delle prime ‘famiglie’ (linguistiche) di Homo loquens e sapiens che si sono insediate nel Vecchio Mondo, già linguisticamente differenziate. Quindi, nel quadro del generale innalzamento della cronologia della formazione dell’Europa linguistica, consentito dalla TCP, per me non solo non è impossibile ma è anzi necessario anticipare l’arrivo dei Turchi in Turchia. Tuttavia, anche secondo la TCP, il focolaio primigenio degli Altaici è certamente stato in Asia centrale, dove emergono, dopo decine di millenni di industrie paleo- e mesolitiche locali e senza soluzioni di continuità, prima le grandi e fiorenti civiltà neolitiche dell’Asia centrale, e poi, poco dopo, come loro diretta filiazione, le altrettanto grandi e note culture di allevatori e guerrieri nomadici delle steppe del Calcolitico – prime fra tutte Serednyi Stog (IV millennio) e Yamnaya (kurgan) (III millennio) – che sono anche le prime culture del mondo che mostrano l’addomesticamento e l’uso del cavallo come montatura. Ed è quindi in queste culture in cui emerge per la prima volta in Eurasia quel modo di vita nomadico e guerriero-pastorale imperniato sul cavallo, che diventa poi, senza interruzioni di continuità, la caratteristica di tutte le popolazioni nomadiche altaiche delle steppe eurasiatiche, dalla Mongolia all’Ucraina e alla puszta ungherese (kurgan, per chi non lo sapesse, è parola altaica che designa i tumuli funerari tipici delle popolazioni nomadiche delle steppe, dalla preistoria fino ad epoca storica). Nel quadro della TCP, insomma, in Turchia i Turchi ci sono certamente ‘arrivati’, anche se è molto probabile che lo abbiano fatto molto prima di quanto non si pensi tradizionalmente (e alcuni fra i tanti “Sciti” della (proto)storia, nonché i Cimmeri, potrebbero essere fra i candidati). Tuttavia, prima di assumere come seria ipotesi di lavoro che la Lidia potesse già essere parzialmente turca nel II e I millennio a.C., occorrerebbe per lo meno disporre di altri elementi di prova, come potrebbe essere, sul piano linguistico, una lettura in chiave turcica del Minoico: cosa che finora, a mia conoscenza, non è stata neanche tentata. Allo stato attuale delle nostre conoscenze storiche e linguistiche, quindi, l’ipotesi che la Turchia della fine del II millennio a.C. fosse già parzialmente abitata da Turchi non può ancora essere considerata un’ipotesi di lavoro solida.
A parte questo, inoltre, dubito molto che linguisti ed etruscologi tradizionali siano disposti ad ammettere che la Lidia del II/I millennio fosse già turca: tanto varrebbe, allora, che accettassero la TCP. Per cui, se sgombriamo il terreno da questa ipotesi, come possiamo pensare che in Lidia ci fossero Turchi? Dobbiamo invece ammettere che i Turchi si trovassero altrove, e che la Lidia non abbia nulla a che fare con la scoperta di Barbujani e di Piazza.
5
I genetisti, naturalmente, ragionano seguendo un’altra linea argomentativa. Alla mia obiezione, infatti, rivoltagli in una lettera, Barbujani ha ribattuto che si può pensare che i gruppi di Turchi invasori fossero eserciti, gruppi relativamente piccoli di maschi, che quindi non avrebbero alterato la variabilità genetica preesistente, e in particolare quella mitocondriale, che dipende dalle donne. E ha citato una sua ricerca (Di Benedetto et al. 2001), che ha stimato un contributo di geni orientali in Anatolia vicino al 30%, e un’altra Cavalli-Sforza (Cinnioglu et al. 2003), che ha ottenuto un valore molto più basso (< 9%), anche se ha lavorato solo sul cromosoma Y. Per cui, conclude Barbujani, verrebbe da pensare che i Turchi moderni parlino una lingua diversa, ma non siano geneticamente molto diversi dai Turchi del tempo che fu. Per sapere poi come fossero Lidi, Ittiti, ecc., c’è ancora molto lavoro da fare.
A me sembra però che questa risposta rappresenti, più che un argomento contro la mia obiezione, un’ammissione che la mia obiezione è giusta. Anzitutto, la conclusione dell’articolo citato di Di Benedetto et al., quanto alle tre opzioni possibili (elite-dominance, invasione istantanea, immigrazione continua) come spiegazione dei risultati ottenuti, non è quella degli eserciti militari, menzionata da Barbujani, ma, al contrario, quella di una “continuous immigration from Central Asia seems the model which is simplest to reconcile with the available data” (155). In secondo luogo, e più importante, il problema non è se i Turchi siano o meno geneticamente simili ai Turchi del tempo che fu (ciò che mi sembra la ricerca genetica dovrebbe comunque assumere come sviluppo normale), quanto se i Turchi moderni siano simili alle popolazioni non-turche precedenti, la cui presenza dobbiamo postulare per il periodo etrusco. E a questo quesito, che è tutt’altra cosa, Barbujani non può dare risposta per mancanza di dati. Quanto alla ricerca di Cavalli Sforza, essa si limita a concludere che la Turchia è stata “both an important source and recipient of gene flow”, e che il contributo genetico paterno dell’Asia Centrale inferiore al 9% Non ci fornisce quindi alcun nuovo elemento che non rientri nel quadro della continuità genetica del ramo turcico degli Altaici, irrilevante per la mia obiezione.
A me pare, quindi, che all’ipotesi che gli Anatolici della Lidia del periodo etrusco fossero già geneticamente simili ai Turchi Barbujani non abbia fornito alcun argomento concreto. Inoltre, se la accettassimo, indeboliremmo tutta la ricerca genetica o, per dirla con le parole stesse di Barbujani a proposito di un altro problema, “[it] would force us to reconsider the universally held assumption that patterns in the DNA of modern individuals reflect the evolutionary processes affecting their prehistoric ancestors” (702). E’ difficile, insomma, affermare da un lato che la genetica delle popolazioni “has proved to be a powerful tool for reconstructing crucial aspects of human evolution” (694), - ciò che è assolutamente vero - e dall’altro ammettere una simile differenza di risultati fra l’invasione etrusca in Italia, in cui la differenza fra invasori e invasi emerge senza ombra di dubbi, e quella dei Turchi in Turchia, che invece si vuole ipotizzare – senza per altro neanche poterla studiare, in mancanza di dati sul DNA degli Anatolici – come del tutto priva di conseguenze genetiche. E le due affermazioni sono tanto più inconciliabili se si riflette da un lato a una delle più straordinarie scoperte di Cavalli Sforza e allievi, cioè alla coincidenza della distribuzione areale delle famiglie linguistiche del mondo con quella dei tratti genetici, dall’altro all’altrettanto straordinaria potenza dimostrata così spesso dallo strumentario genetico per confermare i legami genetici fra popolazioni emigrate e quelle da cui si sono staccate.
Il problema del nesso della Lidia con i Turchi, insomma, a mio avviso non è impostato bene, né tanto meno risolto, dai genetisti o dagli etruscologi. Nella mia teoria etrusco-ungherese, invece, il nesso c’è, ed è anche importante, ma ha tutt’altra spiegazione.
Qui illustro la mia tesi in termini più schematici che non nel mio libro, augurandomi che anche i genetisti la prendano in considerazione: la Lidia, e in particolare Lemno, dove dopo le ricerche di de Simone sappiamo con certezza che nel VI secolo abitava una comunità etrusca, rappresentano la prova dell’esistenza di DUE correnti etrusche, come già ventilato, naturalmente in altri termini, da Hugh Hencken (1968), il principale studioso di Villanova:
(1) la prima corrente etrusca, cioè turco-ugrica, sarebbe quella, già ricordata, formata dalle elite di guerrieri a cavallo della cultura turcofona dei kurgan, che alla fine del III millennio, dalle
6
steppe eurasiatiche invasero l’area carpato-danubiana, durante la cultura di Baden detta ‘classica’, alla guida di popolazioni ugriche ormai stacccate dagli altri Ob-Ugri e divenute quindi Ungheresi, anche secondo la teoria tradizionale (a parte la cronologia). Per cui, nel quadro della mia teoria, le influenze carpato-danubiane che nel II millennio sono già così evidenti in Italia settentrionale, per crescere sempre di più fino a spingere gli archeologi ad ipotizzare una “vera e propria invasione dell’alta Italia” (Barfield 1971, Cardarelli 1992), (e sottolineo ‘alta’, anche per ricordare che si tratta di infiltrazioni e di un’eventuale invasione avvenute via terra), sarebbero tutte manifestazioni turco-ugriche, destinate a trasformarsi nei Proto-Villanoviani e Villanoviani della fine del II e principio del I millennio, cioè nei Reti (che da qualche tempo sappiamo essere di lingua etrusca) e negli Etruschi del Nord Italia;
(2) la seconda ondata etrusca o turco-ugrica sarebbe invece costituita da quei gruppi di metallurghi del Bacino Carpatico - “il cuore industriale dell’Europa nell’età del Bronzo” (Barfield 1971) -, per me già Ungheresi, che gli stessi archeologi ungheresi – pur non riconoscendoli ancora come loro antenati - vedono espandersi verso la Grecia e sull’Egeo, per partecipare alle battaglie dei Popoli del Mare (e.g. Kovacs 1977). Questa seconda ondata etrusca, dunque, dal Bacino Carpatico, attraverso i Balcani, sarebbe scesa direttamente sul Mediterraneo orientale. E di lì, probabilmente dopo aver fondato una o più colonie come quella di Lemno, avrebbe raggiunto, via mare, le sponde dell’Adriatico e del Tirreno, riunendosi con quella dell’entroterra e dando inizio alla fondazione delle città etrusche del centro, come aveva già ipotizzato, in maniera diversa, Hencken (1968).
Per concludere questo quadro, vorrei infine aggiungere i risultati di un’altra recente ed importante ricerca genetica, questa volta sugli Ungheresi, condotta da Carmela Rosalba Guglielmino dell’Università di Pavia, un’altra genetista italiana della scuola di Cavalli Sforza. In una comunicazione personale, indirizzatami dopo avere ascoltato una mia conferenza a Budapest, la studiosa mi ha informato che le affinità genetiche più strette degli Ungheresi sono con gli Iraniani, seguiti dai Turchi asiatici. Mentre quelle degli Ungheresi della frontiera occidentale (e quindi, si può supporre, più coinvolte nella difesa del territorio dopo la Conquista) sono con le popolazioni uraliche (con buona pace dei neo-detrattori dell’unità finno-ugrica). I conti tornano, per la terza volta.
Va però chiarito un punto importante. Perché le affinità iraniane sono così importanti fra gli Ungheresi, mentre non lo sono, come sembra, fra gli Etruschi (o fra i Toscani)? Per rispondere, occorre capire che i Paleo-Ungheresi (per il termine v. oltre) del Bacino Carpatico, una volta trasferiti in Italia come futuri Etruschi, hanno certamente subito altre influenze, culturali e genetiche, mescolandosi con gli autoctoni italici e con altre popolazioni mediterranee (primi fra tutti i Fenici!), mentre quelli rimasti in patria, nel corso del II e del I millennio, durante la fioritura e la decadenza della civiltà etrusca, ebbero tutto il tempo di subire influenze sia dagli IE locali e confinanti (entrambi Slavi, che nella TCP sono da sempre presenti nel sud-est europeo), sia, in particolare, dagli Sciti, Alani ed Osseti iraniani. Non a caso, la più autorevole studiosa vivente dei prestiti iranici nelle lingue finno-ugriche (Korenchy, 1988) ha concluso che in ungherese tali prestiti risalgono al I millennio a.C. Nella mia ricostruzione, quindi, le influenze genetiche e linguistiche iraniche possono solo interessare il Paleo-Ungherese del Bacino Carpatico e non quello dei Paleo-Ungheresi etruschi, che nel I millennio si trovano ormai in un’altra orbita.
Su tutti questi punti spero di poter tornare in altra sede, anche per discutere più in dettaglio, sulla base degli articoli già pubblicati, i risultati della Guglielmino.
Mi sembra comunque che i risultati della ricerca genetica convergano con quelli della mia teoria, mentre mettono in gravi difficoltà qualunque altro modello etnogenetico etrusco.
Ritornando ora alla mia rassegna sulle reazioni degli etruscologi alla conclusione di Barbujani e della sua équipe, voglio ancora accennare ad un altro intervento televisivo, che purtroppo non ho potuto ascoltare nella sua interezza: quello di Mario Torelli, a mio avviso il più
7
acuto studioso della storia e della società etrusca. Con la consueta maestria, Torelli ha colto l’essenza della personalità storico-economica degli Etruschi, presentandoli principalmente come metallurghi. A mia conoscenza, nessuno lo aveva mai fatto prima d’ora, ed è un altro merito di questo originale studioso. Peccato, però, che nel mettere in rilievo la fondamentale componente metallurgica nella genesi della civiltà etrusca, Torelli non ne abbia menzionato (almeno nella parte che ho potuto ascoltare) uno degli aspetti più importanti: i suoi legami con la grande produzione metallurgica dell’Ungheria, cuore dell’industria metallurgica europea nel II millennio. Ma forse qui nuoce, anche a Torelli, l’indifferenza che l’etruscologia ha sempre mostrato per le pur evidenti e fondamentali relazioni di Villanova con il Bacino Carpatico, scoperte e studiate da Hencken (1968) e confermate ed elaborate dai successivi archeologi. Relazioni che, fra l’altro, si lasciano ancora più facilmente utilizzare dopo la recente conferma delle affinità con l’etrusco del retico: che ovviamente, se non è autoctono, deve prevenire dal nord. Passando ora alla lingua etrusca, fra le reazioni ai risultati della recente ricerca genetica vi è stata una presa di posizione da parte di Piazza, che nel citato dibattito di Rovereto ha sostenuto l’ipotesi – presentata dubitativamente dal linguista americano Greenberg in un suo volume uscito un anno prima della sua morte - secondo la quale l’etrusco potrebbe essere una lingua IE (Greenberg 2000, 22-23). Da un lato, la proposta mi ha fatto piacere, perché dimostra che un originale genetista come Piazza non segue necessariamente la dottrina ricevuta, per i campi che non sono la sua specializzazione ma in cui deve necessariamente entrare, ma è anche capace di seguire strade indipendenti. Dall’altro l’ipotesi di Greenberg, sostenuta senza alcun approfondimento della lingua etrusca, è del tutto inaccettabile. Camporeale gli ha ricordato che i numeri e il verbo ‘essere’ in etrusco non sono quelli IE, ma gli argomenti più importanti, per escludere tale appartenenza, sono quelli tipologici: l’etrusco è una lingua agglutinante (come l’Uralico, l’Altaico e molte altre lingue del mondo, ma non come l’IE, che è invece una lingua flessiva); l’etrusco ha l’accento sulla prima sillaba (come l’Uralico e molte altre lingue, ma non come l’IE); l’etrusco ha l’armonia vocalica (come hanno l’Uralico, l’Altaico ed altre lingue, ma che l’IE non ha); e l’etrusco ha solo consonanti occlusive sorde (come l’Uralico e poche altre lingue, ma non come l’IE). In breve, tipologicamente l’etrusco è lontano le mille miglia dall’IE. Per cui, fra le due ipotesi di Greenberg, l’unica accettabile è semmai quella che l’etrusco sia parte della famiglia che Greenberg chiama eurasiatica. Ma questa ipotesi, come quella nostratica, ci porterebbe troppo lontano dal tema di questo articolo.
Se poi, come ho detto, l’indipendenza critica di Piazza nei confronti della dottrina ricevuta mi fa piacere, mi chiedo anche – forse a torto - se la sua ipotesi non riveli il desiderio di trovar conferma alla teoria di Cavalli Sforza e di Renfrew sulla dispersione neolitica dell’IE, secondo la quale, come è noto, l’IE dovrebbe arrivare in Europa all’inizio del Neolitico provenendo dall’Anatolia.
E questa ipotesi mi viene suggerita da un’altra presa di posizione, questa volta da parte dello stesso Cavalli Sforza, espressa in una prefazione da lui scritta per un libro di un linguista dilettante, ingegnoso ma temerario, e troppo poco preparato per accorgersi che la sua tesi sull’identità dei ‘radicali’ presenti nella toponomastica, nell’idronimia e nell’oronimia di mezzo globo terrestre con quelli delle Alpi e dell’Appennino5 è assolutamente priva di senso per la linguistica. Anche qui, è certo utile notare il distacco di Cavalli Sforza dalla dottrina ricevuta, distacco che per lo meno potrebbe servire ai suoi ostinati difensori quanto poco essa conti, ormai, nel quadro della ricerca mondiale. Purtroppo, però, la teoria elogiata da Cavalli Sforza di ‘scientifico’ non ha neanche l’ombra, dato che in tutte le lingue del mondo i ‘radicali’, cioè le sillabe, sono obbligatoriamente composte da un numero esiguo di fonemi, essendo prodotte da tutti gli esseri umani con lo stesso, limitato apparato fono-articolatorio. Inoltre, dovendo anche soddisfare il comune bisogno di tutti gli esseri umani di emettere il fiato mentre si parla, sono anche composte, obbligatoriamente, da identiche sequenze di consonanti e vocali, queste ultime necessarie per la respirazione. Per cui ci si 5 Claudio Beretta, I nomi dei fiumi, dei monti, dei siti. Strutture linguistiche preistoriche, Centro camuno di studi preistorici, Ulrico Hoepli, Milano 2003.
8
può facilmente immaginare quale valore statistico abbia la ‘scoperta’ di somiglianze o identità fra le sequenze delle stesse consonanti e vocali nelle diverse lingue del mondo! Di ‘scoperta’, in realtà, si dovrebbe parlare solo se fossero diverse! E si resta perplessi constatando che Cavalli Sforza, maestro indiscusso di statistica oltre che di genetica, non si renda conto della assoluta mancanza di interesse scientifico di una teoria simile, ed arrivi anzi a scriverne: “le sue conclusioni [dell’autore] sulla possibilità di una fase antichissima, monosillabica e agglutinante, pre-mongolica, pre-semita e pre-indoeuropea, fondate su fatti storico-linguistici validi ancora oggi, cioè sui nomi delle acque , dei monti, delle pianure [sono] interessant[i] e forse la ricerca futura potrà dimostrarne l’importanza” (p. XV).
Confesso di non capire che cosa possa indurre uno dei più autorevoli scienziati del mondo ad appoggiarsi a tesi simili, pur di salvare una teoria che – evidentemente – non si sta dimostrando fra le più forti. E che, oltre alle sue debolezze intrinseche, linguistiche ed archeologiche (non parlo di quelle genetiche, anche se a me profano sembrano evidenti), ha anche il grosso difetto di essere trasparentemente eurocentrica. Perché, sebbene sostituisca gli ormai screditati IE guerrieri supermen stile Gimbutas e compagni con i più politically correct inventori della agricoltura, continua a presentare gli IE come superiori agli altri. Privando per di più, Assiri, Babilonesi, Sumeri e Semiti, tutti popoli non IE, del loro indiscusso primato mondiale nella formazione delle civiltà urbane, conseguenza di quello che è anche – senza ombra di dubbio – il loro precedente primato agricolo.
Mi sfuggirà certamente qualche aspetto del problema, ma non mi è chiaro perché i genetisti non prendano in più seria considerazione i vantaggi che sugli altri modelli presenta la TCP, oggi seguita da numerosi e rispettabili linguisti, italiani e non, oltre che da autorevoli archeologi stranieri, come appare, per esempio, dal sito www.continuitas.com.
11 Questioni terminologiche: Paleo-Ungherese Nel mio libro ho quasi sempre usato, anche in riferimento all’Etrusco, gli etnonimi ungherese e magiaro, e solo per le attestazioni lessicali specifiche ho parlato più esattamente di Antico e Medio Ungherese, seguendo la convenzione tradizionale che designa con questi due termini, rispettivamente, l’ungherese dagli inizi al 1530 circa, e dal 1530 al 1790 ca.. Nella ricostruzione comparata dell’ungherese, tuttavia, prima dell’Antico Ungherese c’è solo il Proto-Ungherese, se non si vuole considerare il cosiddetto “Preungherese”, nozione alquanto infelice che raggruppa l’insieme dei termini di tradizione ugrica, finno-ugrica o uralica, per definizione di datazione radicalmente diversa fra loro, preservati nell’ungherese; inoltre, il termine stesso è fuorviante, come tutti i termini storico-linguistici che adoperano il prefisso pre- in questo senso, perché non tiene conto del senso normale del prefisso pre-, che è quello che appare in termini storici come pre-cristiano e pre-islamico, ed anche in importanti termini storico-linguistici come come pre-IE, e pre-romano, che implicano l’assenza, e non uno stadio più antico, dell’IE e di Roma. Sicché, anche per evitare i fraintendimenti che nel frattempo ho notato nelle reazioni al mio libro – sia in Italia che in Ungheria – credo sia utile introdurre il nuovo termine di Paleo-Ungherese come termine sincronico ed equivalente ad Etrusco, per indicare con maggiore precisione quello ‘stadio arcaico’ dell’ungherese che la mia tesi necessariamente riconosce nell’Etrusco. Il Paleo-Ungherese o Etrusco, in questo senso, è uno stadio che sta fra il Proto-Ungherese ricostruito e l’Antico Ungherese.
Come ho già mostrato nelle pagine precedenti, occorre poi distinguere anche fra due ramificazioni del Paleo-Ungherese:
(A) Paleo-Ungherese BC o del Bacino Carpatico, e quindi precedente la migrazione verso sud dei Proto-Villanoviani e dei loro predecessori, e pertanto aperto a tutte le influenze che successivamente interesseranno il Bacino Carpatico (come quelle iraniane del I millennio), e che porteranno il Paleo-ungherese BC a svilupparsi in Ungherese Antico, Medio e Moderno; e
9
(B) Paleo-Ungherese E o Etrusco, che prima di estinguersi avrà invece subito, inevitabilmente, le influenze dal Latino, dall’Italico, del Greco e di eventuali altre lingue del Mediterraneo, mentre non avrà potuto subire le altre.
3 Una migliore lettura dell’iscrizione sul kyathos di Vetulonia (TLE 366; ET Vn 0.1)
L’iscrizione sul kyathos ‘parlante’ di Vetulonia (Alinei 2003, 197 sgg.) è, a mio avviso, uno dei documenti più convincenti dell’identità linguistica etrusco-paleoungherese. Dato che il kyathos è un vaso potorio, la duplice lettura nell’iscrizione a scriptio continua della sequenza iθal, identica ad ungh. ital ‘bevanda’, è già un primo indizio importante. Il fatto poi che la mia traduzione, anche così come è stata illustrata nel mio libro, dimostra senza ombra di dubbio che l’iscrizione è del tipo ‘parlante’, e permette quindi un parallelo illuminante con analoghi vasi potori ‘parlanti’ latini e greci (p. 198), ha un’importanza che difficilmente può essere sottovalutata. La modificata lettura che presento ora (e che in parte è stata introdotta nella traduzione del mio libro in ungherese) da un lato continua e conferma la traduzione già fatta, dall’altro la migliora e, a mio avviso, la rende pressoché definitiva.
(1) La novità più importante sta in una diversa lettura della sequenza IΧEME, che si trova nella prima parte del testo, contenente l’invito a bere. Letta unitariamente, il pur ovvio collegamento con il tema ungh. igy- di iszik ‘bere’ non produceva nulla di convincente, perché si era costretti a ipotizzare un insolito ‘bevo’, riferito al vaso ‘parlante’. Mentre sdoppiata in IΧE ME - come mi ha suggerito una lettrice ungherese - la sequenza viene ad equivalere all’imperativo 2a sg. idd (< igy) ‘bevi’, seguito dal completivo meg (mee: 1585), e diventa quindi una frase del tutto trasparente come ‘bevi ancora’ o ‘beviti, bevi tutto’.
(2) Poiché , d’altra parte, la nuova lettura di IΧE ME è limitata alla 2a sg. dell’imperativo, cade anche la traduzione alternativa che avevo proposto nella versione italiana del mio libro, in cui URU ‘signore’, anziché essere un vocativo, poteva essere anche il soggetto (= “in me il Signore beva la bevanda”).
(3) La traduzione della sequenza NACEME … IΘAL ΘILEN … con ungh. nekem ital töltsd, cioè “versami/versa in me la bevanda” non è una libera interpretazione dell’ungherese (a parte l’omissione dell’articolo e della –t dell’accusativo in ital), ma una frase ungherese perfettamente comune, una volta acquisito che ΘIL- (in altri testi etruschi anche TEL/ΘEL-, con lo stesso valore di ‘riempire, adempiere’) equivale all’antico ungherese tel ‘riempire’ già attestato nei Sermones Dominicales del 1456-1470 (EWU), da cui il moderno tölt ‘versare, riempire’. Per esempio nel dizionario inglese-ungherese di Ország László si trovano gli esempi tölthetek neked is? “posso versare (qcosa) anche a te? (con –hetek ‘posso’, e neked ‘a te’ anziché nekem ‘a me), e tölt valakinek valamit ‘versare a qualcuno (-nek ‘a’) qualcosa’. Per cui la traduzione utilizzata nella versione ungherese, cioè belém (‘dentro di me’) … öntsd ‘versa’ az italt ‘la bevanda’, può essere, a mio avviso, considerata inutilmente libera, anche se, naturalmente, con l’uso di belém ‘dentro di me’ si mira ad esplicitare meglio il contesto del vaso ‘parlante’.
(4) Quando ho scritto il mio libro mi era sfuggito che il kyathos non è solo un vaso potorio ma anche un’unita di misura per liquidi, come risultato da qualunque manuale di riferimento. Si conferma così, indirettamente, la mia traduzione di MESNAMER con ‘misura dell’idromele’, dato che ungh. méz ‘miele’, nella sua anteforma FUg *mete- significava anche ‘idromele’, e –MER è identico a ungh. mér ‘misurare’ (cfr. MARU ‘gromatico’ > ungh. mérő).
(5) Poiché la seconda parte del testo – MESNAMER TANSINA MULU, che anche nella versione ungherese del libro appare tradotta “(io sono) il dono la cui bella forma indica la misura dell’idromele” - non mostra elementi morfosintattici tali da permettere una traduzione di tipo subordinato relativo, la sua traduzione si lascia forse effettuare più semplicemente in termini di apposizione: “(io sono) il dono, (io sono) la bella forma indicante la misura
10
dell’idromele”, con la doppia testa della costruzione (dono, bella forma) regolarmente alla fine. Lascerei quindi cadere la traduzione di tipo relativo; La traduzione del testo è dunque ora solo una, ed è molto più lineare di quelle proposte nelle
due versioni del mio libro:
“In me, o Signore, la bevanda versa, la bevanda bevi; (io sono) il dono, (io sono) la bella forma indicante la misura dell’idromele”.
Si noti anche la perfetta logica del testo, in cui il vaso parlante prima invita a versare la bevanda, e poi a berla.
Sfido chiunque a sostenere che la traduzione di questo testo, così perfettamente adatta al suo contesto materiale (un kyathos nella tomba di un gran signore etrusco) e storico-culturale (un vaso potorio ‘parlante’), e linguisticamente ineccepibile, possa essere il risultato di una coincidenza fortuita, soprattutto se vista nel quadro complessivo delle argomentazioni e delle affinità da me illustrate, sia archeologiche che culturali e linguistiche, e di quelle genetiche ora emerse.
4 Origini ciuvasce del plurale etrusco in –r Nel mio libro partivo dalla constatazione che non esiste plurale comune alle diverse lingue uraliche, ma che mancano comunque, nel plurale dell’ungherese e delle altre lingue uraliche, evidenti affinità con la –r del plurale etrusco. Per cui avevo finito con ipotizzare un utilizzo più esteso, nell’antichità, della formante –r, che è molto frequente in ungherese con valore iterativo, e che è attestata anche in Uralico come formante nominale e aggettivale (322-3).
Nel prosieguo della mia ricerca, tuttavia, ho scoperto che –r è la marca del plurale dei pronomi di 1a e 2a persona in ciuvascio, cioè nella lingua turcica che ha più influenzato l’ungherese, sia linguisticamente che culturalmente: ricordo, fra l’altro, che la maggioranza della terminologia agricola e dell’allevamento in ungherese è ciuvascia. Non solo, ma la marca del plurale dei nomi (e dei pronomi di 3a), che in ciuvascio è –sem, rappresenta un’innovazione recente6. Dal che si può dedurre che –r era l’antico plurale ciuvascio, e che è stato questo che ha influenzato l’etrusco. E’ molto probabile che vi siano altre caratteristiche ciuvasce nella morfologia etrusca, oltre a quelle così importanti, già notate nel lessico etrusco e ungherese, e se ne avrò la possibilità ritornerò sul tema.
5 Il passato etrusco in –ce Come ho già scritto nella mia replica alla recensione di Gheno (v. questo numero a p. ??), anche sul passato etrusco in –ce nel mio libro non ho potuto formulare che un’ipotesi congetturale, basata anche qui sulla diversità della formazione del passato nelle diverse lingue uraliche, e sulla mancanza di affinità specifiche con l’etrusco. E l’unica affinità rilevante riscontrata con l’ungherese era quella con l’-é dell’imperfetto o passato narrativo dell’antico ungherese (350).
Uno studio più attento dei testi antico-ungheresi mi permette ora di formulare un’ipotesi migliore: proprio il più antico testo ungherese, detto Halotti Beszéd és Könyörgés (‘Orazione funebre e preghiera’), scritto fra il 1192 e il 1195, attesta più volte il verbo evec ‘mangiò’, invece della forma moderna evett: come per esempio appare nella frase es evec oz tiluvt gimilstwl ‘e mangiò il frutto proibito’; nonché il verbo horoguvec ‘si adirò’, invece di (meg)haragudott. Questa forma in –c (= /k//) della 3a sg del passato della coniugazione soggettiva, anche se nel XII secolo sembra ristretta ai verbi in –ik (la maggioranza dei verbi ungheresi), offre un’altra dimostrazione della produttività della lettura dell’etrusco in chiave ungherese.
Gheno stesso, inoltre, in una risentita comunicazione personale (con la quale ha inteso chiudere la querelle con me), mi informa – e non posso che ringraziarlo - che il passato in –k non è 6 Comunicazione personale del Prof. A. Róna-Tas
11
estinto, ma sopravvive dialettalmente in Ungheria e in aree minoritarie ungheresi di altri paesi, più precisamente tra i Csángó (il gruppo ungherese linguisticamente e culturalmente più arcaico, nella Moldavia rumena), e sporadicamente nel Szabolcs, nel Baranya e nella Slavonia. Ciò che rende ancora più significativa l’affinità etrusco-ungherese da me rilevata.
6 Un’etimologia alternativa di etr. clan ‘nato, figlio’ Nel mio libro ho sostenuto una ipotesi semanticamente difficile: quella che etr. clan derivi da una anteforma di ungh. hal 'morire', confrontabile con Mansi kāl-, Khanty kăla ‘idem’, Ur *kola ‘idem’, nel quadro delle credenze religiose degli antichi Ugri, secondo le quali l'anima dei morti migrava in cerca di un neonato. Per cui, nel corso del rito per la nascita, la donna più vicina alla puerpera aveva il compito di identificare il morto o la morta che erano migrati nel bambino. L’ipotesi continua a sembrarmi sostenibile, ma rilevo, e mi sembra vada presa in considerazione come alternativa valida, anche la possibilità di un’origine turcica, con una semantica senza problemi: mtu. uig. ciag. ecc. oγlan ‘giovane, ragazzo’, atu. uig. ecc. oγul ‘figlio, ragazzo’ (EWT 358).
7 L’etimologia di etr. Menerva Menarva, lat. Minerva ecc. La discussione sull’etimologia del teonimo lat. Minerva (forma arcaica Menerva) non è mai arrivata a una soluzione soddisfacente: fra l’origine etrusca, autorevolmente sostenuta da Ernout et Meillet (DELL), e quella latina – da mens memini moneo - sostenuta da studiosi oggi considerati superati come Curtius e Vaniček, oltre che dalla maggior parte degli antichi (DELL e Wissowa in ALGRM), oggi gli etruscologi propendono per quest’ultima, ma a mio avviso senza buone ragioni. Il fatto che il nome di Minerva sia attestato non solo in latino ma anche in osco e falisco (argomento invocato da Ingrid Krauskopf in DICE s.v.) non basta certo a dimostrarlo: una volta affermatosi in area latina, il culto di Minerva avrebbe potuto facilmente estendersi anche all’area italica. Inoltre, dal punto di vista linguistico, anche se l’equivalenza di Men- con men- di mens mentis è ammissibile, per l’ipotesi di un’origini latina resta il problema insormontabile di –erva, che in latino appare solo in caterva (termine che i Latini consideravano celtico), e al maschile in protervus, di etimologia oscura. E dal punto di vista della logica e del formalismo etimologico, la presenza di un suffisso assolutamente estraneo alla morfologia latina ha un peso molto più importante della presunta difficoltà, per un culto etrusco, a diffondersi in area latino-italica. Dal punto di vista puramente etimologico, dunque, si dovrebbe comunque optare per una soluzione etrusca, e non latina. Letto nella chiave di lettura ungherese e ugrica, il nome Minerva si rivela poi tanto trasparente quanto interessante dal punto di vista storico-culturale. Anzitutto, partiamo dall’unica ipotesi possibile, dal punto di vista etimologico: delle due forme etr. MENARVA e MENERVA quella originaria dev’essere la prima, perché la seconda si lascia allora spiegare con l’armonia vocalica che si irradia dalla vocale accentata iniziale. Mentre se partissimo da MENERVA, sarebbe difficile spiegare MENARVA. Per quanto riguarda le varianti del tipo MENRVA MERVA e simili, come ho già sostenuto in termini generali nel mio libro, esse non sono l’effetto di sincope ma semplici grafie abbreviate a vocale parzialmente espunta. La tesi dell’originarietà di MENARVA è rafforzata dal fatto che le sue poche attestazioni si concentrano in iscrizioni arcaiche (ET Ve 3.45), o del V (ET La S.1, Vc S.4, S.4), o IV secolo (ET OA S.1), mentre quelle, più frequenti, di MENERVA si distribuiscono in tutto il periodo dal VI fino all’epoca recente, e quelle di MENRVA, ancora più frequenti, negli ultimi secoli.
MENARVA si lascia allora leggere come un composto, il cui primo elemento MEN- risulta collegabile ad ungh. men-ít ‘salvare, liberare’, men-t ‘salvare, liberare, proteggere’ (già attestato in aungh (XII sec.: EWU). Il secondo elemento del composto - ARVA - coincide invece con una anteforma dell’ungh. orvos ‘medico’ (dialettalmente anche ‘mago, stregone’), che risale a FU *arpa ‘strumento magico, oracolo’; e ad essa possiamo attribuire il significato di ‘destino, fato, sorte’, che
12
appare regolarmente nei suoi continuatori: finl. arpa (gen. arvan) ‘destino, fato, bacchetta magica’, arpamies (mies ‘uomo’) ‘divinatore’, arpo- ‘estrarre la sorte’, arpoja ‘mago, divinatore’, arpele- divinare, tirare la sorte’; Est. arp (gen. arbi) ‘destino, fato, magia’; arbutama ‘stregare, incantare’, varp ‘magia, stregoneria’; liv. arbī ‘strega’; lapp. vuorbbe ‘fato, fortuna’ (UEW I s.v. *arpa). Si noti che questa famiglia lessicale FU ha riscontri anche in turcico: m.turcico arva ‘mormorare formule magiche’; turcico *arvišči ‘mago’; teleut arba ‘stregare, incantare, incantatore, stregone’; uigur arviščï ‘mago, stregone; ciagatai arba ‘stregare, incantare, predire il futuro, raccontare fiabe, arbaγči ‘incantatore, mago’ (UEW, EWT).
Letto, quindi, come ‘fortuna protettrice/salvatrice’, il nome etrusco di MENARVA corrisponde perfettamente a quello della dea greca σώτειρα Τύχη ‘Fortuna (Bona) Salutaris’ (cfr. CIL 6, 184, 201, 202; 3, 3315), di cui probabilmente è un calco. Si ricordi che σώτειρα ‘salvatrice’ era l’epiteto di altre dee greche, come Themis, Eunomia, Atena, Artemide, Ecate, Rea, Demetra, Kore (Liddell-Scott), ma che solo per Τύχη si usava anche il maschile σώτερ (ibidem). Ciò che mostra lo stretto nesso fra le due nozioni di ‘destino’ e di ‘salvezza, protezione’. E si noti che nel teonimo etrusco, differentemente da quello greco e latino, l’epiteto positivo è parte integrante del nome, quasi a escludere una ‘mala’ o ‘adversa’ o ‘brevis’ fortuna.
Quanto alle caratteristiche religiose della Minerva etrusca, anche queste sembrano corrispondere all’etimologia qui proposta. Per citare di nuovo la Krauskopf (DICE), gli “ex voto anatomici attesterebbero una funzione non sottovalutabile di M. come divinità risanatrice”, mentre “una sors rinvenuta a Santa Marinella indicherebbe anche un carattere oracolare della divinità” (mio corsivo). Aggiungerei che anche la sua importante funzione di nutrice (ibidem), evidente quando accudisce i piccoli Maris, o fa da levatrice a Fufluns, o riceve in braccio Epiur, entra nel quadro della divinità positiva, protettrice e salvatrice, che emerge dall’etimologia del suo nome.
8 Il cervo sacro in etrusco e in ungherese: l’etimologia di etr. Uni In un recente studio sulle offerte sacre nel ‘complesso monumentale’ di Tarquinia Maria Bonghi Jovino (2005), elaborando ricerche precedenti, ha richiamato l’attenzione sulla “consistente, direi quasi schiacciante, presenza del Cervus elephas” fra i resti delle offerte, “sempre presenti nei rituali e […] in tutte le fasi cronologiche” (76); e sul fatto che “la testimonianza archeologica attesta la presenza di palchi e resti cervini in tutte le fasi” (77); e “la lavorazione … si mantiene costante nei secoli, quasi a segnalare un congelamento della tecnica di esecuzione” (idem). E sulla base di Torelli (1997 133-4), la studiosa conclude “La documentazione archeologica offerta dai resti cervini è molto rilevante perché fornisce indicazioni sui culti più remoti dal momento che, fin dalle prime manifestazioni sacre ritualizzate, se ne osserva la costante presenza: palchi, punte di corna segate e lavorate, oggetti vari ricavati dai pugnali delle corna. Le corna di cervo tagliate, i dischetti d’osso e ogni altro elemento ricavato dalle corna hanno fatto riflettere sul significato. Se ci trovasse in un contesto di semplice abitato, tali rinvenimenti avrebbero potuto essere spiegati come residui di industria di uso quotidiano per approntare manici di utensili, amuleti o altro ancora ma il contesto generale … e la loro presenza in tutti gli spaccati cronologici [dal periodo protoetrusco del bronzo finale/ferro (X-VIII secolo) al periodo arcaico (VI/V secolo)], ha fatto escludere una simile lettura accreditando l’uso sacrale dei reperti”. Per concludere, “Il cervo è dunque l’elemento-guida del culto primigenio praticato nell’area sacra e apporta solidi indizi per gli attributi e l’archetipo della divinità primigenia nel suo più remoto orizzonte cronologico” (78) (mio corsivo).
Inoltre, la divinità a cui erano destinati i resti cervini – e che è anche l’unica il cui nome sia concretamente attestato nel complesso monumentale di Tarquinia - , è Uni, la ben nota divinità femminile che condivide con il dio del cielo maschile Tinia il posto di maggiore importanza nel pantheon etrusco.
Senonché, la Uni che emerge dalle importanti considerazioni della Borghi Jovino è diversa da quella nota, cioè dalla Uni assimilata alla latina Iuno e alla greca Hera: “il suo originario campo d’azione si rivela essere la caccia e la protezione della natura in una sorta di ambiguità tra cacciatrice e protettrice degli animali.” (78). “In sostanza la dea, benché con contorni sfumati, si
13
presenta in diverse ipostasi: protettrice del mondo sotterraneo, della caccia, della natura e dei cicli lunari, degli animali. Siamo al cospetto di una divinità buona e favorevole che, con le sue valenze, rende palese come la prima organizzazione del sacro sia passata attraverso la presenza numinosa nel paesaggio. La documentazione archeologica induce a ipotizzare un processo di costruzione del ‘sacro’ di lunga durata su uno sfondo ancora più remoto e molto lontano nel tempo” (78).
Ora, sia il rapporto di Uni col cervo, sia la sua ambiguità di cacciatrice e di protettrice degli animali, così come la sua palese origine da una concezione sacrale del paesaggio, fanno pensare a una divinità di origini totemiche: è infatti solo l’animale totem che è in grado neutralizzare la contraddizione fra la caccia e la protezione della preda, da un lato proteggendo gli animali suoi simili, dall’altro concedendo solo alla propria tribù il permesso di cacciarli. Ed è solo il totem, quale creatore dell’universo, che si incarna nel paesaggio. E’ allora interessante notare che in ungh. ünö significa ‘cerva’, e che Enee, sua variante grafica arcaica, è anche il nome di quella cerva magica che, nella “saga delle origini” dei Magiari, unitasi al gigante poligamo Ménróth (probabilmente da mén ‘stallone’), dà alla luce i due fratelli cacciatori Magor e Hunor, capostipiti, rispettivamente, dei Magiari e degli Unni (De Ferdinandy 1983, 229). Ed è anche interessante notare come anche questo nome sia di origine turcica (da Alt *inag), e come la variante ciuvascia əne sia, come al solito, la più vicina al nome ungh. mitico Enee: ancora una volta, insomma, l’ungherese ci appare nel suo rapporto simbiotico con il turcico e più precisamente con il ciuvascio. In effetti, un’origine di etr. UNI da lat. Iuno, pur se comunemente accettata, potrebbe rivelarsi, dal punto di vista filologico, come una lectio facilior da abbandonare. Vediamo perché.
(1) Anzitutto, sul piano storico-religioso, né TINIA né MENERVA sono nomi di origine latina. Di TINIA siamo certi (e vedremo più oltre come si possa analizzare questo nome), e di MENERVA abbiamo appena detto. Di sicuramente latino, fra i teonimi etruschi, non c’è che SELVANS, e forse, ad essere di manica larga, anche VEIVE e SATRE, se da Veiovis e Saturnus. A parte i teonimi di origini greca, che sono più numerosi di quelli latini, tutti gli altri, che sono molti, sono etruschi.
(2) Più importante, perché obiezione linguistica ed ha quindi valore formale, se UNI derivasse da Iuno, dovremmo ammettere uno sviluppo fonetico basato sulla perdita della semivocale –j-, che contrasterebbe con quelle tendenze fono-articolatorie dell’etrusco, così come ci sono note, nelle loro linee generali, grazie a quella pietra miliare della linguistica etrusca che è la ricerca di de Simone sui prestiti etruschi dal greco (de Simone 1968-1970). Ecco la documentazione: il teonimo latino Diovem appare su uno specchio etrusco (idem II 103), e non ha perso la semivocale diventando *Dovem. Un nome greco come Iason ‘Giasone’, che presenta lo stesso tipo di dittongo di Iuno, in etrusco viene reso con Easun, Heiasun, Heasun, Eiasun, Hiasunu (idem II, 133, 144, 155); e mai con *Ason, senza semivocale. E semmai, se dovessimo ipotizzare un mutamento fonetico, dovremmo piuttosto aspettarci, per una parola come Iuno, lo stesso sviluppo mostrato dal gruppo iniziale Fió-/dió-, che al contrario del supposto passaggio di Uni da Iuni mostra la perdita della vocale tonica e la trasformazione della semivocale –j- in –i-, per cui abbiamo da Fιόλα¯ος VILAE, da ∆ιοµήδες ZIMITE, ZIMAITE e simili, da ∆ιονΰσιος TINUSI, da ∆ιοφάνες TIΦANE ecc. (idem 165-66). Dovremmo insomma aspettarci *INI, non UNI. A mio avviso, insomma, l’ipotesi che UNI fosse, in origine, il nome etrusco della cerva,
affine a quello ungherese űnő di origine turcica, e che per questo a lei, come dea-cerva primigenia, si sacrificassero resti di cervo, è del tutto plausibile. Grazie poi alla fortuita somiglianza fonica con Iuno questo nome, durante il processo di antropomorfizzazione, sarebbe stato poi assimilato a quello della dea latina.
14
9 L’etimologia altaica del teonimo etr. Tinia: turcico Täng-ri dio del cielo
Il teonimo TINIA è certamente etrusco, ed anche di questo il quadro etnolinguistico e culturale aperto dalla mia tesi permette un’etimologia interessante.
La principale divinità altaica, che ha il ruolo di dio celeste, e il cui nome deriva da quello del ‘cielo’, è infatti täŋri in a.tu., kom., ciag., tu.or., barab. ‘Dio, cielo’; in calm. teŋŋiri ‘Dio’; in tu.osm, turkm. e azerb. tanri ‘Dio’, ecc. Räsänen deriva il suo nome da quello del cielo in Cinese (e Coreano) tien (da cui poi tien-li, tien-ti, tien-te ecc., rispett. ‘ragione del cielo’, imperatore del cielo’, virtù del cielo’ecc. nelle varie articolazioni del principio celeste nella religione cino-coreana) (v. EWT, 474, con rinvio a Joki 354-6, e a Ramstedt SKE Helsinki 1949, MSFOu 95 ). Per cui täŋri deriverebbe da tien-li ‘ragione del cielo’. Quindi è probabile che TIN in etrusco valesse ‘cielo’ e TINIA forse ‘il Celeste’.
10 Etr. volta ‘mostro’(Plinio), ungh. volta ‘essere’ Plinio, nel secondo libro della sua Historia Naturalis, riferisce di un antico racconto etrusco, secondo cui il re Porsenna impetrò ed ottenne un fulmine quando un mostro chiamato Volta si avvicinò alla città di Bolsena (Orvieto) dopo aver devastato le campagne: “Vetus fama Etruriae est, impetratum Volsinios urbem depopulatis agris subente mostro, quod vocavere Voltam, evocatum a Porsina suo rege” (140). Purtroppo, non sappiamo altro di questo mostro, il cui nome per altro non figura né fra le Glosse dei TLE di Pallottino, né negli ET di Rix. In effetti, volta in ungherese è il sostantivo che significa ‘essere’; ed è parola già attestata in aungh. (1372), e di chiara origine FU: *βole- essere, divenire’ (EUW). Ora, in tutte le lingue del mondo sostantivi come ‘essere’ o ‘cosa’ vengono spesso usati come nomi sostitutivi (noa) di un referente tabuizzato, nella loro qualità di massima generalizzazione ((Alinei 1985, 1986b, 1988, 1993, 1996, 2000 con bibliografia). Nella tipologia tabuistica, molto ben studiata dalla linguistica, si usano infatti diversi tipi di generalizzazione: fra cui quella del diretto superordinato nella tassonomia del referente (per esempio ‘bestia’ per qualunque animale, cfr. it. biscia), o quella della generalizzazione massima, come ‘lui’, ’esso’, ‘lei’, ‘cosa’ o, appunto, ‘essere’, per qualunque cosa vivente tabuizzata (cfr. Havers 1946, 159, Zelenin 1988-89, I, 245).
11 Origine turcico-ciuvascia di etr.-lat LAR LARES L’origine etrusca di Lar Laris e Lares Larum è data come sicura da Ernout e Meillet (DELL), che collegano questi nomi ai teonimi etr. Laran Laruns. Tuttavia, il collegamento dei Lari ‘geni tutelari’ con un probabile dio della guerra come Lara (DICE) non sembra a prima vista plausibile. Per cui in questa nota tratto prima l’etimologia del nome dei Lares intesi come geni tutelari, e poi discuto il suo possibile collegamento con il teonimo.
Il ciuvascio, come già detto, è la lingua turcica che ha più influenzato l’ungherese, ed anche nel quadro tradizionale dell’ungarologia viene considerato come il miglior candidato a rappresentare la lingua parlata dai cavalieri guerrieri turcici che conquistarono e acculturarono gli Ungheresi, separandoli dai loro affini Ob-Ugri e guidandoli all’occupazione del loro territorio storico. Nella mia tesi, sono appunto Ciuvasci appartenenti alla cultura dei kurgan che invasero l’Ungheria alla fine del III millennio.
Ora in ciuvascio lar significa ‘insediarsi, stabilirsi, sedersi, risedere, accomodarsi’, oltre che ‘covare le uova; crescere, piantare; atterrare, imbarcare, ormeggiare, ancorare’ ed altro ancora. E’ parola altaica, affine a uig. olur olor, soj. olur, jak. olor, a uig., m.tu, ecc. oltur ‘sedere, sedersi, insediarsi’, bar. oltyr, oir. tel. šor. tu.or., osm. krm. azerb., kzk. otur ‘sedere, sedersi, abitare’ ecc.; sag. olat olyt ‘un luogo in cui ci si può stabilire’, ecc. (EWT 361). Il nesso con i Lares è dunque evidente: essi si lasciano interpretare come gli antenati degli invasori Proto-Etruschi che si erano insediati in Italia, e sotto la cui protezione si ponevano le famiglie degli Etruschi.
15
Se poi, partendo da questa etimologia, a mio parere suggestiva, vogliamo spiegare anche il teonimo Laran - di cui per altro non si è certi se designi solo un dio della guerra o anche un semplice guerriero, il collegamento sarà logico, più che etimologico. E’ infatti ovvio che i primi ‘coloni’ che si erano insediati, come Proto-Etruschi, in Etruria lo avevano fatto come invasori guerrieri, e non come pacifici immigrati. Di qui, si può pensare, la loro rappresentazione, sia come semplici guerrieri, sia in chiave mitica e religiosa come ‘dio della guerra’.
16
BIBLIOGRAFIA ALGRM = Roscher, W. H. (1884-1886), Ausführliches Lexikon der Griechischen und Romischen
Mythologie, Druck und Verlag von B. G. Teubner, Leipzig, 10 voll. Alinei, Mario (1983), L'evoluzione dal totemismo al cristianesimo popolare studiata negli sviluppi
semantici dei dialetti italiani, in Quaderni di Semantica IV, pp. 3-29, 253-270. Alinei, Mario (1986), Belette, in Atlas Linguarum Europae I, Assen/Maasstricht, pp. 145-224. Alinei, Mario (1988), La monografia sul tabù linguistico dell'etnografo sovietico Zelenin:
Presentazione, in Quaderni di Semantica IX, pp. 183-5. Alinei, Mario (1993), Due note su "totem" e "tabù" nei dialetti, in Quaderni di Semantica, XIV, pp.
3-7. Alinei, Mario (1996-2000), Origini delle lingue d'Europa, vol. I: La teoria della continuità; Vol. II:
Continuità dal Mesolitico al Ferro nelle principali aree europee. Bologna, Società editrice Il Mulino.
Alinei, Mario (2003), Etrusco: una forma arcaica di ungherese, il Mulino, Bologna. Alinei, Mario (2005), Ősi kapocs. A magyar-etruszk nyelvrokonság, Allprint, Budapest. Barfield, Lawrence (1971), Northern Italy before Rome, Thames and Hudson, London.. Bonghi Jovino, Maria (2005), Offerte, uomini e dei nel “complesso monumentale” di Tarquinia.
Dallo scavo all’interpretazione, in Bonghi Jovino, M. e F. Chiesa (curr.), Offerte dal regno vegetale e dal regno animale nelle manifestazioni del sacro. Atti dell’incontro di studio (Milano 26-27 giugno 2003), L’Erma di Bretschneider, Roma, pp. 73-89.
Cardarelli, Andrea (1992), Le età dei metalli nell'Italia settentrionale, in Guidi A., M. Piperno (cur.), Guidi, Alessandro, Italia preistorica, Editori Laterza, Bari.
Cinnioğly, C., R. King, T. Kivisild, E. Kalfoğlu, S. Atasoy, G.L Cavalleri, A.S. Lillie, C.C. Roseman, A.A. Lin, K. Prince, P.J. Oefner, P. Shen, O. Semino, L.L. Cavalli Sforza, P.A. Underhill (2003), Excavating Y-chromosome haplotype strata in Anatolia, in Human Genetics 114, 127-148.
DELL = Ernout, A. – A. Meillet (1959-1960), Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. Histoire des mots, Librairie C. Klincksieck, Paris, 2 volumi.
De Ferdinandy, Michael (1983), Die Mythologie der Ungarn, in Haussig (ed.), 209-259. de Simone, Carlo (1968-1970), Die Griechischen Entlehnungen im Etruskischen, 2 voll.
Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden. Di Benedetto G., A. Ergüven, M. Stenico, L. Castri, G. Bertorelle, I. Togan, G. Barbujani, DNA
Diversity and Population Admixture in Anatolia (2001), in American Journal of Physical Anthropology 115, 144-156.
DICE = Dizionario Illustrato della Civiltà Etrusca, a cura di Mauro Cristofani, Giunti, Firenze 1999.
EWT = Martti Räsänen, Versuch eines Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Türksprachen, Helsinki 1969.
EWU = Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Ungarischen, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 1993-1997, 3 voll.
Greenberg, Joseph (2002), Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic language family. Vol. 1: Grammar, Stanford University Press.
Haussig, Wilhelm Hans (ed.) (1983), Gotter und mythen im alten Europa, Ernst Klett Verlag, Stuttgart.
Havers, Wilhelm (1946), Neuere Literatur zum Sprachtabu (Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Sitzungsberichte 223, Band 5), R.M.Roher, Wien.
Hencken, Hugh (1968), Tarquinia, Villanovans and early Etruscans, The Peabody Museum, Massachusetts, U.S.A., 2 voll.
Korenchy, Eva (1988), Iranische Einfluss in den finnisch-ugrischen Sprachen, in Sinor, Denis (ed.), The Uralic Languages. Description, history and foreign influences, Leiden, 665-681.
17
Kovács, Tibor (1977), The Bronze Age in Hungary, Corvina Press, Budapest. Liddell, H. G. - Scott, Robert - Stuart Jones, H. (1953), Greek - English lexicon, The Clarendon
Press, Oxford. Torelli, Mario (1997), Appunti per una storia di Tarquinia, in Bonghi Jovino M. e C. Chiaramonte
Treré, Tarquinia: ricerche, scavi e prospettive, Milano, pp. 129-140. UEW = Károly Rédei, Uralisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, 3 voll., Otto Harassowitz,
Wiesbaden, 1988-1991. Vernesi C, D. Caramelli, I. Dupanloup, G. Bertorelle, M. Lari, E. Cappellini, J. Moggi-Cecchi, B.
Chiarelli, L. Castri, A. Casoli, F. Mallegni, C. Lalueza Foz, G. Barbujani (2004), The Etruscans : A Population-Genetic Study, in American Journal of Human Genetics, 74, 694-704.
Zelenin, D.K. (1988-89 = 1928), Tabù linguistici nelle popolazioni dell’Europa orientale e dell’Asia settentrionale, in Quaderni di Semantica 9, 187-317 (I); 10, 123-276 (II).
1
Una risposta alla recensione di Danilo Gheno dedicata agli etruscologi1
di Mario Alinei
forthcoming in «Quaderni di Semantica» 51,2 (2005).
Nella sua recensione al mio libro sull’etrusco come forma arcaica di ungherese Gheno, nonostante mi dia, generosamente, del “linguista insigne”, e nonostante definisca “affascinante” e “corredata […] di paralleli grammaticali e lessicali individuati con acribia” la mia ricostruzione dell’etnogenesi ungherese, mi tratta poi come uno scolaretto al quale il maestro abbia restituito il compito, pieno di righe rosse e blu… Ecco, per cominciare, la mia ‘pagella’ scolastica: “capovolgimento ardito” (218): “labilità di moltissimi dei [miei] ragionamenti linguistici dal lato ungherese” (220); “soluzioni inaccettabili [nell’ambito dell’armonia vocalica” (221), “errori che concernono la morfologia storica collegata all’armonia vocalica” (221), “enunciazioni fonetiche singolari” (idem), “fraintendimenti semantici di parole ungheresi che gettano nuova ombra su tutta l’impostazione del lavoro” (223); “qualche equivoco anche in finnico (per tacer di altre lingue)” (224), “non comuni soluzioni”, “accostamenti e […] ricostruzioni azzardate […] errori di natura filologica, grammaticale e linguistico-storica dovuti – penso - a frettolosa interpretazione o a inattualità delle fonti” (228); “modo di procedere a passo forse troppo sicuro [che mi] fa cadere in altre semplificazioni” (230).
Certo anche il miglior cavallo ha le sue pulci, ma qui mi vedo ridotto addirittura a un asino!
Per fortuna, mi sarà facile mostrare che la stragrande maggioranza delle osservazioni di Gheno sono assolutamente irrilevanti per la mia tesi, per cui anche i giudizi citati si dimostreranno del tutto infondati. Inoltre, molto spesso le osservazioni di Gheno sono sbagliate. Più importante, la mia stessa teoria, nell’interpretazione che Gheno ne dà nelle prime pagine della sua recensione, è stata addirittura capovolta, con conseguenze ovviamente disastrose per la sua argomentazione.
Ma decisiva è poi questa conclusione: se gli errori che un uralista può trovare nel mio libro sono quelli elencati da Gheno, posso tirare un respiro di sollievo, perché la mia tesi non solo ne esce salva, ma per certi aspetti addirittura rafforzata!
Fatta questa premessa, aggiungo – anche se lo considero superfluo - che non ho alcuna difficoltà ad ammettere i limiti oggettivi delle mie conoscenze delle lingue uraliche. Tanto che alla fine di questa mia replica elencherò le (pochissime) critiche di Gheno che a mio avviso colgono nel segno. Non posso esimermi dal dire, tuttavia, che nel suo insieme la recensione di Gheno non riguarda il mio libro, ma una mia ‘invasione di campo’, valutata in maniera pedante, sulla sola base dell’ungherese moderno, e in modo del tutto avulso dal contenuto del mio libro. Non è quindi una recensione del mio libro, ma un esercizio di ricerca del pelo nell’uovo, che serve solo a quelli che non avrebbero mai voluto che io scrivessi il mio libro.
1 Cfr. D. Gheno, recensione di M. Alinei, Etrusco: una forma arcaica di ungherese, Bologna. Il Mulino, 2003, in «Archivio Glottologico Italiano» 84,2 (2004), pp.217-232.
2
Prima di inoltrarmi nella confutazione dei suoi argomenti, credo però sia utile specificare quali sono i due aspetti fondamentali del mio libro, di cui Gheno non ha tenuto assolutamente conto:
(1) Anzitutto, io non mi sarei sognato di presentare la mia teoria sulla discendenza degli Ungheresi dagli Etruschi sulla semplice base di un certo numero di confronti lessicali. La mia profonda convinzione, fondata su principi teorici e di metodo, è infatti che sia sempre possibile, per chiunque lo desideri, trovare parole simili in qualunque coppia di lingue, scelte anche a caso. Questo per tre ragioni elementari: (A) il sistema articolatorio è lo stesso per tutti gli esseri umani, (B) l’inventario dei fonemi è estremamente limitato ed è necessariamente simile in tutte le parlate del mondo, e (C) il bisogno fisiologico di respirare mentre si parla pone le stesse rigorose restrizioni alla struttura sillabica di qualunque lingua del mondo. Sarebbe quindi facile dimostrare, con una formula statistica e matematica, che le probabilità oggettive di trovare parole simili in due lingue scelte a caso sono altissime. Sono quindi l’ultima persona al mondo a credere che basti elencare qualche somiglianza lessicale per ‘dimostrare’ l’affinità di due lingue, come hanno fatto tutti coloro che si sono avvicendati a scoprire parentele più o meno illustri e assurde per qualsiasi lingua del mondo, compreso l’etrusco e l’ungherese. Oggi, purtroppo, siamo invasi da due categorie di linguisti, non solo dilettanti ma anche di professione: i primi che vedono (quasi sempre) la loro lingua in tutti gli angoli della terra, per cui le vecchie ‘manie’ (più esattamente ‘ideologie’ di origine variamente perversa) del panebraismo, del panillirismo, del panceltismo e del pangermanesimo, che si speravano cancellate per sempre dalla storia della linguistica, ricompaiono oggi sotto forma di panuralismo, panslavismo, pansemitismo e chi più ne ha più ne metta; i secondi che, al contrario, negano le affinità stabilite con assoluta certezza da generazioni di studiosi geniali, creando quindi nuove forme di revisionismo dilettantistico. (2) Il mio interesse per l’ungherese è cominciato nel contesto dell’Atlas Linguarum Europae (di cui sono stato co-fondatore nel 1975, e presidente dell’ALE dal 1982 al 1997), e si è via via accresciuto man mano che la mia teoria della continuità, che ho cominciato ad abbozzare in quegli anni, mi portava a due inevitabili conclusioni: (I) in Italia gli autoctoni erano gli Italici e gli invasori erano gli Etruschi; (II) in Europa sud-orientale, gli autoctoni erano gli Slavi, e il famoso popolo dei kurgan (famoso perché la Gimbutas e la sua scuola lo considerava proto-indoeuropeo), che nel Calcolitico ne aveva invaso una parte, fra cui l’Ungheria (durante la cultura di Baden), era di lingua turcica. Quando la lettura delle fondamentali ricerche di Hugh Hencken sulle origini di Villanova mi ha confrontato con la certezza – confermata da autorità come Pallottino - che la cultura villanoviana e quindi l’Etruria avevano radici carpato-balcaniche, il mio assioma etrusco-turco-ungherese ha preso la sua forma necessaria e definitiva, ed è cominciata la fase della dimostrazione. Che si poi è rivelata molto facile, date le evidenti coincidenze che si lasciavano riscontrare fra etrusco e ungherese non solo nella lingua ma anche nella società. Chi ha letto il mio libro sa quindi che il mio tentativo di dimostrazione del mio assioma è basato su due ordini di argomenti: (A) la straordinaria coincidenza - nei nomi, nel significato e nella portata storica - fra le principali magistrature etrusche, magistralmente studiate dagli Etruscologi, sia archeologi che linguisti, e quelle antico-ungheresi, altrettanto ben studiate dagli specialisti ungheresi; (B) la possibilità di leggere in chiave ungherese testi etruschi, e in particolare (1) sia tutti quelli già tradotti dagli Etruscologi, grazie al loro bilinguismo etrusco-latino, (2) sia alcuni fino ad ora non tradotti, ma la cui traduzione in chiave ungherese poteva essere confermata o dal significato delle figure che i testi servivano a descrivere (per
3
es. le didascalie della Tomba Golini) o dalla tipologia dell’oggetto su cui si trovano incisi (per es. la coppa di Vetulonia nella tomba del Duce).
Credo dunque di poter dire, senza il minimo dubbio e chiamando a testimonianza chiunque abbia letto il mio libro senza preconcetto, che se la mia teoria vale qualcosa questo sta esclusivamente nelle sue premesse archeologiche e nelle conferme interdisciplinari, confermate e illuminate dal confronto linguistico etrusco-ungherese. Ovviamente, per quanto riguarda la comparazione etrusco-ungherese, sul lato ungherese posso aver commesso errori di interpretazione e di terminologia, ciò che, come ho già detto, non ho alcuna difficoltà ad ammettere. Proprio a Gheno, fra l’altro, in vista della versione ungherese del mio libro (che mentre scrivo questa replica è già in commercio), mandai il mio libro in omaggio, chiedendogli anche, in nome dell’amicizia in comune con una collega scomparsa, mia carissima amica, se volesse aiutarmi ad eliminare eventuali errori o sviste, in vista della traduzione ungherese. Purtroppo, Gheno non mi ha mai risposto. Inoltre, sempre per la versione ungherese, io stesso ho modificato in parte l’interpretazione di alcune parole dell’iscrizione sulla Coppa di Vetulonia, migliorandone molto il senso e rendendola ancora più vicina all’ungherese di quanto già non fosse.
Infine, non posso esimermi dal ripetere ciò che ho scritto anche nella Prefazione del mio libro, e cioè che l’ho scritto in età avanzata, con il legittimo desiderio, e l’inevitabile fretta, di ultimarlo in tempo per vederne la pubblicazione.
In ogni caso, posso affermare senza esitazione che le correzioni e i miglioramenti, miei o altrui, non intaccano la sostanza della mia scoperta, che resta quella illustrata nel mio libro. Del resto, anche il grande Michael Ventris (al quale certo non mi paragono, se non altro perché non ho decifrato alcunché!), pur non essendo un grecista, e neanche un linguista, ha scoperto che il Miceneo B era greco arcaico. E anche sulla sua tesi, prima che essa venisse accolta universalmente, si riversò il dileggio (“poured scorn”: Chadwick 1958) delle solite, onnipresenti mediocrità accademiche.
Veniamo ora alla recensione. Per recensire seriamente il mio libro, Gheno avrebbe dovuto tener conto dei testi da me tradotti, per lo meno di quelli bilingui, la cui traduzione è certa, e di quelli il cui contesto materiale e/o storico-culturale permette di decidere se le coincidenze da me scoperte siano fortuite o strutturali. Gheno, invece, non ha trattato neanche un testo etrusco da me tradotto nella sua integrità e, a parte una sintesi della mia teoria sulla ricostruzione dell’arrivo degli Ungheresi nella Pianura Carpatica (v. oltre), si è limitato a un lunghissimo elenco di parole etrusche, da me avvicinate all’ungherese per ragioni testuali, e non di mero confronto lessicale, e a proposito delle quali mi rimprovera errori di terminologia e di interpretazione, sviste, lapsus calami, errori di stampa e in genere la sia pur minima deviazione dall’ungherese moderno.
Vedremo più oltre un campione sufficientemente rappresentativo del tipo di osservazioni predilette da Gheno. Ma prima di ogni cosa devo informare il lettore di quella che è la più sbalorditiva fra le sue affermazioni a proposito della mia teoria, e tale da inficiare tutta la sua recensione, anche a prescindere dalle ambigue finalità che si è dato e che illustrerò più oltre. Ecco di cosa si tratta.
Dopo aver contrapposto la mia teoria a quella di Pogrányi-Nagy, che sosteneva la comune origine dell’Ungherese e dell’Etrusco dal Sumero (nel mio libro doverosamente ricordata, ma subito accantonata come immeritevole di attenzione), Gheno la presenta così: “Ora invece è stato proposto – credo per la prima volta - un capovolgimento ardito: non sono gli ungheresi a essere eventualmente discendenti degli etruschi, ma il contrario” (218, mio corsivo). Confesso che sono rimasto di stucco quando ho letto queste righe. Anche se Gheno ammette la propria incompetenza in
4
materia di Etrusco, non può ignorare che l’Etrusco è di quasi due millenni più antico dell’antico Ungherese. Più importante, la conclusione principale del mio libro, annunciata nel titolo e ripetuta non so quante volte nel testo, è che alla luce della mia analisi l’etrusco appare essere “una forma arcaica di Ungherese”, cioè uno stadio linguistico che si trova a metà fra il Proto-Ugrico e l’ungherese storicamente attestato (cfr. e.g. pp.27), quindi qualcosa che si avvicina al Proto-Ungherese. Inoltre, dalla mia stessa ricostruzione (cap.VI) della Honfoglalás (la conquista/occupazione della patria, proprio quella che Gheno, come abbiamo visto, ha trovato “affascinante”), dovrebbe essere evidente che gli Ugri destinati a diventare gli Ungheresi, che nel Calcolitico si sono staccati dal loro ceppo, lo hanno fatto dopo essere stati acculturati da una elite turca (ciò che, a parte la cronologia, i maggiori specialisti comunque ammettono), ed è quindi a partire da questo momento, ancora prima della occupazione dell’attuale Ungheria, che possiamo considerare siano nati i Proto-Ungheresi come popolazione magiara dominata da un’élite turcica, e che potremmo chiamare anche Proto-Etruschi. Naturalmente, gli Etruschi storici, cioè quelli che incontriamo soltanto nei primi secoli del primo millennio a.C., avevano ormai avuto tutto il tempo di mescolarsi ad altri popoli non danubiani, italici e non, e quindi di mutare la propria lingua originaria in misura anche notevole. Ma ciò nonostante è ovvio che l’Etrusco, in questa visione, rappresenta la fase linguistica più vicina possibile al Proto-Ungherese, e quindi anche all’Ugrico. Non a caso, a p.69, per esempio, ho scritto testualmente “l’etrusco – in quanto antenato dell’ungherese –”; e in tutto il mio IV capitolo, in cui ho presentato quello che mira ad essere il primo abbozzo di una grammatica storica etrusco-ungherese, la formula che ho adottato sistematicamente, e usato centinaia di volte, è quella “Etrusco .> Ungherese”: ciò che significa, per chiunque conosca il valore di “>” in linguistica storica, che prima viene l’Etrusco e poi viene l’Ungherese! Per cui, se di “capovolgimento ardito” è lecito parlare è solo a proposito di quello che fa Gheno nei confronti della mia teoria! Non solo, ma è anche evidente che partendo dall’ungherese moderno anziché da uno stadio intermedio fra Proto-Ugrico e Antico Ungherese, gran parte delle critiche di Gheno perdono qualunque attinenza col mio libro, e qualunque interesse per chi si aspetti una seria discussione della mia tesi.
Non sorprenderà, quindi, che moltissime delle osservazioni di Gheno pecchino di questo peccato originale. Bastino qui, per illustrare questo punto, tre esempi (altri seguiranno più oltre): (1) il mio confronto, abbastanza trasparente, fra etr. tular ‘confine’ e ungh. túl ‘al di là, oltre’, fra l’altro attestato come sostantivo (con suff. possessivo) nel 1519 (EWU) (e cfr. tutti i composti di tul + sost. per indicare l’altra parte, l’altro lato di qualcosa, e fra i verbi per es. túljar attraversare, superare, sorpassare’). Gheno (p.222) commenta così: “vi sono due fraintendimenti nell’ultima frase di Alinei: l’EWUng. [...] data al 1519 l’accezione di ‘jenseitiger Teil’ di túl come “Subst [haupts mit PossSf]”, oggi questa parola è ignota in qualità di sostantivo” (mio corsivo). Dunque, siccome oggi il sostantivo non esiste, anche se esisteva nel 1519, non poteva esistere in etrusco! (2) La mia (banale) affermazione che l’ungherese ha neutralizzato l’opposizione fra consonanti [occlusive] scempie e geminate (p.267) – affermazione che ho ripreso dalla “Hungarian Historical Phonology” del compianto Béla Kálmán, e che si trova in qualunque manuale di uralistica. Gheno, invece di farmi notare, semmai, che ho omesso la specificazione ‘occlusive’, replica elencando esempi di coppie minime dell’ungherese moderno: esempi tipici, fra l’altro, di opposizioni di scarso rendimento funzionale, a livello lessicale, come orom ‘cima’ e orrom ‘il mio naso’, várom ‘lo aspetto’ várrom ‘rovine di un castello’. (3) Il mio (tentativo di) confronto (Gheno omette di segnalare che la mia formulazione è molto cauta) fra etr. has mun[xx] e ungh. munka ‘tortura (al ventre)’ (attestato nel 1200) e di evidente
5
derivazione da un termine slavo avente lo stesso significato. Gheno corregge: “oggi (già dopo il 1372 […]) ‘lavoro’” (p.223).
Come ho già detto, Gheno non discute nessun testo tradotto integralmente in chiave ungherese. Per mostrare le conseguenze che questa sua scelta ha sul livello delle sue osservazioni, comincio da tre parole etrusche molto importanti, la cui lettura in chiave ungherese Gheno discute separatamente, ma che sono invece parte integrante di un testo molto significativo, oltre che degli altri testi in cui appaiono. Queste tre parole sono: (1) ure, che io avvicino a ungh. úr ‘signore’, (2) nac, che io avvicino a PUngh. *neki ‘per, su, verso’ e a ungh. –nak / -nek ‘dativo’ e (3) tansina, che io avvicino a ungh. tan- ‘i insegnare’ + szín ‘bella forma’. Credo sia utile riassumere le questioni sollevate dalla mia traduzione del testo, per poter valutare la debolezza – e l’ambigua finalità - delle critiche di Gheno.
Tutte e tre le parole appaiono nell’iscrizione sulla Tazza di Vetulonia, lo splendido kyathos (vaso potorio ad ansa rialzata) di bucchero ritrovato nella tomba detta, per la sua ricchezza, 'del Duce', del VII-VI sec. a. C. L’iscrizione, importante anche per la sua antichità, l’ho letta nella lezione di Pallottino:
naceme uru iqal qilen iqal iceme mesnamer tansina mulu
Va anzitutto ricordato che la mia traduzione in chiave ungherese permette di interpretare questo vaso etrusco come appartenente alla categoria dei manufatti ‘parlanti’, e quindi come uno di quegli oggetti di prestigio e di proprietà individuale che si rivolgono, parlando in prima persona, al loro proprietario. Numerosi sono i vasi latini di questo tipo, e nel mio libro ho citato l’iscrizione latina incisa su un bicchiere proveniente da Reims, che recita a me, dulcis amica, bibe “da me, dolce amica, bevi” e quella sull’olla proveniente da Nimega ol(l)a(m) tene bibe “tieni, prendi l’olla e bevi!” In questo caso, poiché sappiamo che il destinatario dell’apostrofe iscritta sullo splendido vaso è un Duce, personaggio etrusco così chiamato per la ricchezza della sua tomba, ci si può quindi attendere che l’iscrizione sia significativa. Ora, questa interpretazione del vaso come ‘parlante’ dipende proprio dalla lettura in chiave ungherese della prima parola del testo, naceme, lettura poi confermata da quella delle parole successive. Ecco alcune citazioni della mia analisi, così come le presento nel mio libro, cui faccio seguire i commenti di Gheno.
naceme: si lascia identificare con l’avv. ungh. nekem 'a me, verso di me'. E' lo stesso avverbio e posposizione che abbiamo incontrato nella lamina di Pyrgi, ma che qui si trova in posizione avverbiale assoluta. Come sappiamo, corrisponde alla posposizione ungh. -nak/-nek, segnacaso del dativo, che deriva da un avverbio protoungh. non attestato nek-i 'auf etw zu, entgegen, in Richtung von' (con suffisso possessivo sing. 3a -i (variante di -e)). Accanto alla forma neki non attestata si è sviluppata, con i rimanenti suffissi possessivi (-m, -d ecc.), la serie paradigmatica nekem neked ecc. 'a me, a te' ecc., come è normale in ungherese. Quindi la tazza si rivolge al proprietario con le parole: "verso di me, in me", così come in latino il bicchiere dice “a me” ‘da me’. (p.198)
Cosa dice di tutto questo il mio critico? Anzitutto, ciò che lui discute e cita non è la mia analisi concreta del testo, in cui cerco di argomentare al meglio la mia interpretazione, ma solo la definizione riassuntiva che ne do nel Lessico (a p.71-72), e in cui, per ovvie ragioni di economia, non ho ripetuto i dettagli dell’analisi. Ma poiché non posso dubitare che Gheno abbia letto anche la parte che riguarda i Testi, debbo arguirne che Gheno scelga dal mio testo solo ciò che gli serve per impartirmi una lezioncina di grammatica ungherese, e per di più a sproposito: “A parte che ungh. neki
6
significa ‘a lui/lei’, etr. nac non può essere…” (v. oltre). Critica che non merito affatto, perché nell’illustrazione del testo chiarisco molto bene che il mio neki non è ungh. moderno, bensì PUngh nek-i, non attestato, ma ricostruito (cfr. EWU) col significato da me citato di ‘per, su, verso’. Sicché sia il [sic] dopo la mia glossa “neki ‘per, su, verso” che la sua osservazione che in ungh. neki significa ‘a lui/lei’ sono del tutto fuori luogo.
Ma non basta: il suo principale argomento critico contro la mia lettura di nac e di naceme in chiave ungherese è questo: siccome “la prima attestazione ungherese del suffisso [nella Orazione Funebre del 1195 ca.] presenta ancora solo la variante palatale [nec]”, “nell’epoca etrusca non poteva ricorrere la variante velare del medesimo. Pertanto è fuori luogo altresì la ricostruzione etr. iχnac = ungh. arcaico igynac […] come altre del genere” (221). L’ingenuità teorica di questo commento è disarmante: possibile che Gheno, che certamente sa (cfr. per es. EWU) che ungh. nak/nek deriva da PUr *nä 'questo', ed è quindi affine a mansi, -nā ‘segnacaso lativo’, -nāl ‘ablativo e lativo’, -nāt ‘comitativo’; khanty -na ‘lativo/illativo’, -nat ‘comitativo’ (EWU)” (e sto citando dalla stessa p.108 citata da lui), cioè proprio alle due lingue ob-ugriche strettamente apparentate all’ungherese, non si renda conto che l’attestazione scritta della Orazione sia un argomento assolutamente insussistente (e interpretabile, come tutti gli scripta medievali, in chiave di variabilità grafica e/o di ambizioni normative), di fronte all’evidenza della documentazione comparativa, che mostra consistentemente una /ä/ o una /a/ originaria? Quindi resta del tutto valida, e a mio avviso non poco significativa per la ricostruzione del Proto-Ungherese, la traduzione di etr. naceme ‘a me, verso di me’, come equivalente - e prima attestazione in assoluto, del VII/VI secolo a.C.! - di ungh. nekem. Passiamo ora alla seconda parola discussa da Gheno, e che nella mia analisi del testo io tratto così
uru: forma arcaica di ungh. úr 'signore, padrone, proprietario', già attestato nell'XI sec., di etimo controverso ma di prob. origine turcica: aturc. urï 'giovanotto', da *uru, urï 'discendente, parente', termine che aveva a che fare con l'ereditarietà, e che quindi nell'antica società turco-magiara si associava solo agli alti strati della società (EWU). E' l'appellativo ungherese per eccellenza, lo abbiamo già visto nel Lessico, e lo vedremo ancora più oltre. In ungherese moderno, tuttavia, ci aspetteremmo la forma possessiva uram. Due sono quindi le possibili ipotesi: in etrusco non esisteva ancora la forma possessiva enclitica, e in questo caso la traduzione sarebbe il vocativo “o signore”, con cui il vaso si rivolgerebbe direttamente al proprietario (come nell’esempio latino); oppure uru rappresenta il soggetto della frase, al nominativo, quindi corrisponderebbe a “il signore”. Vedremo se vi sono altri argomenti in favore dell’una o dell’altra traduzione.
Anche in questo caso, come è suo solito, Gheno sembra seguire un percorso intenzionalmente tortuoso, alla ricerca della sola cosa che lo interessi: il pelo nell’uovo. La forma da lui citata, anzitutto, non è infatti il chiarissimo uru della Tazza di Vetulonia - chiarissimo perché la sua forma coincide perfettamente con uru dell’antico ungherese, e quindi non criticabile… -, bensì ure, che Gheno cita, di nuovo, dal mio Lessico, e non dai testi in cui è attestata. In secondo luogo, è utile ricordare che sia ure che uri, l’altra variante di uru, sono esclusivamente attestate in iscrizioni su vasi, evidentemente appartenenti a un ‘signore’, e che in non pochi casi questi vasi recano anche il segno del pentagramma, ben noto simbolo magico, di potenza e di perfezione, perfettamente appropriato al ‘signore’. Ma anche di questo, ovviamente, non c’è parola nella recensione di Gheno…
7
Nella mia analisi di questa particolare forma ure (soprattutto nell’iscrizione ure mi che ha tutto l’aspetto di una semplice dichiarazione di possesso: ‘io sono del signore’), nel mio libro propongo una lettura della –e finale come segnacaso del possessivo o diminutivo. Gheno, anche questa volta, mi bacchetta: alt! in ungh. moderno dovremmo avere ura! Al che, timidamente, vorrei rispondere: “fin qui, signor maestro, ci arrivavo anch’io…”. Poi, però, mi suggerisce un’altra chiave di lettura, secondo la quale -e potrebbe essere letto come un ‘segno di possesso’, per cui la mia traduzione resta valida. Questa possibilità mi era sfuggita, e ringrazio vivamente Gheno del suggerimento. Senonché, a questo punto, mi chiedo, e giro la domanda al mio critico: ma allora, la mia traduzione in chiave ungherese di etr. uru come ‘signore’ e di ure ‘del signore’ è giusta o sbagliata? Perché se è giusta, come sembra, e se è giusto anche naceme, come anche sembra, per quali misteriose ragioni allora Gheno si è tanto accanito a cercare errori inesistenti, e allo stesso tempo a nascondere gli aspetti più rilevanti della mia tesi, qui come altrove?
Ma vediamo ora, prima di passare alla terza parola di questo testo discussa da Gheno, anche la traduzione del resto della proposizione, che è la più trasparente per il confronto con l’ungherese, e che quindi – per ovvie ragioni di congruenza testuale, semantica e sintattica - getta luce su ciascuna delle parole che la compongono, comprese quelle discusse da Gheno. Inoltre, come ho già detto, per la versione ungherese del mio libro ne ho anche migliorato la traduzione. La prima parola che segue uru, e che Gheno non discute nella sua recensione (perché ovviamente non ha niente da opporre alla mia traduzione, e quindi gli conviene nasconderla…), è infatti iθal. E’ una parola importantissima per la coerenza del testo e per la sua traduzione dato che, esssendo l’iscrizione su un vaso potorio ‘parlante’, è chiaro che essa si lascia immediatamente confrontare con ungh. ital ‘bevanda’. Coincidenza fortuita anche questa, dopo le altre ‘coincidenze fortuite’ delle parole che precedono (e quelle che, come vedremo, seguono)?
Poi segue θilen, anche questa convenientemente taciuta da Gheno, ma importantissima per me, perché si lascia confrontare– anche qui immediatamente, dato il contesto libatorio - con ungh. tele 'pieno', tőlt ‘versare, riempire’, mansi täwl 'pieno', khanti tel 'pieno' ecc. tutti da FU *täbd3 o *tälk3 'pieno'. Considero quindi la parola come voce dell’imperativo di un verbo PUngh. *tel ‘versare, riempire’. Per la forma, tuttavia, mentre nel mio libro italiano ho lasciato aperte diverse traduzioni possibili, nella versione ungherese ho scelto *teljen, nonostante l’ungh. moderno abbia teljel. Ho avanzato questa ipotesi perché nelle lingue obugriche – per definizione antecedenti dell’ungherese in molti aspetti - l’uscita dell’imperativo di 2a persona sg. è –n (cfr. mansi totegyn, khanti tet´n), per cui, di conseguenza, è verosimile che questa caratteristica si sia continuata in etrusco, e sia stata innovata in un periodo successivo.
Dopo una ripetizione di iθal ‘bevanda’, del tutto adatta alla tipologia libatoria del testo (v. oltre), segue poi iχeme, che ovviamente dev’essere il verbo che regge iθal. Dico ovviamente perché se iθal teljen vale ‘la bevanda versa’, iθal iχeme deve rappresentare un costrutto parallelo, del tutto adatto al contesto libatorio.
Tuttavia, questa è la forma che mi ha dato più filo da torcere e per la quale, nel mio libro italiano, non sono riuscito a trovare una soluzione soddisfacente. Soluzione che ho invece trovato per la versione ungherese, e che ora mi sembra valga la pena di illustrare; e per due ragioni: (1) per mostrare che la mia lettura in chiave ungherese, proprio perché migliorabile, è del tutto fondata, e (2) per ricordare a Gheno che forse sono proprio questi miglioramenti che gli specialisti di ungherese dovrebbero cercare di suggerire, anziché concentrarsi nella ricerca delle eventuali imperfezioni nel mio trattamento dei materiali ungheresi.
8
Anzitutto, di fronte a iχeme, dato che l’equivalenza grafematica <χ> = <gy> è documentabile (e rinvio per questo al mio libro), dato il contesto materiale del vaso potorio, e data la tipologia libatoria del testo, va da sé che la prima ipotesi che viene in mente è che si tratti di una voce dell’imperativo in igy- del verbo ungherese moderno iszik ‘bere’: igyak -ál –on; -am idd/igyad igya, risp.1a 2a e 3a sg, indef. e def. L’ipotesi più facile è quindi, naturalmente, che l’invito del vaso parlante al suo Signore fosse duplice, e nella giusta concatenazione: “la bevanda versa, la bevanda bevi!”. Il problema, senonché, stava in quella -me finale, per la quale non sembrava vi fossero altre scelte oltre alla traduzione ‘che io beva’: l’unica forma dell’imperativo definito con –m finale esendo infatti la 1a. Per cui, nella versione italiana del mio libro ho lasciato aperte diverse ipotesi per questa forma, tutte però contraddittorie rispetto alla tipologia dei vasi potorii parlanti, in cui ovviamente non è mai il vaso che beve bensì il proprietario del vaso (cfr. il lat. “a me … bibe” e simili).
Ed ecco, invece, la nuova – e semplicissima - soluzione che ho proposto nella versione ungherese: poiché l’iscrizione è in scriptio continua, la forma iχeme si lascia leggere anche come iχe me, ciò che permette di vedere in me, anziché il pron. pers. di 1° p.sg., il completivo meg, dialettalmente anche me (EWU s.v.)2. Iχe me sarebbe quindi l’equivalente etrusco di ungh. idd (< igy-) meg cioè ‘beviti, bevi per me, bevi tutto’, con una lettura che quindi rientra perfettamente nella tipologia dei vasi potorii parlanti. Il fatto, qui riferito in nota, che questa traduzione mi sia stata suggerita da una intelligente lettrice ungherese, dimostra meglio di qualunque argomento la possibilità di avvicinarsi al mio libro in modo radicalmente diverso da quello di Gheno. Si noti che con questa traduzione finisce la prima parte del testo, che come ho illustrato nel libro si lascia dividere in due proposizioni. La prima,, infatti, recita ora
“In me, o signore, la bevanda versa, la bevanda bevi tutta”.
Traduzione assolutamente conforme alla tipologia dei vasi potori parlanti e, a mio avviso, altamente significativa per l’etruscologia e per la mia tesi della derivazione dell’ungherese dall’etrusco. Vediamo ora la seconda parte del testo, che contiene anche la terza parola del testo discussa da Gheno. La prima parola successiva è: - mesnamer, che nel mio libro ho considerato un composto di mesna- confrontabile, fra le possibili opzioni, a ungh. méz 'miele, idromele' + suff. na, e di mer, confrontabile a ungh. mer 'misurare' (cfr. maro- 'gromatico', per il quale v. oltre). Anche di questa traduzione, tuttavia, posso ora dare una spiegazione e una giustificazione migliore: dalla letteratura specializzata ho infatti ricavato l’informazione - quanto mai rilevante per la mia traduzione! - che il kyathos greco non era soltanto un vaso potorio, ma anche una unità di misura per liquidi. Ciò che, naturalmente, conferma pienamentela mia traduzione ‘misura per l’idromele’. L’ultima parola del testo, che conviene illustrare prima di passare a quella discussa da Gheno, è poi mulu.
Questa parola etrusca - anch’essa, inutile dirlo, taciuta da Gheno -, è molto comune nell’epigrafia etrusca ed è già stata tradotta, fin dalle origini dell’etruscologia, come ‘dono’. Nella mia lettura si lascia avvicinare a un termine fondamentale della religione finnougrica, estinto in ungherese e in altre lingue finnougriche, ma ancora centrale in khanty, una delle due lingue obugriche strettamente imparentate con l’ungherese. Essa sopravvive nel suo pieno significato nei suoi svariati dialetti: Vasjugan e Obdorsk mul- mut- 'offrire alle divinità, implorare (divinità)', '(nell'offerta al
2 Mi ha messo sulla buona strada un’osservazione della Sig.ra Ursulya Demeter.
9
focolare) chiedere l'accettazione divina', 'offrire cibo e bevande alle divinità', Demjanka superiore 'pregare, ottenere con preghiere (dalle divinità)', Krasnojarsk mut- 'offertorio, preghiera, supplica rivolta alle divinità pre-cristiane', Kazym mŭä 'bestemmia, formula di incantesimo, offertorio', mŭäəs 'recitare una preghiera appropriata per le offerte, bestemmiare, distruggere con le parole, incantare con frasi vuote', mansi (< khanty) mul 'formula di incantesimo' (OW 555 sgg, cfr. UEW). Ed eccoci infine alla terza parola del testo discussa da Gheno, di nuovo senza alcun rinvio al contesto in cui appare: tansina.
Poiché mulu significa certamente ‘dono’, è logico ipotizzare, dal punto di vista ermeneutico, che il precedente tansina sia un’apposizione di mulu, che chiarisca la natura del dono, a sua volta specificata dal mesnamer ‘misura per l’idromele’. Ho quindi letto tansina come composto di ungh. tan- 'insegnare' (tanít 'insegnare', tanul 'imparare', tanítság 'scienza', tanár 'dotto' ecc., famiglia lessicale diffusa anche in altre lingue uraliche (Ur *tuna- 'imparare'), e che ha numerosi riscontri anche in turcico, e di szín 'bella forma' (XII sec.), 'forma esterna' (XV sec.). Quindi ‘forma bella con cui insegnare'.
Ed ecco come Gheno commenta questa mia traduzione: “Osservo che ungh. tan- in sé non significa ‘insegnare’, ma è una radice di ambito semantico attinente all’apprendere, allo studio; unicamente applicandole degli affissi se ne chiarisce l’accezione: così tan/ít ‘insegnare’, tan/ul ‘studiare’, tan/ár ‘insegnate, professore’ ecc.” (227). Ora in questo commento Gheno dimostra anche poca familiarità con la semantica storica e comparata. Anzitutto, è arcinoto che la maggioranza delle parole per ‘insegnare’ sono eguali o collegate a quelle per ‘imparare’: per esempio francese apprendre, neogreco mathaíno, rumeno învăţa, gallese dysgu, bretone deski, danese laere, olandese leeren, serbo-croato učiti ecc. ecc. significano sia ‘insegnare’ che ‘apprendere’. Anche in tanti dialetti e sub-standard regionali italiani si sente dire correntemente me l’ha imparato lui. Per cui, dove sta il problema? E’ del tutto plausibile che in uno stadio così antico dell’ungherese tan- fosse usato in entrambi i sensi, e che la sua differenziazione mediante affissi sia avvenuta più tardi. Inoltre, il semplice fatto che la stessa radice tan- abbia subito il processo di specializzazione (diversamente, per esempio, che in italiano e in inglese) avrebbe per lo meno dovuto invitare Gheno a una maggior cautela, se non al silenzio. La sua obiezione è dunque assolutamente insignificante, sia in sé che per la mia tesi.
Ma lasciamo parlare ancora Gheno: “Il termine ungh. szin poi, oltre ad aver due omonimi, dispone ancor oggi di una ricchezza straordinaria di significati: ‘colore, cera, aspetto, apparenza, superficie’ e altro; … Non si capisce dunque perché mai Alinei estrapoli proprio quei due: ‘bella forma’ (…) del XII, non dell’XI sec., e ’forma esterna’. Eppure, anche qui, la ragione della mia scelta è semplicissima, ed è sfuggita a Gheno solo perché ha esaminato la parola al di fuori del suo contesto: la banalissima ragione della mia scelta è che, trattandosi di un vaso ‘parlante’, e per di più di squisita fattura, il donatore del vaso al Duce, che è naturalmente anche la persona che ha commissionato l’iscrizione, ne ha voluto anche decantare i pregi estetici: ‘bella forma’ è quindi l’unica traduzione che si adatti perfettamente al resto del testo e al contesto materiale.
Sicché, a conti fatti, essendosi le obiezioni di Gheno nel frattempo ridotte a niente, ecco che la mia traduzione dell’iscrizione sulla Tazza di Vetulonia del VII/VI secolo a. C. si lascia confermare intieramente, e quindi leggere a un dipresso così:
"In me o signore la bevanda versa, la bevanda bevimi tutta; (io sono) l'offerta che con la sua bella forma indica la misura di idromele"
10
Quattro sono ora le domande che vorrei rivolgere a Gheno: (1) è o non è adatta questa traduzione a un’iscrizione su vaso potorio parlante? (2) Si avvicina o no agli analoghi testi latini? (3) E’ o non è il testo etrusco vicino, anzi molto vicino all’ungherese? (4) Ed è o non è interessante e significativo, per uno specialista di lingua ungherese, che una sequenza di dieci parole etrusche, iscritte sul piede di un vaso potorio/misura di capacità, tutte avvicinabili in modo plausibile e produttivo ad altrettante parole ungheresi, sia leggibile come una concatenazione - logica e fornita di senso compiuto - di nozioni tutte appartenenti – meno uru ‘Signore’ e proprietario del vaso - al campo semantico del ‘bere’: cioè ‘bevanda’ ‘bere’ ‘versare’ ‘idromele’ ‘misura’? Sequenza – si noti - non solo altamente prevedibile, dato il vaso su cui è iscritta, e non solo tipologicamente confrontabile con iscrizioni latine e greche, ma anche fornita di una sua logica interna per cui, per esempio, l’invito a ‘versare la bevanda’ precede, come è logico, l’invito a berla? Il fortuito, come ho già detto, si lascia ipotizzare per qualunque coppia di parole di lingua diversa, considerate in sé. Diventa sempre meno ipotizzabile man mano che le parole si concatenano fra loro in senso compiuto. E diventa assolutamente impensabile se accanto al senso compiuto e alla concatenazione logica si aggiunge anche un contesto semantico che coincide perfettamente con il contesto materiale. A questo punto, cioè, l’onere delle prove ricade su chi, nonostante l’evidenza, faccia finta di niente e banalizzi il tutto.
Vediamo un altro esempio delle conseguenze cui va incontro Gheno discutendo i miei confronti lessicali senza alcuna attenzione per il contesto testuale e materiale: la parola etr. nesl e varianti grafiche. Ecco come presento la parola nel capitolo del mio libro dedicato al lessico:
NESL NEISL NEŚL ‘guarda, osserva’ (imperat. 2a sg.)
Si trova in diverse iscrizioni, sul fronte di un sepolcro, o su ceppo o lapide, sempre seguito da uqi ‘sepolcro’ (TLE 167, 168, 178, 198, 351), e quasi sempre preceduto da eca ‘questo’, quindi “osserva questo/il sepolcro”. Solo in TLE 515 è preceduto da tular hilar ‘confini e luoghi’, e in TLE 359 si trova due volte in un contesto più complesso. Corrisponde da vicino, anche nella morfologia, a un imperativo 2a sg. di ungh. nez ‘vedere, guardare, contemplare, ecc.’, cioè nezzel, oppure di nesz-, base di neszel ‘osservare’ (cfr. EWU). Tipologicamente, si lascia confrontare all’uso di aspice, contempla e simili nelle iscrizioni funerarie latine: per es. «…hospes resiste et tumulum hunc excelsum aspice quo continentur ossa…» (CIL V, 6808), «…aspice praeteriens monumentum…» (CIL XII 1981) «…hospes resiste et tumulum contempla meum…» (CIL III, 6416), «… nostrum contempla sepulcrum…» (CIL III 9314).
Si noti che la traduzione di suthi ‘sepolcro’ e di eca ‘questo’ è degli Etruscologi, ed è avvalorata dalla lettura che ne ho fatto in chiave ungherese. E si noti che nel capitolo dedicato ai testi ho raccolto una decina di iscrizioni tutte recanti la forma nesl e varianti ‘contempla, guarda’, quasi tutte su fronte di sepolcro, e nel solito contesto di suthi e/o eca, meno una, su lapide, in cui il verbo è preceduto da tular hilar, quindi ‘osserva i confini dei luoghi’.
Ed ecco come tratta Gheno questa parola: en passant, e fra parentesi (p.222), mi fa notare che non mi sono accorto di aver scritto nezzel anziché nézzél. Cospargendomi il capo di cenere per questa e per simili sviste tipografiche, oso chiedere al mio critico: ma cosa cambia questo alla mia tesi? Resta il fatto che l’ungherese nézzél offre qui una chiave di lettura altamente significativa per tutta una serie di iscrizioni tipologicamente affini e legate a un sepolcro, e che il valore dell’equivalenza etrusco-ungherese nesl/nézzél non sta tanto nel fatto che il significato ‘guarda, osserva’ si adatta perfettamente al contesto sepolcrale, ma anche in quello, del tutto rilevante per
11
l’etruscologia, e da me puntualmente rilevato, che esiste un parallelo tipologico nell’uso epigrafico e sepolcrale latino. Su tutto questo, come sempre, Gheno tace.
Ancora un esempio dello stesso tipo: la mia traduzione di etr. trutnvt ‘aruspice, sciamano. Si tratta, anzitutto, di un termine fondamentale della religione etrusca, essendo parte di una iscrizione bilingue dove appare come l’equivalente di lat. haruspex fulguriator. Non vi sono quindi dubbi sul suo significato, e il mio confronto con l’ungherese dovrebbe essere valutato, da un critico rigoroso, solo in questo contesto. Ecco invece come Gheno ‘critica’ la mia traduzione: “rad. di ungh. táltos ‘sciamano, stregone’ «lo scambio fra –l- ed –r- è … ben documentato», «anche la metatesi di tult/turt è ben documentata» (p.82)” p.226). Tutto senza commento, quasi a dire che non ne vale neanche la pena! Ed ecco, invece, cosa ha taciuto: (1) che il mio confronto, per il vocalismo, non è direttamente con ungh. táltos ‘sciamano, stregone’, ma è, ovviamente, col vocalismo molto più pertinente di PUgr. *tult3 ‘magia, potere magico’, e quindi, semmai, con khanty (una delle due lingue obugriche) toltn tolten ‘dotato di potere magico’; (2) che lo scambio di –l- ed –r- è documentato non solo in etrusco (cfr. le mie citazioni dalla magistrale ricerca del de Simone), ma anche in ungherese (ungh. dial. berső, kürső, bartara ecc.), mentre la metatesi di tult/turt è documentata in etrusco, come mostrano non solo etr. Prosepnai per gr. Persephónā ed altri esempi, ma lo stesso Etrusci rispetto a umbro Turskom…
Ma continuiamo e vediamo come reagisce Gheno ad altre straordinarie coincidenze: quelle nel nome, nella cosa e nell’origine, fra magistrature etrusche e magistrature ungheresi: cioè prima di tutto all’identità di gyula = zila e di kende = canθe; in secondo luogo di maro = mérő e di lucumo lő+kum ‘uomo’. Ecco come: “La prima sorpresa viene al capitolo iniziale intitolato “Origini turciche e ungheresi dei principali termini magistratuali etruschi”. Sembra che etr. zila ‘princeps civitatis’… sia lo stesso che ungh. gyula ‘oberster Richter oder Heerführer…, etr. canthe ‘rex’… ungh. kende ‘Grossfürst…’, e poi etr. maru ‘gromatico’ = ungh. mérő ‘misuratore, etr. lauxum/luxum, lat. lucumo ‘cavaliere’ = ungh. lóhím ‘maschio di cavallo’ (pp.27.28 – mio corsivo)”. “Sembra che”: tutto qui!
Oltre a questa nonchalance, non posso poi fare a meno di notare anche la libertà che Gheno si prende nei riguardi del mio testo: né a p.27, 28, né altrove nel mio libro io ho mai confrontato etr. lucumo ‘cavaliere’ o ‘nobile’ (p.65) con ungh. lóhím ‘maschio di cavallo’. Glossa, quest’ultima, con la quale Gheno intende naturalmente ridicolizzare la mia traduzione (non a caso, nella versione ungherese della sua recensione (pubblicata in Magyar Nyelv 2004, 490-498), lóhím è puntualmente seguito da un (!)). Per la precisione, a p.27 ho molto chiaramente analizzato la forma etrusca come un composto di ló ‘cavallo’ e di mansi (lingua obugrica, come tale più vicina all’etrusco di quanto non sia l’ungherese) kom kum χum ‘uomo’, da confrontare al nome del popolo uralico dei Komi, più che a ungh. hím ‘maschio’, ovvia innovazione. La mia traduzione, dunque, voleva essere ‘uomo del cavallo’ (cioè ‘cavaliere’ e/o ‘proprietario del cavallo’), con il rectum che precede il regens, e non ‘cavallo-maschio’. E’ però interessante osservare come Gheno, per una curiosa eterogenesi dei fini, con la sua intenzionale falsa traduzione abbia finito, senza volerlo, per contribuire alla mia tesi: perché anche se prendessimo per buono il significato ‘maschio di cavallo’ potremmo egualmente arrivare al lucumo ‘nobile cavaliere’, se ricordiamo a Gheno che il nome dei migliori fra i guerrieri siculi (Székely) magiari (il leggendario popolo della Transilvania che partecipò alla Conquista e venne adibito alla difesa dei confini della nuova patria, e fra l’altro preservò un alfabeto runico di straordinario interesse storico-linguistico, purtroppo non ancora studiato adeguatamente) era lófő ‘privilegierte Szekler’, ma letteralmente ‘testa di cavallo’. Ciò che si spiega, molto meglio di quanto non faccia, troppo genericamente, EWU (“…diese Standesgruppe der Szekler den
12
Heerendients zu Perde kleisten musste”: s.v.), con il costume di seppellire una testa di cavallo nelle tombe dei guerrieri dell’epoca della Conquista, e in quella dei tardi-Avari precedenti, oggi considerati ungheresi anch’essi da molti studiosi. Ragion per cui, fra l’altro, ho preferito tradurre il frequentissimo etr. lupu, anziché con ‘morto’, come da sempre ha proposto l’ermeneutica etruscologica, con ‘nobile, sepolto con gli onori’, considerando questo termine l’antenato, in veste fonetica ancora ugrica, del succitato termine storico ungherese usato per i guerrieri székely. Ma anche di tutto questo, a mio avviso non poco significativo sia per la preistoria ungherese che per l’etruscologia, non c’è traccia nella recensione di Gheno, al quale interessa, come dovrebbe essere ormai chiaro, molto più la ricerca delle pulci nel cavallo che non il cavallo.
L’unico termine, infatti, su cui Gheno sparge a piene mani il lume della sua scienza è il maro, che io identifico – per la prima volta in etruscologia - con il famoso gromatico ‘agrimensore pubblico etrusco’, mediante il confronto con ungh. mérő ‘misuratore’. Il termine maro è dunque una parola fondamentale per l’etruscologia e per la mia teoria, per il posto che questa figura ha nella società etrusca, per la diffusione del suo nome anche in area italica (e.g. lat. maro- onis), e perché l’ermeneutica è ben presto arrivata a identificarla come magistratura, anche se è solo il mio confronto ungherese che ne permette l’identificazione col gromatico della Etrusca Disciplina (per cui rinvio al mio libro). Ed è parola importante anche per Gheno se, a quanto pare, è proprio da questa che ha potuto “prender lo spunto […], allo scopo di additare la labilità di moltissimi ragionamenti linguistici di Alinei dal lato ungherese” (220).
Vediamo dunque gli argomenti di Gheno per dimostrare la “labilità” dei miei ragionamenti linguistici ungheresi a proposito di questa parola.
Per quanto riguarda la semantica, anzitutto, Gheno mi critica – incredibile dictu - per “l’inverosimiglianza della coincidenza semantica”! Ed ecco come: “ungh. mérő non è altro che il participio presente di mér ‘misurare’, attestato la prima volta attorno al 1372 d.C.[…], participio suscettibile anche d’uso sostantivale, ma fondamentalmente nell’accezione di ‘apparecchio misuratore” (mio corsivo, p.220). Dove il mio severissimo critico commette non uno ma quattro errori: (1) la prima attestazione di mérő, nel 1412, è infatti proprio nell’accezione di ‘misuratore (persona), e lo dice proprio la fonte citata da Gheno, l’EWU, e proprio poche righe sotto la prima attestazione di mér da lui riferita! (2) Affermare che un participio presente attestato per uno strumento non può essere usato per una persona è tanto ridicolo quanto affermare che in italiano operatore, interruttore, misuratore, modificatore, unificatore, classificatore, duplicatore calcolatore, regolatore, simulatore accumulatore trasformatore e così via – e in altre lingue l’elenco sarebbe ancora più lungo - sono semanticamente “inverosimili” perché si possono usare sia per persone che per cose. (3) Gheno dimostra di ignorare ciò che in etimologia si chiama processo di specializzazione semantica di un termine in origine generico, processo che appartiene alla storia semantica di tutte le lingue: come per l’italiano per esempio operare, verbo generico in latino (cfr. opus e opera), mentre in italiano operare tout court è potuto diventare verbo specialistico dei chirurghi, così come l’operazione tout court è quella chirurgica, o quella aritmetica ecc. (4) E’ poi lapalissiano, per chiunque abbia un po’ di dimestichezza con la storia delle parole, che in un contesto antico come quello in cui la mia teoria si pone, il passaggio da mér ‘misurare’ a mérő ‘misuratore umano’ abbia necessariamente preceduto lo sviluppo dell’accezione dello ‘strumento’, per la semplice ragione che nella storia della metrologia e della tecnica agronomica si è misurato prima di tutto a ‘spanne’, a ‘piedi’, a ‘braccia’, ‘passi’, a ‘giornate’, a ‘biolche’ e simili, cioè senza strumenti, molto prima che con strumenti come la groma ‘alidada’, tipica del gromatico etrusco del I millennio a.C. Per cui è evidente che prima sia venuto il misuratore umano poi il misuratore strumento! Il problema sollevato da Gheno, quindi,
13
non solo non sussiste, ma – di nuovo - dimostra semplicemente che il mio critico, perfetto conoscitore della lingua e della grammatica ungherese moderna, ha alquanto trascurato lo studio della semantica, teorica, descrittiva, o storica, e sia dell’ungherese che di altre lingue.
Passiamo ora alla fonetica della mia interpretazione di maru. Secondo il mio critico, la mia proposta di maru = mérő ‘misuratore “pecca contro le norme dell’armonia vocalica”. E di quale peccato sarei peccatore? Eccolo: “la “-u di maru può esprimere la labiopalatale /ü/ ~ ungh. ő, visto che il sistema ortografico etrusco, come quello latino, non era in grado di simboleggiare tale tipo di vocali, ma –a in ogni caso non può corrispondere a una /e/, giacché in etrusco questa era univocamente (!) rappresentata a un di presso come una nostra E speculare” (corsivo mio). E chi ha dato questa certezza al Nostro, che ha appena ammesso di essere incompetente in etrusco? Misteri! Prima di tutto, se è difficile parlare di univocità per molti alfabeti moderni, di cui conosciamo perfettamente il valore fonologico e fonetico, figuriamoci per uno antico! Fra l’altro, se non vado errato credo di essere uno dei pochi studiosi italiani che abbia studiato con qualche attenzione, e basandomi su uno spoglio elettronico non insignificante (e da me curato) dei testi medievali italiani (i 22 volumi del progetto SEIOD, pubblicati dal Mulino negli anni Sessanta e Settanta), le incongruenze e le ambiguità del sistema alfabetico medievale fiorentino e di quello veneziano. Ritengo quindi di poter parlare con cognizioni di causa. Inoltre, l’etrusco, diversamente dal latino, ha solo quattro grafemi per rappresentare le vocali, cioè <a e i u>; di conseguenza, parlare di univocità per l’etrusco è per lo meno imprudente, se non assurdo. Se poi ammettiamo che il sistema vocalico etrusco conoscesse già alcune vocali turbate – cosa che anche Gheno si dimostra disposto a fare per <u> - non vedo cosa impedisca al mio critico di ipotizzare anche per la <a> etrusca che potesse servire a rappresentarne una variante palatale, in armonia con la <u>. Che questa tesi sia fondata mi sembra indicato non solo dal fatto che nella documentazione etrusca, come abbiamo visto, troviamo anche mer, accanto a mar (ciò che ci confronta con una tipica oscillazione grafica di un alfabeto mai normalizzato), ma anche dalla documentazione che nel mio libro ho raccolto (cap.IV), sotto forma di abbozzo di grammatica storica etrusco-ungherese, che mostra come la <a> fosse spesso usata dai lapidari etruschi per rappresentare una /ä/ o una /e/: abbiamo infatti per es. etr. ras- ungh. rész, (< FUg *räc3), etr. tarils, ungh. tér (da Ug *tär3), etr. ar-ce ungh. ér, etr. avil ungh. év, etr. mani- ungh. meny, etr. masan aungh. mese etr. maθ- o mas- ungh. méz, etr. nap ungh. nép, etr. tam- ungh. temet, etr. ati ungh. édes (pp.284-285). Come si vede dagli esempi, alcuni risalgono a una /ä/ ricostruita, ciò che giustificherebbe comunque l’adozione di <a> per queste /ä/ realmente palatali. Adozione che – a parte possibili mutamenti fonetici - potrebbe essersi poi estesa, per analogia e/o per le incertezze tipiche degli alfabeti non normalizzati, anche ad altre parole. Mentre in seguito, alla definitiva fissazione della forma mar- per i numerosissimi riferimenti alla magistratura del ‘gromatico’ che si succedono nei documenti etruschi di età tarda, avrebbe potuto contribuire anche l’influenza del latino e/o dell’italico.
Ecco perché la conclusione di Gheno – “Tutto considerato l’equazione etr. maru = ungh. mérő è improponibile” – si dimostra, semmai, assolutamente improponibile proprio lei, per la semantica, e abbastanza superficiale, mi dispiace dirlo, per la fonetica.
E abbiamo già visto, a proposito della mia altra equazione etr. nac = ungh. nak/nek, secondo Gheno anch’essa errata per una simile violazione dell’armonia vocalica, come anche in questo caso il mio critico abbia trovato un pelo, o una pulce, inesistente.
14
Ma anche là dove non vi sono testi, ma dove ho proposto affinità con un carattere strutturale, e quindi esenti, a mio avviso, dal rischio della fortuità, Gheno sorvola sull’aspetto strutturale e si limita a osservazioni che si rivelano del tutto irrilevanti. Vediamo un esempio. Fra i toponimi etruschi che secondo me hanno una significativa affinità ungherese (Felsina, Bolsena, Alsium, Vetulonia, Populonia, Imola, Veii, Tarquinia, Mutina), hanno rilevanza speciale i primi tre, in quanto, tradotti in proto-ungherese, si lasciano interpretare come, rispettivamente, ‘settentrionale, centrale, meridionale’. Attributi che si adattano perfettamente alla posizione di Bologna, di Orvieto e dell’antico porto di Pyrgi (Alsium) rispetto all’area dell’Etruria. Ecco esattamente come presento la mia tesi nel mio libro:
La triade etrusca FELZNA (lat. FELSINA) ‘settentrionale’, VELZNA (lat. VOLSINII, it. BOLSENA) ‘centrale’; e ALS- (lat. ALSIUM) ‘meridionale’ Questi tre toponimi etruschi, letti in chiave ungherese, diventano non solo trasparenti ma anche assai significativi. Felsina, il nome etrusco di Bologna, era stato già avvicinato a Velzna 'Bolsena' da Devoto (cit. in Pellegrii 1978, 118), che però intendeva riunirli, facendone lo stesso toponimo. Letti in chiave ungherese, invece, Felsina e Velzna risultano nettamente separati, anche se collegati da un parallelismo semantico e morfologico. Felsina, anzitutto, si lascia accostare ai numerosissimi toponimi ungh. che iniziano con Felső ‘settentrionale, superiore’ (dall'avverbio fel 'sopra', affine all'agg. föl 'superiore', che a sua volta risale al lessico PUr nella forma ricostruita *pide 'alto, lungo'; cfr. EWU). Fra i toponimi ungh. cito Felsőbagod, Felsőberecki, Felsőberkifalu, Felsőcsatár, Felsődobaza, Felsőegerszeg, Felsőgagy, Felsőgall, Felsőjánosfa, Felsőkelecseny, Felsőmarác, Felsőmindszent, Felsőmocsolád, Felsőnána, Felsőnyárád, Felsőnyékr, Felsőörs, Felsőpáhok, Felsőpakony, Felsőpaty, Felsőpetény, Felsőrajk, Felsőregmec, Felsőtárkány e molti altri. A differenza di quelli elencati, tuttavia, dove felső è un attributo che aggiunge il significato di 'settentrionale' al nome successivo, Felsina avrebbe un valore assoluto, espresso con la formante aggettivale o sostantivale –na (ungh. –ny). Quindi ‘la settentrionale’. Analogamente, Velzna Velsu ecc., lat. Volsinii 'Orvieto’ (ma etimologicamente collegato a it. Bolsena), si lasciano interpretare come 'centrale', dato l'ungh. belső 'interno, interiore' (da bél 'viscere, anima, intestino, interno', che risale al FU *päl3 'l'interno': cfr. EWU)). Fra i toponimi ungh. cito Belsősárd, Belsővát ecc., belföld (föld 'terra') 'entroterra', belváros (város 'città') 'centro della città'. Si ricordi che Orvieto, nel cui santuario di Voltumna si riunivano i delegati dei dodici popoli d’Etruria, era considerata il 'centro' -non solo geografico, ma anche politico- della confederazione etrusca. E si noti anche che il passaggio di vel- a vol- -documentato da etr. Velsna > lat. Volsinii- (it. Bolsena), etr. Velaθri > lat. Volaterrae (it. Volterra) ecc., non riguarda l’etrusco ma è tipico del latino, che muta –e- in –o- davanti a –l- velare (cfr. velim vellem, ma volo volumus volui volt > vult). La corrispondenza continua e si completa con lat. Alsium, che conosciamo come nome di uno dei porti di Caere/Pyrgi (cfr. DICE, e Pellegrini 1978, 113), affine al gentilizio etrusco Alsina, e che in ungh. si lasciano leggere come collegati ad alsó ' meridionale, inferiore'. Per cui, così come in ungh. abbiamo numerose coppie toponimiche del tipo Alsógalla Felsőgalla, Alsójánosfa Felsőjánosfa, Alsókekecsény Felsőkekecsény, Alsólendva Felsőlendva, Alsómarác Felsőmarác, Alsómocsolád Felsőmocsolád, Alsónána Felsőnána, Alsónyék Felsőnyék, Alsópáhok Felsőpáhok, Alsópakony Felsőpakony, Alsópétény Felsőpetény, Alsórajk Felsőrajk, Alsóregmec Felsőregmec ecc., in etrusco avremmo Felsina per Bologna, nell'Etruria settentrionale, Velzna Velsu al centro, e Alsium nell'Etruria meridionale.
E cosa fa il mio critico? Anziché discutere e criticare la mia tesi sulla base di questa presentazione ‘geo-strutturale’ delle coincidenze, Gheno mi fa notare che sia
15
felső che alsó non significano ‘settentrionale’ e ‘meridionale’, bensì ‘superiore’ e ‘inferiore’, e sono quindi “esempi di fraintendimenti semantici di parole ungheresi, che gettano nuova ombra su tutta l’impostazione del lavoro” (p.223)! A parte la totale irrilevanza - proprio sul piano semantico! - dell’osservazione, in quanto nella mia traduzione italiana avrei potuto benissimo usare, anziché settentrionale e meridionale, anche nordico e del sud, oppure alto e basso (cfr. alta Italia e bassa Italia), così come, naturalmente, superiore e inferiore (cfr. Austria superiore e inferiore), poco sembra importare a Gheno l’ammissione, da lui stesso fatta, che in ungherese “eventualmente fel- prefissato [sia] anche ‘settentrionale” e che “eventualmente al- [sia] anche ‘meridionale’ (idem): ciò che dimostra che comunque la mia traduzione è corretta. Inoltre, omette di menzionare che fra i miei toponimi c’è anche belső ‘centrale’, per il quale naturalmente non può fare neanche l’insulsa obiezione che ha fatto per gli altri due termini. E non si rende conto, infine, che in qualunque lingua alto e basso, superiore e inferiore, settentrionale e meridionale, del nord e del sud si possono usare come varianti motivazionali, per esprimere uno stesso significato o, se preferisce, in determinati contesti sono sinonimi. No: il mio è un fraintendimento semantico che getta un’ombra sul tutto il mio lavoro! Ma a Gheno non basta: ritorna sulla questione e mi cita a p.286, dove io – nel capitolo dedicato alla grammatica storica dello sviluppo dall’etrusco all’ungherese (e non il contrario…), elenco Felzna (e Velzna) come documenti della continuazione di <e> tonica etrusca in /e/ tonica ungherese. Ed ecco, di nuovo, la ‘critica’ del Nostro: “Per Alinei in ungherese troviamo un avverbio fel ‘sopra’ e un aggettivo fől ‘superiore’ (p.286): fel e fől sono due varianti regionali, ambedue accettate nello standard, dell’avverbio-preverbo ‘su’; fől sostantivato significa ‘panna (del latte)’ mentre fel prefissato a sostantivi vale ‘superiore’ e, nella lingua parlata, altresì settentrionale’..” Come si vede, Gheno non sta recensendo il mio libro sull’etrusco, ma sta correggendo, ed anche male, quello che evidentemente considera un compitino di scuola, e con l’impegno intellettuale adatto a questo lavoro.
Ma vediamo un altro esempio dell’interesse per la pulce e dell’indifferenza per il cavallo che caratterizzano la recensione di Gheno: sempre fra i miei “fraintendimenti semantici che gettano nuova ombra su tutta l’impostazione del lavoro” il mio critico pone anche la locuzione verbale ungh. eleget tesz (vmi)nek da me così tradotta (e fornita, ahimé, di una é lunga di troppo in eléget): “venire incontro… a (qualcuno)’. Sorvolo sulla citazione del mio testo da parte di Gheno, non del tutto esatta, e passo al nocciolo della questione: la locuzione da me citata, nel contesto in cui si trova – la lamina d’oro di Pyrgi detta A – è fondamentale per la sua traduzione, e lo è proprio per la sua complessa natura sintattica, che coincide perfettamente con quella ungherese, come dirò subito. Gheno invece, oltre ad aver posto l’inevitabile (sic) dopo la mia <é>, mi bacchetta di nuovo: alt! in ungh. la locuzione non si riferisce a ‘qualcuno’ ma a ‘qualcosa’! A questo punto, cosa si può fare, se non sbuffare? Certo, che in ungh. moderno sia così, è senza dubbio vero, dato che l’abbreviazione da me citata è valami ‘qualcosa’, e non valaki ‘qualcuno’. E forse non a caso io ho tradotto ‘soddisfare le richieste’… Ma quello che nell’ambito della mia tesi etrusco-ungherese pensavo dovesse interessare Gheno, e che invece sembra lasciarlo del tutto indifferente, è la straordinaria coincidenza, in un testo etrusco così importante come la Lamina A di Pyrgi, della forma etr. ilaχve con quella ungh. eléggé (< elégvé) e poi, nella parte successiva del testo, la presenza – per due volte - del già discusso nac, anche qui posposto al sostantivo proprio come segnacaso del dativo, e di tes-, il verbo usato nella locuzione ungherese citata. Abbiamo quindi la perfetta corrispondenza, sia lessicale che sintattica e semantica, di tutti e tre i componenti della locuzione verbale ungherese - il verbo tesz, l’avverbio eléggé e il segnacaso del dativo nak, posposto al nome - con le parole etrusche della frase che, letta in questo modo, diventa altamente significativa per
16
un accordo bilingue fra i due popoli punico/fenicio ed etrusco, in quanto ci informa di come il “capo magiaro (= meχ)” Thefarie Velianas intenda “soddisfare (le richieste de)i cittadini di Alsium (porto di Pyrgi) e degli stranieri”. Certo, nella locuzione etrusca abbiamo una ‘persona’ e non una ‘cosa’, ma non ammettere che due mila anni prima dell’ungherese storico il verbo di una locuzione verbale potesse avere una valenza più ampia del suo continuatore moderno significa, a mio avviso, sfidare il buon senso, oltre a non avere la più lontana idea di cosa sia la linguistica storica e comparata.
Un altro esempio tipico del livello a cui Gheno si pone nell’affrontare il mio testo, esempio questa volta sia semantico che fonetico, sta nel suo commento alla mia traduzione dell’etr. puia. Fin dalle origini dell’etruscologia scientifica, questo termine è stato tradotto ‘moglie’. Non sulla base dell’ungherese, ovviamente, ma sulla base delle evidenze interne. Io ho semplicemente ravvisato in ungh. bulya (pron. /b’uia/) ‘donna turca’ quella che mi sembra un’origine del tutto plausibile, dal punto di vista fonetico, e un’interessantissima conferma dell’importanza del ruolo turcico nella società proto-ungherese, da me ripetutamente sottolineata, oltre che di fondamentale importanza per la ricostruzione dell’etnogenesi ungherese, così strettamente legata alla sua componente turcica. Cosa fa Gheno, questa volta? Mi corregge, questa volta, perché ho sbagliato a tradurre bulya come ‘moglie’ anziché ‘donna turca’. Non ho alcuna difficoltà ad ammetterlo. Ma ho sbagliato non perché non avrei capito (!) il török nő del TESz, come si affretta a suggerire il mio critico, ma perché nella mia fonte principale - l’EWU - la glossa tedesca Frau poteva valere, oltre che ‘donna’ anche ‘moglie’. Ma, concesso l’errore, cosa importa tutto questo per la mia tesi, dato che il passaggio da ‘donna’ a ‘moglie’ è elementare (lo mostra appunto il ted. Frau…), e per di più in tante lingue - greco antico e moderno, francese, spagnolo, irlandese antico e mod., gallese, antico islandese, tedesco, olandese, lituano, lettone, slavo eccl., ceco, sanscrito, avestico, per limitarmi alle lingue IE, e per non parlare dei dialetti, a cominciare da quelli alto-italiani - il nome della ‘donna’ e della ‘moglie’ sono esattamente eguali? La sola cosa rilevante, nell’ambito della mia tesi, è che siccome il nome etrusco della ‘moglie’, già accertato dall’etruscologia, coincide con quello che in ungherese significa ‘donna turca’, allora gli Etruschi per definizione avevano, o avevano avuto in epoca più antica, una – appunto! - moglie di origine turca, ciò che darebbe una forma concreta al tipo di società mista turco-magiara che dobbiamo comunque postulare per l’etnogenesi dei Magiari.
E vi è un altro aspetto rilevante a questa mia etimologia, che forse giungerà nuovo al mio critico: la mia traduzione di questa parola etrusca – unita a quella delle altre - importantissime - parole etrusco-ungheresi di origine turcica da me rilevate – può dare un senso molto preciso – e illuminante - a due recenti conclusioni della ricerca geogenetica: (1) quella, a suo tempo molto reclamizzata e quindi ben nota, di Alberto Piazza, uno dei più autorevoli geogenetisti del mondo, sui Toscani di Murlo, secondo cui le affinità genetiche degli Etruschi sono principalmente con i Turchi. E (2) quella, recentissima, e a mia conoscenza ancora inedita, della Guglielmino, geogenetista dell’Università di Pavia, secondo cui una delle due fondamentali affinità genetiche degli Ungheresi è – guarda caso! - con i Turchi (l’altra con gli Iraniani). Interessanti coincidenze non è vero?
Per quanto riguarda poi la fonetica della parola puia < /b’uia/ < bulya, poi, alla mia osservazione che il passaggio –ly- > -y- doveva essere già in atto in epoca etrusca, Gheno contrappone una delle solite affermazioni ancora in uso, purtroppo, in linguistica storica, e cioè che sulla base delle attestazioni scritte questo sviluppo è databile a dopo il XIV secolo d.C. In risposta a questa critica, a mia volta, rinvio il mio critico al capitolo VII delle mie Origini, e ai miei numerosi lavori sul problematica della datazione in linguistica, in cui dimostro, credo in modo definitivo, l’assurdità teorica, e
17
quindi l’assoluta inaffidabilità, delle presunte ‘datazioni’ dei mutamenti fonetici basate sulla data delle attestazioni scritte. Attestazioni che vanno invece lette in chiave puramente sociolinguistica, e con cronologie necessariamente molto più alte. Non mi aspetto, naturalmente, che Gheno aderisca alle mie conclusioni teoriche e di metodo sulla problematica delle datazioni in linguistica, ma solo che si renda conto che quello che ho detto non è il risultato di speculazioni improvvisate, bensì è rigorosamente in armonia con la mia teoria della continuità, e con la sua solida base teorica, oggi seguita da un numero crescente di studiosi. Un altro esempio dei miei “fraintendimenti semantici” dell’ungherese Gheno lo trova nel mio confronto di etr. ati ‘madre’ con ungh. édes ‘madre’, in origine ‘dolce’. Secondo Gheno, questo uso di édes ‘dolce’ come appellativo per la madre risale solo all’Ottocento. Questa volta Gheno si sbaglia, e proprio nella ricerca del pelo: a parte il fatto che ezes ‘madre’ appare già nel Lamento di Maria del 1300, EWU attesta édes ‘blutsverwandt’ (‘parente’) per il 1521, e ‘Liebling’ (‘amato/-a’) per il 1585. C’è dunque più spazio per sostenere la mia tesi di quanto non me ne conceda Gheno. Inoltre, se ‘dolce’ appartiene già all’antico ungherese (1138) (anche come antroponimo (EWU)), non si può neanche escludere che la sostituzione del più antico anya ‘madre’ con l’ipocoristico ‘dolce’ fosse già avvenuta nell’antichità, e in modo del tutto indipendente da quella storica. Senza contare che, volendo, per etr. ati sarebbe possibile anche il confronto con finl. äiti ‘madre’3.
Ancora un esempio della leggerezza con cui Gheno mi attribuisce, nonostante non ce ne sia neanche l’ombra, “fraintendimenti semantici” dell’ungherese, sta nel suo commento alla mia traduzione dell’etr. ceχa ‘sopra’. Ho ripreso questa traduzione dalla migliore ermeneutica etrusca, e la confermo mediante il confronto con ungh. hegy ‘monte’, che però, con suffisso, per es. possessivo –e/i o lativo -é, diventa avverbio ‘sopra’. Tutto questo lo spiego chiaramente, a pp.52-53 del mio libro. Cosa fa Gheno? Senza curarsi minimamente della mia spiegazione dettagliata, mi affibbia un altro rigone rosso a p.269: “ungh. hegy ‘sopra’ ‘monte’” (223), dove ciò che illustro è soltanto la regolarità del passaggio fonetico dalla velare iniziale etrusca di ceχa alla /h/ dell’ungh. hegy, in armonia cona la Lautverschiebung ungherese rispetto all’ugrico e all’uralico, e quindi in un contesto dove non avevo alcuna ragione di tornare sulla semantica della mia traduzione. Più che di un mio fraintendimento semantico, mi sembra dunque un fraintendimento, da parte di Gheno, del compito che si assume un recensore. E ancora più disinvolta è la sua critica alla mia interpretazione dell’etr. krankru come ‘parola gemella’, composta di karom ‘artiglio’ e köröm ‘unghia artiglio’. Gheno anzitutto tace che si tratta della didascalia di una figura di gatto. Ma sorvoliamo su questo punto, che ho già sufficientemente sottolineato. L’errore clamoroso che secondo lui io avrei commesso qui è nell’interpretare questa parola come ‘parola gemella’. Qui è Gheno che sbuffa: ma non mi sono accorto, che si tratta di due “parole vocalarmoniche, realizzatesi attraverso una scissione fonetica? (p.226) E che in tal caso “entrambi i membri di tali coppie sono utilizzati autonomamente, mai insieme”?
La verità, però, risulta un’altra: l’affermazione categorica che queste due parole siano “vocalarmoniche, realizzatesi attraverso una scissione fonetica” rappresenta un’opinione del tutto personale di Gheno, perché l’EWU (s.v. karmol), al contrario, recita: ”Zusammenhang der Wfamilie mit köröm ist kaum wahrsch”. Quindi Gheno anzitutto non informa il lettore sulla posizione corrente, che è quella che giustifica la mia tesi, e poi, non contento, mi corregge sulla base di un’opinione personale! Inoltre, anche se l’opinione di Gheno fosse quella corrente, a giustificare la mia interpretazione
3 Come mi ha suggerito il Prof. Szabó dell’Università di Budapest.
18
della parola - del tutto adatta, in ungherese, a rappresentare scherzosamente un gatto - basterebbe una qualunque delle due parole karom o köröm, dato che tutte e due significano ‘artiglio’, lasciando l’altro elemento della parola gemella alla creatività lessicale degli Etruschi…
Altra tipica obiezione di Gheno è quella che fa alla mia traduzione del frequente etr. mi ma ‘io (sono) il luogo’, in iscrizioni sepolcrali: “in ungherese la copula è omessa solo alle terze persone dell’indicativo presente, non alle prime o alle seconde” (p.223). E con questo? Anzitutto, poiché al Proto-Uralico viene attribuita la possibilità di usare nomi come verbi (come in Nenci: mań sawa-dm ‘io (sono) buono’, dove la copula è sostituita dal suffisso personale), la questione dell’omissione della copula è molto più complessa di quanto non la presenti Gheno, che sembra conoscere solo la regoletta sincronica. Inoltre, l’ipotesi che una lingua che oggi conosce l’omissione della copula per la 3° p. in uno stadio molto più antico la conoscesse anche per la prima appartiene, a mio avviso, al bagaglio congetturale più elementare di qualunque comparatista. Volendo, infine, si può anche ipotizzare un influsso del sostrato slavo (dato che in slavo l’omissione della copula è normale), la cui realtà e la cui importanza, qualunque sia il modello etno-genetico ungherese adottato, sono dimostrate dalla toponomastica ungherese di origine slava.
Tipico è anche il lungo discorso che Gheno mi fa a proposito dei sintagmi etruschi che non seguono l’ordine sintattico normale per le lingue uraliche: il rectum prima del regens. Sulla base di questa osservazione, infatti, Gheno non esita a rigettare la mia traduzione di tular rasnar ‘confini della regione’, tular hilar ‘confini dei luoghi’, apa nacna ‘grande padre = nonno’, ati nacna ‘grande madre = nonna’, che mostrano l’ordine inverso. Senonché – si noti - questo rifiuto delle mie traduzioni (fra l’altro uno dei pochi, in tutta la recensione, che Gheno osi fare esplicitamente) è preceduto da questa sorprendente premessa ‘etruscologica’ da parte di Gheno: “la massima parte dei campioni di etrusco rimastici sono costituiti da iscrizioni funerarie e … il rimanente è dato da didascalie, registrazioni di accordi, formule ecc. … tutti testi redatti – si può pensare – in una lingua fondamentalmente scevra di artifici stilistici inusuali, come ad es. l’inversione.” (p.224 – mio corsivo). Ora io mi domando: possibile che a Gheno non sia venuto in mente che le iscrizioni funerarie, in etrusco di solito dedicate a magistrati e funzionari pubblici, siano un contesto ideale per artifici stilistici? E che dire degli ‘accordi’, che in etrusco hanno luogo addirittura fra popoli diversi (lamine di Pyrgi) e fra grandi famiglie (ceppo di Perugia)? E le ‘formule’? Non sono le ‘formule’ – proprio in quanto tali - quelle che più spesso fanno uso di artifici stilistici? Come per esempio in italiano per lo meno (con l’articolo lo anziché il), vendonsi e affittasi (con l’inversione)? E altrettanto tipica, e ahimé ancora più lunga e noiosa, è poi la critica che Gheno rivolge (a p.225) alla mia traduzione di etr. semniśsi ‘occhi che guardano’, sulla base del raffronto con ungh. szem ‘occhio’ e nézésű ‘-looking –eyed’ (che cito da Országh László, Magyar Angol Szótár, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 1977). Qui la filippica di Gheno, tutta rivolta esclusivamente alla terminologia da me usata, si conclude così: “Dal che, infine e risolutivamente (?), si conferma che nézésű non può essere “tuttora usato come attributivo dopo un sostantivo, nel senso di ‘che guarda’”. Anche ammesso che questo sia vero (non ne sono certo, dato che nella succitata fonte lessicografica il lessema –nézesű ‘-looking, -eyed’ è preceduto da trattino e definito come aggettivo), non è questo che importa. Quello che invece mi sembra rivelatore, di tutto il discorso di Gheno, sono queste sue tre righe (delle ben 33 che ha dedicato alla parola): “il composto ungherese –teoricamente possibile ma semanticamente bizzarro – szemnézésű alla lettera non potrebbe voler dire che ‘… che ha lo sguardo dell’occhio, dotato delle sguardo dell’occhio’” (corsivo mio). Ma non è proprio questa la traduzione
19
che io ho attribuito alla parola etrusca! Il problema, per Gheno, è il solito: nel suo discorso pseudo-critico non menziona la sola cosa essenziale, dal punto di vista critico: il fatto che la parola si trova su un missile di piombo, cioè uno di quei proiettili di epoca etrusco-latina, anch’essi appartenenti alla categoria dei manufatti ‘parlanti’, e spesso recanti, anche in latino, iscrizioni di vario tipo rivolte ai nemici (cfr il mio libro a p.285). Così come, ancora nell’ultima guerra, si scrivevano frasi sulle bombe destinate alla Germania nazista... Cosa c’è di più plausibile, allora, che un proiettile destinato al nemico rechi scritto “(sono) dotato dello sguardo dell’occhio” (e quindi sono infallibile)? Come si vede, ancora più chiaramente che in altri casi, Gheno si accanisce a rinfacciarmi l’uso improprio di termini grammaticali e/o analisi non del tutto conformi alla moderna grammatica ungherese, senza rendersi conto che il mio orizzonte è necessariamente un altro, e per giunta senza neanche smentire la mia traduzione. Anzi, in questo caso come in altri, senza volerlo la conferma clamorosamente. Ma il bello deve ancora venire. Una delle sezioni del mio libro che sembra più sconvolgere Gheno è poi il paragrafo 3.7, intitolato “Tendenza alla subordinazione e all’assenza di coordinazione” (pp.259-60). In esso sostengo quello che a me sembra del tutto evidente, e cioè che l’etrusco e l’ungherese hanno in comune queste due tendenze, ovviamente complementari l’una all’altra. Come afferma in tutte lettere Collinder: “The leading principle of Uralic sentence structure is subordination” (1960, 249: v. bibliografia nel mio libro). Qui il mio critico si inalbera e, nel farlo, prende uno scivolone tremendo. Secondo Gheno, infatti, queste due tendenze – se possono essere evidenti nell’etrusco – non lo sono affatto nelle lingue uraliche (p.230). Ecco infatti la sua critica: “qualsiasi studente di ugrofinnistica-uralistica resterebbe disorientato a veder applicato l’enunciato alle lingue uraliche”. Ciò che sembra implicare che fra il 1960, data in cui l’”inattuale” Collinder scriveva la frase citata, e il 2005, l’uralistica ha addirittura capovolto la propria posizione in proposito! Gheno infatti ne sembra sicuro e, per ‘dimostrare’ la sua tesi, ricorre a un brano del noto manuale di Hajdú (da lui stesso tradotto): “Tutti abbiamo appreso quanto Hajdú sintetizza così: «In base all’ampia diffusione dei costrutti participiali …, riteniamo che nella protolingua non esistessero frasi subordinate con congiunzione. Probabilmente però esistevano frasi composte subordinate senza congiunzione…, ma in luogo di queste più spesso si adoperavano certamente dei costrutti participiali» (Hajdú 1992: 251-2 corsivo [suo]). Ciò che io – modestamente - interpreterei come un’altra forma di subordinazione. Mentre Gheno continua imperterrito: “Dunque” – senza accorgersi che anziché “dunque” avrebbe forse dovuto usare “ciò nonostante”, “con i costrutti participiali … si evitava la subordinazione”! Ora, le cose sono due: o anche Hajdù ha preso uno scivolone (ciò che a me sembra improbabile, ma nessuno è perfetto …), o lo ha preso solo Gheno, e Hajdú si è solo espresso poco chiaramente. Perché a parte Collinder, e a parte anche Hajdú, non vi è alcun dubbio che in qualunque modello di sintassi, tradizionale o generativo, il costrutto participiale è uno dei modi classici per realizzare una subordinata, in quanto da solo non potrebbe fungere da proposizione principale. Per cui, ignaro di aver fatto un mastodontico errore, e non solo in uralistica, ma anche in italiano e in grammatica universale, Gheno mi incalza: “E’ quanto ammette … Alinei, quando – contraddicendo sé stesso – scrive… Ciò nonostante poco dopo argomenta… Che Alinei rincalza in questo modo… “. Per poi concludere, avendo ormai visto me (e non sé stesso) come l’incoerenza personificata: “Siamo sempre sul filo del sì e del no, ma indiscutibilmente il titolo del paragrafo andava capovolto”. Spiacente, ma capovolto va solo il pensiero di Gheno. Al quale consiglio di rileggere, oltre a Hajdù, qualche buon manuale di sintassi: come per es. il vecchio Fornaciari del 1881, ristampato a cura di Nencioni nel 1974, che recita: “Le proposizioni subordinate
20
si dicono esplicite, quando sono espresse con un modo finito (indicativo, congiuntivo, condizionale), ed implicite, quando sono espresse con l’infinito, il gerundio, il participio” (p.355 della ristampa del Sansoni, corsivo dell’Autore). E ancora “Dicesi assoluto quel participio che, contenendo una proposizione subordinata incidente resta, insieme col proprio soggetto, sciolto grammaticalmente dalla proposizione principale, in cui si trova” (p.213; mio corsivo). Oppure, se considera Fornaciari ‘inattuale’, o troppo legato all’italiano, potrebbe rileggersi un manuale di sintassi generale più recente, come quello del generativista Graffi del 1994, forse il migliore pubblicato in Italia fino ad ora. Il quale, nel trattare le varie dimensioni classificatorie delle frasi, affronta così l’opposizione fra frasi principali e frasi dipendenti: “questa opposizione presuppone, ovviamente, che esistano delle frasi indipendenti, di solito definite come «proposizioni che bastano a sé stesse». Si dice che una proposizione indipendente è principale rispetto ad un’altra che è dipendente da essa, o subordinata, oppure secondaria” (termini che, aggiunge, utilizzerà indifferentemente) (101). E chiarisce: “un modo molto chiaro per cogliere questa mancanza di autonomia [delle frasi dipendenti] è osservare che esse non possono essere enunciate da sole” (122). E, per quanto riguarda le frasi participiali e gerundive, le definisce «costruzioni assolute», cioè strutture “non collegat[e] al resto della frase tramite congiunzioni o altre espressioni esplicite di subordinazione”. (57, n. 26, corsivo mio). Come volevasi dimostrare. Un ultima osservazione, prima di concludere l’esame della parte lessicale della recensione di Gheno, merita di esser fatta a proposito del mio uso di finnougrico, anziché del tradizionale (in Italia) ugrofinnico. Secondo Gheno questo mio uso sarebbe, chissà poi perché, “superfluo”. Nel mio lavoro come co-fondatore e come presidente dell’Atlas Linguarum Europae, nel corso dei 22 anni dal 1975 al 1997, ho sempre dovuto collaborare strettamente sia con il Dipartimento delle lingue uraliche che con i numerosi Comitati Nazionali dei paesi di lingua uralica del grande progetto. Per menzionare soltanto, fra gli autorevoli rappresentanti delle aree europee di lingua uralica che partecipavano allora al progetto – alcuni dei quali purtroppo scomparsi - , quelli con i quali ho avuto più contatti, ricordo i finlandesi Terho Itkonen, Jorma Koivulehto, Sirkka Saarinen, Leena Sarvas, il russo B. Serebrennikov, l’udmurto R. Š. Nasibullin, lo svedese L.-G. Larson, gli Ungheresi S. Imre, L. Balogh, L. Deme, B. Kálmán, J. Kiss, I. Posgay, l’estone X. J. Neetar ed altri per le lingue minori. Ora, fra le prime decisioni del Dipartimento uralico delle quali noi organizzatori dell’ALE dovemmo prendere atto, vi furono queste due: (I) non era corretto, dal punto di vista scientifico, usare ugrofinnico, e si doveva adottare uniformemente finnougrico. E infatti, in tutti i e sei i volumi dell’ALE finora pubblicati, dal 1982 ad oggi, e in francese, in inglese, in tedesco e in russo, questo è sempre stato l’uso. (II) Bisognava usare i nomi locali delle lingue uraliche, e non quelli della tradizione accademica che non hanno nulla a che fare con la realtà linguistica locale, come vogulo, ostiaco, votiaco, ceremisso ecc. Per cui, se vi è qualcosa di superfluo in questa discussione, mi sembra sia il parere di Gheno in proposito. Ancora più superfluo poi – se Gheno mi permette un’opinione in merito, nonostante io non sia del settore -, mi sembra l’uso ancora attuale, da parte degli studiosi italiani, di un termine infelicemente costruito, che contrasta con quello corretto e preferito dalla maggioranza degli studiosi di area uralica. Non solo superfluo ma, anzi, provincialmente presuntuoso.
E potrei continuare a lungo, per dimostrare come la stragrande parte delle osservazioni di Gheno siano del tutto irrilevanti. Per non tediare ulteriormente il lettore, tuttavia, mi limito ad elencare le due sole osservazioni di Gheno che mi sembrano giuste, e di cui certo terrò conto se avrò occasione di migliorare il mio libro: (1) Etr. munistas ‘monumento’. Gheno mi fa notare, e la sua critica questa volta mi sembra fondata, che la mia traduzione come ‘opera da guardare’ non è possibile, perché
21
contravviene all’ordine sintattico rectum regens, e perché anche il mio parallelo con ungh. műemlek ‘monumento’ (letteralmente ‘ricordo/artistico’) è fondato su una mia errata lettura della parola. Il senso di ‘monumento’, o quello simile, proposto dagli etruscologi su basi ermeneutiche fin dall’Ottocento, di ‘loculo’, ‘dimora (funebre)’, o luogo’, è probabilmente giusto, ma occorrerà leggere la parola in una diversa chiave ungherese o ugrica, probabilmente sempre su base di mű ‘opera’, ma con un altro tipo di formazione. (2) Pur se del tutto irrilevante per il mio confronto di etr. fulu ‘fuochista’ (termine che ritorna anche in Po-pul-onia ‘sede delle principali fornaci’) con ungh. fűlő e fűl-ik ‘scaldare’ – confronto che resta validissimo e quanto mai produttivo per la traduzione di non pochi testi - l’osservazione di Gheno (a p.223) sui significati da me erroneamente attribuiti a dette forme - ‘fuochista’ e ‘bruciare, accendere, attizzare, alimentare il fuoco, caricare la caldaia’ - mi ha permesso di scoprire un errore reale, anche se da lui non rilevato: detti significati sono invece esattamente quelli dell’ungh. fűt e del suo derivato fűtő ‘fuochista’, che però, a loro volta, derivano da fűl, fűlik (cfr. EWU). Per una svista, la menzione di fűt e la sua derivazione da fűl mi sono rimaste nella penna.
Passo ora alla parte della recensione che Gheno dedica alla mia valutazione della Teoria della Continuità Uralica, e alla mia ricostruzione della Conquista/occupazione della patria da parte degli Ungheresi, fondamentale non solo per la tesi etrusco-magiara, ma anche e soprattutto per la mia Teoria della Continuità dal Paleolitico.
Per quanto riguarda la Teoria della Continuità Uralica, Gheno contesta la mia affermazione che questa sia “ormai accettata da tutti gli specialisti dei paesi uralici” (p.231). Ha certo ragione, ma non perché abbia letto solo libri in lingua inglese, che non è vero. Avrei dovuto solo aggiungere “a tutti gli specialisti di lingue uraliche che non siano dogmatici custodi del sapere tradizionale”. Oppure, in linguaggio meno accademico, “che abbiano un po’ di sale in zucca”. Ma, come Gheno certo comprenderà, questa è una specificazione doverosamente sottintesa, quando si parla di ricerca innovativa fra persone intelligenti.
Per quanto riguarda la mia ricostruzione dell’etnogenesi ungherese, per fortuna, almeno questa è sintetizzata molto bene da Gheno (pp.218-219). E mi rallegra anche molto che il mio critico, come già detto, ne dia perfino un giudizio positivo: “La ricostruzione di Alinei è senza dubbio affascinante, ed è corredata […] di paralleli grammaticali e lessicali individuati con acribia” (?) (non è questa però l’impressione che ne ho avuto!) (p.219). Ma allora, mi sono chiesto e mi chiedo ancora, se non è in questa ricostruzione che Gheno trova una barriera alla mia tesi, perché si è prodigato in uno sforzo di correzione così superficiale del mio libro, senza per altro discuterne, neanche in minima parte, la sostanza? Tanto più che la mia equazione etrusco-magiara è proprio determinata dalla mia ricostruzione del quadro archeologico, confrontato con quello linguistico e dei prestiti interlinguistici, dell’Europa orientale, della TCP, come lo stesso Gheno, del resto, ha molto bene riassunto e messo in luce? Di fatto, per ribadire qui un punto che per me è assolutamente fondamentale, la tesi etrusco-magiara per me non è una affatto una tesi ad hoc, o una scoperta ‘serendipitosa’ (per usare l’utile anglicismo di Umberto Eco), ma un’implicazione imprescindibile della TCP, nel senso che accettando questa si è costretti ad ipotizzare quella. Il mio libro etrusco, insomma, visto così, vuol essere sostanzialmente la dimostrazione di un assioma.
Purtroppo, l’apertura mentale che Gheno dimostra nei riguardi della mia ricostruzione del quadro etnogenetico ungherese ha brevissima durata. Subito dopo averla definita “affascinante”, infatti, Gheno si pone una domanda che non posso che
22
definire bizzarra: “Come è possibile che gli storici o geografi o poligrafi antichi non alludano mai agli ungheresi o un popolo identificabile con essi … se dal III mill. a.C. erano stanziati nel cuore dell’Europa?” (219) Domanda bizzarra perché, come tutti sanno, dei Magiari come tali non c’è traccia neanche nelle fonti medievali, dove sono invece chiamati Turchi, o Avari, o Unni, o Baschiri, o Onugor ecc., cioè sempre con nomi turcici e mai con il loro vero nome di Magiari. Perché allora dovremmo aspettarci qualcosa d’altro in fonti più antiche, come Erodoto, Tacito, Giordane e Paolo Diacono? Ovviamente, se ancora nel Medio Evo, quando i Magiari si erano certamente già affrancati dell’egemonia turcica, non erano riusciti a farsi conoscere con il loro vero nome, come si può pensare che lo potessero fare all’epoca di Erodoto o di Tacito, quando il dominio turcico su di loro poteva solo essere molto più forte ed evidente? E nulla conta, per l’uralista Gheno, proprio l’esempio del nome dei Mansi, Khanti, Mari, Komi Udmurti e di altri popoli uralici minori, che ancora oggi lui stesso, gli altri studiosi italiani e di altri paesi si ostinano a chiamare con nomi privi di qualunque addentellato con la realtà etnica di questi popoli, e dovuti esclusivamente ad obsoleti rapporti di dipendenza coloniale? Quello che fanno accademici italiani e stranieri nel III millennio della nostra era, per mero rispetto di una tradizione di origine coloniale, non è probabile che lo facessero, e con convinzione maggiore, gli storici greci del I millennio a.C.?
E ho un’ultima osservazione a proposito del quesito posto da Gheno, questa volta sul versante del metodo. A proposito di Erodoto il mio critico non omette di ricordare che lo storico greco chiama gli Etruschi Tursenoí. Tuttavia, chissà perché, non è altrettanto memore nei riguardi della mia tesi – che pure fa parte del libro da lui recensito, ed è strettamente legata proprio all’etnonimia antica dei Magiari: la tesi, cioè, che la radice Turs- dei Tirreni-Etruschi, senza alcun dubbio la stessa dell’umbro Turskom, del latino Tu(r)sci, e del metatetico Etrusci, potrebbe essere la stessa di quella Turk- dei Turchi. In questo caso, Erodoto avrebbe sì menzionato gli Ungheresi, ma li avrebbe chiamati col loro nome di Etruschi-Tirreni. Evidentemente, questo piccolo dettaglio non rientra negli interessi del mio recensore.
Cosa posso concludere, insomma, dall’esame di questa recensione? Anzitutto, che le critiche e le correzioni di Gheno nella stragrande maggioranza dei casi nulla aggiungono e nulla tolgono alla mia tesi. In secondo luogo, se servono a qualcosa, è solo per dimostrare che il compito che Gheno si è assunto non è stato quello di recensire il mio libro, bensì quello di dimostrare – in modo pedantesco, quando non infondato o scorretto - che non sono un uralista. Come se questo significasse qualcosa per me, che mi sono sempre considerato un linguista generalista e un convinto sostenitore della ricerca interdisciplinare e dell’idea che la specializzazione accademica tradizionale, a compartimenti stagni, non risponde più alle esigenze della ricerca scientifica del III millennio.
A mio avviso, quello che dovrebbe essere chiaro a tutti, e quindi anche a Gheno, è che l’eventuale importanza della mia tesi, per l’etruscologia, per l’uralistica e per la scienza, sta esclusivamente nella scoperta delle profonde affinità fra etrusco e ungherese; e poco importa con quale grado di conoscenza dell’uralistica io sia giunto a questa scoperta. Di nuovo, nessuno, fra i migliori grecisti degli anni Cinquanta, ha mai fatto l’esame di greco a Ventris, e a nessuno verrebbe in mente di farlo oggi. (E fra quelli che lo fecero allora, il prof. Beattie, ordinario di greco dell’università di Ediburgo, è passato alla storia con l’inglorioso soprannome di Linear Beattie…). L’unica cosa rilevante, nei riguardi delle mie conoscenze dell’uralistica, è che esse sono state del tutto adeguate per presentare la mia tesi, per darle un fondamento serio, e per offrirla agli studiosi nella convinzione che essa possa essere in seguito migliorata ed
23
ampliata dalla collaborazione degli etruscologi con gli specialisti di ungherese e di lingue uraliche. POSTILLA Credo utile aggiungere una breve postilla, per fornire un’altro, più recente esempio di come lo specialista di ungherese e di uralistica potrebbe affrontare, in modo costruttivo, la mia tesi.
L’etruscologia ha da tempo concluso che in etrusco esiste un’uscita –ce per la 3° sg. del passato del verbo. Una conclusione basata sullo studio ermeneutica dei testi, ma tanto ben argomentato e documentato che anch’io, nel mio libro, l’ho accolta, nonostante l’ungherese e i manuali di comparatistica uralica non ne forniscano alcun indizio. Per cui, per giustificarla, ho presentato un’argomentazione del tutto congetturale, basata sulla grande frequenza della formante –k- in ungherese, e su un suo possibile impiego per il passato, poi abbandonato. Ed ecco che una lettura più attenta dei testi antico-ungheresi, che ho intrapreso da qualche tempo, offre una sorprendente conferma sia all’interpretazione tradizionale che alla mia tesi: proprio il più antico testo ungherese (citato anche da Gheno), detto Halotti Beszéd és Könyörgés (‘Orazione funebre e preghiera’), scritto fra il 1192 e il 1195, attesta più volte il verbo evec ‘mangiò’, invece della forma moderna evett: come per esempio appare nella frase es evec oz tiluvt gimilstwl ‘e mangiò il frutto proibito’. Questa forma in –c (= /k//) del passato 3a sg., evidentemente estinta in ungherese moderno, ma ancora viva nel XII sec., offre un’altra dimostrazione di come la chiave etimologica ungherese risolva in modo estremamente chiaro un altro problema cruciale della morfologia etrusca. Se ci fosse uno sforzo sinceramente costruttivo e coordinato da parte degli studiosi nei confronti della tesi etrusco-ungherese, sono certo che molti altri problemi potrebbero essere risolti, sia sul versante dell’etruscologia (con la traduzione dei testi più lunghi), sia su quello dell’uralistica (per l’ovvia importanza che lo ‘stadio’ etrusco avrebbe nell’evoluzione dall’Ugrico all’Ungherese, oltre che per la possibilità di un approccio mirato – cioè turco-etrusco - nello studio dell’alfabeto runico dei Szekely4).
4 Sull’affascinante problema ha attirato la mia attenzione la collega Fábián dell’Università di Budapest.
1
Etruscan: an archaic form of Hungarian (book summary) by Mario Alinei
The Hungarian translation of my book Etrusco: una forma arcaica di ungherese, il Mulino, Bologna, 2003, has been published by ALL PRINT Kiadó, Budapest, 2005, with the title: Ancient link: the Magyar-Etruscan linguistic relationship
2
In the two volumes reproduced in the following figure, which came out respectively in 1996 and 2000, I have illustrated the Palaeolithic Continuity Theory (PCT) on Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic languages. This theory has been advanced independently, and/or is at present followed by such scholars as the Belgian prehistorian Marcel Otte (Un. of Liège), the German archaeologist Alexander Häusler (Univ. of Halle), the French linguist Jean Le Du (Univ. of Brest), the Spanish linguist Xaverio Ballester (Univ. of Valencia), the Italian linguists Gabriele Costa (Univ. of Terni), Francesco Benozzo (Univ. of Bologna), Franco Cavazza (Univ. of Bologna) and others. The main point of the PCT is that Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic people belong to the groups of Homo sapiens who have populated Eurasia since Palaeolithic times.
3
The PCT has an important predecessor in the URALIC CONTINUITY THEORY (uralilainen jatkuvuusteoria), currently accepted by the great majority of Uralic linguists and archaeologists. According to this theory Uralic populations belonged to the groups of Homo sapiens sapiens who had settled in Europe in Palaeolithic times. They were thus already in Eastern Europe during the last Glacial (13.000 b.C.), and moved to the North at the time of the deglaciation (9.000 b.C.), in order to continue their culture of specialized hunters and fishermen (see figure).
Following this scenario the Magyars, together with the other Ugric groups, must have settled in the area of the Ob river, thus forming the south-easternmost group of the Finno-Ugrians
4
The present distribution of all Uralic languages (see figure), except Magyar, perfectly corresponds to the scenario reconstructed by the Uralic Continuity Theory. The only problem, as is known, is that of the Honfoglalás (‘homeland occupation’) of the Magyars, who at a time which has not yet been establish with certainty, must have separated from the other Ugric people and moved from the Ob river area to their historical territory. The new PCT offers a new solution for this problem and, at the same time, the elements for a demonstration of the identity of the prehistoric Magyars with the ancient Etruscans.
5
The new solution offered by the PCT for the problem of the Honfoglalás is the following:
(A) ALTAIC (TURKIC and MONGOLIAN) populations were in Central Asia already in Palaeolithic times.
(B) When, in the 4th millennium b.C., the first cultures of HORSE-RIDING WARLIKE NOMADS emerge in the steppes of Western Asia, we are already confronted with Turkic people.
(C) All warlike nomadic groups which in the course of prehistory and history follow one another along the Eurasiatic steppes (see figure) are ALTAIC, with the single exception of later and intrusive Iranians, coming from their homeland in South-Western Asia.
(D) The HUNGARIAN PUSZTA, western end of the Eurasiatic steppes, represents the natural outlet of all the warlike nomadic groups coming from East.
The STEPPE AREA, from Mongolia to Hungary (not on the map), which was the ecological niche for the blossoming and the spread of ALTAIC nomadic cultures in prehistory, proto-history and history.
6
7
Eurasiatic nomadic cultures begin – by definition - with horse-riding. And horse-riding emerges in the steppe area, in the 4th millennium, within the so called Serednyi Stog (= SS) culture, which as we have argued must be assumed as TURKIC. From the SS culture there develops, in the 3rd millennium, the more famous kurgan or Yamnaia (= Y) culture, which must also be assumed as TURKIC.
We must now recall that the MAGYAR terminology for HORSE and HORSE RIDING is TURKIC of origin, and is shared by the OB-UGRIC languages. This has fundamental implications for the DATING OF THE UGRIC UNITY:
(1) MAGYAR AND OB-UGRIC LANGUAGES must have been still united in their western central Asiatic territory in the 4th and 3rd millennium, when the
8
first HORSE-RIDING TURKIC CULTURES developed in the steppe area, to the South of their settlement.
(2) They must have been very much influenced by them, also culturally.
9
Most of the POLITICAL, SOCIAL and AGRICOLTURAL TURKIC (especially CHUVASH) LOANWORDS in MAGYAR, however, ARE NOT SHARED BY OB-UGRIC LANGUAGES. In turn, this implies that the Magyars, AFTER their separation from the other Ob-Ugric languages, must have undergone a SECOND WAVE OF TURKIC INFLUENCES. When did the SEPARATION of the Magyars from the Ob-Ugrians then take place? As ARCHAEOLOGY informs us, at the end of the 3° millennium b.C. a KURGAN group invaded Hungary during the ‘classic’ period of the BADEN culture. As this is the only archaeologically well-attested episode of invasion of the Hungarian territory, we have no alternative as to the conclusion that it was this group, probably TURKIC CHUVASH, which caused the separation of the Magyars from the other Ugric people, at the same time acculturating and guiding them to the Honfoglalás, the conquest of their historical territory.
The Honfoglalás at the end of the 3rd millennium, in the light of the TCP
10
Moreover, as in the light of the PCT the kurgan culture must be assumed as TURKIC, and the Baden culture as SLAVIC, this would explain why Magyar has so many TURKIC LOANWORDS NOT SHARED BY THE OTHER UGRIC (AND URALIC) LANGUAGES, as well as so many SLAVIC PLACE NAMES.
11
WHY WERE ETRUSCANS MAGYAR? (1) ARCHAEOLOGY, since the years Seventies, has concluded that the ancestors of the Etruscans, the so called VILLANOVIANS (from the name of the Central-Italian culture of VILLANOVA, of the beginning of the 1st millennium) came from the Carpato-Danubian area. The archaeologist who has contributed the most to this discovery is the American Hugh Hencken. (2) The Villanovians and their predecessors Proto-Villanovians were characterized, among other things, by cremation. Cremation originated in central Europe with the so called Urn Fields. The earliest Urn Fields in central Europe are the Hungarian ones (Hencken). (3) Moreover, Carpato-danubian influences on Italian prehistory began much earlier: (A) Starting from the 3RD MILLENNIUM, Italian prehistory sees “an almost continuous presence of central-European influences” (Barfield). (4) In the 2ND MILLENNIUM, the so called Bronze Age “Terremare” in the Po Valley (Emilia), and the artificial hills of Bronze Age settlements in the Danube plain (e.g. Tószeg) are “remarkably similar” (Barfield). (5) Archaeological evidence for Carpato-Danubian influences on the prehistory of Northern Italy is actually such as to make one think of an “ACTUAL INVASION … of the Po Valley by people coming from East”(Barfield, cf. Cardarelli). OBBLIGATORY CONCLUSION: In the light of the PCT, the Carpato-Danubian people who exercised so much influence on northern Italy in the course of the 3rd and 2nd millennium, and who became the Villanovians of the 1st millennium, can only be the heirs of the conquerors of Hungary in the 3rd millennium, that is Magyars who had been accultured by Turkic élites.
12
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TURKIC ROLE IN THE PREISTORY OF THE MAGYARS AND –AS WILL BE SHOWN - OF THE ETRUSCANS Hugh Hencken, the main scholar of the Proto-Etruscan culture of Villanova, has advanced the hypothesis that in the 2nd millennium b.C. the Etruscans – who were called TYRSENOI by the Greeks – from the Carpato-Danubian region might have reached the eastern Mediterranean, and could thus be identified with the TURSHA, one of the famous SEA PEOPLE struggling for the control of Mediterranean Sea and mentioned by ancient Egyptians. This hypothesis has been recently strengthened by the discovery that the language of the inscriptions of the island of Lemnos in the Egean Sea is also Etruscan. Indipendently from Hencken’s reasearch on Etruscan, also HUNGARIAN ARCHAEOLOGISTS (e.g. Tibor Kovács) have advanced the hypothesis that ‘2nd millennium Magyars’ might have participated in the ventures of the SEA PEOPLE. The LATIN NAMES for the Etruscans, namely TUSCI (< TU(R)SCI), ETRUSCI (< ETURSCI), ETRURIA (< ETRUSIA < ETURSIA), as well as the Greek one TYRSENOI, could thus be connected with the name of the TURKS, anticipating the long series of TURKIC OR ALTAIC NAMES that have been given to the Magyars in history: HUNGARIANS, AVARS, TURKS, BASHKIRS, HUNS. The ‘birth’ of the Etruscans – that is of PREHISTORIC MAGYARS WHO INVADED ITALY AND WERE CONSIDERED AS TURKS, – would then have taken place in the Bronze Age, when the Carpato-Danubian area became “the industrial heart of Europe” (Barfield) and Hungarian metallurgy, after reaching its zenith, started off a wave of expansion campaigns of the Magyars.
13
As we shall see, many Etruscan terms, especially those of a social and political kind, correspond to the Hungarian ones with a Turkic origin (e.g. gyula, kende).
ETRUSCAN LANGUAGE: which results have been reached by modern Etruscology with regards to Etruscan? Modern Etruscology, with regards to linguistics, has been called ‘combinatorial’ or ‘hermeneutic’, because it has concentrated on the study of the INTERNAL characters of the language, as well as on its relations with the material and cultural context, without the hazards of the attempts to connect Etruscan with one or another language. Therefore its results, when they have been reached on the base of irrefutabile evidence, can be considered as very important. The conclusions of ‘combinatorial’ Etruscology on the main linguistic traits of Etruscan:
Comparison with Hungarian
It is an agglutinative language = Hungarian and Uralic
Its accent is on the first vowel = Hungarian and Uralic
It has vowel harmony = Hungarian and Uralic
Formants, case endings and postpositions are added to the word stem
= Hungarian and Uralic
The occlusive consonants are exclusively voiceless (P T K)
= Uralic
The syllable structure is open (= it ends in vowel)
= Uralic
14
GRAMMATICAL WORDS AND MORPHEMES ETRUSCAN ASCERTAINED
TRANSLATION BY ETRUSCOLOGISTS
HUNGARIAN
AN Relative pronoun (‘who, which’)
AM-, ŐN
ECA, ICA; ETA, ITA
Demonstrative (‘this’) PHu. E(Z), I-, Yen. EKE, EKO; Finn. ETTÄ
ENIACA ‘so much, so many’ ENNYÍ, dial. ENNYIKÓ
ETANAL, ETNAM, ITANIM
Conjunction EZENNEL, EZENNEN (17° c.)
IΧ, IΧNAC Grammatical term ÍGY/ IGYEN + NAK ( ?)
ME MI MENE MINI
‘I, me’ PHu. *ËME > ÉN, Khanty MÄ
ΘUI ‘here’ Ug *TŌ ‘that’, Manshi TOT, TÜT ‘here’
-A Formant -A -AC Formant -AK -AΘ -AT Formant -AT -C, -Χ Formant -K -L Formant -L -NA Formant -N, NY -R Formant -R -S, -AS Formant -S, -AS; -SZ –ASZ -SE, -SI Pertinentive -I, -SI -U Formant of Nomina
agentis -U, -Ű, -Ó, -Ő
-ΘI, -TI Locative -T (e.g. itt, ott, Pécsett) -KE, -CU, -U, -ZA
Diminutives -KE, KÓ, -U/-Ú, -A
15
GRAMMATICAL WORDS AND MORPHEMES ETRUSCO UNTRANSLATED
BY ETRUSCOLOGISTS
HUNGARIAN
ΧURVAR ?? KORBAN (16° c.) (or KORRAL)
LURI ?? ROLA, dial. LERA, LERUJJA
NAC NACEME
?? -NAK/-NEK, NEKEM
-LUM ?? -ALOM -LEΘ ?? -LET -TALA/-TALE ?? -DALOM –DELEM -VANI, -VANA, -VENE -VENAS
-VÁNY, -VÉNY
-VA, -VE ?? –VÁ, -VÉ -RA, -RE ?? –RA, -RE -VAL, -VEL ?? –VAL, -VEL
16
ETRUSCAN NAMES OF POLITICAL LEADERS, OFFICERS AND PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS ETRUSCAN TRANSLATION BY
ETRUSCOLOGISTS ALREADY ASCERTAINED IN THE 19° CENTURY
HUNGARIAN
ZILA PRINCEPS CIVITATIS ‘chief of the Etruscan comunity’
GYULA (< TU), (ancient forms JILA, DZ-LA)
CANΘE REX ‘king, highest institutional authority’
KUNDE (< TU), (ancient form K-ND-)
MARU Lat. MARO, -ONIS, Umbr. MARON ‘competent in constructions and in the acquisition of lands’
(FÖLD)MÉRŐ
PURΘ-/PURT- ‘connected to political power’
Ciuv. PURTƏ ‘battle axe’ > Hng. BALTA (> Lat. BALTEUS ‘sword belt’)
CEP- ‘connected to political power’
KÉP (< TU)
LAUC, LUC, LAUΧUM-, LUΧUM-, LAUΧME etc.
Latin LUCUMO/LUCMO/LUCMON, -ONIS ‘lucumon’ (‘??’)
LÓ (< TU) + Mansi KOM/KUM (cf. Ungh. HÍM) ‘horseman’ = ‘noble man, knight’
THE ETRUSCANS’ PHRASE TO DEFINE THEIR LEADER OR HIS FUNCTION ETRUSCAN TRANSLATION BY
THE EARLIEST ETRUSCOLOGISTS
HUNGARIAN
« ZILA(Θ) MEΧL RASNAL/-S »
Latin PRAETOR (PRAETURA?) ETRURIAE
« MAGYAR RÉSZ GYULA(T)JA »
ZILA(Θ) Latin PRAETOR (PRAETURA?)
*GYULA(T)
MEΧL ?? MEG- (ancient form of
17
MAGY(AR)) RASNAL ETRURIAE RÉSZ RÉSZÉN (15° c.
‘region, zone’)
NAMES OF FAMILY MEMBERS ETRUSCAN TRANSLATION BY
ETRUSCOLOGISTS HUNGARIAN
APA ‘father’ APA APA NACNA ‘grand father’ NAGYAPA ATI ‘mother’ ÉDES ATI NACNA ‘grand mother’ *NAGYEDES
(NAGYANYA) CLAN ‘son’, ‘child’ ?? PUIA ‘wife’ BULYA (< TU) SEC, SEΧ ‘sister’ ‘daughter’ FUg *SÄĆE
‘father or mother’s sister’
UNTRANSLATED BY ETRUSCOLOGISTS
ARCE ?? ARA, Manshi ÄR ‘matrilinear kin’, Ug *AR3
MANI(I)M ?? MENY ZAMAΘI ?? *GYÁMÉDES
(GYÁMANYA)
18
ETRUSCAN RELIGION ETRUSCAN TRANSLATION BY
ETRUSCOLOGISTSHUNGARIAN
EIS AIS ‘god’ IS/ŐS, ISTEN CEL ‘ goddess of birth,
East’ KEL , KELET
NATIS NETSVIS
‘Etruscan priest, haruspex’
NÉZ or NESZEL + VISZ
TRUTNVT ‘Etruscan priest, fulguriator’
TÁLTOS < Ug *TULT3
TURAN ‘name of a goddess’ Khanty TUREM ‘deity’, Manshi TŌRƏM ‘deity’
19
PROFESSIONS ETRUSCAN TRANSLATION BY
ETRUSCOLOGISTSHUNGARIAN
ZICU ‘writer’ OHu. GYAK, Manshi JĒK ‘incidere’ + -U
MARU Umbro MARON ‘aedilis’
(FÖLD)MÉRŐ-
UNTRANSLATED BY ETRUSCOLOGISTS
FULU FŰTŐ < FŰL- PAZU FŐZŐ PARLIU PÁRLÓ SUNU ZENE/ZONG-
/SENGŐ ŚUPLU dial. SUPÁL,
SUPRÁL ΘELU TELŐ
20
PLACE AND RIVER NAMES Italian ETRUSCAN LATIN HUNGARIAN (Bologna) FELSINA FELSINA FELSŐ (Orvieto) VELZNA,
VELSU etc. VOLSINII (> Italian Bolsena)
BELSŐ
--- --- (the main Etrusco port, near Pyrgi/Caere)
ALSIUM ALSŐ
(Populonia) PUPLUNA FUFLUNA
POPULONIA(famous for its metallurgical furnaces)
FŐ + FŰL- (FŰT)
--- VEI(S) VEII (on the Tevere river)
VEJSZE (11° sec. VEIESE) ‘fish weir’
(Modena) MUTINA MUTINA MUT- (Imola) IMOLA IMOLA IMOLA (Vetulonia) VETLUNA VETULONIA VEZET- (Arno) ?? ARNUS ARANYOS
21
BILINGUAL TEXT (TLE 472) Latino: Q. SCRIBONIUS Etrusco: VL ZICU LATIN ETRUSCAN HUNGARIAN SCRIB- ‘to write’
ZIC-U = ‘writer’
MHu GYAK-U ‘engraver’,
BILINGUAL TEXT (TLE 899) Latin: VEL MAX Etruscan: VEL PEM or PEPN LATIN ETRUSCAN HUNGARIAN VEL(IUS) MAXIMUS ‘(the) greatest, (the) highest, maximum’
VEL PEM o PEPN = (the) greatest, (the) highest, maximum’
-- FEJ, FŐ o FŐFŐ
22
CAPTION NEAR PAINTING (TLE 222) (servant working on a table: Golini Tomb) ETRUSCAN TEXT: ΘRESU F[A]SIΘRALS ETRUSCAN HUNGARIAN ΘRESU Chuv. TARZƏ
‘servant’ (>Mari TAREZƏ ‘worker’)
F[A]SIΘ[A]RALS FAZÉK + TÁROL TRANSLATION: ”servant arranging vases”
23
CAPTION NEAR PAINTING (TLE 224) (Flute player: Golini Tomb) ETRUSCAN TEXT: TR ΘUN ŚUNU ETRUSCAN HUNGARIAN TR(ESU) Ciuv. TARZƏ
‘servant’ (>Mari TAREZƏ ‘worker’)
ΘUN Manshi TŌN ‘musical instrument, cord’, cf. Ungh. ÍN
ŚUNU ZENE/ZENGŐ/ZONG-‘musician’
TRANSLATION: “servant playing a musical instrument”
24
CAPTION NEAR PAINTING (TLE 225) (servant preparing food: Golini Tomb) ETRUSCAN TEXT: PAZU MULU[V]ANE ETRUSCAN HUNGARIAN PAZU FŐZŐ (< FŐZ-,
cf. Manshi PĀJT ‘to cook’)
MULU[V]ANE Khanty MUL ‘to offer to the gods’ + -VÁNY/-VÉNY
TRANSLATION: ”cook (preparing) the offering to the gods”
25
CAPTION TEXT NEAR PAINTING (TLE 226) (servant working before oven: Golini Tomb) ETRUSCAN TEXT: K[U]LUMIE PARLIU ETRUSCAN HUNGARIAN K[U]LUMIE Manshi KŪR,
Khanty KOR ‘stone oven’ + Manshi UMI ‘opening’, Finl. UUMEN ‘cavity‘
PARLIU PÁRLÓ (PÁROL ‘to steam’ 16° c.)
TRANSLATION: “cook near the opening of the stone oven”
26
CAPTION NEAR PAINTING (TLE 230) (one figure lost, but near servants preparing the table: Golini Tomb) ETRUSCAN TEXT: ΘRESU PENZNAS ETRUSCAN HUNGARIAN ΘRESU Ciuv. TARZƏ
‘servant’ (>Mari TAREZƏ ‘worker’)
PENZNAS FED/FEDEZ, Manshi PÄNT ‘cover’, Khanty PENT ‘cover’
TRANSLATION: “servant preparing the table”
27
CAPTION OF FIGURE ON ENGRAVING (TLE 399) (bronze mirror of the 3rd century b.C. with engraving representing Juno milking Hercules with beard) ETRUSCAN TEXT: ECA SREN TVA IΧNAC HERCLE UNIAL CLAN ΘRA SCE ETRUSCAN HUNGARIAN ECA ÉZ, Yen. EKE EKO ‘this’ [E]SREN ÉSZRE T[E]VA TÉVE IΧNAC ÍGY + NAK (cf. ÍGYEN ?) HERCLE ‘Hercules’ UNIAL ‘Juno’s’ CLAN ?? ‘son, child’ Θ[A]RA TEJ + RE [E]SCE ESZ(IK) (past tense) TRANSLATION: “this (figure) to show how Hercules, Juno’s son, fed on milk”
28
TEXT ON ‘TALKING VASE’’( TLE 336) (The so called VETULONIA’S CUP, kyathos (Greek drinking cup, also used as a measure) found in the “Tomba del Duce” (The Great Leader’s Tomb) (7°/6° c. a.C.)) ETRUSCAN TEXT: NACEME URU IΘAL ΘILEN IΘAL IΧE ME MESNAMER TANŚINA MULU LATIN PARALLELS OF ’TALKING VASES’ A me, dulcis amica, bibe “from me, sweet woman friend, drink!” Bibe amice de meo “Drink, friend, from me!” Misce “Pour!” Reple olla “Fill the vase!” Bibe et propina ”Drink and pour!” ETRUSCAN HUNGARIAN 1) NACEME 1) NEKEM URU ÚR IΘAL Θ ITAL ΘILEN TELJEN 2) IΘAL 2) ITAL IΧEME IGY-(IDD) + MEG (dial. ME) 3) MESNAMER 3) MÉZ-NA + MÉR- TANŚINA TAN- + SZÍN ‘nice shape’ (11° c.) + -A MULU Khanty MUL ‘gift, offering’ TRANSLATION: (1) “In me, sir, pour the drink! (2) Drink up the drink! (3) (I am) the gift showing with its nice shape the measure of hydromel”
161ÂÅÑÒÍÈÊ ÎÃÓ 11`2004
Èññëåäóåìàÿ íàäïèñü íàíåñåíà íà îáðàáî-òàííîå ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû ïðÿìîóãîëüíîå êàìåí-íîå ïàííî, êîòîðîå âñòàâëÿëîñü â íèøó ñòåíûïðèäîðîæíîãî îáåëèñêà. Ýòà äîðîãà (ïîçæåñòàâøàÿ Via Aurelia) â òîì ìåñòå, ãäå íàéäåíîðàññìàòðèâàåìîå ïàííî, íàõîäèòñÿ ìåæäó ãî-ðîäàìè ×èâèòàâåêêüÿ è Ñàíòà-Ìàðèíåëëà, â1700 ì îò ïîñëåäíåãî.  öåíòðå ñîâðåìåííîéÑàíòà-Ìàðèíåëëû íàéäåí è ðàñêîïàí ýòðóñ-ñêèé õðàì Ìèíåâðû IV â. äî í. ý., ñ ïðîòÿæåí-íîé, íå ìåíåå çàãàäî÷íîé íàäïèñüþ íà àëòàðå[17]. Ñîäåðæàíèå ýòîé ïðîñòðàííîé íàäïèñèðàññìàòðèâàëîñü â íàøèõ ñòàòüÿõ è êíèãå [1, 2].
Ýêñêëþçèâíîñòü íàäïèñè íà ïðèäîðîæíîéêàìåííîé ìåòêå ñîñòîèò â òîì, ÷òî â íåé âñòðå-÷àþòñÿ î÷åíü ðåäêèå ñëîâà è ãðàììàòè÷åñêèåôîðìû, ñóæàþùèå äî íóëÿ âîçìîæíîñòè ïðè-ìåíåíèÿ êîìáèíàòîðíîãî ìåòîäà ñ èñïîëüçîâà-íèåì ïîçèöèîííî-÷àñòîòíûõ õàðàêòåðèñòèê,ïîëó÷åííûõ ðàíåå íà ìàòåðèàëàõ äðóãèõ ðàñ-ïðîñòðàíåííûõ ïî æàíðó ýòðóññêèõ òåêñòîâ.
Íåò îñîáûõ òåìàòè÷åñêèõ îðèåíòèðîâ, ïî-çâîëèâøèõ áû ïðèáëèçèòüñÿ ê ïîíèìàíèþ ñî-äåðæàíèÿ òåêñòà ÷åðåç èçâåñòíûå ðåëèãèîçíûåòåðìèíû, êàëåíäàðíûå äàòû è èìåíà ïðàâè-òåëåé.
 ñïðàâî÷íîì èçäàíèè Ìàðèî Áóôôà [3]òðàíñëèòåðàöèÿ òåêñòà èññëåäóåìîé íàäïèñèâûãëÿäèò òàê:
halusi : cnas : snut(i) parax : pateri : snuti aîex : a�lax : snuti stvi : lei è rmeri : len faneri : ur è ui : u è ari·n ei : îrie : van : mertari : î îr. iîr. esi
Ïðè ïåðâè÷íîì ðàññìîòðåíèè èçó÷àåìîãîòåêñòà áðîñàþòñÿ â ãëàçà ñëåäóþùèå îáñòîÿ-òåëüñòâà:
1. Òðèæäû â êîíöå ïåðâûõ òðåõ ñòðîê ïî-âòîðÿåòñÿ ñëîâî snuti, à äàëåå â ðèôìó ñ íèìïîïàäàþò ñëîâà leiîrmeri, uîari, mertari , esi. Òàê-æå íàáëþäàåòñÿ êàêàÿ-òî ñìûñëîâàÿ ïàðíîñòüñëîâ, íà÷èíàþùèõñÿ íà îäíó è òó æå áóêâó (îíèðàñïîëîæåíû ïîî÷åðåäíî â òåêñòå):
Ëàòûïîâ Ô.Ð.
ÝÒÐÓÑÑÊÀß ÍÀÄÏÈÑÜ ÂU 899 ÍÀ ÊÀÌÅÍÍÎÌ ÂÊËÀÄÛØÅÏÐÈÄÎÐÎÆÍÎÃÎ ÎÁÅËÈÑÊÀ: ÏÐÈÇÛÂ Ê ÓÂÀÆÅÍÈÞ È ÏÎÐßÄÊÓ
Ñòàòüÿ ïîñâÿùåíà êîìáèíàòîðíî-ýòèìîëîãè÷åñêîìó àíàëèçó ýòðóññêîé íàäïèñè Bu 899 íà êàìåí-íîì òàáëî-âêëàäûøå ïðèäîðîæíîãî îáåëèñêà âáëèçè ã. Ñàíòà-Ìàðèíåëëà. Îñíîâûâàÿñü íà ôîíîýâîëþ-öèîííîé ïðàòþðêñêîé ãèïîòåçå [14] è ó÷èòûâàÿ ñåìàíòè÷åñêèå ñâÿçè ðèôìóþùèõñÿ êðèïòîïàð, îñóùå-ñòâëÿåòñÿ ïîýòàïíàÿ èäåíòèôèêàöèÿ ëåêñåì ðàññìàòðèâàåìîãî òåêñòà. Êîíñòàòèðóåòñÿ åãî ôèëîñîôñêî-ýòè÷åñêàÿ íàïðàâëåííîñòü.
parax pateri, aîex a�lax, leiîrmeri len, urîui uîari .
Âñå ýòî ãîâîðèò î ïîýòè÷åñêîì, ñòèõîòâîð-íîì õàðàêòåðå ðàññìàòðèâàåìîé íàäïèñè. Êàêïîêàçûâàåò îáçîð ïåðåâåäåííûõ ýòðóññêèõ òåê-ñòîâ, ýòðóñêè â óñòíîì è ïèñüìåííîì ÿçûêå ÿâíîòÿãîòåëè ê ñòèõîòâîðíîìó æàíðó èçëîæåíèÿ,îñîáåííî â ìíîãî÷èñëåííûõ ïîãîâîðêàõ è àôî-ðèçìàõ (ñì. [2], §2.10 ãë. 2).  êîíòåêñòå ñêàçàí-íîãî, íàçâàííîå îáñòîÿòåëüñòâî óêàçûâàåò åùåíà ôèëîñîôñêî-ýòè÷åñêóþ îêðàñêó óêàçàííîãîòåêñòà.
Êðîìå ýòîãî, òàêîé ðàñêëàä êðèïòîïàð,íåñîìíåííî, óêàçûâàåò åùå íà òî, ÷òî ñîïðÿ-æåííûå ñëîâîôîðìû ñâÿçàíû ìåæäó ñîáîéñêðûòûìè ôóíêöèîíàëüíî-öåëåâûìè (à âîç-ìîæíî, è òåõíîëîãè÷åñêèìè) çàâèñèìîñòÿìè èëåæàò â îäíîé ñóáúåêòèâíî-ñìûñëîâîé ïëîñ-êîñòè.
2. Èç ïðåäûäóùèõ èññëåäîâàíèé ýòðóññêèõòåêñòîâ â ðàññìàòðèâàåìîé íàäïèñè èçâåñòíû-ìè äëÿ ìåíÿ â ñåìàíòè÷åñêîì çíà÷åíèè ÿâëÿþò-ñÿ òàêèå ñëîâà è êîðíè ñëîâ, êàê: cn «ïîòîê, òå÷åíèå» (äð.òþðê. ogän, ãäå c>g, o –
ïðîòåòè÷. çâóê, íàðîñøèé ïîçæå); sn «÷èñëî, ðàñ÷åò» (ñì. TLE 2 snuza «ìàòåìàòè-
÷åñêîå»; CIE 5237 s(nî) «ïîñ÷èòàâ», TLE 1sntnam «ïî ïîðÿäêó ñ÷åòà, ïî î÷åðåäè»; sans«ïîäñ÷åò»);
aî – êîðåíü ñëîâà öåëîãî ñåìàíòè÷åñêîãî ãíåç-äà ëåêñåì, ñâÿçàííîãî ñ óñèëèåì èëè ñ ðåç-êèì, íî äèñêðåòíûì ïåðåìåùåíèåì â ïðî-ñòðàíñòâå (øàã, ñêà÷îê, âûáðîñ, ðåçêîå îò-äåëåíèå îò ÷åãî-ëèáî, êðàòêîâðåìåííîå ñî-äåéñòâèå, ïîìîùü);
len � ïîêðûòûå ðàñøèòûìè ëüíÿíûìè ñêàòåð-òÿìè ñòîëû òðèêëèíèÿ (ýòî ñëîâî âñòðå÷à-åòñÿ â íàäïèñè íà æåðòâåííîé òàðåëêå âñêëåïå ([4], ñòð.75, NRIE. Ñ. 200, Ìèëàí,Ìóçåé òîïîãðàôèè);
lei – ëåãêî ïåðåìåøèâàåìàÿ òåêó÷àÿ ñìåñü, ãàð-íèð ê áëþäàì, ñîóñ, ñìîëà ( ñì. TLE 1: leive�«áàëüçàìèðóþùàÿ ñìîëà»);
162 ÂÅÑÒÍÈÊ ÎÃÓ 11`2004
Ðîìàíî-ãåðìàíñêàÿ ôèëîëîãèÿ
fani� «áðåííûé» (áóëã. fäni «áðåííûé», ýòî ñëî-âî âñòå÷àåòñÿ â òåêñòå ïåëåíû Çàãðåáñêîéìóìèè TLE 1);
nei – «÷òî (âî ìíîæ. ÷èñëå )», ne, ni-«÷òî (â åä.÷èñëå)»;
es � «ãëàç» (â ðåäêèõ ñëó÷àÿõ èñïîëüçóåòñÿ è âêà÷åñòâå ñëîâà «ñëåä» (âîçìîæíî, òî, ÷òîîòñëåæèâàåòñÿ ãëàçàìè).3. Ìíîãîêðàòíî ïîâòîðÿþùèåñÿ àôôèêñû
ñëîâ -ari, -eri ÿâëÿþòñÿ õàðàêòåðíûìè ïðèçíà-êàìè ýòðóññêèõ ïðèëàãàòåëüíûõ âî ìíîæåñòâåí-íîì ÷èñëå [5].
Äàëåå äëÿ èäåíòèôèêàöèè îñòàâøèõñÿ ñëîâòåêñòà âîñïîëüçóåìñÿ ýòèìîëîãè÷åñêèìè ïðè-âÿçêàìè ê ìàòåðèàëàì äðåâíåòþðêñêîãî ñëîâà-ðÿ (ÄÒÑ [9]). Èçëàãàåìûé çäåñü êîìáèíàòîðíî-ýòèìîëîãè÷åñêèé àíàëèç âñåöåëî áàçèðóåòñÿ íàãèïîòåçå î ëîêàëüíîì ïðàòþðêñêîì õàðàêòåðåýòðóññêîãî ÿçûêà [2]. Ýòà ãèïîòåçà â 1988 ãîäóïîëó÷èëà âåùåñòâåííîå ïîäòâåðæäåíèå ïðè èñ-ñëåäîâàíèÿõ òåëà ýòðóññêîé ìóìèè èç Ñðåäíå-ãî Åãèïòà [14].
Ðàññìîòðèì îñòàâøèåñÿ íåèäåíòèôèöèðî-âàííûå ñëîâà òåêñòà ïîî÷åðåäíî.
halusi.  ìàòåðèàëàõ ÄÒÑ ê ýòîìó ñëîâóâåñüìà áëèçêèìè ÿâëÿþòñÿ: qalïsïz «áåçíåáåñ-íûé, ïîëíûé, àáñîëþòíûé», qalïs «îòñòàâàíèå»,qalït «ïîäíèìàòüñÿ äûáîì», à òàêæå hal (ñåìèò.)«ñîñòîÿíèå, ïîëîæåíèå». Åñëè îðèåíòèðîâàòü-ñÿ íà ïåðâûé íàáîð äðåâíåòþðêñêèõ ñëîâ, òî,íåñîìíåííî, äåðèâàòîì ýòîé êîðíåâîé ôîðìûqal- ÿâëÿåòñÿ è ñîâðåìåííîå òþðêñêîå qalqu«âûïÿ÷èâàòüñÿ, âçäûáèòüñÿ», qalu «îñòàâàòüñÿ».Íî, íåêîòîðûå èç ïîäîáíûõ ñëîâ óæå áûëèèäåíòèôèöèðîâàíû íàìè â ýòðóññêèõ òåêñòàõ,íàïðèìåð, cal - «îñòàâàòüñÿ». Êðîìå ýòîãî, íà-÷àëüíîìó h â äðåâíåòþðêñêîì ÿçûêå ÷àùå âñå-ãî ñîîòâåòñòâóåò èìåííî h â ýòðóññêîì ÿçûêå:ñð. ýòð. huviîun «ìåðòâîå òåëî» ~ äð. òþðê.hövitoç «ìåðòâîå òåëî» [2]. Ïîýòîìó, âûáèðàÿðàçëè÷íûå âàðèàíòû ýòèìîëîãè÷åñêîé èäåíòè-ôèêàöèè íàçâàíîãî ñëîâà, ìû îñòàíàâëèâàåì-ñÿ íà âòîðîì âàðèàíòå � ñåìèòñêîì çàèìñòâî-âàíèè â ýòðóññêîì ÿçûêå halu «ñîñòîÿíèå, ïî-ëîæåíèå». Îêîí÷àíèå -si, íàèáîëåå âåðîÿòíî,ãîâîðèò î ïîêàçàòåëå ñóáúåêòà (êàê è ñòàðîëà-òèíñêàÿ ôîðìà àíàôîðè÷åñêîãî âîçâðàòíîãîìåñòîèìåíèÿ *se).  èòîãå î÷åíü ìíîãîå ñâèäå-òåëüñòâóåò î òîì, ÷òî íàçâàííîå ñëîâî ïðåäñòàâ-ëÿåò ñîáîé íà÷àëî êîñâåííîé ðå÷è ñî çíà÷åíè-åì «[Èõ (êîãî-òî)] ñîñòîÿíèå äåë, ïîëîæåíèå».
cnas. Òàêîå îêîí÷àíèå -s èìåþò ýòðóññêèåêà÷åñòâåííûå ïðèëàãàòåëüíûå [5]. Ïîýòîìó äàí-íîå ñëîâî, ñ ó÷åòîì âûøåóêàçàííîãî êîðíÿ,ìîæíî ïîïûòàòüñÿ èíòåðïðåòèðîâàòü â ñåìàí-
òè÷åñêîì çíà÷åíèè «òåêó÷è, èçìåí÷èâû, ïåðå-ìåí÷èâû».
snuti. Çäåñü snut � ãëàãîë 3-ãî ëèöà ìíîæå-ñòâåííîãî ÷èñëà â íàñòîÿùåì âðåìåíè [2] «ñ÷è-òàþò». Îêîí÷àíèå -i âñòðå÷àåòñÿ ÷àñòî ó ýòðóñ-ñêèõ ãëàãîëîâ è ñâÿçàíî ñ îïðåäåëåííûìè êëàñ-ñàìè ìîäàëüíîñòè ñóáúåêòèâíî-íåîïðåäåëåííî-ãî òèïà. Èñõîäÿ èç ýòîãî, ðàññìàòðèâàåìîå ñëî-âî ìîæíî ïîïûòàòüñÿ îòîæäåñòâèòü ñ êîíòåê-ñòóàëüíîé ôðàçîé «êàê (âîîáùå â îáùåñòâå)ñ÷èòàþò» èëè «ñ÷èòàåòñÿ îáùåïðèçíàííûì».
parax pateri. Äåòåðìèíàöèÿ ñåìàíòè÷åñêèõïðèçíàêîâ ýòîé ñèíòàêòèêî-ñåìàíòè÷åñêîéïàðû ïîòðåáîâàëà ïåðåñìîòðà áîëüøîãî êîëè-÷åñòâà áëèçêèõ ïî çâó÷àíèþ ñëîâîôîðì è âñå-âîçìîæíûõ òåðìèíîâ âî ìíîãèõ òþðêñêèõ èíåòþðêñêèõ ÿçûêàõ, à òàêæå îñîáîé àêòèâèçà-öèè âíèìàíèÿ ê âûÿâëåíèþ áëèçêèõ ê íèì ïîêîðíåâûì îñíîâàì ðåôåðåíòîâ â äîñòóïíûõ äëÿèçó÷åíèÿ ýòðóññêèõ òåêñòàõ.
 ìàòåðèàëàõ ïî èçó÷åíèþ ýòðóññêîãî ÿçû-êà â ñâÿçè ñ ðàññìàòðèâàåìîé êðèïòîïàðîéíàøå âíèìàíèå ïðèâëåêëè äâà ïðèìåðà.  ïåð-âîì ðå÷ü èäåò î ïîäðèñóíî÷íîé íàäïèñè, âû-ïîëíåííîé íà ýòðóññêîì áðîíçîâîì çåðêàëå, ãäåìèôè÷åñêèé ãåðîé ïîõèùàåò äåâóøêó. Íàäïèñüâûãëÿäèò òàê: parsura. Áîëüøèíñòâî èññëåäî-âàòåëåé óæå îòîæäåñòâèëè ýòî ñëîâî ñ ýòðóññêèìãëàãîëîì íàñòîÿùåãî âðåìåíè, îáîçíà÷àþùèìêàêîé-òî ñïîñîá ïîõèùåíèÿ.
Åñëè ó÷åñòü, ÷òî çàâåðøàþùàÿ ïîëîâèíàñëîâà -sura â ñåâåðî-çàïàäíûõ òþðêñêèõ ÿçûêàõ(èñõîäÿ èç âîçìîæíûõ ïîñëåäóþùèõ ôîíîýâî-ëþöèé ýòîãî ñëîâà) ñîîòâåòñòâóåò ãëàãîëó «òà-ùèòü», òî ïåðâàÿ ïîëîâèíà ñëîâà ìîæåò ñèíè-ôèöèðîâàòü ñïîñîá ïåðåòàñêèâàíèÿ. Òàêîãîðîäà ñëîæíîñîñòàâíûå ñëîâà (ãëàãîëüíî-ãëà-ãîëüíûå, ãëàãîëüíî-èìåííûå è äâîéíûå èìåí-íûå) íåðåäêî âñòðå÷àþòñÿ â ýòðóññêèõ òåêñòàõ,íàïðèìåð: municlet (muni-clet «ïîäúåìíûì ñäå-ëàííûé», te�imeitn (te�i-meit-n «îïóñêàíèå òðóï-íîå ≡ çàõîðîíåíèå») è äð. [2].
Êàê óæå íàìè îòìå÷àëîñü ðàíåå â [2], ãðàì-ìàòè÷åñêèå ôîðìû ýòðóññêîãî ÿçûêà êàê îäíî-ãî èç ñàìûõ çàïàäíûõ ïðàòþðêñêèõ ÿçûêîâ Ñðå-äèçåìíîìîðüÿ äåìîíñòðèðóþò õàðàêòåðíûåäðåâíåéøèå ÷åðòû êûï÷àêñêîé è áóëãàðñêîéäèàëåêòíûõ ïîäãðóïï òþðêñêèõ ÿçûêîâ. Ïîýòî-ìó íàèáîëåå ïðîäóêòèâíûì, íåñîìíåííî, ÿâëÿ-åòñÿ ïîèñê ìîäåëüíûõ àðõåòèïîâ â ìàòåðèàëàõýòèõ ïîäãðóïï ÿçûêîâ è, â ÷àñòíîñòè, â êèðãèç-ñêîì è êàçàíñêî-òþðêñêîì ÿçûêàõ.
Ïðèìåíèòåëüíî ê ôåíîòèïó íà÷àëüíîé ÷àñ-òè ñëîâà â íàäïèñè íà çåðêàëå par- â ìàòåðèàëàõêèðãèçñêîãî ÿçûêà îáíàðóæèâàþòñÿ ñëîâà para
163ÂÅÑÒÍÈÊ ÎÃÓ 11`2004
«÷àñòü, êóñîê» [6], parak «ðåøåòî, äðîáèëêà», àâ êàçàíñêî-òþðêñêîì ÿçûêå åñòü ðîäñòâåííîå èìñëîâî parga «÷àñòü, îáðàçåö, ÷åãî-ëèáî». Ñõîæèéñèãíèôèêàò èìååòñÿ è â ÿçûêå îãóçñêîé ïîäãðóï-ïû � â òóðêìåíñêîì: park «îòäåëüíûé» [7].
Äëÿ ïîâûøåíèÿ âàëèäíîñòè ðàññóæäåíèéìîæíî ðàññìîòðåòü åùå è íîñòðàòè÷åñêèå ïà-ðàëëåëè â èíäîåâðîïåéñêèõ ÿçûêàõ è íåêîòîðûåàðõàè÷åñêèå çàèìñòâîâàíèÿ â äðåâíåòþðêñêîìÿçûêå.  ÷àñòíîñòè, äð. ãðå÷.: pa «âåñü», para -«îòñòîÿùèé îòäåëüíî», pa-ra-jo «ñòàðûé» [8];ëàòèíñê. part «÷àñòü, äîëÿ»; äð. òþðê.paramantal «ïî ñïèðàëè, ê ñîâåðøåíñòâó» [9].Âîçìîæíî, ñ ïîñëåäíèì ýòèìîëîãè÷åñêèì ðåôå-ðåíòîì ñâÿçàí è ñòîÿùèé íåñêîëüêî îñîáíÿêîìêóëèíàðíûé òåðìèí â êàçàíñêî-òþðêñêîì ÿçû-êå pärämäè (êðóãëîé ôîðìû ìÿñíîé ïèðîæîê),ñèíèôèöèðóþùèé, ïî-âèäèìîìó, ïîíÿòèå «ñäå-ëàííûé ïî êðóãó».
Èòàê, èíòåãðèðóÿ âñå ñåìàíòè÷åñêèå çíà-÷åíèÿ ýòðóññêîãî ñëîâà parsura â íàäïèñè íàçåðêàëå, ìû îòäàåì ïðåäïî÷òåíèå òàêîìó ïåðå-âîäó: «îòäåëÿÿ, îòðûâàÿ òàùèò». Ñëåäñòâèåì æåèç òàêîãî çàêëþ÷åíèÿ, â êà÷åñòâå âòîðîãî ëî-ãè÷åñêîãî øàãà, óæå ïðèìåíèòåëüíî ê ýòðóññêîéíàäïèñè íà òàáëî ïðèäîðîæíîãî îáåëèñêà, ñòà-íîâèòñÿ âûâîä î òîì, ÷òî ïåðâîå ñëîâî â ðèô-ìóþùåéñÿ êðèïòîïàðå parax – pateri íàèáîëååâåðîÿòíî ñâÿçàíî ñ ñåìàíòè÷åñêèìè ïðèçíàêà-ìè: «äðîáíîñòü», «÷àñòü, êóñî÷åê ÷åãî-òî», «îò-äåëüíûé ïðèçíàê ñ êàêèìè-òî èíäèâèäóàëüíû-ìè îñîáåííîñòÿìè».
Êîðåíü âòîðîãî ñëîâà â ðàññìàòðèâàåìîéêðèïòîïàðå (-pateri) âñòðå÷àåòñÿ â îäíîé ýòðóñ-ñêîé íàäïèñè íà òàðåëêå ([2], ñòð. 66), óæå â ãëà-ãîëüíîé èìïåðàòèâíîé ôîðìå patna «ðàçáèâàé-ñÿ âäðåáåçãè!». Òóò æå ïðèõîäèò íà ïàìÿòü àíà-ëîãèÿ â äð. òþðê. ÿçûêå: pat- «çâóê ïàäàþùåãîòÿæåëîãî ïðåäìåòà», à â ìàòåðèàëàõ êèðãèçñ-êîãî ÿçûêà èìååòñÿ ãëàãîë pata- «ðàçáèâàòüñÿè ðàçëåòàòüñÿ âäðåáåçãè»[6].
Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ïîäâîäÿ èòîã ñåìàíòèêî-ýòèìîëîãè÷åñêîìó è êîìáèíàòîðíîìó àíàëèçóïåðâîé êðèïòîïàðû èçó÷àåìîé íàäïèñè parax–pateri, íàèáîëåå âåðîÿòíûì ïåðåâîäîì ýòîéñâÿçêè ìû ñ÷èòàåì òàêèå êîðåôåðåíòíûå ïåðèô-ðàçû: «ñïîñîáíîå ê äðîáëåíèþ � ðàíî èëè ïî-çäíî ðàññûïàåòñÿ», «ðàçëè÷èÿ � êàê ïðàâèëî,õðóïêè», «îêðóæàþùèé ìèð � õðóïêèé».
aex a�lax. Ñëîâ, íà÷èíàþùèõñÿ íà aî, î÷åíüìíîãî â ýòðóññêîì ÿçûêå. Ýòî è aîes «äðóã»(«èäóùèé ðÿäîì»), è aîumics «ïîìîùü, ñîäåé-ñòâèå», è aîna «ïðîäâèæåíèå âïåðåä». Àôôèêñ-x ãîâîðèò î êëàññå ñóùåñòâèòåëüíûõ, êîòîðûåîáðàçîâàëèñü èëè îò ãëàãîëîâ, èëè îò ïðèëàãà-
òåëüíûõ.  ëþáîì ñëó÷àå, êîðíåâàÿ îñíîâà ýòî-ãî ñëîâà áîëåå âñåãî ñâÿçàíà ñ äåéñòâèåì, óñè-ëèåì.
Îòêàçàâøèñü îò èäåíòèôèêàöèè ýòîãî ñëî-âà ñ âîçìîæíûì *aîac «íîãà» (ïî àíàëîãèè ñ äð.òþðê. aäaq «íîãà»), îñòîðîæíî ïðåäïîëîæèì,÷òî çäåñü ðå÷ü èäåò î êàêîì-òî äåéñòâèè ñ óñè-ëèåì èëè îáúåêòå, ñâÿçàííîì ñ äâèæåíèåì èïåðåìåùåíèåì.
Âòîðàÿ ëåêñåìà êðèïòîïàðû a�lax èìååòñõîäñòâî ñ äð. òþðê. aš � «ïåðåõîäèòü, ïåðåñå-êàòüñÿ, âîçíàãðàæäàòüñÿ, ïîëó÷àòü ïî çàñëó-ãàì». Ïîäáèðàÿ ðàçëè÷íûå âàðèàíòû ñî÷åòà-íèÿ ýòîé ñìûñëîâîé ïàðû è ó÷èòûâàÿ, ÷òî ýòîíàäïèñü íà ïðèäîðîæíîé êàìåííîé ìåòêå, íàè-áîëåå óáåäèòåëüíûìè â êîíòåêñòå ôèëîñîôñ-êî-ñåíòåíöèîçíîãî ñîäåðæàíèÿ äâóõ ïðåäûäó-ùèõ êðèïòîïàð, çàâåðøàþùèõñÿ â òåêñòå óò-âåðäèòåëüíûì ñèãíèôèêàòîì «ñ÷èòàåòñÿ»(snuti), íàèáîëåå âåðîÿòíûìè ïåðåâîäàìè ðàñ-ñìàòðèâàåìîé ïàðû ñëîâ íàì ïðåäñòàâëÿþòñÿòàêèå: «(âñå) óñèëèÿ (êîãäà-íèáóäü) ïðåñåêàþò-ñÿ (ñòàíîâÿòñÿ íàïðàñíûìè (áåññìûñëåííûìè)-)»,«(âñå) ïóòè (?) � (êîãäà-íèáóäü) ïåðåñåêàþò-ñÿ (?)».
stvi. Ýòðóññê. st � «ñòàâèòü, ñîñòàâëÿòü»,-vi � îêîí÷àíèå ïðèëàãàòåëüíîãî.
leiîrmeri . Ðàçëîæèì ýòî ñëîâî íà ñîñòàâëÿ-þùèå: lei-îrm-eri . Äð. òþðê. lev «ÿâñòâà, åäà»,töri � «çàòåâàòü, ñîçäàâàòü». Ïðåäïîëîæèòåëü-íûé ïåðåâîä ýòîãî ñëîâà: «ïðèãîòîâëåííûå ÿñ-òâà, ñåðâèðîâàííûå».
urîui. Äð. òþðê. urî � «ïîðÿäîê, ïðàâèëî».Íîñòðàòè÷åñêîå ñîîòâåòñòâèå â èíäîåâðîïåéñ-êèõ ÿçûêàõ order «ïðèêàç, ïîðÿäîê».
uîari . Êàçàí.-òþðê. ütäü «èñïîëíÿòü»,äð.òþðê. ud � «ñëåäîâàòü, ïðèñîåäèíÿòüñÿ».
van. Äð. òþðê. pan «äîñêà äëÿ ïèñüìà» [9]. mertari . Íè÷åãî ïîõîæåãî íà ýòî ñëîâî íåò
íè â òþðêñêîì ÿçûêàõ, íè â ìàòåðèàëàõ ýòðóñ-ñêîãî ïèñüìà. Îäíàêî î÷åíü íà ýòî ñëîâî ïîõî-æà èòàëüÿíñêàÿ àðõàè÷åñêàÿ ëåêñåìà meritare«áûòü äîñòîéíûì, óäîñòîèòüñÿ» [10].
îîr . Ýòðóññ. îut � «äåðæàòü». Àôôèêñ -îráëèçîê ê îêîí÷àíèþ ãëàãîëîâ áóäóùåãî íåîïðå-äåëåííîãî âðåìåíè � îur [11] è îêîí÷àíèþ ïî-âåëèòåëüíîãî íàêëîíåíèÿ ýòðóññêèõ ãëàãîëîâ.
Ïîäâîäÿ èòîã êîìáèíàòîðíî-ýòèìîëîãè-÷åñêîìó àíàëèçó íàäïèñè Bu 899, â êà÷åñòâå ïåð-âîãî ïðèáëèæåíèÿ íàì ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ âîçìîæ-íûì ïðåäëîæèòü ñëåäóþùèé âàðèàíò ïåðåâîäàðàññìàòðèâàåìîé íàäïèñè:
«(Õîòÿ) ñîñòîÿíèÿ âñåõ (ïîä íåáåñàìè) íå-ïðåðûâíî ìåíÿþòñÿ � òàê ñ÷èòàþò (ýòî îáùå-ïðèçíàííî),
Ëàòûïîâ Ô.Ð. Ýòðóññêàÿ íàäïèñü Bu 899 íà êàìåííîì âêëàäûøå ïðèäîðîæíîãî îáåëèñêà...
164 ÂÅÑÒÍÈÊ ÎÃÓ 11`2004
(Ëþáîå) õðóïêîå (èëè ñûïó÷åå) (ðàíî èëèïîçäíî, êîãäà-íèáóäü) ðàçáèâàåòñÿ è ðàññûïà-åòñÿ � è ýòî îáùåèçâåñòíî,
(Ëþáûå) ñòàðàíèÿ âñå æå êîãäà-ëèáî ñòàíî-âÿòñÿ íàïðàñíûìè (áåññìûñëåííûìè) � è ýòîîáùåèçâåñòíî,
È, áîëåå òîãî, âñå ÿñòâà, ñîñòàâëåííûå íàòðèêëèíèè, ïîêðûòûå ïðåêðàñíûìè ëüíÿíûìèñêàòåðòÿìè, � âñë æå áðåííû,
È òåì íå ìåíåå, ïåðåä òåìè, êòî áóäåò ïðè-äåðæèâàòüñÿ çàêîíîâ, èçëîæåííûõ íà äîñòîé-íûõ êàìåííûõ ïàííî, ïðåêëîíè (îïóñòè) âçîð,(â çíàê óâàæåíèÿ)».
ÂÛÂÎÄÛ1. Ñîäåðæàíèå òåêñòà òàáëî íà ïðèäîðîæ-
íîì îáåëèñêå (Bu 899) ãîâîðèò î åãî ýñòåòè÷åñ-êî-ïñèõîëîãè÷åñêîé íàïðàâëåííîñòè, ìîæíîñêàçàòü � ôèëîñîôñêîé ýêçàëüòèðîâàííîñòè.Ýòèì èçó÷åííûé òåêñò ðåçêî îòëè÷àåòñÿ îò áî-ëåå ïîçäíèõ ïðàêòè÷íûõ è ëàêîíè÷íûõ ëàòèíñ-êèõ íàäïèñåé [12]. Êàê óæå îòìå÷àëîñü â íàøèõèññëåäîâàíèÿõ, íå èìåÿ ïðàâèëüíûõ ýòàëîíîâñîöèàëüíî-ýòíè÷åñêîãî è ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî ðàç-âèòèÿ, ýòðóñêè óïðàæíÿëèñü â ñîçäàíèè è ôîð-ìèðîâàíèè ìîðàëüíî-ýòè÷åñêèõ ñåíòåíöèé èîáñóæäåíèè ïðèíöèïîâ ïîñòðîåíèÿ èäåàëüíî-ãî óòîïè÷åñêîãî îáùåñòâà.
2.  íàäïèñè íà òàáëî îòðàæåíà îäíà èçîñíîâíûõ èäåé ãðå÷åñêîé àíòè÷íîñòè taxis «ïðà-âèëüíîå ïîñòðîåíèå, ïîâåäåíèå» [13].  ýòðóñ-ñêîé òåðìèíîëîãèè ýòî çâó÷èò êàê urîui uîari«ñëåäîâàíèå ïðàâèëüíîìó ïîâåäåíèþ». Îäíà-êî êàê ïðàâèëüíî ñåáÿ âåñòè, êàæäûé èç äðåâ-íèõ íàðîäîâ � ãðåêè, ðèìëÿíå, ýòðóñêè ïðåä-ñòàâëÿëè ñåáå ïî-ðàçíîìó. Äëÿ ýòðóñêîâ ýòîáûëî ñîáëþäåíèå ïðàâèë ñâÿùåííîãî áðàòñòâàra�na [2], îçíà÷àþùåãî íàëè÷èå îïðåäåëåííîãîóðîâíÿ êóëüòóðû è ðåëèãèîçíîñòè (ñîãëàñíî 12ýòðóññêèì äèñöèïëèíàìè).
3. Òàê êàê íà êàìåííîì ïðèäîðîæíîì òàá-ëî çâó÷èò ïðèçûâ ê ñîáëþäåíèþ ýòè÷åñêèõïðàâèë, èçëàãàåìûõ íà äðóãèõ ïîäîáíûõ ýòî-ìó êàìåííûõ ïàííî, ýòî îáñòîÿòåëüñòâî óêà-çûâàåò íà âîçìîæíîå ìíîæåñòâî ïîäîáíûõíàäïèñåé âáëèçè ìåñò ïðîëåãàíèÿ äðåâíèõ ýò-ðóññêèõ äîðîã, êîòîðûå ìîãóò áûòü íàéäåíû âáóäóùåì.
4.  èçó÷åííîé ïðèäîðîæíîé íàäïèñè èí-òåðåñíà ñèíòàêñè÷åñêàÿ ôîðìà ïîñòðîåíèÿïðåäëîæåíèÿ, ãäå âàæíîå çíà÷åíèå èìåþò êîí-òåêñò è êàòåãîðèè ñóáúåêòèâíî-íåîïðåäåëåí-íîé ìîäàëüíîñòè. Ñòèëü íàäïèñè � íåíàâÿç÷è-âûé, ïîä÷åðêèâàåòñÿ ïîçèòèâ îðãàíèçîâàííî-ñòè íà ôîíå çûáêîñòè è õàîòè÷íîñòè îêðóæà-þùåãî ìèðà.
Ñïèñîê èñïîëüçîâàííîé ëèòåðàòóðû:1. Ëàòûïîâ Ô.Ð. Îñíîâíûå ãðóïïû ñëîâ è óçëîâûå ìîìåíòû ïðè àíàëèçå è ïåðåâîäå ýòðóññêèõ òåêñòîâ TLE 1, TLE 2, CIE 4538
è íàäïèñè íà àëòàðå èç Ñàíòà-Ìàðèíåëëû // Ôèëîëîãè÷åñêèé ñáîðíèê ÈßËÈ èì. Ã. Èáðàãèìîâà. Êàçàíü: Èçä. «Ôàí», 1995.Ñ. 28-35.
2. Ëàòûïîâ Ô.Ð. Èññëåäîâàíèå äðåâíèõ ÿçûêîâ Ñðåäèçåìíîìîðüÿ íà îñíîâå ôîíî-ýâîëþöèîííîé ãèïîòåçû è êîìáèíàòîðíî-÷àñòîòíûõ ìåòîäîâ. Óôà: Ãèëåì, 2003. 164 ñ.
3. Buffa M. Nova raccolta di iscrizioni etrusche. Firenze:Rinascimento del libro. 1935. 360 p.4. Ëàòûïîâ Ô.Ð. Ýòðóñêè: ñèíòåç ïðàêòèöèçìà, ìèñòèêè, ôèëîñîôñêîé ýêçàëüòàöèè è ñåíòåíöèîçíîñòè â ïîâñåäíåâíîé æèçíè
// ßäêÿð, 2003. ¹2. Ñ.72-80.5. Ëàòûïîâ Ô.Ð. Ôóíêöèîíàëüíî-ñåìàíòè÷åñêèå è ñðàâíèòåëüíî-ñòåïåííûå ôîðìû ïðàòþðêñêèõ ïðèëàãàòåëüíûõ // Òåç. äîêë.
ìåæäóíàð. íàó÷. êîíô.: Íàó÷íîå íàñëåäèå áàøêèðñêèõ ó÷åíûõ-ýìèãðàíòîâ è âîïðîñû ñîâðåìåííîñòè (âòîðûå Âàëèäîâñêèå÷òåíèÿ). Óôà: Èçä. Áàø. ãîñ. óíèâåð. 1995. Ñ. 39-41.
6. Êèðãèçñêî-ðóññêèé ñëîâàðü / Ñîñò. Ê.Ê. Þäàõèí, ò. 1,2. Ôðóíçå: ÃÐÊÑÝ, 1985. 480 ñ.7. Òyêìåí äèëèíèí ö ãûñãà÷à äèàëåêòîãèê ñîçëyãè. Àøãàáàò, 1997.8. Ìîë÷àíîâ À.À., Íåðîçíàêîâ Â.Ï., Øàðûïêèí Ñ.ß. Ïàìÿòíèêè äðåâíåéøåé ãðå÷åñêîé ïèñüìåííîñòè (ââåäåíèå â ìèêåíîëî-
ãèþ). Ì.,1988. 192 ñ.9. Äðåâíåòþðêñêèé ñëîâàðü, Ë., 1969. 691 ñ.10. Èòàëüÿíñêî-ðóññêèé è ðóññêî-èòàëüÿíñêèé ñëîâàðü / Ò.Ç. ×åðäàíöåâ, Ä.Å. Ðîçåíòàëü, Ñ. Ðåäæî. Ì.: Ðóñ. ÿç., 1990. 697 ñ.11. Ëàòûïîâ Ô.Ð. Îñíîâíûå ôîðìû íàêëîíåíèÿ, ñïðÿæåíèÿ è íåëè÷íûå ôîðìû ïðàòþðêñêîãî ãëàãîëà // Òåç. äîêë. ìåæäóíàð.
êîíô., ïîñâÿù. ïà-ìÿòè Çàêè Âàëèäè. Óôà: Èçä. ÁÃÓ. 1992. Ñ. 110-111.12. Ôåäîðîâà Å.Â. Ââåäåíèå â ëàòèíñêóþ ýïèãðàôèêó. Ì.: Èçä. ÌÃÓ,1982. 256 ñ.13. Ëîñåâ À.Ô. Èñòîðèÿ àíòè÷íîé ýñòåòèêè: Èòîãè òûñÿ÷èëåòíåãî ðàçâèòèÿ. Êíèãà II. Õàðüêîâ: Ôîëèî, Ì.: ÎÎÎ «Èçä.-âî
ÀÒÑ», 2000. 688 ñ.14. Ëàòûïîâ Ô.Ð. Çàãðåáñêàÿ ìóìèÿ � âîçìîæíûé ñâèäåòåëü àïîôåîçà ýòðóññêîãî îáðÿäà ÷åëîâå÷åñêîãî æåðòâîïðèíîøåíèÿ
(ðåçóëüòàòû îáñëåäîâàíèÿ òåëà ìóìèè â àâãóñòå 1988 ã. â ñîïîñòàâëåíèè ñ ïðàòþðêñêèì ÷òåíèåì òåêñòà ïåëåíû â 1981 ã.)//Òåç. äîêë. Ìåæäóíàð. êîëëîêâèóìà: Ýòðóñêè â èõ ñâÿçè ñ íàðîäàìè Ñðåäèçåìíîìîðüÿ. Ìèô. Ðåëèãèÿ. Èñêóññòâî. Ì.: ÃÌÈÈèì. À.Ñ. Ïóøêèíà, 1990.
15. Ëàòûïîâ Ô.Ð. Ìîðàëüíî-ýòè÷åñêèå ïðèíöèïû ðå÷åâîãî îáùåíèÿ, îòðàæåííûå â ñâåòñêîì ñòèëå ýòðóññêîãî ïèñüìà // Ìà-òåð. Ðîññèéñê. íàó÷íî-ïðàêòè÷. êîíô.: Ïðîôåññèîíàëüíîå îáùåíèå. Êåìåðîâî: Èçä.-âî ÃÓ ÊÃÒÓ, 2002. Ñ. 188-190.
16. Ëàòûïîâ Ô.Ð. Ýòðóññêàÿ íàäïèñü TLE 2 èç Êàïóè � âûäàþùèéñÿ ïåäàãîãè÷åñêèé òðàêòàò è ïàìÿòíèê ÿçûêà ïðàòþðêñêîãîìèðà àíòè÷íîãî Ñðåäåçåìíîìîðüÿ // ßäêàð, 1999. ¹2. Ñ. 93-120.
17. Torelli M. Terza campagna di scavi a punta della Vipera (Santa-Marinella)// Studi Etruschi, 1969. vol. XXXV-MEMK XVII � (serieII).
18. Ëàòûïîâ Ô.Ð. Ïðàòþðêñêèå ÷åðòû ýòðóññêîãî ÿçûêà â ñâÿçè ñ íîñòðàòè÷åñêîé òåîðèåé // Êðàò. òåç. äîêë. íàó÷í. êîíô.:Äðåâíèå êóëüòóðû Åâðàçèè è àíòè÷íàÿ öèâèëèçàöèÿ. Ëåíèíãðàä: Èçä. Ãîñ. Ýðìèòàæà, 1983. Ñ. 55-57.
Ðîìàíî-ãåðìàíñêàÿ ôèëîëîãèÿ
«По кому плачут этрусские надписи»
(комментарии к некоторым переводам этрусских текстов)
Тимофеев Вячеслав
Москва 2008
Вниманию читателя предлагается комментарии на статью «Этрусская надпись BU 899 на каменном вкладыше придорожного обелиска: призыв к уважению и порядку»
Латыпова Ф.Р. (Вестник ОГУ, 2004), а также анализируются переводы этрусских слов,
данные в книге Р. Блока «Этруски – предсказатели будущего».
Статья уже неоднократно перерабатывалась. Что делать ? Таковы муки творчества.
Надеюсь, эта версия наиболее правильная.
Можно ли назвать правильным переводом этрусского текста на любой из доступных
языков, если нет ни словаря или хотя бы одной перекрестной ссылки из других этрусских
текстов, подтверждающих подлинность перевода ?
Я понимаю многих исследователей, желающих переводить этрусские тексты на не
индоевропейский язык, поскольку в официальной науке под названием этрускология
наложено табу на этрусский язык как принадлежащий индоевропейской группе.
Где забывают о науке в истинном смысле слова, там процветает пышным цветом
ложные учения и фантастические трактовки текстов древнего языка, который этого не
достоин. Я полагаю, этрусские надписи плачут не только по умершим, но и потому, что их
несправедливо искажают.
Вот основные аргументы автора статьи:
«Эксклюзивность надписи на придорожной каменной метке состоит в том, что в ней
встречаются очень редкие слова и грамматические формы, сужающие до нуля
возможности применения комбинаторного метода с использованием позиционно-
частотных характеристик, полученных ранее на материалах других распространенных
по жанру этрусских текстов» [1].
Отчего же редкие слова ? Ключевое слово «snuti» есть в словаре этрусского языка в
пяти вариантах snute, snuteś, snuti кроме того, есть слово «parax», остальные известные
слова eri, lei, ur[n], θari, meri, esi, θ[u]r автор статьи просто не видит, потому, что не
понимает или не желает видеть.
Главная особенность в переводе этрусских текстов состоит в том, что этрусский язык
переводится только с помощью славянских языков и доказательств тому множество.
Первым российским историком, который подчеркнул определенную схожесть
этрусского языка со славянским был дворянин Чертков А.Д. живший еще в 19 веке.
Исследователь истории Евразии С. Дарда пишет о нем следующее:
«Несмотря на то, что во времена Черткова еще не было опубликовано
достаточного количества надписей не этрусском языке, тем не менее, он правильно
подметил основные особенности этого языка:
1. Для этрусского языка не было разработано одной стандартной общепринятой
орфографии и грамматики, поэтому одно и то же слово могло быть написано по-
разному.
2. Одна и та же буква могла соответствовать разным звукам. (Так же и в
финикийском алфавите некоторые буквы озвучивали несколько разных, но близких по
звучанию звуков).
3. Многообразие форм и склонений одного и того же слова в этрусском языке очень
близко славянским языкам» [3].
К сделанным выводам хотелось бы добавить следующее:
1. Существительное и глагол в этрусском предложении могут располагаться в
произвольной последовательности, что характерно только для славянских языков.
Например, lχ · vipi · varna /лохань выпей варева / и другое построеиие фразы – au · vipi ·
varna · lχ / «Всю выпей вареную лохань».
2. Слова в этрусском предложении могут переноситься на следующую по порядку
строку текста, причем даже в раздельном виде.
3. Авторы этрусских текстов не отличались грамотностью, вероятно оттого, что не
существовало специальных школ обучения языку. Как правило, им владели люди
жреческого сословия, которые и выполняли надписи в основном ритуального
характера для соблюдения определенных обрядов. Поэтому даже в одном тексте
возможны элементарные орфографические ошибки.
4. Этрусские слова в предложении разделялись точками или двоеточиями, что
значительно упрощает чтение по сравнению со старославянским слитным текстом.
Однако, между разделительными знаками все равно возникают словообразования
из двух, а то и трех слов. Например,
Слово leiθrmeri по существу состоит из пяти слов lei - θr – m - eri «пеленал
травой моей яровой» слитых в написании вместе.
5. Этрусский язык основан на критском линейном письме А/В Минойской
цивилизации и недалеко ушел в своем развитии за 2 тыс. лет со дня создания на
базе иероглифического письма египтян. Поэтому, это скорее язык символов или
символических фраз, скорее сленг по современным понятиям, чем классический
язык со сложенной морфологической и синтаксической структурой опять же в
современном понимании.
6. Этрусский язык и родственные ему оско-умбрийские языки занимают
промежуточное положение между иероглифическим письмом и классическим
индоевропейским языком, например, таким как латынь.
C учетом вышесказанного, рассмотрим еще раз перевод Латыпова Ф.Р..
Перевод этрусской надписи BU 899 с тюркского на русский язык следующий:
« (Хотя) состояния всех (под небесами) непрерывно меняются – так считают (это
общепризнанно),
(Любое) хрупкое (или сыпучее)(рано или поздно, когда-нибудь) разбивается и
рассыпается - и это общеизвестно,
(Любые) старания все же когда-либо становятся напрасными (бессмысленными) – и
это общеизвестно,
И, более того, все яства, составленные на триклинии, покрытые прекрасными
льняными скатертями, - все же бренны,
И тем не менее, перед теми, кто будет придерживаться законов, изложенных на
достойных каменных панно, преклони (опусти) взор (в знак уважения» [1].
Из семи коротких строк такая пространная речь из области юриспруденции. Можно
подумать, что перед нами не каменная стела, а публичный оратор на подмостках Колизея.
В итоге, удручающие сентенции, предлагающие следовать закону, при этом надежд на
выживание никто не обещает – вот и все законы ! Если это наставления этрусков, как
жить дальше, то лучше проходить и не читать подобные вкладыши.
В заключение, призывая к уважению и порядку, можно сказать следующее:
«не делайте этрускам больно, они уже и так плохо спят в своих могилах !»
Ниже дается перевод этрусской надписи BU 899 со славянского на русский язык.
Транслитерация текста взята из словаря этрусского языка [2].
Перевод не претендует на достоверность, но, во всяком случае, дословный, имеет смысл
и вполне в духе ритуальных обрядов этрусков.
Перевод автора:
halus : ecnas : snut
Галушки ягненку – снедь.
paraχ : pateri : snuti
Барашку хреб яровой - снедь.
aθeχ : aślaχ : snuti
Утеха ослу - снедь.
stvi : lei θrmeri : len
Статую великую пеленал травой моей яровой, лен
fan eri : urθri : uθari ·nu
пахучий яровой урне дарил, урне дарил, новый
ei : θrie : van : mer tari : θ
ей дарил пахучий. Мертвой дарил душе,
θr · iθr · esi
дарил я траву, ешь.
Комментарии:
Смысл текста очень прост, как и весь славянский язык. Что нужно животным ?
разная снедь. А мертвому нужно приносить жертву, траву-мураву.
Слова текста BU 899, встречающиеся в этрусских текстах [2]:
haltu – галушки
θana haltu nei – Дань принес, галушки принес
θania : varnei : halusnal : śec : umrana – Дань принес я, вареники, галушки, чествовал
умершую
slepa ris haltus – слепил рисовые галушки
еcnia – ягнененок
calusc – колючки
calusc · ecnai – колючки ягненку
ecnati –ягнята
[ra]mθa :len : ecnati (…) – барану дарил лен, ягненку... velia sescat nei stultnei · a pateržel – великой сейчас принес столетник, рожденный
подорожник
snute – снедь
pumpu snute etera - Пеплу снедь, еда яровая
platia pumpuś snute – платил Пеплу снедью
laθi : petruni snute – Ладо, Петрушке снедь
snut eś – снедь ешь
arθ pupuś snuteś – рожденному Пеплу снедь
aule pumpuś snuteś arnθ θial - всем духам Пепла, снедь ешьте, рожденную дарил
snuti – снедь тебе
snuti huzet naś – снедь тебе, хозяин наш
śnutuφ – снятся
śnutuφ anc leic śnutuφ[·]iχ reuśceśc – снятся птицам лес, снятся им ручьи
parax – барашек
zilaθ parχis – печень барашка
zilc parχis amce – печень барашка вынимал
vipi zerturi parfnal – выпей жертву барашка, налил
nu : новый suca · lautniθa · nu – сучья латину дарил новые
larθi :nu(…)ni – дух, душе новой поникшей
nuiś : ночь
velia nuiś latina – великая ночь латина
nuis : ночь velia · alf · nuis · latin[ia]l – великой Олесе, ночи латинской
nui : ночь
lθ : cae : nui – духу каялся ночью
ramθa : nui χl nei:… - барана дань Ночи хвалил, принес...
nui χl nei : θanχvil – Ночи хвалил, принес Танаквисли
θrie : дарил ей
merta : мертвая
ei : θrie : vam : merta (…)θ (…) – ей дарил, варил мертвой…душе
eri es : яровые ешь
mi vele li as eries – моей великой лил рожденную жатву, яровые пей
erθial – яровые дарил
Комментарии к переводу текста BU 899 со славянского на русский язык:
halus – галушки
ecnas – ягненок
snut – снедь
parax – барашек
pateri – хлеб яровой
aθeχ - утеха
aślaχ – осел
stvi – статуе великой (стелле)
lei θr m eri – пеленал (ленил) травой яровой
len – лен
fan eri – пахучие яровые
urθri – урне дарил
u[r] θari – урне дарил
nu ei – новую ей
θrie – дарил
van – пахучая
mer tari – мертвой дарил я
θ[a]r – дарил
esi – ешь
Ниже дана иллюстрация жертвоприношения духу умершей.
Этрусский текст:
hutitevesi · vel · cnce ip IIII
Разбивка текста:
huti-te-vesi · vel · cn-ce ip IIII
Перевод автора:
«Хоти, тебя веселил, великой ягненка чествовал, я положил IIII раза»
Надгробные надписи этрусков
В современной этрускологии существуют глубокие заблуждения относительно знания
морфологии этрусского языка, опять таки из-за ложной трактовки переводов этрусских
текстов. Например, Р. Блок в своей книге «Этруски – предсказатели будущего» пишет:
«В области морфологии наши знания также существенны. Благодаря работам таких
исследователей, как Тромбетти и его учеников нам известно немало фактов. Судя по
всему, структура этрусского языка сильно отличалась от структуры индоевропейских
языков. Суффиксы, используемые при словообразовании взаимозаменяемы, а некоторые
грамматические категории выражены слабо. Любопытный факт – суперпозиция
различных суффиксов для выражения конкретной грамматической функции. Так,
чрезвычайно распространенное имя Larth имеет два родительных падежа Larthal и
Larthals – последняя форма представляет собой склонение уже измененной словоформы»
[4].
В этрусской и римской мифологии слово лар (lar) означает не имя собственное, а
божество, дух покойного. Словообразования larth, larthal, larthals в переводе со
славянского на русский означают «духу дарил». Фактически данные словообразования
состоят из двух слов: lar th, lar thal, lar thals. Существуют и другие, сокращенные формы
(аббревиатуры) этого словообразования: l, lth или lθ, lθial, lθal, larθial.
Самыми трудными и ключевыми в раскрытии погребальных надписей являются два
словообразования: larθial и arnθial. Вторая часть словообразования – θial долгое время
не давала покоя автору. Перевод первоначально принятый был «фиал» - сосуд в котором
как-бы содержалось вино для возлияния духам. Однако наличие множества надписей на
разных предметах в гробницах этрусков говорит о том, что слово θial имеет значение
«дарил». И вот почему. Этруски в своих надгробных надписях, как правило, обращались к
духу покойного лару (mi lar), как христиане обращаются к богу «мой бог», «my god».
Сложность состоит в том, что слова lar и θial у этрусков пишутся вместе. Точно также,
слово arn, которое означает «рожденный/ная) новая», пишется слитно со словом θial
«дарил». Но словосочетание larθial фактически сочетает слова, относящиеся к разным
смысловым фразам, а arnθial к одной фразе.
Поэтому, у этрусков был ритуальный обряд являться на могилы умерших, которые
охраняли духи умерших и обращались к духам как представителям душ умерших
родственников. Отсюда на знаменитой бронзовой печени из Пьянчи выделено место для
гадания, которое состоит из двух секторов под названием avil (явился) и lari (духи),
находящихся рядом именно в той последовательности, которая приведена. По этим
секторам, по-видимому, гаруспики определяли количество посещений душ умерших.
На фреске в этрусской гробнице показаны духи, уносящие душу.
Примеры применения словообразования в этрусских текстах:
lar : cumere : arθl – «духу Кума яровые рожденные дарил»;
aθtnei : arθial – «рожденной душе принес, рожденные дарил»;
larθi · matuna · arθalisa –«духу дарил мати нашей, рожденные дарил, лил жатву»;
larθi · marc nei · arθal –«духу дарил, мара колосья принес, рожденные дарил»;
larziu · mutu · arθal –«духу живому, моей душе рожденные дарил»;
arnθ · θe lazu · arθal –«рожденные новые дарил, тебе Лажа, рожденные дарил»;
larθ · ezna · arθal –«дух, душа, яровых жатву принес рожденной душе, рожденному
духу»;
au · rafi · arθ · titia –«все раввин рожденные дарил дитя»;
arθ : tum ltni : –«рожденной дарил Думе лютну»;
vel · veluś · arna θalisa –«великий Велуше рожденные принес, дарил, лил жатву»;
arnza : petru… –«рожденной принес жатву Петруше..»;
arnza : secu… –«рожденной принес жатву, сек...»;
arnza : trepu… –«рожденную принес жатву, трепал..»;
arnza : anie… –«рожденную принес жатву, уничил..»;
arnza : cae… –«рожденную принес жатву, вопил..»;
arnza : vetu… –«рожденную принес жатву, веял..»;
arnza : supluniaś… – «рожденную принес жатву, играл на флейте рожденной жатве»;
mi laris · san es naś – «мой дух ясный, санье пей наше»;
lari : cup rna – «духу кубок рожденный принес»;
lari · tite – «духу дитя»;
au · cai · veti · lari – «всем духам каялся, ведите духи»;
lari · cat eri… – «духу катил яровые..»;
lari · papani – «духу папы поникшему»;
mi lari sa plaisi nas – «моему духу жатву положил нашу»;
arnθ : veti : larisa – «рожденные принес, дарил, веди дух жатву»;
mi lari sa a χs – «моему духу жатву рожденную хвалил»;
mi mulu lari sale vel χai nasi – «мною малеван дух, жаловался великому, хаял нашего»;
l · lar · θui · canis – «налил духу, пей кан»;
mi zi na ku lar θizale ku lenu eśi – «мое жито принес, колосья, духу дарил, жалился:
«колосья льна ешь !»»;
…puia larθl · culnies – «поил я духа, дарил, колосья поникшие, пей »;
scarpini larθi (…) – «скорбил поникшей, духу дарил...»;
mi larθia use l es – «моему духу дарил, все лил, пей»;
mi larθia nuv(…) – «моему духу дарил, новые..»;
mi larθia st ra menas – «моему духу дарил, статуе рожденной Минервы»;
mi larθia hul χenas – «моему духу дарил, хулил гения нашего»;
mi larθia ama nas – «моему духу дарил, могиле нашей»;
mi larθia srupi nas – «моему духу дарил, царапал нашему»;
mi larθia suθ nas – «моему духу дарил, святил нашего»;
mi larθia θar ni eś – «моему духу дарил, дар поникший пей»;
la : aneie : larθia – «духу уничил, духу дарил»;
mi malena larθia pu ru henas – «мною малеван духу дар, поил рожью гения нашего »;
…larθialiś[m] · clan – «духу дарил ясному, кланялся»;
mi larθiala melaci nasi mulu – «моему духу дарила, милашу нашу малевала»;
veltur[u]s clan larθiali śla – «великому Туру, кланялись, духу дарили, славили»;
velturu śa seχ larθialiśla – «великому Туру жатва, семена хвалили, духу дарили,
славили»;
śθanaχvil : śuplini : larθialisa… – «светлой Танаквисле флейту поникшую, духу дарили
жатву...»;
vel tut na larθiali sa – «великому все принесли, духу дарили жатву»;
vel puc na larθialisa – «великому пучок принесли, духу дарили жатву»;
a · patl nis larθia[li]sa – «рожденному падал ниц, духу дарили жатву»;
mi mulu lari se zi li mlaχ – «мною малеван дух, семена жита лил, молился»;
laris · sec · serv · velθuru – «духу ясному сек, жертвовал великому Туру»;
vel : secnes – «великий семена конопли ешь»;
mi · ma[·]suθi – «мою маму святил»;
umranal śe ec – «умершая, семена ешь»;
fa[s]ti : lecuti nei : umriaś – «ветки лечить принес, умершей»;
mi mulu lari sale – «мною малеван дух жалостный»;
tites : velus arθaliśla –«дитя великому рожденные дарили, славили»;
arθaliśla · puia –«рожденные дарили, славили, поили»;
larza : avle : arθaliza –«духу жатву явили, рожденную дарили жатву»;
larθ · ve te · arθalisa –«дух, дар великий тебе, рожденную дарили жатву»;
…strumesa : arn θali sa –«статуе римлянина жатва, рожденную дарили жатву»;
vel hele arnθalisa – «великой Елене, рожденную дарили жатву»;
larθ : tetina : arθalisa –«духу дарил, дитя принес, рожденную дарили жатву»;
vel : umrana : arθali sa –«великой усопшей рожденную дарили жатву»;
vipi nal : arθali sa –«выпить налили, рожденную дарили жатву»;
vl : senti na ti : arθali sa –«великому сеянцы принес, рожденную дарил жатву»;
tut nal : mara lias : arθalisa –«всем налил мара, лили, рожденную дарили жатву»;
larθ : cupslna : arθalisa –«духу дарили кубок, славили, принесли рожденную дарили
жатву»;
larθia · caia · huzet nas · arθalisa –«духу дарили, каялись хозяину нашему, рожденную
дарили жатву»;
ui śces · arnθl · puia… –«юную чествовал, рожденные дарил, поил я»;
Велик и могуч этрусский язык. Например, самый популярный в погребальных этрусских
текстах словосочетание «дарить, приносить» имеет следующие формы написания: θa, θan,
θana, θanal, θanaś, θanas, θanasa, θans, θanse, θanses, θansesc, θansi, θansial, θania, θanias, θaniaś, θansinal, θansinas, θansinei, θansis, θansisa, θansur, θanu.
Другой казус:
«Так одно и то же женское имя встречается в форме «Ramatha», «Rametha», «Ramutha»,
«Ramtha» [4].
Форма обращения, дара могиле усопшего жертвенного животного «барана дарил», а не
женское имя просто изобилует в этрусских текстах (ramθa, ramθes, ramθu, ramturnas,
ramnunas, ramta, ramueθ, ramutaś, ramutas, ramutasi [2]), но опять же таки в форме
словосочетания, например, ram θa «барана дарил», ram θes – «барана дарил, ешь », ram
θu – «барана душе», ram tur nas – «барана Туру нашему», ram nu nas – «барана ночи
нашей», ram ta – «барана дарил», ramue θ – «овцу дарил», ramu ta ś – «барана дарил,
жатву», ramu tas – «барана тащил», ramu tasi – «барана тащил», clet ram – «колотый
баран».
Примеры переводов этрусских фраз [2]:
ramθu : alśinei – «барана душе Олеси принес»;
mi larθa ramθurnas – «моему духу дарил барана, Туру нашему»;
ramuθa es χu nas – «барана дарил, ешь, хули нашего».
Еще более глубокое заблуждение существует у этрускологов относительно надгробных
надписей связанных со словами clan – «сын», avils – «годы», lupu – «он умер», sech –
«дочь», neft – «внук», хотя это звенья одной цепочки.
«Те же надписи позволяют с легкостью выяснить смысл постоянно повторяющегося
слова «lupuce» - «он мертв». Из фраз, сообщающих возраст покойного, мы узнаем
значение слова «avils»(лет). Так постепенно мы выяснили смысл очень ограниченного, но
базового словаря, позволяющего нам совершенно точно понять такие короткие
эпитафии, как «Partunus Vel Velthurus Satlnal-c Ramthas clan avils lupu XXIIX», что
означает «Вел Партуну, сын Велтура и Рамты Сатлнии, умер в возрасте 28 лет»
(Corpus inscriptionum etruscarum, 5425)» [4].
Следует заметить, что ошибки нарастают как снежный ком. В этрусском словаре мы
встречаем слово Велтур, причем в разных формах: velthurus, velthuruśa, velthuru,
velthurui, velthure и др., однако нет слова Satlnal-c. Странным кажется и сочетание двух
имен Рамты Сатлнии у этрусков. Заглавных букв в именах у этрусков в текстах не
встречается. Все как бы притянуто за уши, чтобы доказать истинность текста.
Текст «larθia : saθnai» переводится как «духу дарил, жатву принес».
Слово clan на русский дословно переводится как «кланяться». Аббревиатуры этого
слова: cl, cla, clanti, clantial, clantiś. Примеры переводов этрусских фраз [2]:
mar ce · tarχ nas · larθ · cl – «Мара чествовал Тарха нашего, духу дарил, кланялся»;
alf nal : cla – «Олеси налил, кланялся»;
mi larθal claiteś – «моему духу дарил, душе, кланялся я, тешил»;
mi mal · clan ti – «моей молодой, кланялся тебе»;
θana · ma ni · clan te – «дань принес, молодой, поникшей, кланялся тебе».
larθ : latini : clanti – «духу дарил латина, кланялся тебе»
К вопросу о форме времени глагола в этрусском предложении. Где здесь время ?
Окончания глагола самые произвольные или их нет вообще при аббревиатуре. Так, что
фразу alf nal : cla можно трактовать как «Олеси налил, кланялся/кланяюсь/буду
кланяться/кланяйтесь/кланявшийся».
Трактовка слова avils как «годы», «лет» сомнительная. Проанализируем перечень
«мнимых» годов из этрусского словаря [2]:
…avils XXIIX lupu – «..явился XXIIX (раз – авт.) любимой»
…lupu avils XXV – «..любимой явился XXV (раз – авт.)»
…avils LXXV - «…явился LXXV (раз –авт.)»
…avils cis · zaθrmi sc - «..явился голубке заутрене, чествовал»
…avils : θu nem : muval χls - «..явился душе немой, мовил, хвалил»
avils cis · muval χls - «явился голубке, мовил, хвалил»
avils · ceal χls · lupu - «явился, чествовал, хвалил любимую»
avils : huθs : lu[p]u - «явился хоти любимой»
lupu avils L - «любимой явился L (раз – авт.)»
…avils :XXXIX - «..явился XXXIX (раз – авт.)»
[a]vils : XXX lupu - «..явился XXX (раз – авт.) любимой »
avils · huθs · ceal χls - «явился хоти, чествовал, хвалил»
…lupum · avils · maχs · śeal χlsc… - «любимой явился, моей хоти, чествовал, хвалил»
lupu · avi[l]s XXIII - «любимой явился XXIII (раза – авт.)»
avils · I · II - « явился I II (раза – авт.)»
[s]val ce · avils · LII - «звал, чествовал, явился LII (раз –авт.)»
avils LXXVI - «явился LXXVI (раз – авт.)»
avils · LIIX - «явился LIIX (раз – авт.)»
avils LVIII : ril - «явился LVIII (раз) родной»
avils : XXXXIII - «явился XXXXIII (раз – авт.)»
…lupu · avils · xXII - «любимой явился, хвалил XII (раз – авт.)»
[a]vils · ciem xxx(x)alχls…- «явился земле ххх раз, чествовал, хвалил..»
…a[v]ils XIX - «..явился XIX (раз – авт.)»
…avils ·XXX - «..явился XХX (раз – авт.)»
…avils ·XXIIIX - «..явился XXIIIX (раз – авт.)»
…avils XXXIX - «..явился XXХIX (раз – авт.)»
…avils ·XXXXV - «..явился XXXXV (раз –авт.)»
…avils : lupu XXII - «..явился любимой XXII (раз – авт.)»
[a]vils : ciemzaθrums - «явился земле заутрене»
…avils · XVI - «..явился XVI (раз- авт.)»
…avils : XXXVIII lupu - «..явился XXXVIII (раз – авт.) любимой»
…avils XXXVI lupu - «..явился XXXVI (раз- авт.) любимой»
…avils XV - «..явился XV (раз – авт.)»
…avils ril · LIIX - «явился, родной LIIX (раз – авт.)»
И так далее.
Можно было бы принять слово avils за годы смерти, однако появляется и слово ril (…avils
ril · LIIX), которое тоже очень многочисленное и используется в сочетании с avils и без
него[2]:
…ril · XXXIV - «..родной XXXIV (раз – авт.)»
ril · XXX - «..родной XXX (раз – авт.)»
…ril · XXXII - «..родной XXXII (раз – авт.)»
…ril · XXV - «..родной XXV (раз –авт.)»
…ril · XLII · leine - «..родную XLII (раз – авт.) пеленал»
И так далее.
Однако мы видим, что слово ril используется и в сочетании со словом leine:
…ril · XLII · leine - «..родную XLII (раз – авт.) пеленал»
…ril (…) leine - «..родную... пеленал»
…ril leine L - «..родную пеленал L (раз - авт.)»
…ril · LIII leine - «..родную LIII (раз - авт.) пеленал»
…ril IIIIX lein[e] - «..родную IIIIX(раз - авт.) пеленал»
Итак, на самом деле мы имеем три слова, связанные с датой или годами умерших: avils,
ril, leine.
Если предположить, что словосочетание avils – на русский дословно переводится как
«явился», слово ril – «родной», а слово leine – «пеленал льном», то все встает на свои
места.
Слово leine имеет свои варианты: lein, leinθ, leinies. Примеры переводов [2]:
(…)va larθ lein – «…варил, духу дарил, пеленал»;
…ril · LIII · leine – « …родную 53 раза пеленал»;
vel : leinies – великую пеленал, ешь»;
larθ leinies – «духу дарил, пеленал, ешь»
Вероятнее всего римские числа обозначают не возраст умерших, а количество
посещений, приношений могилам умерших (XXIIX раз, XXV раз и так далее), что
наиболее характерно для этрусских погребальных обрядов, поскольку подчеркивает
значимость ритуальных посещений могил и поклонение душам и духам умерших.
Рассмотрим известное этрусское слово muval или в полном варианте muluvanice,
которое этрускологи путают с со словом «посвятить» [4]. На самом деле эта часто
встречающаяся в сакральных текстах слово:
«малевал» - рисовал (укр.). Современное – «малярить», «маляр» (руск.)
Продолжим анализ этрусских слов.
Слова lupu, lupum, lupuce как явствуют из представленных переводов, означают почти
дословно «любимой», «любимой умершей», «любимую чествовал», что в русском языке
является принадлежностью к самым ласкательным и нежным словам. Можно для вящей
убедительности привести надгробные надписи с любого российского кладбища или
погоста в которых слово «любовь» является самым распространенным.
Другими распространенными ритуальным словами как у этрусков так и славян являются
слова ritθnai, peθna, tul, которые дословно переводятся как «родной», «бедной», «душе»
например [2]:
…zusle ritθnai tul tei … «звал, славил родную душу тешил я»;
…scuvse ritθnai tul tei ci zu sie acun siri cima… «Чувильну, родную душу тешил я сирую.
Звал: « сияющую окунули в сырую землю…»;
…zuχne elfa ritθnai tul traisυanec calus… «Звал хоти Олесю, родной душе трезвонил
колокольчиками»;
larθ : peθna – «духу дарил бедному»;
peθna : peθnaś – «бедной, бедной нашей».
Примечание:
Чувильня – (волж.) –причка, пташка [11].
Родня
Продолжим поиски родни в словаре этрусского языка.
Слово nefts встречается два раза:
velturus · nefts
…velusum nefś Перевод фраз выглядит так:
vel tur us · nefts – «великий Тур, возьми Нефертити»;
…velus um nefś – «величественной умершей Нефертити».
Этруски безусловно имели контакт с Египтом и вероятно, Нефертити олицетворялась с
царицей Танаквисли, женой царя Таквиния Гордого первого царя Рима.
Может быть этрускологи имели ввиду связь этрусского nefts со словом «инфант» ?
Доказательств тому нет.
Долго находясь в заблуждении, автор искренне воспринимал этрусское слово ati,
навязанное этрускологами, как «мать», более того нам говорили, что слово «отец» вообще
не встречается в погребальных надписях этрусков, значит, у этрусков таки был
матриархат [4].
Однако, вспомнив свою родню, автор понял, что не надо ничего искать. Все лежит на
поверхности. Этрусские слова, обозначающие родство ati, mama, papa, titi, sin, seθre,
prute дословно переводятся со славянского языка как «отец», «мать», «папа», «дитя»,
«сын», «сестра», «брат».
Предлагаются многочисленные примеры [2]:
ateś vi…(…) – «отец, пей вино..»;
fasti : tetia : atesa – «ветки дитя, отца жатва»;
fasti : atvli -«ветки отцу, великому»;
larθia : atei nei : - «духу дарил , отцу принес»;
θana · petrui · ateiś «дань принес Петруше, отцу жатва»;
vel : ate - «великому отцу»;
lθ : papa – «духу дарил папы»;
c nei : ile papa - «колосья принес, елей папе»;
laris : papa θ nas – «духу папы дань принес»;
seθre papa «сестра папе»;
mi : ma : veliś : rutlniś : avlesla – «моей маме великоясной рожь тленную явил, славил»;
mi · ma lar is śuplu - «моей маме, духу ясномуфлейта»;
vel · seθreni - «великой сестре, поникшей»;
θana : celia : seθrnasa - «дань принес, целовал сестру нашу»;
…calu sin · lupu… - «целую сына, любимого»;
velsi : prute «великому брату»;
aule · titie · papa –«явился дитя отец».
В итоге перевод рассматриваемого выше этрусского текста на русский выглядит
следующим образом:
Partun us vel vel thur us sa tl nal-c ram thas clan avils lupu XXIIX «Родителя возьми великого, великий Тур возьми. Жатву тленную налил, колосья,
барана тащил, кланялся, явился, любимому XXIIX раза».
Слово vel у этрусков (имеет, кстати разные формы) означает «великий» при обращении
к богам и знатным людям и часто переходит в имена знатных людей типа Велтур,
Велтина. В славянских именах это присутствует сплошь и рядом: Велемир – «великий
мир», Владимир – «владей миром», Владислав – «владей славой», Вячеслав – «более
славный».
Слово partunus «партунус», буквально означает не должностное лицо у этрусков, а
слово «родителя возьми». Parentis – родители (лат.)/Parent- породнившиеся (слав.).
Вот еще один свежий образец семейной эпитафии, представленной в книге Э.
Макнамара, содержание которой мало чем отличается от концепции Р. Блока [10]:
laris pule nas lar ces clan lar θial papa cs vel tur us nefts prumts pules lari sal crei ces Перевод этрускологов:
«Лар Пуленос, сын Ларса, племянник Ларта, внук Вельтура, правнук Лариса Пуле,
грека».
Авторский перевод с помощью славянских языков:
«Духу ясному боль наша. Духа чествовал, кланялся, духу дарил, папа чествовал:
«Великий Тур, возьми Нефертити». «Прими боль» - духу жаловался, кричал, чествовал».
Еще одна эпитафия [10]:
larθ arn θal plecus clan ram θa scap atrual Перевод этрускологов:
«Ларс сын Арруна Плеко и Рамты Апатрони»
Авторский перевод с помощью славянских языков:
«Духу дарил, рожденные дал, плакал, кланялся, барана дарил, чествовал, шапку
отрывал».
Можно только удивляться фантазии этрускологов.
Следует пояснить, что у этрусков душе усопшего покровительствовал дух (лар) и
которому этруски в принципе и поклонялись. Кроме того, этруски приносили жертву
усопшему в виде собранного урожая. Рядом с погребением этруски ставили сосуды и
предметы обихода с посвящением духу покойного (larθial), которые считали
принадлежностью умершего, которым тоже поклонялись.
Загадочные марунуши Камнем преткновения для этрускологов являются слова zilc, zilaθ, marunuch.
Предполагают, что это некие должностные категории в высшем сословии этрусков.
Однако, используя славянские языки, все очень просто дешифруется. Словосочетания
zilc, zilaθ переводятся как «желч» или «печень» (слав.), «печень душе». Примеры
перевода из словаря этрусков [2]:
(…) rasnas · maru nuχ [cepe]n zilc · parχis · maru nuχ · paχa na ti… «…наш Мара ночи
хвалил, Серпеню печень барашка. Мара ночи хвалил барашка, принес тебе..»
maru nu χva · cepen · tenu · zila χ nu – «Мара ночи хвалил, Серпеню, теням печень
хвалил новую»;
avils · ciemxxx(x)alχls · zil(x)[ma]ru nu χva · cepen · te[…] - «Явился зимой ХХХ раз,
чествовал рожденного духа, хвалил печень Мара, ночи хвалил, Серпеню, тебе..».
Этрусский бог Мара является прототипом римского Марса. Бог Мара у этрусков
представитель темных сил (Сравните слав. «мор», «смородина», «смерть», река Морава и
др.). Также как и светлые силы (Тина) Мара требовал почитания в этрусских сакральных
ритуалах.
Таким образом, словосочетание «мару нуш» дешифруется как «Мара ночи хвалил»
По поверьям этрусков души умерших уносит Гермес (или Геркулес или Аполлон) в небо
и селит на рогатом месяце (Тур, Велтур). Жатвой нового урожая кормятся души умерших
и их духи. Поэтому почитание Месяца, Луны и приношение ему жатвы являлось важным
действием в сакральном ритуале этрусков. Неудивительно и то, что имена жрецов и
правителей имели названия почитаемых богов у этрусков, причем названия богов так или
иначе связаны с природой и с ритуалом погребения. Например, Велтина – великий день
(бог ясного дня), Велтур – великий Тур (бог месяца), Пеп (Пепел, бог погребального
костра).
Счет
На сайте исследователя И. Гаршина об этрусских числительных сообщается следующее:
«Этрусские числительные: 1 thu, 2 zal (esal), 3 ci, 4 śa, 5 max (mach), 6 huth, 7 semph, 8
cezp, 9 nurph, 10 sar (-zathrum, - zar, alx, cashra). Обозначение чисел легло в основу
римских цифр и имеет аналоги с колхскими обозначениями» [8].
На рис. 1 изображена игральная кость в развороте с этрусскими словами.
CIMAXS'A
THU
HUTH
ZAL
354
1
6
2
этрусские слова
Игральная кость в развороте
принятые этрусские числа
THU - душе юной
Рис. 1
MAX - мои рожденные хвалилHUTH - хвалил юной душеZAL - жатву лилCI - сияющейSA - жатва
Игральная кость с этрусскими словами – метками лежит до сих пор в музее и мучает
этрускологов нерешенными вопросами, если, конечно предположить, что на ней словами
написаны числа.
Очередное заблуждение с числительными очевидно связано со словом avils (годы),
которое потянуло за собой цепочку ложных числительных. Приведем ряд примеров с
переводом на псевдоязык этрускологов:
avils · huθzars – «лет 6 -10»;
avils : maχ semφalχls lupu –«лет 5 –7…он умер».
И так далее. Обратите внимание, какая точность «лет 5 - 7», «лет 6 - 10». Этруски даже
точно не помнят возраст своих умерших детей.
Словарь, созданный этрусколоогами Р. Блоком и другими – это псевдослова типа
эсперанто, которое ничего в сущности не обозначают, кроме бессмысленности.
Автором данной статьи тоже создан словарь, относящееся к индоевропейскому языку на
основе славянского языка, но эти слова в отличие от псевдоэтрусского несут
определенный смысл и позволяет переводить практически все этруско-оско-умбрские
тексты.
Предлагается следующий перевод фраз с псевдочислительными:
avils · huθ zars – «Явился хоти на заре»;
avils : ma χ sem φal χls lupu –«явился, моей хоти, на земле валялся, хвалил любимую»;
racvanies huθ zusie riθnai – «Раззвонил хоти, звал родную»;
avle nurtines – «Явился Нефертити, пей»;
iχ huθiś · zaθrum iś fler χue…– «Я хвалил хоти ясную заутрене ясным. Духа Зерна
хвалил».
avils · huθs muvalχls · lupu – «Явился хоти, мовил, хвалил любимую».
sar χls : lesuni lan ce – «Зарю хвалил, лежа, лень чествовал»;
maχ · cez palχ · avil svalce – «Моей хоти, голубке опаленной явился, звал, чествовал»;
huśur · maχs · acna nas · arce · maniim – «Взор моей хоти огня нашего ярче манит»;
śvel falau hu[θ] hu si li tule – «Звал небесам хоти, хоти сияющей лил душе».
Обратите внимание, как легко читаются на славянском языке этрусские надписи, если
правильно разбивать сокращенные аббревиатуры слов.
Например, сложный, на первый взгляд, текст:
avils : maχ semφalχls lupu Однако, если разбить его так:
аvils – ma- χ – sem – φal- χls – lupu то слова легко читаются: «Явился моей хоти, на земле валялся, хвалил любимую».
Таким образом, можно предположить, что на игральной кости написана традиционная
погребальная этрусская надпись:
thu maχ huth zal ci sa
перевод надписи на игральной кости:
«Душе моей хоти, хоти жаловал сияющую жатву»
На самом деле, искать этрусские числительные бессмысленно, поскольку этруски знали
римские цифры, а, следовательно, и счет у них был римский (на поверку славянский).
I – unus (лат.)/un (фр.)/one/ (англ.)/один (слав.).
II – duo (лат.)/deux (фр.)/two (англ.)/два (слав.).
III - tres (лат.)/trios (фр.)/ three (англ.)/ три (слав.).
IV - quatruor (лат.)/quatre (фр.)/four (англ.)/ четыре (слав.)
V - qnique /cinq (фр.)/five (англ.)/ пять (слав.). Именно qnique - инверсия слова quinque
(лат.), которое означает «конечность», «пята», «пять», корень q – ni – с.
VI - sex (лат.)/six/six/шесть (слав.).
И так далее.
Славянские надписи этрусков
Особенность этрусской письменности состоит в чрезвычайно частом применении
аббревиатур слов, поэтому разгадка этих надписей представляет собой для
исследователей некий ребус. Но автору хотелось бы представить читателям этрусские
надписи, которые практически, без какой либо подготовки, без какого-либо перевода
можно прочитать на русском языке без всяких усилий. Эти надписи собраны в книге С.
Дарды [3], но я с его позволения, приведу их здесь еще раз, поскольку это того стоит.
1. laris vel kas nas mini muluvani ce menervas перевод: «Духу ясному великому
картина наша мною малевана, чествовал Минерву»
2. peθnei umranasa перевод: «бедной принес я, умершей принес жатву»
3. ritnei umra nasa перевод: «родной умершей нашей»
4. mine muluvani ce lari ce перевод: «мною малевана (картина): чествовал, духа
чествовал»
5. turu ce munistas θu vas перевод: «Тура чествовал, монисто душе вешал»
6. zelvθ murś et nam θa cac перевод: «Желаю умершей, иди к нам. Дань кушай»
7. husine vinum eśi перевод: «Хозяину вино, пей»
8. lup venas zili uzarale перевод: «любимой Венере, желанной взирал»
9. zilat lupu перевод: «желаю любимой»
10. zila lupu ce śumu перевод: «желанную любимую чествовал, шумел»
11. zila x nu ce lupu ce muni sul θ calu перевод: «желанную хвалил ночи, чествовал,
любимую чествовал, монисто сулил, дарил, целовал»
12. clenśi muleθ svala si zilax nuce lupuce перевод: «клялся, малевал, звал сияющую,
печень хвалил ночи, любимую чествовал »
13. mi veθieś veuras перевод: «мне ведома вера
14. mi ara θiale zixuxe перевод: «мои рожденные дарил Житухе»
15. zvtaś dardanium перевод: «зовется Дарданией»
16. vl culni trisna перевод: «великой Окулине тризна»
17. cilni vera перевод: «сильная вера»
18. lar murini claniu перевод: «духу умершей, кланялся»
19. mi klani n śl - перевод: «моей кланялся поникшей, славил»
20. ta suti mucetiś cneu naś lautu niś перевод: «эта суть мучает латина поникшего» Безусловно, не все этрусские слова переводятся на русский язык дословно и многие
слова имеют не славянские корни или эти корни нам не известны.
Боги Пантеон этрусских богов является, пожалуй, самым загадочным из всей иерархии богов
древнего мира.
В таблице 1 представлены сравнительные характеристики этрусских, умбрских богов и
их аналоги в римских, греческих и египетских пантеонах.
Таблица 1
Этрусские
боги
Римские
боги
Греческие
боги
Египетские
боги
Назначение
Этрусские боги
TINA
-Тина
Юпитер Зевс Осирис верховное божество
(L)UNI-
Луна
Юнона Гера Исида богиня земли,
плодородия
TUR божество месяца
(рогатого)
NEP-Нептун Нептун Посейдон бог морей
VELXANS Вулкан Гефест бог огня
PEP/ PUMPU-
Пепел
- - Бог погребального
костра (пепла)
MARIS-
Марс
Марс Арес Амон бог войны
MNRVA -
Минерва
Минерва Афина - богиня (бог) искусств и
ремесел
ARITMAI -
Артемида
Диана Артемида - Богиня охоты
VENE - Венера Венера Афродита -
APLU - Апла Аполлон Аполлон Апис Бог
плодородия/искусств
SELVA –Сильван Сильван Пан - Бог лесов
ANE – Ани - - Анубис Богиня погребений
HERCL - Геркле Геркулес Геракл - богочеловек - герой
TESENA - - - Божество - младенец
SATRE Сатурн Кронос - бог посевов, семян
RALNA - - - богиня ранней луны
TURAN - - - богиня месяца
LASA - - - Богиня лжи
Pêtrusc-
Петрушка
- - - бог растительности
Умбрские боги
ATIIERIA Юпитер Зевс Осирис верховное божество
IAPUS Юпитер Зевс Осирис верховное божество
TALENA - - - ?
8ELI - Желя - - - Богиня плача
KARNVS - Карна Карна - - Богиня скорби
TITA - Тит - - - Божество стога
TAGES - Таг - - - Божество - младенец
TESENA -
Дюжина
- - - Божество - младенец
APH - Апис - - Апис Бог
плодородия/искусств
SETU - Сет - - Сет бог злых духов
RIE - Ра - - Ра Бог солнца
AMEM - Амон - - Амон бог войны
AMPRE8V -
Амбариш
- - - Бог урожая
LVNA - Луна Луна Селена Сет Богиня луны
Оскские боги
ABELLANO Белый
Лунь
Бог луны
NEP-Нептун Нептун Посейдон - бог морей
ALLO- Ладо - - -
AMPERT - - - бог урожая
BAN - - - бог бани
HEREKLUI-
Геркулес
Геркулес Геракл - богочеловек - герой
KERRI- Церера Церера Деметра - богиня плодородия
TIN-Тина Юпитер Зевс Осирис верховное божество
NUC-Ночь - - - богиня ночи
Словарь этрусского языка
Как было доказано на многочисленных примерах, основной словарь этих текстов
составляют слова со славянскими корнами.
Все эти слова составляют основной словарь слов погребальных текстов этрусков. В
таблице 2 представлен сравнительный анализ слов погребальных текстов этрусков в
переводе на русский в разных концепциях дешифровки этрусских текстов.
Таблица 2
№
п/п
Этрусское слово Перевод этрускологами
[9]
Перевод со славянскими
языками
1 ac делать, предлагать рожденные колосья
2 acazr предметы положения в
могилу
очами зреть
3 acale июнь обозревать
4 ais/as бог бог
5 aisiu божественный, боги боги
6 aisar боги озарить
7 aisna божественный, боги ясный
8 al давать, предлагать рожденный дух
9 alpan, alpnu подарок, предложение ?
10 alφaze предложение ?
11 alumnaθe тайное общество ?
12 am быть яма/могила
13 apa отец рожденной положил
14 apcar счеты ?
15 ar делать, двигать, строить рождать
16 er делать, двигать, строить яровые
17 arac сокол рожденные колосья
18 arim обезьяна нет в словаре
19 ars отталкивать рожденная жатва
20 aska тип вазы чашка
21 aθre строение рожденные дарил
22 ati мать отец
23 ati nacna бабушка отцу принес коноплю
24 аvil, аvils года явился
25 araθiale ? рожденные дарил
26 ca это колосья
27 camθi имя управляющего ?
28 cape ваза, контейнеп колосьями пеленал
29 capr апрель ?
30 capra урна каился, прощался /шапка
31 capu сокол колосьями поил
32 ceχa ритуал, церемония,
молитва
семена хвалил
33 cela целла чествовал духа
34 celi сентябрь чествовал, лил
35 celu заглавие молитвы чествовал любимую
36 cehen это один из них семена гению
37 cepen заглавие молитвы серпень (месяц)
38 ces лежать чествовать
39 cetur ? чествовал Тура
40 сezp/ сezpalχ восемь/восемьдесят чествовал, опалил
41 ceχase имя управляющего чествовал, хвалил семена
42 ci три сияющий/сирый
43 cialθ/ cealθ 30 (числ.) сияющему дарил
44 ciz три раза голубка
45 cisra Цезарь голубка рожденная
46 clan сын кланяться
47 cletram таз, корзина колотый баран
48 cleva предложение хлев
49 clevsin хлев сына
50 creal управление кричать рожденному духу
51 creice грек кричал ей, чествовал
52 culiχna ваза кулич (возможно, вид
горшка)
53 cupe кубок кубок
54 cver подарок, предложение свирель/цветы, яровые
55 χosfer октябрь ?
56 eca это ягненок
57 eleivana из масла елея запах (масло)
58 aska eleivana сосуд для масла чашка с маслом
59 -em минус окончание сущ. (напр. сiem -
земля)
60 enac, enaχ тогда, после того иначе
61 epl предлог на, в, до Аполлон (бог)
62 pi предлог на, в, до писать
63 pul предлог на, в, до поил духа/половина
64 eslz дважды пейте духи жатву
65 etera, eteri чужеземец, раб еда, яровые
66 etnam предлог и, также иди к нам
67 vacal священнодействие вокруг
68 vacil священнодействие Василий (имя)
69 vacl священнодействие вокруг
70 vel ? великий (ая)
71 velcitna Марс (бог) величествен-ая/ый
72 velclθi в Вульчи величественной дарил
73 velsnalθi в Волсинии великикоясной дарил
74 velsnaχ из Волсинии великую хвалил
75 vers- огонь вера
76 vinum, vinm вино вино
77 ic как, каким образом ?
78 iχ как, каким образом им, их
79 iχnac как, каким образом ихний
80 ica это ?
81 ika это ?
82 ilu начало
жертвоприношения или
молитвы
Илья (имя)/ей, любимой
83 in они (местоимение) в
84 inc они (местоимение) иначе
85 ipe, ipa кто бы ни, что бы ни
(относ. местоимение)
?
86 ita, itu это (местоимение) это
87 itu-, ituare делиться ?
88 itna, itan ? один (числ.)
89 θafna кубок давно
90 θam строить, находить дам
91 θapna ваза (для
жертвоприношений ?)
топать
92 θaurχ похороны Тура хвалил
93 θaure, θaura могила Тур; рога
94 θez делать жертвование Дюжина, жена дия
95 θezl, θezi Название города Этрурии ?
96 θi местоимение дар
97 θial ? дарить
98 θina ваза, банка, Тина (бог) Тина (бог)
99 θu один (числ.) душа
100 θucte название меясца душистый
101 θui здесь, сейчас дуть, пить
102 θuni ниже душе поникшей
103 θunz один раз душе новая жатва
104 θve ? душе великой
105 θrie ? душе родной/три
106 θucer ? дочь
107 zal два жалиться/жатва духу
108 zanena кубок жатву Нептуну принес
109 zilat ? желать
110 zaθrum десять заутрене (рано утром)
111 zilχ ceχaneri глава печень хвалил, чествовал,
хвалил, принес яровые
112 zilc, zilaθ неизвестная должность желчь (печень)/печень дарил
113 hanθin перед чем-либо ?
114 hec поставить, место перед
чем-либо
?
115 herma место, статуя Гермес
116 heramasva место, статуя Гермеса мазал
117 hermе, hermu священное общество
Гермесов , август
Гермес
118 heχ поставить, место перед
чем-либо
Гермеса хвалил
119 hinθial душа, гость, отражение гимн дарил
120 hinθa, hinθu ниже, внизу (наречие) гимн дарил
121 hinθθin ниже, внизу (наречие) гимн дарил Тине
122 hus молодой, ребенок хозяин
123 husiur молодой, ребенок хозяин
124 husnatre группа молодых хозяину трава
125 huth, huθ шесть хватит
126 lar Лариса (имя человека) дух
127 lauχum король (лукумон) лохань умершей
128 lauχumna принадлежащее королю,
дворец
лохань умершей принес
129 lautni из семейства, граждании латину поникшему
130 lautniθa, lautnita гражданка латину поникшему дарил
131 lautun, lautn семья, клан латину юному/латину принес
132 leχtum ваза для масла духам хвалил душу умершей
133 leχtumuza маленькая ваза духам хвалила душу мужа
134 leine умереть ? ленивй
135 les священная жертва духам сияющим
136 leu лев лев/ духам юным
137 lucair править любимую корил
138 luθ священное место любимой дарил/лютна
139 lupu он умер любимой /любимому
140 -m, -um и умершей
141 ma ? мать/молодая/моя
142 macstrev имя управляющего ?
143 mal давать, посвящать молодой/ая/малый
144 malena зеркало молодой принес
145 malstria зеркало молодой сторожил
146 man мертвый маны
147 mani мертвый манить/ману
148 manin жертва манам ману принес
149 maru nuch неизвестная должность мара ночи хвалил
150 marcni, marcniś, marcnisa, marχnaś,
marχnei
? мара ягненка/мара хвалил,
принес жатву
151 masan, masn название месяца мазанный
152 matam выше, до матери могиле
153 maθ мед, медовое вино матери дарил
154 maχ пять моей хоти
155 men жертва Минерва
156 meθlum участок мед лил умершей
157 meχ люди, союз мед хвалил
158 mi мой/моя мой/моя
159 mul жертвовать, посвящать малевать/молотить
160 mulaχ, mlaχ жертва, посвящение малевать, хвалить/ молиться
161 mun, muni могила молотить юной
162 mur стоять мурава/умершая
163 murs урна, саркофаг умершая
164 mutana саркофаг мутный
165 nac как, потому что принес колосья
166 nefts внук Нефертити/Танаквисли
167 nene нянчить няньчить
168 neri вода вода/озеро Нерли
169 nesna принадлежащее
мертвому
принесенный
170 neθsra гаруспика Нептуну рожденному
171 neθsvis гаруспик Нептуну высшему
172 nuna жертва ? ночи принес
173 nurph девять ночи робил
174 paχaθur вакханка, менада Бахусу, Туру
175 paχie Бахус (бог) Бахусу
176 paχana Бахус (бог) Бахусу принес
177 pacusnasie Бахус, Дионис Бахусу нашему
178 papa, papacs дедушка папа/ папу чествовал
179 papals дедушки внук папы духу
180 parniχ администратор барана хвалил
181 patna название вазы пятка/пятнать
182 pata ? пята
183 peθnei ? бедный/ая
184 penθuna, penθna стела, плита пеленал, душе принес
185 pi у, в, через писать
186 prut ? брат
187 pruχ, pruχum проушина, шпора прах/прах умершей/брата
хвалил
188 prumaθi, prumats племянник брату моему дарил
189 puia жена поить
190 pul у, в, через половина/ поле
191 pulumχva звезды ? половину умершей хвалил
192 pupluna Популония Пепел (бог погребального
костра)
193 purθ, purθne имя управляющего,
диктатор ?
родитель
194 put-, puθ кубок, ваза, стена ? путать
195 qutun, qutum ваза кутать
196 racvanies ? раззвонил
197 ramutaś, ramutas,
ramutasi, ramturnas,
ramnunas, ramta,
ramueθ, ramutasi
Рамта (имя человека) барана тащил/ барана Туру
нашему/ барана ночи нашей/
барана дарил/барана ей дарил
198 rasenna, rasna этрусский, из Этрурии расену принес
199 raθ священный предмет радовать
200 ratum согласно закону на заре (утром)
201 raχ подготовить рожденной хвалил
202 ril возраст или рожден родной
203 ritθnai ? родной
204 rumaχ римский, из Рима римлянина хвалил
205 ruva брат вожь варил
206 sa четыре (числ.) свой/ жатва
207 sac проводящий
священодействие
жатва колосьев
208 sacni заказник зажигать огонь/ жатва
колосьев поникших
209 sacnisa сonsecrate ? зажигать огонь свой/
загнивать
210 sal делать, проводить жаловаться/жатва духу
211 sar десять заря/жатва рожденная
212 saθ, sat ставить, учредить садиться
213 seс дочь сечь
214 sealχ сорок (числ.) сеяющую хвалить
215 setre ? сестра
216 seχ дочь семена хвалить
217 semph семь (числ.) землю пахал
218 semphalχ семьдесят (числ.) землю пахал, хвалил
219 sval жить звал
220 sin ? сын
221 slicaχes тайное общество ? слушай, ешь
222 snenaθ горничная, служанка,
компаньон
семена нате
223 spur город собирать
224 spurana, spureni намерение сделать что-
либо с городом
собрал, принес (spura na)
225 sran, sren орнамент, фигура рано (с утра)
226 srenсve декорированный фигурой срывать, приносить цветы
227 suc декларировать сучья
228 suplu флейтист флейта
229 suθ-, sut- ставить, поместить святил душу/суть
230 suθi могила, усыпальница святил, дарил/суть
231 suθina для могилы, надгробный
подарок
святил душу/суть наша
232 sval живой, жить звал
233 sve подобный светить, светлый
234 svemaχ из Сованы светлой моей хоти
235 ta это твой
236 tamera имя управляющего дам яровые
237 tarχnalθi У Тарквинии тарху налил дар
238 ten действовать как тебе принес
239 tes-, tesam- заботиться тешить
240 tesinθ уборщик дюжине дарил
241 teta бабушка дедушка/деда
242 tev показать, установить дивный
243 tetina ? детина/ребенок
244 tevaraθ зритель, свидетель, судья
в игре
дивиться, радоваться
245 tin день день
246 titi ? дитя
247 tiu, tiv, tiur луна, месяц дивный
248 thu 1 (числ.) душе
249 tmia место, священная
постройка
темень
250 trin просить, умолять рог принес/траву принес
251 truθ, trut священнодействие траву дарил/трут
252 trutnuθ, trutnut молитва трут новый дарил
253 tul камень тело, туловище/душа
254 tular, tularu граница, предел тело, туши дух
255 tunur однажды душе новые рожденные
256 tur давать Тур (бог)/рог
257 tura стимул Туру рожденные
258 turza жертва Туру жатва
259 tus похоронная ниша душистый/душе жатва
260 tusurθir супружеская пара душистые (колосья) урне
дарил
261 tuθi, tuti общество тут/все
262 tuθin, tutina статусный, публичный душе дань принес
263 tutina люди душе дань принес
264 ulpaia кубышка ?
265 une тогда юной
266 umra ? умершей
267 usil солнце взял
268 uslane в полдень услада
269 ut выполнять, проводить юной душе
270 falatu небо небо
271 fan посвящать пахучий
272 fanu священное место пахучий
273 favi Могила, замковый свод варить вино
274 fler жертва,
священнодействие
дух Зерна
275 flerhva все статуи, жертвы духа Зерна хвалил
276 flere божество, бог духу Зерна яровые
277 fleres статуя Дух Зерна, ешь
278 frontaс интерпретация света,
видеть
перед
279 trutnuθ bronte – греч. ? трут новый(ночи) дарил
280 fufluna Популония Пепел
281 fasti ? ветки, прутья
Образцы переводов этрусских фраз представлены на данном сайте в текущем
разделе и разделе «Словарь этрусского языка» [6].
Выводы Можно продолжить перечень доказательств принадлежности этрусских текстов
славянским языкам. И не только этрусских текстов. Оско-умбрские тексты и самый
крупный текст Игубинских таблиц переведен в настоящее время автором с помощью
славянских языков.
В данной статье проанализированы этрусские тексты, связанные с погребальными
обрядами этрусков.
Мы разобрали этрусские слова родственных отношений: ati, ma, papa; titi, sin, θucer,
setre, prut, tetina; слова погребальных причитаний: lupu, lupum, lupuce, ritθnai, peθnei,
umra nasa; слова фиксации дат: avils; слова культа ритуальных обрядов: lθ, lθial, lθal,
larθial, zilc, zilaθ, marunuch, marcni, marcniś, marcnisa, marχnaś, marχnei; слова
жертвоприношений: ramθa, ramθes, ramθu, ramturnas, ramnunas, ramta, ramueθ,
ramutaś, ramutas, ramutasi, числительные, которые на поверку оказались другими
словами: thu, zal, ci, max, huth, semph, cezp, nurph, sar, zathrum.
Переводы этрусских текстов с помощью славянского языка подтверждаются
многочисленными ссылками, причем эти ссылки из разных текстов, что подтверждает
достоверность перевода.
Можно ли найти такое в переводе этрускологов ?
Однако, полагаю, это все равно похоже на «зов вопиющего в пустыне».
Следует сказать, что связь этрусского языка со славянскими не говорит о тождестве
культур и этноса. Носителями праславянского (этрусского языка) могли быть совершенно
разные народы. Автор постоянно ведет исследования в поиске корней этрусского этноса.
Последние исследования говорят о симбиозе различных народов в этрусском этносе. Этот
симбиоз включает славян (пеласгов), греков и иудеев.
Обратите внимание на фреску в этрусском погребении, называемом «могила леопарда».
Русский язык – это принадлежность не нации, а культуры, мировой культуры. И как
говорил поэт Иосиф Бродский, примерно привожу его слова: «С исчезновением русского
языка исчезнет и поэзия».
Литература
1. Латыпов Ф.Р. «Этрусская надпись BU 899 на каменном вкладыше придорожного
обелиска: призыв к уважению и порядку», Вестник ОГУ, 2004 г.
2. THESAURUS LINGUAE ETRUSCAE. COSIGLIO NAZIONALE DELLE
RICERCHE. CENTRO DI STUDIO PER L’ARCHEOLOGIA ETRUSCO-ITALICA
ROMA 1978
3. Пояс мира, Сергей Дарда, интернет: http://www.beltofpeace.com
4. Р. Блок «Этруски- предсказатели будущего», Москва, Центрополиграф, 2004 г.
5. В. Тимофеев, статья «Ет-русский язык», www.tezan.ru
6. В. Тимофеев, статья «Словарь этрусского языка», www.tezan.ru
7. Википедия, сайт.
8. И. Гаршин, интернет: http://www.garshin.ru
9. Patrick C. Ryan, интернет:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/EtruscanGlossary
10. Эллен Макнамара «Этруски. Быт, религия, культура», Москва, Центрополиграф,
2006 г.
11. Словарь Даля. Электронная версия
Ver 1.1
Etruscan’s genealogical linguistic relationship with Nakh-Daghestanian:a preliminary evaluation
by Ed Robertson
Abstract
The Etruscan numerals are widely regarded as demonstrating that a relationship probably does not exist between Etruscan and Indo-European or Afroasiatic. It is argued here that a genealogical [1] linguistic relationship exists, however, between Etruscan and the Nakh-Daghestanian languages [2], and that this relationship can be seen in over half of the basic numerals and in other core vocabulary in Etruscan, supported by regular phonological correspondences. However, it is the system of numerical morphology which is shared by Etruscan and Nakh-Daghestanian which points to a genealogical relationship between them. In addition, the almost complete overlaps in grammatical paradigms generally, and the existence of inherited irregularities such as shared ablaut patterns and non-standard plural themes for the same key cognate items of vocabulary are all diagnostic of descent from a common ancestor.
Recognizing the relationship between Etruscan and the Nakh-Daghestanian languages may be of benefit in future studies of Etruscan as it confirms or clarifies the meanings of a number of items of vocabulary which have been obtained by the combinatorial method (such as the value of huth = “four”), or from bilinguals or ancient glosses, although it is far from being any sort of a general “key” to Etruscan because of the time depths involved. As regards the Etruscan numerals, recognition of this relationship provides, amongst other things, an explanation of the equivalence of the names Vilina = Sextus in the bilingual ET Cl 1.966 (TLE 925), and illuminates the ancient gloss TLE 857 vorsum = centenum pedes. On the basis of re-evaluating this existing material, it is proposed here that the original indigenous Etruscan word for “six”, before its replacement by the borrowed word Sa, was *vili, and that the Etruscan for “100” was *vers or similar. As further such long-standing difficulties are resolved, this may in turn provide further validation of the relationship proposed here.
Introduction
The majority view amongst scholars is that the Etruscan language is not closely related to any of the better-known language phyla such as Indo-European or Afroasiatic and that this is obvious to see if one compares the Etruscan numerals with their equivalents in these language families [3]. There have been many attempts to demonstrate the contrary, but none has yet succeeded in doing this convincingly because of lack of credible evidence, whether relating to comparisons of the Etruscan numerals or of its general core vocabulary, with those of practically any other language [4]. The comparative-historical method in linguistics can only operate when it is applied to languages that are actually related to one another. It is therefore not surprising that the repeated attempts to create proof of a relationship between Etruscan and Indo-European, for example, have yielded unsatisfactory results. Methodologically, too, many such proposals rely on superficial resemblances as their evidence and fail to recognize the neogrammarian principle which dictates that phonological change, at least in most cases, takes place by exceptionless laws. As is known, cognate words often do not resemble one another (Armenian erku “two”, for example, is regularly derived from PIE *du:wo), and words that resemble one another are not necessarily cognate (cf. English much, Spanish mucho). Some proposals of relatedness even breach the very combinatorial principles upon which modern Etruscological scholarship has to be based [5].
While it is correct to insist that the Etruscans as a people, and their civilisation, are historically attested as having occurred in Italy, this should not prevent academically rigorous discussion of Etruscan origins. Beekes (2003) has provided more than 30 reasons for considering the Etruscan civilisation to be at least partially the product of Anatolian settlers whose original homeland was Old Meionia, east of Troy, and bordering on the present Sea of Marmara, to the north of ancient Lydia. These arguments are supported by a recent biological genetic study by Vernesi et al. (2004), using the mitochondrial DNA of authentic ancient Etruscan human remains for the first time, and showing affinities with the eastern Mediterranean, i.e. present day Turkey, at least through the maternal line, and at least for the presumably high-status individuals the samples were from. The historical possibilities implicit in the findings of Vernesi et al. are further discussed in Belle et al. (2006). However, biological genetic information cannot in itself provide proof of linguistic relationship and inheritance, because it cannot tell us which languages people spoke. It can only support models developed by other disciplines, such as historical linguistics.
1
Van der Meer (2004), as well as adding several more historical and archaeological arguments to those of Beekes, explores the linguistic relationship of Etruscan, Raetic and Lemnian. In particular, he establishes the chronology of their break-up, and concludes that this is consistent with an east to west migration, from the region near where Lemnian was located, i.e. in the vicinity of western Anatolia, to Italy. Having arrived there the common Raeto-Etruscan language diverged into two during the period immediately prior to which these two languages were attested in writing, the speakers of the two languages becoming physically separated by the Celtic invasion of the Po valley. What will be explored here is evidence which will allow conclusions to be drawn on the affinities of their Anatolian proto-language, Proto-Tyrrhenian, namely that it constitutes part of a common phylum with Nakh-Daghestanian, of which perhaps Hurro-Urartian is also a part.
The relationship between Etruscan and the modern Nakh-Daghestanian languages is, while relatively distant, not a “remote” or “long-range” one, and might be compared in degree to the relationship between Latin and the modern Celtic languages. Just as Latin and Celtic had a common ancestor at a time depth of the order of 4000-5000 years before present (or rather, were at least adjacent, closely-related dialects of their earlier common ancestor), Etruscan and Nakh-Daghestanian became separated at about the same sort of time depth, or slightly more than 2000 years before Etruscan is first attested. The closeness of this latter relationship would be consistent with Proto-Tyrrhenian having separated from the rest of East Caucasian during the east to west wave of settlement across Anatolia which occurred as a consequence of a period of economic prosperity between the 4th and 3rd millennia BCE. Subsequently Anatolia was occupied by Hittites and Luvians, speakers of Indo-European languages, further separating the speakers of Pre-Etruscan from those of other East Caucasian languages, gradually eroding these languages and eventually, in Anatolia, replacing them or leaving them to be replaced by later arrivals Phrygian and Greek, while in the west some Pre-Etruscan speakers left for Italy and possibly also elsewhere, most likely during the period of famine and political turmoil in Anatolia around 1200 BCE, and contributing on their arrival in Italy to the development of the Proto-Villanovan culture, which represented a sharp break from the Apennine culture which preceded it.
This is not the first time that a relationship between Etruscan and Nakh-Daghestanian has been seriously proposed. Orël and Starostin (1990) proposed a relationship between Etruscan and Nakh-Daghestanian [6]. Orël and Starostin’s proposal was designed to complement the work by Diakonoff and Starostin (1986) relating Hurro-Urartian and Nakh-Daghestanian, both of these being based on a reconstruction of Proto-Nakh-Daghestanian [PND] eventually published as Nikolayev and Starostin (1994). Their reconstruction of East Caucasian has not been received with wholehearted acceptance [7], although parts of their publication nevertheless represent a valuable resource. Some of the sound correspondences adduced by Orël and Starostin for the relationship with Etruscan are incorrect, as will be shown here, as are some of their isoglosses involving the Etruscan numerals. While a number of isoglosses were found which might support a relationship between Etruscan and Hurro-Urartian during the present study, these have been listed in passing and are not central to demonstrating the relationship between Etruscan and Nakh-Daghestanian, for which the evidence is more abundant. Nevertheless, in section IV here a paradigmatic correspondence between Etruscan and Hurro-Urartian is shown which indicates that the suspected relationship between Etruscan and Hurro-Urartian is probable. Facchetti (2002) also lists a small number of isoglosses between Etruscan and Hurrian, which he regards as “curious”. Hurro-Urartian is poorly attested and not much better understood than Etruscan. Nakh-Daghestanian, by contrast, is a moderately well-studied family with many and diverse living members. Pliev (1992, 2000) proposes his own set of isoglosses shared by Etruscan and Nakh, mostly toponyms and theonyms, which he argues indicate a hypothetical Nakh substrate for Etruscan. He does not discuss the epigraphic and linguistic evidence in any great detail. As will be shown below, the evidence in the present study, which largely does not coincide with the items in Pliev’s works, is more indicative of a common ancestor than of substrate influence. This issue will be discussed further in section VI.
In order that the arguments for cognation are not excessively complicated and can easily be followed, this study concentrates on the relationship between Nakh, a relatively compact and undifferentiated grouping, and Etruscan itself, despite the fact that it is clear that Etruscan is not related to Nakh alone, but to Nakh-Daghestanian as a whole. The relationship between Etruscan and Nakh is not a direct one, but involves descent from a hypothetical common ancestor which was never attested in writing. The validity of a significant proportion of reconstructed lexical items proposed for Proto-Nakh-Daghestanian by some scholars, and the vocabulary sets they are based on, have been questioned by other scholars, and the amount of borrowing that has gone on between the daughter subgroups of Nakh-Daghestanian because of their lack of geographical separation after divergence makes the reconstruction of PND particularly demanding [8]. Reconstructed PND forms are therefore not generally used in the present study, and where they are mentioned, this is purely for critical evaluation, but the numerals and other key data in the main Daghestanian languages are always reviewed for comparison where appropriate. The relationship between Nakh and
2
Daghestanian, however, is beyond reasonable doubt, and the arguments for this will not be repeated here, as the aim of this paper is not the reconstruction of PND. In contrast to Nakh-Daghestanian as a whole, lexical items in the Nakh languages are in most cases so similar to one another that there is often little need even to reconstruct a Proto-Nakh form, so in the section on sound correspondences the data is based largely on Chechen, the best documented Nakh language. Because of the closely-related nature of the three Tyrrhenian languages Etruscan, Raetic and Lemnian, and the paucity of attested forms other than for Etruscan itself, reconstructed Proto-Tyrrhenian forms are only shown where there is data to justify them and then only if it is particularly relevant to do so. It is felt that the comparison of real data is always preferable to a plethora of starred reconstructions whose justification or validity (or not) is obvious only to the author. Being able to compare the original forms is particularly important in the case of Etruscan, where often meanings are still open to debate and the quantity and context of attestations are extremely important.
Sound correspondences, while indispensable, are not in themselves enough to demonstrate a genealogical relationship. This is not necessarily an issue of the quantity of the isoglosses, as large numbers of apparent isoglosses could be produced for certain pairs of languages together with apparently regular sound correspondences, but where the “isoglosses” are known to be the result of borrowing. For example, Arabic final /b/ regularly corresponds to Turkish final /p/ (in words Turkish has borrowed from Arabic) but they are not discoverably related languages. However, in parts III and IV, sets of inherited paradigms and irregularities are shown for Etruscan and the East Caucasian languages, which when taken together with the other evidence constitute individual-identifying data diagnostic of relatedness between Etruscan and Nakh-Daghestanian.
The sound correspondences shown here are by no means a comprehensive reconstruction. In demonstrations of relatedness between modern and well-documented languages, one would expect hundreds of examples of cognate forms for each sound correspondence. For Etruscan, however, the total number of root words whose meaning is generally agreed upon by specialists is not much more than 200. Here, therefore, one should not expect to see more than a handful of examples to support the average sound correspondence, and some of the exact conditioning rules are not yet entirely clear. In addition, the present study concentrates on those sound correspondences which are evident in the cognate numerals, involving only such other lexical parallels as are needed to demonstrate the validity of those sound correspondences and the inherited paradigms and irregularities, and therefore does not include all of the sound correspondences for the Etruscan lexicon as a whole. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that relatedness is the only possible explanation for the individual-identifying data which will be shown here, this being the necessary preparatory step before the main comparative work of reconstruction can be done.
For easier comparison with Etruscan transliterated forms, the comparanda are represented here in a form based on SAMPA [9] rather than IPA. Etruscan’s notional phonology closely follows its orthography, which was not originally designed for it. As its real phonology may have been more complex than the orthography might imply, the transcription of certain phonemes may be sometimes be wider than was genuinely the case. We do not, alas, have the benefit of Etruscan native-speaker informants to guide us, although occasional variations in the spelling of certain words provide clues. This should not affect the validity of the comparison process, but it may sometimes account for the mapping of what are apparently single phonemes in Etruscan to more than one phoneme in Nakh. Lack of information relating to irregularities in stress might also be responsible for certain vowel developments not being able to be unexplained. Similar problems affect the Hurrian and Urartian data. It is also possible in the case of some items of Etruscan’s relatively small phonemic inventory that simplification has genuinely taken place, which would not be surprising given the intense language contact that Etruscan had been subject to, in particular its imposition by elite dominance on a previously Sabellic- or Umbrian-speaking indigenous population, or rather its “voluntary” adoption by the indigenous population because of the settlers’ economic, political and cultural hegemony. The phonemic representation of the Etruscan data here has made some concessions to the need to avoid excessive differences from the common transliteration schemes to retain recognisability of the data. Where entire Etruscan texts are cited, rather than individual words, these have usually also been converted to the phonemic transcription used here, although often there is little difference from the common transliteration schemes.
The phonological system used here for Etruscan is as follows. Etruscan had the sonorants /l/, /m/, /n/, and /r/, corresponding to the letters transcribed as >l<, >m<, >n<, and >r< from the orthography. Rix (1984: 206-207, 2004: 948) proposes in addition the palatals /l’/, /n’/ and /r’/ which he hypothesises also occur infrequently. Whether these three latter phonemes existed or not is not central to discussion of the phonology, but see section IV below where the cause of the ablaut in Etruscan klan/klanti is discussed. The cluster >tl< sometimes appears in Etruscan. This may have been a lateral affricate rather than a cluster, but continues to be transcribed here as /tl/. The vowel system of Etruscan consisted, as a minimum, of /a/, /e/, /i/ and /u/. Nasal versions of these vowels are likely also to have been
3
present, as is shown by the existence of alternate spellings of certain words with and without an >n< following the vowel in the words concerned. The diphthong /au/, written >av< in early Etruscan was also present, along with >ai< ([aj]). The diphthong >ei<, possibly pronounced [ej], was also present in early Etruscan. There may have been more than one phoneme represented by >e<, perhaps a distinction between /e/ and /E/, as is suggested by the existence of an additional letter representing one of the two sounds in the Cortona tablet, but this possibility is ignored in the scheme here. There is also a case for a schwa type sound, as argued in Pfiffig (1969: 55-61), but again this is not reflected here. It is also quite possible that Etruscan had phonemic vowel length and also phonemic consonant length, as argued in Pfiffig (1969: 36, 49-50). As this is only occasionally evident in the written language, it is also not reflected here. Watmough (1997: 124 ff.) rejects Pfiffig’s arguments on consonant length but bases her position largely on evidence relating to the non-existence of /l:/.
The two sibilants transcribed here as /s/ and /S/ correspond in southern Etruscan inscriptions to the letters based on Greek {sigma} and Corinthian {san} (the latter also coinciding with Phoenician {s.ade}) respectively, while in the northern inscriptions the inverse applies. In the present work sibilants are transcribed phonemically rather than based on their written form. The distinction between these two sibilants may not have been precisely the distinction /s/ versus /S/, but they are presented as such here for convenience. Very occasionally four other letters indicating unvoiced sibilants are used in the Etruscan writing system, but are ignored here. Etruscan >z< may have been pronounced as an affricate or as a fricative, but is represented by /z/ here.
The Etruscan letters >p<, >t< and >c< / >k< / >q< are clearly the stops /p/, /t/ and /k/, and >f< (>vh< or >hv< in archaic Etruscan) is /f/. Etruscan >v< was probably pronounced [w] or [B] but continues to be represented here by /v/ for familiarity. The other Etruscan obstruents are slightly more problematic and the scheme used here for representing Etruscan words in phonemic transcription is a compromise between the traditional view and the one put forward by Rix (1984, 2004). The traditional view of Etruscan {phi}, {theta} and {chi} is that they represent aspirated stops, and the first two of these are represented here by /ph/ and /th/ in accordance with the traditional view. The phoneme /ph/ is not common in Etruscan. Given that it is used in Etruscan to represent /b/ in loanwords from Greek and Latin, it is possible that {phi} represents /b/ and not /ph/ in Etruscan, but this possibility is ignored here. Rix suggests that voicing of stops in word-medial positions did perhaps happen in Etruscan, but that this was not phonemic. Rix proposes that {phi} and {theta} instead represent palatalised consonants /p’/ and /t’/, and that the occasional alternate use of {theta} and {chi} in some words is evidence of a fricative /T/. While Rix correctly suggests that {theta} represents at least two phonemes, these are not necessarily the ones that Rix proposes. {Theta} continues to be transcribed as /th/ here, and individual words suspected of containing some value other than /th/ are indicated in the section on sound correspondences. Rix also proposes that {chi} represents not an aspirated velar stop /kh/ but a fricative /x/, because of the occasional interchangeability of >h< and {chi}, and his view on this is followed here. Rix also believes that initial >h< was also pronounced [x], but it continues to be transcribed as /h/ here.
The SAMPA transcription of the Chechen data generally follows the pronunciation presented in the phonemic Latin orthography section of Nichols and Vagapov (2004), rather than the traditional Cyrillic spelling of Chechen which less accurately represents the spoken language. The SAMPA transcription used here varies from the Latin orthography used in Nichols and Vagapov. Grammatical data for Nakh is taken principally from Desheriev (2006), Nichols (1994a, 1994b) and Holisky and Gagua (1994). Data for the other Nakh-Daghestanian languages is from a number of sources, but principally Bokarëv (1981), Nikolayev and Starostin (1994), Jartseva et al. (2001), Klimov and Khalilov (2003) and Nichols (2003). The Hurrian and Urartian data is taken mostly from Wegner (2000) and Melikišvili (1971) respectively, but Diakonoff (1971) and Diakonoff and Starostin (1986) are also used.
4
I. Basic numerals
There are two further complications which relate to the comparison of numbers in some of the languages involved, and it is necessary to understand how both of these concepts operate in order to compare the forms. The first of these is the sheep-counting suffix. A sheep-counting suffix is used for at least some numbers in most Nakh and Daghestanian languages, and there is also evidence of a possible sheep-counting suffix in at least two of the numbers in Hurrian. This suffix is added when the number is used for counting, e.g. sheep (hence the name), but is dropped when the number is used with a noun. Thus, in Chechen, the number “3” is qo? when used for counting, but qo when used together with a noun. There is no sheep-counting affix in Batsbi and some of the Daghestanian languages, or, as far as we know, in Etruscan.
The second concept is that of the class marker. The Nakh languages and most of the Daghestanian languages have a category of noun class. In these languages, certain verbs, adjectives, and numerals agree with their heads in class by using a prefixed, postfixed or infixed class marker. Class marking is not present in three of the Daghestanian languages (Lezgi, Agul and Udi), nor in some dialects of a fourth (Tabasaran), nor in the Hurro-Urartian languages, nor in Etruscan. The citation form for the number “four” in Chechen is di?, but when the number is used with a noun the class prefix at the beginning of the word changes: vi? vaSa “four brothers”, ji? jiSa “four sisters”, di? be:r “four children” and bi? kog “four legs”. Words where a class marker is normally inserted have this place indicated by the morpheme break symbol = when listed below. Although the category of class is regarded as ancient in those languages which have it and there is evidence of fossilised class markers in lexical items in the Lezgian languages which do not actively use class marking [10], it will become clear from one of the correspondences here that, in a number of instances, the use of a class marker started as a compensation for a laryngeal which became deleted during the history of that language. The number “four” and the related numerals “14” and “80” (4 x 20) are the only numerals which have class markers in Nakh, because only those numerals previously began with a now deleted laryngeal.
It will be noted that /?/ was not dropped in the above examples. This is because here, in the Nakh forms for the numeral “four”, but not in other numerals, the glottal stop /?/ is not a sheep-counting affix, but an organic part of the word, as can also be seen from the Batsbi form =?`iw?. Something similar occurs in Lezgi, where the final -d is obligatory for all numbers up to 4, but not thereafter, possibly being retained in 1 to 3 by analogy.
Sound correspondences to support these Etruscan and Nakh isoglosses are shown in part II.
a) Etruscan thu “one”, Chechen/Batsbi ts?`a , Ingush ts?`a or tsa3
The correspondences of Etruscan initial /th/ : Nakh initial /ts/, and Etruscan final /u/ : Nakh final /a/, are both regular as shown in II a and II b below. The role of the pharyngeals /?`/ and /3/ is problematic. For some words in Nakh, versions with and without a pharyngeal are interchangeable, e.g. qa:p:a or qa?`pa “sunflower”, while in other cases minimal pairs are formed, e.g. da: “father”; d3a “there” (both sets of examples from Chechen). Internally to Nakh, pharyngeals can be distinct segments diachronically, but their Daghestanian cognates show no evidence of this in this instance. It has been suggested by Nikolayev and Starostin (1994) that the pharyngeal in the Nakh form is a consequence of the sheep-counting glottal stop.
All of the Daghestanian languages also have forms apparently cognate with the Etruscan and the Nakh, e.g. Avar tso, Lak tsa, Lezgi sa-d. Their sound correspondences with Nakh are regular, other than accounting for the loss or non-creation of the pharyngeal. The final -d in this Lezgi form is a sheep-counting affix in origin.
The Hurrian for “one” is Suk:o or Sug-. If this is compared with the Hurrian for “three”, kig(e), a similar ending is also present. While there are no instances of this ending in the other attested Hurrian numbers, both Hurrian Su- and ki- appear to be regularly related to their Nakh counterparts once this ending is removed. The -k:o and -g in Hurrian are reminiscent of the sheep-counting affixes used in some of the Daghestanian languages, such as Avar -go and Andi -gu. In Urartian, the form Su- is attested in the dative and locative cases (Susini and Susina respectively). Regular sound correspondences exist between Etruscan /th/ : Nakh /ts/ : Hurro-Urartian */S/, and Etruscan final /u/ : Nakh final /a/ : Hurro-Urartian final /u/, also shown in II a and II b below.
b) Etruscan ki or ke “three”, Chechen/Ingush/Batsbi qo
5
The consonant correspondence Etruscan /k/ : Nakh /q/ is regular and shown in II c below. There is a tendency in historically attested Etruscan for /i/ > /e/, which does not usually operate word-finally. There is also an instance of kialx and kealx in the same document (the Liber Linteus, 2nd century BCE, but probably a copy of earlier texts). The Etruscan ke-z-p “eight” (< *ke-z-p(i)) is an internal derivation “three-times-on (five)”, which is consistent with a pre-Etruscan *ke, and therefore a development of *e > i > e can reasonably be assumed. Rix (1998: 36-38) also discusses the possibility of a common Raeto-Etruscan form *eluku, based on Raetic eluku, for the attested early Etruscan iluku. Etruscan /e/ has a regular correspondence with Nakh /o/, shown in II d below.
Bokarëv (1981: 24-25) suggests that there are regular correspondences between the Daghestanian forms for “three” and the Nakh ones, for example Avar /Lab/ and Archi (a Lezgian language) /Lib/, linking what he reconstructs as Proto-Nakh-Daghestanian */L/ with Nakh /q/, and PND final */b/ with Nakh /(zero)/. The Nakh and Daghestanian words for “three” are the only examples Bokarëv uses to support a relationship between PND */L/ and Nakh /q/, but there are more examples to support PND */L:/ : Nakh /x/. It is perhaps therefore not totally secure to regard the Nakh and Daghestanian forms for “three” as cognate with one another. Nichols (2003) lists the Nakh reflex of PND */L/ as /x/, not /q/.
The Hurrian form ki- is identical with Etruscan. As mentioned above, the final -g or -ge here may be a sheep-counting affix. Hurrian /e/ and /i/ are often confused orthographically, so this may account for the vocalism. The Urartian for “three” is not attested.
c) Etruscan huth “four”, Chechen/Ingush =i? , Batsbi =?`iw?
While the meaning of this Etruscan word is not unanimously agreed, it is already supported by three separate pieces of evidence: i) the renaming of the Attic placename Hyttenia as Tetrapolis; ii) ET Ta 7.81 (TLE 885) xarun huths (“fourthly, Charun”) on the last of four painted figures in a tomb, and iii) universal relative corpus frequency statistics of numerals as suggested by Mańchak (1983). Recognition of Etruscan’s true affinities adds a fourth argument supporting the meaning “four” (not “six”). As explained above, the = in the Nakh forms represents a class marker inserted in compensation for an earlier deleted laryngeal and sound correspondences linking Etruscan words with an initial /h/ and Nakh words with an initial class marker [CM] are shown in part II e below. The Nakh vocalism is problematic, but the /w/ in the Batsbi is an indication that it is possible here to reconstruct a back rounded vowel for Proto-Nakh. A /u/ also occurs in many of the Daghestanian languages. The correspondence of Etruscan u : Chechen i can also be seen in the context of the compensatory insertion of a CM in Nakh in the comparison of Etruscan huS(u) : Chechen j-iSa (Batsbi jaSa).
The loss of a laryngeal evident in the sound correspondence Etruscan /h/ : Nakh CM can also be seen in the Daghestanian forms, although understanding why the Nakh forms have come about is the key to explaining the Daghestanian forms. The forms for “4” in most of the Andian languages, other than Andi itself, are similar to one another, e.g. =o?oda (Karata), =u?uda (Bagwalal, Godoberi), and =o?uda (Chamalal). Here the /?/ is cognate with the zero in Nakh and /h/ in Etruscan. The initial CM (usually b- in the citation form in the Andian languages) has been inserted in compensation for a lenited initial laryngeal, just like the CM in Nakh. The /o/ or /u/ inserted between the CM and /?/ is either to facilitate the C? cluster, or was originally used to retain the initial /?/ which might otherwise have been deleted completely, and then a CM was used. Alternatively, the first vowel is ancient, and was lost in Etruscan, Nakh, Lezgi etc. The initial laryngeal can still be seen in the Akhwakh =oq.oda and Botlikh =uRuda. In Avar (unq.-go) and Andi (=oq.o-gu or =oGo-gu) the possibly ancient sheep-counting affix (-go or -gu respectively) was used instead of -da, and in Avar no compensatory CM is used. The Tsezian languages are similar to the Avar form. In Lezgi the word for “4” is q.ud which may more closely resemble the ancient form. The other Lezgian languages have an initial cluster consisting of what is perhaps a fossilised CM /j/ together with a vowel preceding the laryngeal, e.g. Agul jaq.ud. This initial syllable may also be motivated by the need to distinguish the form for “4” from the otherwise similar form for “2” in the Lezgian languages, e.g. Lezgi q.wed, Agul q.ud etc. Lak-Dargwa, the remaining subgrouping of Daghestanian languages, has the forms muq.-wa (Lak) and aw-al (Dargwa) respectively (the -wa and -al are sheep-counting or similar morphemes).
The Proto-Nakh-Daghestanian form *jemq.i reconstructed by Nikolayev and Starostin (1994) for “4” has little justification. It is by no means certain that the initial jV- prefix typical of a number of Lezgian languages is more than a local innovation. The /m/ proposed by Nikolayev and Starostin occurs only in the Lak form. An /m/ in Lak normally corresponds to an /m/ in Lezgian, but there is no /m/ in any of the Lezgian forms. It is therefore difficult to see how an /m/ can be reconstructed as part of the PND form. We know from Nakh that its final glottal stop is an original part of the root, corresponding to a dental in a number of Daghestanian languages. This has to be reflected in
6
the reconstructed form for PND which it is not in *jemq.i. Even if Nikolayev and Starostin’s reconstructed form were correct, it should not be related to Etruscan max as is attempted in O&S 21. Hardly any serious Etruscologists associate max with the meaning “4” [11], and those who do base their reasoning purely on the fact that the Indo-European Anatolian languages had mawa or meiwa for “4”.
There is also support for the loss or severe lenition of a final dental in Nakh (Bokarëv 1981: 19-20). Perhaps in some contexts this was only severe lenition. The Nakh sheep counting affix /?/ would then be cognate with the sheep-counting affixes used in a number of Daghestanian languages, -d (some Lezgian languages) and -da (some Andian languages), although the final former dental in Nakh “four” is not a sheep-counting affix and is an organic part of the root as already shown. It has been suggested that these particular sheep-counting affixes are originally class markers and in some languages actually function as such or are replaced by a different now fossilised class marker. This cannot apply to the -go and -gu suffixes in Avar and Andi, as these probably represent the ancient form, which in turn is perhaps related to the enclitic “and” in origin. It is uncertain whether the Tsezian -nV sheep-counting affix is originally a CM, a nasalised development of an earlier dental, or a reflex of the Avar and Andi form.
The Hurrian for “4”, tumni is unrelated and the Urartian is unattested.
d) Etruscan max “five”, Chechen mor , Ingush morh , Batsbi morL “armful”
There is little consistency in the Nakh-Daghestanian forms for “5”: Nakh pxi, some Andian languages iStuda, Lezgi vad, and Lak xu-wa. It is difficult to see how a single form for “5” can be reconstructed for PND, such as the *xwE or *fE in Nikolayev and Starostin (1994), let alone be related to Etruscan huth (“4”!) as is proposed in O&S 18. NDC 28 reconstructs the form of the PND for “5” with an initial masculine CM followed by a long lateral fricative. Etruscan max may instead be related to a Nakh-Daghestanian root for “handful”. The relation between “5” and “hand” is common one in the languages of the world. The semantic extension “hand” > “arm” is also common.
In Daghestanian, this root for “handful” appears in a number of subgroups: in Tsezian there is Tsez meru, Hinukh meu and Hunzib moRu; in Lezgian, there are forms such as Lezgi mekw, Agul mex, Rutul mEx, Budukh mek etc., while in Udi there is maR and in a dialect of Agul merL is to be found; in Dargwa there is me?`.
In Nakh the word mor (Chechen), morh (Ingush) and morL (Batsbi) can be found with the meaning shifted slightly to “armful”. The existence of related Nakh roots such as Chechen mara and Batsbi majrLa “in one’s arms” may cast doubt on */o/ as the original Proto-Nakh vocalism.
The final consonant is difficult to reconstruct for PND. The Chechen and Ingush phoneme /rh/ is rare, occurring only in a handful of words, and yet is used for this word only in one of these two languages. Pronunciation of Nakh /rh/ is variously voiceless [r], [rh] as a cluster, or [rx], depending on dialect. In Tsezian the correspondence between Tsez /r/, Hinukh /(zero)/ and Hunzib /R/ is unusual; and in the Lezgian languages there is a strange alternation between /r/, /R/, /k/ and /x/. This is probably the result of borrowing between different sister languages at an earlier stage.
Wegner (2000: 70) lists nari(-ja) as the Hurrian for “5”. Occasionally in Nakh an /n/ will correspond to an /m/ in Daghestanian, and occasionally vice versa, for no apparent reason (Bokarëv 1981: 17, 18). It may be that this phenomenon also applies to the Hurrian data, thus potentially linking nari(-ja) with its Nakh, Daghestanian and Etruscan equivalents. The relationship of m/n in Nakh-Daghestanian is also discussed in Nichols (2003: 226-228), where she suggests that a fossilised CM plays a role.
Reconstruction on the Etruscan side needs to take into account the mav attested in Lemnian, plus the fact that “50” in Etruscan is muvalx and not *maxalx. Steinbauer (1999: 364) proposes that the final */w/ in what he reconstructs as Pre-Etruscan *maw became /x/ in Etruscan and *mawalx became muvalx. On the East Caucasian evidence we cannot rule out the possibility that some sort of final consonant was still present in the Pre-Etruscan, but, just like its counterpart in Nakh-Daghestanian, was prone to lenition. The vocalism is also compatible. As shown below in section II b, medial Nakh /a/ sometimes corresponds to medial /au/ in Etruscan.
e) Early or Pre- Etruscan *vili “six”, Chechen/Ingush jalx , Batsbi jatx , jetx
While, as is known, the standard Etruscan for “six” was Sa, the early or Pre- Etruscan *vili “six” is proposed here on the basis of the bilingual ET Cl 1.966 (TLE 925) Senti . vilina/l : SENTIA . SEX[TI] . F[ILIA], “Shenti (daughter)
7
of Vilina / Sentia daughter of Sextus” on an urn from the northern Etruscan city of Klevsin (Latin Clusium, modern Italian Chiusi). The semantic equivalence of Etruscan vilina = Latin Sextus was not previously understood, the Etruscan name usually being dismissed as merely an unrelated Etruscan name. Benelli (1994: 58) argues that the the given name is missing in the one part of the inscription here due to Roman influence. Rix (1963: 49) states, however, that female given names were generally retained in the northern cities right up until Etruscan had been replaced by Latin. It is clear from the East Caucasian parallels that the Etruscan vilina really did mean “sixth”, just like the Latin Sextus. For the ordinal or adjective form vilina the corresponding cardinal form would be *vili. As the Latin was a direct translation of the Etruscan forename plus patronymic, the equivalence of Etruscan *vili and Latin sex was evidently still recognised even at the date of this inscription, categorised as “recent” in ET, despite the fact that the use of Sa must go back perhaps to before the Pre-Etruscans’ arrival in Italy, as it is attested in the compound sealxveis in Lemnian on the Kaminia stele.
The Proto-Nakh form for “6” is normally reconstructed as *jatx or *jetx, based on the Batsbi form. In other contexts, the Batsbi form of a Nakh root is, of the three Nakh languages, often phonologically the archaic one, retaining dentals that have been lost in Chechen and Ingush, e.g. Batsbi bader “child”, as compared to the Chechen be:r and Ingush bier (also “child”) where the /d/ has been lost [12]. It may be that the Batsbi /tx/ cluster represents a Proto-Nakh lateral affricate */tL/ which became first */L/ and the /lx/ in the Veinakh languages. Alternatively, the Batsbi may be a hypercorrection of a PN lateral fricative by analogy with the dental retentions. Either way, some sort of ancient lateral is indicated. This is borne out by the Daghestanian evidence.
In many of the Andian languages other than Andi itself, the form is itLi(-da) or similar. In Avar and Andi there are antL(-go) and ontLi(-gu) respectively, which have a different sheep-counting affix, together with a nasal also seen in Botlikh and Godoberi. In the Tsezian languages there is iL(-nV) or similar. In the Lezgian and Lak-Dargwa reflexes the relationship is less obvious, the /L/ being regularly replaced by /rx/, or /x/, or /r/ plus some velar, sometimes separated by a vowel.
As shown below, Nakh /a/ corresponds to /a/, /au/ or /u/ in Etruscan, depending on the context, although the exact conditioning rules for which of these is used are not always clear. If Proto-Nakh *a: as in pa:l corresponds to the /u/ in pul- in Etruscan (see No. 38 in section II b below), then we can also justify a Proto-Nakh *jaL corresponding to a Pre-Etruscan *juL(-i), if the L in the Etruscan is some sort of lateral, not necessarily a fricative. This earlier Pre-Etruscan *juL(-i) then became *vili in late Pre-Etruscan by a trivial metathesis. The final -i can be justified by reference to the Andian forms, and also some of the Lezgian forms. This final -i must have been dropped at some point in Nakh, and would also have been in Etruscan, had the word remained in ordinary use as a numeral, but is preserved in its older form because it was only being used as a name.
f) Etruscan *verS or *vers “hundred”, Chechen b?`e , Ingush b?`{
The Etruscan for “100” has been proposed here by re-evaluating the ancient gloss TLE 857: agri modum … plerumque centenum pedum in utraque parte, quod Graeci plethron appellant, Tusci et Umbri vorsum. Varro also states [13]: In Campania … versum dicunt C pedes quoque versum quadratum. Of the two alternatives, it is probable that something closer to versum was the real form, the Latin <o> being used to transcribe the sound of the Etruscan >e<, because another ancient gloss, TLE 858, refers to the Etruscan for “October” being Xosfer, which must actually have been something like *Kezper or *Kezpre (< kezp “8”). This measure of surface area could be analysed as vers-um or “abstraction associated with 100” because of the quantity of 100 square feet associated with it (compare English “hundred”, also an area of measurement). The affix -um can be seen in a number of Etruscan words such as za-th-r-um “20” ( < zal “2”), meth-l-um “thing of the people, i.e. republic” ( < meth, mex “people, nation”, later becoming the Latin loan translation res publica), vin-um “wine” [14], pul-um “star” (see No. 38) etc.
The auslaut has been deleted in the Chechen and Ingush, which is a regular development for inherited final */rs/. The relationship of the Etruscan *vers to Nakh-Daghestanian is best seen by looking at the Daghestanian cognates where the final segments have not been deleted. Many of the Avar-Andi and Tsezian languages have beS- or similar, while in some of the Lezgian languages the resemblance to the Etruscan is closer, e.g. Lezgi wiS, Tabasaran warZ, Agul wErS, Rutul weS etc. Some Daghestanian languages have a final nasal, which appears to be organic in various Tsezian languages, e.g. Tsez bison etc., so there is a possibility that the Etruscan for “100” is *versum after all, and the -um is not necessarily the abstraction affix being used for the semantic extension to agricultural measurement. It is also possible that the anlaut in the Etruscan was not /v/ but /ph/ (cf. Etruscan /ph/ : Nakh /b/ in phersu “mask of an animal” : borz “wolf”, No. 49 in section II d below). The fact that the Etruscan numerical symbols for 100, 500 and 1000 all resemble the letter {phi} would tend to support this theory. The remaining Nakh language, Batsbi, uses an
8
unrelated form pxauzt.q.a based on the vigesimal system, literally “5 times 20”. The Hurrian and Urartian words for “100” are not attested.
g) The remaining Etruscan basic numbers have not been included in this study because their etymology is uncertain or merely probable, or because they are thought to have been borrowed:
Etruscan esl/zal “two” is not obviously related to the East Caucasian forms. The Nakh and Hurrian forms, Si (from an earlier *Sin), and Sin, respectively, have probably been borrowed from Akkadian, an ancient Afroasiatic language with which they were in intense contact at one point. It is possible that the Etruscan form is derived from an ancient East Caucasian deictic (cf. Batsbi oza “that”, which would have a regular correspondence with Etruscan *ezal), just as the Daghestanian forms for “two” are derived from an East Caucasian root meaning “other”, but in the absence of additional information about the lost forms for “two” in Nakh and Hurro-Urartian, this is pure speculation. The Etruscan zathrum “20” (< *za(l)-th-(u)r-um, “two-<locative>-<plural>-<abstraction>”) is derived from zal. Zal can also be found in Raetic. Curiously, Duhoux (1982) gives the Eteocretan for “twenty” or “twenty men” as isalawr or isalur(ia). Eteocretan, an ancient Aegean language, is very fragmentary and of unknown affiliation. The attested Etruscan Sa “six” and Etruscan semph “seven”, like their Hurrian counterparts SeSe “six” and Sit:a or Sinda “seven” respectively, have been borrowed, either from Indo-European or Semitic. According to D&S 16, the original Hurro-Urartian form for “seven” which was a reflex of the common East Caucasian form prior to the borrowing of Sit:a/Sinda was wa:i:r or pa:i:r, and this could be seen in the Hurrian name for the constellation of the Pleiades or Seven Sisters.
Kezp “8” is native to Etruscan and derived from ki/*ke “three” and is dealt with above.
The form for “nine” in Hurrian as proposed by Diakonoff (1971) and Kammenhuber (apud Laroche 1980) is niZi or niS. The n of the Etruscan nurph would appear to correspond regularly with the Hurrian (cf., for example, Etruscan nun “bring” with Hurrian nun “come”) as would the r (cf. the Etruscan plural r with the Hurro-Urartian plural *S), but the vocalism is not quite right. The final -ph in the Etruscan nurph “nine” could perhaps have been added by analogy with the preceding semph and kezp. Wegner (2000: 70) proposes a different word tamri as the Hurrian for “nine”. The Urartian for “nine” is not attested. The numeral has not been included above principally because there is no regular correspondence to account for the loss of the initial n in the Nakh and Daghestanian forms, for example Nakh is:, Lak urtS., Dargwa urtS.e(-ma). Final /n/ in Nakh does show a development > /(zero)/, and this development is not unknown in Nakh in other phonological contexts. In Nakh we also have the pair nax “plough (noun)” versus a:xan “to plough (verb)”. There are also examples where /n/ is present in Nakh but not in Daghestanian, and vice versa. Nichols (2003: 246) lists Lak nuts “bull, ox” as being cognate with Nakh stu, Avar ots, Tsez is etc., and (2003: 228) Nakh niaq “road” with Lezgi, Archi and Udi words which take the form -Vq preceded by what may be fossilised CMs, but neither of these developments can be described as regular. It is also possible that the intrusive n- in the Etruscan can be accounted for by influence from neighbouring Italic languages which sometimes show the insertion of initial n-. An explanation that nurph is a borrowing of Indo-European origin is possible, but crucially this would fail to account for the existence of the -r-.
Etruscan Sar “ten” was probably a relatively late borrowing from Punic (?asr). The numerical morphology including that used for forming the decades in Etruscan is native and will be dealt with in part III.
9
II. Sound correspondences
The glosses for Etruscan comparanda can in almost all cases be found with the same meanings as given here in the vocabulary lists proposed in standard mainstream handbooks such as Pfiffig (1969), Pallottino (1984), Cristofani (1991), D’Aversa (1994), and/or Steinbauer (1999). Individual items proposed within the texts of other mainstream authors Facchetti (2000, 2002) and Rix (2004) have also been included in some cases.
a) Etruscan /th/ : Chechen /ts/ , /ts:/ , /ts./ , /t./ , (and /d/ ?)
Etruscan Chechen1. eith, eth “thus” ots:(-al) “so much” (the -al is a common adverbial morpheme)2. thez “sacrifice” tsostu “chop, slash, take a bite out of”3. thn “together” ts?`an “together” (see discussion of pharyngeals above)4. thu “one” ts?`a “one”5. thuva “place” ( > thui “here”) ts.a “house”
In No. 2 note that although the infinitive form of the Nakh verb is considered to be the more ancient root (see Handel 2003: 125), the forms that we find in the Etruscan inscriptions are usually present tense, or the weak past tense ending in -ke which does not differ from the present tense in stem vowel. The present tense vowel corresponds well between Etruscan and Nakh. The weak past tense is an innovation in the Raeto-Etruscan branch, the strong paradigm surviving only in Lemnian. In cases where an Etruscan verbal noun is cognate with a Chechen verb, the infinitive of the Chechen verb is cited, as this is more appropriate, and corresponds better.
The spelling of the Etruscan reflex in No. 5 may be an attempt to represent the pronunciation of a glottalised affricate which may still have existed then. Etruscan /th/ also corresponds to Chechen /t./. The relationship between Nakh /ts/ and /t./ is uncertain, but as can be seen by No. 6, the development of a distinction between the two is probably on the Nakh side. There is also the issue of the Etruscan reflex of the voiced dental in Nakh, because, as is known, the symbol for /d/ inherited by the Etruscan writing system was very rarely used other than in abecedaria. This is discussed further below in item No. 41. Item No. 48 below, which also relates to Nakh /d/, may show a correspondence between Etruscan /th/ or /t/ and Nakh /d/ (the spelling of this item is inconsistent in Etruscan).
Etruscan Chechen6. tham “build” ts?`a:m(-za) “handle” (-za is “without”, here “unattached”), and
t.am “wing”, “hand” (extension to “wing” may be a result of West Caucasian influence).
7. neth “entrails” not. “pus” (also notq.a - see discussion of -k/tq.a below)8. thap(-na) “(flat) dish, bowl” (-na = adj.) t.a:p “flat, wide” (of a hat)9. thra “breast” t.ara “nipple”
For the semantic shift in No. 6, see also No. 27 where a similar shift has occurred.
There is also a case for the relationship Etruscan /th/ : Chechen /x/ or /x:/ in the following:
Etruscan Chechen10. thi “water” xi “water”11. -thi locative case ending -xi locative case ending12. meth, mex “people, nation” moxk “people, land”
The /th/ in these Etruscan reflexes may illustrate an alternate palatalised or fricative sound discussed above. The /xk/ in the Chechen reflex in No. 12 is a development from a former long velar reconstructed for Proto-Nakh. NDC 54 proposes a reconstruction of the PND for “water” with a lateral fricative.
In a known development during the history of Nakh, non-initial dentals are lost or lenited in Chechen, Ingush, and sometimes Batsbi. This can be seen in a couple of examples.
Etruscan Chechen13. huth “four” =i? “four”14. kautha, katha “marigold” qa:(-pa), qa?`(-pa) “sunflower”
10
Cautha is the Etruscan sun god. According to Pfiffig (1998: 241) the flower in the ancient gloss TLE 823 is the golden-yellow Anthemis tinctoria L., still referred to in Tuscany as cota. Both the Etruscan and the Chechen words derive from Cautes and Cautopates respectively, the Mithraic solar helper gods, hence the additional -pa in the Nakh reflex, both instances of -t being regularly deleted at some point in the history of Nakh.
There is also a case for a correspondence between Etruscan /th/ and Hurro-Urartian */S/:
Etruscan Hurro-Urartian3a. thn “together” Suine “all, completely” (U.)4a. thu “one” Su(-k/gV) “one” (H., U.) (-k/gV is a sheep-counting affix)6a. tham “build” Sumu(-ni) “hand” (H.) (-ni is the definite article)10a. thi “water” Sije “water” (H.)
The Hurro-Urartian */S/ thus appears to correspond with both main possible phonemic realisations of Etruscan /th/, if there is indeed a distinction.
b) Etruscan /a/ , /au/ or /u/ : Chechen /a/
Final Etruscan /u/ often corresponds to /a/ in Chechen:
Etruscan Chechen4. thu “one” ts?`a “one”15. alx (<*alxu) decade suffix in numerals alGa ordinal suffix16. *falatu “heaven” h?`alata “up above”17. huS, huSu “child, boy” vaSa “brother” (v- = masc. CM; cf. j-iSa “sister” with fem. CM)18. -inu past masdar of verb -na past perfective tense19. krankru “panther, cat” k.ark.ar “jaws” (cf. Urartian qarqara(-ni) “panther”)20. zaru “ritual” sardan “to swear” (present tense serda)
Final /a/ in modern Chechen is often pronounced /@/. In other positions Etruscan /a/ usually corresponds to /a/ and /a:/ in Chechen, and in final position also to /aGa/. Final -n in Chechen is lenited to nasalise the preceding vowel, and in Ingush is deleted completely.
Etruscan Chechen6. tham “build” ts?`a:m(-za) “handle”, and t.am “wing”, “hand” 8. thap(-na) “(flat) dish, bowl” t.a:p “flat, wide” (of a hat)9. thra “breast” t.ara “nipple”15. alx (<*alxu) decade suffix in numerals alGa ordinal suffix16. *falatu “heaven” h?`alata “up above”19. krankru “panther, cat” k.ark.ar “jaws” 20. zaru “ritual” sardan “to swear” 21. ara “field” a:re “field”22. -as- present participle, verbal noun -aS progressive participle23. ase “breath, wind” a:z “voice”24. far(-th-na) “pregnant” pxar(=ala) “to conceive” (cf. pxo:ra “pregnant”)25. kalu “Calu (divinity of hell)” k.alke “bottom” (Ingush; Chechen cognates derived from this root
all use the umlauted form k.el-)26. kalu(-s-na) “best” (-s gen.; -na adj.) kaja:lan “to manage, to succeed” 27. kar- “to make” kara “in the hands, in hand” (cf. kar-ietsa~ “to take over”,
kar-=ala “to hand over”)28. klan, klante/i “son, adoptive son” k.ant “boy”29. male- “reflect, shine” (male-na “mirror”) ma:l-x “sun” (-x agent suffix)30. maru “magistrate, official, priest” ma:r “husband”31. nak “since, as, because” naga?` “if”, nag:a?` “sometimes”32. nap measure of surface area nap:aGa “ration, allowance, plank of wood”33. parx “economy, economic administration” ba:x(-am) “household, possessions”34. sal “offer, carry out, set up” sa:Ga “offering”
11
35. za(-na) “gift” zaGa “gift”
The final -l in No. 34 is a regular development in Etruscan. The /p/ in clusters such as the /px/ in the Nakh reflex of No. 24 is explained by Nichols (2003: 230-232) as a possible fossilised CM. Note a similar analogy in No. 27 (“make” : “hand”) as is used in No. 6 (tham : t.am/ts?`a:m-).
In some cases Etruscan medial /au/, /u/ or /va/ appears to correspond with Chechen /a/.
Etruscan Chechen5. thuva “place” ( > thui “here”) ts.a “house”17. huS, huSu “child, boy” vaSa “brother” 36. lauk-, laux-, luk-, lux- “rule, king” laq “upwards, upstairs”37. laut-, lut- “family” Ladi (Avar) “woman” 38. pul(-um) “star” pa:l “fortune telling, divination, magic”39. sval “live” sa “soul, spirit, person, life, breath; light, sight”
The conditioning factor in No. 37 laut-/lut- may be some sort of ablaut process; cf. Avar Ladi “woman”, Ludbi “women”; also Urartian lutu “women” (as a collective). In No. 39 we should note also the Etruscan Si “light, bright”. Oblique and plural forms of Chechen sa change the stem vowel to /i/. It may be that two historic roots have become conflated in Chechen. The final -l in Etruscan may be a later regular development, or there may be a historical connection to the PHU root *sawl “health, prosperity” which D&S 83 link to the Lak ts.ul:u “healthy” and the final -l got lost in Nakh. The ablaut in Etruscan sval is discussed further below.
In lexemes where /u/ is inherited, this is retained in Etruscan.
Etruscan Chechen40. tul “stone” t.ul(-g) “stone” (-g is a diminutive)
The /t./ is not irregular here insofar as both >t< and >th< are used indiscriminately in some words where they correspond to Nakh /t./.
Etruscan /u/ may also correspond to /i/ under certain circumstances in Nakh, or, at least, Chechen (and the other Nakh reflexes are regular).
Etruscan Chechen13. huth “four” =i? “four”17. huS, huSu “child, boy” j-iSa “sister” as opposed to vaSa “brother” from same root
As may Etruscan /au/:
Etruscan Chechen41. *thaun “horse” din “horse” (cf. Ingush dan, Batsbi don)
This item of vocabulary is reconstructed here from the ancient gloss damnos (TLE 827), taking into account what would be a regular correspondence between a possible Etruscan /au/ here and /a/ in Ingush at least. The /i/ in the Chechen word may be a development which is purely internal to Nakh. The >m< in the gloss may be a mistranscription of an expected /u/ in the Etruscan (and the >-os<, a more or less compulsory desinence in Greek, is unlikely to be part of the real Etruscan word). However, another issue here is what reflex should be expected in Etruscan for Nakh /d/. As is known, the Greek >d< borrowed into the Etruscan writing system is only rarely to be found other than in abecedaria, so it is reasonable to conclude that Etruscan did not have a phonemic voiced dental (although it is possible that voicing of stop phonemes with unvoiced prototypes occurred in word-internal contexts). It is difficult therefore to decide how to reconstruct >d< appearing in Greek glosses of Etruscan vocabulary in the absence of a significant number of correspondences with Nakh lexemes containing /d/ (although see No. 48). This question remains to be resolved. A similar problem exists for the name of one of the central mythological figures in Etruscan religion, the wise old man / child hybrid, who has come down to us under the name Tages, despite the fact that no >g< is used in Etruscan. It may correspond as a concept to the phrase pava tarxies “the Tarquinian boy” (?) which does exist in attested Etruscan. Clearly Tages does not correspond to tarxies, but it is immediately reminiscent of the Chechen word (s)tag “man, person” (Ingush sag, Batsbi st.ak.).
12
c) Etruscan /k/ : Chechen /q/
Etruscan Chechen14. kautha, katha “marigold” qa:(-pa), qa?`(-pa) “sunflower”36. lauk-, laux-, luk-, lux- “rule, king” laq “upwards, upstairs”42. -k “and” tq.a “and”43. ki (< *ke) “three” qo “three”44. kes, kesu “lie” qo:zu “hang, drape, be suspended”45. kexa, kexe “law, right” qoiqu “proclaim”46. lek(-in) “high” (-in = old genitive) loq(-alla) “height” (-alla forms abstractions)
Isoglosses Nos. 36 lauk- etc. and 46 lek(-in) are related to one another by regular vowel changes.
What may be an inherited cluster in the Chechen reflex for No. 42 -k has been simplified in the Etruscan. A similar thing has happened in No. 7, but with the deletion of the other segment, and in that case the simplified cluster can also be found in Chechen, but it is possible that fortition has occurred in Nakh instead.
Etruscan /k/ also corresponds to Nakh /k/. The historical development of the phonemes /q/ and /k/ in Nakh is confused and sometimes dependent on consonant length in the proto-language.
Etruscan Chechen26. kalu(-s-na) “best” (-s gen.; -na adj.) kaja:lan “to manage, to succeed” 27. kar- “to make” kar “hand”47. hek “lay, put, place” =oxka “put”
The Etruscan cluster /kl/ is either an attempt to represent, or is derived from, initial glottalic /k./:
Etruscan Chechen28. klan, klante/i “son, adoptive son” k.ant “boy”48. kluthi, kluti “drinking vessel” k.ud(-al) “water jug”
Sometimes, because of dissimilation, this does not happen:
Etruscan Chechen19. krankru “panther, cat” k.ark.ar “jaws” 25. kalu “Kalu (divinity of hell)” k.alke “bottom” (Ingush)
The existence of homographs in Etruscan such as Nos. 25 and 26 may be another indication that /k/ in Etruscan may have more than one phonemic realisation.
It is possible that a final devoicing has taken place in Etruscan of an inherited /g/ or /g:/:
Etruscan Chechen31. nak “since, as, because” naga?` “if”, nag:a?` “sometimes”
The correspondence between Hurrian and Urartian /k/ and /q/ and Nakh /k/, /k./ and /q/ is confused:
Hurro-Urartian Chechen19a. qarqara(-ni) (U.) “panther” k.ark.ar “jaws”43a. ki(-g) (H.) “three” qo “three”ak:i “other” (H.), akuki dem. pron. (U.) qin “other”nek (H.) “to swim”, nik- (U.) “to water” ne:kan, ne:qan “to swim”
The last two of these four sets of HU/Chechen isoglosses do not appear to have any attested Etruscan reflexes.
13
d) Etruscan /e/ : Chechen /o/
Etruscan Chechen1. eith, eth “thus” ots:(-al) “so much” 2. thez “sacrifice” tsostu “chop, slash, take a bite out of”7. neth “entrails” not. “pus”12. meth, mex “people, nation” moxk “people, land”43. ki (< *ke) “three” qo “three”44. kes, kesu “lie” qo:zu “hang, drape, be suspended”45. kexa, kexe “law, right” qoiqu “proclaim”46. lek(-in) “high” (-in = old genitive) loq(-alla) “height” (-alla forms abstractions)47. hek “lay, put, place” =oxka “put”48. elu “celebrate, pray” o:lu “speak, sing”49. neS “deceased” noS “overripe”50. phersu “mask (of an animal)” borz “wolf”
As is known, Nakh /o/ is often a regular development from earlier /e/, and this can be seen for example in item Nos. 12 and 50 where the original vowel is retained in the plural of the Chechen nouns (moxk : mexkaS, borz : berzaloj).
e) Etruscan /h/ : Chechen CM
Etruscan Chechen13. huth “four” =i? “four”17. huS, huSu “child, boy” vaSa “brother” (v- = masc. CM; cf. j-iSa “sister” with fem. CM)47. hek “lay, put, place” =oxka “put”
Despite regular correspondences, sets of isoglosses cannot in themselves prove a genealogical relationship, although they are obligatory supporting evidence for the shared paradigms and irregularities which follow. On the other hand, the existence of pairs of similar words sharing similar pairs of cognates, as in nos. 4 and 5, nos. 10 and 11, nos. 22 and 23, nos. 25 and 26, and nos. 36 and 46, is a good indication that we are dealing with something other than chance resemblances, and thus sufficient justification to explore shared paradigms and irregularities.
14
III. Inherited paradigms
a) Numerical morphology
The most striking evidence of the cognation of a complete paradigm between Etruscan and Nakh-Daghestanian relates to numerical morphology. Let us take “3” and its derivatives in Etruscan and Nakh respectively.
Etruscan Chechen43. ki (< *ke) “three” qo “three”51. kialx (< *kealxu) “thirty” qoalGa “third”52. kiz/kizi “three times” quz/qu:za “three times”
The Ingush and Batsbi forms are similar to the Chechen. There even appears to be a parallel relating to the two forms for the iterative adverb, a distinction which in Chechen corresponds to the absence or presence of focus gemination respectively.
Reflexes of the Etruscan decade affix -alx are used throughout the East Caucasian languages to form either decades or ordinals, or, in one case, multiples. Both Nakh and Daghestanian tend to suggest a proto-form something like *-alxa, whereas internal reconstruction in Etruscan itself and Lemnian evidence both suggest an early Etruscan form of *-alxu. This vocalic difference is in line with other sound correspondences between Etruscan and Nakh-Daghestanian. A reflex of this is also to be found in Hurrian, although there the vocalism is problematic because of metathesis, as is also the case between the metathesised Agul form and the more conservative Lezgi form.
The Nakh reflexes of this common form are: Chechen -alGa, Ingush -alaGa; and Batsbi -alGe~. All of these are used as ordinals. In Daghestanian, we have: Avar -ali <decade> (vigesimals are also used in Avar, but with a different affix); Andi -ol- <decade>; Godoberi -ali <decade>; Chamalal -L- <ordinal>; Tinda -l'iL- <ordinal>; Botlikh -ali- <decade>; Akhwakh -olo- <decade> (only present in La-m-olo-dabe “30”, -dabe being composed of two fossilised class markers present in most numbers in Akhwakh); Bezhta -aL.e- <ordinal>; Hinukh -eLa <ordinal>; Lak -al=a <decade>; Agul -gelaj <multiple>; Lezgi -laGaj <ordinal>; Tsakhur -al:e<decade>.
In some Daghestanian languages the lateral approximant plus velar fricative sequence we see in Etruscan, Nakh and Hurrian is represented by a single phoneme: sometimes a simple lateral approximant as in Avar and some Andian languages, sometimes a lateral fricative or affricate as in Chamalal. This suggests that the /lx/ cluster (or /xVl/ as it is in Hurrian) could also be thought of as a single component, as does the metathesis in Agul as compared to its close relative Lezgi (-gelaj versus -laGaj).
The Lak decade ending contains an inserted noun class marker, indicated here by an equals sign = to show a morpheme break, and this class marker agrees with the class of the headword in the phrase. This means that the forms used in modern Lak are -ala (Class I), -al:a (Classes II and IV) and -alva (Class III). The insertion of class markers, as in the East Caucasian reflexes of Etruscan huth, often constitutes a compensatory change in response to decreased distinctiveness after the lenition to zero of some segment, often a former laryngeal. Thus, the earlier Lak form could plausibly be reconstructed as *-alXa, where X denotes an unknown and later lenited laryngeal. There is evidence supporting this in general sound correspondences between Lak and other Daghestanian languages, with some of them preserving a velar or uvular in this position and others not, and thus the reconstruction of the Proto-Daghestanian form as *-alxa or similar is reasonable.
Because of the similarity in some other East Caucasian languages of *-alxa to the past participle of a verb meaning “to say”, this has led to a folk etymology whereby some Daghestanian languages have adopted an analogue of *-alxa, but using a different, unrelated, verb meaning “to say” as their ordinal affix.
The Hurro-Urartian reflex is to be found in the Hurrian -(a)hila<ordinal>. There is evidence of metathesis of /h/ and /l/ elsewhere in Hurrian and Urartian. Although Diakonoff (1971) and Melikišvili (1971) have both suggested that -hila is derived from a compound of the affixes -hi <agent> and -li <plural>, Mirjo Salvini in an appendix to Melikišvili (1971) points out that place names ending in -hila are always declined as singular. Wegner (2000) gives -(a)mha as the ordinal ending in Hurrian.
Reflexes of the Etruscan numerical iterative or multiplicatory affix -z/-zi are used throughout the East Caucasian languages to form iteratives, multiples or decades, or, in one case, teens. In some Daghestanian languages reflexes of
15
both the Etruscan -z/-zi and -alx are used together for the decade form. A reflex of Etruscan -z/-zi also exists in Hurro-Urartian.
These reflexes in the Nakh languages are Chechen/Ingush -z/-za <iterative or multiple>, and Batsbi -ts. <iterative or multiple>. The Nakh pair qu:z/qu:za (Chechen) qoz/qoz:a (Ingush) “three times” is distinguished by the absence or presence of focus gemination (so-called whether or not there is doubling of the consonant). A similar feature might be behind the alternation in the Etruscan forms, there being no evidence of a distinction between the use of kiz and kizi “three times” on diachronic or geographical grounds. In Nakh, -z- is also used in the formation of vigesimals (decimal numbers are not used in Nakh).
The Daghestanian forms are: Avar -ts.- <decade> (+ -ali), -ts.i- <iterative/multiple> (+ -ul); Andi -ts.- <decade> (+ -ol); Botlikh -ts.- <decade> (+ -ali-), -ts.i <iterative/multiple>; Godoberi -ts.- <decade> (+-ali); Karata -ts.e <iterative/multiple>, -ts.a-<decade>; Bagwalal -ts.a <decade>, -ats.is <iterative/multiple>; Tinda -ts.aja <decade>; Chamalal -ts.a- <decade>, -ts.u <iterative/multiple>; Khvarshi -ts.a <decade>; Lak -ts.- <decade> (+ -al=a); Lezgi -tsu/ts.i <teens>; Tsakhur -ts.- <decade> (+ -al:e). Hurro-Urartian is represented by the Hurrian -zi <decade>.
The pattern in this numerical paradigm is in itself unusual enough to count (just) as being of an individual-identifying nature as defined by Nichols (1996), and thus is a strong indicator of a genealogical relationship, but on its own is perhaps not enough evidence to constitute definitive proof of this relationship [15].
b) Case morphology
There are a number of other parallels relating to numerical morphology, such as -na, the Etruscan ordinal from the standard adjectival affix, in turn derived from the old genitive -n, and also the -s numerical adverb, the same as the -s genitive in historically attested Etruscan. These are applications of the general noun case system, which also constitutes a shared paradigm. While one might expect evidence of Etruscan sharing grammatical features with a particular language family to be decisive, caution must be exercised. There can be no doubt about the meanings of the numerical morphology above (other than about what the function is of the focus-gemination-style feature in Etruscan), but the same certainty is not appropriate for some other grammatical features. A number of authors, particularly Georgiev (1954, 1972), Adrados (1989), Woudhuizen (1991), and Zavaroni (1996), have proposed their own peculiar interpretations of Etruscan grammar, upon which they in turn base their evidence for a proposed genealogical relationship, or, more often, imagine a relationship with IE and then seem to invent grammatical features which support this relationship [16]. Discussion of Etruscan grammatical features in this study is based on the analysis of unbiased mainstream commentators such as Pfiffig (1969) and Rix (1984, 2004) who have not proposed specific genealogical relationships for Etruscan (other than Raetic and Lemnian, in the case of Rix).
Starostin (2001: 78) listed a number of key grammatical features which he reconstructed for PND. Some details of Starostin’s reconstructions of these features can be questioned, but if the set of forms he gives are not entirely beyond reproach as regards reconstructing a complete paradigm, they are all individually at least more or less typical of those to be found in the Nakh-Daghestanian languages. In a number of these we can see a similarity between Etruscan and his version of PND (or Proto-East-Caucasian, as he preferred to call it):
i) */(zero)/ nominative and ergative cases
It is unremarkable that the nominative should be unmarked, so this fact has no diagnostic value. In contemporary ND languages the ergative is usually marked, sometimes by a reflex of *s, which Starostin reconstructs as having been an ablative or instrumental originally. This will be discussed below.
ii) *-n genitive case
There are two forms of the genitive used during Etruscan’s attested history, -s and -l, discussed below. As shown in Pfiffig (1969: 80-81), there are traces of an earlier genitive ending in -Vn, e.g. thesnin vakl “morning ritual” or “service to Thesan”, also in laut(u)n and pui(i)an, genitive forms of laut(u) “family” and puia “wife”. The ancient Etruscan genitive is related to the standard adjective ending -na in attested Etruscan and in the use of -na, -ne and -ni in gentilicia in Etruscan and -nu and -na in Raetic.
16
The PN genitive can be reconstructed as *n, or *an if the root does not end in a vowel. Desheriev (2006: 520) and Alekseev (2003: 107) reconstruct the PN genitive as *in. In modern Chechen and Batsbi the *(V)n is lenited to a nasal vowel, and in Ingush it is deleted completely. In the Lezgian languages *n is universally used as a genitive ending, even in the more divergent members of this group.
In Avar and Lak there is -l, in Dargwa -la, and in Proto-Andian -L: for the genitive. In some Tsezian languages there is a more complete agreement with attested Etruscan in the use of two possible allomorphic case endings in the genitive, one ending in -s and the second in -la, whose use in Tsezian relates to the definiteness/indefiniteness of the attribute.
iii) *-L dative case, and iv) *-se ablative/instrumental case
Alternative forms with a sibilant or a lateral are yet again to be found in the Antsukh dialect of Avar, where forms in -s:- or -L:- are used in the dative. In another echo of Etruscan, here -s:- appears to be used for masculine forms, and -L:- for feminine, according to the example in Alekseev (2003: 112): vats:as:e/vats:as:ije “to the brother”, jats:aL:e/jats:aL:ije “to the sister”. These two forms are therefore perhaps best considered together.
In Etruscan, the two different forms -s- and -l- were used variously depending on the natural gender (particularly in proper names), -s for masculine and -l for feminine, and/or according to the phonological form of the noun concerned. It These two forms are very likely to correspond to a previous functional difference between them (gender features are a late development in Etruscan, probably due to Italic influence). In Rix's analysis (e.g. in 2004: 952-3) there is the “genitive I” in -s and the “genitive II” in -ls, but also an “ablative I” in -is and “pertinentive I” in -(V)si and “pertinentive II” in -(a)le. There are occasional pairs in Etruscan where both -s and -l are used with the same noun in the genitive and Rix (2004: 951) suggests that a merging of the genitive and the ablative may ultimately be responsible. In his view the allomorphy cannot have a phonological cause and also does not argue against a basis of general agglutinative morphology in Etruscan. Others see -si/-ale as a dative (Bonfante and Bonfante 2003:82-85, Cristofani 1991: 63). Clearly -s and -l are intertwined not only in purely genitive contexts. Pfiffig (1969: 75-92) sees the -i in -si and other endings as an indication of definiteness, and Steinbauer (1999: 70) sees -si as a locative.
Pallottino (1984: 472) sees -si as having multiple functions, perhaps “genitive” or “dative”, but also ergative or agentive in archaic inscriptions like mi mulu kaviiesi (ET AT 3.1, from the 7th century BCE), “I am an offering by Kaviie”, or “Kaviie offered me”. There are a number of other 7th and 6th century BCE inscriptions which similarly appear to have an ergatively aligned syntax, e.g. the 6th century BCE inscription ET Cr 3.20 / TLE 868 mi aranth ramuthasi vestirikinala muluvanike (Rix “corrects” the mi to read mini here), and ET Cr 3.13 / TLE 866 mi mulu likineSi velxainaSi, and so on. Such constructions are also to be found in Raetic, e.g. RI BZ-4 paniun vaSanuale upiku perunies sxaispala and RI NO-3 pheluriesi phelvinuale uphiku. Lemnian also has -s- and -l- forms in adjacent nouns.
The -s “nominative of respect” is sometimes used for deities in Etruscan in later inscriptions when they are clearly the subject of the sentence. Both of these phenomena may be related to the usage for the -s ergative ending in Nakh which tends to be used for personal names and kinship terms for example in da:, da:s “father”, ba:ba, ba:bas “grandmother” etc. Other types of nouns in Nakh have other endings for the ergative. Another echo of the Nakh-Daghestanian languages to be found in Etruscan is the occasional syntactic use of the genitive to express the complement of a copula e.g. ET Vs 2.40 (TLE 213) turis mi une ame “I am a gift to you” (pace Rix 2004: 956).
An unusual feature of Etruscan is morphological redetermination, the use of multiple case endings where the first ending redetermines the part of speech, e.g. Uni-al-s, literally “of of Juno”, i.e. “of (the temple) of Juno”, Uni-al-thi “to/in (the temple) of Juno” etc. In Etruscan too there is derivative and verbal morphology which is based on or similar to case morphology, e.g. than-asa “act-or”. This is all reminiscent of some Nakh-Daghestanian languages where rich systems of spatial cases are built up from multiple affixes, e.g. as in Lezgi:
hül “sea” (absolutive case)hül-i “sea” (ergative case)hül-i-k “under the sea” (subessive case)hül-i-k-aj “from under the sea” (subelative case)hül-i-k-di “(to) under the sea” (subdirective case) etc. (after Haspelmath 1993: 4)
17
The last affix here is also used in Lezgi as a substantiviser, e.g. ts.iji “new”, ts.iji-di “new one”.
The use of embedded affixes in certain phraseological contexts may be the origin of noun extension themes, which Nakh-Daghestanian is very rich in and which perhaps also exist in Etruscan (see the discussion on s(e)v-er- below).
A feature resembling Etruscan's morphological redetermination involving /l/ and /s/ can also be found in the IE Anatolian language Lydian where adjectives are derived from nouns by the suffix -li-, e.g. maneS “Manes (anthroponym)”, manelis “pertaining to Manes” (see Gusmani 1964: 36). This is the common gender form; the neuter ends in -d, not -s. This may be one of a number of potential Sprachbund features which are shared by Lydian and Etruscan, but it does not involve s/l allomorphy (the -s is nominative in Lydian), and clearly does not have the same origin as the s/l allomorphy shared by Etruscan and Nakh-Daghestanian.
The endings -S and -Se can also be found in Hurrian and Urartian respectively for the ergative case.
v) *-di locative case
Here again there appears to be agreement between Etruscan and Nakh-Daghestanian. Etruscan has -th(i) or -ti. The /i/ in -th(i) is predominantly archaic, with apocope in later Etruscan giving -th. Facchetti (2002: 38) suggests that -ti may be related to the postposition -te “in” rather than to -thi. Nakh may have an exact parallel to this, with the locative case in -xi (see item No. 11) and a postposition t.e “on”. Similar endings can be found throughout the Nakh-Daghestanian languages, for example -di in the Lezgian languages. Hurrian has -ta/-da for its directive and Urartian has -di. However, it has to be said that, as with the use of a nasal for the genitive above, the use of a dental as the indicator for locative and related cases is so common among the languages of the world that this fact has little diagnostic value on its own.
vi) *-r plural number
The Etruscan animate plural is -r. There are a number of endings associated with the plural in ND, but *-r and its reflexes is one of the commonest and most regular endings. Nakh and HU have -S instead, but an intervocalic shift from a sibilant to /r/ is extremely common, although there is no regular correspondence between Nakh /S/ and Daghestanian /r/ in other contexts. The -ar plural theme to be found in Nakh veZ-ar-i:/jiZ-ar-i: (see IVc below) may be derived from the standard plural -aS. Yet again, an -r plural is hardly unusual, however.
vii) *ma prohibition
The use of a prohibitive particle similar to *ma is widespread throughout the Nakh-Daghestanian languages and also occurs in Hurro-Urartian, but the prohibitive in Etruscan is ei or ein, cognate with the negative -u(w)-/-wa- in Hurrian and ui/ue in Urartian. However, the subtractive suffix -em in Etruscan may be related to *ma.
viii) *w, *j 3rd person subject/object markers
The CMs used in most ND languages include in many cases a masculine CM in *w or similar and a feminine CM in *j. Here Starostin is trying to associate this feature with the polypersonal verb-marking feature of the West Caucasian languages (which has no analogue in ND) by referring to them as subject/object markers rather than as class markers. But whatever their original nature, nothing like class marking (let alone polypersonalism) appears to exist in Etruscan, and this important omission might militate against the idea that there is a shared grammatical paradigm between Etruscan and PND. This problem will be discussed further in part VI.
ix) *-r, *-n participle and gerund suffixes
The Chechen present participle attributive form adds -n- to the present tense ending (-u/-a), and the substantivised form adds -rg (possibly -r-g from the verbal noun -r followed by a substantivising diminutive?). The Ingush endings are the same except that the -n- has become deleted in a regular phonological development. Batsbi participles use -ni in the present and future, and -no in the past. Batsbi has no equivalent of the Veinakh substantivised participles in common use, but it does have a verbal noun in -r. Desheriev suggests (2006: 522) that Batsbi previously also had these -rg forms and that this can be seen in some fossilised expressions. The past participle endings in Chechen are -na and -na-r-g for the attributive and substantivised respectively. Apart from the endings for the present tense in
18
Nakh -u (mostly for transitives), and -a (mostly intransitives), both reconstructed for PN as *-i by Nichols and *-o by Desheriev, most of the rest of Nakh verbal morphology (represented in the examples here by Chechen), and not just that for participles, also involves -n- and -r-:
Recent past tense: -inWitnessed past tense: -iraInferential past tense: -(i)naRemote past tense: -(i)nieraImperfect tense: -ura, -ara Future tense: -ur, -arMasdar: -arInfinitive: -an
Similar morphology is to be found in many Daghestanian languages. Often participles and gerunds also play a role in the formation of the finite tense forms as for example in Avar:
=atS.:-ine “arrival” (masdar)=atS.:-in “to arrive” (infinitive)=atS.:-una “arrive” (present)=atS.:-ana “arrived” (past)=atS.:-ina “will arrive” (future)=atS.:-un “having arrived” (past gerund)=atS.:-une= “arriving” (present gerund)=atS.:-ara= “arrived” (past participle) (after Alekseev and Ataev, 1997: 62-63)
The = symbol denotes an added CM. In some verbs in Avar the -n- becomes -l- or -z- in some phonological contexts. For both Hurrian and Urartian also, -r and -n are among the most significant of the stem modifiers in verbal morphology.
The verb endings in Etruscan which are almost universally acknowledged are -ke for the active past tense and -xe for the passive past tense. However, this morphology is extremely recent and applies only to Etruscan. Only -ke (usually in the form of -ku) and not -xe is to be found in Raetic, and in Lemnian neither are to be found. Instead, Lemnian appears to have a strong past tense -ai (strong in the sense that it might have contributed to a verbal vowel change, arguably present in attested Etruscan as argued below). If the Pre-Etruscan verb used to be like the Nakh verb, then it had many vowel change patterns. Because the -ke/-xe morphology is a late innovation in Etruscan, it may be a simplification due to language contact. The ending -ke may have been a postposition meaning “before”, as found in Urartian. However, such a development could have been made easier by a possible feature in Pre-Etruscan of the use of converbs, like the anterior converb -(i)tSa in Nakh. Etruscan verbal morphology is less well understood than noun morphology, and conclusions less unanimously agreed. The main verbal morphology generally agreed upon by all mainstream commentators is that of the past active -ke and past passive -xe. Many instances of Etruscan verbal morphology using -n- and -r- do exist, but the problem is exactly how to interpret these affixes. Pfiffig (1969: 135-136) lists a number of examples in -n- with his own interpretation: an essive verb -nu- as in zilax-nu- “to be praetor”, zilax-nu-ke “was praetor”; a thematic -n- indicating a mediopassive as in thez- “to sacrifice”, thez-i-n “is sacrificed”, thez-i-ne “for sacrificing”, thez-i-n-ke “was sacrificed”; a factitive, or what Rix calls the “denominative” in his description of the Etruscan verb (2004: 957), ker-i-xu “to cause to be made”, keri-xu-n-ke “he caused to be made”. Pfiffig also suggests a durative present participle in -an and sometimes -en, e.g. mulu-an/mulu-en “dedicating”, and a bound -n- apparent in the derivation ac- “to make”, ac-n- “to beget” (1969: 138, 136). There also exists an ending -un which Pfiffig interprets as a first person weak preterite, but there is no evidence that marking for person is used in the Etruscan verb at all, so there must be a question mark over this interpretation. Other Etruscan cognates for Starostin's reconstructed PND verbal morphology might include the past masdar -inu, and what is clearly another factitive akil-une “gets done”.
Among verbal morphology in -r-, the Etruscan necessitative -eri (< archaic Etruscan -iri) is also generally accepted by most scholars. Pfiffig also argues for an -ar- of indeterminate function which can be seen in the archaic past form ak-ar-ai “did, made”, and a durative -(a)ir to be found in words like luk-a-ir-ke “ruled”. One might also add -ar, a possible verbal noun suffix to be found in nun-ar “offering”.
19
It can be seen that in most cases, the PND forms proposed by Starostin show fairly regular correspondences between Etruscan and Nakh-Daghestanian, and in some cases also with Hurro-Urartian. Because of the shortness of the comparanda, and the fact that they are one-dimensional comparisons because of the agglutinative structure of both Etruscan and the Nakh-Daghestanian languages, and the difficulty of securing a definitive and universally agreed interpretation of Etruscan grammar, these grammatical correspondences do not in themselves constitute a definitive proof of genealogical relationship, unlike the congruence of numerical morphology. Yet they do demonstrate that most of Etruscan’s basic grammar is compatible with that of Nakh-Daghestanian, and they are at least as similar as might be found if comparing any two different branches of any other phylum, and the shared allomorphy of s/l in the Etruscan and Nakh-Daghestanian declensional paradigms is also distinctly interesting. But to find further evidence of an individual-identifying nature we have to look to shared irregularities between Etruscan and Nakh.
20
IV. Inherited irregularities
a) The -n- theme in oblique cases of thu
Oblique forms of Etruscan thu, unlike the other numerals in Etruscan, use an inserted -n- in some derived forms and with oblique cases, e.g. thu-n-s “one (gen.)”, thu-n-em “less one” (as in thunem zathrum “nineteen”, literally “twenty less one”). Use of an inserted -n- with forms of “one” is also common in the Nakh-Daghestanian languages, although in some languages “one” is not the only numeral to exhibit this phenomenon. In Chechen ts?`ana is the oblique form for all cases of ts?`a “one”. The Etruscan and many Nakh-Daghestanian words for “together” are also derived from “one” by adding an -n:
Etruscan Chechen3. thn “together” ts?`an “together” 4. thu “one” ts?`a “one”
However, an association between the meanings of “one” and “together” is not unknown in other languages of the world (cf. Hindi/Urdu ek sath “together”, literally “one with”), and the use of -n- in derivational or grammatical morphology is not on its own strongly diagnostic.
b) /a/ > /e/ ablaut in specific cognate nouns
The Etruscan noun klan “son” demonstrates an unusual vowel change in the genitive/dative klens/klensi and in the plural klenar-. This anomaly is paralleled by a strikingly similar phenomenon in the Veinakh languages Chechen and Ingush. The noun k.ant “son, boy” behaves in exactly the same way: genitive singular k.entan and in the plural, k.ent- plus case ending. The endingless ablauted form klen is also to be found in the set phrase klen kexa where it is followed by a postposition which means “on behalf of” or “because of”.
In Batsbi, the reflex of the Chechen/Ingush k.ant is k.nat, but the declension of Batsbi k.nat does not show ablaut, e.g. genitive k.naten, and the lack of this may be a recent innovation due to partial simplification of Batsbi's formal grammar because of intense language contact. Similar language contact may be responsible for the restriction in the examples of ablaut in nouns in historically attested Etruscan to a very few common words such as klan. Alternatively, we may be dealing with a PN *k.anat and the loss of different segments in the different Nakh daughters.
A derived word klanti/klante exists in Etruscan with the related meaning “adoptive son”, as originally argued in Rix (1958). The derivation of this word illustrates how pre-Etruscan probably had a final -t on klan, rather than looking like *klania, the reconstruction proposed by Rix. An affix -ni can be seen amongst others in e.g. lautni (< *lautV-ni) “freed slave” (< *“person of a family”), and in prumath “grandson” (or similar) / prumathni “adoptive grandson” (?). Thus pre-Etruscan *klant-ni (“person in the role of a son”) developed into klanti while the root form *klant underwent simplification of the final cluster to become klan. The final -t is also dropped in Ingush in the alloform k.ank which is derived from a diminutive *k.ant-ig. The Etruscan affix -ni may be related to the Hurro-Urartian definite article/genitive ending *-ni. Klante/klante does not exhibit ablaut in the genitive in Etruscan, which is an indication that the derived formation meaning “adoptive son” is not a particularly ancient form.
There are also what appear to be reflexes of k.ant in some Western Daghestanian languages: kwint.a in Chamalal and Tinda, meaning “male”, and kunt.a in the other Andian languages meaning “male” or “husband”, where the glottalisation has been shifted to the second syllable, probably because it is more difficult to glottalise two consonants in the same word.
Rix (1989: 187-192) argues that palatalisation lies behind the vowel change in klan and in two other words he mentions in Etruscan which may show ablaut: sval > sveleri and tham > themiasa. In the absence of any other evidence that hypothetical palatalised consonants exist, the argument seems rather circular. Certainly tham, like klan, has an East Caucasian etymology which may explain its behaviour better. Although t.a:m has the standard plural -aS, it has e in the genitive singular (t.eman) and in all cases in the plural: (t.emaS-). Other examples of /a/ > /e/ ablaut can be seen in Etruscan kar and zaru. Again, these have cognates in Nakh: kara “in the hands”, but probably from a no longer used noun *kar “hand”, is related to ke:rajuq “palm of the hand” (juq = “middle”), which allows us to conclude that when *kar was in use, it showed ablaut; and the Nakh cognate of Etruscan zaru, Chechen verb infinitive sardan, has a present tense of serda. The present participle of Etruscan sval is given by some
21
authorities as svalasi when one would expect *svelasi by analogy with tham > themiasa, but this is not attested anywhere, unlike sveleri, or rather sveleri-c (3 attestations, all in the Liber Linteus). D’Aversa (1994: 47, 48) lists sveleri in two separate entries, meaning both “to be alive” (p. 47) and as “hearths” (p. 48). Whatever the explanation for various words beginning sval- and svel-, it is clear that ablaut occurs in Etruscan in contexts similar to those in Nakh, and often in cognates of those words which demonstrate the phenomenon in Nakh. Another instance of ablaut in the Etruscan verb ar-/er- “to make, to erect” has long been recognised, although not mentioned by Rix, and is not able to be explained by Rix's theory of palatalisation. This too has a possible Nakh cognate in Chechen a:rdan “to make, to produce” (witnessed past tense Erdira). This has probably become confused with dan or =an “to do” in modern Nakh.
c) The non-standard -ii plural
Chechen/Ingush ablaut of /a/ > /e/ both in the genitive and in the plural is more widespread than its congener in Etruscan. Nevertheless it is restricted to a small closed set of monosyllabic nouns with /-a-/ in the stem and having the non-standard nominative plural ending -i: (as opposed to the usual -aS). Another set of nouns in the Veinakh languages has ablaut a > e only in the plural. Unusually, an -ii- can be seen inserted into klan before the standard animate plural ending in the archaic Etruscan kliniiar-. It seems that the -ii- in kliniiar- may be ancient and not discoverably phonologically conditioned (i.e. ablaut, not umlaut), and the additional -ar an innovation which occurred as a levelling analogy in pre-Etruscan. A very similar development probably happened in Nakh, where in Chechen the standard plural ending -aS is used as a theme for some of the case endings in the plural of k.ant, while retaining the ablaut in the root part.
The unusual Nakh plural -i: can also be seen in Chechen vaSa, plural veZari: and its feminine equivalent jiSa, plural jiZari: (cf. the Etruscan alternative attested plural of its cognate huSu, huSiur, with the non-standard -i-, as opposed to the more normal late Etruscan huSur). According to Bonfante and Bonfante (2002: 126), the form huSiur is likely to be older as the inscriptions containing it (ET Pe 5.1/TLE 566 and ET Pe 0.4) are from Perugia, in a peripheral and therefore more conservative area. The inserted -i- in the plural is only to be found in Etruscan in kliniiar and huSiur : no other nouns are found with this feature in Etruscan. In this case, because these two nouns constitute a closed class in Etruscan, and their cognates belong to a closed class in Nakh, the likelihood of this evidence of occurring by chance can be calculated and the congruence of the irregularities listed here again constitutes evidence of an individual-identifying nature [17].
22
V. Other core vocabulary
There are several key core vocabulary items for Etruscan which have not been included in the lexical data above. Their absence does not invalidate the proof of relatedness, as genealogical inheritance is not determined by lexical correspondences. In extreme cases the lexical material can be largely or wholly replaced from one or a number of sources and yet the structure of the language still can be inherited from some other source. In less extreme cases, such as English, large proportions of the lexicon are borrowed from Latin and French, but without this affecting English’s status as a Germanic language. Although there are a large number of cultural and other borrowings in Etruscan from Greek (e.g. *fruntak “(thunder and lightning) augurer” from Greek bronte: “thunder”), the Italic languages (e.g kletram “trolley (for offerings)” from Umbrian kletra), the Indo-European Anatolian languages (e.g. spanti “dish” from Hittite ispantuzzi), Hattic (e.g. zilath “praetor” from Hattic zilat “throne”), and Punic (e.g. Sar “ten” from Punic ?asr), a large proportion of the known and understood vocabulary of Etruscan is of native etymology, and a reasonable percentage of this does appear in the correspondences above, bearing in mind the relative distance of the relationship.
However, it has been suggested that certain items of vocabulary are more resistant to borrowing than others, and thus are more indicative of genealogical affinity. This assumption is mistaken, particularly as regards personal pronouns, as shown in Nichols (1996: 54-56). Nevertheless, it is worth looking at the major omissions among the clear correspondences between Etruscan and Nakh-Daghestanian as shown so far.
a) The personal pronoun mi/mini “I/me”.
The pronouns mi and mini are often proposed as evidence of a relationship between Etruscan and Indo-European. However, the Etruscan forms mipi and minpi or minipi, which are part of the same paradigm are rarely mentioned or explained in such proposals, because no such paradigm exists in Indo-European. An explanation for them is available by looking at a similar postposition to the Etruscan -pi, meaning “under” in Urartian, and which comes in two forms, -pei/-pe (indefinite) and -nepei/-nepe (definite). Although the meaning has become more general in Etruscan, the form of the correspondence is suspiciously paradigmatic.
The -ne- in Urartian is the Hurrian and Urartian -ni used as a definite article and as a genitive. The Urartian -pei may be reflex of the Hurrian pahi meaning “head”. In situations of language contact, the use of nouns as sources for adpositions is common, and it is also easy to see how a root meaning “head” could acquire the meaning “under” rather than “on top”. A further parallel is to be found in the Etruscan postposition pen, which retained the meaning “under”, which can be compared with the Urartian -peine/-pene, used as a sublative-ablative ending in the indeterminate declension (determinate -nepeine/-nepene).
The ending -ni in mini which is claimed by some to be associated with the accusative *-m in PIE, is better understood in Etruscan as a definite accusative, or as a definite which happens to be used mostly with syntactic accusatives, rather than simply an accusative in the IE model, as explained by Pfiffig (1958), who also points to Urartian as a parallel.
The Etruscan mipi/minpi/minipi is mostly to be found in inscriptions containing … ei mi(n(i))pi kapi …, or similar, meaning “… don't touch me …”, as in e.g. ET Cm 2.46/TLE 13: kupes fulusla thevruknas mi ei minpi kapi mi nunar, “I am of the vessel of Fulu Thevrucna; do not touch me; I am an offering”. Here kapi requires the -pi form of the pronoun. This is reminiscent of Lezgi, where the verb kEGun “to touch” similarly requires the subessive case for its object. Note also the correspondence here between Etruscan ei “don't” (<*ai ?) and Urartian ui “don't” (Etruscan a or au = PHU *u medially). Again we see in Etruscan the genitive being used with complements of copulative sentences as in ND.
The ending -pi can also be found in Etruscan in the word spurepi, in the tomb inscriptions ET Vs 1.299 and ET Vs 8.1 eknate vipies thui + spurepi “Eknate Vipies here; up to / towards / under / for the city”. The two inscriptions are from the same tomb and belong together as shown in Tamburini (1986). The reading spurepi is taken from Rix and Meiser (1990). Tamburini reads this word as spurepu. As an independent word, pi is also found in the inscription ET Ve 3.34/TLE 45: mi th[……….]niies: aritimi pi turan pi nuna[r] “I am Th……'s: offering for Artemis (and) for Turan (Venus)”.
Although Etruscan mi “I” and the oblique form mini are often used as a major piece of supposed evidence alleging a relationship with Indo-European, they could equally have been used try to suggest a relationship with Uralic, or
23
Kartvelian, or Altaic instead, because there are forms which resemble them in all three of these other language families too. Predictably, mi/mini has also recently been used to allege a relationship between Etruscan and the Niger-Congo languages, which also have similar first person forms (Campbell-Dunn, no date). The Indo-European nominative form has been reconstructed as *eghom, and the Indo-Anatolian languages have something like the Hittite ammuk, so any “Peri-Indo-European” theory would have account for Etruscan not resembling these. Pronouns can be borrowed too, of course, despite what is often claimed by the proponents of macro-comparison, and it would be foolish to deny that the effects of contact with IE could be a possible factor in the adoption of mi in Etruscan. Of the East Caucasian languages only Urartian has a first person pronoun like the Etruscan mi, in its oblique enclitic -me. While some may see this particular form as evidence of Urartian borrowing from, or even having a relationship with IE (as proposed by Dzhaukjan 1963: 108), the behaviour of personal and demonstrative pronouns in the Daghestanian language Udi might support the idea that both Urartian -me and Etruscan mi are native to East Caucasian.
As explained by Schulze(-Fürhoff) (1994), we can see in the history of Udi that it has a set of demonstrative pronouns which originally mirrored the perspective of the personal pronouns, including me “this (near me)”, which has reflexes in most other Nakh-Daghestanian languages. This is further discussed in Schulze (2003). Modern usage of me in Udi has become confused with the third person pronouns or attributes or demonstratives t.e and Se. This system may have been more complex in the past, and the decision about which pronoun to use is and was idiosyncratic. It is easy to see how such a system, which according to Alekseev (2001) and Schulze represents the historical arrangement within Nakh-Daghestanian, could lead to a reflex of me being used as a personal pronoun, or perhaps even provide an explanation for the “speaking vessel” phenomenon where “this” and “I” appear to be confused. A further interesting feature in the conservative Wartashen dialect of Udi is that the absolutive case of me and the other demonstratives use a deictic particle -n- (like the -ni in Hurro-Urartian) as their theme, as in me-n-o, which parallels the -ni- in mini and minipi. Shevoroshkin and Manaster Ramer (1991), discussing proposals by V.V. Ivanov relating Etruscan to both the Nakh-Daghestanian and the North West Caucasian languages, mention that in one of his papers Ivanov glosses Etruscan mi as “this”. This is wishful thinking. Virtual bilinguals in Venetic and Faliscan with almost identical contexts to many Etruscan inscriptions involving mi clearly show that Etruscan mi means “I/me”.
However, the other known Etruscan personal pronouns, un “you”, an “he, she”, and in “it”, do not support a relationship with Indo-European, but with Hurro-Urartian and Nakh-Daghestanian.
b) Family relationship and related words: sex, puia, ruva, neft, ati, apa, *axalethur
There is no immediately obvious Nakh cognate for Etruscan sex “daughter”. However, often an initial consonant in an inherited PND word is substituted in the daughter languages by a CM whatever the nature of the initial consonant was (see Nichols 2003: 210), and not just if it was /h/ as suggested by item 13, Etruscan huS(u) “child, boy” : Nakh v-aSa/j-iSa “brother, sister”, and also by items 17 and 47 in the phonological correspondences above. In the same way Etruscan sex may also be related to Chechen v-o3, j-o3 “boy”, “girl”. The PN for this word can be reconstructed as *=oh and this might be regularly cognate with a putative Etruscan *Cex. However, such a lexical correspondence must be considered speculative, because if the initial consonant for this root was not originally /h/, we cannot know what it was. The correspondences between laterals in ND and Etruscan are not quite clear, and this probably applies to HU too. This might bring Hurrian Sala and Urartian s@la: into the equation as possible cognates. Alternatively, there may be a connection with Chechen stie (Ingush sie) “female”.
Etruscan puia “wife” has long been linked with the Greek opuio “to marry (of a man)”. There are no obvious IE cognates for the Greek word, but opuio may in turn be from a corruption of Greek potnia “mistress”, which does have an IE pedigree, and thus if the two are linked, then puia is a borrowing from the Greek. On the other hand, the Etruscan word may have nothing to do with one or other or both of the Greek words. Interestingly, one of the leading Urartian goddesses was Tush-puea, wife of the sun-god Shivini, and there are a number of proper names beginning with tush- in Urartian culture, e.g. the king Tush-ratta, and the capital city Tush-pa, and the word tush is still used in an ethnic sense in the Caucasus today, so segmenting the word as Tush-puea is legitimate. It is possible that the Etruscan puia may be related to the Urartian puea, although the latter word is not attested outside of an onomastic context. It is possible that there is also a link to a ND root for wife, e.g. the Lezgi pab (oblique stem papa), which might relate regularly to something like *puwu in Nakh or HU. However, this root is not to be found in the other ND languages.
24
Etruscan ruva “brother” does not appear to have any obvious cognates in the ND languages because of the widespread use of reflexes of Etruscan huS(u) with a masculine CM for this meaning. However, the previous root may survive in the Lezgi word ruxwa-jar “sons”. This is a suppletive plural for the singular xwa.
The inscription mi ruas on the Roccia delle Spade at Piancogno, near Brescia in northern Italy, has been suggested as evidence of a relationship between the language of the Camunic inscriptions (which include those at Piancogno) and the Etruscan language because of the similarity of rua- to the Etruscan word ruva. Another inscription at nearby Bedolina has pueia (see Zavaroni 2001). It is not clear whether the word or words in the Roccia delle Spade inscription should be divided as shown, or whether a nearby >h< is not part of the word. The Camunic inscriptions (those that appear to be in a writing system at all) are all extremely short, and it is by no means certain that these inscriptions are all even in the same language or from the same period. We have no idea what any of the inscriptions mean, and therefore any suggestion that Camunic is related to Etruscan is highly premature.
Etruscan neft and Lemnian naphoth have long been linked by Etruscologists to the PIE root *nepo:t and its reflexes in its daughter languages meaning “nephew” or “grandson”. It is not certain which of these two meanings the Etruscan word has, but it certainly refers to some sort of family relationship. With the Lemnian word we can be less sure of the meaning. Linking these Etruscan and Lemnian words with the PIE word is an almost compulsory part of any proposal suggesting a remote relationship between Etruscan and IE. This is perhaps inspired by macro-comparatist Merritt Ruhlen's justification for expecting cognates to look similar in supposedly related languages belonging to hypothetical deep macro-families (1994: 270), where he points to modern Romanian nepot having managed to survive around 6000 years from PIE almost unchanged. However, here they are clearly borrowings (if the Lemnian word has anything to do with neft at all). Etruscan ati “mother” and apa “father” have also been suggested as possibly related to IE words, as in Perrotin (1999: 50-53), and arguably one could do the same with Nakh-Daghestanian. However, “mother” and “father” are particularly unsuitable for use as evidence of a genealogical relationship because their universal tendency for sound symbolism.
There is, however, a plausible Nakh-Daghestanian etymology for the Etruscan word *axalethur or *akalethur “children”. This word is reconstructed from the ancient Greek gloss TLE 802 agale:tora = paida, which should be considered a plural rather than the singular that it is glossed as, and it should be segmented as *ax/kale-th-ur with *ax/kale meaning “youth”, and *ax/kale-th-ur “those who are in their youth”. This needs to be considered together with the Latin gloss TLE 801 Aclus Tuscorum lingua Iunius mensis dicitur, which corresponds to the attested Etruscan word akale “June”. A metaphorical (or accidental) relationship of youth and summer is not unique to Etruscan and (hence?) its neighbour Latin. It is also present in Nakh-Daghestanian, where we have the Ingush axka “summer” and similar words in Chechen and Batsbi, and words for “child” or “youth” in a number of Daghestanian languages such as Lezgi ajal, Budukh ajel, Khinalug h?`EjEl etc.
c) Demonstrative pronouns: eka, eta “this, that”
It has been suggested that the Etruscan deictics like eka, eta (also ka, ta in later Etruscan, ika/ita in archaic Etruscan) are related to similar deictics with velars and dentals which have been reconstructed for PIE. Unlike almost all individual languages descended from PIE, a number of ND languages have deictics with velars and deictics with dentals in the same language, and could have been listed as part of the correspondences above without much difficulty. Proponents of a relationship with IE also point to the definite accusative forms ek(a)n, et(a)n, kn, tn but the existence of forms such as etanal and knl in other cases shows -n- being used as a theme extension and that forms that appear to be simple accusatives are not so simple at all.
In any event, forms involving -k- and -t- are so common as deictics in the languages of the world that to list these as part of a claim of genealogical relationship would have little or no diagnostic value.
d) Other core vocabulary: lupu “die”, avil “year”, ais “god”
While some of these are not particularly key items of vocabulary in any universal sense, all of these are very much key as far as Etruscan is concerned, being among their most attested words, and among those whose meaning is most unassailable. The absence of lupu may be that it is an innovation due to taboo just like manim arke, a known avoidance expression for “died”, literally “made manim” (became a spirit?).
25
Avil may be related to the Hurrian Sawala and Urartian Sa:l@. Here we see the loss of a mobile sibilant that may also be the case in Etruscan Tages : Chechen (s)tag. The Nakh and Daghestanian words for “year”, such as Chechen So, may be cognate with the HU but have perhaps deleted a different segment.
It is possible that a mobile /s/ has been deleted in the Etruscan word for “fire”. This word is to be found in the only Etruscan phrase (as opposed to single word) which is glossed by an ancient author, TLE 812: Arseverse averte ignem significat. Tuscorum enim lingua arse averte, verse ignem constat appelari. This would imply *arse “avoid” and *verse “fire”. There is no guarantee that the phrase has been segmented correctly by the ancient author. In ET Cr 4.4 aknasverS is to be found, meaning “offering fire”. This might suggest that TLE 812 should be segmented as something like *ar severeS. On the other hand, Pfiffig argues for -se as one of the imperative endings for the Etruscan verb. Sveleri “hearths”, mentioned above, may be the plural of the word for “fire” but with a thematic extension of -r- in the singular being changed to -l- in the plural because of dissimilation. It may be that this extension -er-, or similar, which is a feature of the ND words for “fire”, for example Chechen ts.e (“fire” (absolutive case)”), ts.eruo (ergative), ts.erS (plural), is also present in Etruscan. The Hurrian tari “fire” may be related to the ND words, or alternatively, it may be an ancient borrowing from IE (Ivanov 1999: 158 ff.).
Etruscan ais “god” and aisna “divine” have often been associated with the Umbrian esono- “divine”, but if it is borrowed, then the direction of the borrowing is uncertain. Ivanov (1999: 151-153) suggests a relationship of the Etruscan aisar “gods” with Hurrian enZari (“gods” (collective)), also attested as einSari, and ultimately a link with surviving forms in modern West Caucasian languages.
None of these lexical gaps or borrowings are sufficient to cast doubt on the nature of the genealogical relationship between Etruscan and Nakh-Daghestanian which has been suggested by the individual-identifying nature of some of the paradigms and irregularities presented in earlier sections.
26
VI. A genealogical relationship, borrowing or substrate?
Finally, the possibility that the features that Etruscan has in common with the Nakh-Daghestanian languages are due to borrowing, or substrate or similar influence, or indeed the possibility of Etruscan not being a language transmitted “in the normal way” (and thus not having a genealogical parent at all) both need to be examined. The requirements of the comparative method are clear. Thomason and Kaufman (1988: 8) express these as follows: “[G]iven the possibility of diffused linguistic features of all sorts (and, by implication, to all degrees), no single subsystem is criterial for establishing genetic relationship. In fact, genetic relationship in the traditional sense of one parent per language can only be posited when systematic correspondences can be found in all linguistic subsystems – vocabulary, phonology, morphology, and (we would add) syntax as well.” There are two fundamental areas where Etruscan differs from Nakh-Daghestanian languages:
i) Phonology
Even if the writing system of Etruscan does not reveal its true variety, the phonology of Etruscan still appears to be simpler than that of the Nakh languages and especially of the Daghestanian languages. The Nakh languages have around 40 consonant phonemes and around 20 vowels including diphthongs. The Daghestanian languages are even richer in consonants – Avar has 46, Lezgi 54, and Archi 70, but they have a simpler vowel inventory than Nakh. Thus, either Etruscan's historical development has led to simplification of its phonemic inventory, or some process has led Nakh, and especially Daghestanian, to acquire additional consonant phonemes, perhaps as a result of contact with the West Caucasian languages, or perhaps a combination of both processes has occurred. If Hurro-Urartian is related to both Etruscan and Nakh-Daghestanian, it is noteworthy that both Hurrian and Urartian, like Etruscan, have a relatively modest phonemic inventory, although this may again be masked to some extent by the writing systems, which may not have properly recorded the distinctions of manner of articulation, such as the use of a glottalic airstream mechanism and/or tenseness/laxness contrasts, or secondary articulations, such as pharyngealisation, labialisation or palatalisation, which feature in the Nakh-Daghestanian systems.
It is clearly reasonable to suppose that at least some phonological changes of a simplifying nature have taken place in Etruscan's prehistory, and that these changes, at least partially, have an external causation, i.e. language contact, but this need not necessarily question Etruscan’s status as a language largely transmitted in the normal way, despite the significant role of language shift of sections of the Etruscan population from an Italic language to Etruscan. It is possible that this language shift may not have been very abrupt or comprehensive, particularly among the rural poor, and the extent of the survival of Italic among (illiterate) sections of the population for some time after the establishment of ethnic Etruscan hegemony in the area may have remained undocumented rather than non-existent. A more gradual language shift from Italic to Etruscan would make normal genealogical transmission within Etruscan less in doubt. Whatever the extent and nature of this significant language shift, Etruscan did not adopt an Italic phonology, but instead retained its own phonological peculiarities, albeit in simplified form, and this would point to normal transmission largely continuing uninterrupted. By contrast, the later terminal language shift from Etruscan to Latin was complete, and relatively rapid.
ii) Absence of class marking
The most important key feature of Nakh-Daghestanian grammar which is not shared by Etruscan is class marking, and specialists in ND have traditionally regarded items of vocabulary which show class marking to be among the more ancient members of the ND lexicon. However, we have seen above that at least some instances of class marking show signs of having occurred as innovations. This fact does not necessarily call into question the analysis of class marking in Nakh-Daghestanian in general as being a relatively ancient phenomenon. However, it does underline the fact that class marking, like all grammatical features, can be introduced into languages that did not previously have it. It is completely lacking in Etruscan and its closest relatives and in Hurro-Urartian, and, unlike those Lezgian languages which do not now have class marking, neither Etruscan nor Hurrian/Urartian show signs of ever having had it. It is reasonable, on the basis of the balance of evidence so far, to suppose that Etruscan is more closely related to Nakh-Daghestanian than either of them are to Hurro-Urartian, and that hence the ancestor of Hurro-Urartian was the first to split from the common ancestor of Etruscan, Hurro-Urartian and Nakh-Daghestanian (which we could refer to as Proto-Alarodian for want of a better suggestion), followed by Proto-Tyrrhenian at some point thereafter. Proto-Tyrrhenian and Proto-Hurro-Urartian thus never formed a separate clade of their own. Proto-Alarodian also did not have class marking, and Proto-Nakh-Daghestanian, or all of its daughters, acquired it as an
27
innovation at some later date, perhaps due to the influence of West Caucasian object markers or Akkadian personal pronouns.
Other typological differences, such as the existence of a weak past tense, discussed above, and the existence of a relative pronoun in Etruscan (Etruscan has a relative pronoun ipa, while Nakh-Daghestanian languages implement relative clauses in other ways) are innovations, unlike the absence of class marking which may be an archaism.
Those features which are not shared by Etruscan's proposed relatives are not sufficient to cast doubt on the shared features which are diagnostic of a genealogical linguistic relationship between Etruscan and Nakh-Daghestanian. In ascending order of importance, these are:
i) Cognate key items of vocabulary supported by regular sound correspondences.
ii) Agreement of the majority of key grammatical morphological items, above all the identity of the morphology relating to decade and iterative numerals, and shared allomorphy of sibilants and laterals in the case system, some of which constitute individual-identifying evidence.
iii) Evidence of a number of shared irregularities: shared ablaut patterns, and shared theme extensions in the same specific cognate words, which in some cases also constitutes individual-identifying information.
It is this third type of evidence which is crucial. As Curnow (2001: 422) points out, every language-contact situation comes with a particular social context, and thus with different constraints on borrowing. The borrowing of such features as (iii) is inconceivable except in the context of quite pervasive influence from a prestige language and widespread literacy. Thus, while it is understandable that in modern German the plural of Tempus is Tempora (for those who use the word), and in modern English, at least for a (sadly, declining) proportion of educated speakers, phenomenon is singular and phenomena plural, hardly anyone except specialists in Inuit knows that the plural of anorak “should really be” anorat. Thus Etruscan huSiur and kliniiar can only be explained by having been inherited “in the normal way” from a common ancestor. Etruscan’s affinities with Nakh-Daghestanian are therefore not the result of language contact, or of substrates, adstrates, superstrates or creolisation, but of a genealogical relationship. Furthermore the degree of the relationship is fully consistent with the widely supported historical model (such as proposed in Beekes 2003) which proposes an Anatolian origin for the Etruscans, and its associated chronology, and although there is relatively limited evidence of an individual-identifying nature, we can now regard the genealogical relationship between Etruscan (and its closest relatives Lemnian and Raetic), and the Nakh-Daghestanian language family as having been proved.
Nichols (1996: 48 ff.) sets out the stages of the work of the comparative method which follow the achievement of “(1) Assume genetic relatedness on the strength of diagnostic evidence”. These are: “(2) work out sound correspondences and cognate sets, thereby establishing an internal classification for the family; (3) uncover and reconstruct more diagnostic evidence; (4) bring more languages into the family as daughters”. Obviously, in the case of Etruscan, there are many tasks which remain to be done in addition to these, including revising and extending our understanding of the grammar and lexicon of the language, and our interpretations of Etruscan texts. We can expect more advances, piece by piece, as we have seen in Etruscology for much of the past 60 years, as new research builds on the findings of previous generations of scholars. This is not so much a breakthrough as a signpost.
The author welcomes comments and criticisms. These should be sent to ERobert52 (at) aol (dot) com. This version is a draft of a work in progress. The author asserts copyright over this work, but permits its circulation in full for non-commercial purposes provided this notice is included.
28
Notes
[1]. Following Haspelmath (2004: 222), the term “genealogical” has been used here to refer to linguistic inheritance, as opposed to “genetic”, the hitherto more usual term in English, in order to avoid confusion with biological genetics.
[2]. The Nakh-Daghestanian languages are a phylum of about 30 languages spoken by more than 2.5 million people mostly in the North Caucasus and adjacent areas. The best-known members of this family are Chechen, Avar, Lezgi and Ingush. Many of the others are spoken in only a few villages, and some of these may be expected to become extinct this century. The major sub-groupings of Nakh-Daghestanian are Nakh and Daghestanian. Nakh, formerly referred to as North Central Caucasian, consists of Chechen, Ingush and Batsbi, the last of these spoken by only about 500 people, a proportion of the inhabitants of a single village in eastern Georgia. Chechen and Ingush are quite closely related to one another and are together known as the Veinakh languages. Daghestanian is a more diversified grouping comprising the remainder of the languages in the phylum. One extinct Daghestanian language, Aghwan, possibly an ancestor of modern Udi, is known from inscriptions dating from the 5th to the 8th centuries of the CE. The term North East Caucasian, or East Caucasian, was formerly used to refer to the Daghestanian branch, but now is more often used to refer to the phylum as a whole. The existence of a genealogical relationship between these two sub groupings is no longer seriously doubted by specialists. A relationship between Nakh-Daghestanian and the ancient Hurro-Urartian languages of Anatolia has been proposed by Diakonoff (1971), and more fully in Diakonoff and Starostin (1986). This has not met with general acceptance as a proof, although there is widespread sympathy for the hypothesis, and the possibility is discussed in a number of earlier works, e.g. Desheriev (2006 [1963]). Specialists are divided on whether there is a discoverable remoter relationship between Nakh-Daghestanian and the (North-)West Caucasian languages such as Abkhazian and Kabardian, and some have proposed that these two phyla are in turn ultimately related to Sino-Tibetan and Na-Dené. Neither of these possibilities has been explored here, and the latter suggestion is highly speculative. However, Hattic, which may be related to West Caucasian (according to, for example, Chirikba 1996: 406 ff.), was arguably in contact with the ancestor of Etruscan. The Kartvelian languages such as Georgian are not discoverably related to the Nakh-Daghestanian languages, but have been in close contact with them for over 5000 years. The idea of a remote relationship between all three indigenous Caucasian language phyla was at one time a widespread act of faith among Soviet linguists, and has hence been echoed in some amateur proposals of relatedness with Etruscan, but is no longer seriously supported outside Georgia. There have also been claims of a link between Etruscan and Kartvelian by some commentators, including some professional linguists such as Furnée (1993), who also includes Burushaski in his grouping. Furnée proposes a number of isoglosses, which are probably mostly coincidences, but it is possible that his list contains some examples of very ancient Kartvelian loans which could have been adopted into the ancestor of Etruscan (or vice versa) due to prehistoric contacts in eastern Anatolia, e.g. Etruscan tiu, tiur “moon”, “month” (cf. Modern Georgian tov “month”).
[3]. Bonfante and Bonfante (2002: 226), and Mallory (1989: 89), for example, list the Etruscan numerals side by side with their equivalents from several ancient IE languages to demonstrate precisely this point. It is now generally accepted that Etruscan is not an isolate and is, as a minimum, closely related to the marginally attested Lemnian and Raetic languages. See, for example, Steinbauer (1999: 363 ff.), and Rix (1998) respectively for proof of the relationship of these languages to Etruscan. These three languages are together referred to in the literature as constituting a genealogical group descended from a hypothetical earlier Proto-Tyrrhenian or Proto-Tyrsenic language. It is possible, or even likely, that there are further members of this group which have not been identified, or are not attested. The stage ancestral to Etruscan’s historical attestation, but common to the three known Tyrrhenian/Tyrsenic languages, is referred to in the present study as Pre-Etruscan in the absence of a comprehensive reconstruction of Proto-Tyrrhenian/Tyrsenic.
[4]. This has not prevented vague and unsystematic proposals of relationships which include claims involving Etruscan numerals. See Zavaroni (1996: 53 ff.) and Pittau (1997: 93 ff.) asserting a relationship with Indo-European, Semerano (2003: 37 ff.) with Afroasiatic, throwing in Sumerian for good measure, Gluhak (2002: 183 ff.) with the hypothetical Nostratic macrofamily, and so on. Many proposals claiming a relationship with Indo-European simply ignore the question of the numerals altogether, such as those of Georgiev (1954, 1972), Adrados (1989), Woudhuizen (1991), Perrotin (1999; his 2000 paper presents a much more balanced view), Greenberg (2000/2002), Bomhard (2002) and many others. Most of these base their claims on a small recurring group of lexical items and short morphological segments which accidentally resemble their counterparts in Indo-European, or which are clearly borrowed. There is no space to examine them in detail here, but they do not attempt to show regular sound correspondences, and often contain misrepresentations of Etruscan grammar and historical developments. Some older theories that Etruscan is associated with Indo-European in some sort of “Indo-Tyrrhenian” or “Peri-Indo-
29
European” macro-family (e.g. Kretschmer 1941 et seq., and Devoto 1944 et seq.) seem to be based on practically no linguistic evidence at all.
[5]. A relatively minor example of this can be found in Zavaroni (1996: 54-55), for example, who argues that ET Ta 1.108 (TLE 891) supports the existence of an Etruscan numeral *enva “9” supposedly related to the Greek ennea. This reading cannot be supported on epigraphical grounds, and there are good combinatorial reasons for rejecting this. Zavaroni claims that the inscription should be interpreted as meaning “Palazui Thana, having borne nine sons in the course of time, died”. The word *avilsth, glossed by Zavaroni as “in the course of time”, is unattested elsewhere, and if it did exist, would be more likely to mean “at the age of”. A nine-year-old girl giving birth to multiple children and then dying would be highly tragic, but also highly unlikely. Transcribing the version proposed in ET, the inscription reads palazui thana / avils . thenza . huSur / aknanas . manim : arke in the orthography used here. The reading avils . thenza is clearly implied by the interpuncts and interpreting this as an abbreviation for avils thunem zathrum “aged 19” is considerably more plausible. Zavaroni’s transgressions against the combinatorial method are mild, however, compared with various offerings on the internet, where Etruscan, and sometimes in the same breath every kind of “mysterious” document from the Phaistos Disk to the Voynich Manuscript, is variously described and “deciphered” as a form of Turkish anagrams, Latin written backwards, modern Ukrainian/Lithuanian/Albanian, or even “archaic Hungarian” (the Hungarians only arrived in Europe at the end of the 9th century CE). Then there are those whose trade is not fantasy but conscious deception, and whose “scientific” method consists in faking illustrations of well-known inscriptions to read differently and thus fit their favoured hypotheses, as in Foscarini (1996: 292).
[6]. There are a number of unscientific or vague proposals involving a relation between Nakh-Daghestanian and Etruscan, often together with unrelated languages, going back at least to Ellis (1886). Among serious linguists, V. V. Ivanov (1988 and a number of other papers before and after this) has also proposed a small number of Etruscan/North Caucasian (i.e. North West Caucasian and Nakh-Daghestanian) isoglosses, which overlap with those in Orël and Starostin (1990).
[7]. See, for example, the critiques by Shakhbieva (1998) and Nichols (2003).
[8]. Koryakov (2002) expresses doubts about whether Nakh and Daghestanian are valid clades and prefers to group Nakh together with the West Daghestanian Avar-Andi-Tsezian languages, the rest of Daghestanian constituting a separate grouping within Nakh-Daghestanian. This arrangement is not followed in the present study. In the view of Nichols (2003), Nakh separated from Daghestanian only shortly before the break-up of Daghestanian itself. Koryakov also treats Galanchozh, an unwritten dialect transitional between Chechen and Ingush, as a separate language, but this classification is not generally made and is not followed here. Within Daghestanian, Starostin and others have proposed that Dargwa should be classified with Lezgian rather than with Lak, and that Khinalug should not be included within Lezgian. The traditional classification is followed here, but should not be taken as rejection of any alternative arrangement within Daghestanian.
[9]. SAMPA [Speech Assessment Methods Phonetic Alphabet] is a mapping of the symbols of the IPA onto the 7-bit ASCII character set for ease of use in email and other computer contexts. For further information on SAMPA see http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/sampa/home.htm. There is not as yet a publicly agreed standard for transcribing the Nakh-Daghestanian languages into SAMPA, and the symbols used here for representing glottalic consonants differs from the extension proposed in Wells (1995) to the basic SAMPA system, the unvoiced dental glottalic stop being shown in the present study as /t./ and not /t_>/, for example.
[10]. See Alekseev (2003: 204), for example.
[11]. Exceptions are Hamp (1958) and Steinbauer (1999).
[12]. While this archaism is often true of Batsbi phonologically, it does not mean that we should necessarily expect Batsbi grammatical forms to be more ancient, or its phonology to be more ancient in all cases. Batsbi is moribund, with children no longer learning the language, and it is in the process of being replaced by Georgian, with the attendant simplification of Batsbi’s formal grammar. There are also instances of historical ablaut which survive in Chechen and Ingush, but have been lost in Batsbi.
[13]. Cited in D’Aversa (2003: 56).
30
[14]. Vinum is usually assumed to have been borrowed from Latin into Etruscan. However, the Etruscans and the Greeks introduced systematic viticulture to Italy. Why should a language of Anatolian origin, of all places, need to borrow its word for wine from a language whose speakers were not yet great wine producers? The Etruscan word fanu is also assumed to be borrowed, from Latin fanum, yet here the -m has not been preserved in the Etruscan, and in the more numerous Etruscan borrowings of Greek neuter nouns, the final Greek -n is also not preserved.
[15]. This paradigm agreement far exceeds that demanded to fit into Nichols’ category of “interesting”. Taking her values of 1 in 20 for a consonant correspondence, 1 in 5 for a vowel correspondence, and 1 in 2 for any vowel versus no vowel. We can calculate a probability of 1 in 5 x 20 x 20 x 5 = 1 in 10000 for -alx(u), and 1 in 20 x 2 x 2 = 1 in 400 for -z/-zV, giving a total probability for these two chief items of numerical morphology of 1 in 4000000. We cannot multiply the probability of -z/-zV by a further 20 because the two iterative forms are related, not independent. This probability has to be divided by 2 for counting a correspondence between the unvoiced velar fricative and the voiced one in Nakh, and by 2 again for counting a decade as matching with an ordinal (even though it is cognate with decade endings in Daghestanian). This leaves us with a maximum value of 1 in 1000000, but only if the distinction between the two Etruscan iteratives is genuinely [+/- emphasis]. If not, then the chances are less, which makes the correspondence borderline individual-identifying.
[16]. Zavaroni in fact does not even go through the motions of proposing a relationship between Etruscan and Indo-European, but simply assumes it and behaves as if it is self-evident. He has even admitted that he would not know how to propose such a relationship anyway (personal communication).
[17]. Out of many thousands of native nouns in Nakh, about 140 have an -i plural, perhaps roughly a 1/50 chance. The chances of two Etruscan nouns at random both having cognates in the -i plural class is therefore roughly 1/2500. However, if these two nouns are known to be the only nouns in Etruscan that have an -i- plural, we are talking about a closed class of perhaps 1/100 of the known and generally agreed Etruscan lexicon, giving a chance of about 1 in 250000 languages having this feature by chance. If we adopt a margin of two orders of magnitude, the absolute maximum number of languages we could ever expect to have this feature by chance is about 2. So again, this inherited feature is borderline individual-identifying.
31
Abbreviations
<x> = grapheme x>x< = transliterated grapheme x/x/ = phoneme x[x] = narrower phonetic transcription of x{chi} = letter name in a non-Roman alphabet
CM = class markerPHU = Proto-Hurro-UrartianPIE = Proto-Indo-EuropeanPN = Proto-NakhPND = Proto-Nakh-Daghestanian
D&S = Diakonoff and Starostin (1986)ET = Rix and Meiser (1991)NDC = Nichols (2003)O&S = Orel and Starostin (1990)RI = Schumacher (1992)TLE = Pallottino (1968)
Appendix
SAMPA symbols
Where the symbols C and V are used in this paper, these should be read as “some unknown consonant” and “some unknown vowel” respectively, and not as their usual values in SAMPA.
@ mid central unrounded vowel{ near-open front unrounded vowel? glottal stop?` unvoiced pharyngeal3 voiced pharyngealB voiced bilabial fricativeE open-mid front unrounded vowelG voiced velar fricativek. glottalic unvoiced velar plosivek' palatalised unvoiced velar plosivel' palatalised lateral approximantL lateral fricative or affricaten' palatalised nasalph aspirated unvoiced labial plosiveq. glottalic unvoiced uvular plosive or affricater' palatalised coronal approximantR voiced uvular fricativeS unvoiced postalveolar fricativet. glottalic unvoiced dental or alveolar plosivet' palatalised unvoiced dental or alveolar plosiveth aspirated unvoiced dental or alveolar plosivets unvoiced palatal affricatets. glottalic unvoiced palatal affricateZ voiced postalveolar fricative
Lower case letters and other symbols not listed here have the same values in SAMPA as in IPA.
32
References
Adrados, Francisco R.: Etruscan as an IE Anatolian (but not Hittite) language, in Journal of Indo-European studies, Vol. 17, Washington, 1989
Alekseev, M. E. and B. M. Ataev: Avarskij jazyk, Moskva: Academia, 1997Alekseev, M. E.: Nakhsko-dagestanskie jazyki in V. N. Jartseva et al. (eds.) Jazyki mira: Kavkazskie jazyki,
Moskva: Academia, 2001Alekseev, M. E.: Sravnitel’no-istoricheskaja morfologija nakhsko-dagestanskikh jazykov: Kategorii imeni,
Moskva: Academia, 2003Beekes, Robert S. P.: The origin of the Etruscans, Amsterdam: Koningklijke Nederlandse Akademie van
Wetenschapen, 2003Belle, Elise M. S. et al.: Serial coalescent simulations suggest a weak genealogical relationship between
Etruscans and modern Tuscans, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 103, No. 21, 2006
Benelli, Enrico: Le iscrizioni bilingui etrusco-latine, Firenze: Leo S. Olschki, 1994Bokarëv, E .A.: Sravnitel’no-istoricheskaja fonetika vostochnokavkazskikh jazykov, Moskva: Nauka, 1981Bomhard, Allan R.: Etruscan, Indo-European and Nostratic, in Fabrice Cavoto (ed.): The linguist’s linguist: A
collection of papers in honour of Alexis Manaster Ramer (Vol. 1), München: Lincom Europa, 2002 Bonfante, Giuliano and Larissa Bonfante: The Etruscan language: An introduction (2nd edition), Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 2002Campbell-Dunn, G. J. C.: The Etruscan decipherment, Internet, no date
(http://home.clear.net/pages/gc_dunn/Etruscans.html)Chirikba, Viacheslav A.: Common West Caucasian, Leiden: CNWS, 1996Cristofani, Mauro: Introduzione allo studio dell’ etrusco (new edn.), Firenze: Leo S. Olschki, 1991Curnow, Timothy Jowan: What language features can be 'borrowed'?, in Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W.
Dixon (eds.) Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001D’Aversa, Arnaldo: Dizionario della lingua etrusca, Brescia: Paideia, 1994D’Aversa, Arnaldo: L’eredità della lingua etrusca, Brescia: Paideia, 2003Desheriev, Ju. D.: Sravnitel'no-istoricheskaja grammatika nakhskikh jazykov i problemy proiskhozhdenija i
istoricheskogo razvitija gorskikh kavkazskikh narodov (2nd edition), Moskva: URSS, 2006 [1963]Devoto, Giacomo: Etrusco e Peri-Indoeuropeo, in Scritti minori (Vol. 2), Firenze: Felice Le Monnier, 1967
[1944/1963]Diakonoff, I. M.: Hurrisch und Urartäisch, München: Kitzinger, 1971Diakonoff, I. M. and S. A. Starostin: Hurro-Urartian as an Eastern Caucasian language, München: Kitzinger,
1986 [Abbreviated as D&S]Duhoux, Yves: L’Étéocrétois: Les textes - la langue, Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1982Dzhaukjan, G. B.: Urartskij i indo-evropejskie jazyki, Erevan: AN Armjanskoj SSR, 1963Ellis, Robert: Sources of the Etruscan and Basque Languages, London: Trübner, 1886Facchetti, Giulio M.: L'enigma della lingua etrusca, Roma: Newton & Compton, 2000Facchetti, Giulio M.: Appunti di morfologia etrusca, Firenze: Leo S. Olschki, 2002Foscarini, Giuseppe: La lingua degli etruschi, Firenze: Loggia de’ Lanzi, 1996Furneé, E. J.: Etruskisch en Burushaski: Vijf opstellen, Leiden: Hakuchi Press, 1993Georgiev, V. I.: Voprosy rodstva sredizemnomorskikh jazykov, in Voprosy jazykoznanija No. 4, 1954Georgiev, V. I.: Sovremennoe sostojanie ‘deshifrovki’ ètrusskogo jazyka, in Voprosy jazykoznanija No. 2, 1972Gluhak, Alemko: On the origin of Etruscan numbers, in Fabrice Cavoto (ed.): The linguist’s linguist: A collection
of papers in honour of Alexis Manaster Ramer (Vol. 1), München: Lincom Europa, 2002Gusmani, Roberto: Lydisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1964Greenberg, Joseph H.: Indo-European and its closest relatives: The Eurasiatic language family (2 vols.), Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 2000/2002Hamp, Eric: Etruscan max “4”?, in Glotta, Vol. XXXVII, Göttingen: Vandenbroeck u. Ruprecht, 1958Handel, Zev: Ingush inflectional verb morphology, in Dee Ann Holisky and Kevin Tuite: Current trends in
Caucasian, East European and Inner Asian linguistics: Papers in honor of Howard I. Aronson, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2003
Haspelmath, Martin: A grammar of Lezgian, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1993Haspelmath, Martin: How hopeless is genealogical linguistics, and how advanced is areal linguistics?, in Studies
in Language, Vol. 28 No. 1, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004Holisky, Dee Ann with Rusudan Gagua: Tsova-Tush (Batsbi), in Rieks Smeets (ed.): The indigenous languages of
the Caucasus, (Vol. 4), Delmar: Caravan, 1994
33
Ivanov, V. V.: Drevnevostochnye svjazi ètrusskogo jazyka, in G. M. Bongard-Levin and V. G. Ardzinba (eds.) Drevnij vostok: Ètnokul’turnye svjazi, Moskva: Nauka, 1988
Ivanov, V. V.: Comparative notes on Hurro-Urartian, Northern Caucasian and Indo-European, in UCLA Indo-European Studies, Vol. 1, Los Angeles, 1999
Jartseva, V. N. et al. (eds.): Jazyki mira: Kavkazskie jazyki, Moskva: Academia, 2001Klimov, G. A. and M. Sh. Khalilov: Slovar’ kavkazskikh jazykov: Sopostavlenie osnovnoj leksiki, Moskva:
Vostochnaja Literatura, 2003Koryakov, Yuri B.: Atlas of Caucasian languages, Moskva: Russian Academy of Sciences, 2002Kretschmer, Paul: Die vorgriechischen Sprach- und Volksschichten, in Glotta, Vols. XXVIII and XXX, Göttingen:
Vandenbroeck u. Ruprecht, 1941/1943Laroche, Emmanuel: Glossaire de la langue hourrite, Paris: Klincksieck, 1980Mallory, J. P.: In search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, archaeology and myth, London: Thames and Hudson,
1989Mańchak, Witold: Das etruskische Numerale s’a, in Glotta, Vol. LXI, Göttingen: Vandenbroeck u. Ruprecht, 1983Melikišvili, G. A.: Die urartäische Sprache, Roma: Biblical Institute Press, 1971Nichols, Johanna: (a) Chechen and (b) Ingush, in Rieks Smeets (ed.): The indigenous languages of the Caucasus,
(Vol. 4), Delmar: Caravan, 1994 Nichols, Johanna: The comparative method as heuristic, in Mark Durie and Malcolm Ross (eds.): The comparative
method reviewed: Regularity and irregularity in language change, New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996
Nichols, Johanna: The Nakh-Daghestanian consonant correspondences, in Dee Ann Holisky and Kevin Tuite: Current trends in Caucasian, East European and Inner Asian linguistics: Papers in honor of Howard I. Aronson, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2003 [Abbreviated as NDC]
Nichols, Johanna and Arbi Vagapov: Chechen-English and English-Chechen dictionary, London/New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004
Nikolayev, S. L. and S. A. Starostin: A North Caucasian etymological dictionary, Moskva: Asterisk, 1994 (a searchable database version of this is available at http://starling.rinet.ru/, which following Starostin’s recent death is now being maintained by his son George)
Orël, Vladimir and Sergei Starostin: Etruscan as an East Caucasian language, in Vitaly Shevoroshkin (ed.): Proto-languages and proto-cultures, Bochum: Brockmeyer, 1990 [Abbreviated as O&S]
Pallottino, Massimo (ed.): Testimonia linguae etruscae (2nd edition), Firenze: Nuova Italia, 1968 [Abbreviated as TLE]
Pallottino, Massimo: Etruscologia (7th edn.), Milano: Hoepli, 1984Perrotin, Damien Erwan: Paroles Etrusques: Liens entre Etrusque et Indo-Européen ancien, Paris: L’Harmattan,
1999Perrotin, Damien Erwan: The position of Etruscan in the western Mediterranean ancient linguistic landscape, in
Language and history Vol. 6 No. 2, 2000Pfiffig, Ambros Josef: Der Akkusativ im Etruskischen, in Glotta, Vol. XXXVII, Göttingen: Vandenbroeck u.
Ruprecht, 1958Pfiffig, Ambros Josef: Die etruskische Sprache: Versuch einer Gesamtdarstellung, Graz: Akademische Druck- u.
Verlagsanstalt, 1969 Pfiffig, Ambros Josef: Die etruskische Religion: Sakrale Stätten - Götter - Kulte - Rituale, Wiesbaden: Albus, 1998
[1975] Pittau, Massimo: La lingua etrusca: Grammatica e lessico, Nùoro: Insula, 1997Pliev, R. S.: Nakhskie jazyki: Kljuch k ètrusskim tajnam, Groznyj: Kniga, 1992Pliev, R. S.: Nakhsko-ètrusskie leksicheskie vstrechi (Kand. Filol. Nauk dissertation), Nal’chik: Kabardino-
Balkarskij Gosudarstvennyj Universitet, 2000Rix, Helmut: Zwei bisher mißdeutete etruskische Verwandschaftsbeziehungen, in Wilhelm Brandenstein et al.
Sybaris: Festschrift Hans Krahe, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1958Rix, Helmut: Das etruskische Cognomen, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1963Rix, Helmut: La scrittura e la lingua, in Mauro Cristofani (ed.): Gli etruschi: una nuova immagine, Firenze: Giunti
Martello, 1984 Rix, Helmut: Zur Morphostruktur des etruskischen s-Genetivs, in Studi Etruschi, Vol. LV, Firenze, 1989Rix, Helmut and Gerhard Meiser (eds.): Etruskische Texte (2 vols.), Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 1991 [Abbreviated as
ET]Rix, Helmut: Rätisch und Etruskisch, Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, 1998Rix, Helmut: Etruscan, in Roger D. Woodard (ed.): Cambridge encyclopedia of the world’s ancient languages,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004Ruhlen, Merritt: On the origin of languages: Studies in linguistic taxonomy, Stanford: Stanford University Press,
1994
34
Schulze(-Fürhoff), Wolfgang: Udi in Rieks Smeets (ed.): The indigenous languages of the Caucasus, (Vol. 4), Delmar: Caravan, 1994
Schulze, Wolfgang: The diachrony of demonstrative pronouns in East Caucasian, in Dee Ann Holisky and Kevin Tuite: Current trends in Caucasian, East European and Inner Asian linguistics: Papers in honor of Howard I. Aronson, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2003
Schumacher, Stefan: Die rätischen Inschriften, Budapest: Archaeolingua, 1992 [Abbreviated as RI]Semerano, Giovanni: Il popolo che sconfisse la morte: Gli etruschi e la loro lingua, Milano: Bruno Mondadori,
2003Shakhbieva, M. Kh.: Problemy nakhskoj ètimologii, in Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta: Serija 9: Filologija,
No. 4, Moskva, 1998Shevoroshkin, Vitaly and Alexis Manaster Ramer: Some recent work on the remote relations of languages, in
Sydney M. Lamb and E. Douglas Mitchell (eds.): Sprung from some common source: Investigations into the prehistory of languages, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991
Starostin, S. A.: Severokavkazskie jazyki, in V. N. Jartseva et al. (eds.) Jazyki mira: Kavkazskie jazyki, Moskva: Academia, 2001
Steinbauer, Dieter H.: Neues Handbuch des Etruskischen, St. Katharinen: Scripta Mercaturae, 1999Tamburini, Pietro: Rivista di epigrafia etrusca No. 6, in Studi etruschi, 1986 [Volume LII, “1984”].Thomason, Sarah Gray and Terrence Kaufman: Language contact, creolization and genetic linguistics, Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1988 Van der Meer, L. B.: Etruscan origins: Language and archaeology, in Bulletin antieke beschaving: Papers on
Mediterranean archaeology, Vol. 79, Leuven: Peeters, 2004 Vernesi, Cristiano et al.: The Etruscans: A population-genetic study, in American journal of human genetics, Vol.
74, 2004Watmough, Margaret M. T.: Studies in the Etruscan loanwords in Latin, Firenze: Leo S. Olschki, 1997Wegner, Ilse: Hurritisch: Eine Einführung, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000Wells, J. C.: Computer coding the IPA: A proposed extension of SAMPA, London, 1995
(http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/sampa/ipasam-x.pdf)Woudhuizen, Fred C.: Etruscan and Luwian, in Journal of Indo-European studies, Vol. 19, Washington, 1991 Zavaroni, Adolfo: I documenti etruschi, Padova: Sherpa, 1996Zavaroni, Adolfo: Iscrizioni camune (Val Camonica inscriptions), Internet, 2001
(http://members.tripod.com/adolfozavaroni/camune.htm)
35
New Studies on Etruscan Personal Names: Gentium Mobilitas
Simona Marchesini
I am pleased to announce to the readers of ENews Online the imminent publication of a book that I am writing for l'Erma di Bretschneider (to be published in 2007). The title is Prosopographia Etrusca, II, 1, Studia. Gentium Mobilitas. The aim of this work is to sketch a picture of ethnic movements and the consequent admixture of people (gentes) in archaic Etruria, especially in the southern part of this territory. Geographical limits are imposed by editorial considerations: My study is based on the names collected in the first volume of Prosopografia Etrusca I, 1, Corpus, edited by Massimo Morandi Tarabella in 2004. The chronological limits are a matter of historical interest. I distinguish the mobility of individuals during the archaic period from the mobility of individuals during the Neo-Etruscan period because of the different social and political implications. The mobility of Neo-Etruscan period, which took place both vertically (socially) and horizontally (among similar groups), has been thoroughly investigated. Our knowledge comes not only from hundreds of inscriptions, but also from parallel situations in the Roman and Italic world. The mobility of people in archaic Etruscan society is more difficult to assess. Research of the last 40 years has stressed the fact that it is a feature of the aristocratic class, but only horizontally, that is to say, in terms of movement from one group (gens) to another. I argue that beneath the conventions of hospitality among principes, which we have come to detect by means of archaeological documents such as groups of bowls with the same inscriptions and by means of tesserae hospitales bearing the name of the host/guest, it is possible to reconstruct a situation of multiform ethnic interchange.
The archaic system of Etruscan name system reveals evidence of this mobility through changes and adaptations of personal names. We know that when different peoples are in contact, they borrow aspects of culture, traditions, and religion from one another; they also borrow elements of language, such as words, personal names, and suffixes. As in other parts of the lexicon, when personal names are borrowed from one language into another they may be altered in different ways depending on the intensity of the contacts and on the chronological period at which they were borrowed. The longer a word is in the borrowing language, the more difficult it is for speakers to ascertain whether that word is a native item or a borrowing. Over time borrowed words undergo ‘nativization’, that is to say, they are
New Studies on Etruscan Personal Names 2
made to conform to the phonological and morphological rules of the borrowing language. This is the case for many Etruscan names that we consider loanwords from other Italic populations but whose ultimate origin we cannot identify without reference to the borrowing language (names such as the Etruscan praenomina Aciie, Αnχε, Ate, Caisie/Kaisie).
The name of an Etruscan aristocrat had two constituents during the archaic period: an individual or personal name (praenomen) and a second or family name ( gentilicium/gentile name). One of the most interesting indicators of the mobility of Etruscan gentes is the Individualnamengentilicium. This term refers to a nomen gentile that is derived from an individual name. For example, if an aristocrat, who came from territory outside of Etruria and had only a individual name, wished to be fully integrated into Etruscan aristocratic society, then that person needed to have a praenomen and most importantly a nomen gentile. In such cases, the foreigner converted his personal name into a nomen and took another first name, one adopted from Etruscan or from the inventory of his own language.
The situation in the Neo-Etruscan period (from the 4th century B.C.) is not analogous. The term Vornamengentilicium, which was coined in 1948 by Emil Vetter and then appropriated by Helmut Rix in 1963 for the archaic period, identifies the bearer of the nomen as originally a member of the lower class who was elevated to a higher social standing. In such situations individuals changed their names to conform to the more prestigious onomastic formula by using their first name as a nomen. Scholars from different disciplines have investigated both archaic and recent name change , e.g., the linguists Carlo de Simone (de Simone 1989a; 1989b; 1990) and Helmut Rix (Rix 1963:342; 1972), the archaeologists Giovanni Colonna (Colonna 1970; 1977) and Mauro Cristofani (Cristofani 1974), and the historian Carmine Ampolo (Ampolo 1975; 1976–1977).
Gentium Mobilitas begins with a summary of the literature on the mobility of peoples and on the name exchange in ancient Italy. The mobility of the aristocracy is investigated via the Etruscan onomastic system, particularly through the phenomenon of the Individualnamengentilicia. I gather together the data on names that function syntactically as gentile, but which are not formed with the typical gentilicial suffixes such as -na and -ra and -θe/-te and -ane. These names are arranged by geography and chronology (from the 7th c. B.C. the end of the 5th c. B.C.). An initial examination of the data suggests that social vertical mobility exists also for the archaic period. Some Individualnamengentilicia, in particular those that are etymologically Etruscan and appear together with a native Etruscan praenomen, support this conclusion. It is possible then that these individuals do not come from
New Studies on Etruscan Personal Names 3
territories outside of Etruria, from other Italic peoples, but from other layers of Etruscan social strata. This idea will be examined in detail in the next stage of my research.
Another chapter examines the suffixes found in nomina. Following the most recent theory of word-formation (for ex. like in Booij 2004), I create a synoptic table of the suffixes in the archaic Etruscan name system . The table displays the different degrees of integration in the adaptation of borrowed names. For example the suffix -na-ie, which is composed of a native Etruscan suffix -na plus an Italic-based suffix -ie, must represent a deeper level of linguistic integration of a foreign name when compared, for example, to a nomen ending in the Italic-based suffix -ie, which shows only phonological adaptation.
An interdisciplinary aspect of my work is a discussion of the social, anthropological, and ethnic considerations emerging from the study of the system of Etruscan names. I hope that my remarks will lead to a debate in other disciplines about these issues within the history of Ancient Italy. In a recent book entitled “The Invention of Races” (“L’invenzione delle razze”), Guido Barbujani (Barbujani 2006), a geneticist of populations, pointed out that the isolation and mobility of population groups are two factors responsible for the creation of different races among the same species, though with opposite effects. Population groups may be isolated by geographical, climatic, or historical constraints, while mobility may depend upon the inherent characteristics of the species and upon the lack of barriers in the territory where they live. Isolation leads to different species, while mobility and genetic exchange among populations lead to the the leveling of diversity among human species and therefore to a more undifferentiated population. These observations from the biological and genetic perspective (probably banal for a geneticist) appear to be relevant when considering the movements of people in Ancient Italy. Barriers, both political and ethnic (Etruscans were non-Indo-Europeans living among Indo-European peoples), must have been very subtle in archaic Italy. Being a member of the aristocracy must have been more important than belonging to a specific ethnic group (Marchesini 2007 (in press)). Ethnic identity, as American anthropologists have been teaching us (see, for example, Brown 2004), can be negotiated around a table; it is not so deeply embedded in ancestry, language or religion. The Etruscan world seems to present us with a similar situation. Author’s address: Dr. Simona Marchesini
New Studies on Etruscan Personal Names 4
Dip.to di Linguistica, Letteratura e Scienze della Comunicazione Viale dell'Università, 4 37129 VERONA [email protected]
References
Ampolo, Carmine. 1975. Gli Aquilii del V secolo a.C. e il problema dei Fasti Consolari più antichi. La Parola del Passato 155:410–416.
—. 1976/1977. Osservazioni sulla mobilità sociale arcaica. Dialoghi di Archeologia 9/10:333–345.
Barbujani, Guido. 2006. L'invenzione delle razze. Milano: Bompiani. Booij, Gert. 2004. The Grammar of Words. An introduction to linguistic
Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brown, Melissa J. Is Taiwan Chinese? The Impact of Culture, Power, and Migration
on Changing Identities. Berkeley: University of California Press. de Simone, Carlo. 1989a. Etrusco Acvilna – latino Aquilius. Un problema di
intercambio onomastico. La Parola del Passato 44:263–280. —. 1989b. Etrusco Tulumne(s) – lat. Tolonio(s) e le formazioni etrusche in -me-
na. Annali dell’ Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli. Sezione linguistica. 11:197–206.
—. 1990. I rapporti linguistici tra gli Etruschi e gli Italici. In Rapporti linguistici e culturali tra i popoli dell´Italia antica, Atti del Convegno della SIG (Pisa, 6–7 ott. 1989). 129–147. Pisa.
Colonna, Giovanni. 1970. Una nuova iscrizione etrusca del VII secolo e appunti sull’epigrafia ceretana dell’epoca. Mélanges d’Archéologie et d'Histoire 82:637–672.
—. 1977. Nome gentilizio e società. Studi Etruschi 45:175–192. Marchesini, Simona. To appear 2007. Intercambio onomastico nell’Italia
Antica. In I Nomi nel tempo e nello spazio, Atti del XXII Congresso Internazionale di Scienze Onomastiche (Pisa 28.8–4.9.2005). Pisa.
Morandi Tarabella, Massimo. 2004. Prosopographia Etrusca I. Corpus 1 Etruria Meridionale. Roma: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider.
Rix, Helmut. 1963. Das etruskische Cognomen. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. —. 1972. Zum Ursprung des italischen Namensystem. Aufstieg und Niedergang
der römischen Welt; Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung: Von den Anfängen Roms bis zum Ausgang der Republik, hrsg. von Hildagard Temporini, I,2:702-758. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.
New Studies on Etruscan Personal Names 5
Vetter, Emil. 1948. Die etruskische Personennamen leθe, leθi, leθia und die Namen umfreier oder halbfreier Personen bei den Etrusker. Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 37:57–112.
Abbreviations
abl. ablative case (noun)acc. accusative case (noun)adess. adessive case (noun)adj. adjectiveadv. adverbaor. aorist aspect (verb)conj. conjunctive mood (verb)dat. dative case (noun)dir. directive case (noun)gen. genitive case (noun)inf. infinitive (verb)loc. locative case (noun)midd. middle voice, mediopassive voice (verb)na. nomino-accusative case (noun)na.(I) animate noun, type 1 (plural -ar, genitive in -as)na.(II) animate noun, type 2 (plural -ar, genitive in -al)ni.(I) inanimate noun, type 1 (plural -χva, genitive in -as)ni.(II) inanimate noun, type 2 (plural -χva, genitive in -al)num. numeralpart. participle (verb)pass. passive voice (verb)perf. perfective aspect (verb)pl. pluralpres. present-future tense (verb)pret. preterite tense (verb)pron. pronounpron.1ps. first person pronounpron.3ps.an. third person singular animate pronoun pron.3ps.in. third person singular inanimate pronoun pron.3pp. third person plural pronoun pron.dist. distal demonstrative pronounpron.loc. locative pronounpron.prox. proximal demonstrative pronounpron.rel. relative pronoun sg. singularv.d. ditransitive verbv.i. intransitive verbv.tr. transitive verb
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 3
Acale ni.(I) Acale [month] Acale (na.sg.) // Acalia (adess.sg.)
Acarie na.(I/II) Acarie [gentilicium] Acries (gen.)
Acarnaie na.(I/II) Acarnaie [gentilicium] Acrniś (gen.)
acas v.tr. to craft (out of stone or clay) acas (inf.) // acasce (perf.pret.) // acasri, acazr (nec.)
acasχ ni.(II) clay vessel aχesχ (na.sg.)
acil v.i. to be made, to be completed
acil (inf.) // acilune (midd.pret.) // acilθ (part.)
acilχ ni.(I) product, creation
aklχis (dir.sg.) // aclχa (adess.sg.)
Acilu na.(I/II) Acilu [gentilicium, cognomen] Acilu (na.)
acna v.tr. to raise, to bring up
acnaice (perf.pret.) // acnase, acnese-m (aor.pret.) // acnaśv (aor.part.)
acnana na.(I) children
acnana (na.)
acnana v.tr. to raise children
acnanas (aor.) // acnanasa (aor.pres.)
Acnatru na.(I/II) Acnatru [gentilicium] Acnatrual-c (gen.)
acunsi v.tr. to slay
acunsiri (nec.)
Acvilna na.(I/II) Acvilna [gentilicium] Acvilnaś (gen.)
aisu na.(II) deity of the overworld, deus superior
ais, eis (na.sg) // aisvale (dat.sg.) // aiser (na.pl.) // aiseras, eiseras (gen.pl.)
aisuna ni.(II) sacrifice, offering
aisna, eisna (na.sg.) // aisunal (gen.sg.)
aisuna adj. divine, of the Dii Superiores
aisna
aisunaiu ni.(II) small sacrifices, small offerings
eisnev-c (na.sg.)
Aita na.(I) Hades [deity] Aita, Eita (na.) // Aiθas (gen.)
Aitule na.(I) Aitolos [mythos] Etule (na.)
aiu ni.(I) oil aiu, aiu-m (na.sg.) // aius (gen.sg.)
Aivas na.(I) Ajax [mythos] Aivas, Aevas (na.)
Aχamemrun na.(I) Agamemnon [mythos] Aχmemrun (na.)
aχapri ni.(II) oinochoe
aχapri (na.sg.)
Aχerum na.(I) Acheron, the underworld [deity] Aχrum (na.)
Aχile na.(I) Achile [mythos] Aχale, Aχle, Aχlei (na.)
Aχratina na.(I/II) Achratina [gentilicium] Aχratinaliśa (gen.+abl.)
Aχu na.(I/II) Achu [gentilicium] Aχu (na.) // Aχuiaś, Aχus (gen.) // Aχui (loc.)
Aχunia na.(I/II) Achunia [gentilicium]
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 4
Aχunia (na.)
al v.tr. to set down
al-c (inf.) // ale (pret.) // alike, alice, alce (perf.pret.) // aliqu (perf.part.)
Alcesti na.(II) Alcestis [mythos] Alcsti (na.)
alcumena na.(I) Alcmene
Alcumena, Alχumena (na.)
Aleχsantre na.(I) Alexander [mythos] Aliχsantre, Alcsentre, Elχsntre (na.)
Aleθina na.(I/II) Alethina [gentilicium] Aleθnas, Alθrnas, Alθnas (gen.) // Aleθnal (gen.)
alfa na.(I) ox
elfa (na.sg.)
Alfiie na.(I/II) Alfiie [gentilicium] Alfis (gen.) // Alfi (loc.)
Alfina na.(I/II) Alfina [gentilicium] Alfnal (gen.) // Alfni (loc.) // Alfnisa (adess.) // Alfnalisle (abl.+loc.)
Alfinaie na.(I/II) Alfinaie [gentilicium] Alfnis (gen.) // Alfnisa (adess.)
alil ni.(I) offertorium, offering room
alile (loc.sg.)
Alχa na.(I/II) Alcha [gentilicium] Alχas (gen.)
alpan ni.(II) gift alpan (na.sg.)
Alpan na.(II) Alpan [deity] Alpan (na.)
Alpana na.(I/II) Alpana [gentilicium]
Alpnas (gen.)
Alpaniu na.(II) Alpaniu [deity] Alpnu (na.)
alpaniu ni.(II) little gift alpnu (na.sg.)
alpaza ni.(II) little gift alφazei (loc.sg.)
alsa v.tr. to bury, to inter alsase (aor.pret.)
Alsina na.(I/II) Alsina [gentilicium] Alsinis (gen.) // Alśinai (loc.) // Alsaianasi (dat.)
alumnaθ na.(I) [a type of animate being] alumnaθ (na.sg.) // alumnaθe (loc.sg.) // alumnaθuras (gen.pl.)
am v.i. to be
ama, ma (pres.) // ame (pret.) // amuce, amce (perf.pret.)
Amicie na.(I/II) Amicie [gentilicium] Amcie (na.)
Aminθ na.(I) Aminth [deity] Aminθ (na.)
Amφare na.(I) Amphiaraos [male praenomen] Amφare, Anφare (na.)
Amuce na.(I) Amykos [mythos] Amuke, Amuχe (na.)
an pron.3ps.an. he, she
an, an-c (na.) // ana (obl.)
Anaie na.(I/II) Anaie [gentilicium] Aneie (na.)
Anaiena na.(I/II) Anaiena [gentilicium]
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 5
Aninas (gen.) // Aneinal, Aninal (gen.) // Aninai-c (loc.)
Anaienaie na.(I/II) Anaienaie [gentilicium] Aninieś (gen.)
anan ni.(II) [vessel containing a votive offering] enan, anan-c (na.sg.) // anancveś (dir.pl.)
Ane na.(I) Ane [male praenomen] Anes (gen.)
Ani na.(I) Ani [deity] Ani (na.)
aniaχ ni.(II) [type of offering] aniaχ (na.sg.) // aniaχeś (dir.sg.)
Antiiuce na.(I) Antioch [male praenomen] Atiuce (na.)
Antipater na.(I) Antipater [gentilicium] Antipater (na.)
Anturmaca na.(I) Andromaca [mythos] Aturmucas (gen.)
apa na.(I) father apa, apa-c (na.sg.) // apas, apaś (gen.sg.)
apacar ni.(II) calculator, tallier apcar (na.sg.)
apana na.(II) clan
apana (na.sg.) // apanal (gen.sg.) // apanes (abl.sg.)
Apiana na.(I/II) Apiana [gentilicium] Apianaś, Apnas (gen.)
Apiatru na.(I/II) Apiatru [gentilicium] Apaiatrus, Apiatrus, Apatrual (gen.) // Apatrui (loc.) // Apatruis (dir.)
apir v.tr. to sanctify
aper (inf.) // apire (pret.) // apirase (aor.pret.) // aperu (part.)
Apirie na.(I) Apirie [gentilicium] Apries (gen.)
apirinśa ni.(II) divine will aprenśaiś (dat.sg.)
apirinθ ni.(II) sanctified offering
aprinθu (na.pl.) // aprinθvale (dat.pl.)
Apirθina na.(II) Apirthina [female praenomen] Aprθnal, Aprθnal-c (gen.)
apirθinaiu ni.(II) small libations
eprθnev-c (na.sg.)
Apius na.(I) Apius [male praenomen] Appius (na.)
Apula na.(I) Apula [male praenomen] Apulas (gen.)
Apulie na.(I/II) Apulie [gentilicium] Afli (na.) // Afles (gen.)
Apulun na.(I) Apollo [deity] Aplun, Aplu (na.)
Apuna na.(I/II) Apuna [gentilicium] Afuna (na.) // Apunas, Afunas (gen.) // Apunal, Apunal-c, Apnal (gen.) // Afuniś (dir.)
Apunaie na.(I/II) Apunie [gentilicium] Apuniie (na.) // Apuniies (gen.)
Apunaθu na.(I) Apuna family member Afunaθur (na.pl.)
Aφe na.(I) Apis [deity] Aφes (gen.)
ar v.i. to rise up
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 6
ar (inf.) // ara (pres.) // araś, erś (aor.pres.) // ersce (aor.pret.) // arce (perf.pret.) // arθ (part.)
aracuna adj. of the hawk, hawk-related
aracune-ta (na.sg.)
Aranθ na.(I/II) Aranth [male praenomen] Araθ, Arnθ, Arnt (na.) // Arantiaś (gen.) // Aranθial, Arnθeal, Arnθal (gen.) // Araθiale (dat.) // Aranθia, Araθia (adess.) // Arnθialiśa, Arnθaliśa, Arnθeals, Arnθals (abl.)
Aranθia na.(II) Aranthia [female praenomen] Arnθi (na.) // Arunθia (adess.)
Aranθina na.(I/II) Aranthina [gentilicium] Arnθnas, Araθenas, Araθnas (gen.)
Aranθur na.(I) Aranthur [male praenomen] Aranθur (na.)
Aranza na.(II) Little Aranth [male praenomen] Arnza (na.) // Arnzal
Arazna na.(II) Arazna [female praenomen] Arzneal, Arznal (gen.) // Araziia (for *Arazna) (adess.)
Arcumisna na.(I/II) Arcumisna [gentilicium] Arcmsnas (gen.) // Arcmsnei (loc.)
Ariaθa na.(II) Ariadne [mythos] Araθa (na.)
Aril na.(I) Aril [deity] Aril (na.)
Aritim na.(I) Arretium [city] Aritimi, Aritimi-pi (loc.)
Artume na.(I) Artemis [deity] Artume (na.) // Artumes (gen.)
asca ni.(II) askos, jug
aska (na.sg.)
Asculaie na.(I/II) Asculaie [gentilicium] Asklaie (na.)
aśu na.(I) sphinx
aśu (na.sg.)
Atalanta na.(II) Atalanta [mythos] Atalanta, Atlenta (na.)
Atale na.(I) Atale [male praenomen] Atale (na.)
ati na.(II) mother ati, ati-c (na.sg.) // atial (gen.sg.) // atiia (adess.sg.)
ati-nacnuva na.(II) grandmother ati-nacnuva, ati-nacnva, ati-nacna (na.)
Atiie na.(I/II) Atiie [gentilicium] Atiies, Aties (gen.)
atiiu na.(II) little mother, nanny
ativu
Atina na.(I/II) Atina [gentilicium] Atinal (gen.)
Atmite na.(I) Admetus [mythos] Atmite (na.)
atran ni.(II) reign, authority, rule
atranes (dat.sg.)
Atranna na.(I/II) Atranna [gentilicium] Atrnas (gen.)
Atrannaie na.(I/II) Atrannaie [gentilicium] Atrane (na.) // Atraneś (gen.)
Atunis na.(I) Adonis [deity] Atunis (na.)
aturśa v.tr. to lay down, to place
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 7
aturś, atrś (inf.) // atrśrce (perf.pret.)
aθ v.tr. to clean, to cleanse
aθene (midd.pret.)
Aθena na.(I) Athena [deity] Aθenei (loc.)
aθil ni.(I) [type of inanimate offering] aθeliś (gen.sg.)
Aθrupa na.(II) Atropos [deity] Aθrpa (na.)
aθumi ni.(I) sky
aθumi-ca (nom.sg.) // aθumi-tn (acc.sg.) // aθumi-cś, aθmi-cś (gen.sg.)
Auclina na.(I/II) Auclina [gentilicium] Auclina (na.sg.)
auθil ni.(I) cella, room of a temple
avθle-θ (loc.sg.)
avil ni.(I) year, age
avil (na.) // avilś, avils (gen.sg.) // avilχva (na.pl.) // avilχval (gen.pl.)
Avile na.(I) Avile [male praenomen] Avile, Avle, Aule (na.) // Avileś , Aviles, Aveles, Avleś, Avles, Aules, Auleś, (gen.) // Aulesi (dat.) // Avlesla (adess.)
Avilnaie na.(I/II) Avilnaie [gentilicium] Aulniś (gen.)
Avina na.(I/II) Avina [gentilicium] Avines (dir.)
ca pron.prox. this, the
ica, ica-c, eca, ca, χa, -ca (nom.) // ikan, ecn, cen, cn, -cn (acc.) // ces ceś, ecaś, ecś, -cś (gen.) // cal, -cla (gen.) // icai, cei, -cle, cl-θ, ecl-θi (loc.) // ceia (adess.) // cn-tra-m (acc.+loc.) // canl, cnl (acc.+gen.) // clel (loc.+gen.)
Cacu na.(I) Cacu [mythos] Cacu (na.)
Cafati na.(I/II) Cafati [gentilicium] Cafatis (gen.)
Cai na.(I) Cai [male praenomen] Cae, Cai (na.sg.) // Caes (gen.)
cai-han pron. here, here before
cehen
cai-pen pron. here below
cepen, cipen
Caicina na.(I/II) Caicina [gentilicium] Ceisina (typo for Ceicina?), Ceicna (na.) // Ceicnei (loc.)
Caiia na.(II) Caiia [female praenomen] Caia (na.) // Caial (gen.)
Caiie na.(I/II) Caiie [gentilicium] Kaiś, Caeś (gen.)
Caile na.(I) Caile [male praenomen] Caile (na.) // Cailes (gen.)
Caina na.(I/II) Caina [gentilicium] Cainal (gen.) // Cainei, Kainei, Caini (loc.)
Caisatru na.(I/II) Caisatru [gentilicium] Ceisatrual (gen.) // Ceisatrui (loc.)
Caisu na.(I/II) Caisu [gentilicium] Ceisu, Ceiśu, Ceśu (na.) // Cisui (loc.)
Caisuie na.(I/II) Caisuie [gentilicium] Caisies, Ceises (gen.) // Caisieśa (adess.)
Caisuθara na.(I/II) Caisuthara [gentilicium] Caisθares (gen.)
Caive na.(I/II) Caive [gentilicium]
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 8
Caives (gen.)
Caizra ni.(II) Caere [city] Ceizra (na.)
Cale na.(I/II) Cale [gentilicium] Cale (na.)
Calisna na.(I/II) Calisna [gentilicium] Calisnas (gen.)
cap ni.(II) sarcophagus
capl (gen.sg.) // capi, cape, kape (loc.sg.)
Capane na.(I) Capaneus [mythos] Capne (na.)
caper ni.(II) bowl with handles
caper-c (na.sg.) // caperi (loc.sg.) // caperχva (na.pl.)
capra ni.(II) urn, vase
capra (na.sg.)
Capuva ni.(II) Capua [city] Capue (loc.)
Capuvana na.(I), adj. Capuan; of Capua
Capuvane (loc.)
Capuvanaie na.(I/II) Capuvanie [gentilicium] Capvanes(gen.)
caraθas na.(II) loved one
caraθsle(dat.sg.)
Carcu na.(I/II) Carcu [gentilicium] Carcu (na.) // Carcus (gen.)
Carcvana na.(I/II) Carcvana [gentilicium] Karcuna (na.) // Karkanas (gen.)
Carcvanaie na.(I/II) Carcvanie [gentilicium] Carχvanies (gen.)
Carmu na.(I) Carmius [male praenomen] Karmu (na.)
Carpe na.(I) Karpos [male praenomen] Carpe (na.)
Carpunie na.(I/II) Carpunie [gentilicium] Carpunies (gen.)
Carsu na.(I/II) Carsu [gentilicium] Carsui (loc.sg.)
Carsuna na.(I/II) Carsuna [gentilicium] Carsna (na.)
Carta na.(I/II) Carta [gentilicium] Carta (na.)
Carθazaie na.(I/II) Carthazaie [gentilicium] Karθazie (na.)
Casantra na.(II) Cassandra [mythos] Casntra
Castur na.(I) Castor [deity] Castur (na.)
Catila na.(I) Catila [male praenomen] Katilas (gen.)
Catumite na.(II) Ganymede [mythos] Catmite (na.)
Caθa na.(I) Catha [deity] Caθas, Caθs-c (gen.sg.)
caθar adj. abundance
caθre (loc.) // caθra (adess.)
Caθarna na.(I/II) Catharna [gentilicium] Caθarnaial (gen.)
Caulia na.(I/II) Caulia [gentilicium] Caulias (gen.)
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 9
Cauna na.(I/II) Cauna [gentilicium] Caunal (gen.)
Cavaθa na.(I) Cavatha [male praenomen] Kavθa (na.) // Kavuθas, Cavaθas, Cavθas, Cauθas, Kavθaś, Kavtas (gen.)
Cavie na.(I) Cavie [male praenomen] Cavie (na.) // Cavies, Cavis (gen.) // Kaviiesi (dat.)
Caviena na.(I/II) Caviena [gentilicium] Cavenas (gen.)
ceχ v.tr. to give rites
ceχase (aor.pres.)
ceχa ni.(II) rite, ritual, service
ceχa, ceχa-m (na.sg.) // ceχe (loc.sg.) // ceχana (na.pl.) // ceχane (loc.pl.) // ceχaneri (dat.pl.)
cela na.(II) cella
cela-ti (loc.sg.)
Celi na.(I) Celi [month] Celi
celu ni.(I) earth, ground
celu-c-um (nom.sg.) // celu-cn (acc.sg.) // calus, cels (gen.sg.) // cel-θi, cel-θi-m, cel-ti (loc.sg.) // calusi-m (dat.sg.)
celusna adj. of the underworld, infernal calusna (na.)
Cemina na.(I/II) Cemina [gentilicium] Camnas (gen.)
Ceminaie na.(I/II) Ceminaie [gentilicium] Camnai (na.) // Cemnil (gen.)
Ceminaχ na.(I) Janus Geminus, Bifrons [deity] Cemnaχ, Cemnac
cen v.tr. to bear, to hold, to carry, to bring
cania (pres.) // canu, cenu (part.) // cencu (perf.part.)
cenna ni.(II) gift, offering
cana (na.sg.) // kane (loc.sg.) // canva (na.pl.)
cenula na.(I) gift canlas (gen.)
cenza na.(II) small gift canza-te (loc.sg.)
Cenzana na.(I/II) Cenzana [gentilicium] Canzna (na.)
cer v.tr. to make, to fashion
kara (pres.) // caresri (aor.nec.) // ceren (midd.pres.) // cerine, cerene (midd.pret.) // caru (part.)
ceraχra ni.(II) creation
carucra (na.sg.)
ceraχun v.tr. to make, to build
ceriχunce (perf.pret.)
Certu na.(I) Certu [male praenomen] Certu (na.)
Cestina na.(I/II) Cestina [male praenomen] Cestna (na.) // Cestnas, Cestnaś (gen.) // Cestnal (gen.) // Cestnei (loc.) // Cestnaśa (adess.) // Cestinala (adess.)
ceś v.tr. to deposit, to lay down
ceś-um (inf.) // ceśu, cesu (part.) // ceśasi, cesasin (aor.midd.)
ceśa ni.(II) burial cesal (gen.sg.)
ceθu ni.(II) kyathos, dipper ceθu (na.sg.)
cezp num. eight
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 10
Unattested but implied by the existence of a gloss and its derivatives.
cezpalχ num. eighty
cezpalχ (na.) // cezpalχals (abl.)
cezpizi adv. eight times
cezpz
ci num. three
ci, ci-m (na.) // ciś, cis, cis-um (gen.)
ci-śar num. thirteen
ciś śariś (gen.)
cialχ num. thirty
cealc (na.) // cealχus, cialχuś, cealχuś, cealχus, cealχuz (gen.)
Ciiarθia na.(II) Ciiarthia [male praenomen] Ciarθla (adess.) // Ciarθialiśa (gen.+adess.)
Cilens na.(II) Cilens [deity]
Cilens (na.)
cilθ ni.(II) funerary niche
cilθ (na.sg.) // cilθś, cilθl (gen.sg.) // cilθcval (gen.pl) // cilθcve-ti (loc.pl.)
cizi adv. thrice, three times
cizi, ciz, citz
Claite na.(I/II) Claite [gentilicium] Claiteś (gen.)
clan na.(I) son
clan, clan-c, clen (na.sg.) // clenase, clensi, clinsi (dat.sg.) // cliniiaras (gen.pl.) // celeniarasi, clenaraśi (dat.pl.)
clanti na.(I/II) stepson, adoptive son, son-in-law
clanti, clante (na.sg.) // clantis (gen.sg.) // clantial (gen.sg.)
Claruχie na.(I/II) Claruchie [gentilicium]
Claruχies (gen.)
Clauniu na.(I) Clauniu [gentilicium] Clauniu (na.)
Clautie na.(I) Claudius [male praenomen] Clavtie, Kluti (na.)
Clautieθu na.(I) member of the Clautie family
Clavtieθurasi (dat.pl.)
cletram ni.(II) litter cletram (na.sg.)
Cleupatra na.(I) Cleopatra [female praenomen] Clepatra (na.) // Clepatras (gen.)
Cleusina na.(I/II) Cleusina [gentilicium] Cleusinas (gen.)
Cleusinas ni.(II) Clusium [city] Clevsinsl, Clevśinśl (gen.)
cleva ni.(II) idol cleva (na.sg.) // clevana (na.pl.) // cluvenias (gen.pl.) // clevan-θ (loc.pl.)
cluti ni.(II) kylix
kluti (na.sg.) // clutiva (na.pl.)
Clutia na.(I) Clutia [male praenomen] Klutias (gen.)
Cluθamasθa na.(II) Clytemnestra [mythos] Cluθumusθa, Clutmsta (na.)
Cnaivie na.(I/II) Cnaivie [gentilicium] Cnaeve (na.)
Cnaivie na.(I) Cnaivie [male praenomen] Cnaive, Cneve, Nae (na.) // Cnaives, Cnaviies (gen.)
Cnaiviena na.(I/II) Cnaivena [gentilicium]
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 11
Cneunas (gen.)
Cracia na.(I) Cracia [male praenomen] Cracia (na.) // Cracias (gen.)
Craice na.(I) Greek (person) Crece (na.sg.) // Creices (gen.sg.)
Craicina na.(I/II) Craicina [gentilicium] Creicnal (gen.)
crapi ni.(I) vessel, container crapis-ces (gen.sg.) // crapś-ti (dir.sg.)
Craupania na.(I/II) Craupania [gentilicium] Craupania (na.)
Crauzaθu na.(I) of the Crauzae (gens) Cravzaθuras (gen.pl.)
creial na.(I) priest of Ceres
creals (gen.sg.)
Crespe na.(I) Crespe [cognomen] Crespe (na.)
Cuclu na.(I) Cyclops [deity] Cuclu (na.)
Cuclunaie na.(I/II) Cuclunaie [gentilicium] Cuclnies (gen.) // Cuclnial (gen.)
Cucrina na.(I/II) Cucrina [gentilicium] Cucrina (na.)
Cucrinaθu na.(I) member of the Cucrina family
Cucrinaθur (na.pl.)
cul ni.(I) entrance
cvl (na.sg.)
culiχna ni.(II) kylix, cup
culiχna, χuliχna (na.sg.)
culś ni.(II) small entrance
culsl (gen.sg.) // culścva (na.pl.)
Culśanś na.(II) Culsans [deity] Culśanśl (gen.)
Cumni na.(I) Cumni [male praenomen] Cumniś (gen.)
Cuna na.(I) Cuna [male praenomen] Kunaś (gen.)
Cupana na.(I) Cupana [gentilicium] Cupana, Cupna (na.)
Cupariena na.(I/II) Cupariena [gentilicium] Cuprna (na.)
Cupe na.(I) Cupe [male praenomen] Cupe, Qupe (na.) // Cupes (gen.)
Curte na.(I) Curte [male praenomen] Kurtes (gen.)
Curtun ni.(II) Cortona [city] Curtun (na.)
Curvana na.(I/II) Curvana [gentilicium] Kurvenaś, Curunas (gen.)
Cusina na.(I/II) Cusina [gentilicium] Cusinas (gen.)
Cusu na.(I/II) Cusu [gentilicium] Cusu, Cuśu (na.) // Cusuś, Cusual, Cusul, Cus. (for *Cusul) (gen.)
Cusuθu na.(I) member of the Cusu family
Cusuθur (na.pl.) // Cusuθuraś (gen.pl.)
Cutu na.(I/II) Cutu [gentilicium] Cutus (gen.)
cutum ni.(II) pitcher qutum, qutun (na.sg.)
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 12
cutumuza ni.(II) small kothon (type of vase) qutumuza, qutumuθa (na.sg.)
Cutuna na.(I/II) Cutuna [gentilicium] Cutnas (gen.)
Cvenale na.(I/II) Cvenile [gentilicium] Cvenile, Cvenale, Cvenle, Cvelne (for Cvenle) (na.) // Cvenleś (gen.) // Cvelnei (for *Cvenlei) (loc.) // Cvelneśa (adess.)
cver ni.(II) votive
cver (na.sg.) // cvera (adess.sg.)
cvil ni.(I) eye
kvil (na.)
Cvintia na.(I/II) Quintia [gentilicium] Cvinti (na.)
Caliaθe na.(I/II) Caliathe [gentilicium] Caliaθe (na.)
Ectur na.(I) Hector [male praenomen] Ectur (na.)
ei pron.loc. here, there
ei, ei-m (loc.) // ein, en, eiθ, eθ (loc.)
Eiasun na.(I) Jason [mythos] Eiasun (na.)
elaiunθ na.(I) olive farmer eliuntś (gen.)
elaivana adj. of oil, pertaining to oil eleivana
Elenai na.(II) Helen [mythos] Elinai, Elinei (na.)
Elna na.(I/II) Elna [gentilicium] Elnei (loc.)
em v.tr. to remove
eme (pret.)
en v.tr. to endure, to last, to remain
ena-c (pres.) // enaś (aor.) // eniaca (perf.pres.)
Enizpa ni.(II) Enizpa [city] Enizpe-tla (loc.sg.)
ep ni.(II) blood
ep-c (na.sg.)
epanna ni.(II) blood offering
epana (na.sg.)
Eparuś na.(I) Epirus [city] Eparuśiś (dir.)
Epiiur na.(I) Epiiur [deity] Epiur, Epeur (na.) // Epris (gen.)
epil ni.(II) blood
epl-c (na.)
epni ni.(II) bloodletting cup
epni (na.sg.)
Eris na.(II) Eris [deity] Eris (na.)
esχaθ v.tr. to provide
esχaθ (inf.) // esχaθce (perf.pret.)
eslem zaθrum num. eighteen
eslem zaθrum (na.) // eslem zaθrumiś (gen.)
Esplace na.(I) Asklepios [mythos] Esplace (na.)
Estara na.(II) Ashtarte [deity] Estrei (loc.)
eśi ni.(I) [type of offering] eśi, eśi-c (na.sg.) // eśis (gen.)
eśta na.(II) family
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 13
eśta-c, esta-k (na.sg.) // eśtla (adess.sg.)
eter na.(I) [type of place or structure] eterias (gen.sg.) // eteri, etri, eterti-c (loc.sg.) // etera (adess.sg.) // eteriais, eterais (dir.sg.)
Etera na.(I/II) Etera [gentilicium] Eteraś (gen.)
etias ni.(I) ides
etiasas (gen.sg.)
etna adv. then, so
ituna, itna, etna-m, -tna-m
Etule na.(I) Aitolos [mythos] Etule (na.)
eθ ni.(II) fruit eθ (na.sg.) // eθe (loc.sg.) // eθl (gen.sg.)
eθar v.tr. to receive
aθre (pret.) // eθri (nec.) // etras (aor.) // etraśa (aor.pres.) // eθrse (aor.pret.)
Eutarpa na.(II) Eutarpa [deity] Euturpa (na.)
Evan na.(I) Evan [deity] Evan (na.)
ez ni.(II) age, lifetime
ez (na.sg.) // esi-c (loc.sg.)
Ezpu na.(I/II) Ezpu [gentilicium] Ezpus (gen.)
Ezpuia na.(II) Ezpuia [female praenomen] Espial (gen.)
fac v.tr. [verb operating on votive offerings] faca (pres.) // face (pret.) // faci (inf.)
fal ni.(I) mountain; hypogeal tomb
falas (gen.)
faliś ni.(II) mound, hill; hypogeal tomb
fals-ti (loc.sg.)
falza ni.(II) mound, hill; hypogeal tomb
falza-θi (loc.sg.)
fan v.tr. to consecrate
faniri, faneri (nec.) // fanuśe (aor.pret.) // fanu (part.)
Fanacna na.(I/II) Fanacna [gentilicium] Fanacnal (gen.)
far v.tr. to go
farice, farce (perf.pret.)
farθan v.tr. to bear children
farθne // farθnaχe (pass.pret.)
farθanna adj. born, newborn
farθana (na.sg.)
Fasti na.(I) Faustus [male praenomen] Fast (na.) // Fastiś (gen.)
Fastiia na.(II) Fastiia [female praenomen] Fastia, Fasti // Fastial (gen.)
faśa ni.(II) exta, intestines
faśeiś (gen.sg.) // faśei, faśei-c, faśe, faśi (loc.sg.) // fasle (dat.sg.)
fau v.tr. to receive
favin (midd.pres.)
favi ni.(II) offertorium, offering room
favi-ti-c (loc.sg.)
fel v.tr. to devote
vhelequ (perf.part.)
Felcie na.(I/II) Felcie [gentilicium]
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 14
Felces (gen.) // Felcial (gen.)
feli ni.(II) devotion, dedication
feli-c (na.sg.)
Felmuie na.(I) Felmuie [male praenomen] Felmuial (gen.)
Felsina na.(I/II) Felsina [gentilicium] Felsnas (gen.) // Felśnal (gen.)
Felusce na.(I/II) Felusce [gentilicium] Feluskeś (gen.)
fir v.i. to burn
fira (pres.) // firin (midd.pres.)
Flacunaie na.(I/II) Flacunaie [gentilicium] Vhlakunaie (na.)
flanaχ ni.(II) [type of offering] flanaχ, flanac (na.sg.)
Flanaχrina na.(I/II) Flanachrina [gentilicium] Flenχrinas (gen.)
flanzana ni.(II) [type of offering] flenzna (na.sg.)
Flavie na.(I/II) Flavie [gentilicium] Flaviies (gen.)
Fniscaie na.(II) Fniscaie [praenomen, gentilicium] Fniścial, Fnescial (gen.) // Fnesci (loc.)
Fraucna na.(I/II) Fraucna [gentilicium] Fraucnal (gen.)
Frauni na.(I/II) Frauni [gentilicium] Frauniśa (adess.)
Fulχenaie na.(I/II) Fulchenaie [gentilicium] Vhulχenas, Hulχenas (gen.) // Hulχuniesi, Hulχniesi (dat.)
Fuluve na.(I/II) Fuluve [gentilicium] Hvuluveś, Fulus (gen.) // Fuluśla (gen.+adess.)
Fuluvena na.(I/II) Fuluvena [gentilicium] Fuluna, Vhulvena, Fulvenas (na.) // Hulunias (gen.)
hama ni.(II) [place where offerings are placed] hamai-θi (loc.sg.)
Hamle na.(I) Hamle [male praenomen] Hamles (gen.)
han adv. before, in front of hen
Hanipal na.(I) Hannibal [praenomen] Hanipalus (gen.sg.)
Hanipina na.(I/II) Hanipina [gentilicium] Hanpnas (gen.)
hanθ ni.(II) front hante-c, haθe, hate-c, haθe-c (loc.sg.), hanθin, haθr-θi (loc.sg.)
Hapirna na.(I/II) Hapirna [gentilicium] Hapirnal (gen.) // Haprni (loc.)
Hapisna na.(I/II) Hapisna [gentilicium] Hapisnei (loc.)
har v.tr. to fill hare (pret.)
Hasmun na.(I/II) Hasmun [gentilicium] Hasmun (na.)
Hasti na.(II) Hasti [female praenomen] Hasti
Hastia na.(II) Hastia [female praenomen] Hasti (na.)
hatrencu na.(II) unmarried
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 15
hatrencu (na.sg.)
Haθiasna na.(I/II) Hathiasna [gentilicium] Haθiasnas (gen.)
Haθlia na.(II) Hathlia [male praenomen] Haθlials (abl.)
Haθna na.(I) Hathna [deity] Haθna (na.)
Haurana na.(I/II) Haurana [gentilicium] Havrnas (gen.)
Hauranaie na.(I/II) Hauranaie [gentilicium] Havrenies (gen.)
hec v.i. to lay down
hecia (pres.) // hece (pret.) // hecece (perf.pret.) // heczri (aor.nec.) // heχśθ (aor.part)
Heiri na.(I/II) Heiri [gentilicium] Heiri (na.)
Heirina na.(I/II) Heirina [gentilicium] Herina (na.)
Heirinaie na.(I/II) Heirinaie [gentilicium] Herine, Herini (na.) // Herinial (gen.) // Herneśa (adess.)
Heiule na.(I) Heiule [male praenomen] Heul, Hevl (na.)
hel v.tr. to sacrifice, to kill helu (part.)
heliś ni.(II) small sacrifice
hels, hels-c (na.sg.)
helχ ni.(II) sacrificial animal halχ (na.)
helχza ni.(II) small sacrificial animal
halχza (na.sg.) // halχze (loc.sg.)
helna ni.(II) sacrifice
halna (na.)
Heracle na.(I) Herakles [mythos] Hercle, Herecele, Herχle (na.) // Hercles (gen.)
Heraclite na.(I/II) Herakleides [gentilicium] Herclite, Ferclite (na.)
heram v.tr. to collect herma (pres.) // heramve (pret.) // hermu (part.)
heramaś ni.(II) pillar, phallus, Hermes idol heramaśva (na.pl.)
Herame na.(I) Hermes [deity] Herme (na.)
het v.tr. to pour het-um (inf.)
hetran ni.(II) [type of liquid religious offering] hetrn (na.sg.)
Heuχle na.(I/II) Heuchle [gentilicium] Hevχle (na.)
heva adj. every, each
heva (nom.) // hevn (acc.)
hi v.tr. to call out hia (pres.)
hil ni.(I) enclosed land
hil (na.sg.) // hils-c (gen.sg.) // hilχve-tra (dat.pl.)
hilar v.i. to enclose
hilar (inf.) // hilare (pret.) // hilarθ (part.)
Himaraie na.(I) Himaraie [mythos]
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 16
Himrae (na.)
hinθ adj. below, beneath, underneath
hinθie, hinθθin (loc.) // hinθa (adess.)
hinθial na.(I) spirit, ghost, shade
hinθial (na.)
hinθiu adv. below, beneath, underneath
hinθiu, hinθu
Hipucrate na.(I) Hipucrate [gentilicium] Hipucrates (gen.)
Hirume na.(I) Hirume [male praenomen] Hirumesi (dat.)
Hirumina na.(I/II) Hirumina [gentilicium] Hirumina (na.) // Hermenas (gen.)
hivil na.(I) owl hiuls (gen.sg.)
hivu ni.(I) [type of libation offering] hivus (gen.sg.)
hupni ni.(II) ossuary chamber hupni (na.sg.)
hupnina ni.(II) ossuary
hupnina (na.sg.) // hupnine-θi (loc.sg.)
hursi ni.(II) [liquid or material poured in religious rite]
hursi, hursi-c (na.sg.)
Hurtina na.(I/II) Hurtina [gentilicium] Hurtinas (gen.)
hus na.(II) child
husl (gen.sg.)
husiu na.(I) child
husiur, huśur (na.pl.)
husiurna ni.(II) group of youths
huzrna-tre (inst.sg.)
husiurnana adj. youthful, young
husrnana (na.)
Hustina na.(II) Hustina [female praenomen] Hustnal (gen.)
huθ num. four huθ, hut (na.) // huθis, huθs, huts (gen.) // huteri (dat.)
huθ-śar num. fourteen
huθzars (gen.)
huθila num. fourth
hutila
Huzcina na.(I/II) Huzcina [gentilicium] Huzcnai (loc.) // Huzcnes-c (dir.)
iχ adv. thus, then, so, therefore
iχ
Iχśiun na.(I) Ixion [mythos] Iχśiun (na.)
il v.tr. to declare
ilaχe (pass.pret.) // iluu (part.)
ilacu ni.(II) altar ilucu (na.sg.) // ilacve, ilucve (loc.sg.)
imaś v.tr. to doom
imśce (pref.pret.)
in pron.3ps.in., pron.3pp. it, they
in (na.)
iśu ni.(II) tray
iśu-m (na.sg.) // iśvei (loc.sg.) // esviś-c (dat.sg.)
Iθaviśva na.(II) Ithavisva [deity]
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 17
Eθauśva, Iθavuśva
Χaire na.(I/II) Chaire [gentilicium] Χaireals (gen.+gen.)
Χalχas na.(I) Chalchas [mythos] Χalχas (na.)
Χarun na.(I) Charun [deity] Χarun, Χaru (na.)
Χeste na.(I) Cestius [male praenomen] Χestes (gen.)
χi ni.(I), adv. today
χi-em (na.sg.) // χiś (gen.sg.) // χi-m-θ (loc.sg.)
Χiiala na.(I/II) Chiiala [gentilicium] Χielas (gen.)
Χurvar na.(I) Churvar [month] Χurvar (na.)
laiva ni.(II) [type of offering] lae-ti, lae-ti-m, laive-ts-m (for *laive-ti-m), laei-tre-cś (loc.sg.)
laiviś ni.(II) [type of offering] laeś, laivis-ca (na.sg.) // lais-cla (loc.sg.)
Laχu na.(I) Lachu [male praenomen] Laχuś (gen.)
Lanie na.(I) Lanie [male praenomen] Lanies, Lenies (gen.)
Lapana na.(I/II) Lapana [gentilicium] Lapanas, Lapinasͯ (gen.)
Lapse na.(I) Lapse [male praenomen] Lapse (na.)
Laran na.(I) Laran [deity] Laran (na.) // Laruns (gen.)
Laranie na.(I/II) Laranie [gentilicium] Larnal (gen.) // Larnei (loc.) // Laraniia (adess.)
Laranθ na.(I) Laranth [male praenomen] Larnθ (na.)
Larice na.(I) Larice [male praenomen] Larice, Larci, Larce (na.) // Larices, Lareces, Larces (gen.)
Laris na.(II) Laris [male praenomen] Laris (na.) // Larisal (gen.) // Larise (loc.) // Larisale (dat.) // Larisa, Lriśa (adess.) // Larisaliśa (abl.) // Larisaliśla (abl.+adess.)
Laristi na.(II) Laristi [male praenomen] Larsti (na.) // Larstial (gen.)
Lariu na.(I) Lariu [male praenomen] Larusi (dat.) // Laruśula (adess.)
Lariza na.(I) Lariza [male praenomen] Larzas (gen.)
Larizaiu na.(II) Larizaiu [male praenomen] Larezu, Larziu (na.) // Larezul (gen.)
Larθ na.(I/II) Larth [male praenomen] Larθ, Lart (na.) // Larθs (gen.) // Larθial, Larθal, Larθl, Lrθal-c, Laθal (for *Larθal) (gen.) // Larθia, Larθa (adess.) // Larθals (gen.+gen.) // Larθialiśa-m (gen.+adess.)
Larθiia na.(II) Larthia [female praenomen] Larθia, Larθiia, Larθi (na.) // Larθiale (dat.)
lasa na.(II) nymph
lasa (na.sg.)
Latiiu na.(I/II) Latiiu [gentilicium] Latiu (na.)
Latini na.(I/II) Latini [gentilicium] Latini (na.) // Laθinial (gen.)
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 18
laθ v.tr. to watch, to guard
laθ (inf.)
Laθerna na.(I/II) Latherna [gentilicium] Laθerna (na.)
Laucane na.(I/II) Laucane [gentilicium] Laucane (na.)
Laucie na.(I) Laucie [male praenomen] Luvce (na.) // Laucies, Lauciś (gen.) // Laucieia (adess.)
Laucienaie na.(I/II) Laucienaie [gentilicium] Laucini, Lucini (na.)
lauχum ni.(II) curia, municipal district, head of a curia
luvχm (na.) // lauχumnial (gen.pl.) // lauχumne-ti (loc.pl.)
Lauχumie na.(I/II) Lauchumie [gentilicium] Lauχumeśa (gen.+gen.)
Lauχusie na.(I/II) Lauchusie [gentilicium] Lauχusies (gen.)
Lauχusiena na.(I/II) Lauchusiena [gentilicium] Lauχusienas (gen.)
Lausie na.(I) Lausie [male praenomen] Lavsieś (gen.)
Lauterie na.(I) Lautrie [gentilicium] Lauteri (na.)
Lautie na.(I) Lautie [gentilicium] Lauti (loc.)
lautun adj., na.(I) liberated, free
lavtun, lavutn, lautn (na.sg.) // lavtunuis (gen.sg.)
lautunni na.(I) freeman
lautni, lautni-c, lavtni, lau. (na.) // lautunis, lautnes, lautneś (gen.sg.)
lautunniθa na.(I) freewoman
lautniθa, lautnita, lutniθa, lutnita (na.sg.)
Lave na.(I) Lave [male praenomen] Laves (gen.)
Lazie na.(II) Lazie [male praenomen] Lazi (na.) // Lazia (adess.)
Laziiu na.(I) Laziiu [male praenomen] Laziu (na.)
lei v.i. to lie down
leine (midd.pret.) // leinθ (midd.part.)
Leinaie na.(I/II) Leinaie [gentilicium] Leinies (gen.)
leitar ni.(I) [type of vessel] leitr-um, leiθr (na.sg.)
leχutumuza ni.(II) small lekythos (type of vase) leχtumuza (na.sg.)
Lemauśna na.(I/II) Lemausna [gentilicium] Lemauśnaś (gen.)
Lemne na.(I) Lemnos [island] Lemniśa (adess.)
len v.tr. to pour len (inf.) // leniace (perf.pret.)
Leθaie na.(I) Lethaie [male praenomen] Leθaes, Leθes (gen.)
Leθams na.(I) Lethams [deity] Leθam (for *Leθams) (na.) // Leθamsul (gen.)
Leθana na.(I/II) Lethana [gentilicium] Leθanei (loc.)
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 19
leu na.(I) lion, lioness
leu (na.)
Levia na.(I/II) Levia [gentilicium] Levial (gen.) // Levei (loc.)
Licantre na.(I/II) Lykandros [gentilicium] Licantre (na.)
Limurice na.(I/II) Limurice [gentilicium] Limurces (gen.) // Limrceśla (adess.)
lin v.tr. to slay
line (pret.)
lis ni.(II) field
leśiai, liśiai-θi, leśieθi-c (loc.pl.)
Lucer na.(I) Lucer [male praenomen] Lucer (na.)
lup ni.(II) crossing, crossroads
lufe (na.sg.)
lup v.tr. to cross over, to pass on
lupuce (perf.pret.) // lupu (part.)
luri ni.(II) beverage
luri, lur-ca-c (na.sg.)
lurs v.i. to shine, to be bright lursθ (part.)
lus na.(I/II) ancestor, guardian spirit lusaś, lusl, lvsl (gen.sg.) // lustraś (dat.sg.) // luśver (na.pl.)
Lusce na.(I) Lusce [cognomen] Lusce (na.)
Luscina na.(I/II) Luscina [gentilicium] Lusχnei, Luscni (loc.)
luθ ni.(II) egg
luθ, lut (na.sg.) // luθ-ti (loc.sg.) // luθcva, ruθcva (na.pl.) // luθcval (gen.pl.)
Luθuma na.(I) Luthuma [male praenomen] Luθumas (gen.)
macistraiu ni.(II) [small religious offerings] macstrevc (na.sg.)
Macistrana na.(I) Mastarna (Servius Tullus) [mythos]
Macstrna (na.)
Maifulana na.(I/II) Maifulana [gentilicium] Maiflnas (gen.)
maχ num. five
maχ, mac (na.) // maχs (gen.)
Maχertie na.(I) Machertie [mythos] Maχertie (na.)
mal v.tr. to bless, to sanctify
male, mele (pret.) // mulu (part.)
malana ni.(II) mirror malana, malena (na.sg.)
malstria ni.(II) mirror malstria (na.sg.)
Mamarce na.(I/II) Mamarce [gentilicium] Mamarce, Mamerce, Maerce (for Mamerce), Mamurke (na.) // Mamarces, Mamurces (gen.)
man v.i. to remain
man (inf.) // manince (midd.perf.pret.)
Mania na.(I/II) Mania [gentilicium] Manial (gen.)
manim ni.(II) spirit, deceased
manim, maniim (na.sg.) // manimeri (dat.sg.)
mar v.tr. to harvest
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 20
maru (part.)
maranuχ ni.(II) bounty, harvest marunuχ, marnuχ (na.sg.) // marunuχva
Marce na.(I) Marcus [male praenomen] Marce (na.) // Marces (gen.) // Marces (dir.) // Marcesi-c (dat.) // Marcesla (abl.)
Marcina na.(I/II) Marcina [gentilicium] Marcena, Macena (for Marcena), Marcna (na.)
Mariś na.(II) Maris [deity] Mariś (na.) // Mariśl, Marisl (gen.)
Marχarie na.(I) Marcarius [male praenomen] Marχars (gen.)
marza ni.(II) small harvest marza, marza-c (na.sg.)
mas v.tr. to entomb, to bury
mes (inf.) // maśu (part.)
Masan na.(I) Month of Burial [calendar] Masan, Masn (na.sg.)
mat v.tr. to pick (fruit) matu, maθu (part.)
matam ni.(II) pickings, gathered fruit matam, matan (na.sg.) // matani (loc.sg.)
Matulna na.(I/II) Matulna [gentilicium] Matulnas, Matulnas-c, Matunas (gen.) // Matulnai (loc.)
maθ ni.(II) picking, fruit harvest maθcva, maθcva-c (na.pl.) // maθcve (loc.pl.)
Mefanate na.(I/II) Mefanate [gentilicium] Mefanateś (gen.)
Meian na.(II) Meian [deity]
Mean (na.)
meian ni.(II) youth
meiani (loc.sg.)
meχ na.(II) person, people
meχ (na.sg./pl.) // meχl, meχl-um (gen.sg./pl.)
men v.tr. to place, to set down
mena (pres.) // mene (pret.) // menece (perf.pret.) // menaχe (pass.pret.) // menaqu (perf.part.)
Menarva na.(I) Menarva [deity] Meneravas, Menrva (na.)
Menele na.(I) Menelaos [mythos] Menle (na.)
Metelie na.(I/II) Metelie [gentilicium] Meteliś (gen.) // Metli (loc.)
Metie na.(I/II) Metie [gentilicium] Meties (gen.)
Metiena na.(I/II) Metiena [gentilicium] Metienas (gen.)
Metru na.(I) Metru [male praenomen] Metru (na.)
meθlum ni.(II) people, populus, state
meθlum (na.sg.) // meθlum-θ, meθlum-t, meθlm-θ, meθlume-ri-c (loc.sg.) // meθlumeś-c (dir.sg.)
mi pron.1ps. I mi, ni (nom.) // mini, mine, min (obl.) // minipi, menpe, minpi, mipi (gen., loc.)
mlaχ adj. blessed, sanctified
malaχ, mulaχ, mlaχ (na.) // mlaχas, mlakaś, mlakas (gen.) // malakasi (dat.)
Mlaχuχ na.(II) Mlachuch [mythos]
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 21
Mlacuχ (na.)
mler ni.(I) gift mler, fler (na.sg.) // flerś (gen.sg.) // flere (loc.sg.) // flereri (dat.sg.) // flerχva (na.pl.) // flerχve (loc.pl.)
mler-eθar v.i. to receive gifts
flerθrce (perf.pret.)
mleriś ni.(II) small gift flereś, fleres (na.sg.)
muχ ni.(II) [type of vessel for liquids] muχ (na.sg.)
mulva v.i. to be blessed
mula (pres.) // mule (pret.) // muluvace, mlace (perf.pret.) // mlaχe (pass.pret.) // muluvana (midd.pres.) // muluane mulune, mulene (midd.pret.) // mulveni (midd.conj.) // muluvanice, muluvanece, muluvenice, muluvunike, muluvunece, mulvanice, mulenice (midd.perf.pret.) // muleθ (part.)
muni na.(I/II) plot, area
munis, munis-tas (gen.sg.) // muni-cle-θ, muni-cle-t (loc.sg.) // muns-θe-c (dir.sg.) // munśal (gen.+gen.sg.)
munisule na.(II) underground tomb
munisle (na.sg.) // munisuleθ, munisvleθ (gen.sg.)
munθ ni.(II) pillar muθ (na.sg.) // mnθcva (na.pl.)
mur v.tr. to kill (tr.); to die (intr.) murce (perf.pret.) // murin (midd.pres.)
Mura na.(I/II) Mura [gentilicium] Murai (loc.)
Murila na.(I/II) Murila [gentilicium] Murila (na.)
murinaśa ni.(II) funerary offering
murinaśie (loc.pl.)
muriś ni.(II) container for the dead (ossuary, urn, sarcophagus)
murs (na.sg.) // murśl (gen.sg.) // murśś (dir.sg.) // murzva (na.pl.)
Musclena na.(I/II) Musclena [gentilicium] Musclena (na.)
Muse na.(I/II) Muse [gentilicium] Muses (gen.)
Musina na.(I/II) Musina [gentilicium] Musenial (gen.) // Muśni (loc.)
mut v.tr. to die
mutin (midd.) // mutince (midd.perf.pret.)
mutana ni.(II) sarcophagus, coffin
mutana, mutna (na.sg.) // mutnia-θi (loc.sg.)
Mutu na.(I/II) Mutu [cognomen, gentilicium] Mutu (na.) // Mutus (gen.)
Muθicu na.(I/II) Muthicu [gentilicium] Muθikus (na.)
muvalχ num. fifty
muvalχls (abl.)
nac pron. when, during
nac, nac-um.
nacnuva adj. big, great nacnvaiasi (dat.pl.)
naitiś ni.(II) lake
neitisś (dir.sg.)
naχ ni.(II) [liquid-bearing vessel] naχva (na.pl.) // naχve (loc.pl.)
namer ni.(II) cup
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 22
namer (na.sg.)
Nane na.(I) Nane [male praenomen] Nanes (gen.)
Nanisia na.(I/II) Nanisia [gentilicium] Nanisiei (loc.)
nap ni.(II) [a place for offerings] nap-ti (loc.sg.)
naper ni.(II) cup
naper (na.sg.)
naplan ni.(II) wineskin
naplan (na.)
natiś na.(II) haruspex
natis (na.sg.) // natisal (gen.sg.)
natiśraχ adj. haruspical, pertaining to haruspicy
neθśrac (na.)
natiśviś ni.(II) haruspical priesthood
netśvis (na.sg.)
neputś na.(I) grandson
neftś (na.sg.)
neri na.(I) [type of offering] neri (na.) // neriś (gen.)
Nerina na.(I/II) Nerina [gentilicium] Nerinai (loc.)
Nestur na.(I) Nestor [mythos] Nestur (na.)
neś ni.(I/II) dead person
neśs, neśl, nesl (gen.)
neśiθ ni.(I) dead person
nesiθvas (gen.pl.)
neśna ni.(II) sepulcher
nesna (na.)
Neθunś na.(II) Neptune [deity] Neθunaś (na.) // Neθunśl (gen.)
Nicipur na.(I) Nikephoros [male praenomen] Nicipur (na.)
Nipe na.(I) Nipe [male praenomen] Nipe (na.)
niθu ni.(I) [type of libation offering] niθus-c (gen.sg.)
nuc na.(I) wrestler nucr (na.pl.)
Nuiχilna na.(I) [gentilicium] Nuiχlnei (loc.)
Numa na.(I) Numa [male praenomen] numa (na.sg.)
Numaclanie na.(I/II) Numaclanie [gentilicium] Numclanies (gen.)
Numana na.(I/II) Numana [gentilicium] Numnaś (gen.) // Numnal (gen.)
Numisie na.(I/II) Numisie [gentilicium] Numisiies, Numusieś (gen.)
nunθ v.i. to come (tr.); to bring (intr.) nunθ (inf.) // nunθeri (nec.) // nunθχ (pass.pres.) // nunθen (midd.) // nunθene (midd.pret.) // nunθenθ (midd.part.) // nunθcu (perf.part.)
Nuparzina na.(I/II) Nuparzina [gentilicium] Nufrznal (gen.)
nurφ num. nine
nurφizi adv. nine times
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 23
nurφzi
nuza ni.(II) feast nuza (na.sg.)
nuzana ni.(II) feasting, feast nuzinaia (na.pl.)
nuzilaχun v.tr. to feast on, to eat nuzlχne, nuzlχne-c (pret.)
pa pron.rel. who, which, that ipa, epa, pa (nom.) // ipn (acc.) // pul (gen.) // ipei (loc.) // psl (gen.+gen.)
Paiθina na.(I/II) Paithina [gentilicium] Paiθunas, Paiθnas (gen.)
Paiθinaie na.(I/II) Paithinaie [gentilicium] Paiθinaie (na.)
Paχa na.(I) Pacha [deity] Paχa (na.) // Paχies (gen.)
Paχaie na.(I) Pachaie [male praenomen] Paχies (na.)
paχana adj., ni.(II) bacchanal, pertaining to Pacha; Bacchic temple
paχana-ti (loc.sg.)
paχasnaśie na.(I) bacchantes
pacusnaśie (na.sg.)
paχaθu na.(I) bacchante
paχaθura (adess.pl.)
Palpe na.(I) Palpe [cognomen] Palpe (na.)
papa na.(I) uncle
papa (na.sg.)
papals na.(II) nephew (patrilineal)
papals (na.sg.) // papalser (na.pl.)
Papana na.(I/II) Papana [gentilicium] Papnas (gen.) // Papanai (loc.)
Papas na.(II) Papas [male praenomen] Papas (na.) // Papasla (adess.) // Papaśliś (gen.+gen.)
Papasina na.(I/II) Papasina [gentilicium] Papsinaś (gen.)
Papaθna na.(I/II) Papathna [gentilicium] Papaθnas (gen.)
par ni.(II) house, temple
parniχ adj. temple-related, religious
parniχ (na.)
Partunu na.(I/II) Partunu [gentilicium] Partunus (gen.)
patara ni.(II) patera, shallow cup
patara (na.sg.) // pateri (loc.sg.)
Patrucle na.(I) Patroclus [mythos] Patrucles (gen.)
pava na.(I) sacrificial offering
pava, pava-c (na.sg.)
paz v.tr. to drain liquid
pazu (na.)
Pazieθe na.(I/II) Paziethe [gentilicium] Pazieθes (gen.)
Pecase na.(I) Pegasus [mythos] Pecse (na.)
pen adv. below, beneath, underneath
pen
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 24
peneθa adv. below, beneath, underneath
penθa (na.) // penezś (gen.)
peneθana adv., adj. below, beneath, underneath
penθna // penznas (gen.)
Pepuna na.(I/II) Pepuna [gentilicium] Pepunas (gen.) // Pepnes-c (dir.)
per v.tr. to pour peraśce (perf.pret.)
Perna na.(I/II) Perna [gentilicium] Pernal (gen.)
perp v.tr. [action involving altar worship] perpri (nec.)
pes ni.(II) sustenance
pes, pes-c (na.sg.) // pesś (dir.sg.)
pesil ni.(II) sustenance
peślial (gen.sg.)
Pesna na.(I) Pesna [male praenomen] Pesna (na.) // Pesnas, Pesnaś (gen.)
pesna ni.(II) [vessel containing food offerings] peisna (for *pesna(?)) (na.sg.)
pesnaiu ni.(II) [small vessel containing food offerings]
pesnu (na.)
Petce na.(I/II) Petce [gentilicium] Petce (na.)
Petru na.(II) Petru [female praenomen] Petrual (gen.) // Petrui (loc.)
Petruna na.(I/II) Petruna [gentilicium] Petrnial-c (gen.) // Petrunai, Petruni (loc.)
Petui na.(I) Petui [female praenomen]
Petui, Petvi (na.) // Petvial (gen.)
peθas v.tr. to fill peθsin (midd.pres.)
peθereni adv. above
peθereni
Peθuna na.(I/II) Pethuna [gentilicium] Peθuna (na.) // Peθnei (loc.)
pic v.tr. to show
picas (aor.) // picasri (aor.nec.)
Pilunice na.(I) Philonikos [male praenomen] Pilunice (na.)
Pinie na.(I/II) Pinie [gentilicium] Pinies (gen.)
Pisce na.(I) Pisce [male praenomen] Pisice (na.)
Pitilna na.(I/II) Pitilna [gentilicium] Pitlnal (gen.) // Pitilnia (adess.)
Piθe na.(I) Pithe [male praenomen] Piθes (gen.)
Pivi na.(I) Pivi [male praenomen] Pivi (na.)
Platunalu na.(I/II) Platunalu [gentilicium] Platunalus (gen.)
Plaute na.(I/II) Plaute [gentilicium] Plaute (na.)
Plecu na.(I/II) Plecu [gentilicium] Plecus (gen.)
Plecuθu na.(I) Plecu family member Precuθurasi (dat.pl.)
pluti ni.(II) [libation offering]
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 25
pluti-m (na.sg.)
Prastina na.(I/II) Prastina [gentilicium] Prastnas (gen.)
pruχu ni.(I) prochous, pitcher pruχś (gen.sg.)
pruχum ni.(II) prochous, pitcher pruχum (na.)
pruχuna adj. of or relating to a prochous
prucuna (na.)
prumaθś na.(I) great-grandson
prumaθś, prumts (na.sg.)
prunta na.(I) augur of lightning, fulguriator fronta-c (na.sg.)
Pruśilna na.(I/II) Prusilna [gentilicium] Pruślnas (gen.) // Pruślnai (loc.)
puia na.(II) wife puia (na.sg.) // puial (gen.)
Puiana na.(I/II) Puiana [gentilicium] Puiunal (gen.)
Pulia na.(I/II) Pulia [gentilicium] Pulia, Pulia-c, Puli (na.) // Pulias, Puliuś, Pules (gen.) // Pulialisa (gen.+adess.)
Puliana na.(I/II) Puliana [gentilicium] Pulenas (gen.)
pulum ni.(II) nail; star; soul pulumχva, fulumχva (na.pl.)
pulumza ni.(II) nail; star pulunza (na.)
Pulutuce na.(I) Pollux [deity]
Pultuce (na.) // Pultuceś (gen.)
Pumpia na.(I) Pumpia [male praenomen] Pupias (gen.)
Pumpilie na.(I/II) Pumpilie [gentilicium] Pumplial-χ (for *Pumplial-c) (gen.)
Pumpu na.(I/II) Pumpu [gentilicium] Pumpu (na.) // Pumpus, Pupuś (gen.)
Pumpuna na.(I/II) Pumpuna [gentilicium] Punpunas (gen.) // Pumpanal, Pumpnal (gen.) // Pumpnaliśa, Pumpnalisa (abl.)
Pupuluna ni.(II) Populonia [city] Pupluna, Fufluna (na.)
Pupuluns na.(I) Pupuluns [deity] Fufluns, Fuflus (na.) // Fuflnsul (gen.)
puratum adj. private
puratum (na.)
Pure na.(I) Pure [male praenomen] Pures (gen.)
Puriia na.(I) Puriia [male praenomen] Puriiaś (gen.)
Purni na.(I/II) Purni [gentilicium] Purni (na.)
purθiśvana ni.(II) [abstract religious noun] purtśvana (na.sg.)
purθiśvauχ ni.(II) dedicatory object purtśvavc-ti (loc.sg.)
Pustumina na.(I/II) Postumius [gentilicium] Pustminas (gen.)
puśil ni.(II) [type of offering] fuśle (loc.) // fuśleri (dat.)
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 26
put v.d. to leave behind
pute (pret.) // puts, puθs (aor.) // puθce (perf.pret.)
putina ni.(II) cup for libations
putina (na.)
putiza ni.(II) small cup for libations
putiza (na.sg.)
φeχ v.tr. [unknown transitive verb] φeχucu (perf.part.)
Φerse na.(I) Perseus [male praenomen] Φerse (na.)
Φersipanai Persephone [deity] Φersipnai, Φersipnei, (na.)
Φersu na.(I) Persian
Φersu (na.)
Φerusnaχ na.(I) Perugian
Φersnaχs (gen.)
Φisie na.(I) Phisie [male praenomen] Phisius (na.) // Φisis (gen.)
Φuipa na.(I) Phoibe [mythos] Φuipa (na.)
Racalu na.(I) Racalu [male praenomen] Rakalus (gen.)
Racu na.(I) Racu [male praenomen] Racus (gen.)
raχ ni.(I) [place] raχ (loc.sg.?) // raχś (gen.sg.) // raχ-ti, raχu-θ, raχ-θ (loc.sg.)
ramva v.i. [action regarding sacrificial animals] ramue (pret.) // ramueθ (part.)
Ramvaθa na.(I) Ramvatha [female praenomen]
Rameθa, Ramaθa, Ramuθa, Ramθa (na.) // Ramaθas, Ramθaś, Ramθas, Ramθas-c (gen.) // Ramθes-c (dir.) // Ramuθasi (dat.)
ran v.tr [unknown transitive verb] rane-m (pret.)
Ranazu na.(I) Ranazu [male praenomen] Ranazu (na.)
Rapalni na.(I/II) Rapalni [gentilicium] Raplni (na.)
Rasena na.(I/II) Etruria
Rasna, Raśna // Rasnas (gen.) // Rasnal, Raśnal (gen.) // Rasne (loc.) // Rasnes (dir.)
Raθilθ na.(I) [deity] Raθlθ (na.)
Raufe na.(I/II) Raufe [gentilicium] Raufe, Rufe (na.) // Ruvfes (gen.) // Ruvfial, Ruvfial-c (gen.)
Ravanθu na.(I) Ravanthu [female praenomen] Ravenθu, Ravnθu (na.) // Ravnθus.
Remiza na.(II) Remiza [female praenomen] Ramza (na.)
Remizana na.(I/II) Remizana [gentilicium] Remzna (na.) // Remznal (gen.) // Remzanei (loc.) // Remzanasa (adess.)
ren ni.(I) [physical object] rens (gen.sg.) // rene-θi (loc.sg.)
Repesuna na.(I/II) Repesuna [gentilicium] Repesunas (gen.)
repin adv. behind; north
repine-c, repin-θi-c (loc.)
Restia na.(I/II) Restia [gentilicium] Restiaś (gen.)
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 27
ril ni.(II) age, lifetime
ril (na.sg.)
riθna ni.(II) table (for sacrifice or libations) riθnai (loc.)
Rufriie na.(I/II) Rufrius [gentilicium] Ruvries, Ruifriś (gen.sg.)
Rumaχ na.(I) Roman
Rumaχ (na.sg.)
Rusina na.(I/II) Rusina [gentilicium] Rusinal (gen.)
Rutile na.(I) Rutile [male praenomen] Rutile (na.)
Rutilinaie na.(I/II) Rutilinaie [gentilicium] Rutlnis (gen.)
ruva na.(I) brother ruva (na.)
ruz v.tr. to be divided up, to be apportioned
ruze (pret.)
sac v.tr. to sanctify, to make holy, to bless
saca (pres.) // scune (midd.pret.)
saciu ni.(II) small sacerdotal sakiu (na.sg.)
sacni ni.(I) soul sacni (na.sg.) // śacni-cn (acc.sg.) // śacni-cle-ri, sacni-cle-ri (dat.sg.) // śacni-cś-treś (dat.sg.) // sacniśa, sacnisa (adess.sg.)
sacniiu ni.(I) soul, dear soul sacniu (na.)
sal adj. noble, great sal (na.) // śal-θn (acc.) // salal (gen.)
Sale na.(I) Sale [male praenomen]
Sales (gen.)
saniśva adj. old
sanisva
sanχuna ni.(II) pertaining to oaths
sanχune-ta (na.sg.)
santi na.(I) priest śanti, santi-c (na.sg.) // śantiś-tś (gen.sg.)
Satna na.(I) Satna [female praenomen] Śatnal-c, Sadnal (gen.)
Saupunia na.(I/II) Saupunia [gentilicium] Savpunias (gen.)
savicnes na.(I) plate
savcnes (na.sg.)
scan v.tr. to sanctify
ścanin (midd.pres.) // ścanince (midd.perf.pret.)
Scarpe na.(I/II) Scarpe [gentilicium] Scarpe (na.sg.)
scunna adj. holy, sanctified, blessed
scuna
Seiante na.(I/II) Seiante [gentilicium] Seiante, Seianti, Seate (na.) // Seianteś (gen.)
Seicia na.(I/II) Seicia [gentilicium] Seicia (na.)
Seitiθi na.(I/II) Seitithi [gentilicium] Seitiθi (na.) // Seitiθialiśa (abl.)
seχ na.(II) daughter seχ, śeχ, śec, sec (na.sg.)
Seχie na.(I/II) Sechie [gentilicium] Seχis (gen.)
sel v.tr. to give, to hand over
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 28
sela (pres.) // śelace (perf.)
sela ni.(II) hand
sele-itala (loc.sg.)
Selvanś na.(II) Selvans [deity] Selvans (na.) // Selvansl, Selvanzl (gen.)
Semala na.(I) Semele [deity] Semla (na.)
semφ num. seven
semφś (gen.)
semφalχ num. seventy
semφalχls (abl.)
Sentiie na.(I/II) Sentiie [gentilicium] Senties (gen.)
Sentina na.(I/II) Sentina [gentilicium] Sentinal (gen.)
Sepunie na.(I/II) Sepunie [gentilicium] Sepunes (gen.)
Sepurie na.(I/II) Sepurie [gentilicium] Sepres (gen.)
ser v.tr. to remain
ser (inf.)
Serturi na.(I/II) Serturi [gentilicium] Sertur, Serθur, Zerturi (na.)
ses v.tr. [action towards sacrificial animals] sese (pret.)
seθ v.tr. to hammer, to strike
seθasri (aor.nec.)
Seθare na.(I) Sethare [male praenomen] Śeθre (na.) // Śeθres (gen.) // Śeθreśa (adess.) // Śeθreśla (abl.)
Seθariia na.(II) Sethariia [female praenomen] Setria, Setri, Śeθra (na.) // Setria (adess.)
Seθarina na.(I/II) Setharina [gentilicium] Śeθrna (na.) // Seθrnaśa (adess.)
Seθilanś na.(II) Sethilans [deity] Śeθlans (na.)
seθum ni.(II) hammer seθum (na.sg.)
Seθumna na.(I/II) Sethumna [gentilicium] Setmnal (gen.)
siianś na.(II) ancestor, deceased
sanśl (gen.sg.) // siiane (loc.sg.) // sianś (dir.sg.)
Sime na.(I) Simos [deity] Sime (na.) // Siml-χa (gen.)
Sisupe na.(I) Sisyphus [mythos] Sispeś (gen.)
slapina na.(I) oinochoe
slapinaś, ślapinaś (gen.sg.)
slela ni.(II) quarry
slele-θ (loc.sg.)
sminθian ni.(I) sanctuary of Apollo, smintheion
isminθians (gen.sg.)
Sminθianna na.(I/II) Sminthianna [gentilicium] Śminθinal (gen.)
Smucinθiuna ni.(II) Smucinthiuna [city] Smucinθiunai-tula (loc.sg.)
snena adv. on top, over snena
snuia adj. many, numerous
snua
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 29
snuiap adj. more numerous, greater snuiaφ, snuiuφ
Snuti na.(I) Snuti [male praenomen] Snuti, Snute (na.)
snuθ v.tr. to count, to tally
snutri (nec.)
snuza ni.(II) a few, some
snuza (na.sg.)
span ni.(II) plains, flatlands
span-θi-m (loc.sg.)
spanti ni.(II) platter, plate, dish
spanti, spati (na.)
Spantu na.(I/II) Spantu [gentilicium] Spantus (gen.) // Spantui (loc.)
spel ni.(II) tomb, hole, opening
śpel (na.sg) // śpel-θi (loc.sg.) // śpelane (loc.pl.)
spet v.tr. to open
spetri (nec.)
Spitu na.(I/II) Spedo [gentilicium] Spitus (gen.)
Spulara na.(I/II) Spulara [gentilicium] Spulare (loc.)
spur ni.(II) city
spur (na.sg.) // spural (gen.sg) // spure-θi, śpure-ri (loc.sg.) // spureś-treś (dir.sg)
spurana na.(I) civic, municipal spurana, śpurana (na.) // spureni (loc.)
Spuriana na.(I/II) Spuriana [gentilicium] Spuriana (na.) // Spurinal (gen.)
Spurieza na.(I/II) Spuriaza [male praenomen, gentilicium]
Spuriaza (na.) // Spuriiazas (gen.)
Spuriie na.(I) Spuriie [male praenomen] Spuriies (gen.) // Spuriesi (dat.)
sran ni.(II) image
sren, śran-c (na.sg.) // śrenχve, śrencve (loc.pl.)
stasinu ni.(II) [type of bowl] śtasinu (na.sg.)
staslar ni.(II) whorl staslar (na.pl.)
Statilane na.(I/II) Statilane [gentilicium] Statlane (na.) // Statlanes, Stalanes (gen.)
sul ni.(I/II) [type of offering] sulal (gen.sg.) // suluśi (dat.sg.) // sulχva (na.pl.)
suliś ni.(II) [type of offering] suls (na.sg.) // sulsle (dat.sg.)
sun v.tr. to perform, to do
sun-tnam (pres.)
sunθeruza ni.(II) pyxis, cosmetic box
sunθeruza (na.sg.)
Supanie na.(I/II) Supanie [gentilicium] Supni (na.)
Suparie na.(I/II) Suparie [gentilicium] Supri, Zupre (na.sg.)
Surate na.(I) Surate [cognomen] Surate (na.)
Sutarina na.(I/II) Sutarina [gentilicium] Sutrinaś (gen.)
Sveia na.(I) Sveia [male praenomen] Svea, Sveas, Sveaś (na.) // Sveasla (abl.)
Sveiamaχ na.(I) Sovanian
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 30
Sveamaχ (na.sg.)
Sveitu na.(I/II) Sveitu [gentilicium] Sveitus (gen.)
svel v.tr. to live
sval (inf.) // svalce (perf.) // svalas (aor.) // svalasi (aor.conj.)
svel na.(I) living person
svelereś-c (gen.pl.)
svelθ v.i. to be lived
svalθas (aor.)
Svincina na.(I/II) Svincina [gentilicium] Svincinas (gen.)
śa num. six
śa, sa, sa-m (na.) // śeas, śas (gen.)
śar num. ten
śar, śar-c (nom.) // śariś (gen.)
Śarśinaia na.(I/II) Sarsinaia [gentilicium] Śarśinaia (na.)
śarvana ni.(II) tithe
śarvenas (gen.pl.)
Śatilna na.(I/II) Satilna [gentilicium] Śatlnal-c (gen.) // Śaθnai (loc.)
Śatna na.(I) Satna [female praenomen] Śatnal-c (gen.)
śaθa ni.(I) [liquid used in libation offerings] śaθaś (gen.sg.)
Śemu na.(I) Semu [male praenomen] Śemu (na.)
Śemuna na.(I/II) Semuna [gentilicium] Zemnal (gen.)
śetil v.tr. to approve, to accept śetilune-c (midd.pret.)
śeu na.(I) morning
śeu-c (na.sg.) // śeuś (gen.sg.)
śi v.tr. to set down to, to lower to
śin (midd.pres.)
śi ni.(II) evening
śi-c (na.sg.)
śialχ num. sixty
śealχls-c (abl.)
Śiθurina na.(I/II) Sithurina [gentilicium] Śiθurnas, Śitrinas (gen.)
śuci ni.(II) incense
śuci, śuci-c, zuci, zuc (na.sg.) // śuciva (na.pl.)
Śupilna na.(I/II) Supilna [gentilicium] Śupelnas (gen.)
Śupilu na.(I/II) Supilu [gentilicium] Śuplu, Suplu (na.)
śuri ni.(II); adj. bronze
śuri, sure (na.) // śuuris, śuris (gen.)
Śurnu na.(I/II) Surnu [gentilicium] Śurnus (gen.)
śuθi ni.(II) grave
śuθi, śuθi-c, suθi, suti, suθ (na.sg.) // śuθil, suθil (gen.sg.) // śuθi-θi, śuθi-ti, śuθi-θ, suθi-θ (loc.sg.)
śuθiiu ni.(II) small grave
suθiu, śuθu (na.sg.)
śuθina ni.(II) grave object śuθina, zuθina (na.sg.) // sutanaś (gen.sg.)
ta pron.dist. that, the
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 31
ita, ta, -ta (nom.) // itane, itani-m, itan, itun, etan, etun, -tn (acc.) // teiś (gen.) // tei (loc.)
Taitale na.(I) Daidalos [mythos] Taitle (na.)
Tama na.(I) Tama [male praenomen] Tama (na.)
tamera ni.(II) urn
tamera (na.sg.)
tameraiś ni.(II) little urn
tameres-ca (na.sg.)
Tanna na.(I/II) Tanna [gentilicium] Tanna
Tantale na.(I/II) Tantalos [gentilicium] Tantle (na.) // Tantleś (gen.)
Tantalina na.(I/II) Tantalina [gentilicium] Tantlnaś (gen.)
tar ni.(II) [small animal offering] tar, tar-c (na.sg.)
Tarcste na.(I/II) Tarcste [gentilicium] Tarcste (na.)
taril ni.(I) [abstract inanimate noun] tarils (gen.)
Tarχiie na.(I/II) Tarchiie [deity] Tarχies (gen.)
Tarχun na.(I) Tarchun [mythos] Tarχunus (gen.)
Tarχunal ni.(II) Tarquinia [city] Tarχnal-θi, Tarχnal-θ (loc.)
Tarχunie na.(I/II) Tarchunie [gentilicium] Tarχunies (gen.)
Tarna na.(I/II) Tarna [gentilicium] Tarnai (loc.) // Tarnes (dir.)
Tarsal na.(I/II) Tarsal [gentilicium] Tarsalus (gen.)
Tarsimina na.(I) Lake Tarsimenna
Tarsminaśś (gen.+dir.)
Tartanium adj. Dardanian
Dardanium (na.)
taś ni.(II) [funerary object] taśri (dat.sg.)
tatanu na.(I) bird
tatanuś (gen.sg.)
tau v.tr. to see, to behold, to watch; to show, to demonstrate
tev (inf.) // tva, etva (pres.) // etve (pret.)
tauraθ na.(I) seer, augur teveraθ (na.sg.)
tec v.tr. to erect θec, tec-um (pres.) // tece (pret.)
Tecum na.(II) Tecum [deity] Tecvm (na.)
Teiθurna na.(I/II) Teithurna [gentilicium] Teiθurnas (gen.) // Teiθurnasi (dat.)
tel v.tr. to fight, to battle
tele (pret.)
temam na.(I) priest temamer (na.pl)
ten v.d. to present tena (pres.) // tence (perf.pret.) // tenine (midd.pret.) // tenu (part.)
Tenie na.(I/II) Tenie [gentilicium]
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 32
Tenies (gen.)
tenθ v.i. to be presented
tenθ (inf.) // tenθas (aor.)
Teriasia na.(I) Teriasia [mythos] Terasiaś (gen.) // Teriasals (gen.+gen.)
Termuna na.(I/II) Termuna [gentilicium] Termunas (gen.)
tesiam na.(I) sacrificial animal, sacrifice
tesim (na.sg.) // teśami-tn (acc.sg.) // teśns (gen.sg.) // teśne, tesiame-itale (loc.sg.) // teśamsa (adess.sg.)
tesianθ na.(I) sacrificer, butcher tesinθ (na.sg.)
teta na.(II) aunt teta (na.sg.)
Tetaie na.(I/II) Tetaie [gentilicium] Titaie (na.) // Teta (adess.)
tetals na.(II) nephew, niece (matrilineal) tetals (na.sg.)
tetana adj. materteral, pertaining to the aunt tetana (na.) // tatanuś (gen.)
Tetina na.(I/II) Tetina [gentilicium] Tetinaś (gen.)
Tetinaie na.(I/II) Tetinaie [gentilicium] Tetnie (na.) // Tetnies, Tetnis (gen.)
tez v.i. to stand
tez (inf.)
tezan ni.(II) cippus
tezan (na.sg.)
tiiu na.(I) little one, child
tius (gen.sg.) // tiuśa(adess.sg.)
tiiu adj. small, little
tiu (na.)
tiiur na.(I) month, moon
tiur (na.sg.) // tiiurś, tivrs (gen.sg.) // tiuri-m (loc.sg.)
tiiuza na.(I) small child
tiuza (na.)
tin ni.(I) sun; day
tin (na.sg.) // tinas, tinś (gen.sg.) // tinśi (dat.sg.) // tina (adess.sg.)
tinaś-cvil ni.(I) sundisc
tinścvil, tinscvil (na.sg.)
Tinia na.(I) Tinia [deity] Tinia (na.) // Tinias (gen.)
Tinusi na.(I) Dionysios [male praenomen] Tinusi (na.)
Tiφile na.(I/II) Diphilos [gentilicium] Tiφile (na.) // Tiples (gen.)
tiria ni.(I) metal tirias (gen.sg.)
tiria adj. metallic
tiria (na.)
Tite na.(I/II) Tite [male praenomen] Tite, Titi (na.) // Titias (gen.) // Titial-c (gen.)
Titena na.(I/II) Titena [gentilicium] Titenas (gen.)
Titula na.(I/II) Titula [gentilicium] Tetula (na.)
Tlamunius na.(I/II) Telamonios [mythos]
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 33
Tlamnus (na.)
Tlapu na.(I/II) Tlapu [gentilicium] Tlapu (na.) // Tlapuś (gen.) // Tlapusa (adess.)
Tlapuna na.(I/II) Tlapuna [gentilicium] Tlapnal (gen.) // Tlapuni (loc.)
tleχa ni.(II) war tleχe (loc.sg.)
Tlenaχa na.(I) Tlenacha [district name] Tlenaχeiś, Tlenaces (gen.sg.)
Tlesina na.(I/II) Tlesina [gentilicium] Tlesnaś (gen.) // Tlesnal (gen.)
tluś ni.(II) depth
tluscv, tlusc (na.pl.)
tmiia ni.(II) temple
tmia (na.sg.) // tmial (gen.sg.)
tmiiaθu na.(I) temple attendant tamiaθuras (gen.pl.)
tra v.tr. to pour, to sprinkle
trin (midd.pres.) // trau (part.) // trinθ (midd.part.)
traula ni.(I) libation
traula-c (na.sg.)
Trepi na.(I/II) Trepi [gentilicium] Trepi (na.)
Trepu na.(I/II) Trepu [gentilicium] Trepu (na.)
Tresele na.(I/II) Tresele [gentilicium] Treseles (gen.)
trinθ v.i. to pour trinθaśa (aor.pres.)
Truia ni.(II) Troy [city] Truia (na.) // Truies (dir.) // Truials (abl.)
trut v.i. to be given drink; to be poured
truθ, trut-um (inf.) // trutanaśa (midd.aor.pres.) // truθt (part.)
trutun na.(I) [type of person, possibly a position] truθun (na.sg.)
trutunuθ ni.(II) augur, oracle
trutnvt (na.sg.)
Tuχulχa na.(I) Tuchulcha [deity] Tuχulχa, Tuχlac (for *Tuχlχac) (na.)
tul ni.(I) boundary stone, milestone, terminus
tul (na.sg.) // tul-trais (dat.sg.) // tuleśa (adess.sg.)
Tula na.(I) Tula [male praenomen] Tula (na.)
tular v.tr. to bound, to demarcate
tulerase (aor.pret.) // tularu (part.)
tular ni.(I) boundary stone, terminus
tular (na.sg.) // tularias (gen.pl.)
Tulumnaie na.(I/II) Tulumnaie [gentilicium] Tulumneś (gen.)
Tuntale na.(I) Tyndareos [mythos] Tuntle (na.)
tupi ni.(II) stone
tupi (na.sg.)
tur v.d. to give, to offer tur (inf.) // tura (pres.) // ture (pret.) // turuce, turuke, turice, turce, turke (perf.pret.) // turi (nec.) // turune (midd.pret.) // turunke (midd.perf.pret.) // turu (part.)
Turan na.(II) Turan [deity]
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 34
Turan (na.) // Turan-pi (loc.)
Turaniu na.(I) Turaniu [deity] Turnu
Turmina na.(I/II) Turmina [gentilicium] Turmna (na.)
Turmiś na.(II) Turmis [deity] Turms (na.) // Turmsal (gen.)
turza ni.(II) little gift turza (na.sg.) // turzais (gen.sg.) // turzai (loc.sg.)
tusna na.(I) swan
tusna (na.sg.) // tusnas (gen.sg.)
tuś ni.(II) funerary niche
tuś-θi, tuś-ti (loc.sg.)
Tuśnu na.(I/II) Tusnu [gentilicium] Tusnus (gen.) // Tuśnui (loc.)
Tuśnutinaie na.(I/II) Tusnutinaie [gentilicium] Tusnutnie (na.)
tuśurθi na.(I) consort tuśurθi (na.sg.) // tuśurθii (loc.sg.) // tusurθir (na.pl.)
Tuśuva na.(I) Tusuva [male praenomen] Tuśuvaś (gen.)
Tute na.(I/II) Tute [gentilicium] Tute (na.) // Tutes (gen.) // Tuteis (abl.)
Tutina na.(I/II) Tutina [gentilicium] Tutnal (gen.) // Tutnaśa (adess.) // Tutnaliśa (gen.+adess.)
tuθi na.(I) community
tuθi (na.sg.)
tuθina ni.(II) district
tuθina (na.sg.) // tuθineś (dir.sg.)
θaca ni.(II) [a place of offering] θaca-c (na.sg.) // θaclθi, θaclθ
θaχś v.tr. to worship
θaχśin (midd.) // θaχśeri (nec.)
θam v.tr. to establish, to found
θamuce, θamce (perf.pret.) // θemiasa (aor.) // θamequ (perf.part.)
Θamrie na.(I) Thamrie [male praenomen] Θamries (gen.)
θan v.tr. to be mindful of, to remember, to mourn
θanasa (aor.pres.) // θanu (part.)
Θanacvil na.(I) Thanacvil [female praenomen] Θankvil, Θancvil, Θanχvil (na.) // Θanakviluś, Θanaχvils, Θanχvilus (gen.) // Θanχviluis-c (dir.)
θanas na.(I) mourner θans (na.sg.) // tanasar, θansur (na.pl.)
θanaθu na.(I) mourner θanatur (na.pl.)
Θania na.(II) Thania [female praenomen] Θania, Θana (na.)
Θanicu na.(II) Thanicu [female praenomen] Θanicu (na.)
Θanirśie na.(I) Thanirsie [male praenomen] Θanirśiie (na.)
Θanse na.(I) Thanse [male praenomen] Θanse (na.) // Θanses-ca (gen.)
Θansina na.(I) Thansina
Θansinas (gen.)
Θanura na.(I) Thanura [deity]
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 35
Θanra, Θanr (na.) // Θanruś, Θanrś (gen.) // Θanurari (loc.)
θapic v.tr. to curse, to doom
θapicun (midd.)
θapuna ni.(II) shallow bowl θapna, θafna, tafina (na.sg.) // θapneś-tś (dir.sg.)
θapunaza ni.(II) small shallow bowl θapnza-c (na.sg.)
θarθie ni.(II) [animal offering?] θarθie (na.)
θaura na.(I) bull θaura (na.sg.) // θauruś (gen.sg.) // θaure (loc.sg.)
Θaura-Mineś na.(I) Minotaur [deity] Θevrumineś (na.)
θauracilna na.(I) priest performing a bull sacrifice, flamen
θevruclnas (gen.)
θaurχ ni.(II) bull sacrifice
θaurχ (na.)
Θefarie na.(I) Thefarie [male praenomen] Θefarie (na.) // Θefries (gen.) // Θefariei (loc.) // Θefriśa (adess.)
θeivi ni.(II) [a place or space] θeivi-ti (loc.sg.)
θel v.tr. to bring about, to produce, to give birth
θeluśa (aor.pres.) // θelu (part.)
Θelna na.(II) Thelna [deity] Θalna, Talna (na.)
θes v.i. to dawn
θesan na.(I) dawn, ascension
θesan (na.sg.) // θesns (gen.sg.) // θesnin, θesane-c (loc.sg.)
Θese na.(I) Theseus [mythos] Θese (na.)
Θestiia na.(II) Thestia [female praenomen] Θestia (adess.)
θesθiu adv. eastward
θesθu
Θesu na.(I) Thesu [male praenomen] Θesus (gen.)
Θeθis na.(II) Thethis [deity] Θeθis (na.)
θez v.tr. to dedicate
tez, θezi (inf.) // θezeri, θezeri-c (nec.) // θezin (midd.) // θezince (midd.perf.pret.)
θez v.tr. to dedicate
tez, θezi (inf.) // θezeri, θezeri-c (nec.) // θezin (midd.) // θezince (midd.perf.pret.) // tezan (act.part.)
θi ni.(II) water θi (na.) // θil (gen.) // θii (loc.)
θina ni.(II) water cup
θina (na.sg.)
θu num. one, whole, entire, all θu (na.) // θuvas (gen.) // θuveś, θueś (dir.) // θui, θui-um (loc.)
θuc v.tr. to empty
θucu (part.)
Θucer na.(I) Thucer [male praenomen] Θucer (na.)
Θucerna na.(I/II) Thucerna [gentilicium]
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 36
Θucernas (gen.)
θuχ ni.(II) chamber θuχ (na.sg.) // θuχ-ti, θuχ-t (loc.sg.)
θuluθ na.(I) twin
θuluter (na.pl.)
θum ni.(I) tomb
θumi-tle, θumi-zle (loc.sg.) // θumsa (adess.sg.)
θun num. one
θun (na.) // θunis, θunś (gen.) // θuni, θun-t (loc.)
θun-em zaθrum num. nineteen
θunem zaθrumś (gen.)
θunaśna adj. first θunśna
θunχul ni.(II) cave
θunχule-m, θunχul-θe (loc.sg.) // θunχulθl (loc.+gen.sg.)
θunur adv. one each
tunur
θunzi adv. once, one time
θunz
θup ni.(II) oath, promise, vow
θuf (na.) // θufl (gen.sg.) // θufi (loc.sg.)
Θupalθa na.(I) Thupaltha [deity] Θuplθas, Θuflθaś (gen.) // Θuflθi-cla (loc.)
Θupe na.(I) Thupe [male praenomen] Θupes (gen.)
θuta adj. every, each
θuta (na.)
ucanθ ni.(II) [inanimate object]
ucnt-m (na.sg.)
Ucerna na.(I/II) Ucerna [gentilicium] Ucernei (loc.)
Uhtave na.(I) Uhtave [male praenomen] Uhtave (na.)
Uχulnaie na.(I) Uchulnaie [male praenomen] Uχulni (na.)
Ultimna na.(I/II) Ultimna [gentilicium] Ultnas (gen.) // Ultimne (loc.)
um v.tr. to devote, to dedicate
umene (midd.pret.) // umu (part.)
un ni.(II) libation
un, un-um (na.sg.) // uni, une (loc.sg.) // una (adess.sg.) // unχva (na.pl.)
Una na.(I/II) Una [gentilicium] Unas (gen.)
Uni na.(II) Uni [deity] Uni (na.) // Unial (gen.) // Uniaś (dir.)
Unial ni.(I) temple of Uni Unial-θi, Unial-θ, Uniia-θi (loc.) // Unialas-tres (dir.)
Upaliie na.(I/II) Upaliie [male praenomen, gentilicium]
Uple, Uφle (na.) // Uφalias, Ufleś (gen.) // Uφaliasi (dat.)
Uperium na.(I) Hyperion
Uprium (na.)
upil ni.(II) dirt, mire, soil ufli (loc.sg.) // uples (dat.sg.)
Upilsiie na.(I/II) Upilsiie [gentilicium] Upelsi (na.) // Upelsiś (gen.)
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 37
Upsie na.(I/II) Upsie [gentilicium] Upsiie (na.)
ur v.tr. to fill uru (part.)
Ura na.(I) Ura [male praenomen] Uras (gen.)
Urinate na.(I/II) Urinate [gentilicium] Urinates (gen.) // Vrinati (loc.)
urχ ni.(II) vessel urχ (na.sg.) // urχeiś (dir.sg.)
Urχusna na.(I/II) Urchusna [gentilicium] Urχosnas (gen.)
urθ v.tr. to fill urθri (nec.) // urθanike (midd.perf.pret.)
us v.i. to set (as of the sun) usi (conj.)
us ni.(II) setting (of sun, moon, stars), dusk
use-ti (loc.sg.)
usil na.(I) setting (of sun, moon, stars), dusk
usil (na.sg.) // usils (gen.sg.) // usli (loc.sg.)
usilan ni.(II) setting (of sun, moon, stars), dusk
usilane (loc.sg.)
ut v.tr. to serve
uθ (inf.) // uθari (nec.) // utuśe, utuse (aor.pret.) // utince (midd.perf.pret.)
Utanie na.(I/II) Utanie [gentilicium] Utane (na.) // Utani-ces (gen.) // Utanisa (adess.)
Uθuze na.(I) Odysseus [mythos] Uθuze (na.)
Uvi na.(II) Uvi [female praenomen]
Uvial (gen.)
vacil ni.(II) votive offering
vacil, vacal, vacl (na.sg.) // vacili (loc.sg.)
Vaituluna ni.(II) Vetulonia [city] Vaitluna, Vatlna (na.)
vaχar na.(I) servant vaχr (na.sg.)
van v.i. to reach, to extend, to stretch out vane-c
Vanθ na.(II) Vanth [deity]
vat v.tr. to dedicate
vatieχe (pass.pret.)
vecsa ni.(II) [type of vessel] vecsa-θ, vecsa-t (loc.sg.)
Veive na.(I) Veiove [deity] Veiveś (gen.)
Vel na.(I) Vel [male praenomen] Vel (na.) // Velus (gen.) // Veluis (dir.) // Velusi (dat.) // Veluśa (adess.) // Veluśla (abl.)
Velaria na.(II) Velaria [female praenomen] Velaral (gen.)
Velaśna na.(I/II) Velasna [gentilicium] Velasnaś (gen.) // Velaśnei (loc.)
Velaθera ni.(II) Volterra [city] Velaθri (loc.)
Velaveśna na.(I/II) Velavesna [gentilicium] Velaveśnaś (gen.)
Velelia na.(I) Velelia [male praenomen] Velelias (gen.) // Veleliiasi (dat.)
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 38
Velia na.(II) Velia [female praenomen] Vela, Velia-k (na.) // Veliaś, Velas (gen.)
Veliana na.(I/II) Veliana [gentilicium] Velianas, Veliiunas, Vilianas, Velanas (gen.)
Velie na.(I/II) Velie [gentilicium] Veliies (gen.) // Velieśa (adess.)
Velimna na.(I/II) Velimna [gentilicium] Velimna (na.) // Velimnas, Velimnaś (gen.) // Velimnei (loc.)
Velχ ni.(II) Vulci [city] Velχ (na.) // Velχl (gen.) // Velχi, Velχe, Velcl-θi (loc.)
Velχa na.(I/II) Velcha [gentilicium] Velχas (gen.)
Velχaie na.(I/II) Velchaie [gentilicium] Velχaie (na.) // Velχieś (gen.)
Velχan na.(I) Velchan (Velchans) [deity]
Velχasna na.(I/II) Velchasna [gentilicium] Velχasnas (gen.) // Velχainaśi (for *Velχasnaśi) (dat.)
Velχe na.(I) Velche [male praenomen] Velχe (na.) // Velχeś, Velχes (gen.)
Velχina na.(I/II) Velchina [gentilicium] Velχinei (loc.)
Velχitie na.(I/II) Velchitie [gentilicium] Velχite (na.) // Velcitial (gen.)
Velśu na.(I/II) Velsu [gentilicium] Velśu (na.) // Velśui (loc.)
velθa na.(I) deity of the underworld, deus inferior
velθa (na.sg.) // velθe (loc.sg.) // velθur (na.pl.) // velθre (loc.pl.)
Velθaiena na.(I/II) Velthaiena [gentilicium] Velθina (na.) // Velθienas, Velθinas (gen.)
Velθaienaθu na.(I) Velthaiena family member Veltinaθuras (gen.pl.)
velθina na.(I) offerings to the veltha
velθineś (gen.sg.)
Velθuna ni.(II) Voltumna [city] Veltune (loc.)
Velθur na.(I) Velthur [praenomen] Velθur (na.) // Velθurus, Velθurs (gen.) // Velθurusi (dat.) // Velθurusla (gen.+adess.)
Velθuria na.(I/II) Velthuria [gentilicium] Velθura (na.)
Velθurna na.(I/II) Velthurna [gentilicium] Velθurnas (gen.)
Velzina ni.(II) Volsini [city] Velznals-c (abl.)
Velzinaχ na.(I) Volsinian
Velznaχ (na.)
Venel na.(I) Venel [male praenomen] Venel, Vener (na.) // Venelus, Venerus (gen.) // Venelisi, Venelasi (dat.) // Venlis (dir.) // Venala (adess.)
Venete na.(I/II) Venete [gentilicium] Venetes (gen.)
Venu na.(I) Venu [male praenomen] Venuś, Venus (gen.)
veras v.tr. to burn
versu-m (na.sg.)
verasie ni.(II) firepot versie (na.sg.)
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 39
Verasina na.(I) Verasina [male praenomen] Verśenas (gen.)
Verati na.(I/II) Verati [gentilicium] Verati (na.)
Veratru na.(I/II) Veratru [gentilicium] Veratru (na.)
Veru na.(I) [cognomen] Veru (na.)
Vesia na.(II) Vesia [female praenomen] Vesial (gen.)
Vestina na.(I/II) Vestina [gentilicium] Vestnal (gen.)
Vestiraie na.(I/II) Vestiraie [gentilicium] Vestraes (gen.)
Vestiricina na.(I/II) Vestiricina [gentilicium] Vestrcnial (gen.) // Vestrcnie (loc.) // Vestiricinala (adess.)
Vetie na.(I/II) Vetie [male praenomen, gentilicium] Veteś, Vetes, Vetis (gen.) // Vetieśi (dat.)
Vetiena na.(I/II) Vetiena [gentilicium] Vetinal, Vetanal, Vetnal (gen.) // Vetnalisa
Vetienaie na.(I/II) Vetienaie [gentilicium] Vetenei, Vetinei, Vetanei, Vetnei
Vetiia na.(II) Vetiia [female praenomen] Vetial (gen.)
Vetru na.(I/II) Vetru [gentilicium] Vetru (na.) // Vetruis (gen.)
Vicare na.(I) Ikaros [mythos] Vikare (na.)
Vicina na.(I/II) Vicina [gentilicium]
Uicina (na.)
vil v.tr. to cleanse
vile (pret.) // vilu (part.)
Vilatas na.(I/II) Oiliades [gentilicium] Vilatas (na.)
vina ni.(II) wine
vina, vina-c (na.sg.) // venaś (gen.sg.) // vinai-θ (loc.sg.)
Vinacena na.(I/II) Vinacena [gentilicium] Vinacna (na.) // Vinucenas (gen.) // Vincnai (loc.)
vinum ni.(II) wine
vinum (na.sg.) // vinumaia, vinimia (adess.sg.)
Vipie na.(I/II) Vipie [gentilicium] Vipe, Vipi (na.) // Vipes (gen.) // Vipial (gen.)
Vipiena na.(I/II) Vipiena [gentilicium] Vipina (na.) // Vpinas (for *Vipinas) (gen.) // Vipinal-tra (dir.) // Vipinei (loc.)
Vipienana na.(I/II) Vipienana [gentilicium] Vipinanas, Vipiiennas (gen.)
Vipieθu na.(I) member of the Vipie family
Vipiθur (na.pl.)
Vipiia na.(II) Vipia [female praenomen] Vipia (na.)
Vircina na.(I/II) Vircina [gentilicium] Vircenas (gen.)
Visal ni.(II) Faesulae [city] Viśl, Viś. (na.)
Visce na.(I/II) Visce [gentilicium, cognomen] Visce (genticilum), (cognomen)
Viscena na.(II) Viscena [female praenomen]
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 40
Viscnal (gen.)
Viscenaia na.(II) Viscenaia [cognomen] Viscenei
Viśna na.(I/II) Visna [gentilicium] Viśnai (loc.)
Viśnaia na.(I/II) Visnaia [gentilicium] Visnaials (gen.+gen.)
Vucina na.(I/II) Vucina [gentilicium] Vucinas (gen.)
zal num. two
zal, zl, esl (na.) // esals (gen.)
Zalθu na.(I/II) Zalthu [gentilicium] Zalθu (na.)
zalur adv. two each
zelur
zalva v.i. to be half zelvθ (part.)
zalzi adv. twice, two times
eslz, elsśi (for *eslśi)
zamaθi ni.(II) gold
zamaθi (loc.sg.)
zamaθiχ adj. golden
zamθic, zamtic (na.)
zar v.i. to be high, to be large
zar (inf.)
Zarapiiun na.(I) Sarapion [male praenomen] Zarapiu, Zerapiu (na.)
zarfan v.i. [action regarding sacrificial animals] zarfneθ (part.)
zarva ni.(II) [type of offering]
zarva, zarua (na.sg.) // zarve (loc.sg.) // śarvenas (gen.pl).
zati ni.(II) entrance, gate
zati (loc.sg.)
zatilaθ na.(I) gatekeeper zatlaθ (na.)
zatilaθun v.tr. to guard the gates
zatltne (mid.pret.)
zaθrum num. twenty
zaθrumiś, zaθrumś, zaθrums, zaθrms, zaθrmis-c (gen.)
zaθrumsna num. twentieth
zaθrumsne (loc.)
zavena ni.(II) kantharos, vase
zavena (na.sg.)
zeri ni.(II) dedication
zeri (na.sg.) // zeriś (gen.)
Zertina na.(I/II) Zertina [gentilicium] Zertnei (loc.)
Zetun na.(I) Zetun [mythos] Zetun (na.)
zi v.tr. to burn
zia, zea (pres.)
ziχ v.tr. to write down, to record
ziχuχe (pass.pret.) // ziχri (nec.) // ziχne (midd.pret.) // ziχunce (midd.perf.pret.) // ziχu (part.)
ziχ ni.(II) text ziχ (na.sg.)
zil ni.(II) supervision, reign
zili (loc.sg.)
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 41
zil v.i. to be in command
zil (inf.) // zilace (perf.pret.) // zilaθ, zilat (part.)
zilaχun v.tr. to command
zilaχnuke, zilaχnuce, zilaχnce, zilχnce (perf.pret.) // zilaχnu, zilχnu (part.) // zilaχnθas (part.+aor.)
zilχ na.(II) overseer, leader, head
zilχ, zilc (na.sg.) // zilacal (gen.sg.) // zilci, zilc-θi, zilc-ti, zilc-te (loc.sg.)
Ziltina na.(I/II) Ziltina
Ziltnal (gen.)
Zimaru na.(I/II) Zimaru [gentilicium] Zimarus (gen.) // Zimarui (loc.)
zin v.tr. to mould, to fashion (with clay or metal) zinia (pres.) // zinace, zinece (perf.) // zinu (part.)
Zipna na.(II) Zipna [deity] Zipna (na.)
Zipnaiu na.(II) Zipnaiu [deity] Zipnu (na.)
ziu v.tr. to die
zivas (aor.)
ziula ni.(II) burnt offering
ziulas (gen.sg.)
Ziumite na.(I) Diomedes [mythos] Ziumite, Ziumiθe, Zimite (na.)
zuχ v.tr. to bleed, to let blood from
zuχne (midd.pret.) // zuqu (part.)
zuχiana ni.(II) bloodletting cup
zuχuna (na.sg.) // zucienes, zucieneś (dat.sg.)
Zuχu na.(I) [male praenomen]
Zuχu (na.) // Zuχus (gen.)
Zuχunaie na.(I/II) Zuchunaie [gentilicium] Zuχni (na.)
zuśle na.(I) pig
zuśle (na.sg.) // zuśleveś (gen.pl.)
zuθeva ni.(II) [type of offering] zuθeva (na.sg.)
![B.6 - B - Kopřivnice · 2017. 2. 6. · cp. název Oz Uz Oz Uz Uz Uz Obz Uz Uz Oz Uz Obz Os Sz pp Oz Obz výmžra Cm2) 8ÛÛm [dé ka) 2ÛÛm Cdê k?) 4ÛÛm Cd é ka] 358m [dé](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/60ab3c90591e007e8a1e9762/b6-b-kop-2017-2-6-cp-nzev-oz-uz-oz-uz-uz-uz-obz-uz-uz-oz-uz-obz-os.jpg)
![ISOPRO A-IP UZ 2020 - jpcz.cz · 2020. 11. 13. · Querkrafttragstufe Standard Q8 X3 390 390 X4 170 170 A-IP90 UZ BIS A-IP100 UZ Länge Zugstab [mm] A-IP90 UZ BIS A-IP100 UZ X1 820](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/610bd6bec3174a64221e39b3/isopro-a-ip-uz-2020-jpczcz-2020-11-13-querkrafttragstufe-standard-q8-x3.jpg)
