The Ethnicity of the Sea Peoples
1
2
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
3
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
4
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)
5
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
7
PREFACE Significance of the topic
It will further be argued that the ‘‘prime mover’’, which set into motion the whole process leading to the upheavals
Bringing down the Hittite empire and dealing Egypt a
of the Sea peoples, is formed by the truly massive migra-
blow from which it never recovered, the Sea Peoples’ epi-
tion of bearers of the central European Urnfield culture
sode at the end of the Bronze Age was crucial for a shift of
into the Italian peninsula c. 1200 BC.
the economic and political centre of gravity of the Mediter-
Building upon over a century of scholarly Sea Peo-
ranean world away from the Levant and towards Greece,
ples’ research, and offering a combination of various spe-
Africa Minor, and Italy. Soon this shift was to give rise to
cialist
the splendors of archaic and classical Greece developing
approaches from a variety of disciplines, this study will of-
into Hellenism, Carthage, Etruscan civilization, Rome, the
fer the reader synthetic perspectives onto a crucial period
Roman empire, early Christianity, and, in the long run, the
of human history.
(and
therefore
often
relatively
inaccessible)
emergence the modern western European civilization, dominated by speakers of Indo-European languages, but
Acknowledgments
greatly influenced by a Levantine religion (Judaism). For better or worse, the Sea Peoples’ episode was one of the
The work I have been engaged with let us say about the
few major turning points in world history, comparable to
last eight years could not have been accomplished without
the period of the great migrations which led to the collapse
the help of good friends and colleagues. First of all, my
of the Roman empire, or the rise and early spread of Islam.
sincere feelings of gratitude are due to my supervisor Wim van Binsbergen, who initiated the project, arranged a sti-
The present book’s argument
pendium to work it out granted by the Erasmus University, and, in addition to stimulating supervision, provided a
With the help of modern anthropological theories about
theoretical framework on ethnicity suitable for the analysis
ethnicity, I seek, in the present study, to determine whether
of the Mediterranean in the Late Bronze Age. Next, the
the enigmatic Sea Peoples were merely a bunch of pirates
Indo-Europeanist Frits Waanders was so kind to proofread
or whether they constituted a set of coherent ethnic enti-
an early draft of the entire manuscript and save me from
ties, temporarily making common cause in pursuit of the
many errors in spelling and judgment – needless to say that
richnesses of, and hence a better life in, the Near East.
remaining ones are my sole responsibility. Furthermore, I
Of vital importance to this endeavour is the question
am greatly indebted to the specialist in Linear A, Jan Best,
of the homelands of the various groups which make up the
who so to say raised me in the interdisciplinary field of
Sea Peoples. In order to tackle this problem, an inter-
protohistory and kindly proofread an early draft of the sec-
disciplinary proto-historical method has been applied,
tions on the Greeks and the Pelasgians. For the systemati-
which makes full use of the available archaeological, his-
zation of the transliteration of the Ugaritic texts, I am
torical, and linguistic data as provided by Egyptian, Levan-
much obliged to the Assyriologist Frans Wiggermans,
tine, Anatolian, Aegean, and central Mediterranean
whereas in matters of Egyptian hieroglyphic I was guided
sources.
by the Egyptologists J.F Borghouts and Willem van Haar-
As such, the work aspires at an historical synthesis, in
lem. Also of much help was the letter (d.d. 11 January
which the Masperonian thesis of a homeland for the Sea
2002) by the archaeologist Manfred Bietak on the sensa-
Peoples in Asia Minor and the Aegean is balanced with the
tional find of Minoan tephra at Tell el-Dab‘a/Avaris. Un-
opinion of others who rather attribute such a role to the is-
failing support came from the members of the editorial
lands of Sardinia and Sicily and the Italian peninsula in the
board of Talanta, consisting of Jan de Boer, Ton Bruijns,
central Mediterranean. It will be shown that both the “Ana-
Roald Docter, Jorrit Kelder, Vladimir Stissi, Jan Stronk,
tolian thesis” and the “central Mediterranean antithesis”
Reinier Telling, and Maarten de Weerd, which not only
are partly valid, and that some of the groups of the Sea
generously facilitated a prepublication of the section on the
Peoples originated from Anatolia and the Aegean, whereas
Etruscans, but also brought to my attention relevant litera-
others rather came from the central Mediterranean region.
ture and, where necessary, severe criticism. My work also 9
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 Etruscologist Bauke van der Meer, the Classical archeologist Eric Moorman, and the Mediterranean archeologist Jacques Vanschoonwinkel, for kindly bringing relevant literature 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.
10
NOTE ON THE TRANSCRIPTION, ESPECIALLY OF PROPER NAMES In the transcription of proper names, I have in most in-
as with Pelasgians. When originating from a Latin source,
stances preferred one closest to the Greek original: thus
the Latin forms of the proper names are preferred, as in
Akhaians, Herakles, Herodotos, Homeros, Korinthos, etc.
the section on the Aeneas’ saga. As far as possible, I have
Encouraged by the German saying that “Jeder Kon-
preferred to use (in general discussions outside the con-
zequenz führt zum Teufel”, however, I have not aimed at
text of my presentation of original texts) the simple s in-
being entirely systematic in this respect, since I found it
stead of the cumbersome sh for the transcription of the
hard to transform the current English forms of Cilicia, Crete, Crimea, Cyclades, Mycenae, Thucydides, Tiryns,
sibilant š in Hittite personal names and Philistine place names, thus Hattusilis, Suppiuliumas and Askalon, As-
Troy, Tyre, etc. into less familiar ones closer to the Greek
dod. However, for the sake of clarity sh is maintained for
original. The same license has been adopted with respect
Eshtaol, Kadesh, and Laish as well as for the ethnonyms
to the ending of the ethnonyms, now using the Greek one,
of the Sea Peoples from the Egyptian sources, hence Ek-
as with Danaoi and Teukroi, then using the English one,
wesh, Teresh, etc.
11
LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 12. Sites and cemeteries (a) in Late Helladic
Frontispiece. Rowers depicted on a Late Helladic IIIC sherd from Seraglio on Kos (from Sandars 1980:
IIIB and (b) in Late Helladic IIIC (from Popham 2001:
131, afb. 92)..................................................................... 5
282-3) ............................................................................ 75 Fig. 13. Distribution of biconical urns in the Urnfield
Fig. 1a. Diagram of the extremities in the spec-
world (from Hencken 1968: 441, fig. 452) .................... 81
trum of possibilities of the relation between ethnic
Fig. 14. Distribution of house urns (from Bouzek
groups and the indicia language, religion, and material
1997: fig. 49) ................................................................. 82
culture ............................................................................ 16
Fig. 15. Distribution of (a) proto-Villanovan and (b)
Fig. 1b. Diagram of the partial relationship between
Villanovan sites (after Hencken 1968: fig. 466) ............ 83
ethnicity and its indicia, kinship, material culture, lan-
Fig. 16. The Heroon of Aeneas at Lavinium (from
guage, and religion......................................................... 21
Somella 1974: Taf. VII)................................................. 90
Fig. 2. Distribution of the Greek dialects (from Hall
Fig. 17. Settlement of the Sea Peoples in the Levant
1997: 154, Fig. 25)......................................................... 23
and the remains of the Egyptian sphere of influence (from
Fig. 3. The ethnonyms of the Sea Peoples in Egyp-
Bietak 1993: 295, Fig. 4) ............................................... 96
tian writing, transliteration, and standardized transcription
Fig. 18. Figurines from (a) Asdod, (b) Cyprus, and
(from Kitchen 1982: IV, 4 and Kitchen 1983: V, 40) .... 36
(c) Mycenae (from Sandars 1980: 165, afb. 116) .......... 97
Fig. 4. Plan of Ramesses III’s temple at Medinet
Fig. 19. Comparison of (a) Philistine chamber tombs
Habu, Thebes (after Cifola 1991: 12) ............................ 51
from Tell Fara with (b) Mycenaean prototypes (from
Fig. 5. Land battle scene of Medinet Habu (from
Waldbaum 1966: 332, Ill. 1; 336, Ills. 11-14)................ 97
Oren 2000: 96, Fig. 5.5)................................................. 53
Fig. 20. Late Helladic IIIC1b ware with “antithetic
Fig. 6. Sea battle scene of Medinet Habu (from Oren
horns” and “bird looking backwards”: (a) Crete, (b) C y -
2000: 98, Fig. 5.6).......................................................... 53
p r u s , a n d ( c ) P h i l i s t i a (after Schachermeyr 1979:
Fig. 7. Prisoners of war: (a) Hittite, (b) Amorite, (c) Tjeker, (d) Sherden, (e) Shasu, and (f) Teresh (from Nibbi
160, Abb. 41a; Noort 1994: 122, Abb. 36; 115, Abb. 38)
1975: Pl. I) ..................................................................... 53
....................................................................................... 98 Fig. 21. Distribution of Trojan grey ware (from
Fig. 8. Map of Lycia (from Mellink 1995)............. 58
Heuck Allen 1994)....................................................... 110
Fig. 9. Distribution of centres of radiation of Late Helladic I material. (a) Pottery in combination with archi-
Fig. 22. Sherden in the Egyptian reliefs from the
tectural remains (Pylos, Kirrha, Thebes, Eleusis, and Ath-
reigns of Ramesses II and Ramesses III with (a) long
ens); (b) pottery in shaft graves, tholos- and chamber
slashing swords and round shields, and (b) javelins (from
tombs (Koryphasion, Peristeria, Epidauros Limera, Lerna,
Sandars 1980: 29, afb. 12 and 32, afb. 14) .................. 111 Fig. 23. Statue-menhirs from Corsica: (a) Cauria
Mycenae, Prosymna, and Thorikos). Sources: van Royen
(with horns reconstructed on the helmets), (b) Scalsa
& Isaac 1979 and Hope Simpson 1981 .......................... 63
Murta (from Grosjean 1966b, Fig. 5; Sandars 1980: 99,
Fig. 10. Reconstruction of the split between Greek
afb. 60)......................................................................... 113
and Thraco-Phrygian on the basis of the development of
Fig. 24. Distribution of Urnfield culture and the route
the mediae aspiratae (after Haas 1966: 209) .................. 66
of the Sea Peoples; (a) c. 1180 BC; (b) 12th-10th century
Fig. 11. Sites in southern and central Greece de-
BC (after Kimmig 1964: 269-70, Abb. 17-8) .............. 116
stroyed and/or abandoned at the end of Late Helladic
Fig. 25. Origins of the Cretan hieroglyphic script. (a)
IIIB. 1. Teikhos Dymaion, 2. Pylos, 3. Nikhoria, 4. Menelaion, 5. Ayios Stephanos, 6. Krisa, 7. Tsoungiza, 8.
Luwian hieroglyphic (56 signs); (b) Egyptian hiero-
Mycenae, 9. Zygouries, 10. Berbati, 11. Prosymna, 12.
glyphic (14 signs) ........................................................ 128 Fig. 26. Cretan hieroglyphic seals with the categories
Midea/Dendra, 13. Tiryns, 14. Orkhomenos, 15. Iria, 16. Gla, 17. Eutresis, 18. Thebes, 19. Brauron. Source: Hope
“man’s name”, “title”, and “place or country name”
Simpson & Dickinson 1979 ........................................... 72
(drawings of the original publications, except in the case of # 309) ................................................................130-133
12
LIST OF TABLES Table 5. Correspondences between Cretan hiero-
Table 1. Overview of the mention of the Sea Peoples in the various E g y p t i a n sources from the Late Bronze
glyphic and Egyptian hieroglyphic (values as attested for
Age ................................................................................ 56
Cretan hieroglyphic) .................................................... 125 Table 6. Correspondences between Cretan hiero-
Table 2. Literary traditions with a bearing on the
glyphic and Cretan Linear ........................................... 127
transition from Middle Helladic to Late Helladic I, c.
Table 7. Correspondences between Cretan hiero-
1600 BC. ....................................................................... 63
glyphic and Cypro-Minoan.......................................... 127
Table 3. Developments in the innovative group of Indo-European languages related to the progressive use of
Table 8. Seals with the categories “man’s name”, “ti-
the horse ........................................................................ 67
tle”, and “place or country name”................................ 130 Table 9. Trifunctional divine triads among various
Table 4. Correspondences between Cretan hiero-
Indo-European speaking groups. ................................ 142
glyphic and Luwian hieroglyphic (values in square brackets attested for Cretan hieroglyphic only) ............. 124-125
13
1. DEFINING ETHNICITY In a work which deals with the ethnicity of the Mediterra-
units of speech sound distinguished by the language users
nean population groups which attacked Egypt at the end of
themselves (hence -emic).2 Another pair of concepts is
the Bronze Age, commonly referred to as the Sea Peoples,
formed by primordialism and instrumentalism. According
it should first of all be specified what “ethnicity” actually
to the primordial approach, the ethnic features of a specific
means and how we will put this concept into practice. To
group are immutable qualities, inherited from father to son
this aim, it is interesting to note that the word is derived
and mother to daughter, and thus a historically “given”. As
from Greek ethnos (plural ethnƝ), “number of people living
opposed to this, the instrumentalist approach, initiated by
together, body of men; nation, people; foreign, barbarious
Frederik Barth in his classic Ethnic Groups and Bounda-
nations; class of men, caste, tribe”.1 According to Werner
ries of 1969, holds that ethnic features can be manipulated
Sollors in his Theories of Ethnicity, A Classical Reader of
for certain causes by the members of a specific group and
1996, the modern formation ethnicity came into use during
that hence the ethnic boundaries are permeable. Accord-
the Second World War (1940-1945), being first attested in
ingly, instrumentalists will stress the dynamic and negotia-
a publication by W. Lloyd Warner (p. vii). As a definition
ble nature of ethnicity, whereas primordialists will do the
of this term, the same author presents the one formulated
opposite. In reality, the truth lies somewhere in between
by R.A. Schermerhorn in 1970, which runs as follows
these opposites, some ethnic boundaries being difficult to
(ibid., p. xii):
cross or even impermeable in a certain period of time, especially when there is a high ethnic conscience (= ethnici-
“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 affiliation, nationality, phenotypal features, or any combination of these. A necessary accompaniment is some consciousness of kind among members of the group.”
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 protohistory, which lacks contemporary works of history, the definition of ethnicity needs to be translated into protohis-
Not explicitly mentioned in this definition, but of vital
torical categories of evidence. In addition, these categories
importance to our subject, is the fact that ethnic groups are
of evidence should be workable in the context of the east-
in most of the cases referred to by a name, coined either by
ern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age, which with
themselves or by outsiders, which we call an ethnonym.
societies ranging from highly developed multiethnic em-
In the study of ethnicity, various approaches can be
pires through individual kingdoms and city leagues to
encountered. In the first place, the ethnic group under con-
merely tribal forms of organization3 is far more complex
sideration can be studied from the perspective of the mem-
than, for example, the modern African one where the vari-
bers of this group themselves. This approach is called
ous ethnic groups are all of a similar degree of organiza-
emic. Alternatively, the ethnic group under consideration
tion – in the words of van Binsbergen: like cookies shaped
can be studied from the perspective of outsiders. The latter
with different cookie moulds from one and the same large
approach is called etic. As explained by Wim van Binsber-
rolled out slab of dough.4 Hence, following in the tracks of
gen, these terms are rooted in the field of linguistics, where phonetics furnishes a purely external description of a lan-
2 Van Binsbergen 1999: 43.
guage (hence -etic), and phonemics deals with the smallest
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.
1 LSJ, s.v.; in modern literature, one also finds the plural ethnoi or
ethnƝs (from singular ethnƝ) or the originally French form ethnie used for both singular and plural.
4 Van Binsbergen 1999: 69; the same observation to some extent
15
Jonathan Hall in his Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity of
two or more languages, like the Franks on the east (Ger-
1997, we might – apart from ethnonyms – suitably adopt
manic) and the west (Romance) side of the Rhine or the
the following indicia for the distinction of ethnic groups: 1.
Swiss (German, French, and Italian). Similarly, a religion
kinship or “race”, 2. language or dialect, 3. religion, and 4.
can be shared by two or more ethnic groups, like in the
material culture (= the materialisation of shared cultural
case of the Orthodox religion adhered to by the Greeks and
traits).5 As we will see in the next section, these indicia for
numerous Slavic population groups, or a single ethnic
ethnic groups are very close to the categories of evidence
group can be characterized by two or more religions, like
distinguished by the ancients themselves to this aim.
the Dutch by Protestantism and Catholicism. In certain
Of the given indicia for the distinction of ethnic
cases, the differences of religion may cause a once united
groups, the first one, kinship or “race” is a tricky one, as
people to break up into different ethnic groups, like in the
one has to steer carefully between the Scylla of “Blut und
case of the former Yugoslavia, now being split up into
Boden” theory of indigenous development and the
Serbia (Orthodox), Croatia (Catholic), and Bosnia (partly
Charybdis of an invading “Herrenvolk”. In effect, how-
Muslim). And finally, a material culture can be shared by
ever, although Egyptian artists do distinguish phenotypal
two or more ethnic groups, like in the case of the Flemings
features in their reliefs, the eastern Mediterranean in the
and the Walloons in Belgium, or a single ethnic group can
Late Bronze Age appears to be not particularly preoccu-
be characterized by two or more material cultures, like in
pied with the “race”
issue.6
the case of the Phrygians using grey ware in the west and
To all probability, this results
so-called mattpainted ware in the east (see Fig. 1a).7
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
language 1 religion 1 culture 1
female ones as their wives at the time of their colonization
language 1 religion 1 culture 1
language 2 religion 2 culture 2
of western Asia Minor, as Herodotos slily remarks (Histories I, 146). In the course of our investigations, we will exethnos 1
perience that in all cases of a migration some measure of
ethnos 2
ethnos 1
mixing between the invaders and the indigenous population took place, so that the category of “race” will not figure prominently in our treatment – not in the least also because we lack the sources whether the population groups
Fig. 1a. Diagram of the extremities in the spectrum of possibilities
under discussion considered themselves of pure descent (=
of the relation between ethnic groups and the indicia language, re-
emic point of view).
ligion, and material culture.8
A complicating factor in our work with the remaining three indicia for the distinction of ethnic groups is the fact
Given this complicating factor, it cannot be denied,
that, as duly stressed by Hall, the boundaries of speech
however, that the different indicia for the distinction of
communities, religious entities, and material cultures are
ethnic groups often overlap and that precisely here we may
not always coterminous. Thus, to stipulate the extremities
find a nucleus of an ethnic group (see Fig. 1b, below): if
of the entire spectrum of possibilities, a language can be
we would assume otherwise we would throw away the
shared by two or more ethnic groups, like in the case of the
child with the bathwater (for an elaboration of this point of
English and the Americans or the formerly west- and east-
view, see section 2)! The latter observation should not be
Germans, or a single ethnic group can be characterized by
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
also holds good for Europe during the Bronze Age.
the actual state of affairs in an irresponsible manner. In
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.
7 Haas 1966: 17.
6 Cf. Snowden’s (1997: 121) characterization of the Graeco-
8 I am indebted to Wim van Binsbergen for drawing this diagram.
Roman world as a “society which (…) never made color the basis for judging a man.” But see now Isaac 2004.
9 Demoule 1999: 194.
16
similar vein, to accuse Georges Dumézil of racialism, as
concrete named groups in interaction; and
Tim Cornell does,10 because he discovered the remnants of
3.
a process, involving both the interaction of these
a tripartite Indo-European religious ideology among vari-
ethnic groups over time, and the dynamics (emer-
ous peoples speaking an Indo-European tongue, means an
gence, maturation, change, decline, replacement,
irresponsible mixing up between the categories of kinship
etc.) of the overall ethnic space they constitute to-
or “race” and religion, elements of the latter of which
gether; of this process, we distinguish at least three
namely can also be inherited by genetically mixed descen-
important movements: a. ethnogenesis, as the redefinition (through changes in the classification system) of the overall 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 socioeconomic-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 existing in the same geographic space or having newly arrived there.
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, notwithstanding the fact that it shares in with the same phenotype, language, religion, and material culture of a particular ethnic group, simply considers itself distinct, like some of the Dryopes in Greece11 or the Asturians – who, while speaking Spanish, being Catholic, and sharing the Spanish material culture, consider themselves Celtiberians – in Spain.12 As we will also see in the next section, here our protohistoric method by its mere definition simply fails to help us out. As cogently argued by van Binsbergen, the shortcomings of our protohistorical method can be partly compensated by working within a theoretical framework, based on
Much of the structure and dynamics of ethnicity de-
experience with ethnic studies from the historical period.
pends on the framing of communities into wider organiza-
In the following, then, I will present a summary of van
tional settings, be they states, regional cultic networks, or
Binsbergen’s attempt at such a framework in his Ethnicity
commercial networks. In themselves, these latter forms of
in eastern Mediterranean protohistory, Reflections on the-
organization are alternative, and hence competing, ways of
ory and method (forthc.), sections 1-3.
structuring wider socio-political space.
Starting point is the realization that ethnicity is not
The ethnic name may be either geographically based
just a classification of human individuals in terms of an
or referring to some quality of the designated group as per-
ethnic lable, but a way of creating a wide-ranging, supra-
cepted by others or the group itself. The process of naming
local socially structured space as a context for social, eco-
is contrastive: by calling the other category “A”, one’s
nomic, political, military, and ritual interaction over a rela-
own category in any case is identified as “not-A”. The lat-
tively vast area. To underline this, there can be
ter is usually also given a name, “B”, by those which it has
distinguished three constituent aspects to make clear what
called “A”, and third parties within the social space can ei-
ethnicity is about: 1.
ther adopt this nomenclature or replace it by one of their own invention. With the naming, a classification system is
a system of classification into a finite number of
imposed. Obviously, it is impossible for an ethnic system
specific ethnic names; 2.
to comprise only one ethnic group (in that case the group
a socio-political structure, notably the devise to turn
usually identifies itself simply as “humans”) – the plurality
the overall, neutral geographical space into an ethni-
of subsets is a precondition for ethnicity. The distinction
cally structured space, accommodating a number of
between ethnic groups, side by side in the same social space, tends to involve an element of subordination and hierarchy, at least from the perspective of the historical ac-
10 Cornell 1997: 14, note 18.
tors themselves.
11 Hall 1997: 74-7.
We would call a named set of people an “ethnic
12 Fernandez 2000.
17
group” only if certain additional characteristics are present,
opposition through nomenclature offers a logical structure,
namely:
which is further ossified through ascription (i.e. being made into a birth right) and which presents itself as uncon-
x x
x
when individual membership is primarily derived
ditioned, bounded, inescapable, and timeless (= primor-
from a birth right (ascription);
dial); on the other hand, the actual processual realization
when the set of people consciously and explicitly dis-
(through the construction of a culture coinciding with the
tinguishes itself from other such sets by reference to
group boundary, through distinctive cultural symbols,
specific cultural differences; and
through a shared historical consciousness, through that part
when the members of such a set identify with one an-
of membership which is non-ascriptive but acquired)
other on the basis of a shared historical experience.
means flexibility, choice, constructedness, and recent change (= instrumental). Both, entirely contradictory, as-
The social process creates boundaries, but also in or-
pects of ethnicization belong to ethnicity. As a result, eth-
der to cut across them. Thus, most ethnic groups include a
nicity is often of a highly kaleidoscopic nature, constantly
minority of members who have gained their membership
changing in shape and difficult to pin down to specific,
not at birth but only later in life, in a context of marriage,
general analytical formulae. Above all, it should be real-
migration, language acquisition, adoption, the assumption
ized that for every set of historical actors involved their
of a new identity and new life style, religious conversion,
particular vision on ethnic relations and ethnic history is
etc.
per definition that of partisans, and therefore must be subjected to severe historical criticism before it can be used as
Boundary markers include:
an historical source. x
a distinct ethnic name;
x
a distinct home territory (although many members of
The given (1)
any ethnic group may have taken up residence, temx
x
model of nominal ethnicity within a continuous cultural space
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
is only one of several very distinct shapes that the ethnic
least bilingual);
space can take in different periods and in different regions.
distinct traditional authorities (kings, chiefs, head-
Several major alternative models are:
men); x
(2)
distinct details of custom, especially in the sphere of
The immigrant model, found in all continents
expressive, ceremonial, and ritual production (music,
throughout history, where a set of immigrants
dance, puberty rites, other life crisis ritual, patterns of
(not necessarily less numerous than the original
sacrification, hairstyle and clothing, royal ritual)
population) have managed to insert themselves
which may be taken as distinguishing ethnic markers
into the local geographic space, and while re-
between adjacent ethnic groups even though in fact
taining a selection of linguistic and cultural spe-
the spatial distribution of the custom in question may
cific traits (often as a result of continued
be much more widespread.
contacts with these immigrants’ original home, which may be quite distant, and both culturally
In general, ethnicity is conceived as holistic and bun-
and linguistically very distinct from their new
dled, involving language, cultural customs, somatic fea-
host society), have begun to function as an integral part of that host society’s ethnic space.
tures, territory, and political leadership, which integrated (3)
package is claimed to determine the total mode of being of
The conquest model, found in all continents
that person. In reality, however, ethnic groups often differ
throughout history as a variant of the immigrant
from each other only with respect to a very limited selec-
model, in situations where an immigrant domi-
tion of cultural features functioning as boundary markers.
nant minority (of pastoralists, metal-workers,
Now, ethnicization displays a remarkable dialectics which
warriors with superior skills and weapons, etc.)
one might consider its engine: on the one hand, the binary
has imposed itself as a distinct ethnic minority
18
upon a pre-existing local population, retaining
distinct ethnic identity, to inform especially the
its distinct identity and thus its prerogatives of
more private, intimate aspects of life (family,
inequality through a package that, in addition to
reproduction, recreation, religion) and main-
military, technological superiority, may include
tained by a selection of language and custom and a tendency to endogamy.
a language and customs different from the local (7)
majority, special ritual functions, and a strategy (4)
Very common and widespread (e.g. in south
of endogamy.
Central Africa, Central Asia, the Ottoman em-
The millet system that was the standard form of
pire, medieval Europe, the Bronze Age Mediter-
ethnic space under the Ottoman empire in the
ranean, etc.) is the specialization model where,
Middle East and eastern Europe from the late
within an extended ethnic space, each ethnic
Middle Ages to the early 20th century AD (al-
group is associated with a specific specialization
though in fact this may be traced back to the
in the field of production, circulation or ser-
Babylonian, Assyrian, and Achaemenid empires
vices, so that the ethnic system is largely also a
of the second and first millennium BC, as medi-
system of social, economic, and political inter-
ated through Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine,
dependence, exchange, and appropriation. Agri-
and early Islamic empires): the state’s overall
culture, animal husbandry, fishing, hunting,
political and military space encompasses a
trading, banking, military, judicial, royal, reli-
number of distinct ethnic groups (Turks, Jews,
gious, recreational, performative, artistic func-
Greeks, Circassians, etc.) each of which are
tions may each be associated (in actual practice,
largely self-contained in cultural, linguistic,
or merely in ideology) with specific ethnic
marital, judicial, and religious matters, and each
groups. Often such a specialization model is
of which displays – both in life-style and in
combined with, or is a particular application of,
physical appearance – a distinct identity (per-
some of the other systems listed above.
petuated over time because these ethnic groups
(5)
are endogamous), although they share the over-
More models could easily be added to this list. Each
all public economic space production, exchange
of these models displays a different mix, a different pack-
and state appropriation, often against the back-
age of cultural, linguistic, and ritual elements, with differ-
ground of a lingua franca.
ing degrees of explicit ethnic consciousness at the level of
The colonial plural societies of Asia, Africa,
the social actors involved. It is therefore important to re-
and Latin America in the 19th and 20th centu-
peat that the specific composition of the distinct package in
ries AD, which mutatis mutandis are rather
a concrete ethnic situation in space and time, can never be
similar to the millet system, but whose top-
taken for granted and needs to be established by empirical
ranking ethnic groups in terms of political
research in each individual case.
power (the European civil servants, agricultural settlers, and industrialists, with their secondary entourage from the distant metropolitan colonizing 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 centuries AD, where very heterogenous sets of numerous first-generation immigrants rapidly shed much of the cultural specificity of their society of origin, although it is true to say that the descendants of many of these immigrant groups, rather than disappearing in the great melting pot of Americanness, continue to stand out with a
19
2. ETHNICITY AND PROTOHISTORY The study of the Sea Peoples, whose attack on Egypt and
the ethnic indicia: “Someone is a Lue [= ethnic group in
the Levant marks the watershed between palace-bound
Thailand] by virtue of believing and calling himself a
Late Bronze Age empires and more or less polis-oriented
Lue”.15 It is clear that we are at a loss to trace this type of
Early Iron Age societies, leads us into the field of Mediter-
ethnic group with a protohistorical method, as the contem-
ranean protohistory as there are not yet any contemporary
porary epigraphical records or literary sources of a later
works of history to inform us about the course of events.
period we will be working with often fall short in present-
As a result of this, we have to content ourselves with
ing the so-called emic point of view.16 The best thing we
piecemeal preserved epigraphical records, often of a
can do is to reconstruct distribution patterns of language
propagandistic nature, or bits of information from literary
groups and archaeological cultures, and assume that where
sources of a later date, which can be supplemented by
these two overlap the nucleus of an ethnic entity will to all
relevant archaeological data. However, as the title of this
probability be lurking at the background (cf. Fig. 1b).
monograph suggests, our aim is not merely to study the protohistorical Sea Peoples as such, but in particular to focus on their ethnicity, thus stimulating us to combine the
kinship
methods of ethnic studies with that of protohistory. The factors which play a role in the definition of ethnicity 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:
religion
“There is not enough gold in the world, nor any land so beautiful, that we would accept it in return for colluding 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
ethnicity
culture
language
In similar vein, Jonathan Hall distinguishes “race”,
Fig. 1b. Diagram of the partial relationship between ethnicity and
language, religion, and shared culture as factors in the self-
its indicia, kinship, material culture, language, and religion.17
expression of ethnic groups. Rightly, he stresses in this connection that these factors are not defining criteria of
According to Hall, this latter approach is fallacious,
ethnicity, but indicia, as he goes to great length to show
because linguistic and cultural boundaries are seldom co-
that, for example, a language may have a more restricted
terminous.18 However, in my view that is overstating the
distribution than the ethnic group or, vice versa, may have
evidence: there are numerous instances in which archaeo-
a wider distribution than the ethnic group, or that the eth-
logical cultures overlap with language groups, especially
nic group may be bilingual or multilingual, or change from
in contrastive situations like, for example, the colonization
one language to another altogether (cf. section 1).14
by the Greeks of culturally different regions in the Early
Another point rightly emphasized by Hall is that the
Iron Age.
determination of ethnic identity is in essence an historical
As far as the Black Sea area is concerned, there is un-
process. Thus it can happen that individuals consider themselves as members of an ethnic group without distinguishing themselves from other ethnic groups by any of
15 Hall 1997: 24. 16 Cf. Lomas 1997: 2.
13 Histories VIII, 144; cf. Hall 1989: 165.
17 I am indebted to Wim van Binsbergen for drawing this diagram.
14 Hall 1997: 19-26.
18 Hall 1997: 23.
21
certainty about the 8th century BC colonization of Sinope
fied), whereas pottery finds range from Rhodian, Chian
and Trapezus on the northern Anatolian coast, because this
(one inscribed with a dedication by Sostratos [= Aeginetan
cannot be backed up by archaeological evidence. But the
trader who also dedicated an inscription at Graviscae in
refoundation of Sinope by the Milesians Kretinos and
Etruria] to Aphrodite), Samian, Clazomenian, Lesbian
Koos after the period of the Kimmerian invasion coincides
(bucchero) from the Aegean islands to Spartan, Korinthian,
with late 7th century BC east-Greek and a little Korinthian
and Attic from the Greek mainland. Interesting also is a fa-
pottery from graves. Similarly, the Milesian colonization
ience factory producing scarabs and other Aegyptiaca for
of Histria in present-day Romania, which is variously
the Greek market.20
dated to 656/5 (Eusebios) or the late 7th century BC
Finally, the Greeks also expanded into the western
(pseudo-Skymnos), is archaeologically matched by Middle
Mediterranean. The earliest site in this area is Pithecussae
Wild Goat (= east-Greek) style pottery dating from c. 630
on the island of Ischia before the coast of present-day
BC onwards. Furthermore, the likewise Milesian colony at
Naples. This emporion produced Euboian and Korinthian
Borysthenes or Berezan, an emporion near the mouth of
ware next to Greek inscriptions (among which the famous
the river Bug, the foundation of which is dated to 646/5
Nestor cup) dating from c. 770-675 BC, which coincides
BC by Eusebios, produced a wide variety of east-Greek
nicely with the fact that according to literary evidence
(besides some Attic and Korinthian) pottery from occupa-
Euboians from Khalkis and Eretria were once stationed
tion deposits dating from the second quarter of the 7th cen-
here. Of these two Greek population groups, the Khalkidi-
tury BC onwards. Here were also found Milesian coins
ans went over to the Italian mainland and settled at Cumae
(late 7th century BC) and a Greek inscription on a bone
– “the oldest of all the Sicilian and Italiotic cities”21 – , an
plaque (late 6th or early 5th century BC). As a final exam-
event reflected in the archaeological record by Greek in-
ple from the Black Sea region, we may point to Khersone-
humation graves dating from c. 725 BC onwards.22 But as
sos in the Crimea, which was founded by Dorians from
Naxos in Sicily is the earliest Greek colonial foundation in
Herakleia Pontica (the latter being a Megarian colony) in
the west, we should refrain from considering Pithecussae
422/1 BC, but used already before this date as a trading
and Cumae as purely Greek enterprises. In Pithecussae,
station. Next to burials in amphorae from Samos and
next to Greek inscriptions, Aramaic and proto-Etruscan
Thasos dated to the beginning of the 5th century BC, “os-
ones came to light, indicating the presence of Aramaean
traka” from about the same time were found here inscribed
and Tyrrhenian merchants and/or resident aliens from
first in the Megarian alphabet and later in the Milesian one
North Syria and the Aegean, respectively, whereas Cumae
with Dorian personal
names.19
is named after Kume in Aiolia on the coast of western
If we turn to Egypt, it so happens that pharaoh Psam-
Anatolia, and, next to Greek graves, produced a very rich
metichos I (664-610 BC) granted Greeks, who had served
Etruscan cremation burial, the so-called fondo Artiaco, and
him as mercenaries, the right to settle in a trading colony
an Etruscan inscription in the earliest period of its exis-
called Naukratis – a site 3 km from present day el-Niqrâš
tence.23 The story of the subsequent colonization of Naxos
along the western branch of the Nile delta. The validity of
(by the Khalkidians, 734 BC), Syracuse (by the Korin-
this historical information is underlined by the fact that
thians, 733 BC) and the other sites in Sicily, and their im-
Greek pottery is attested for the earliest layer of the site
portance for the absolute chronology of Greek (especially
dating from c. 630 BC onwards. The privileged position of
Korinthian) pottery, may be considered familiar by now.24
the Greeks at Naukratis is subsequently reinforced by
Still interesting to adduce is that the historical tradition of
Amasis (570-526 BC), under whose rule the Greeks built a
the Phokaians from Aiolia in western Anatolia sailing all
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
20 Boardman 1994; cf. Boardman 1999: 118-33.
individual states, like that of Aphrodite (Chian), Hera
21 Strabo, Geography V, 4, 4.
(Samian), Apollo (Milesian), and the Dioskouroi (unspeci-
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).
19 Tsetskhladze 1994: 115-23; for the Berezan inscription on a
24 Boardman 1999: 169 ff; cf. Dunbabin 1999 (esp. 435-8).
bone plaque, see Onyshkevych 2002.
22
the way to Tartessos just outside the pillars of Herakles in
myth goes, return to their ancestral lands some time after
southern Iberia is reflected in the archaeological record of
the Trojan war. In fact, the evaluation of the historicity of
Huelva by north-Ionian bird bowls and Aiolian bucchero
this event is a central theme in Hall’s study of ethnicity in
dating from c. 630-580 BC.25 Apparently to accommodate
antiquity.
this long-distance trade the Phokaians founded colonies
The problem of the coming of the Dorians and the re-
along the route at Marseilles (= Massalia, c. 600 BC) and
turn of the Heraklids involves three categories of evidence:
Ampurias (= Emporion, also c. 600 BC).26
linguistic, historical (or mythical),27 and archaeological.
With a view to linguistics, it deserves our attention
The linguistic thesis is presented by the map of the distri-
that there can be distinguished four types of names for the
bution of the Greek dialects (see Fig. 2). What strikes us
Greek colonies in general: (1) after or derived from geo-
about this distribution is that speakers of Arkado-Cyprian –
graphic names in the motherland, like Cumae, Megara Hy-
which is the dialect closest to the Mycenaean Greek lan-
blaia, and Naxos; (2) based on Greek divine names, like
guage as attested for Linear B tablets from the Late Bronze
Apollonia, Herakleia, and Posidonia; (3) based on Greek
Age – besides their extension to Cyprus (not on the map),
vocabulary words, like Emporion, Naukratis, Olbia, and
are locked up in the Arkadian upland plain in the centre of
Khersonesos; or (4) derived from local geographic (espe-
the Pelopponesos and entirely surrounded by speakers of
cially river) names, like Borysthenes, Gela, Histria, and
the West Greek or Doric dialect. From this distribution pat-
Sybaris.
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 Minor, and Rhodes after the downfall of the Mycenaean civilization. The historical antithesis consists of mythical traditions that the Dorians once lived in various regions of Thessaly (first Phthia in the south and later Histiaiotis either 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 Dorians became associated with a royal house descended from
Fig. 2. Distribution of the Greek dialects (from Hall 1997: 154,
Herakles, who during his labors visited the region of His-
Fig. 25).
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
Thus far our interdisciplinary method to detect proto-
Eurystheus, who through the wiles of Hera became king in
historical ethnic groups, notwithstanding its shortcomings,
his place, a member of the Perseid dynasty of Mycenae.
seems to work fairly well. But what about less contrastive
This latter dynasty was subsequently replaced by the house
situations, when a population shift takes place from one
of Pelops, to which Agamemnon, the king of Mycenae at
point to another within a cultural continuum? The best ex-
the time of the Trojan war, belongs. After a futile attempt
ample of such a case is the migration of the Dorians from
of the Heraklids to regain their throne under Herakles’ son
various regions in Phokis and Thessaly to the Peloponne-
Hyllos, the great-grandson of the latter, Temenos, together
sos under the leadership of Heraklid kings, who, as the
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.
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
23
with the Heraklids Kresphontes and Aristodemos, led an
Instead of addressing Eder’s archaeological results,
army of Dorians to the Pelopponesos, drove out the last
however, Hall energetically persists in his disqualification
representative of the Pelopids, Teisamenes, the son of
of the literary traditions on the return of the Heraklids and
Orestes, and divided the Pelopponesos in three parts, Te-
the coming of the Dorians as mere inventions – a very un-
menos himself taking Argos, the sons of Aristodemos
satisfactory point of view for an adherent of what he calls
(whose father had been killed by a thunderbolt) receiving
the “historically positivist” school like myself.31 And he
Sparta, and Kresphontes being allotted Messenia.
puts some venom in this, when he associates the interdisci-
Apparently, the literary traditions tally very well with
plinary method propagated here – in his words the “cul-
the linguistic evidence, but the missing link to solve the
ture-historical” approach – with its nationalistically
riddle of the Dorian invasion once and for all is formed by
colored application by Gustav Kossinna and the subse-
the archaeological side of the story. Like others before
quent abuse of the latter’s views for the “Blut und Boden”
him, Hall is not able to find archaeological evidence for a
propaganda of the German Nazi’s.32 In section 1 above we
migration from the region of Thessaly to the Pelopponesos
have seen how Kosinna’s adagium that “cultural provinces
and gets so frustrated that he altogether denounces the
clearly outlined archaeologically coincide in all periods
mythical stories as inventions of later date (whether, and if
with precise peoples or tribes” falls short of explaining the
so, how he revaluates the evidence of the dialects is not
complexities of reality and that the different categories of
clear).28
evidence need to be tackled individually.
The solution of this problem, however, has been
presented by Birgitta Eder in a thorough study of the ar-
If, for the sake of argument, we would join Hall in his
chaeological evidence from the Argolid, Lakonia, and
rejection of the interdisciplinary method propagated here
Messenia from the end of the Late Bronze Age to the Pro-
notwithstanding its noted shortcomings and deficiencies,
togeometric period. As Eder convincingly shows, all three
the immediate consequence would be that the phenomenon
regions of the Pelopponesos suffer from heavy depopula-
of ethnic groups detectable for the historical period did not
tion during the Submycenaean period (= dearth of material
exist in protohistorical and prehistorical times – a basically
evidence) and receive new population impulses at the end
improbable assumption. The more so, because already in
of the Submycenaean and beginning of the Protogeometric
this early period we are confronted with ethnonyms – those
period (= reappearance of material evidence). In the course
of the Sea Peoples being at the heart and core of the inves-
of this latter process, there are some traces of discontinuity
tigation we are presently embarking on – , which Hall him-
in material culture with that of the previous Mycenaean
self considered “a vital component of ethnic conscious-
one in the form of graves for individual burials dug in for-
ness”.33
mer habitation areas (Mycenae and Tiryns), the introduction of handmade ware with affinities to pottery of middle
Homeros and History
Greece (Tiryns and Asine), and the (re)introduction of apsidal houses.29 As after the low ebb in material finds from
An important literary source for the reconstruction of the
the Submycenaean period the archaeological culture in the
early history of the region of Greece and the Aegean is
regions of the Pelopponesos under discussion develops
formed by Homeros’ epics the Iliad and the Odyssey. As
without a break from the Protogeometric period to the
related forms of six from the total of nine ethnonyms of the
Classical one and beyond, Eder rightly concludes that this
Sea Peoples figure in them, the Homeric poems also have a
is the time that the ancestors of the historical Dorians have
direct bearing on our topic.34 The fundamental question is,
arrived – and, we would like to add to this conclusion, that
however, which period do the Iliad and the Odyssey re-
the ancestors of the historical Dryopes, a distinct ethnic
flect, the Late Bronze Age or the Early Iron Age, or both,
group inhabiting Asine in the Argolid until the end of the 8th century BC, might be among them!30
31 Hall 2002: 73-89; Hall 1997: 41. 32 Hall 1997: 129; Hall 2002: 38. 28 Hall 1997: 56-65; 184-5; Hall 2002: 73-89.
33 Hall 2002: 55.
29 Eder 1998: esp. 57 (Mycenae); 58-62 (Tiryns); 67-8 (Asine).
34 Akhaioi-Ekwesh, Danaoi-Denye(n), Lukioi-Lukka, Pelasgoi-
30 On the Dryopes, see Strid 1999.
Peleset, Sikeloi-Shekelesh, and Teukros-Tjeker.
24
Finike (c. 1200 BC),37 Jacob Katzenstein convingingly
or none at all? A lot of ink has been spilled on this question, and I
demonstrates that the prominent position of the Sidonians
am not aiming to present an exhaustive treatment of the
among the Phoenicians dates from the refoundation of
relevant literature, but only to briefly adstruct my own po-
Tyre by the Sidonians in 1197 BC to the Assyrian con-
sition in this matter. One work needs to be mentioned here,
quest of the city at the end of the reign of Eloulaios, 694
however, and that is Martin Persson Nilsson’s Homer and
BC: in this period the kings of Tyre were addressed as
Mycenae (1933), which, in my opinion, offers the best in-
“king of the Sidonians”.38
troduction to the Homeric question.35 As the latter author
Next, it so happens that the standard burial rite in the
goes at great length to explain, the Homeric poems are the
Homeric poems is cremation. The latter rite is already
result of a long lasting epic tradition, in which bards con-
known in the Late Bronze Age for Hittite royal burials,39
stantly rehandled their material for instant public perform-
and there are more than 200 cinerary urns reported for the
ances and old and new elements are mixed together like
cemetery of Troy VIh.40 But for Greece, one is especially
currants and raisins in a well-kneaded dough. Conse-
reminded of the burial of the hero of Lefkandi in the 10th
quently, the efforts made by many a scholar to distinguish
century BC and the burials at the west gate of Eretria from
early and late passages are altogether futile: there can, with
the 8th century BC.41 In general, it may be stated that the
the help of archaeological, historical, and linguistic data,
popularity of the rite of cremation in Greece is an Early
only be distinguished early and late elements!
Iron Age feature.
Among the late elements, the first that comes to mind
A further Early Iron Age feature is the use of the term
is iron. This metal is mentioned 23x in the Iliad and 25x in
basileus as a mere substitute for anaks “king”. Both these
the Odyssey.36 Now, it is clear that in the Homeric poems
titles are already found in Linear B, where they occur as
a conscious attempt is made at archaizing by having the
qa-si-re-u and wa-na-ka, respectively, but only the latter
weapons made of bronze. Only in two instances, Iliad IV,
renders the meaning “king” here, whereas the former de-
123 and Odyssey XIX, 13, the poet (= poetic tradition
notes a functionary of lower rank in, so far specified, the
epitomized in Homeros) makes a slip of the tongue and
bronze industry.42 It is interesting to observe in this con-
speaks of weapons of iron. In this respect, then, the Iliad
nection that the titular expression anaks andrǀn, with only
and the Odyssey may be assumed to have reached their fi-
one exception in which it is associated with Eumelos of
nal form in about the same period and not the one earlier
Iolkos (Iliad XXIII, 288), is reserved for the supreme
than the other as is often assumed. Note further in this
commander of the Greeks, Agamemnon.
connection that the iron club of Areïthoös (Iliad VII, 141-
Also in the field of armory and fighting methods
4) is a special case: it may have been made of meteoric
Early Iron Age elements have slipped in. Thus the warriors
iron, which was already known in the Bronze Age, or it
are often equipped with a round shield, two spears, and
may be one of those rare objects of mined iron on the pro-
greaves – the latter in one instance from tin (Iliad XVIII,
duction of which the Hittites had a monopoly during the
613). As Robert Drews cogently argues, the innovative
Late Bronze Age.
round shield is introduced into the eastern Mediterranean
Another definite Early Iron Age element is formed by
by Sherden mercenaries from Sardinia fighting in the
the close association of the Phoenicians with the Sidonians
Egyptian army from the beginning of the 13th century BC
– the latter being mentioned 4x in the Iliad and 13x in the
onwards. Its earliest attestation in Greece is on the warrior
Odyssey. Although George Bass makes a strong case for
vase from Mycenae, dated to Late Helladic IIIC, i.e. just
Canaanite shipping to Greece and the central Mediterranean already in the Late Bronze Age on the basis of the
37 Bass 1997.
shipwrecks found by him off the coast of Lycia at Ulubu-
38 Katzenstein 1973: 58-63; 130-2.
run near Kaú (c. 1300 BC) and at cape Gelidonya near
39 Haas 2000 (esp. 66-7). 40 Vanschoonwinkel 1991: 195. 35 Other pertinent literature: Page 1959, Webster 1960, and Latacz
41 Popham, Touloupa & Sackett 1982; Bérard 1970 (cf. section
2003.
10, esp. note 288 below).
36 Gehring 1901, s.v. sidƝreios, sidƝreos, sidƝros.
42 Ventris & Chadwick 1973: glossary, s.v.
25
after the end of the Bronze Age.43 Drews further shows
The palace-bound civilization of Late Bronze Age
that the round shield is used together with a slashing
Greece was characterized by an intricate system of admini-
sword, two spears or javelins, and metal greaves in hand-
stration on clay tablets inscribed in Linear B. Homeros, on
to-hand fighting by skirmishers.44 In an earlier period,
the other hand, is totally unaware of this script – his only
Greek infanterists were used to the towershield, which
reference to a regular script, the sƝmata lugra “baneful
covered the entire body. The latter shield also turns up in
signs” in the Bellerophon story (Iliad VI, 168), defines this
the Iliad particularly in association with the Salaminian
as an exotic phenomenon.
hero Aias. But sometimes the poet (= poetic tradition
It also seems reasonable to suggest that the use of
epitomized in Homeros) gets confused and calls the tower-
clothing pins or fibulae, as referred to in both the Iliad (X,
shield (sakos) “small” (Iliad XIV, 376) and wrongly asso-
133; XIV, 180 [both verbal forms]) and the Odyssey (XIX,
ciates it with greaves (Iliad III, 330-5), whereas the round
226; 256), constitutes an Early Iron Age feature, because
shield (aspis) is stated to “reach the feet” (Iliad XV, 645-
these objects only turn up in graves from the latter period.
6).45
Note in this connection that the peronƝ according to Hero-
Another striking Late Bronze Age reminiscent be-
dotos is a characteristic feature of Doric dress.49
sides the towershield is the boar’s tusk helmet (Iliad X, 261-5). An important factor, however, in Late Bronze Age
Finally, there are some names paralleled only for
fighting is formed by the chariot. In Egyptian reliefs it is
Early Iron Age texts. This has a bearing on the Arimoi in
shown that the chariot was used as a mobile platform to
the territory where Typhoeus is situated, which probably
shoot arrows with the composite bow.46 In the Iliad the
refers to the volcanic island of Pithecussae off the coast of
chariots are sometimes used for fighting with a long lance
present-day Naples in Italy, and hence we are likely to be
or spear, just as it is depicted on a Late Helladic IIA seal
dealing here with Aramaeans (Iliad II, 781-3);50 the Kim-
from Vapheio in the Argolid.47 But in general the original
merians, who invaded Anatolia and northern Mesopotamia
use of the chariot as a mobile platform from which the
from the Russian Crimea at the end of the 8th century BC
warrior actually fights seems no longer clear to the poet
and therefore are thoroughly out of place in the context of
and he stages it, in line with pictorial evidence from Late
Odysseus’ visit to the underworld somewhere in the central
IIIC,48
as a taxi for elite warriors to move to the
Mediterranean (Odyssey XI, 14); lake Gygaia in Maeonia,
front, where they get out and fight on foot as infanterists
likely to be named after the Lydian tyrant Gyges, who
(note, however, that in some instances, as at the beginning
ruled from 685 to 657 BC (Iliad XX, 390-1; cf. II, 865);51
of Iliad XII, this tactic is merely determined by the terrain,
and the Dorians on Crete, who, as we have shown above,
because the chariots cannot possibly cross the ditch in
can only be surmised to have colonized the island at the
front of the wall near the ships of the Greek camp).
end of the Submycenaean or beginning of the Proto-
Helladic
geometric period (Odyssey XIX, 177). Notwithstanding these Early Iron Age features, which
43 Drews 1993a: 177-9.
have filtered in during the hundreds of years of improvised
44 Drews 1993a: 176-208.
epic performances by the bards and which no doubt can be
45 For the erroneous coalescence of these data into a very “big
multiplied by closer study, the heart and core of the Ho-
round shield” which can only be carried by fairy tale heroes, see van Wees 1992: 17-22.
meric poems reflects a Late Bronze Age politico-historical
46 Drews 1993a: 104-34; Drews 1988: 84 ff.
statement is formed by the fact that Heinrich Schliemann
47 Crouwel 1981: Pl. 11; cf. Wiesner 1968: F 27; F 95.
on the basis of the geographical information in Homeros’
setting. One of the strongest arguments to underline this
epics excavated the citadels of Troy (1870), Mycenae
48 E.g. Crouwel 1981: Pl. 59; note that Crouwel’s (1981: 119 ff.)
(1876), and Tiryns (1884) – an empirical approach in the
downplaying of the early evidence for Mycenaean warriors actually 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. 357), is induced by his preoccupation with the most common Homeric use of the chariot as a taxi, so that his conclusion (Crouwel 1981: 151) that the iconographic evidence agrees with this particular Homeric use is not only a simplification of the state of affairs but in effect rests on circular reasoning.
49 Lorimer 1950: 337; cf. also porpƝ 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.
26
humaniora which comes closest to experiment in the natu-
may also be added53 the mythical Amazones, an enemy
ral sciences. To these epoch-making finds, Carl Blegen
whom the Phrygians run up against when trying to carve
supplemented the discovery of the Mycenaean palace of
out a territorium for themselves along the Sangarios river
Pylos (1939), which was destroyed at the end of the Late
in Anatolia at the time when Priamos still fought himself
Bronze Age and therefore cannot possibly be accommo-
(Iliad III, 184) and whom Bellerophon stumbles upon dur-
dated in an Early Iron Age environment. To this comes
ing his adventures inland from Lycia (Iliad VI, 186).
that the king of Mycenae, Agamemnon, is endowed with
Furthermore, another strong argument in favor of the
the power to call all the other Greek kings from both the
Late Bronze Age politico-historical setting of the Homeric
mainland and the Aegean islands to service in war – which
poems is provided by the catalogue of the ships. As far as
presumes a political unity reflected in the archaeological
the Greek mainland is concerned, it stands out that Aitolia
record by the so-called Mycenaean koinƝ of Late Helladic
and Thessaly are represented, but northwest Greece is not.
IIIB, but never reached again until the unification of
This coincides with the distribution of Late Helladic IIIB
Greece by Alexander the Great at the start of the Hellenis-
ware in connection with settlements and chamber tombs
tic period.
with multiple burials, from which northwest Greece is ex-
The historical validity of the supreme power of the
cluded: apparently the latter region is not Hellenized be-
king of Mycenae is further emphasized by the recognition of the king of A®®iyawa (= Greek Akhaians) as a great
fore the Early Iron Age.54 Similarly, as duly stressed by
king in correspondence with the Hittites, namely in the so-
Minor are also not represented, which, as far as the last
called Tawagalawas-letter from presumably the reign of
mentioned area is concerned, is historically correct since
the Hittite great king Muwatallis II (1295-1271 BC). The
the Aiolian, Ionian, and Doric migrations to western Ana-
latter source of evidence further affirms the historicity of
tolia date from the Submycenaean period onwards. A prob-
Agamemnon’s father and predecessor, Atreus, who appears
lem is posed, however, by the position of Miletos (= Hittite
in the so-called Indictment of Madduwattas from the reigns of Tud®aliyas II (1390-1370 BC) and Arnuwandas I (1370-
Millawanda), which according to Homeros is inhabited by
1355 BC) as Attarissiyas, the man of A®®iyƗ (= a short-
it definitely belonged to the Mycenaean (archaeologically)
hand variant of A®®iyawa). Moreover, in a treaty also from
or Akhaian (historically) sphere of influence at the time of
the reign of Muwatallis II the kingdom of Troy is referred
the Trojan war (c. 1280 BC). As Millawanda is in the Hit-
to as Wilusa, the Hittite equivalent of Greek Ilios (<
tite records reported to have changed sides during the reign of Tud®aliyas IV (1239-1209 BC), the Homeric position of
Joachim Latacz, the Cyclades and the west coast of Asia
Carians and sides with the Trojans (Iliad II, 686), whereas
*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-
Khalybes from the Black Sea coast, which is linguistically possible, but chronologically inadequate as these latter are only attested for the Early Iron Age. Note in this connection that Hittite involvement in Mysia is assured by their foundation of Sarawa there, see Woudhuizen 1992a: 138.
league over Wilusa is explicitly mentioned – an incident which inflated in Greek memory to the famous Trojan war (see further section 8 below)!
53 Smit 1988-9: 54, with reference to Garstang 1929: 86 f. for the
In alignment with the Hittite evidence, it is of no little
Amazones and 172 for the Keteioi; see further Leonhard 1911: 156. 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 Telepinus (p. 248-9), and that of his second son Tarkhǀn with the Luwian 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.
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 KƝteioi, whose leader Eurypylos, the son of the Mysian king Telephos, is killed by Akhilleus’ son Neoptolemos (Odyssey XI, 521).52 To this
54 Smit 1989: esp. 180 (map); cf. Latacz 2003: 266, Abb. 22, and 52 Webster 1960: 67; Meyer 1968: 12 identifies Alybe with the
section 8, Fig. 12a below.
27
Miletos may be due to an historical hypercorrection.55 Finally, the close contacts of the Mycenaean Akhaians with the Hittites as attested for Hittite correspondence can be further illustrated by the fact that Homeros in two instances has applied a standard expression from Hittite 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 oathgods in the Alaksandus-treaty,57 precedes the Trojans with the aegis in their attempt to storm the Greek wall (Iliad XV, 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 (Iliad XX, 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 ® uwƗ(i)- is “to run before”); see Yalburt, phrases 4, 7, 11, and 32 for Luwian hieroglyphic examples. 57 Latacz 2003: 58; 138 (§ 20).
28
3. HISTORICAL SETTING In this section I will present a brief overview of the main
beyond. Accordingly, we appear to be confronted with two
historical developments in the Near East with a bearing on
concerted invasions by Indo-Europeans in the 23rd century
the Levant from the catastrophic events at the end of the
BC: one by the ancestors of the later Tocharians across the
reign of Narâm-Sin of Akkad and during the First Interme-
Caucasus into Mesopotamia and another by the ancestors
diary Period in Egypt to those marking the end of the
of the later Hittites, Luwians, and Palaians across the
Bronze Age. In doing so, I will base myself on Redford
Bosporus into the Anatolian highland and along the west-
1992 (with chronology adapted to Kitchen 1989) and
ern and southern coasts into the plains of Konya and
Bryce 1998, unless indicated otherwise.
Cilicia – the latter event marked by the spread of Trojan
At the end of his reign, Narâm-Sin of Akkad (2291-
IIg ware with as its “Leitmotiv” the so-called depas am-
2255 BC) was defeated by a group of mountain dwellers
phikupellon.
called the Guti, who conquered Babylon and ruled it for a
The upheavals at the end of Late Bronze Age II in the
period of about one century. At the time of their onslaught
23rd century BC also affected the Greek mainland, Crete,
on Babylon, these Guti came from the mountainous region
and the Levant. In Greece, for instance the “House of the
of the Lower ZƗb in western Iran. A later source from the
Tiles” at Lerna was burned down and covered by a tumu-
time of Hammurabi (1792-1750 BC) reports that part of
lus – a burial custom characteristic of the Kurgan culture
their land was called Tukri. From this piece of information,
of the Russian steppe. This event is commonly associated
W.B. Henning deduced that we may well be dealing with
with the arrival of the earliest Indo-Europeans in southern
the Tocharians inhabiting the Tarim basin along the west-
Greece (see further section 7). As far as Crete is con-
ern border of China in the historical period, who addressed
cerned, the flourishing settlements at Vasiliki near the bay
themselves both as Tugri and as Kuþi (<
Guti).58
If this is
of Mirabello and Myrtos (Fournou Korifi) along the south
correct, we actually have here the first historical evidence
coast were destroyed by fire and the ruins of the first cov-
about a group of Indo-Europeans.
ered by simple hovels and that of the second by a peak-
In about the same time as the Gutian onslaught on
sanctuary – a completely new phenomenon for the is-
Akkad, at the end of Early Bronze Age II, there is massive
land.62 Against the background of the events in Anatolia
evidence for large-scale destruction of settlements in Ana-
and Greece, it seems not farfetched to assume that the
tolia, especially in the Konya region and Cilicia later oc-
Indo-European invasions also affected eastern Crete – an
cupied by Luwians. The subsequent lack of reoccupation
assumption which would allow us to explain the evidence
suggested to James Mellaart that the affected regions be-
for the Luwian language in Cretan hieroglyphic documents
came the grazing grounds of nomads.59 The origin of the
dating from the Middle Bronze Age onwards (see further
nomads in question may perhaps be indicated by the evi-
section 12 and appendix I). Finally, the Levant bears testi-
dence of the royal burials at Alaca Höyük, which are of
mony of a similar lapse to nomadism as Anatolia: if Indo-
similar type as those of the later Mycenaeans and Phry-
Europeans were responsible for this development, as
gians, and characterized by solar discs and theriomorphic
Marija Gimbutas argued on the basis of Kurgan-like shaft-
standards recalling counterparts from Horoztepe and
tombs (among which a twin catacomb grave) at Bâb edh-
Mahmatlar in the Pontic region: all these elements have
Drâ east of the Dead Sea, these have not been traced in the
been attributed by Ekrem Akurgal to
Indo-Europeans60
records which surface again from the Middle Bronze Age
–
nomadic cattle-breeders and herdsmen originating from61
onwards.63
the steppe zone north of the Black Sea, the Caucasus, and 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.
58 Henning 1978. 59 Mellaart 1971: 406-10.
63 Gimbutas 1973 groups these Indo-European migrations together
60 Akurgal 1992: 1-5.
as her “second wave of Indo-Europeanization”. As opposed to this, Best 1976: 218 associates these graves with the apsidal hou-
61 Mallory 1989.
29
It lies at hand to correlate the fall of central authority
Byblos or through direct contacts with Egypt itself (see
during the First Intermediate Period in Egypt, assigned to
further section 12 and appendix I).
about 2140 BC, with the upheavals at the end of Early
The period of the Assyrian merchant colonies ended
Bronze Age II.
in destruction, and when the smoke screen rose, a new era
Under the 11th dynasty the unity of Egypt was re-
had arrived. From a military point of view, a dominant fac-
stored and the country rose to great power during the 12th
tor in this new era was formed by the war chariot, which
dynasty. At that time Byblos in the Levant was drawn
maintained its central position untill the end of the Bronze
within the orbit of Egyptian influence, as can be deduced
Age. It is true that experiments with the chariot are already
from inscriptions by its rulers in Egyptian hieroglyphic and
recorded for the Karum-period, as the Anatolian king Anit-
the influence of the latter script on the indigenous Byblian
tas, who ruled in the late 19th century BC and is consid-
proto-Linear script. Synchronous with the rise of Egypt
ered the founder of the Hittite royal house, reported his
under the 12th dynasty (= 20th and 19th centuries BC) was
acquisition of forty teams of horses in the course of his
the regular trade connection between Assyria and Anatolia
capture of the town Salatiwara – teams of horses which no
as examplified by Assyrian trading colonies or kƗru asso-
doubt pulled war chariots.66 Now, the war chariot was in-
ciated with major Anatolian towns. The cuneiform tablets
troduced in the Near East by Indo-Europeans, to be more
from the kƗru inform us that the Assyrian merchants im-
specific speakers of Indo-Aryan, the forerunner of Indo-
ported annukum “tin” and woolen textiles in exchange for Anatolian metals, especially silver and gold. The metal tin
Iranian. These Indo-Aryan chariot fighters, thanks to their military superiority, conquered the Hurritic population liv-
played a crucial role in international trade from c. 2000 BC
ing along the upper Euphrates river, and established a
onwards, when the bronze industry went over from arsenic
royal house here. At least, this course of events is deduci-
bronze to the much harder alloy of copper and tin for the
ble from the fact that the 14th century BC text by a Mitan-
production of weapons and other artefacts. In response to
nian horse trainer named Kikkuli contains Indo-Aryan
the introduction of cuneiform writing by the Assyrian trad-
technical terms, that the Mitannian royal house was char-
ers, the indigenous Anatolians – who on the basis of ono-
acterized by personal names with the Indo-Aryan element
mastic evidence were to a large extent Indo-European, in
ratha- “chariot”, and that the Mitannian nobility consisted
casu Hittite and Luwian – developed their own writing
of maryannu, an Indo-Aryan indication of chariot fighters.
system, the so-called Luwian hieroglyphic, which to some
Next, they went on to the Levant and even further to Egypt
extent follows the model of Egyptian hieroglyphic but de-
in the south, where they founded the royal house of the
rives its values acrophonically from the indigenous Anato-
Hyksos (= “foreign ruler”), also known as the 15th dynasty
lian vocabulary.64 Under influence of the international tin
(c. 1720-1550 BC), which was centred at Tell el-
trade, the island Crete, which lies on a junction of mari-
Dab‘a/Avaris in the eastern Delta.67 The connection of the
time trade routes, acquired great wealth and developed a
Hyksos with the Levant is stressed by the fact that in the
palatial
civilization,65
with a script to write down the eco-
lowest levels of their capital Tell el-Dab‘a/Avaris so-called
nomic transactions basically derived from Luwian hiero-
Tel el-Jehudiya ware has been found comparable to that of
glyphic but with a more substantial Egyptian component
Byblos, and that, when they were finally kicked out by
than the original received either through the medium of
Ahmose, the founder of the 18th dynasty who had organized his own chariot force, a remnant of their regime fled to Sharuhen on the coast south of Gaza. Yet another Indo-
ses of Mesҕer, 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 ProtoIndo-European *dƗnu- “river”, see Rosenkranz 1966: 136.
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
64 Woudhuizen 1990-1; Woudhuizen 2004a: appendix I. 66 Drews 1988: 101-2.
65 Note that the Mari-texts from the reign of Zimri-lim (early 18th
67 See now Oren 1997, and note especially the warrior graves and
century BC) bear testimony of kaptaraim “Cretans” (< Kaptara- = Biblical Kaphtor “Crete”) involved in the tin-trade, see Dossin 1970: 99.
introduction of the horse as characteristic elements of Hyksos culture.
30
evidenced by the decoration of their stone stelae the rulers
In the long run, however, the major concurrent of the
buried in the shaftgraves at Mycenae in Greece around
Egyptians for control in North Syria was not the kingdom
1600 BC were chariot fighters, and therefore likely foreign
of Mitanni, but that of the Hittites. These had already cam-
conquerors. In his eager to whipe out the last remnants of the
paigned in the region under the kings of the Old Kingdom, Hattusilis I (1640-1620 BC), who burned down Alalakh
hated Hyksos, Ahmose (1550-1525 BC) grabbed the op-
along the lower Orontes river, and Mursilis I (1620-1590
portunity to conquer Palestine in toto and brought back
BC), who, as we have already noted, went all the way to
Byblos into the Egyptian sphere of influence, thus laying the foundations for the Empire period. This imperial policy
Babylon, but both were not able to consolidate their conquests. The same holds good for Tud®aliyas I (1430-1400
of territorial expansion was subsequently continued by
BC) of the New Kingdom, who is recorded to have made
Ahmose’s successor, Amenhotep I (1525-1504 BC), who
peace with Aleppo, probably after a campaign in the wake
conquered Tunip along the upper Orontes river, and Tuthmoses I (1504-1492 BC), who campaigned up to the Eu-
of Tuthmoses III’s defeat of Mitanni. After a period of serious troubles under Tud®aliyas III (1360-1344 BC), in
phrates river. However, after a lull especially during the
which the Hittite realm had to be rebuilt from scratch, the
reign of Hatshepsut (1479-1457 BC), it reached its zenith
Hittites manifested themselves again in the North Syrian
under Tuthmoses III (1479-1425 BC), who even crossed
theatre during the reign of Suppiluliumas I (1344-1322
the Euphrates, defeated Mitanni, and incorporated North
BC). The latter defeated Mitanni decisively and was sub-
Syria up to and including Ugarit, where a garrison was sta-
sequently able to draw Mitanni’s dependencies in North
tioned. As a corollary to Tuthmoses III’s defeat of Mitanni,
Syria within his orbit. But that is not all, Suppiluliumas I
the latter sought a truce with Egypt, which materialized
also extended his sphere of influence to Kadesh, Amurru,
under Amenhotep II (1427-1400 BC) in an alliance ce-
and Ugarit, which fell under Egyptian suzerainty. When he
mented by the marriage of Amenhotep II’s son, the later
beleaguered Karkamis along the Euphrates river and ex-
Tuthmoses IV, with the daughter of the Mitannian king Ar-
pected retaliation by the Egyptians for his transgression in
tatama I. What followed is a period of consolidation by di-
their dominions, a miracle happened: the Egyptian queen,
plomacy, vividly described in the Amarna tablets covering
whose husband Tutankhamun had been murdered, asked
the period from the later part of the reign of Amenhotep III
Suppiluliumas I for a son to be remarried with, which
(1390-1352 BC) to the reign of Tutankhamon (1336-1327
would mean not only an alliance but also that a Hittite
BC).68 Most striking in this correspondence is the reluc-
prince became king of Egypt. Unfortunately, the son which
tance of Akhenaten (1352-1336 BC) to comply with the
Suppiluliumas I sent for the marriage got killed by machi-
desparate appeals by his loyal vassal king of Byblos, Rib-
nations of the Egyptian court. Nevertheless, he was able to
addi, and curb the encroachments on the latter’s territory
consolidate his foothold in North Syria without the danger
by the upcoming power of Amurru under the leadership of
of Egyptian retaliation, and, after the capture of the city, he
Abdi-asirta and his son Aziru. The story ended with the death of Rib-addi by the hand of Aziru. The Amarna tab-
appointed one of his sons, Piyassilis, as king of Karkamis, who under the Hurritic throne-name Sarri-Kusu® ruled
lets also provide early mentions of some groups of the Sea
from here as viceroy over the dependencies in North Syria
Peoples, namely the Lukka and the Sherden – the first as
– an arrangement which through the latter’s heirs would
pirates raiding Alasiya (=
Cyprus)69
last to the end of what now truly may be called the Hittite
and the coast of Egypt
Empire.
and the second as body guards or mercenaries of Rib-addi of
Byblos.70
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-
68 Moran 1992: xxxv.
ment was the conquest of Arzawa in western Anatolia,
69 Hellbing 1979; note, however, that Egyptian ’Isy is not an alter-
from where he deported as much as 65,000 or 66,000 pris-
native indication of Cyprus, as the author maintains, but a reference to the western Anatolian region Asiya or Assuwa, see section 8.
oners of war to other parts of the Hittite realm. Furtherrenders the sequence kwkwn s rwqq “Kukkunis, son of the Lycian”, see Albright 1959; but cf. van Seeters 1966: 79, note 24, who dates this inscription c. 1700 BC.
70 The earliest mention of the Lukka occurs in an Egyptian hiero-
glyphic text on an obelisk from Byblos dated c. 2000 BC, which
31
treaty with Egypt of 1259 BC – an entente between the two
more, he rearranged the western province into four Arzawa lands, Mira-Kuwaliya, the Se®a River Land, HapallaAppawiya, and Wilusa, each under a vassal king – an ar-
great powers which lasted till the end of the Bronze Age. Furthermore, his wife Pudu®epa played a vital role in ce-
rangement which lasted to at least an advanced stage of the reign of Tud®aliyas IV near the end of the 13th century
menting the relationship by dynastic marriages, which boiled down to a one-sided affair in which Hatti dispatched
BC, its resilience being due largely to the fact that it was
princesses to the harem of the pharaoh, but the latter did
cemented by dynastic marriages so that the vassal kings in
not return the favor as no princesses of Egypt were allowed
question became members of the royal family themselves.
to be betrothed to a foreigner – with all possible conse-
Mursilis II was followed by his son and successor, Muwa-
quences for foreign claims on the throne (the request by
tallis II (1295-1272 BC). By this time, the Egyptian throne
the widow of Tutankhamun for a Hittite prince to remarry
had come into the hands of a new and militant dynasty,
with mentioned above was quite exceptional, indeed, and, as we have seen, doomed to fail). In the reign of Hattusilis
founded by a former general, Ramesses I (1295-1294 BC). 1223 BC), it became clear that Egypt wanted to regain its
III mention was first made of shipments of grain from Egypt to Hatti, which later under Merneptah became so
former dependencies in North Syria by force. In anticipa-
important that they were claimed “to keep Hatti alive”.
tion of the coming war with Egypt, Muwatallis II moved the Hittite capital from the somewhat eccentric Hattusa to
Evidently, the Hittite Empire suffered from food shortage,
Tar®untassa in the south. Furthermore, to gather allied forces or mercenaries he launched a campaign in the west.
sponsible, as it often is, for its final downfall. The son and successor of Hattusilis III, Tud®aliyas IV
Therefore, it comes as no surprise that at the inevitable
(1239-1209 BC) exercized an active military policy in the
showdown of forces which eventually took place near
west. In the text of a bronze tablet found during the late 80s of the last century in the capital Bo÷azköy/Hattusa,
With the accession of his descendant Ramesses II (1279-
but it is a longstanding problem which cannot be hold re-
Kadesh in the fifth year of Ramesses II’s reign (1274 BC), alia, aided by troops from Arzawa (§ later Lydia), Darda-
which meticulously describes the borders of the viceregal province of Tar®untassa under his uncle Kuruntas, a cam-
nia (= Troas), Masa (= Mysia), Karkisa (= Karia), and
paign against Par®a (= Perge) along the Kastaraya (=
Lukka (= Lycia). (Interesting for our purposes is that the
Kestros) in Pamphylia to the west of Tar®untassa was an-
same records bear testimony of Sherden mercenaries on
ticipated, the spoils of which would fall to Kuruntas. Next,
the Egyptian side.) During his campaign in the west, how-
a Luwian hieroglyphic text from Yalburt commemorizes a
ever, Muwatallis II wanted to avoid a conflict with the A®®iyawans (= Akhaians or Mycenaean Greeks), who
campaign in the Xanthos river valley of Lycia, where the
the Hittites according to the Egyptian records were, inter
towns Talawa (= Tlǀs), Pinata (= Pinara), and Awarna (= Arinna) were subdued, as Tud®aliyas IV proudly claims,
were in control of Millawanda (= Miletos) at the time, and for this reason settled his dispute in diplomatic terms, addressing the king of A®®iyawa as his brother and hence in-
for the first time in Hittite history. After this, the so-called
cluding him into the illustrious ranks of the great kings (see further section 8). According to the Egyptian records,
wanda (= Miletos), which formerly resided under the king of A®®iyawa (= Akhaia or Mycenaean Greece), turned
again, the Hittite forces at the ensuing battle of Kadesh
sides and joined the Hittites.71 In this manner, then, a long-
numbered in total 3,500 chariotry and 37,000 infantry. The
standing source of troubles in the west was eventually eliminated. Tud®aliyas IV’s next move was in the east: in a
Milawata-letter informs us that the governor of Milla-
propaganda of Ramesses II claimed the outcome as an outstanding victory for the Egyptians, but at the end of the day the bone of contention, Kadesh, remained within the
71 In the Milawata Letter mention is made of an exchange of hos-
sphere of influence of the Hittites! The eldest son of Muwatallis II, Ur®itesup, who on
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 valley) 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.)
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 international diplomacy, as he was responsible for the peace
32
treaty with Sausgamuwa of Amurru he forbade the latter to serve as an intermediary for trade between A®®iyawa and
ples (this time the Peleset, Tjeker, Shekelesh, Denye(n),
Assyria – the new enemy in the east since Suppiluliumas
Shamra/Ugarit and Ramesses III’s (1184-1153 BC) memo-
I’s decisive victory over Mitanni. Bereft of his stronghold in western Anatolia, the king of A®®iyawa was no longer
rial at Medinet Habu, came as a flash of lightning in a clear
considered a great king, which must have been a recent
Under the energetic leadership of Ramesses III, the
development as he was first enumerated among the great
second pharaoh of the 20th dynasty, Egypt survived the
kings in the text of the Sausgamuwa treaty but then deleted. The ultimate goal of Tud®aliyas IV’s campaigns in
onslaught by the Sea Peoples, who, unsuccesful in their
the west, and a further guarantee for the success of his
places along the Levant, especially in the Philistine penta-
economic boycot against the maritime trade between A®®iyawa and Assyria, was the conquest of Alasiya (=
polis. In the former Hittite Empire, there was some conti-
Cyprus), which he achieved near the end of his reign.
where the viceregal family planted by Suppiluliumas I
Notwithstanding a serious defeat against the Assyrians un-
maintained its position through Aritesup and Initesup, and in the former province of Tar®untassa, where likewise a
and Weshesh) as vividly described by the letters from Ras
sky by total surprise.
plan to settle in Egypt, took up their abode in various
nuity in the earliest phase of the Iron Age at Karkamis,
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
descendant of the Hittite royal family, Hartapus, son of
marked a high point in the history of the Hittite Empire. After the death of Tud®aliyas IV, there was a short
Luwian hieroglyphic, both these branches of the Hittite
reign of his eldest son, Arnuwandas III (1209-1205 BC). In
after this imperial afterglow, a dearth of material sets in
this period, to be more exact the fifth year of Merneptah
which lasts to the beginning of the 10th century BC, when
(1213-1203 BC), the Egyptians had to deal with an attack
a new royal house at Karkamis under great king Uratar®undas entered the stage.73
Mursilis, is recorded. According to their inscriptions in royal family claimed the imperial title of great king. Only
by the Libyan king Meryey, who was supported by mercenaries 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 Suppiluliumas 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 (= Niúantaú at Bo÷azköy/Hattusa) also for that of his father, who did not have the time to do so. Later in his reign, Suppiluliumas II was forced to conduct a campaign in western Anatolia against, inter alia, Masa (= Mysia), Wiyanawanda (= Oinoanda in the upper Xanthos valley), and Lukka (= Lycia), the ensuing victory of which he commemorated in the Südburg monument at Bo÷azköy/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, sec73 See Woudhuizen 1992-3 and Woudhuizen 2004a: appendix V.
tions 3 and 7, respectively.
33
4. AN HISTORIOGRAPHIC OUTLINE In this section we will present an outline of the most im-
central Mediterranean, the Ekwesh with the Akhaians in
portant modern literature on the Sea Peoples. Special atten-
mainland Greece, and the Lukka with the Lycians in south-
tion in this historiographic outline will be given to the
west Asia Minor. These suggestions were subsequently
identification of the individual population groups, which is
amplified by François Chabas in his Études sur l’Antiquité
still a matter of debate. Another point of interest is the
Historique d’après les sources égyptiennes et les monu-
cause (or causes) of their sudden appearance on the stage
ments réputés préhistoriques of 1872, who connected the
during the period aptly called the catastrophe at the end of
Tjeker with the Teukroi of the Troas in northwest Asia
the Late Bronze Age. Our main purpose, to determine
Minor, the Denye(n) with the Daunians and the Weshesh
whether the shortlived coalition of forces which we call the
with the Oscans, the latter two both at home in Italy.
Sea Peoples consists of a number of individual cohesive
Moreover, he ventured to equal the Peleset, which we have
ethnƝ, is a question barely touched upon in the literature: it
seen to be identified with the Biblical Philistines since the
surfaces only in the discussion between Gustav Adolf
time of Champollion, with the Pelasgians of Greek literary
Lehmann and Wolfgang Helck in the 1980s and in Drews
sources – an equation, as far as the Philistines are con-
1993. For convenience’s sake, I will in the following use
cerned, with a respectable history, first being put forward
standardized transcriptions for the ethnonyms of the Sea
by Etienne Fourmont in 1747.
Peoples as commonly used in the English language. An
The proposals of de Rougé and Chabas, with identifi-
example of how these ethnonyms can be written in Egyp-
cations of the ethnonyms of the Sea Peoples running as
tian hieroglyphic – the writing is not standardized and
widely as from the western part of Asia Minor in the east
therefore can vary per attestation – and their proper trans-
via mainland Greece in the centre to Sicily, Italy, and Sar-
literation is rendered in figure 3.74 Note that the eth-
dinia in the west were almost directly challenged by Gas-
nonyms are distinguished as such by the determinative of
ton Maspero – who, by the way, coined the term Sea
foreign people (Gardiner 1994: T14 + A1).
Peoples (“peuples de la mer”) in 1881, which is an apt
The modern literature on the Sea Peoples commences
form of address considering the association of these peo-
with the decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphic by Jean-
ples with the sea and islands in the midst of the sea in the
François Champollion in the first half of the 19th century
Egyptian texts – in review articles of the former authors’
AD. In his Grammaire égyptienne of 1836 he proposed to
works and, more elaborately, in his monographs Histoire
identify the Peleset as mentioned in the texts of Ramesses
Ancienne des peuples de l’orient classique of 1875 and
III (1184-1153 BC) in his mortuary temple at Medinet
Struggle of the Nations, Egypt, Syria and Assyria of 1910.
Habu (Thebes) with the Biblical Philistines – an identifica-
In Maspero’s view, then, the homeland of the Sea Peoples
tion which goes unchallenged till the present day. Follow-
should be restricted to western Anatolia and mainland
ing in his footsteps, Emmanuel de Rougé set out in his
Greece. Thus, apart from embracing the equation of the
contribution to the Revue Archéologique 16 of 1867 to
Ekwesh with the Akhaians of mainland Greece, the Sher-
connect the other ethnonyms in the same texts and in the
den were supposed to be linked up with the Lydian capital
one of Merneptah (1213-1203 BC) on a wall of the main
Sardis, the Shekelesh with the Pisidian town of Sagalassos,
temple at Karnak (Thebes) with names of known Mediter-
and the Weshesh with the Carian place name Wassos. His
ranean peoples or locations on the basis of similarity in
main reason for the central position of Anatolia in his re-
sound (“Gleichklang”). Thus he proposed to identify the
constructions was formed by Herodotos’ location of the ul-
Teresh with the Tyrrhenians or Etruscans, the Shekelesh
timate homeland of the Tyrrhenians in Lydia (Histories I,
with the Sicels, the Sherden with the Sardinians, all in the
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.
74 As the Egyptologist J.F. Borghouts assures me, the use of Gar-
Only the Philistines were supposed to have turned east and
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 writing of Meswesh.
settled in Canaan.
35
(a)
(b)
I
II
no.
hieroglyphics
transliteration vocalization as employed in (Borghouts)
the present study
1*
š3rdn
Sherden
2*
š3krš3
Shekelesh
3*
͑k̙̙3w3š3
Ekwesh
4*
rkw
Lukka
5*
twrš3
Teresh
1
prwst
Peleset
2
t3k3r
Tjeker
3
š3krš3
Shekelesh
4
d3͑n͑w
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 transliterated
strings with the hieroglyphic sections, and preparing and tabulating the graphics in this table.
36
The view of Maspero that the Sea Peoples originated
Remarkable is that in connection with the Denye(n) he
solely from the eastern Mediterranean has had a great in-
spoke against their relation with the Danuna in Cilicia and
fluence on his successors, even up to the present day (cf.
in favor of that with the Danaoi of the Argolid in mainland
Redford 1992: 246). At any rate, it has been taken over
Greece. Moreover, he sided with Hall in his opinion that
without much critical reflection by H.R. Hall, who domi-
the Peleset were not originally at home in Crete, but used
nated the field in the first half of the 20th century AD. In a
this island as an intermediary station in their way to the
first contribution to the Annual of the British School at
Levant. In connection with the Sherden, finally, he re-
Athens 8 of 1901-2, he expressed himself in favor of Mas-
marked, with reference to an earlier contribution by
pero’s identifications with the only noted exception of
Wainwright (1939: 148), that the Teresh were known to
Weshesh, which he preferred to connect with Cretan Wak-
the Hittite world (probably implying a linguistic relation of
sioi instead of Carian Wassos. Next, in a collection of pa-
the ethnonym with Tarwisa (= Troy), which, however, is
pers to the memory of Champollion which appeared in
dubious), but the Sherden and the Shekelesh not and hence
1922 Hall presented a useful summary of the literature on
that the latter might be assumed to originate from outside
the topic of the Sea Peoples up to that moment. In this
of it – the first rudimentary attempt to bring the contro-
summary, he proposed to identify the Denye(n), whom
versy between de Rougé and Chabas on the one hand and
Maspero had equated with the Danaoi of the Argolid in
Maspero on the other to a higher level.
mainland Greece, with the Danuna of Cilicia as mentioned
Next, Paul Mertens presented in the Chronique
in the El-Amarna texts from the reigns of Amenhotep III
d’Égypte 35 of 1960 a nice overview of the Egyptian
(1390-1352 BC) and Akhenaten (1352-1336 BC). Hall’s
sources on the Sea Peoples from their first occurrence in
work culminates in his contribution to the first edition of
the El-Amarna texts and those of Ramesses II (1279-1212
the Cambridge Ancient History, which appeared in 1926.
BC) up to their alignment with the Libyan king Meryre (=
Here he expressly distinguished the Sea Peoples, which, as
Meryey) in the reign of Merneptah and their ultimate at-
we have seen, according to him originated from western
tack on Egypt in the reign of Ramesses III. However, as far
Anatolia and mainland Greece, from the Keftiu, i.e. the
as origins are concerned, he did not choose between the
designation of the Cretans in Egyptian texts. Confronted
central to east Mediterranean thesis of de Rougé and the
with the Biblical sources, according to which the Peleset
solely east Mediterranean antithesis of Maspero, whereas,
originated from Crete, he came up with the solution that
in connection with the Peleset, he followed Bonfante
they had come from Asia Minor via Crete. Furthermore, he
(1946) in identifying them as Illyrians who migrated to the
noted in alignment with his earlier association of the De-
Levant via Crete.
nye(n) with the Danuna, that some of the Sea Peoples, like
The first to address the question what caused the up-
the Sherden and the Lukka, were already mentioned in the
heavals of the Sea Peoples at the end of the Late Bronze
El-Amarna texts. Of them, the Sherden were stipulated to
Age was Wolfgang Kimmig in a lengthy paper in the Fest-
have fought both on the Egyptian side and that of the Sea
schrift Tackenberg of 1964. In his view, these are a mere
Peoples in the upheavals at the time of Ramesses III. Fi-
function of the expansion of the Urnfield peoples of central
nally, in true Masperonian way, he envisioned the Sherden,
and eastern Europe into all directions, so also to the Medi-
Shekelesh, and Teresh, after their failing attack on Egypt,
terranean in the south. As Kimmig keenly observed, the
as being on their way to their ultimate homes in the central
contribution of bearers of the Urnfield culture to the
Mediterranean. The career of Hall ended with his “going
movement of the Sea Peoples is indicated by their ships as
Caucasian” so to say: in his last contribution on the subject
depicted in the reliefs at Medinet Habu having bird head
of 1929 he explained all ethnonyms of the Sea Peoples as
protomes at the stern as well as the prow – a typical Urn-
reflections of similar sounding Caucasian tribal names – a
field feature. He further rightly stipulated that some of the
fine example of the dangers of the etymological approach
Sea Peoples were already in contact with the Near East
when applied without further backing.
when the expansion of the Urnfielders motivated them to
After the second World War, the first to take up the
look for new homelands in an agreeable surrounding. Al-
subject of the Sea Peoples again, was Alan Gardiner. In his
though he tried to avoid the vexed question of the origins
Ancient Egyptian Onomastica of 1947 he meticulously de-
of the Sea Peoples as much as possible, Kimmig restricted
scribed all that was known at the time of a number of the
his Urnfield model for the cause of the latters’ movement
ethnonyms, especially so of the Sherden and the Peleset.
to the eastern Mediterranean: an incursion of Urnfielders 37
into mainland Greece in his eyes set the whole process in
gion. As opposed to this, Stadelmann assumed that the
motion.
Sherden, Shekelesh, and Teresh went to the central Medi-
Against the background of Kimmig’s answer to the
terranean to find their new homes in Sardinia, Sicily, and
question of causality, Richard D. Barnett’s treatment of the
central Italy, from where they maintained trade contacts
Sea Peoples in the 3rd edition of the Cambridge Ancient
with their former comrades in arms in the Levant up to the
History, which first appeared as a separate issue in 1969
time that the Phoenicians seized the opportunity to take
and subsequently as an integral part of Volume II, 2 in
these over.
1975, means a step back to the level of identifications on
The following years are dominated by a German
the basis of likeness in sound, in which the author sides
scholar, Gustav Adolf Lehmann. In a series of works, start-
with Maspero’s eastern Mediterranean thesis: thus the
ing in 1970 and continuing to 1996, he tried to reconstruct
Teresh are said to originate from Lydia, the Shekelesh to
an historical outline of the events that led to and made up
be on their way to Sicily, whereas for the Sherden a home-
the catastrophe at the end of the Late Bronze Age, using a
land in Cyprus is taken into consideration, from where, of
wide range of sources from Egyptian hieroglyphic through
course, they departed to colonize Sardinia. As far as the
Ugaritic alphabetic up to Hittite cuneiform. With only
Peleset are concerned, he saw no problem in identifying
slight adaptations, this historical picture forms the basic
them with the Philistines and having them colonize cities
background for my own studies on the ethnicity of the Sea
in Canaan – in his view Gaza, Askelon, Asdod and Dor –
Peoples; for a brief summary of the main events, see sec-
from Crete. From an historical point of view, Barnett
tion 3 above. Two points are of special interest to us here,
pointed to the fact that the famine reported by Herodotos
namely Lehmanns’ position on the cause (or causes) of the
(Histories I, 94) as the cause of part of the Lydian popula-
upheavals of the Sea Peoples and that on their ethnic rele-
tion to leave their country and settle in Etruria might be a
vance. Now, as to what caused the catastrophe, it can be
reflection of the grain shipments by Merneptah to keep the country of Hatti alive. Furthermore, he suggested that the
deduced from the distribution map of groups of the Sea
naval victory of the last Hittite great king Suppiluliumas II
mykenisch-frühgriechische Welt und der östliche Mittel-
(1205-1180? BC) against the island of Alasiya has a bear-
meerraum in der Zeit der “Seevölker”-Invasionen um 1200
ing on his battle against the Sea Peoples having gained
v. Chr. of 1985 (p. 47) and the accompanying text (pp. 43-
themselves a foothold on
Peoples in the central and eastern Mediterranean in Die
Cyprus.76
9) that he considered the Adriatic as the source of trouble
In the same year that Barnett’s contribution first ap-
for the wider Mediterranean, population groups here possi-
peared, Rainer Stadelmann put forward an interesting pa-
bly being uprooted by developments in the Danubian area.
per in Saeculum 19 in which he offered an alternative
As against this model, it might be objected that the afore-
answer to what caused the upheavals of the Sea Peoples. In
said distribution map rather reflects the situation after the
his view the prime move is made by the Phrygians, who,
catastrophe, when the Sea Peoples had been subject to a
originating from the Balkans, overran the Anatolian pla-
widespread diaspora. With respect to the ethnic relevance
teau at the end of the Late Bronze Age and destroyed the
of the ethnonyms, Lehmann pointed out that the Egyptian
Hittite Empire. As a corollary to this migration, the Philis-
depictions of the Sherden in reliefs from the reigns of
tines joined the Phrygians in their movement from the Bal-
Ramesses II and Ramesses III with very specific features
kans to Asia Minor, but, instead of settling here, they
testifies to the fact that at least the nucleus of the Sea Peo-
moved on to the Levant and Egypt via Crete and Cyprus.
ples consisted of pronounced ethnic groups (p. 58; see also
Having been defeated by Ramesses III, the Philistines set-
our motto). In a review article of Lehmann’s work of 1985
tled in Palestine – an event which was previously assumed
in Gnomon 58 of 1986, Wolfgang Helck reacted against
by Albright (1932) and Alt (1944) to have been orchestred
this inference with the words that
by the Egyptian pharaoh, but, taking the evidence at face
“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).
value, the latter appeared no longer in control of this re-
76 For a critical review of Barnett’s contribution to the Cambridge
Hand-in-hand with this degradation of the Sea Peo-
Ancient History, pointing out numerous instances of sloppiness, see Astour 1972.
38
ples as mere pirates goes Helck’s denial of a migrational
valuable for their rich illustrations.78 However, as far as
aspect to the period of the upheavals set in motion by the
the origins of the individual population groups are con-
expansion of the bearers of the Urnfield culture – whereas
cerned, the author happens to be wavering between the
in his Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und
views of de Rougé on the one hand and Maspero on the
2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. of 1971 he still held the Phrygian
other hand. Thus the Sherden are in first instance linked up
migrations from the Balkans to Anatolia responsible as a
with either Sardinia or Sardis, whereas later they are sup-
prime mover for the ensuing catastrophe.
posed to have migrated from Cyprus or North Syria to Sar-
An even more extreme position with reference to the
dinia. Similarly, the Shekelesh are now associated with
migrational aspect of the upheavals of the Sea Peoples than
Anatolia and then with southern Italy and Sicily. Only with
the one maintained by Helck was presented by Alexandra
respect to the Teresh Sandars straightforwardly committed
Nibbi in her The Sea Peoples and Egypt of 1975. Accord-
herself to an Anatolian homeland, be it Lydia or the Troas.
ing to this author the Sea Peoples are all Asiatics living in
The latter region is also considered the place of origin of
the Nile delta, with the exception of the Peleset, the identi-
the Tjeker and, less persuasively, of the Weshesh, whilst
fication of whom with the Philistines from Palestine as
the Lukka, the Ekwesh, and the Denye(n) are more or less
proposed already by Champollion she accepts. At the
conventionally identified as the Lycians of southwest Ana-
background of Nibbi’s views lurks the interpretation of
tolia, the Akhaians of western Anatolia, the Aegean islands
what is generally considered as the Egyptian words for the
or mainland Greece, and the Danuna of Cilicia, respec-
Mediterranean sea (w3d-wr “great green”), islands (͑ww),
tively. Finally, the Peleset are, like the Teresh, traced back
and sea (ym) as references to the Nile delta and inland
to an Anatolian homeland. Also as far as the causes of the
lakes here. She even went as far as to suggest that Retenu,
catastrophe are concerned, Sandars’ position is rather dif-
which is generally considered as an indication of the Le-
fuse, now stressing internecine war and internal decay (=
vant, is a reference to the Nile delta, too. I think it is not
systems collapse), then economic crisis and last but not
advisable to follow Nibbi in her extremist
standpoint.77
least attacks from hostile tribes or states along the borders.
In the next year, 1976, August Strobel published his
This unsatisfactory mixture of causes of the catastrophe
Der Spätbronzezeitliche Seevölkersturm, Ein Forschungs-
should not surprise us, because, as long as the problem of
überblick mit Folgerungen zur biblischen Exodusthematik,
the origins of the Sea Peoples remains unsolved, the re-
which offers a wealth of detailed information on the indi-
lated problem of these causes can in fact not possibly be
vidual groups of the Sea Peoples and the Near Eastern
adequately dealt with.
texts in which they appear, and hence may serve us as a
In his book on Caphtor/Keftiu, subtitled A new Inves-
valuable reference book. However, it is less outspoken
tigation, from 1980, John Strange also pays some attention
about the matters which primarily concern us here, like the
to the Sea Peoples (pp. 138-142; 157-165). In doing so, he
origins of the Sea Peoples, the causes for the catastrophe –
is exceptional in presenting the spelling of the five eth-
though Strobel favors a severe drought in this respect – and
nonyms recorded for Medinet Habu in Egyptian hiero-
the articulation of the Sea Peoples’ ethnicity.
glyphic writing. As far as the origins of the Sea Peoples
Still a classic in the field is Nancy K. Sandars The Sea
are concerned, however, he adheres to common views in
Peoples, Warriors of the ancient Mediterranean 1250-
the literature at the time according to which most of them
1150 BC of 1978, which two years afterwards appeared in
originated from Asia Minor (Denye(n)), particularly its
Dutch translation as De Zeevolken, Egypte en Voor-Azië
western outskirts (Lukka, Shekelesh, Teresh, Tjeker), but
bedreigd, 1250-1150 v.C. – both editions being highly
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
77 In variant form Nibbi’s extremist point of view has recently
substantial number of the Sea Peoples can be shown to
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.
have colonized the Syro-Palestine coast from the latter is-
78 Cf. the reviews of this book by Muhly 1979 and Snodgrass
1978.
39
land, which Strange correlates to the well-known Biblical
delta as evidenced by the fact that they take with them
information that the Philistines originated from Kaphtor,
their wives and children in oxcarts.
hence his adagium Kaphtor = Cyprus. Although Cyprus
In 1984 appeared the Lexicon der Ägyptologie, Band
may have functioned as a way station for some of the Sea
V, edited by Wolfgang Helck and Eberhard Otto, which
Peoples in their trek to the Levant, it is an oversimplifica-
contains the lemma Seevölker written by Rainer Stadel-
tion of the evidence to consider it as their main sallying
mann. This section is well-referenced and therefore still
point – as we will see, the diagnostic ceramics in the form
handy to consult, notwithstanding its Masperonian bias
of Mycenaean IIIC1b ware have a much wider distribution,
(e.g. the Sherden are traced back to Sardis, and, with the
including Crete and western Anatolia. To this comes that
Shekelesh and Teresh, believed to have reached the central
there is positive evidence, duly assembled by Strange him-
Mediterranean only after the resurrections at the end of the
self, indicating that Alasiya is the Late Bronze Age name
Bronze Age) and the mistaken opinion that the Sherden
of Cyprus, and Kaptara (> Kaphtor) or Keftiu that of Crete.
only fought on the side of the Egyptians in the land- and
In line with Lehmann’s view on the cause of the up-
sea-battles of Ramesses III’s years 5 and 8 (as a distinction
heavals of the Sea Peoples, Fritz Schachermeyr in his Die
the Sherden on the side of the enemies wear horned hel-
Levant im Zeitalter der Wanderungen, Vom 13. bis zum 11.
mets without a sun-disc in between them).
Jahrhundert v.Chr. of 1982 traces the origin of some of the
Subsequently, Jacques Vanschoonwinkel dedicated a
Sea Peoples back to the Adriatic, in particular Illyria, from
section to the Sea Peoples in his L’Égée et la Méditerranée
where the Shekelesh and Sherden are supposed to have
orientale à la fin du IIe millénaire of 1991. In this section,
migrated to the Levant by sea, uprooting the Mycenaean
he decisively refuted Nibbi’s thesis according to which the
Greeks along the route, and the Tjeker and Peleset to have
Sea Peoples (with the noted exception of the Philistines)
done the same by land, in this way causing the fall of the
are Asiatics who had already been living in the Nile delta
Hittite empire.
for a long time. As it comes to the question of the origins
Another milestone in the study of the Sea Peoples
of the Sea Peoples, however, Vanschoonwinkel merely
next to Sandars’ work is formed by Trude Dothan’s The
sums up the various possibilities circulating since the times
Philistines and their Material Culture of 1982, which pro-
of de Rougé and Maspero without showing any preference
vides the archaeological evidence of the settlements in
for the one or the other. No wonder, therefore, that his
Palestine on a site to site basis – an indispensable working
view on the cause or causes of the catastrophe is as diffuse
tool. For a more popular representation of this material, fo-
as that of Sandars – adding in particular violent earth-
cussing on the personal contribution of Trude and her hus-
quakes.
band Moshe Dothan to the excavation of Philistine sites,
One of the most important and stimulating contribu-
see Trude Dothan & Moshe Dothan, People of the Sea, The
tions on our topic is formed by Robert Drews’ The End of
Search of the Philistines of 1992.
the Bronze Age, Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe
In the next year, 1983, Günther Hölbl argued em-
ca. 1200 B.C. of 1993. In this work, the author set out to
phatically for the historical relevance of the Egyptian texts
treat the various causes of the catastrophe as suggested in
on the Sea Peoples by Merneptah at Karnak and by
the relevant literature, like earthquakes, drought, systems
Ramesses III at Medinet Habu in his contribution to the
collapse, and migrations, in order to refute them all; in his
Zwettl Symposium – dedicated to the Aegean and the Le-
criticism of the migrational explanation, he launched a ve-
vant during the period of the Dark Age. In doing so, he
hement attack on Maspero’s identification of the Sherden,
was able to distinguish two phases in the period of the up-
Shekelesh, and Teresh with peoples from Anatolia, main-
heavals of the Sea Peoples: (1) a strictly military one at the
taining instead that these are just persons from Sardinia,
time of Merneptah in which the groups of the Sea Peoples
Sicily, and Etruria. As indicated by the subtitle of his
mentioned act as mercenaries or auxiliaries to the Libyan
book, according to Drews the real explanation of the catas-
king Meryre (= Meryey) – who himself takes with him his
trophe at the end of the Late Bronze Age constitutes a mili-
wife and children with the obvious intent of settling in the
tary innovation. In the palatial societies of the Late Bronze
Egyptian delta; and (2) a migratory one at the time of
Age empires, chariot warfare formed the heart and core of
Ramesses III in which at least some of the groups of the
the army, being supplemented only by infantry auxiliaries,
Sea Peoples mentioned are decided to settle in the Egytian
particularly handy for special tasks like guarding the camp
40
site or manoeuvring in mountainous terrain. At the end of
ics). In my opinion, his military explanation of the catas-
the Bronze Age, however, a new style of infantry is intro-
trophe, stressing the advancement of infantry, would gain a
duced with, amongst others, round shields, slashing
lot if the groups were indeed cohesive. In a contribution to
swords, metal greaves, and javelins, which can outmatch
the Journal of Near Eastern Studies 59 of 2000, Drews
the until then unchallenged chariotry, especially by elimi-
elaborates his anti-migratory view on the catastrophe at the
nating the horses with javelins thrown in full run. In gen-
end of the Bronze Age.
eral, this shift from chariotry to infantry warfare during the
The treatment of the Philistines by Ed Noort in his
period from the end of the Late Bronze Age to the early
Die Seevölker in Palästina of 1994 is, like the work of
phase of the Iron Age is undisputable. But it did take place
Drews just discussed, characterized by the modern fashion
more gradually than Drews wants us to believe. In the first
to minimalize the migratory aspect of the catastrophe. In
place, especially the Egyptian pharaohs from the time of
the end, however, he cannot but admit that the Philistine
Ramesses II onwards were quick to adapt to the military
culture of the Early Iron Age is a mixture of an intrusive
innovations by hiring Sherden mercenaries from (as we
element from Crete, the Peleset, with the indigenous Late
will argue) Sardinia, who were specialists in the new style
Bronze Age population of Canaan. Consistently within this
of fighting. Secondly, certain groups that overran the Late
frame of reference, he considers the mention of Abimelech
Bronze Age states during the catastrophe, like the Kaskans
in the Bible as a Philistine ruler in the period of the Patri-
of Anatolia and the Philistines of Palestine, still used
archs an anachronism.
chariots in their army during the Early Iron Age. This be-
In his work of 1999 on Ugarit, Cyprus and the Ae-
ing so, it should not be overlooked that one of the greatest
gean, Hans-Günter Buchholz, specifically discussed the
military assets of the Sea Peoples was (as their name im-
problem of the Sea Peoples, especially in his concluding
plies) their sea power: once they had cleared the waters of
remarks (pp. 708-741), where he presents a wealth of re-
the eastern Mediterranean from enemy ships, they could,
cent literature. Like many of his predecessors, however, he
just like the Vikings in a later age, attack any location of
considers it an open question whether the Sherden and the
their choosing by hit and run actions, thus leaving the land-
Shekelesh originated from the West or not.
locked imperial armies no chance at a proper defence! An-
In 2000 appeared a collection of papers edited by
other point of criticism of Drews’ views concerns his
Eliezer D. Oren entitled The Sea Peoples and Their World:
denial of a migratory aspect to the catastrophe, which leads
A Reassessment.79 Most shocking news is that Annie
him to the assertion that the Peleset and Tjeker were al-
Caubet informs us that the famous oven in Ras
ready living in Palestine during the Late Bronze Age – a
Shamra/Ugarit, in which tablets were found which pre-
supposition which, insofar as the period of Ramesses III is
sumably had a bearing on the last days of Ugarit, is not an
concerned, is simply untenable. As Drews himself admits,
oven at all but a ceiling from an upper storey. In addition
the innovative infantry is only effective when applied in
to this, Peter Machinist presents a valuable overview of the
“overwhelming numbers” (p. 211). Furthermore, the Pele-
sources on the Philistines in their pentapolis of Asdod, As-
set and the Tjeker are never mentioned in contemporary
kelon, Gaza, Ekron, and Gath. Also worthy of note here,
Late Bronze Age texts, thanks to which the situation in the
finally, is the fact that Shelley Wachsmann takes up the
Levant before the catastrophe is reasonably clear; for the
suggestion by Kimmig, again, that the ship(s) of the Sea
Peleset, Drews can only fall back on the Biblical account
Peoples as depicted at Medinet Habu are characterized by
of the Philistine ruler Abimelech from the times of Abra-
Urnfield influence for their having a bird head ornament at
ham and Isaac, which, however, is a patent anachronism.
the stern as well as the prow.
Finally, as we have just noted, in the period of Ramesses
The latest publication on the topic I know of is Eric
III some of the groups of the Sea Peoples clearly had the
H. Cline’s and David O’Connor’s contribution to a collec-
intention to settle in the Egyptian delta as evidenced by the
tion of papers edited by David O’Connor and Stephen
oxcarts with women and children depicted on the enemy’s
Quirke entitled Mysterious Lands, which appeared in 2003.
side in the reliefs of Medinet Habu. Of special interest to
This presents a handy and up-to-date overview of the
our main theme is the fact that Drews denies that the per-
Egyptian sources on the Sea Peoples, but, as it leaves out
sons referred to by the ethnonyms which belonged to the Sea Peoples “were ever a cohesive group” (p. 71; my ital-
79 Cf. Barako 2004.
41
all the relevant evidence from other sources, it fails to answer 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.
42
5. CONTEMPORARY SOURCES The contemporary sources with a bearing on the period of
“[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 Perire.”81
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 attack supported by allies or mercenaries from the Sea Peoples 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
In conjunction with the information from the so-called
Ramesses III (= 1179 BC and 1176 BC), and, in the form
Athribis stele (numbers between parentheses), the count of
of the Wen Amon story, about the immediate aftermath of
the victims (lines 52-54) can be reconstructed as follows:
the crisis. Next, in Cypro-Minoan documents we encounter
Libyans 6359, Shekelesh 222 (200), Teresh 742 (722), Ekwesh (2201), Sherden – ( – ).82
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
Note that the allies of the Sea Peoples are explicitly re-
seaborne attack from the reign of Ramesses III. Finally,
ferred to as being circumcised, for which reason their hands instead of their penises are cut off and counted.83
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
Cypro-Minoan
Ugaritic texts both in transliteration and translation, whereas in connection with the Egyptian ones I will con-
The Cypro-Minoan documents bearing testimony of repre-
fine myself to the translation only as a transliteration of the
sentatives of the Sea Peoples engaged in maritime trade
full set is, to the best of my knowledge, yet to be pub-
come from Enkomi (cylinder seal Inv. no. 19.10) and
lished.
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
Egyptian
(= dressed stone) building abandoned at the end of Late Cypriote IIC and the tablet from Ras Shamra/Ugarit in the
The chief source on the Lybian invasion is formed by the
remains of an archive of a villa in the residential area east
great historical inscription of Merneptah (1213-1203 BC)
of the palace, destroyed, like the entire town, at the end of
inscribed on a wall of the main temple at Karnak (Thebes).
the Late Bronze Age.84 Accordingly, we arrive at a date of
The inscription consists of 79 lines in sum, but unfortu-
c. 1180 BC as a terminus ante quem for the recording of
nately the text is only lacunarily preserved, about half of it being lost.80 The following two passages are relevant to our subject:
81 Breasted 1927: Vol. III, no. 574; Davies 1997: 155; cf. Drews
1993a: 49.
Karnak inscription
82 Breasted 1927: Vol. III, nos. 588, 601; Davies 1997: 163; cf.
Lehmann 1979: 490; Drews 1993a: 49.
Lines 13-15
83 Widmer 1975: 71, note 23. 84 For the exact location of tablet RS 20.25, see Buchholz 1999:
80 Schulman 1987: 23.
134-5, Abb. 34 (TCM).
43
these texts.85 That the Enkomi cylinder seal belongs to the
corded “on behalf” of the person in question: samuri
same chronological horizon is indicated by the fact that
manekaasi “on behalf of the Samian, representative of
some of the persons mentioned in its text also figure in the
the Maeonians (?)” in the text of the Enkomi cylinder seal,
texts of the Kalavassos cylinder seal and the tablet from
Remi taasa wetuti wasaka “on behalf of Remus, governor
Ras Shamra/Ugarit.
of this town” in the text of the Kalavassos seal, and Akami
The relationship between these three texts not only
pini Mali ati pini Apesa “on behalf of Akamas, representa-
involves the mention of the same persons, but also entails
tive of Malos and representative of Ephesos” in the text of
the underlying structure of recording.86 Thus, in all three
the tablet from Ras Shamra/Ugarit.89 If there are more de-
there can be distinguished basically four types of informa-
liverers, as in the case of the Enkomi and Kalavassos cyl-
tion, (1) heading(s), (2) indications of deliverers, (3) indi-
inder seals, these are likewise intended to be in the dative –
cations of recipients, and (4) indications of products. The
even if this case is not always properly indicated by over-
headings are mostly singled out as such by the locative in
sight or because of sloppiness. The recipients, distin-
-ti: Umi(a)tisiti “at Amathus” in the texts of the Enkomi
guished as such by the fact that they follow the deliverers
and Kalavassos cylinder seals, and Lamiyaneti kapariti “at
after a punctuation mark and/or a transaction term (telu, PI,
the Lamiyan trade centre” in the text of the tablet from Ras
etc.), are also rendered in the dative case, either in -ti90 or
Shamra/Ugarit.87 Of the deliverers, only the name of the
in -we91 as in the text of the Enkomi cylinder seal, or also
scribe, who identifies himself by the Luwian personal pro-
in -i as in the text of the Kalavassos seal, or exclusively in
noun of the 1st person singular emu or -mu “I”, is pur-
-i as in the text of the tablet from Ras Shamra/Ugarit –
posely put in the nominative – written without its proper
with only a few exceptions from oversight or sloppiness.
ending -s according to the standards in Linear B and Lu-
E.g.: Sanemeti Sikerisikaasi “to Sanemas, representative of
wian hieroglyphic at the time. Thus: Pika, tamika Likike -
the Shekelesh” and Lemapesiti Talimetu/natewe Sekeriya-
mu “Pi®as, I, trader from Lycia” in the text of the Enkomi
kati “to Lemapesi from Talmitesup’s town in Sangaria” in
cylinder seal, emu Sanema “I, Sanemas” in the text of the
the text of the Enkomi cylinder seal, Isimiriti mitisa “to the
Kalavassos cylinder seal, and Wesa -mu “I, Wesas” in the
servant from Smyrna” and tameki Pesewe “to the
text of the tablet from Ras Shamra/Ugarit. As opposed to
Pisidian trader” in the text of the Kalavassos seal, and Isi-
this, the main deliverer next to the scribe is written in the
pali “to Isiba‘al” in the text of the tablet from Ras
Luwian dative in
-i,88
to stress that the transactions are re-
Shamra/Ugarit. Finally, the indications of products, often occurring in abbreviation and in combination with numbers, so far identifiable appear to have a bearing on the
85 Yon 1992: 120 dates the destruction of Ras Shamra-Ugarit bet-
for maru “wool”,
PA
for
pharweha “cloth”, pupuru “purple (colored cloth)”,
RI
for
cloth industry: ketu “cotton”,
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.
linon “linen”, and ception of
E
SA
MA
for sarara “spun flax” – with the ex-
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
86 For a full treatment, see Woudhuizen 1992a: 94-145 and
Shamra/Ugarit.
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.
89 For the improvement of our interpretation of this phrase, see
88 Bulgarmaden, phrase 10: MutiƗ MASANAWATIti “for the divine mountain Muti”, Bo÷ça, phrase 4: MASANARUWANTti “to, for
section 13, note 530 below. 90 This ending corresponds with the Luwian hieroglyphic dative
Runt”, Karaburun, phrases 8 and 9: SapiƗ H ANTAWATti “for king Sapis”, Bo÷ça, phrase 2: MASANATARH UNTti “for Tar®unt”, see Hawkins 2000: passim; Çineköy, phrase 10: parnàwai “for the house”, see Teko÷lu & Lemaire 2000: 988, etc.; also cf. Woudhuizen 2004b.
singular of the pronoun in -ti, see Meriggi 1980: 322-3. 91 This ending corresponds with the Sidetic dative singular in -va
as attested for the form TrataĞeva “for Tratases” in Sid. no. 3, line 1, see Woudhuizen 1984-5: 124.
44
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
8.
ti/SA/pi-ka.E/
Ermapi(ya)s, 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-si
13.
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: to
20.
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-
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-
13.
ya we-tu-ti.i-le-mi
“At Amathus, for the Samian 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
45
3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
(and) spun flax;” “On behalf of Remus he brings divine wine in veneration to the goddess Artemis” “I, Sanemas, to Iasos, on behalf of Remus, governor of this town, to Smyrna: I (and) spun flax.” “(On behalf of) the governor himself being given this to the Pisidian trader: cloth”
re-mi/a-wa/mu1-sa-se wa-ne/e-we1/a-ti-mi-we1 mu1-sa/wa-si-ri-ti1 e-mu sa-ne-ma/ya-sa-ti re-mi/ta-a-sa/we[-tu]-ti wa-sa-ka/i-si-mi-ri[-ti] I SA.wa-sa-ka e-pe[-se]/pi-mi-se/i2 ta-me-ki/pe-se-we1 PA
Tablet RS 20.25 from Ras Shamra/Ugarit 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.
Side A a-ka-mi/pi-ni/ma-li a-ti pi-ni/a-pe-sa PI. i-si1-pa-li. a-we1-ri/ma-ka-pi-ti1 a-ta-ta-ne/pi-ni/ta-si-ri i-si-pa-ti/pi-ni/u-ri2-ka-si1 pi-ni/u-wa1-ri. a wa1-sa PI/pi-ni/ka-pi-li wa1-ta-ri.i-li-si-ri/wa1-si-ri-ti1 ta-pa-ri/pi-ni/i-li-ta-ma-ne a-we-si-ri/pi-ni/me-ni-wa-ri
“On behalf of Akamas, representative of Malos and representative of Ephesos, he (= Wasas) gives to Isiba‘al; (at) the entrepôt of the frontier outpost to Adadanu, representative of tasiri; to Sipat, representative of urikasi; to the representative of the frontier outpost.” “Wasas, representative of the municipal cloth industry, gives in veneration to the Syrian god (?); to Tabaris, representative of ilitamane; to Awesiri, representative of meniwari.”
Side B la-mi-ya-ne-ti/ka-pa-ri-ti1 we-sa -mu PI i-li-ma-li-ki/pi-ni/la-mi-ya-ti a-ka-mi PI/pi-ni/ma-ki u-we1-ta-sa-li/ a-mu PI ma-sa-we-li a-pe-mu -ma/ZITI-si/ma-ki 3 PA NE WA1 ya-me-ri/pi-ni/ma-ki sa-si1-ma-li-ki/ME 2 NE/PA
“At the Lamiyan trade centre: I, Wesas, give to Ilimalik, representative of Lamiya; on behalf of Akamas I give to Uwatasalis, representative of the customs collector; I give to Masawalis and Apamuwas, officers (?) of the customs collector: 3 (units of) cloth, NE (and) wine; to Yameri, representative of the customs collector; to Sasimalik: 2 (units of) ME, NE (and) cloth.”
The fragmentarily preserved tablet 1687 from Enkomi, in-
the foundation course of a hearth outside its proper context
scribed in the so-called Cypro-Minoan II script or Linear
in an Enkomi IIIA (= Late Cypriote IIIA) level, postdating
D, appears to contain correspondence dealing with a naval
the period of upheavals of the Sea Peoples.93
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: 93 Dikaios 1971: 885; Pl. 317.
64, note 39; Woudhuizen 1992a: 117.
46
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
lú
KUR2.ME
in Ugaritic is nakrnj “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
seems clear from the contents that all four letters actually
waters is vividly described in four Ugaritic letters, three of
have a bearing on the city’s last days.
which (RS L 1, RS 20.238, RS 20.18) belong to the so-
The transcription of the texts, which varies in the dif-
called Rap’anu-archive, named after an Ugaritic dignitary
ferent publications, has been systematized and improved
living in the residential area east of the palace (Lehmann
by the Assyriologist Frans A.M. Wiggermann (letter d.d.
1979: 53; 59; cf. von Reden 1992: 266, Fig. 32), whereas
27 December 2003).
one (RS 34.129) originates from an archive which came to
Contrary to the sequence of their publication, I belief,
light as a result of military defense works in the south of
with Hoftijzer & van Soldt (1998: 343), that letter RS L 1
the city (Lehmann 1979: 481; Lehmann 1985: 32, note 64).
precedes RS 20.238, because in the latter an answer is
Although the destruction of Ras Shamra/Ugarit c. 1180 BC
given to the question from the former where the troops and
only serves as a terminus ante quem for both archives, it
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.
10.
a-n[u]-um-ma it-tu-ka LUG[AL] EN-ka s̙̙e-® e-er
Now, (there) with you, the
mi-i[m-m]a la-a i-de
young. He knows nothing.
ù a-na-ku dUTU-ši a-na UGU-® i-šu um-da-e-ra-šu
And I, His Majesty, had
king your lord is (still too)
issued him an order
m
aš-šum ib-na-du-šu
concerning Ibnadušu,
ša LU2.MEŠ kur.uruši-ka-la-iu-ú
whom the people from
i[s̙̙] -bu-tu-šu-ú-ni ša i-na UGU-® i gišMA2.ME[Š]
ships – had abducted.
Šikala – who live on
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
lú
you.
kar-tap-pu
94 Malbran-Labat 1991: 38-9; cf. Dietrich & Loretz 1978.
47
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 Šikala
is̙̙-bu-tu-šu-ni a-na UGU-® i-ia
had abducted, to me.
šu-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
m
a-na am-mu-ra-pí LUGAL
Alashiya]. Speak to
kur
ú-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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
10.
15.
ša tàš-pu-ra ma-a gišMA2.MEŠKUR2
Concerning what you wrote to
i-na ŠA3 A.AB.BA
me: “They have spotted
i-ta-am-ru-m[a]
enemy ships at sea”;
ù šúm-ma ki-it-tu
if they have indeed spotted
giš
ships, make yourself as
MA2.MEŠ
i-ta-am-ru
ù lu dú-nu-na[-ta]
strong as possible.
dan-níš i-na-an-n[a]
Now, where are your own
at-tu-ka [(x-x)]
troops (and) chariotry
ERIN2.MEŠ-ka
giš
GIGIR.M[EŠ-ka]
stationed?
a-ia-ka-ma-a
20.
aš-bu ul it-ta-ka-ma-a
Are they not stationed with
aš-bu i-i[a]-nu-um-ma-a i-na ® i?!-re-et lúKUR
you? If not, who will deliver
ma-am-ma ú-nam-maš-ka
Surround your towns with
URU.DIDLI.HI.A-ka BAD3.MEŠ
walls;
you from the enemy forces?
li-i-mi ERIN2.MEŠ
25.
ù gišGIGIR.MEŠ
bring troops and chariotry
i-na ŠA3 šu-ri-ib pa-ni
lú
KUR
inside. (Then) wait at full
dú-gu5-ul
strength for the enemy.”
95 Nougayrol 1968: 83-9.
48
ù dú-nu-na-ta dan-níš ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
RS 20.238 1.
a-na LUGAL kura-la-ši-ia a-bi- iʗa qí-bi-ma
Alashiya, my father: Thus
um-ma LUGAL kuru-ga-ri-it
says the king of Ugarit,
DUMU-ka-ma
your son.
“Speak to the king of
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ 5.
a-na GIR3.MEŠ a-bi-ia a[m-qu]t a-na UGU-® i a-bi-ia lu-ú š[u]l-m[u
I fall at the feet of my father.
a-na E2.HI.A-ka NITLAM4.MEŠ-k[a]
May your estates, your
May my father be well!
ERIN2-ka
10.
consorts, your troops,
a-na gab-bi [m]im-mu-ú
everything that belongs to the
ša LUGAL kura-la-ši-i[a] a-bi- iʗa d[a]n-níš dan-níš
king of Alashiya, my father, be very, very well!
lu-ú šul-m[u] ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ a-bi a-nu-ma gišMA2.MEŠ ša 15.
lú.meš
KUR2
My father, now enemy ships
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.
i-ša-ri-ip
They have done unseemly
ù a-ma-at
things in the land!
[la]-a ba-ni-ta
20.
25.
[i-n]a ŠA3-bi KUR i-te-e[p]-šú a-bu-iʗa ú-ul i-[d]e
My father is not aware of the
ki-i gab-bu ERIN2.MEŠ E[N]
fact that all the troops of my
a-bi-ia i-na kur® a-at-ti
father’s overlord are stationed in Hatti and that all
aš-bu ù gab-bu gišMA2.MEŠ-[ iʗ] a
my ships are stationed in
i-na ku[r]lu-uk-ka-a
LukkƗ. They still have not
aš-bu [a-d]i-ni ul ik-šu-da-ni
arrived and the country is lying like that!
ù KUR-[t]u4 ka-am-ma na-da-at
My father should know these
a-bu-ia a-ma-at an-ni-ta5
things.
[l]u-ú i-de i-na-an-na
Now, the seven enemy
7
giš
MA2.MEŠ
ša
lú.meš
ships that are approaching
KUR2
[š]a il-la-ka-a[n]-ni 30.
have done evil things to us.
ù a-ma-at maš-ik-ta it-ep-šu-na-a-ši
35.
i-na-an-na šum-ma gišMA2.[MEŠ]
Now then, if there are any
ša lú.mešKUR2 ša-na-t[u4] i-ba-aš-ši-mi † é-m[a]
other enemy ships send me a report somehow, so that I will
[a-i]a-ka-am-ma šu-up-r[a]-ni
know.”
ù lu-ú i-de4 ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
49
RS 20.18 1.
um-ma me-šu-wa-ra lú
MAŠKIM GAL
ša
“Thus says Eshuwara, the
kur
a-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
10.
As for the matter concerning
al-lu-ti DUMU.ME KUR-ti-ka4
those enemies: (it was) the
giš
people from your country (and) your own ships (who)
MA2.ME-ka4-ma
a-ba-ta an-ni-ta
did this!
i-te-ep-šu-ni ù i-te-eq-ta an-nu-ti DUMU.MEŠ KUR-ti-ka4
And (it was) the people i-[t]e-ep-šu
from your country (who) committed these transgression(s).
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ù it-ti-ia-ma 15.
So do not be angry with me!
lu la te-ze-em-me ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ù i-na-an-na 20
20.
giš
MA2.MEŠ
But now, (the) twenty enemy ša
lú
KUR2.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
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-s̙̙a-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
offers depictions of the battles and their description in text.
Ramesses III’s mortuary tempel at Medinet Habu,96 which
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
96 i.e. Thebes.
50
whereas this cluster is followed by a town siege.98
Libyans (year 5) as well as successive ones against the Libyans (year 11), again, and the Asiatics (considered to be
fictitious).97
The information on the wars with the Sea Peoples of
The depictions of the land- and sea battle
Ramesses III’s Medinet Habu memorial is supplemented
against the Sea Peoples are located central on the outer
by the text of the Stele from Deir el Medineh and the Pa-
east side of the monument (nos. 31 and 37-9), whereas the
pyrus Harris.
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
Medinet Habu
north side of court 1 (nos. 44 and 46), respectively. Yet
Inscription of year 5 (= 1179 BC)
another text referring to a military engagement with Sea
“The northern countries quivered in their bodies, namely the Peleset, Tjek[er, …]. They were cut off 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 removed, taken away, no longer in their bodies. Their leaders were carried off and slain; they were cast down and made into pinioned ones (…).”99
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).
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 Weshesh, 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 Levant], 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 coasters, equipped, for they were manned completely from bow to stern with valiant warriors, with their weapons; 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.
Fig. 4. Plan of Ramesses III’s temple at Medinet Habu, Thebes (after 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) outcome. The central military action in form of the land- and sea battle is broken in two by a lion hunt in the middle,
98 Cifola 1991: 15-6. 99 Edgerton & Wilson 1936: 30; cf. Breasted 1927: Vol. IV, no. 97 Widmer 1975: 68.
44; Pritchard 1969: 263; Strobel 1976: 8; Peden 1994: 17.
51
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 AllLord, my august, divine father, the Lord of Gods.”100
Character’. It is Amon-Re who has overthrown for him the lands and has crushed for him every land under 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 Sherden and 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
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 before the Nine Bows, bearing victory. Amon, his august father, is a shield for him; King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Ruler of the Nine Bows, Lord of the Two Lands (…).”101
The Wenamon story, as preserved on the Golenischeff
Text to the scene of the sea battle (Fig. 6)
papyrus, informs us about the period after the wars with
“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 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 enraged 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
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.
100 Edgerton & Wilson 1936: 53-6; cf. Breasted 1927: Vol. IV,
104 Kitchen 1983: no. 73, 9 f.; cf. Lehmann 1985: 23-4.
no. 64; Pritchard 1969: 262-3; Strobel 1976: 14; Drews 1993a: 51; Peden 1994: 29-31.
105 Lepsius 1900: Vol. III, 218c; Drews 1993a: 51.
101 Edgerton & Wilson 1936: 38; cf. Pritchard 1969: 263.
106 Breasted 1927: Vol. IV, no. 403; Strobel 1976: 18.
52
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).
53
Golenischeff papyrus
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 messenger 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 watching 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-suBa-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 relations 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
“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-suBa-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 season, 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 deben, 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 belongs 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 belongs 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 captains and with those who go (to) sea!” But he said to me: “Be quiet! (…).” (…) I went out of Tyre at the break of dawn (…). Zakar-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-theRoad, and I put his property inside him. 54
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 kherd of 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 Egyptian 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 butler 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 angry 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 carried 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 Khaem-Waset – they were men who he sent to you as messengers 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: ‘AmonRe, King of the Gods, sent to me Amon-of-the-Road, his messenger – [life], prosperity, health! – and WenAmon, 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,
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 Egyptian goods, and they unloaded them into their storehouses! 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 Libanon 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 commission, 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 belonging 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
55
“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 understands 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 messenger of Amon. Look here – as for me, they will search for me all the time! As to the crew of the Prince of Byblos 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 (…).” (…)”
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 out something for you.” And I went (to) the shore of the sea, to the place where the timber was lying, and I spied eleven ships belonging 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: “Haven’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 began 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:
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
Lukka
x
x
x
Sherden
x
x
Ramesses III
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.
56
6. LUKKA AND THE LUKKA LANDS Since the time of Emmanuel de Rougé, who wrote in 1867,
coast. This seems to have formed part of Lukka according
the Lukka have straightforwardly been identified with the
to the combined evidence of El-Amarna text no. 38 and RS
Lycians.107
The latter are known from Homeros onwards
20.238 from Ras Shamra/Ugarit.113 Of these texts, the first
to inhabit the valley of the Xanthos river and its immediate
one bears reference to piratical raids on Alasiya (= Cyprus)
surroundings in
Anatolia.108
As to the precise habitat of
and apparently on the Egyptian coast by the people of the
their equivalents in Hittite texts, Trevor Bryce has put for-
land of Lukki, which is therefore likely to have had a
ward two specific theses, namely (1) Lycaonia to the east
coastal zone. The second informs us that the king of Ugarit
and (2) Caria to the west of classical Lycia. Of these two
has sent his entire fleet to the waters off the coast of Lukka,
theses, the first one is primarily based on the fact that in a fragment of Hattusilis III’s (1264-1239 BC) annals, Keil-
presumably, as suggested by Michael Astour, in an attempt
schrifturkunden aus Boghazköy (= KUB) XXI 6a, the
gean into the eastern Mediterranean.114 If this latter sug-
Lukka lands (KUR.KUR
to ward off the passage of the Sea Peoples from the Ae-
MEŠ URU
gestion is correct, we are dealing here with the Lycian
Luqqa) appear in a para-
graph preceding one on military campaigns against countries like Walma, San®ata, and Walwara known from the
coast, indeed.
border description of the province of Tar®untassa – a Hit-
by Bryce occurred thanks to the recent discovery of a
tite province situated to the east of (the) Lukka (lands).109 The second thesis takes as its starting point that in the so-
monumental hieroglyphic inscription from the reign of Tud®aliyas IV (1239-1209 BC) at Yalburt in the neighbor-
called Tawagalawas-letter (KUB XIV 3), probably from
hood of Ilgın. As demonstrated by Massimo Poetto, this
BC),110
A dramatic change in the state of affairs as presented
people from
text, which deals with a military campaign in the Lukka
Luqqa) are mentioned directly follow-
lands (lúkaUTNAi), bears reference to the place names Pi-
ing the destruction of Attarima. In the same letter Attarima
nata, Awarna, Talawa, and Patara, which are identifiable
is associated with Iyalanda, which for its association with
with classical Pinale or Pinara, Arñne or Arna, Tlawa or
Atriya must be located close to Millawanda (or Milawata).
Tlǀs, and Pttara or Patara situated in the valley of the
If Millawanda (or Milawata) may be identified with classi-
lower Xanthos river.115 It further mentions the place names Luwanda and H walatarna, which correspond to
the reign of Muwatallis II (1295-1271 Lukka (LUMEŠ
URU
cal Miletos (as is commonly asserted by now), it follows according to this line of reasoning that people from Lukka
classical Loanda and ȋbide or Kaunos in the valley of the
must be situated in its immediate Carian hinterland.111
Indus river.116 There can be little doubt, therefore, that, re-
What strikes us about these suggestions is that precisely
gardless the blank in the archaeological record, the Lukka
the region of the Xanthos valley and its immediate sur-
lands are situated precisely within the confines of classical
roundings in the middle are left out – a situation which, for
Lycia proper. This conlusion receives even further empha-
the lack of remains of Late Bronze Age settlements here,
sis if Machteld Mellink is right in her identification of the
appears to be neatly reflected in the archaeological record
Siyanta river, which figures in the border description of
(but as we will see deceitfully so).112
Mira in Mursilis II’s (1321-1295 BC) treaty with Kupantakuruntas, with the Xanthos river.117 A question which remains to be answered is whether the expression “Lukka lands” designates the same geo-
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”.
113 Bryce 1992: 128-9; for EA no. 38, see Moran 1992: 111.
109 Bryce 1974: 397 (with reference to Cornelius); Bryce 1992:
114 Astour 1965a: 255; cf. Otten 1993; Keen 1998: 27.
121-3; cf. Otten 1988: 37-8.
115 Poetto 1993: 47-8 (block 9); 78-80. Note that these identifica-
110 Smit 1990-1 ; Gurney 1990.
tions are only partly followed by Keen 1998: 214-20.
111 Bryce 1974: 398-403; Bryce 1992: 123-6.
116 Woudhuizen 1994-5: 174; Woudhuizen 2004a: 30-1.
112 Bryce 1974: 130; cf. Keen 1998: 214.
117 Mellink 1995: 35-6.
57
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-
“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 expressly 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÷azköy/Hattusa, plausibly antedates Tud®aliyas IV’s Lycian campaign as recorded for the Yalburt text. Finally, as we have seen, Wiyanawanda already figures 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 confidently, encircled the region of the lower Xanthos valley 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 regions by a spur of the formidable Taurus mountains (see Fig. 8). As I have argued elsewhere, the conquest of the lower Xanthos valley is not an objective per se, but a prelude to Tud®aliyas IV’s CyprusAlasiya campaign, launched by him in the final years of his reign and made more permanent by his son Suppiluliumas II.126
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 hieroglyphic 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 Kupantakuruntas (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 ȋbide or Kaunos in the valley of the Indus river is likewise included 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 PergƝ in Pamphylia, on the eastern border of classical Lycia.122 It is interesting to observe 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 territory 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+H ANTAWAT-i H Á(TI)UTNA à-mi-i mTÁ(TI) H UH A-i na4-à H WA-Ɨ-sa-® a H WÁ-Ɨ-tá
118 Note that Steiner 1993: 129 draws attention to yet another instance of the Lukka lands in Hittite cuneiform (KUB XXI 31), but the context is too fragmentary to be of any use here.
Fig. 8. Map of Lycia (from Mellink 1995).
119 Poetto 1993: 48-9 (block 9); 80; cf. Woudhuizen 1994-5: 176
(phrase 4); Woudhuizen 2004a: 28; 32. 124 Woudhuizen 1994-5: 179; Woudhuizen 2004a: 35-6 (phrase
120 Hawkins 1995: 22-3 (phrases 1 and 4); 29; 54; cf. Woudhuizen
42). Note that the mention of hostages from Pina (= hieroglyphic Pinata) and Awarna in the Milawata-letter (KUB XIX 55) plausibly postdates Tud®aliyas IV’s Lycian campaign as recorded for the Yalburt text, see Woudhuizen 2005: 115.
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 Kaštaraya
river, corresponding to classical PergƝ along the Kestros in Pamphylia.
125 Woudhuizen 1994-5: 176; Woudhuizen 2004a: 42 (phrase 12).
123 Otten 1988: VIII, 63-4.
Woudhuizen 2004a: 31-2.
126 Woudhuizen 1994-5: 175; cf. Woudhuizen 1994: 524-6;
58
7. ETHNOGENESIS OF THE GREEKS The decipherment of Linear B by the British architect Mi-
riods, what distinguishes the transition at c. 2000 BC from
chael Ventris has proved that Greek existed as a language
the previous one at c. 2300 BC is the presence at some
from the second half of the 15th century BC onwards: the
sites of Mattpainted ware, originating from the Cycladic
earliest tablets are in fact from the Late Minoan II-IIIA1
islands, and a little imported or locally imitated Middle
period at Knossos in Crete (= c. 1450-1350
BC).127
The
Minoan IA ware. It further deserves notice that at Lerna in
question which will be addressed here is: when did the
a context to be dated after the destruction of the “House of
Greek language, and hence probably the Greek ethnos – in
the Tiles” bones have been found, first, in the Early Hella-
later times at least the Greek language is one of the most
dic III period, of a horse-like animal and later, in the Mid-
distinctive features of the Greek ethnos – , come into be-
dle Helladic period, of a true horse.
ing? Was it the result of an immigration by proto-Greeks
A majority of the archaeologists, led by Caskey, is of
into the region we call Greece, or are there other processes
the opinion that in the two aforesaid transitional periods a
at work? In order to tackle this question, we will look at
new people arrived in Greece, coming from the north or
the relevant archaeological, historical, and linguistic evi-
east or both, which spoke an Indo-European language, if
dence.
not already Greek then at least about to become Greek.128
From an archaeological point of view, there are three
This majority standpoint is challenged by the penetrating
periods which might be of relevance to our question: first
study of René van Royen & Benjamin Isaac, who convinc-
the transition from Early Helladic II to Early Helladic III
ingly demonstrated that the transition from Middle Hella-
(c. 2300 BC), then the transition from Early Helladic III to
dic to Late Helladic I, usually considered to be without a
Middle Helladic (c. 2000 BC), and finally the transition
true break, shows evidence of discontinuity in occupation
from Middle Helladic to Late Helladic I (c. 1600 BC) (for
in about the same way as the two foregoing transitional pe-
alternative opinions focussing on different periods, see ad-
riods. Thus it happens that sites are abandoned (Argos) or
ditional note at the end of this section). All these three
destroyed by fire (Eleusis, Kirrha) at the time of the intro-
transitional periods in varying degrees show evidence of
duction of the Minoanizing Late Helladic I ware.129 An-
discontinuity in occupation. The type site for the transition
other new feature of this period, next to the Minoanizing
from Early Helladic II to Early Helladic III is Lerna, ex-
pottery style, is the introduction of new types of graves:
pertly excavated by the Americans under the leadership of
shaft graves, tholos- and chamber tombs – the latter for
John Caskey. Here the so-called “House of the Tiles” went
multiple burials. Of these, the shaft graves at Mycenae de-
up in flames and was covered by a tumulus, new house
serve special mention for their extremely rich contents:
forms were introduced, characterized by apsidal ends, a
clearly here were buried valiant warriors who appreciated
new pottery style was developed, first hand-made only,
luxuries inspired by as far away a country as Egypt (think
which is baptized Minyan ware, and a new type of burial
of the daggers with Nilotic scenes, the gold masks and
came into fashion, namely individual burials in cist graves.
Heinrich Schliemann’s observation that one of the corpses
In the following transition from Early Helladic III to Mid-
was mummified). As manifest from the scenes on the ste-
dle Helladic, the new features characteristic of Lerna and
lae which marked their graves, the dignitaries in question
some other sites, are also introduced at places that re-
were specialized in chariot warfare. In line with these find-
mained untouched in the first transitional period, some-
ings, there has come into being a minority view according
times, as at Eutresis, after a violent conflagration.
to which the arrival of the proto-Greeks in Greece consists
Although related cultural traits were introduced at both pe-
of a so-called takeover by a comparatively small but wellorganized chariot-brigade in the transitional period from Middle Helladic to Late Helladic I. As a variant, more
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.
128 Caskey 1973. 129 Van Royen & Isaac 1979.
59
closely linked up with the given majority view, these in-
Cretan type and of which as many as 120 in sum have been
vaders are also considered non-Greek foreigners.
found, served export purposes for the at that time still pre-
In order to decide between these conflicting views, it
dominantly Minyan hinterland of Thebes.134 Finally, the
may be of relevance to determine who were the inhabitants
Thracian nature of the ancient population of Phokis may be
of Greece before the arrival of the proto-Greeks. The most
further enhanced by the fact that the Thracian tribe of the
serious attempt to tackle this question is formed by Jan
Abantes are recorded to have moved from their city Abai
Best’s investigation into the origins of the cultural traits of
in Phokis to Euboeia across the Euripos.
the Middle Helladic period, in casu Minyan ware, cist
It is rightly stipulated by Casson that there is also evi-
graves with individual burials and apsidal houses. The
dence of Phrygians among the earliest inhabitants of
closest parallels for these three features he was able to
Greece. Most famous in this respect is, of course, the case
trace in the northern Balkans in the period antedating their
of Pelops, after whom the Peloponnesos (= “island of
introduction into Greece. As this region in historical times
Pelops”) is named. In later times, the presence of the Phry-
is inhabited by Thracian tribes, Best extrapolated that
gian Pelops in southern Greece was no longer understood
bearers of the Middle Helladic culture in Greece were
and he was considered an immigrant from Anatolia – the
kinsmen of the
latter.130
This conclusion could be backed
later habitat of the Phrygians. But the fact that the Phry-
up by literary tradition, according to which, as first noted
gians were originally at home in southern Greece is duly
by Stanley Casson, central Greece had once been inhabited
indicated by scores of Phrygian place names (Azania,
by Thracians.131 Thus it is recorded that the Thracians
Mideia, Mopsopia, Olympia, Phrikion, Phrixa, Phrixos,
with Eumolpos and his son Ismaros were driven from
Phrygia) and personal names (Adrastos, Akrisios,135
Eleusis by the Athenian Erekhtheus, and that they took
Atreus, Azan, Azeus, Kelainos, Kharites,136 Khlǀris,137
refuge at the court of the Thracian king Tegyrios in Boeo-
Phorkys, Phrixos, Proitos) attested in the historical records.
tian Tegyra.132 Furthermore, the Thracian king Tereus is
In some instances, like a-da-ra-te-ja (= Greek AdrƗsteja)
of old situated at Daulis in Phokis, and the likewise Odry-
or a-da-ra-ti-jo (= Greek AdrƗstijos), u-ru-pi-ja (= Greek
sian royal name Sitalkas is recorded as an epiklesis of
Olumpia), ke-ra-no (= Greek Kelainos), and mo-qo-so (=
Delphi.133
The presence of the Thracian tribe of
Greek Mopsos) the ancient nature of these names can be
the Odrysians in Phokis is strikingly confirmed by evi-
emphasized by their occurrence or of that of related forms
dence from Linear B. On an inscribed stirrup jar from the
in Linear B.138 With the Thracians and the Phrygians, we
destruction layer of the “House of Kadmos” at Thebes,
have by no means exhausted the historical documentaries
dated c. 1350 BC, the ethnonym o-du-ru-wi-jo “Odrysian”
on the earliest inhabitants of Greece. Yet another group
is recorded. As another inscribed stirrup jar was found in
which figures prominently in the sources is that of the
Orkhomenos, it seems not unlikely to assume that the stir-
Leleges, who Herodotos (Histories I, 171) identifies with
rup jars from the “House of Kadmos”, which in fact are of
the Carians from the Cycladic islands. Their presence in
Apollo at
southern and central Greece may perhaps be reflected in 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 introduction 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.
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 Orkhomenos, see Pausanias, Guide to Greece IX, 36, 4 – 37, 1; cf. the Phrygian gloss glouros “gold” (< PIE *ghlǀro- or *g̗ 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.
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 ProtoIndo-European [= PIE] *krs- “black”, see Detschew 1976, s.v. Krisos.
138 Woudhuizen 1993b.
60
the archaeological record by the Mattpainted ware, which,
colonized the rest of Greece.141 Secondly, Jan Best de-
as we have seen above, originates from the Cyclades as
fended the thesis that the proto-Greeks were identical with
well and of which the introduction, as we have just seen,
the Hyksos, the foreign conquerors of lower Egypt in the
distinguishes the transition from Early Helladic III to Mid-
Second Intermediary Period (c. 1720-1550 BC), who were
dle Helladic. As a complicating factor, it should be real-
driven from the country by the founder of the 18th dy-
ized that there are still more population groups mentioned
nasty, Ahmose, and with their kinsmen from Canaan and
in the historical sources which cannot positively be as-
Syria took refuge to the southern shores of Greece.142 Fi-
signed to either of the three tribes identified so far for the
nally, Frank Stubbings likewise painted the picture of a
lack of evidence. On the whole, however, it may safely be
conquest of the Argolid by displaced Hyksos leaders from
stated
and
Egypt, only he did not consider them proto-Greeks, but a
Leleges/Carians we have discussed the most prominent of
foreign warrior caste who, like they did in Egypt, adapted
the population groups present in Greece before the Greeks
to the culture and language of the host country.143 Of these
or living there simultaneously with the Greeks in their ear-
three theories, the last two take into consideration the well-
liest history.
known historical evidence of Danaos, the ancestor of the
that
with
the
Thracians,
Phrygians,
From a linguistic point of view, it deserves attention
Danaoi, coming from Egypt to the Argolid, and of Kadmos
that the Thracian language, although barely known, is con-
with his Phoenicians founding the city of Thebes. The va-
sidered of Indo-European stock and most closely related to
lidity of this literary evidence is strengthened a great deal
Phrygian, this to the extent that one speaks of the Thraco-
by the fact that the Mycenaean Greeks are referred to by
Phrygian language
group.139
As opposed to this, Carian,
the name Tanayu (T͑n3y) “Danaoi” in the Egyptian hiero-
which, it must be admitted, also largely eludes us because
glyphic inscriptions from the funerary temple of Amenho-
the script in which the language is recorded still goes un-
tep III (1390-1352 BC) at Kom el-Hetan in Egyptian
deciphered, is generally assumed to be a member of the
Thebes.144
Indo-European Anatolian group of languages, together
Which of the three models about what happened in
with Hittite, Luwian, and Palaic. As such, it may be held
Greece c. 1600 BC is the right one? In order to answer this
responsible for place names in -ss- and -nth- in Greece,
question, we will examine them a little closer, starting with
which are decidedly of Indo-European Anatolian type.140
the one presented by Drews. This author takes as his start-
Furthermore, one may be tempted to point to related Ly-
ing point the view of the linguists Thomas Gamkrelidze &
cian type of names like Glaukos (= Linear B ka-ra-u-ko),
Vjaþeslav Ivanov, who argued that the Greek language is
Lykaon, Pandion, Sandion, and Leda. At any rate, we ob-
closely related to Armenian on the one hand and Indo-
viously have to reckon with at least two distinct pre-Greek
Iranian on the other hand, and that the homeland of the
linguistic layers of Indo-European (= IE) stock, namely
proto-Greeks accordingly must be sought somewhere in
Thraco-Phrygian and IE Anatolian.
the region of what was once Armenia, just south of the
If the bearers of the Minyan culture of Middle Hella-
Caucasus. Here they found in abundance the different sorts
dic Greece are rightly identified as Thraco-Phrygians, then
of wood to build their chariots and the horses to drive
it necessarily follows that the view according to which the
them.145 A problem posed by this view is that at the time
Greeks arrived or otherwise came into being in the only
that Greek is supposed to have split off from the parent
remaining transition from Middle Helladic to Late Helladic
language and the proto-Greeks are supposed to have under-
I at c. 1600 BC must be correct. Therefore, let us take a
taken their journey to their new home in Greece, the Ar-
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
141 Drews 1988.
came by boat from Pontos to Thessaly, from where they
142 Best in Best & Yadin 1973. 143 Stubbings 1973.
139 Crossland 1971: 857; contra Polomé 1982a: 888.
144 Edel 1966; cf. Woudhuizen 1992a: 73; pace Strange 1980: 22, note 33; 148.
140 Laroche 1957: 7; Laroche 1961a: 91; cf. Woudhuizen 1989:
145 Drews 1988: 32 ff.; 200-1; since 1995 the work of Gamkre-
193-4.
lidze & Ivanov is available in English translation.
61
menians are not yet living in Armenia! As related by
character up to well in Late Helladic III. The centre from
Herodotos (Histories VII, 73), the Armenians are an
which Mycenaean influence radiates, ancient Iolkos in the
apoikia of the Phrygians, who prior to their migration to
south, is still characterized by Minyan cist graves as late as
the Anatolian plateau inhabited the Olympos region in the
the Late Helladic IIB-IIIA period, whereas a Mycenaean
borderland of northern Thessaly and southern Macedonia
palace is reported here only from Late Helladic IIB or
on the European continent, and before this, as we have
IIIA1 onwards.150 From an historical point of view, the
seen above, even the region as far south as the Peloponne-
persistence of Middle Helladic traditions in Iolkos during
sos. There is some evidence that the Phrygians entered
the earlier phase of the Mycenaean period coincides with
Anatolia already in the Late Bronze Age, as according to
the “Minysche Schicht” of its royal house as represented
Homeros they are situated along the banks of the Sangarios
by Kretheus, Pelias (= the brother of Neleus who with Pe-
in the period before the Trojan war (c. 1280 BC). Moreover, a Hittite text from the reign of Tud®aliyas II (1390-
lasgians settles at Pylos c. 1600 BC, see further below), and Akastos.151
1370 BC) or Arnuwandas I (1370-1355 BC) makes mention of a certain Mita (= Phrygian Midas) of Pa®®uwa, a
Finally, it is noteworthy that Drews heavily leans on the linguistic thesis put forward by William Wyatt, who
region to the northeast of the Hittite capital Bo÷azköy/Hattusa.146 However, there can be no doubt that the
maintains that the Indo-European invaders of Greece knew
greatest surge of Phrygians into the highland of Anatolia
Wyatt arrived at this conclusion by comparing the words
took place only after the fall of the Hittite empire at the
for chariot and its major parts to that for the four-wheel
end of the Bronze Age, when, under the name of Muski,
mule wagon, from which comparison it appeared that the
they are recorded by the annals of the Assyrian king Ti-
first category is based on Indo-European roots, whereas the
glathpileser I (1115-1077 BC) to have reached the region
latter is not. However, the conclusion that the Greeks in-
of the upper Euphrates in great numbers. As cogently ar-
troduced these Indo-European words is only valid in case
gued by Igor Diakonoff, this particular historical event
there is no evidence of Indo-European speech in Greece
triggers the formative phase of the Armenian people, in a country formerly inhabited by Luwians and Hurrians.147
prior to the Greeks, as Wyatt explicitly asserts.152 In the previous pages, we have seen reason to believe that there
Another weakness in the scenario presented by Drews
were Indo-European speaking tribes in Greece before the
is formed by the crucial role he attributes to the Thessalian
arrival of the Greeks or their otherwise coming into being.
plain in the colonization of Greece by the proto-Greeks.
This nullifies Wyatt’s reasoning. As we have noted in the
Thus it is assumed that the proto-Greeks first arrive in
foregoing, the horse was already known in Greece from c.
Thessaly and from there go on to take over central and
2300 BC onwards. In line with this observation, it is of in-
Greece.148
the chariot and the horse when they first entered Greece.
This view is contradicted by the ar-
terest to note that the Greeks have preserved the old cen-
chaeological evidence, which clearly shows that the
tum form for “horse”, Mycenaean i-qo (= later Greek
Mycenaean culture first develops in the Argolid and only
hippos), instead of taking over the new Indo-Aryan satem
at a later time spreads to more northerly regions like Thes-
form aĞva- which came in vogue in other regions under the
saly.149
In fact, the plain of Thessaly, just like the hinter-
influence of the from the late 18th century BC onwards
land of Thebes, remains predominantly Minyan in
modern chariot warfare (cf. Luwian asuwa-).153 Further-
southern
more, the Greeks preferred their own word for the chariot itself, Mycenaean a-mo (= later Greek harma), instead of 146 Woudhuizen 1993b; contra Drews 1993b, who also denies the
European origin of the Phrygians on account of the fact that archaeological evidence, for which he is tendentiously looking only c. 1200 BC, is lacking.
150 Hope Simpson 1981: 161; Vanschoonwinkel 1991: 135; Papadimitriou 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.
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 Tiglathpileser I, but suits their first mention in the Assyrian records, see Vanschoonwinkel 1991: 463).
151 Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopädie, s.v. Iolkos. 152 Wyatt 1970.
148 Drews 1988: 192-4.
153 In the centum languages the palatals k̗, g̗, and g̗ h develop into
149 Dickinson 1977: 24.
gutturals, whereas in the satem languages they become assibilized.
62
adopting the then modern Indo-Aryan indication ratha-.
sic outline in harmony with the relevant archaeological and
More in general, I do not understand why Wyatt does not
historical data. In order to estimate its validity, however,
take into account the evidence from Kassite, where the
we have to go more into detail. As we have noted earlier,
parts of the chariot, with only one exception, are all indi-
the transition from Middle Helladic to Late Helladic I c.
cated by Akkadian instead of Kassite words (Balkan 1954:
1600 BC shows evidence of discontinuity in occupation.
127-30).
From an historical point of view, it is highly interesting to
If we next turn to the scenario presented by Best, it
observe that precisely the sites which show discontinuity
first deserves our attention that identification of the proto-
of occupation figure prominently in the stories about the
Greeks with the Hyksos from Egypt and their kinsmen
foundation of new royal houses or a memorable war (see
from Canaan and Syria, contrary to Drews’ thesis, is in ba-
Fig. 9). The evidence may be summarized as follows:
site
1.
Argos
4.
Thebes KirrhaKrisa Pylos
5.
Eleusis
2. 3
conqueror(s)
subjected or expelled
Danaos from Egypt
Pelasgos or Pelasgiotans Hyantes and Aones women & daughters
Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopädie, s.v. Da-
Pylos with Leleges
Pausanias, Guide to Greece IV, 36, 1.
Eumolpos with Thracians
Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopädie, s.v.
Kadmos with Phoenicians Cretans from Knossos Neleus with Pelasgians from Iolkos Erekhtheus from Athens
source naos. Pausanias, Guide to Greece IX, 5, 1. Homeric Hymn to Pythian Apollo 388 ff.
Eumolpos.
Table 2. Literary traditions with a bearing on the transition from Middle Helladic to Late Helladic I, c. 1600 BC.
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-
Fig. 9. Distribution of centres of radiation of Late Helladic I material.
63
tinuity.154 However this may be, what primarily concerns
effectuated by intermarriage (the mother of Eurystheus,
us here is the fact that in three instances the conquerors are
Nikippe, is claimed to be a daughter of Pelops). On the ba-
explicitly identified as foreigners, whereas in two instances these are just locals from Greece itself. From an archaeo-
sis of the probable mention of Atreus in an Hittite text from the reigns of Tud®aliyas II (1390-1370 BC) and Ar-
logical point of view, the latter adapted to the Mycenaean
nuwandas I (1370-1355 BC), where he occurs in the form
culture developed under the influence of the foreign invad-
of Attarissiyas, this takeover by the Pelopids may safely be
ers pretty quickly, so that they may fruitfully be consid-
assumed to be anterior to the late 15th century BC or be-
ered as local allies. In linguistic terms, these local allies
ginning of the 14th century BC – in fact it may perhaps
can, of course, not be held responsible for the introduction
even be surmised to have its archaeological reflection in
of the Greek language in Greece, which, in line with Best’s
the shift from shaft graves to tholos tombs, which occurred
scenario, must have been the privilige of the foreign invad-
in Late Helladic IIA.157 Because Danaos is reported to
ers. Hence, let us take a closer look at them.
have come from Egypt, it has been plausibly assumed that
What can be said about the language(s) of the foreign
he represents a conquest of the Argolid by the Hyksos, the
invaders? One group, which settled in Krisa, is straight-
foreign rulers of lower Egypt who were kicked out at about
forwardly identified as Cretans from Knossos. These may
the time of the shaft graves in Mycenae.
safely be assumed to have spoken one of the languages
Our question, therefore, is: who were the Hyksos? For
current on the island before the introduction of Linear B c.
sure, there was a Semitic component among them, as the
1450 BC, recorded for documents in Linear A and Cretan
first element of the name of one of their kings, Yakob-Har,
hieroglyphic, respectively. A good case can be made that
strikingly recalls Biblical Jakob.158 In addition to this, there may have been a Hurrian component among them: as
Linear A contains a west-Semitic idiom, whereas Cretan hieroglyphic probably bears testimony of both westSemitic and Luwian (see further section 12 below).155 At
pointed out by Wolfgang Helck, the sister and daughter of the Hyksos king Apophis bore Hurrian names.159 It is even
any rate, one thing is clear: our Cretans from Knossos did
possible that there was an Indo-European component
not speak a Greek vernacular. Next comes Kadmos with
among them, to be more specific of the Indo-Aryan type:
his Phoenicians. Taking this tradition at face value, the
thus Drews draws our attention to the fact that the Indo-
conquerors of Thebes are likely to have spoken a Semitic
Aryan term marya is used in Egyptian texts to indicate a
tongue. In fact, the name of Kadmos himself has been co-
charioteer or chariot fighter160 (note in this connection that
gently interpreted as representing the Semitic root qdm
the distribution of Indo-Aryan names [especially with the
“east”, whereas that of his sister Europa, whom he was so
elements aĞva- and ratha-] and terms over the Near East is
desparately looking for, may likewise be based on a Se-
intrinsically linked up with the spread of chariot warfare –
mitic stem, viz. ‘rb “west” (in Astour’s explanation, these
the latter being introduced in Egypt by the Hyksos).161
names stand for the morning and evening star, respectively, of which the one seems to follow the other endlessly). Furthermore, Kadmos is held responsible for the
157 Hope Simpson 1981: 14.
introduction of the mystery cult of the Kabeiroi, the great
158 Redford 1992: 98-122.
gods whose name recalls Semitic kbr “great”.156 Again,
159 Helck 1971: 101; contra van Seters 1966: 182-3, who considers 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).
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-
160 Drews 1988: 151.
ter whom the originally Phrygian, but by now fully Myce-
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
naeanized, Pelopids take over: a clear instance of a reflux, 154 Symeonoglou 1973: 14-5; fig. 3. 155 Best & Woudhuizen 1988; Best & Woudhuizen 1989; Woudhuizen 2001b. 156 Astour 1965b; cf. Edwards 1979.
64
Evidently, the Hyksos were a highly mixed company. But
centum language.164 The same holds good for Thracian,
of all the things it may be, there is not a shred of evidence
which in an early inscription from Kjolmen shows the
for proto-Greek among them (the comparison of the Uga-
form ekoa “mare” (< PIE *ek̗wo-).165 Another outstanding
ritic royal name Niqmadu to Greek Nikomedes is an ingen-
feature is formed by the relative pronoun, in which respect
ious but futile attempt, not taking into account the fact that,
Phrygian with the form ios or yos exhibits a particular af-
considering the royal name Niqmepu as attested for
finity to the Mycenaean forerunner of later Greek hos, i.e.
Aleppo, the first element of the name appears to be
jo- as represented in the composite jo-qi (the use of these
Niqm-).162 And this is exactly the component which ac-
forms instead of reflexes of PIE *kwi- or *kwo- is an inno-
cording to the scenario of Best was so dominant that it
vation which Greek and Phrygian share with Indo-Iranian,
planted its language on the whole population of Greece. If
which has ya-).166 This Phrygian affinity to particularly
proto-Greeks were present among the Hyksos at all, and if
Mycenaean Greek can be further illustrated by the se-
they entered Greece, I think their numbers must be as-
quence lavagtaei vanaktei (D sg. in -i) from a dating for-
sumed to have thinned out to homeopathic proportions!
mula, the roots of which strikingly recall the Mycenaean
The third and final model is that of Stubbings, who, in
titulary expressions ra-wa-ke-ta (= Greek lƗvƗgetƗs)
line with Best, paints the picture of a military conquest of
“leader of the host” and wa-na-ka (= Greek (v)anaks)
the Argolid by displaced Hyksos rulers, but, contrary to
“king”, respectively. The preservation of the wau, a typical
Best, does not consider them proto-Greeks but simply for-
archaic feature, also characterizes Phrygian forms like
eigners who were not numerous enough to cause a lan-
ev(e)- (cf. Greek eu- “good”), venavtun (cf. Greek heauton
guage shift. The immediate consequence of this view is
“himself”), vetei (cf. Greek etos “year”), otuvoi (cf. Greek
that Greek developed from the languages of the population
ogdoos “eighth”), etc.167 Of these forms venavtun (with
groups already present in Greece at the time of the take-
first element ven- < PIE *swe-) is also interesting in an-
over by the foreign military caste, in casu Thraco-Phrygian
other respect, as it shows the loss of the initial s which in
and IE Anatolian. As a matter of fact, of these two lan-
Greek becomes h (a development which Greek has in
guages Thraco-Phrygian is so closely related to Greek that
common with Iranian and Armenian).168 Furthermore, it
it must be assumed to have once formed a linguistic con-
may be pointed out that both Phrygian and Thracian share
tinuum with the latter. The similarity of Greek to Phrygian
with Greek the use of the augment in the indicative of the
was noted already by the ancient Greeks themselves. Thus
past tense, cf. Phrygian edaes “he dedicated” and Thracian
Plato makes Socrates remark in a dialogue that the Phry-
edakat “he made” (this is again an innovation which Greek
gians have the same word slightly changed for pur “fire”,
and this time Thraco-Phrygian share with this time San-
hudǀr “water” and kunes “dogs” and many other words.163
skrit).169 If we realize, finally, that medio-passive forms in
Especially the case of kunes (< PIE *k̗(u)won-) is interest-
-tor reported for Neo-Phrygian are problematic as Old
ing, because it demonstrates that Phrygian, like Greek, is a 164 Note, however, that in New Phrygian satem influences as wit-
Drews 1988: 96-7, the temporary military superiority of the IndoAryan 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 horsecontrol 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 opponents up to that time were accustomed to the technical inferior nose-ring, see, for example, the sealing depicted in Littauer & Crouwel 1979: fig. 29.
nessed by the form seiti < PIE *k̗ei- “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.
162 Best 1992-3. Note, however, that the ethnonym Danaoi is like-
ly to be based on the PIE root *dƗnu- “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.
168 Crossland 1971: 853.
163 Plato, Cratylus 410.
169 Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995: 312.
65
Phrygian already bears testimony of the innovative middle
Thus, it appears that Caskey is essentially right in his as-
forms in -toy or -toi, Phrygian may well be considered to
sumption that in the transitional periods from Early Hella-
side with Greek with respect to the loss of the medio-
dic II to Early Helladic III (c. 2300 BC) and from Early
passive in -r- as well (yet another innovation which Greek
Helladic III to Middle Helladic (c. 2000 BC), a new people
and Phrygian share with
Indo-Iranian).170
Against the
arrived in Greece which spoke an Indo-European language
background of this considerable overlap in lexicon, phono-
which was later to become Greek. And Stubbings is essen-
logical, and grammatical features between Greek and
tially right in his assumption that in the transitional period
Thraco-Phrygian, then, I think it is not farfetched to as-
from Middle Helladic to Late Helladic I (c. 1600 BC)
sume that Greek came into being as a split from Thraco-
Greece was conquered by foreign invaders from Egypt and
Phrygian under the impetus of foreign tongue(s) intro-
Palestine who, however, were not numerous enough to
duced, as we have seen, by conquerors from Egypt, Phoe-
plant their language(s) on the at that time indigenous popu-
nicia, and Crete in the transition from Middle Helladic to
lation. The only ingredients which we have added is that,
Late Helladic I (c. 1600 BC) (see Fig. 10).
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
time scale:
and central Greece under the influence of foreign tongue(s) introduced by the conquering warrior caste of expert *b hrƗter-
P IE
*b hrug-
*d hƝ-
*g hlǀro-
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 influential as the old ones.
c. 1600 BC
Additional note: Remaining models
teke
Linear B Iron Age
phratƝr
bratere phruges
Briges tithƝmi
edaes khlǀros glouros
In the above, I have not treated all models, only the historically viable ones. Remaining models for the ethnogene-
Fig. 10. Reconstruction of the split between Greek and Thraco-
sis of the Greeks are:
Phrygian on the basis of the development of the mediae aspiratae (after Haas 1966: 209). 171
(1) during the Neolithic, c. 6000 BC (Renfrew);172 (2) at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age, c. 3200 BC (Coleman);173
In retrospect, it may be concluded that our investiga-
(3) at the end of the Late Bronze Age, c. 1200 BC (Gru-
tion into the theories on the ethnogenesis of the Greeks has
mach, Hood).174
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-
Of these models, the Neolithic option has become “en
tributors to the prestigious Cambridge Ancient History.
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-
170 Note that the supposed medio-passive forms addaketor and abberetor turn up instead of active addaket in variants of the protasis 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.
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.
171 I am indebted to Wim van Binsbergen for drawing this dia-
175 Drews 2001.
gram.
66
linguistic features from an hypothetical centre, Anatolia in
and Early Bronze Age in Greece would seriously hamper
Renfrew’s view, to the outlying districts (= wave of ad-
the transmission of the pre-Greek place names in -ss- and
vance). Hence, it cannot explain the intrusion of a more
-nth-, no inhabitants being left to execute this transmission.
developed Indo-European layer as represented by Phrygian
Finally, arrival of the Greeks at the end of the Bronze Age
and Greek in between conservative IE Anatolian on the
is definitely ruled out by the decipherment of Linear B as
one hand and an as yet undivided Italo-Celtic in eastern
an old form of Greek.
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 immigrants from elsewhere than the hypothetical centre Anatolia – the more so because it is repeated to the east, with innovative Indo-Iranian in between conservative IE Anatolian 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 crystalized 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 languages
domesticated horse attested in mainland Greece
augment relative *yoloss of mediopassive -rloss 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 reĞ bronze, 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 Celtiberian forms Ğue and ĞueĞ, see Meid 1993, Glossar s.v. Note, however, 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 mediopassive -r and centum, see Meid 1993: 59 and 44, respectively) Celtiberian, see Meid 1993: 96.
67
8. THE RISE AND FALL OF THE MYCENAEAN GREEKS
In the history of the Greeks from the time of their forma-
which they ruled from the palace of Knossos.179 As first
tion to that of the downfall of the Mycenaean palaces, we
pointed out by Fritz Schachermeyr, this takeover of power
can distinguish three major phases: 1. the period of the
in Crete has its reflection in the wall paintings of Aegean
Minoan thalassocracy (c. 1550-1450 BC), 2. the Minoan-
embassies in the graves of Egyptian dignitaries. Thus, in
Mycenaean transitional period (c. 1450-1350 BC), and 3.
the tomb of Rekhmare, which was finished early in the
the period of the Mycenaean koinƝ (c. 1350-1185 BC).
reign of Tuthmosis III’s successor Amenhotep II (1427-
In the period of the Minoan thalassocracy, the Greek
1400 BC), the Minoan kilts with “codpieces” are replaced
mainland appears to have been at least partly subject to
by Mycenaean ones without “codpieces”, whereas in the
Minoan overlords. This is suggested by the Attic tradition
slightly later tomb of Menkheperreseneb a prince of the
according to which in the time of king Aigeus, the father of
land of Keftiu (= Crete) is depicted in altogether Mycena-
the Athenian hero Theseus, a yearly tribute of seven young
ean style with a beard.180 Further proof is afforded by the
girls and seven boys was due to the Cretan king Minos.
Linear B tablets from Knossos, which are accidentally pre-
These girls and boys, so the story goes, were to be sacri-
served by the fire that destroyed the palace at the end of
ficed to the Minotaur of the labyrinth in king Minos’ pal-
our Minoan-Mycenaean transitional period (= Late Minoan
ace at Knossos. That Theseus, with the help of Ariadne,
IIIA1/2, c. 1350 BC). Owing to the decipherment of Linear
the daughter of king Minos, slayed the Minotaur and freed
B by Michael Ventris in 1952, we know namely that this
Athens from the ignominious yoke of Minoan domination,
script was used to write Greek.181 At the same time, how-
does not, of course, alter the fact that the Athenians were
ever, a Minoan rest group is allowed to continue their own
tributaries beforehand.177
traditions in the Mesara plain, of which fact modest Linear
The period of Minoan thalassocracy ends with the for
A archives of about 150 tablets in sum at Hagia Triada (=
the Minoans disastrous eruption of the Santorini volcano.
HT) and two Cretan hieroglyphic inscriptions, the famous
The discussion on the chronology of this event – and hence
discus of Phaistos and the double-axe of Arkalokhori, bear
its impact – has recently received a new impetus by Man-
testimony (see further section 12 below).
fred Bietak’s sensational find of tephra from the Minoan
Within the frame of international politics, our Mi-
eruption of the Santorini volcano in Tel el-Dab‘a/Avaris in
noan-Mycenaean transitional period can itself be subdi-
a layer dated to the reign of Tuthmosis III (1479-1425
vided into three distinct subphases.182 The first subphase is
BC). As the reign of the latter pharaoh synchronizes with
characterized by the vicissitudes of the so-called Assuwian
Late Minoan IB, the eruption in question can now safely
league – a short lived coalition of forces from Troy in the
be held responsible for the massive destructions at the end
north to Lycia in the south of western Anatolia under the
of this particular period (c. 1450 BC).178 Having lost the
leadership of the royal house of the later kingdom of Ar-
ships of their fleet because of this disaster, the Minoans
zawa and named after the Asios leimǀn “Asian field” near
were an easy prey to the Mycenaeans of mainland Greece.
the latter’s capital Apasa (= Ephesos). As indicated by a
Soon after the eruption of the Santorini volcano, the
retrospective passage in a Hittite text of later date, the in-
Mycenaeans, archaeologically traceable by warrior graves
fluence of this league radiated to the islands (Luwian gur-
of mainland type and their predilection for so-called Ephy-
sawara) of the Aegean.183 Among these islands may well
raean goblets, took over control of the island of Crete, 179 Woudhuizen 1992a: 66-77. 180 Schachermeyr 1960; Schachermeyr 1980: 457-8. 177 Woudhuizen 1992a: 55.
181 Ventris & Chadwick 1973.
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 problem of the Santorini eruption, see Woudhuizen 1992a: 47-79.
182 See on this subdivision Achterberg, Best, Enzler, Rietveld & Woudhuizen 2004, section 8. 183 Starke 1981.
69
have been Crete, since in the text of the Phaistos disc (if
reached to Uda and Tuwanuwa, which means to the territory south of the Halys river deep in the ancestral Hatti
we are allowed to make use of the reading and interpretation of the latter document recently put forward by a group of Dutch scholars, referred to in note 182) this town is
lands. Furthermore, the Egyptian pharaoh requests Tar®undaradus to send Kaskans, a people situated to the
called “Assuwian” (B 10-11) and in the tablets of Hagia
north of the Hittite capital Bo÷azköy/Hattusa, but at the
Triada mention is made of a-si-ja-ka u-mi-na-si “of the
time even occupying Nenassa south of the Halys bow. The
Asian town” (HT 28a), which likely refers to Phaistos, again.184 The radiation of Assuwa’s influence to Crete
marriage of Amenhotep III with a daughter of Tar®undaradus was part of a grander scheme, namely to
might also account for its occurrence in form of Asiya
curb Hittite power both in the east and the west. Another
(’Isy) in the annals of Tuthmoses III for the years just after
part of this scheme was formed by the political support
the eruption of the Santorini volcano (in casu 1445 and
rendered to the Mycenaean Greeks. As argued by Eric
1441-1440 BC). This subphase ends with the defeat of the Assuwian league by the Hittite king Tud®aliyas I (1430-
Cline, this support is emanating from the discovery of
1400 BC).
Tiyi in the Aegean region, a concentration of which was
scarabs and faïence plaques of Amenhotep III and his wife
With the elimination of the Assuwian league by the
found in the capital Mycenae itself. Moreover, there is a
Hittites again a vacuum of power is created in the Aegean
remarkable correspondence between the findspots of these
region – thus marking the start of our second subphase.
Egyptian imports and the places mentioned in the list of
One of the parties taking advantage of this situation is Attarissiyas, the man of A®®iyƗ, in whom we may recognize
Aegean place names on a statue base found in Amenhotep
Atreus, the father of Agamemnon, king of Mycenae and
starting and ending in Crete, likewise attributes a central
leader of the Akhaians at the time of the Trojan war. According to the annals of the Hittite kings Tud®aliyas II
position to the Greek mainland if not actually to Mycenae
(1390-1370 BC) and Arnuwandas I (1370-1355 BC), this
ports plausibly suggested to reflect political support in-
Akhaian ruler repeatedly attacked Madduwattas – a Hittite
cludes western Asia Minor, as a scarab of Amenhotep III
vassal in the region of southwest Anatolia – and with the
has been discovered at Panaztepe in the Hermos valley, which conceivably belonged to the realm of Tar®unda-
III’s temple tomb at Kom el-Hetan, Thebes, which, though
itself. Interestingly, the distribution of the Egyptian im-
latter held a raid on the island of Alasiya (= Cyprus), using as much as 100 chariots.185
radus.187 The rationale behind lending political support to both Tar®undaradus and the Mycenaean Greeks in a con-
The third and final subphase of the MinoanMycenaean transitional period is characterized by the renewed prominence of Arzawa under its king Tar®unda-
tainment policy of the Hittites may perhaps be provided by
radus. This king corresponded with the Egyptian pharaoh
one is allowed to make use of the aforesaid reading and in-
Amenhotep III (1390-1352 BC) about the marriage of his
terpretation of this hieroglyphic text as recently offered by a group of Dutch scholars.188 Here great king Tar®unda-
the information from the discus of Phaistos – if, at least,
daughter to the latter. In this correspondence, recovered at Tell El-Amarna, it is stipulated that the land of Hatti is
radus, who, although not mentioned explicitly by name, is
“shattered”.186
The latter situation is plausibly connected with the historical preamble to a decree of Hattusilis III
likely to be identified as the sender of the letter, is staged
(1264-1239 BC) according to which before the reign of
ship of king Nestor of Pylos in mainland Greece189 – the
as the overlord of the Mycenaeans in Crete under leader-
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.
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.
185 Note the diffusion of Mycenaean ware from the Argolid, reaching Kos in Late Helladic IIB and Ialysos in Rhodes in Late Helladic IIB-IIIA1, thus providing us with stepping stones for Attarissiyas’ actions in southwest Anatolia and Cyprus, see Vanschoonwinkel 1991: 164-5.
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 Cretan towns Aminiso “Amnisos” (PY 943) and Kotuwe “Gortys (D)” (PY An 233, etc.).
186 Moran 1992: 101 (= EA no. 31); cf. Mercer 1939: EA no. 31
(“zersplittert”).
70
latter no doubt also a vassal of the king of Mycenae.190 Hence, the political destinies of great king Tar®undaradus
The history of the Mycenaeans during the period of the koinƝ 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
of Arzawa and the Mycenaean Greeks are intricately linked up with each other. An interesting detail in this connection is that with the specification of Phaistos as Assuwian Tar®undaradus refers back to the Assuwian league of
with Millawanda (= Miletos) they have a foothold in west-
his predecessor of about a generation ago in order to le-
since, according to his annals, the Hittite great king Mur-
gitimize his claim on Crete.
silis II (1321-1295 BC) razed Millawanda down to the
ern Asia Minor. This history begins with a major setback,
This intricate political situation in which Nestor of
ground in the third year of his reign, which information
Pylos, who, as we have just noted, was a vassal of the king
agrees with an archaeologically detected destruction layer
of Mycenae, ruled over Crete in his capacity as vassal of great king Tar®undaradus of Arzawa, and in which there
for Miletos in the Late Helladic IIIA2 to Late Helladic IIIB
was some room for the continuity of Minoan traditions,
their hold on the site, as in the next episode, under the Hit-
was abruptly put to an end by the Mycenaeans from the
tite great king Muwatallis II (1295-1271 BC), a certain Pi-
Argolid at the beginning of Late Helladic IIIA2 (c. 1350
yamaradus, who is the father-in-law of the governor of
BC), when these burned down the palace of Knossos and introduced megaron houses and standardized types of pot-
Millawanda, Atpas, raided Hittite territory apparently with the backing of the king of A®®iyawa. Muwatallis II, who
tery, the so-called Mycenaean koinƝ, all over the island.191
was preparing himself for the battle of Kadesh with Egypt
This expansionism of Mycenaeans from the Argolid coin-
(1274 BC), preferred to settle the matter in diplomatic terms, and, in doing so, addressed the king of A®®iyawa as
transitional period.197 The Mycenaeans, however, retained
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 (=
his “brother”, which means recognition as an equal and hence great king. His A®®iyawan colleague was of the
non-Greek) satellite state in central Greece.192 Further-
same mood, as with respect to a former conflict about
more, the Mycenaeanization of Thessaly to the northeast
Wilusa (= Homeric Ilios or Ilion) he is stated to have re-
probably sets in from Late Minoan IIIA2
onwards.193
marked:
Fi-
nally, the Mycenaeans from the Argolid extend their influ-
LUGAL KUR
ence over the Aegean islands and as far east as Miletos – a
® a-at-ti- uʗa-an-aš-kán ú-ug 8. ku-e-da-ni
A.NA [INI] M URU
former Minoan colony named after Milatos in Crete194 –
uʗi-l[u]-[š]a še-ir ku-ru-ur 9. e-šu-u-
en nu- uʗa-[m]u a-p[í]-e-[d]a-ni INIM-ni la-ak-nu-ut
on the west coast of Asia Minor. 195
10. nu- uʗa ták-šu-la-u-en X (X) X- uʗa-an-na-aš ku-ruur 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
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.
As it seems, this sidely remarked conflict about Wilusa became conflated in Greek memory as the Trojan
192 Woudhuizen 1989: 199-202. 193 Smit 1989, who, unfortunately, does not distinguish between
Late Minoan IIIA1 and 2.
[214], 244, 254+255, 269, and 276.
194 Niemeier 1998a: 27 ff. first building phase, Late Minoa IA to
196 This identification, already implied in the discussion of Attarissiyas above, is now commonly accepted; note, however, that Heinhold-Krahmer 2003 is still hesitating about it.
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 Mycenaean 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.
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 numerous question marks for uncertain signs). For the dating of the Tawagalawas-letter to the reign of Muwatallis II and an overview of the discussion about this, see Smit 1990-1 and, most recently, Gurney 2002.
71
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 correlates perfectly with the archaeologically established destruction of Troy VI, usually assigned to c. 1300 BC.
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 Miletos. 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 archaeological 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 arguments, 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 downgraded in the eyes of the Hittites as compared to the situation at the time of Muwatallis II. To this comes that the ban on traffic of A®®iyawa as referred to in the Sausgamuwa-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®a
Fig. 11 (see next page). Sites in southern and central Greece de-
along the Kastaraya (= Perge along the Kestros in Pamphylia) and to add the newly won territory to the province of Tar®untassa (= Cilicia Aspera).204 At a later stage in his
stroyed and/or abandoned at the end of Late Helladic IIIB. Source: Hope Simpson & Dickinson 1979.
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
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 Hittites are mentioned in Homeros among the Trojan allies as 1. Halyzones 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 (Odyssey XI, 521); they may further appear as adversaries of the Phrygians along the Sangarios in form of Amazones in a retrospective passage referring to the time that Priamos still fought himself (Iliad III, 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.
201 Bryce 1998: 339-42 (Milawata-letter). 202 Niemeier 1998b: 153. 203 Bryce 1998: 342-4.
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.
204 Otten 1988: VIII, 62-4 and commentary. 205 Poetto 1993; Woudhuizen 1994-5: 168-179; Woudhuizen
2004a: section 3 ; see section 6 above.
72
campaign.206 Now, most of the inscriptions in CyproMinoan date to the period of Hittite rule, say c. 12101180? 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, especially 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 inspired 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,
mercenaries alongside the Teresh, Lukka, Sherden, and
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
designation Tanayu, which in variant form Denye(n) is re-
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 Egyptian records of the Libyan campaign by a reflex of their Hittite name, A® ® iyawa, instead of their usual Egyptian 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 wellattested for the Egyptians and the Semites, but so far not for the Mycenaean Greeks.215 The period of the Mycenaean koinƝ ends in massive
Just antedating the coming to power of Suppiuliumas
destructions and/or abandonment of sites on the Greek
II, in year 5 of Merneptah (= 1208 BC), the Akhaians in
mainland: in southern and central Greece 10 important
form of Ekwesh – the final -sh is likely to be identified as a
sites show a destruction layer at the end of Late Helladic
suffix also present in Shekelesh (= Sicels) and Weshesh (=
IIIB (c. 1185 BC),216 5 of which are abandoned after-
Ausones or Osci)212 – are recorded to have taken part in
wards, whereas at least 9 more important sites are just
the campaign of the Libyan king Meryey against Egypt. In
abandoned at the time (see Fig. 11 on the previous
this campaign the Akhaians served as foreign allies or
page).217 In view of these figures, the transition from Late Helladic IIIB to Late Helladic IIIC is much more discon-
206 Güterbock 1967; Woudhuizen 1994: 524-6; Woudhuizen
tinuous than preceding periods of an archaeological break
1994-5: 175; Woudhuizen 2004a: 32; the memorial in question is Niúantaú in Bo÷azköy/Hattusa, see Woudhuizen 2004a: 72-5.
discussed in the foregoing section (but note that the density of the Late Helladic IIIB sites is higher than ever before).
207 Woudhuizen 1992a: 94-145; Woudhuizen 1994.
Yet, as we know from later records, the language spoken in
208 Astour 1964; Sandars 1980: 35; 46. Note, however, that Ugari-
Greece remains Greek and the inhabitants of the Early Iron
tic Yman likely refers to Ionia, see Dietrich & Loretz 1998: 33746, of which the related ethnonym, contrary to the opinion of Dietrich & 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.
Age and following periods are Greeks, thus in this sense –
209 For Luwian hieroglyphic seals bearing testimony of the MN
214 Sandars 1980: 117, afb. 77; 118-20. As we have seen in sec-
Pi® as, see Güterbock 1942: 68, no. 66; Kennedy 1959: 160, no. 39.
tion 4 above, the given distinction was particularly made by Hölbl 1983.
210 Note that this name is strikingly paralleled for a Cretan hiero-
215 Barnett 1969: 11; note that the Philistines from Crete were also
glyphic sealing from Gortys (# 196), reading, with the cross at the start and hence from right to left, 019-061-E74 sa-ná-ma.
not circumcized, see section 12.
211 Cf. Cline 1991.
with Tewosret 1188-1186 BC at Deir ‘Alla.
212 Wainwright 1961: 72; Redford 1992: 252, note 54; cf. Hittite
217 Hope Simpson & Dickinson 1979; cf. Shelmerdine 1997: 581.
Karkisa alongside Karkiya “Caria”. On the identification of the Sea Peoples in question, see section 14 below.
See also Betancourt 1976: 40 with even larger figures, but without specification of the names of the sites in question.
213 Sandars 1980: 101.
216 Warren & Hankey 1989: 161 association of Late Helladic IIIB
73
give and take a few dialectal reshuffles – there is no real
Luwian hieroglyphic equivalent of Hittite A®®iyawa, char-
break, but only continuity.218 As an explanation of this
acterized, just like it is the case for the text of the Phaistos
paradox between archaeological evidence and linguistic
disc, by aphaeresis.224 In the archaeological record, this
data, it has been suggested that the enemy which attacked
event is reflected in the destruction of Tarsus at the end of
the Mycenaeans at the end of Late Helladic IIIB wasted
the Late Bronze Age and the subsequent introduction of
the country but – apart from some minor exceptions indi-
Late Helladic IIIC ware of Argive background.225 Another
cated by the presence of handmade foreign ware (see also
branch of the Mycenaean Greeks, referred to as Denye(n)
sections 10 and 14)219 – did not come to settle in it.220 At
by the Egyptians and Dan by the Hebrews, went further
any rate, the Pylos tablets indicate that the enemy came by
south and settled initially in the region of Tel Qasile – a
sea from the northwest, as ships are sent to cape Pleuron in
new foundation – in Canaan, perhaps some time after the
This does
settlement of the Philistines (see section 9).226 Both these
not exclude, however, a simultaneous or slightly posterior
migrations, however, were not massive enough to plant the
attack from the north over land, to which the large scale
Greek language: the Akhaians in the region of Adana went
destructions in Thessaly bear testimony (see Fig. 12)222
over to Luwian and the Danaoi of Canaan to Semitic.
Aitolia to cope with the emergency
situation.221
and against which the inhabitants of the Peloponnesos tried
Apart from emigration to Cyprus and the Orient,
to protect themselves by building a wall on the Isthmos.223
which may have been an ongoing process from Late Hel-
As a result of the breakdown of the Mycenaean civili-
ladic IIIC to Submycenaean,227 there can be observed a
zation, a number of people from the Peloponnesos decided
clustering together of the population in Greece itself into
to join the seaborne attackers and took the boat to the Ori-
refuge areas during this time. These refuge areas, like Ak-
ent in order to settle in Cyprus and in the region of Adana
haia, Kephalenia, and Attica, but especially the Aegean is-
on the adjacent side of the mainland. For the last men-
lands Naxos, Kos, and Rhodes, could bear testimony to a
tioned region this is proved by the recently discovered
considerable degree of recovery.228 Moreover, the popula-
Luwian hieroglyphic-Phoenician bilingual inscription of
tion in Crete withdrew to mountain sites like Karphi, Vro-
Çineköy, dated to the reign of Urikki in the late 8th century BC, in which the land of Adana is called H iƗwa, the
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-
218 For religious continuity, see Nilsson 1927: 400-14; SchnappGourbeillon 2002: Chapitre IV.
224 Teko÷lu & Lemaire 2000; for the Phaistos disc, see Achterberg, Best, Enzler, Rietveld & Woudhuizen 2004: 85; 98; 110.
219 Rutter 1975; Deger-Jalkotzy 1983; Popham 2001; for further
literature, see section 14, note 600.
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.
220 Desborough 1964: 224; cf. Betancourt 1976: 41. 221 Ventris & Chadwick 1973: 185-6: PY An 12 ereta Pereuronade ijote (= Greek eretai Pleurǀnade 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 phrase ouruto opia2ra epikowo (= Greek (h)ǀ(s) wruntoi opi(h)ala epikouroi) “Thus the watchers are guarding the coast” (PY An 657), see Palmer 1956; Palmer 1965: 143-54.
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 Peloponnesos). 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.
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.
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
223 Sandars 1980: 173; Vanschoonwinkel 1991: 108-9 (Late Hel-
stipulates that the Ionians killed the male Carians and married with their wives.
ladic IIIB/C transitional period).
74
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 Submycenaean 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 experienced for the period of the Mycenaean koinƝ – 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.
75
9. FROM DANAOI TO DAN repetition of the n. 239
In Homeros there are three indications of the Mycenaean Greeks: Akhaioi (= Akhaians in our English transcription), Argeioi, and
Danaoi.233
In the relevant literature, the Denye(n) are often, to-
As we have seen in the preceding
gether with the Danaoi, identified with the Danuna of the
section, a reflection of the first of these ethnonyms, A® ® iyawa, is used by the Hittites to refer to the Mycena-
El-Amarna texts (in casu the letters by Rib-addi of Byblos and Abimilki of Tyre).240 However, the form Danuna cor-
ean Greeks. As opposed to this, the Egyptians rather pre-
responds to the root of Dnnym “people of Adana” as re-
ferred reflections of the third ethnonym, Tanayu or
corded for the Phoenician version of the bilingual Karatepe
Denye(n). The interesting thing about this Egyptian prefer-
text (late 8th century BC), and has nothing to do with the
ence is that the ethnonym Danaoi is derived from the heros
Danaoi of mainland Greece.241 This conclusion is further
eponym Danaos, who according to myth originated from
substantiated by the fact that, according to the Ugaritic
Egypt. Thus it is reported that Danaos, son of Belos, fled
texts, the line of defence against the Sea Peoples is organ-
before his brother Aigyptos from Egypt to Argos in
ized in the waters of Lycia in southwest Anatolia: there is
Greece.234
Taking this myth at face value, the name
no question of a revolt in the Hittite province of Kizzu-
Danaoi may at first have had a bearing on the inhabitants
watna – to which the town of Adana belongs – at the time.
of the Argolid only, in order to receive a wider connotation
Only after the period of the resurrection of the Sea Peoples
in the course of time. This would tally with the information
and the fall of the Hittite Empire, the region of Adana is
provided by Pindaros, according to which Danaoi refers to
colonized by a number of Greek settlers – an historical fact
the pre-Doric inhabitants of Argos, Mycenae, and Lace-
of which the recently found Luwian hieroglyphic-
daimon.235
Phoenician bilingual inscription from Çineköy (late 8th
Tuthmoses III (1479-1425 BC).236 Next, it occurs on a
century BC) bears testimony, in which the land of Adana is referred to by the name H iƗwa, i.e. the Luwian equivalent
base of a column of the royal temple tomb of Amenhotep
of Hittite A®®iyawa “Akhaian”,242 and which is further-
III (1390-1352 BC) at Kom el-Hetan (Thebes) in direct as-
more reflected in the archaeological record by the intro-
sociation with place names from the Greek mainland like
duction of Late Helladic IIIC ware of Argive background
Mycenae, Thebes, Messenia, and Nauplia.237 After an in-
in the region after the destruction of Tarsus (see also sec-
termezzo in the reign of Merneptah (1213-1203 BC), in
tion 8)!243
Egyptian Tanayu is first attested for the annals of
which in line with the Hittites a reflection of Akhaioi (=
Next to this settlement by a branch of Mycenaean
Ekwesh) is used, the related form Denye(n) turns up
Greeks under the name of Akhaians in the region of
amongst the attackers of Egypt in year eight of Ramesses
Adana, another group under the name of Dan (< Danaoi)
III (1184-1153 BC). This latter ethnonym has been identi-
went further south and settled initially in the region of Tel
fied with the Danaoi since the time of Emmanuel de
Qasile – a new foundation – in Canaan, perhaps, for the
Rougé.238
As noted by Alan Gardiner, this identification
lack of Late Helladic IIIC1b ware, some time after the set-
receives further emphasis from the fact that the name in
tlement of the Philistines.244 As suggested by Yigael
question also occurs in shorthand variant Denye without 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.
233 Hall 2002: 53, note 98 (with specification of their frequency). 234 Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopädie, s.v. Danaos.
241Cf. Schachermeyr 1982 : 193 ff.
235 Pindaros, Pythian Odes 4, 85 f.
242 Teko÷lu & Lemaire 2000.
236 Mégalomatis 1996: 811.
243 Goldman 1956: 63; 350-1; Mee 1978: 150.
237 Edel 1966; Edel 1988.
244 Bietak 1993: 257-8; cf. Singer 1985: 114-5 who for this ab-
238 De Rougé 1861: 145.
sence altogether doubts the colonization of the site by Dan.
77
Yadin, a line from the song of Deborah, running as follows: “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 influence 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 (stratum 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.
78
10. ETRUSCAN ORIGINS Models
Asia Minor. These so-called orientalists can be subdivided into two groups: those who situate the colonization of
The problem of Etruscan origins has received scholarly at-
Etruria at the end of the Late Bronze Age (c. 1200 BC),254
tention already in antiquity. First of all, there is the testi-
and those who rather place this event in the Early Iron Age
mony of Herodotos of Halikarnassos (5th century BC)
(c. 750-675 BC).255 A representative of the first mentioned
according to which the Etruscans were Lydian colonists
group of orientalists is the Indo-Europeanist Robert
from western Asia Minor. Hard pressed by a famine, so the
Beekes. However, he is exceptional in combining the idea
story goes, half of the Lydian population under the leader-
of an oriental origin with the linguistic analysis of the ad-
ship of king Atys’ son Tyrsenos mustered on ships at
herents of the autochthonous thesis. Thus, Beekes likewise
Smyrna and sailed to Italy, where they settled in the terri-
considers Etruscan and Lemnian relics of a language once
tory of the Umbrians.250 As opposed to this, we have the
spoken in the Aegean before the Indo-European migra-
opinion of Dionysios of Halikarnassos (1st century BC),
tions.256 Much more common among orientalists is it to
who, on the basis of a comparison between the customs
consider Etruscan related to the Indo-European languages
and the languages of the Etruscans and the Lydians,
of Asia Minor, and in particular to Luwian.257 The latter
reached the conclusion that these two peoples were unre-
language was spoken in southern and western Anatolia
lated. He extrapolated from this conclusion that the Etrus-
during the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, and, in its
cans were no Lydian colonists, but had always lived in
western extremity, was subject to a dialectal development
Italy.251
which resulted in Lycian and Lydian of the Classical period.258
As divided as opinions were on the subject of Etruscan origins in antiquity, so they are in our present era. A
Now, there is some evidence of non-Indo-European
majority among scholars in the field holds that the Etrus-
languages in Asia Minor, originally going back to the time
cans were autochthonous. In accordance with this view, the Etruscans are considered a remnant population surviving
before the Indo-European migrations. In the first place, mention should be made of Hattic, the language of the in-
the onset of Indo-European migrations which brought the
habitants of Hattusa before this city was taken over by the
Umbrians, Oscans, Latins, and Faliscans to the Italian peninsula. Their language, so this line of appraoch continues,
Hittites, as recorded in Hittite texts dating from the 2nd millennium BC. Next, there is Hurrian, the language of the
is not comparable to any other in the world, except for the
realm of Mitanni, once a formidable rival of the Hittites in
one attested for the famous stele from Kaminia on the is-
their strive for hegemony in eastern Anatolia and North
land of Lemnos in the Aegean. This only linguistic rela-
Syria. This language developed into Urartian of the Early
tionship
the
Iron Age. Finally, we cannot omit the Semitic language,
autochthonous thesis receives meaningful explanation in
which in the form of Akkadian was used as a lingua franca
two ways. In the first place, Lemnian is, on the analogy of
for international correspondence between the empires of
Etruscan in Italy, considered a remnant of a once widely
the 2nd millennium BC – a function taken over by Ara-
dispersed Mediterranean language surviving the onset of
maic during the Early Iron Age. But, except for some bi-
acknowledged
by
the
adherents
Indo-European migrations into the Aegean
of
basin.252
Sec-
linguals with Aramaic for Lycian and Lydian, this
ond, Lemnian is seen as the result of a colonization by
evidence has a bearing on eastern Asia Minor only. In
Etruscans from Italy into the north-Aegean
region.253
A minority among scholars, but a persistent one, is of 254 Hencken 1968.
the opinion that the Etruscans were colonists from western
255 Schachermeyr 1929. 256 Beekes & van der Meer 1991; Beekes 1993; Beekes 2002: 219-20; cf. Steinbauer 1999: 389.
250 Histories I, 94. 251 Roman Antiquities I, 25-30.
257 Meriggi 1937; Laroche 1961b.
252 Pallottino 1988: 98.
258 For Lydian as a Luwian dialect, see Woudhuizen 1984-5a;
253 Gras 1976; Drews 1992; de Simone 1996.
Woudhuizen 1990 ; Woudhuizen 2005 : appendix IV.
79
western Asia Minor the linguistic situation is much less
earliest history of Rome, according to literary tradition
complicated. Here we find evidence of two language
originate from Greece. For Dionysios, this is reason to as-
groups, both of them Indo-European, namely Luwian,
sume that they are in fact a Greek ethnos. In reality, how-
which, as we have seen, developed into Lycian and Lydian
ever, the Pelasgians are a pre-Greek population group,
of the Classical period, and Thraco-Phrygian, presumably
already present in Greece before the Greeks came into be-
the vernacular of the common people of the Troas already
ing. As they are so different from the Greeks, Dionysios
in the Bronze Age (see section 13, especially note 520, be-
cannot use the Tyrrhenians to the same effect: to declare
low) and, after the fall of the Hittite Empire c. 1180 BC,
them Greeks would be preposterous. The unprecedented
introduced further east into the Anatolian highland. If, for
and rather forced distinction between Tyrrhenians and
the sake of argument, we have to allow for remnants of a
Pelasgians leads to absurd consequences, like, for instance,
non-Indo-European language in western Anatolia, this can
the assumption that the language of the inhabitants of Cor-
only entail small pockets, uncapable of providing the
tona, whom Dionysios considers to be Pelasgians, was dis-
amount of people necessary for the colonization of Etruria
tinct from that of the Tyrrhenians.261 Dozens of
as envisaged by the orientalists. As a matter of fact,
inscriptions disprove this: the language of the inhabitants
Beekes’ tenet of non-Indo-European survivals in the Ae-
of Cortona was straightforwardly Etruscan.262 Another
gean is entirely based on the linguistic analysis of the
question which arises from Dionysios’ distinction between
Lemnos stele as common among the adherents of the
Pelasgians and Tyrrhenians is where the latter were living
autochthonous thesis.
at the time that the Pelasgians are said to have occupied their country.263 Finally, the way in which Dionysios dis-
Autochthonous thesis
poses of the Pelasgians in order to make room for the Tyr-
The statement by Dionysios of Halikarnassos that the
them evaporate into thin air!264 In short, the story on
Etruscans differed in customs and language from the Lydi-
which the adherents of the autochthonous thesis base
ans is perfectly true for the period in which he lived, the
themselves suffers from many flaws.
rhenians is extremely suspect: he simply, so to say, lets
1st century BC. But, if a colonization of Etruria from
Also the explanation of the relationship between
Lydia had taken place, as Herodotos wants us to believe,
Etruscan and Lemnian within the frame of the autochtho-
then this event happened some 6 to 11 centuries in the past.
nous thesis leads up to unsurmountable difficulties. The
During this period, we must believe that the customs and
first option, according to which the Etruscans and Lem-
language had developed independently in Lydia and Etru-
nians were both remnants of population groups surviving
ria, which would explain the differences. It is of much
the onset of Indo-European immigrations, runs up against
greater importance, therefore, to know whether the Etrus-
the fact that the two languages were so closely related that
can customs and language were more closely related to
such a long period of independent development is highly
those of the Lydians when these first manifested them-
inconceivable (the Indo-European invasions in the Aegean
selves, in the late 8th and early 7th century BC.
date back to at least c. 2300 BC, see section 3). The second
At the same time, it is interesting to determine what
option, according to which the north-Aegean region was
exactly is Dionysios’ drive to disconnect the Tyrrhenians,
colonized by Etruscans from Italy in the late 8th or early
as the Etruscans are called by the Greeks, from the Pelasgians. In previous sources, like, for instance, Thucydides
98, note 3.
(5th century BC), these two population groups are persis-
261 Roman Antiquities I, 29, 3; this view, based on a misreading of
tently identified.259 The answer to this question is given by
†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 consequence. For futher literature, see Sakellariou 1977: 88, note 6.
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
262 Rix 1991: 301-4; Agostiniani & Nicosia 2000; cf. Briquel
1984: 133.
259 Peloponnesian War IV, 109, 4.
263 Roman Antiquities I, 20, 5.
260 Roman Antiquities I, 5, 1; cf. I, 17, 1; I, 60, 3. This point of
264 Roman Antiquities I, 24, 4; 26. 1
view is common among Hellenistic poets, see Sakellariou 1977:
80
7th century BC, is, considering the slight dialectal differ-
Also from an archaeological perspective the coloniza-
ences, a priori possible, but lacks a proper archaeological
tion of Etruria at the end of the Bronze Age is highly
and historical basis.
unlikely. It is true that at this time Italy is characterized by the introduction of a new culture, the so-called proto-
Colonization at the end of the Bronze Age
Villanovan (= an earlier phase of Villanovan),266 but, as demonstrated convincingly by Hugh Hencken, the latter shows close affinities with the European Urnfields. Thus
If the autochthonous thesis turns out to be flawed, what
the typical biconical urns relate to counterparts primarily
about the thesis of oriental origins? As we have seen, one
discovered in the region of Oltenia and the Banat, Hungary
group of orientalists situates the colonization of Etruria
(see Fig. 13).267 Furthermore, the house urns, which are so
from Asia Minor at the end of the Bronze Age. These
well-known a feature of the Latial variant of (proto-)Villa-
scholars base themselves on the chronology of Herodotos,
novan, find their closests parallels in northern Germany
who places the rulers descending from Atys’ son Lydos
(see Fig. 14).268 In line with these observations, it seems
prior to those of the Heraklids. The reign of the latter,
reasonable to assume that new population groups have en-
Herodotos continues, lasted as many as 22 generations or
tered Italy, as Hencken does, only not from the Aegean,
505 years in sum before the last representative, Kandaules,
but from Europe. These new population groups can plausi-
was set aside by Gyges, the first ruler of the Mermnades, at
bly be identified as the forefathers of the historical Italic
the beginning of the 7th century BC.265 Accordingly, it
peoples of the Umbrians, Oscans,269 Latins, and Faliscans,
follows that the descendants of Atys’ son Lydos were in
whose languages show the closest affinity to Celtic and
power before the beginning of the 12th century BC. Hero-
Germanic. At any rate, the Umbrians have the same name
dotos, however, amplifies this information with the remark
as the German tribe of the Ambrones (Jutland in Den-
that the population of Sardis and its surroundings were
mark),270 branches of which can, on the basis of related
called Lydians after Lydos, whereas prior to his rule they
place and river names, be traced as far afield as France,
were known as Maeonians. Now, Maeonians is the form of
Spain, and even northern Italy,271 whereas that of the
address for the Lydians in the epic songs of Homeros,
Oscans or Ausones is obviously related to the Celtic eth-
which, as we have seen in section 2, primarily reflects Late
nonyms Ausci (near Auch in southern France) and
Bronze Age history. Hence the name Lydians can only be
Ausetani (in Ausa-Vich, Catalonia).272 (As demonstrated
surmised to have come into currency in the Early Iron Age.
by Hans Krahe, both ethnonyms are rooted in his Old
Ergo: Herodotos’ chronology is flawed.
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 preVillanovan 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 protoVillanovan 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.
Fig. 13. Distribution of biconical urns in the Urnfield world (from
270 Altheim 1950: 56-7.
Hencken 1968: 441, fig. 452).
271 Schmoll 1959: 83; 119, note 1. 265 Histories I, 7.
272 Bosch-Gimpera 1939: 40.
81
“source, stream”).273
ous procedure. In the first place, it leaves out the protoVillanovan phase, which cannot be dissociated from Villanovan 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 cremation and inhumation burial rites as an ethnic marker is, as far as the 8th century BC is concerned, an oversimplification. After the introduction of proto-Villanovan at the end of the Bronze Age, there is a revival of the rite of inhumation 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 Villanovan ones (see further below). Hence, the distinction is rather Villanovan style cremations and inhumations versus Etruscan style cremations and inhumations – a line of approach actually applied by Ingrid Pohl in her publication of the Iron Age cemetery of Caere.276 Finally, the identification of the bearers of Villanovan culture in Etruria with the forebears of the Etruscans disregards the historical evidence according to which the Etruscans colonized the land of the Umbrians and drove them out of their original habitat.277 As a matter of fact, there are numerous reminiscences 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
Fig. 14. Distribution of house urns (from Bouzek 1997: fig. 49).
tribes of the Camartes and Sarsinates with the inland
The distinction between open and closed map symbols is immate-
towns Clusium and Perugia, and the identification of Cor-
rial in the present connection
tona as an Umbrian town.278 At any rate, the sites which have yielded Umbrian inscriptions mostly lie along the
This reconstruction of Italian prehistory at the end of
eastern fringe of the Villanovan style cremation area,279
the Bronze Age, which assumes a relation between Urn-
and there even have been found Umbrian type inscriptions
field culture and the historical peoples of the Umbrians,
in Picenum on the other side of the Appenines, whereas
Oscans, Latins, and Faliscans, collides with the view of the
literary sources speak of Umbrians in Ancona, Ariminum,
foremost representant of the autochthonous thesis, Mas-
Ravenna, and Spina to the north280 – regions where
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-
275 For Ausones (= Oscans) on the Lipari islands and in Milazzo,
ers to be the forebears of the Etruscans. To this end he pre-
see Diodoros of Sicily, The Library of History V, 7.
sents a map showing the distribution of archaeological
276 Pohl 1972.
cultures of Italy in the 9th and 8th centuries BC, which he
277 Plinius, Natural History III, 14, 112.
compares with the distribution of the various languages as
278 Altheim 1950: 22-3.
attested in about the 5th century BC.274 This is a danger-
279 Poultney 1959: 3. 280 Pseudo-Skylaks, Periplus 16; Strabo, Geography V, 1, 11; V,
273 Krahe1964: 90-1; 43-4.
2, 1; Justinus, Epitoma historiarum philippicarum Pompei Trogi XX, 1, 11; cf. Briquel 1984: 33; 51; 88; Salmon 1988: 701.
274 Pallottino 1988: 68; Abb. 1-2.
82
(proto-)Villanovan is attested (cf. Fig. 15).
made common cause with colleagues from the eastMediterranean basin, like the Ekwesh or Akhaians from the Greek mainland, Peleset or Pelasgians from the Aegean, 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 Furthermore, this element among the Sea Peoples can even be shown to have settled in the Levant at Hamath, where Urnfield 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 Etruscans 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
Fig. 15. Distribution of (a) proto-Villanovan and (b) Villanovan sites (after Hencken 1968: fig. 466).
The question which remains to be answered is whether the The repercussions of the Urnfield migrations into It-
colonization by the Etruscans of Italy from Asia Minor as
aly are archaeologically traceable to well into the Aegean
recorded by Herodotos does fit into the period of the Early
region. Thus Urnfield material of Italian or European type
Iron Age. This is the period of exploration and coloniza-
is attested for the islands Crete, Kos, and Euboia as well as
tion of the west-Mediterranean basin by Phoenicians and
Appar-
Greeks. Was there among these explorers and colonists of
ently, some population groups in Italy were displaced at
the far west a third party, namely Luwians from western
the time, or some of the European immigrants, whose
Anatolia?
for various locations on the Greek
mainland.281
First of all, it is important to note that only from c.
maritime nature has already been extrapolated by went straight on to the Aegean. This is ex-
700 BC onwards Etruria is characterized by an archaeo-
actly the situation recorded by the Egyptian sources on the
logical culture that with certainty can be identified as
Hencken,282
so-called Sea Peoples, which inform us about raids by the Shekelesh, Sherden, and Weshesh, in which we can recog-
1872: 299; cf. Reinach 1910: 36, note 3; Macalister 1913: 25; see further section 14 below.
nize the Italic peoples of the Sicilians, Sardinians, and Oscans (see section 14 below).283 These western raiders
284 Wachsmann 1998: 178 (with reference to de Boer 1991 who, with due reference to Hencken 1968 [in turn going back to Kimmig 1964: 223-4, Abb. 1], already noted the connection); Wachsmann 2000: 122.
281 Popham 2001.
285 Wachsmann 2000: 123; Drews 1993: 201, note 104 stipulates
282 Hencken 1968: 634.
that a substantial number of the European Naue type II sword, mostly of iron, were found in these cremation graves.
283 For the identification of the Weshesh as Oscans, see Chabas
83
Etruscan, because from that date onwards inscriptions con-
ber tomb which is entirely hewn out of the soft tufa with
ducted in the Etruscan language are found.286 One of the
mock roof beams in place as if it were a wooden construc-
most outstanding features of this Etruscan culture is
tion. The same technique is so common for Etruria that if
formed by the chamber tomb under tumulus for multiple
the photos of the Mysian example would have had no cap-
burials. The burial rites may consist of inhumation or a
tion one could easily be mistaken to be dealing with an
special form of cremation, according to which the remains
Etruscan grave.290 Unfortunately, the Anatolian examples
of the pyre are collected in a gold or silver container
in the last mentioned two cases were so thoroughly robbed
which, wrapped in a purple linen cloth, is placed in a locu-
that they cannot be properly dated. Next, it deserves our
lus of the grave. The closest parallels for such elite-
attention that Lycia from the 6th century BC onwards is
cremations are found in Anatolian style chamber tombs
typified by façade graves hewn out of the natural rock,
under tumulus at Salamis on
Cyprus.287
The rite in ques-
which bring to mind the façade graves hewn out of the
tion is meticulously described by Homeros in connection
natural rock of Norchia and its immediate surroundings to
with the burial of Patroklos, for which reason one often
which a similar date is assigned as the Lycian counter-
speaks of an Homeric burial. As far as mainland Greece is
parts.291 Like the Mysian tomb mentioned above, the fa-
concerned, similar elite-cremations are attested for the hero
çade graves imitate wooden constructions. Hence, it is
of Lefkandi and the burials at the west gate of Eretria. The
interesting to note that actual wooden constructions have
element which is missing here, however, is the characteris-
been dug up in Phrygia. Here large wooden boxes dating to
tic chamber tomb under tumulus (the hero of Lefkandi is
the late 8th and early 7th centuries BC serve as a replace-
discovered in an apsidal building secondarily used as a
ment of the stone built chamber tomb in like manner as in
grave and covered by a tumulus).288
Vetulonia during the 7th century BC. Finally, mention
Chamber tombs under tumulus for multiple burials are
should be made of a Lycian chamber tomb from the 5th
a typical Mycenaean feature. During the Late Bronze Age
century BC with paintings which bear a strong resem-
this type of burial is disseminated by Mycenaean colonists
blance to the Etruscan ones in Tarquinia – be it that the
from mainland Greece to western Asia Minor, where it is
Lycian paintings, in contrast to their Etruscan counterparts,
subsequently taken over by indigenous population groups
show Persian motifs.292
like the Carians, Lycians, Lydians, and ultimately the
In summary, on the basis of the preceding survey of
Phrygians. The earliest indigenous examples are pseudo-
relations in funeral architecture one gains the impression
cupolas in Caria, dated to the period of c. 1000 to 800 BC.
that Etruria was in close contact with various regions of
These graves are characterized by a rectangular ground-
western Anatolia during the Early Orientalizing period and
plan and a concentrically vaulted roof. The problem of the
beyond.293 Possibly, a crucial role was played by Mysia,
dome resting on a square is solved by the so-called
the Aiolian coast, and the offshore islands like Lesbos, be-
pendentive. This very same construction is typical of
cause here the typical local pottery, just like in Etruria
BC.289
from the 7th century BC onwards, consists of bucchero.294
Similarly, in Lydia a chamber tomb has been found with a
The inference that colonists from various regions of
roof vaulting lenghtwise in the same way as for example
western Asia Minor migrated to Etruria may receive fur-
the famous Regolini-Galassi tomb at Caere, dating to the
ther emphasis if we take a look at the script. As mentioned
7th century BC. Furthermore, Mysia has produced a cham-
in the above the earliest inscriptions in the Etruscan lan-
chamber tombs in Populonia during the 7th century
guage date from c. 700 BC onwards. In general, it is as286 Hencken 1968: 631.
290 Kaspar 1970: 71-83.
287 D’Agostino 1977: 57-8; note that the Etruscan nature of the
291 Contra Åkerström 1934: 104-7.
elite-cremations at Pontecagnano is deducible from the fact that the earliest inscriptions from this site are conducted in the Etruscan language, see Rix 1991: Cm 2.2, Cm 2.7, and Cm 2.19, all of 6th century BC date.
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.
288 Bérard 1970; Popham, Touloupa & Sackett 1982. 289 Schachermeyr 1929: 89-91; 100-1; cf. Demus-Quatember
294 Pfuhl 1923: 153 f.
1958: 63.
84
sumed that the Etruscans have borrowed their alphabet
model is applicable to the Etruscan colonization, as sug-
from the Greeks, in particular from the Euboeians at Pith-
gested by the large number of Italic names in Etruscan in-
ecussae and Cumae. This view, however, runs up against
scriptions dating from the 7th and 6th centuries BC
serious difficulties, since the local Etruscan alphabets are
onwards. To give some examples, one might point to:
characterized by signs and sign-forms unparalleled for
Cventi, Eknate, Venelus, Vete, Vipie, Kavie, Kaisie, Ma-
Greek inscriptions. In the first place we have to consider in
merce, Numesie, Petrus, Punpu, Pupaia, Puplie, Spurie,
this connection the sign for the expression of the value [f]
Flavie, and tribal names like Latinie, Sapina, and
as attested for an early 7th century BC inscription from
Sarsina.299 As a matter of fact, the colonists from western
Vetulonia (Vn 1.1) in north-Etruria, which consists of a
Asia Minor constitute an elite, who impose their superior
vertical stroke with a small circle on either top. As time
culture on the by far more numerous indigenous Italic
goes by, this sign develops into the well-known figure-of-
population. A vital component of the colonial culture is
eight [f], which spreads from the north of Etruria to the
formed by their language.
south ultimately to replace the digraph of wau and Ɲta (<
A first hint at the nature of the language can be de-
hƝta) for the same sound in the south-Etruscan alphabets.
rived from the name of some of the newly founded cities.
The origin of this sign can be traced back to the Lydian al-
Thus Tarquinia (= Etruscan TarFna-) is, on the analogy of
phabet, where during the same time it knows exactly the
Greek colonial names like Posidonia, Apollonia, and
same development! Next, a late 7th century BC inscription from Caere (Cr 9.1) in south-Etruria bears testimony of a
Herakleia, which are also based on a divine name, named after the Luwian storm-god Tar® unt-.300 In addition, a
variant of the tsade which is closer in form to the Phoeni-
number of Etruscan personal names, like Arn-, Mezentie,
cian original than the Greek san. The closest parallel for
MuFsie, 4ifarie or 4efarie, can be traced back to Luwian
this sign can be discovered in the local script of Side in
counterparts (Arnuwanta-, Mukasa-) or Luwian onomastic
Pamphylia. On the basis of these observations it lies at
elements (masana- “god”, Tiwata- or Tiwara- “sun-god”);
hand to infer that various groups of colonists from various
the same applies to family names like Camitlna (< Luwian
regions in western Asia Minor, ranging from Lydia in the
® anta- “in front of”) and VelaveĞna (< Luwian walwa-
north to Side in the south, simply have taken (features of)
“lion”), be it that the diagnostic element -na- though
their script with them.295
originating from Luwian hieroglyphic ná- “son”301 is an
The colonists not only introduced their own type of
Etruscan innovation unparalleled for Anatolian onomas-
grave and their own type of alphabet, they also settled
tics. Furthermore, Etruscan vocabulary shows many corre-
themselves, just like the Phoenicians and Greeks, in urban
spondences with Luwian, like for instance the very
centres founded according to neatly circumscribed ritu-
common verb muluvane- or muluvani- “to offer as a vow”,
als.296
An often heard argument in favor of the continuity
the root of which is related to Luwian maluwa- “thank-
between the Villanovan and Etruscan Orientalizing periods
offering”. Of a more profound nature are similarities in
is that the Etruscan cities are founded on locations where
morphology (adjectival suffixes -s- and -l-), the system of
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
ted c. 700-675 BC which is not included in the corpus Rix 1991, see Woudhuizen 1992a: 158-61.
and that there is ample evidence for intermingling between
299 Cf. Vetter 1953.
the original inhabitants and the new arrivals.298 The same
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 TarguƝnos of Zeus in Lydia (Woudhuizen 1990: 101), and the heroic name Tarkhǀn 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 TarFna- to Luwian Tar® unt- in a note) to dissociate Mysian Tarkhǀn from its proper Anatolian background are altogether futile.
295 Woudhuizen 1982-3: 97; for the Sidetic tsade, see Woudhuizen 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-
301 Woudhuizen 2005 : 19-20.
85
(pro)nominal declension (genitive-dative singular in -s or
ern Asia Minor were involved in trade with the indigenous
-l, ablative-locative in --(i) or -r(i), nominative plural in -i,
population of Italy for the same reasons as the Phoenicians
genitive plural in -ai > -e) and verbal conjugation (3rd per-
(to be more specific: Aramaeans)305 and Greeks: the met-
son singular of the present-future in --(i)), the use of sen-
alliferous (especially iron) nature of the regions of the
tence introductory particles (va-, nac, nu-), enclitic
Tolfa hills near Tarquinia, Elba, and Populonia. This situa-
conjunctions (-c or -F, -m), negative adverbs (nes or nis),
tion of precolonial offshore trade in Italy is described by
etc. On the basis of these features, Etruscan can be classi-
one of our earliest sources with respect to the Tyrsenians,
fied as most closely related to Luwian hieroglyphic of the
namely Hesiodos. In his Theogony, which dates from the
Early Iron Age (adjectival suffixes -asi- and -ali-, sentence
8th century BC, he informs us that the indigenous kings
introdutory particle wa-, negative adverb nas), but in cer-
Agrios and Latinos ruled over the famous Tyrsenians who
tain aspects already showing developments characteristic
live very far off mukhǀi nƝsǀn hieraǀn “in a recess of the
of Lycian (genitive plural in -ãi > -e1) and Lydian (dative
holy islands”!306 The motivation to let these trade contacts
singular in -l1, loss of closing vowel in the ablative-
culminate into actual colonization comes from domestic
locative ending, sentence introductory particle nak, enclitic
difficulties: at the end of the 8th century BC Anatolia suf-
conjunction -k) of the Classical period. Finally, Etruscan
fered heavily from the Kimmerian invasion, which over-
shows a number of deviations from Luwian which it shares
threw the Phrygian realm of king Midas and terrorized the
with Lemnian, like the 3rd person singular ending of the
Lydian realm of the tyrant Gyges.307 If you were living
past tense in -ce, -ke or -Fe, the vocabulary word avi(l)-
along the coast and were acquainted with the route to more
“year”, and the enclitic conjunction -m “and”. Considering
peaceful regions, this was the time to pick up your belong-
the fact that the Lemnos stele contains a dating-formula
ings, board on a ship and settle in the metalliferous zone of
bearing reference to a certain Holaie from Phokaia, who is
Italy, where, from a military point of view, the indigenous
specified as king (vanacasial < Greek (v)anaks) over the
population was by far inferior!
Myrinians and Seronians, the places of which, on the analogy of Phokaia, are likely to be situated in Aiolia, these
Additional note: The IndoEuropeanization of Tuscany
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
There is archaeological and linguistic evidence for a still
archaeological investigation according to which we were
earlier layer in the process of Indo-Europeanization of
already able to posit a crucial role for Mysia in the coloni-
Tuscany than the ones discussed above.
zation process. Notwithstanding his mistaken chronology,
Thus in the early 3rd millennium BC, Tuscany is
Herodotos, while not telling the whole story in all its nu-
characterized by the Rinaldone culture. Typical for this
ances, has certainly transmitted a tradition which in its nu-
culture is the Tomb of the Widow at Porte San Pietro,
cleus may safely be considered historically correct!
which consisted of a single chambered stone-cut catacomb
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-
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 unstemmed 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 verbal 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 BartonČk & Buchner 1995.
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-
1998; Woudhuizen 2001a. See further appendix II.
305 Bernal 1991: 192 (with reference to Homeros, Iliad II, 783). For the distinction of Phoenicians at Pithecussae by their burial rites, see now Docter 2000.
303 Buchner 1982: 293.
306 Theogony 1011-6.
304 Woudhuizen 1992b: 154 ff. Contra Johnston 1983: 63, who
307 Sauter 2000.
302 Best & Woudhuizen 1989; Woudhuizen 1992b; Woudhuizen
86
grave of North Pontic steppe type, in which a man was
north-Aegean and southwest Anatolia, introducing the Ori-
buried with his wife. The skeleton of the man was associ-
entalizing culture (c. 700 BC onwards). And all this in a
ated with a stone battle-axe, copper daggers, an arrowhead,
region which Massimo Pallottino in a lifelong effort would
and a pot. Skull injuries attested for the skeleton of the
have us believe (and succeeded in making his fellow
woman suggest that she was dispatched on the death of her
Etruscologists believe) to be the home of a pre-Indo-
husband to accompany him in the afterlife according to the
European rest group!
likewise North Pontic rite of suttee. Other Rinaldone tombs produced horse remains – a feature pointing once
Postscriptum
again in the direction of the North Pontic steppe where the
In an article about Etruscan origins which appeared in
animal in question was not only abundantly found but also
BABesch 79 (2004) 51-7, the Etruscologist Bauke van der
suggested to have been already domesticated from the 4th
Meer speaks out in favor of the orientalist thesis, but he
millennium BC onwards.308
does not choose between the two variant models of coloni-
From a linguistic point of view, it has been observed
zation as presented here, viz. at the end of the Bronze Age
by Hans Krahe that Tuscany, with names like Alma, Ar-
or during an advanced stage of the Early Iron Age: in fact,
menta, Aventia, Albinia, Arnus, Elsa, Auser, Ausenna, and
he posits three waves of colonization in sum, namely one
Visentios, is included in the distribution of his Old Euro-
c. 1100 BC, a second c. 900 BC, and the third c. 700 BC
pean river
names.309
(p. 55).
These names, which are based on
well-attested Proto-Indo-European roots, may well be rooted in the 3rd millennium BC, as their overall distribution, as rightly stressed by Peter Kitson, coincides remarkably 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-Europeanization of Tuscany: (1) the bearers of the Rinaldone culture of North Pontic steppe affiliations (3rd millennium BC onwards), (2) the Osco-Umbrians and Latin-Faliscans, which we have held responsible for the introduction of the European 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 Ombrone is 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 distribution 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.
87
11. THE AENEAS’ SAGA: ETRUSCAN ORIGINS IN PARVO If we are right in our conclusion that Luwian population
Euboeian colony Cumae,315 Aeneas and his Trojan colo-
groups from western Asia Minor colonized Etruria in the
nists reach their final destination, Latium at the mouth of
late 8th or early 7th century BC, there may also well be a
the Tiber.316
kernel of truth in the colonization by Trojans of the coastal
Having pitched their camp in Latium, there evolves a
region of Latium as transmitted to us by the famous Ae-
war with the local population, who want to get rid of the
neas’ saga.
intruders. The war entails a truly epic coalition of forces.
According to Vergilius’ version of this myth, the Tro-
On the side of the Latins fight the Caeretan king Mezentius
jans set out with 20 ships from Antandros, which lies at the
with his son Lausus, who had been driven out of their
northern side of the same bay that also harbors Smyrna –
hometown and had taken refuge with the Rutulians,
the starting point, as we have seen, of the Lydians in their
Aventinus with followers from the Aventine hill, Catillus
colonization of Etruria according to Herodotos. From here,
and Corus with followers from Tibur, Caeculus with fol-
they first go to the Thracian coast, where they build a city
lowers from Praeneste, Messapus with Faliscan Aequi,
called Aeneadae after their leader Aeneas (in Hellanikos’
Clausus with Sabins, Halaesus with Osci from the region
version this first stopping place is specified as Pallene in
of Cales and the Volturnus, Oebalus with Teleboans from
Khalkidike).311
Next, the journey proceeds via Delos to
Capri, Ufens with Aequiculi, Umbro from the Marsian
Crete, where again the Trojans build a city, this time called
hills, Virbius from Egeria’s woods, Camilla with Volsci,
Pergamea after Pergama – an alternative name of their
Volcens with Latins, and Turnus with his Rutulians.317
hometown Troy. After this intermezzo, they move on to
The help of the Greek hero Diomedes (Aeneas’ foe in the
the realm of Hellenus in Chaonia, Epirus, which is inhab-
Trojan war), residing at Arpi, is called upon, but he refuses
ited by kinsmen who likewise escaped from Troy after the
to join in. On the side of the Trojans fight Evander with his
fall of the city at the end of the Trojan war.312 Sailing
Arcadians, declared enemies of the Latins, Tarchon with
along the eastern coast of Italy and Sicily, their next major
an Etruscan army of undetermined origin, Massicus with
stopping place is the realm of Acestes in the region of Eryx
followers from Clusium and Cosae, Abas with men from
and Segesta, northwest Sicily, where, just like in Chaonia,
Populonia and Elba, Asilas with men from Pisae, Astyr
the population consists of kinsmen from Troy. As a matter
with followers from Caere, Pyrgi and Graviscae, Cinyrus
of fact, in the part of the trip between Crete and Sicily the
with Ligurians, and Ocnus and Aulestis with an army from
main concern of the expedition is to avoid the hostile
Mantua. In sum, this basically Etruscan coalition is re-
Greek settlements along the shores and on the islands of
ported to comprise 30 ships.318 The war ends with the
the Ionian sea. After their stay with Acestes, Aeneas and
death of the leader of the Italic coalition, Turnus, by the
his companions are driven by a storm to the coast of Af-
hand of the Trojan leader, Aeneas. (In the version by Dio-
rica, where they visit Carthago, the town newly founded
nysios of Halikarnassos, Aeneas – who is married with
by Phoenicians from Tyre under the leadership of queen
Latinus’ daughter Lavinia and rules both the Trojans and
Dido.313 From here, they return to the realm of Acestes in
the Latins at the time of the war with the Rutulians and
Sicily, where games are held in honor of Aeneas’ father
Mezentius – simply disappears, and the Latins subse-
Anchises, who had died there during their first stay.314 Fi-
quently build a hero-shrine for him.)319 In the course of the
nally, after a visit of the underworld in the region 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.
311 Fragmente der griechischen Historiker 4 F 31; cf. Galinsky
1969: 111-2.
316 Vergilius, Aeneid VII.
312 Vergilius, Aeneid III.
317 Vergilius, Aeneid VII, 647-817; IX, 367-70.
313 Vergilius, Aeneid I; IV.
318 Vergilius, Aeneid X, 146-214.
314 Vergilius, Aeneid V.
319 Roman Antiquities I, 64.
89
Trojans, nor will they change their language and alter their
in his version of the myth. Now, this heroon is connected
attire and customs, but the Trojans will sink down and
with a grave from c. 675-650 BC, containing a few frag-
merge in the mass, leaving them only the introduction of
ments of bone, some 60 vases of impasto and bucchero sot-
some new religious rites.320
tile, and the remnants of a chariot (see Fig. 16).325 Clearly,
Some of the elements of the Aeneas’ saga as summa-
it was believed that the person commemorated by means of
rized above can be corroborated by archaeological, epi-
the heroon had been buried in the grave underlying the
graphical or historical data. Thus, the reported sojourn of
monument, which once again points to a date in the Early
Aeneas with his Trojans on the Thracian coast, according
Iron Age of Aeneas’ arrival in Latium.
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, according to Homeros’ Iliad, Aeneas already fought in the Trojan war, which may well be assigned to c. 1280 BC, is incom-
Fig. 16. The Heroon of Aeneas at Lavinium (from Somella 1974:
patible with a visit by the same person of Carthago in the
Taf. VII).
late 9th or early 8th century BC, i.e. some 5 centuries later, Dionysios of Halikarnassos, whose focus is on chronology,
More in general, the alliance of Aeneas with the
quite consistently rejected the historical validity of this
Etruscans finds its expression in the archaeological record
event.323 It should be realized, however, that we are deal-
in a scarab326 and a large number of vases from Etruria
ing with myth and that in this category of evidence epi-
with scenes from the Aeneas legend, dated to the late 6th
sodes from various periods can be telescoped into a single
and/or early 5th century BC.327 The Etruscan town of Veii
lifetime. Furthermore, the historical validity of one of the
even produced cult statues depicting Aeneas carrying his
adversaries of the Trojans in their war with the Latins is
father Anchises, dated to the early or mid 5th century
greatly enhanced by the discovery of an Etruscan inscrip-
BC.328 As it seems, then, the Etruscans considered the Ae-
tion from Caere, dated to c. 680/675-650/640 BC, reading
neas saga as part of their cultural heritage. It comes as no
mi Laucies Mezenties
surprise, therefore, that the poet who fashioned the legend into its most famous form, Publius Vergilius Maro from
“I (am) of Lucius Mezentius”.324
Mantua, ultimately originates from an Etruscan background, his family name being derived from Etruscan Ver-
Again, this evidence points to a date in the Early Iron Age of the vicissitudes of Aeneas and his Trojans in the west.
cna-.329 Yet, the aforesaid heroon at Lavinium should
Finally, in Lavinium, 100 metres southeast of the 13 altars
warn us against the oversimplified conclusion of Karl Ga-
of the Latin League, a heroon has been found dated to the
linsky, written, it must be admitted, before this sensational
4th century BC, which has been identified as the hero-
find, that “when Aeneas appeared in Italy, (…) he be-
shrine of Aeneas reported by Dionysios of Halikarnassos 320 Vergilius, Aeneid XII, 819-43. 325 Somella 1974; Ross Holloway 1994: 135-8.
321 Galinsky 1969: 111-2, Fig. 87.
326 Galinsky 1969: 60; 103; Fig. 44.
322 Der Neue Pauly, s.v. Karthago; cf. Dionysios of Halikarnas-
sos, Roman Antiquities I, 74,1.
327 Galinsky 1969: 122-3.
323 Loeb edition, p.160-1, note 1.
328 Galinsky 1969: 125; 133; Fig. 111.
324 Heurgon 1992: 24. Note that this name corresponds with Lau-
329 Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopädie, s.v. Vergilius; Schulze
sus, the son of Mezentius, in the literary tradition.
1966: 101; 379; cf. Rix 1991: s.v. (esp. Perugia).
90
longed to the Etruscans.”330 Rather, we are dealing with a
3rd century BC, which carries the legend
genuinely Latial tradition, which radiated to south Etruria.
Lare Aineia d(onum)
The earliest historical source connecting Aeneas with “Dedication to Lar Aineias”.336
the west is provided by the work of Stesikhoros (early 6th century BC) as preserved for the Tabula Iliaca, which
One of the outstanding deeds with which Aeneas is cred-
shows Aeneas with his father Anchises (holding the cista
ited concerns his introduction of the cult of the ancestral
sacra) and son Ascanius bording a ship eis tƝn Hespe-
Trojan gods, the Penates.337 According to the imagery, he
rian.331 Next, Hellanikos of Lesbos holds that Aeneas
is responsible for saving the sacra of the Penates, carried
came to Italy from the land of the Molossians, either with
either by his father Anchises in a cista338 or by his wife
Odysseus or after him, and founded the city of Rome,
Creusa in a doliolum,339 from destruction at the time of the
which he named after a Trojan woman called RǀmƝ.332
fall of Troy. Now, Timaios (early 3rd century BC) informs
When the date of the foundation of Rome became fixed at
us that the holy objects of the sanctuary at Lavinium were
753 BC, however, chronographers and historians faced the
kept in a keramos Trǀikos “a Trojan earthen jar”.340
problem that one person could not possibly be staged as a
Rightly, Galinsky connected this information with Livius’
combattant in the Trojan war and at the same time be held
account that during the Gallic invasion in 390 BC the sa-
responsible for the foundation of Rome some five centuries
cra of the Roman Penates were placed in two doliola,
later. Hence, authors from the 4th century BC onwards
earthen jars.341 That the sanctuary of the Latin League at
prefer to attribute the foundation of Rome to a descendant
Lavinium with its 13 altars, which, as we have noted
of Aeneas (or of a woman from his Trojan followers),333
above, lies at a 100 metre distance of Aeneas’ heroon, was
culminating into Dionysios of Halikarnassos’ calculation
indeed dedicated (at least partly) to the cult of the Penates
that Romulus is the 17th in descent from Aeneas!334 This
is confirmed by a 6th century BC inscription associated
process of filling up the time between the Late Bronze Age
with altar no. 8, reading
and an advanced stage of the Early Iron Age is of doubtful
Castorei Podlouquei-que qurois
historical value: the Italic people had, for instance, no recollection at all of the arrival of the ancestors of the Umbri-
“to the kouroi Castor and Pollux”;342
ans and Oscans in Italy c. 1200 BC. Rather, therefore, we should face the fact that, as noted above, Aeneas as a hero
the Greek Dioskouroi, namely, were identified in literary
and saint became associated in myth with widely separated
tradition with the Penates.343 In Etruria, these were also
historical episodes.
venerated as testified by an early 5th century BC inscription from Tarquinia, reading
Considering the aforesaid hero-shrine, the association of Aeneas with Lavinium seems prior to the one with
itun turuce Venel Atelinas Tinas cliniiaras
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 Aeneas cult is provided by a cippus from Tor Tignosa, 5 336 Galinsky 1969: 158.
miles inland from Lavinium, dated to the late 4th or early
337 See Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman Antiquities I, 69, 4 for
their identifcation with the Kabeiroi or Megaloi Theoi of Samothrace.
330 Galinsky 1969: 131. 331 Galinsky 1969: 106-7; Figs. 85-6.
338 See note 326 above.
332 Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman Antiquities I, 72, 2; cf.
339 Galinsky 1969: Fig. 45.
Galinski 1969: 103.
340 Fragmente der griechischen Historiker 566 F 59; cf. Galinsky
333 Galinsky 1969: 142-3; cf. Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman
1969: 155.
Antiquities I, 72, 5.
341 History of Rome V, 40, 7-8.
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.
342 Gordon 1983: 76-7; cf. Galinsky 1969: 151; 154.
335 Roman Antiquities I, 64, 5.
1969: 154; Fig. 119 (Dioscuri) = Fig. 120 (Penates).
343 Cassius Hemina frg. 6 = Servius ad Aeneid I, 378; cf. Galinsky
91
the, according to literary tradition, related population of
“Venel Atelinas has given this to the sons of Tin”.344
Eryx and Segesta in northwest Sicily, some inscriptions
It is therefore no contradiction that the inscription of the
have been found, among which coin legends. One of these
Dioskouroi is Greek inspired, whereas the altars of the
coin legends consists of a bilingual, according to which
sanctuary are of Etruscan type.345 On the contrary, this
Elymian Erukaziie corresponds to Greek Erukinǀn “of the
threefold identification facilitates us to further explain the
Erycinians”; the other, Segestazie, shows exactly the same
popularity of the Aeneas’ saga in southern Etruria.
formation, but then for the town Segesta.351 Now, these
In our summary of Vergilius’ Aeneid, we have seen
Elymian legends are characterized by the Lycian ethnic
that as a corollary to the peace between the Trojan colo-
formation in -z(i)- (Sppartazi “Spartans”; Atãnazi “Atheni-
nists and the native Latins, there will, with the exception of
ans”) and likewise Lycian ending of the genitive plural -e1
some new religious rites, be no change of the name of the
(Pttaraze1 “of the Patarians”)352 – a combination which is
inhabitants of Latium, nor in their language, customs, and
also attested for Etruscan Kar-azie “of the Carthagin-
dress. Evidently, the Trojan colonists, in contrast to their
ians”.353 Apparently, therefore, the language of these par-
Lydian colleagues in Etruria, were not numerous enough to
ticular Trojans, and hence probably of followers of Aeneas
cause a language shift: at any rate the epigraphical evi-
related to them as well, was closely related to Lycian, i.e.
dence shows decisively that the current language remained
of Luwian type. This inference coincides with the fact that
Latin, not to say that there is not a trace of the language of
the place name Roma is based on the same root as that of
the Trojan colonists left. What could it have been? To an-
the Lycian heroic name Romos, being likewise derived
swer this question, it is interesting to note that the name
from the Luwian name for the stag-god, Rum/nt-.354
“Trojans” is used to indicate a motley crowd from various
To conclude, the main contribution of the Trojan
regions. Most explicit is the distinction of Lycians, whose
colonists is the introduction of the cult of their ancestral
ships are stipulated to be under the command of Oron-
gods, the Penates. Furthermore, there may be a grain of
tes.346 But there are also names of Lydian (Atys, Gyges,
thruth in the tradition that leading families of Rome traced
Palmus)347 and Thracian (Ismarus [of a Maeonian =
their origin back to a Trojan follower of Aeneas, like the
Lydian], Tereus, Thamyrus)348 type. Both latter elements
Atii from Atys,355 Sergii from Sergestus356 – a Phrygian
may be expected in the Troad, as the region was overrun
or Lydian name357 – , and the Cluentii from Cloanthus,358
by Thraco-Phrygians from the Balkans at the end of the
though the identification of Aeneas’ son Ascanius with Iu-
Bronze Age349 and under the control of the Lydians at the
lus, the ancestor of the Iulii, seems, on the basis of the
time of Gyges.350 The only hard evidence comes from an-
double naming, a little bit forced.359
other direction: Elymian. In this language, once spoken by
344 Rix 1991: Ta 3.2 (= TLE 156); note in this connection that according to Myrsilos of Lesbos (3rd century BC) F 8 the Kabeiroi of Samothrace are considered Tyrrhenian gods, see LochnerHüttenbach 1960: 102.
351 Lejeune 1969.
345 Alföldi 1963: 266; Pl. XVI; cf. Woudhuizen 1992a: 194, note
352 Kinch 1888: 193-4; cf. Melchert 1993, s.v.
104.
353 Rix 1991: Carthago Af 3.1 (= TLE 724); Woudhuizen 1992b:
346 Vergilius, Aeneid, I, 113; VI, 334; cf. X, 751; XII, 516.
83; 90; 95.
347 Vergilius, Aeneid V, 568; IX, 762; X, 697, 699; cf. Gusmani
354 Herbig 1914: 28; Houwink ten Cate 1961: 128-31.
1964, s.v. (note that †q = p).
355 Vergilius, Aeneid V, 568-9; cf. Briquel 1991: 471-6.
348 Vergilius, Aeneid X, 139; XI, 675; XII, 341; cf. Detschew
356 Vergilius, Aeneid V, 121.
1976, s.v.
357 Beekes 2002: 214, with reference to Phrygian Surgastoy, see
349 For the Balkan affinities of the Trojan “Buckel” ceramic (=
Brixhe & Lejeune 1984: Dd-102, and Lydian Srkstu-, see Gusmani 1964, s.v. For the related Thracian Sergesteus, see Detschew 1976, s.v.
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 Hellespont); note also with Briquel 1991: 83 that Daskyleion in the Troad is called after the father of Gyges, Daskylos.
358 Vergilius, Aeneid V, 122-3. 359 Vergilius, Aeneid I, 267, etc.
92
(Lyrnessos) and -nth- (Sminthe).365 Evidently, we are dealing here with settlers from Luwian speaking areas to
Additional note 1: Aeneas’ realm in the Troad
the south and southeast, who moved across the language border as determined by Dainis (< Luwian tƗini- “oily”) being the indigenous name of later Greek Elaia (= harbor
In the preceding section, we have observed that Aeneas
of Pergamon)366 into a presumably Thraco-Phrygian mi-
and his Trojan followers boarded their ships in Antandros,
lieu.367
which is situated on the southern coast of the Troad, just
If our association of Aeneas with a Luwian speaking
south of mount Ida, looking out over the Aiolian gulf.
region south of mount Ida is correct, the information from
Now, Aeneas is particularly linked up with the region of
the Homeric hymn to Aphrodite that the Trojan language
mount Ida in the southern Troad, as this is the spot where
as spoken by Aeneas’ father Ankhises is other than Phry-
he is reported to have been conceived by Ankhises and
gian need not be representative for the entire Troad.368
Aphrodite.360 However, if we want to be more specific, it
Furthermore, his later relationship to the Etruscans in Italy
is interesting to observe that according to a passage in
receives a meaningful explanation as being one of a kin-
Homeros’ Iliad Aeneas is said at a time before the Trojan
ship nature!
war to have been driven from the Ida, where he guarded the cattle herd, by Akhilleus, who next plundered Lyrnes-
Additional note 2: Dardanians: a form of Etruscan self-designation
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 Aeneas, not only with the region of mount Ida itself, but also
Confirmation of our inference that the Etruscans consid-
with the river valley to the south of it.
ered the Aeneas’ saga as part of their cultural heritage is
This very same region south of mount Ida with which
provided by a set of eight identical Etruscan inscriptions
Aeneas seems to be associated, is also reported to be in-
on three boundary stones from Smindja in the territory of
habited by Leleges and/or Kilikes. Thus according to one
Carthago. These inscribed boundary stones were set up by
passage, Altes, the king of the Leleges, is stated to have his
the followers of the democratic consul Gn. Papirius Car-
residence in Pedasos along the river
Satnioeis,362
whereas
bone from the Etruscan city of Chiusi who fled from their
according to another Eëtion, king of the Kilikes, once lived
hometown to Africa in 82 BC after having sided with
in Thebes at the foot of the wooded Plakos, where he was
Marius in the civil war between the latter and the ulti-
killed by Akhilleus during the latter’s afore-mentioned raid
mately victorious Sulla.369
in the region.363 Both the ethnonyms Leleges and Kilikes
The inscriptions run in retrograde direction and read
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
365 Woudhuizen 1989: 194, Fig. 2; 197. See also section 7, note
south of mount Ida is characterized by place names in -ss-
140 above. 366 Starke 1997: 457; Högemann 2000: 10. 367 For the Thraco-Phrygian nature of the Trojan language, see
362 Homeros, Iliad XXI, 86-7.
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 (LukiƝthen) and cf. Strabo, Geography XIV, 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.
363 Homeros, Iliad VI, 396-7; 415-6.
368 Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite 111-5.
364 Herodotos, Histories I, 171.
369 Heurgon 1969: 286; Colonna 1980: 4.
360 Homeros, Iliad II, 819-21. 361 Homeros, Iliad XX, 89-93; 188-194. This ties in with an earlier section of the Iliad, in which Akhilleus is stated to have captured Briseïs in Lyrnessos and to have demolished the walls of Thebes in the same plain, killing the local leaders Mynes and Epistrophos, the sons of Euenos, Homeros, Iliad II, 688-93.
93
as follows:370 1.
M(arce)
“Marcus Unata Zutas
Vnata 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 Peloponnesos – which coincides with our assumption that the inhabitants 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 ad
hoc device for the distinction of the un-Etruscan sound [d] from regular [t]. For the identification of Tins as Dionysos, see Woudhuizen 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 Heurgon 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.
94
12. PHILISTINES AND PELASGIANS One of the most significant groups among the Sea Peoples
Egyptian influence which typifies the Canaanite material
who attacked Egypt in the fifth and eighth year of
culture from before the break does not recur. As it appears,
Ramesses III (= 1179 and 1176 BC) is the Peleset. This
then, conquerors from the Aegean region (including Cy-
ethnonym, which has no earlier occurrence in the Egyptian
prus), where Mycenaean IIIC1b is “en vogue” at the time,
sources, has been identified with the Biblical Philistines by
have wasted existing Canaanite sites, driven out most of
Jean-François Champollion soon after his decipherment of
the original inhabitants and settled themselves instead.
Egyptian hieroglyphic – an identification which goes un-
Considering this close correspondence between literary
challenged up to the present day.378 Now, the Philistines
and archaeological data, the projection of the Philistines
are generally considered newcomers in the Levant, settling
back in time to the period of the patriarchs probably con-
in their pentapolis consisting of the towns Asdod, Askelon,
stitutes an anachronism.386
Gaza, Ekron, and Gath at the time of the upheavals of the
In the Papyrus Harris, Ramesses III claims to have
Sea Peoples. Thus the Bible informs us that they originated
settled the vanquished Sea Peoples, among which our Pe-
from Kaphtor,379 which on the basis of its correspondence
leset or Philistines, in strongholds bound in his name. This
to Akkadian Kaptara and Egyptian Keftiu is plausibly
has induced scholars like Albrecht Alt and William Fox-
identified as the island Crete; or they are even straightfor-
well Albright to assume that the settlement of the Philis-
wardly addressed here as Cretans.380 Moreover, they are
tines in Canaan took place under Egyptian supervision.387
considered an alien race for the fact that, in contrast to the
Rightly, Manfred Bietak pointed out that the absence of
local Semites, they do not abide to the rite of circumci-
Egyptian influence in the material culture after the break
sion.381
Finally, the Philistines are reported by the Bible to
indicates otherwise. Nevertheless, the continuity of Egyp-
have replaced the ancient Canaanite population of the Av-
tian influence in the hinterland of the Philistine pentapolis
vim in their original habitat.382
might suggest to us that the Egyptian pharaoh maintained a
This information from the literary sources can be
nominal claim on the land conquered by the Philistines and
backed up by evidence from archaeology. It occurs,
considered them as vassals guarding his frontiers in like
namely, that the archaeological culture of Philistia shows
manner as the Frankish kings did with the Normans in the
signs of discontinuity in the transitional period from the
European Middle Ages (see Fig. 17)!388
Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age. Asdod, its harbor
As duly stressed by Ed Noort, the break between the
Tel Mor, and Askelon are characterized by destruction lay-
Canaanite Late Bronze Age and Philistine Early Iron Age
ers,383 and Ekron by at least some local destruction at the
in the region under discussion is not an absolute one: the
time.384 The level after the destruction at these sites (with
continuity of Canaanite pottery in the Philistine sites indi-
the exception of Tel Mor) contains locally produced
cates that to a certain extent the newcomers from the Ae-
Mycenaean IIIC1b pottery – the hallmark of the settlement
gean mixed with the local Avvim population.389 To this
of Sea Peoples – , which subsequently develops without a
comes that four of the five place names of the Philistine
break into the so-called Philistine ware.385 Moreover, the
pentapolis, viz. Gaza, Askelon, Asdod, and Gath, are already recorded for Egyptian sources from the El-Amarna period.390
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.
386 Genesis 21, 22-34; cf. Machinist 2000: 54-5; contra Gordon 1956: 22 and others.
382 Deuteronomium 2, 23.
387 Alt 1944; Albright 1975: 509; cf. Singer 1985.
383 Dothan 1982: 36; 43; 35.
388 Bietak 1993; esp. 295, Fig. 4.
384 Bietak 1993: 300.
389 Noort 1994.
385 Bietak 1993: 297-8.
390 Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopädie, s.v. Philister.
95
headed by a local magistrate called seren and that kǀba‘ 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, Astarte, and Ba‘al Zebnjl, appear to be of a local Canaanite nature.393 What remains, apart from their characteristic pottery, are only small hints to their Aegean origin: figurines for house-cults as discovered in Asdod, recalling Mycenaean counterparts (Fig. 18);394 hearths as unearthed in Ekron, reminiscent of Mycenaean and Cyprian examples;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 Akhaios or Ankhises, for a king of Ekron;400 and, finally, the identification of Gaza as Minoa, which is substantiated by evidence from coins, and of its local god Marna (= Aramaic “our Lord”) as Crete-born.401 The question remains: is the Cretan origin of the Philistines 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.
Fig. 17. Settlement of the Sea Peoples in the Levant and the remains of the Egyptian sphere of influence (from Bietak 1993: 295,
394 Barnett 1969: 17; Sandars 1980: 165, fig. 116 (with intermediary form from Cyprus); cf. Noort 1994: 134-7.
Fig. 4).
395 Noort 1994: 146; for Cyprus, see Karageorghis 1992: 81 (new element during Late Cypriote IIIC).
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
396 Waldbaum 1966.
famous engagement between David and Goliath – which
397 Gitin 1993: 249-50; for Cyprus see Loulloupis 1973 and Kara-
the first mentioned miraculously won against all odds. This
georghis 1992: 81 (new element during Late Cypriote IIIC).
military superiority of the Philistines was based on their
398 Reinach 1910; Hall 1926: 278; Gardiner 1947: 202; Bérard 1951: 138; Mertens 1960: 83; Redford 1992: 252. A representation 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.
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.
399 Gitin, Dothan & Naveh 1997: 11; note with Weidner 1939:
There is little information about the Philistine language –
932-3 that the ethnic Iaman “Ionian” on the basis of the onomastic evidence may include reference to Lycians.
we only know that the cities of their pentapolis were
400 Gitin, Dothan & Naveh 1997: 11; Byrne 2002: 11-2. 391 I Samuel 13, 19-23. For the distribution of iron objects in the
401 Stephanos of Byzantion, Ethnica, s.v. Gaza; cf. Macalister
eastern Mediterranean largely neglecting Anatolia, see Buchholz 1999: 710-11, Abb. 109-10.
1913: 15; Gardiner 1947: 202; Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopädie, s.v. Philister; Strobel 1976: 160.
96
t o answer this question it needs to b e determined whether Philistines can be traced on Crete. The answer to the latter question is no. The only way in which we can account for a migration of the Biblical Philistines from Crete is when the latter are identical to the Pelasgians from 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
a
b
many respects reflects Late Bronze Age history.403 Now,
c
the Pelasgians are a population group which inhabited
Fig. 18. Figurines from (a) Asdod, (b) Cyprus, and (c) Mycenae
mainland Greece prior to the first Greeks, and were driven
(from Sandars 1980: 165, afb. 116).
by them first to Thessaly and later to the Aegean islands and the western coast of Asia Minor. As far as the evidence goes, the Pelasgians came to Crete under the leadership 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 occurred before c. 1600-1450 BC. This emigration from Thessaly to Crete can be backed up by toponymic evi-
(a)
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 interpolation. 404 Andron of Halikarnassos in Strabo, Geography X, 4, 6; Diodoros of Sicily, The Library of History IV, 60, 2; cf. ibid. V, 80, 1.
(b)
405 Fick 1905: 13-15; cf. Sakellariou 1977: 212; 137 (addition of
Pylǀros and BƝnƝ); for other instances of the place name Larisa connected with Pelasgians – to which may be added Larision pedion 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.
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
salian Gyrtone.406 On the basis of this evidence, the Pelas-
enough from Troy to justify the use of the word tƝle “far
gians referred to by Homeros are likely to be considered as
away (from his home town Larisa)” in connection with the
(a component of) the Late Bronze Age population of the
death of the Pelasgian leader Hippothoos.411
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 recorded for the Lydian historian Xanthos according to which the Philistines originated from Lydia.408 This tradition has come down to us in two forms, both of which fo-
(a)
cus on the Philistine town Askelon. First, Athenaios remarks that according to Xanthos the Lydian Mopsos captured 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 region of Larisa Phrikonis along the Hermos river – far
(b) 406 In casu Proto-Indo-European (= PIE) *ghordh- “town”, which
is also present in the Italian TN’s, reportedly diffused by the Pelasgians, Croton and Cortona, Phrygian Gordion, Slavonic grad-, etc., see Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995: 647; Phoenician qrt- as in Carthago (< qrth̙dšt “New Town”), see Eisler 1939. 407 Schachermeyr 1979: 122-3 so-called “Nobelware” with “antithetic horns” and “bird looking backwards” motifs attested for Hagia Triada, Phaistos, and Gortyn; for Mycenaean IIIC1b examples of “antithetic horns” from Sinda, Cyprus, and Askelon, Philistia, 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.
(c)
409 Deipnosophistai VIII, 346e. Note that the personal name Mop-
sos, which on the basis of the related geographical name Mopsopia originates 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 Vanschoonwinkel 1991: 316-22.
Fig. 20. Late Helladic IIIC1b ware with “antithetic horns” and
410 Ethnica, s.v. Askelǀn.
411 Strabo, Geography XIII, 3, 2; Homeros, Iliad XVII, 301.
“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
98
Phrikonis (in casu Pitane and Larisa itself) produced some
The same root is also attested for the name of the leader of
Mycenaean IIIC1b ware (as we have noted above the
the Thessalian Pelasgians in their journey to Crete, Teuta-
hallmark of the settlement of Sea Peoples in the Levant),
mos, referred to above,419 and that of the grandfather of
reported to be connected with the foundation of Emborio
the Pelasgian leaders in the Trojan war, TeutamidƝs,
– likewise inhabited by Pelasgians at the
probably a patronymic.420 It is particularly relevant to our
time!413 As such, then, it is certainly possible that the Pe-
purposes to note that this root occurs in the New Phrygian
lasgians, either from Crete and/or the west coast of Lydia
form teutous and in the Thracian man’s name (= MN)
(especially for Askelon), are responsible for the introduc-
Tautomedes, etc.421 Furthermore, Abas is the heros epo-
tion of Mycenaean IIIC1b ware in Philistia.
nym of the Abantes, a Thracian tribe.422 Finally, Akrisios
on
Chios412
If our identification of the Biblical Philistines with the
and Proitos have closely related Phrygian counterparts in
Pelasgians from Greek literary sources applies, we enlarge
the divine name Akrisias423 and the root of the magistracy
our basis for linguistic analysis considerably. According to
proitavos,424 respectively. The impression we gain from
Herodotos, the Pelasgians of Kreston, who originated from
these examples, is that Pelasgian, insofar as onomastics is
Thessaly, speak the same language as their tribesmen in
significant in this respect, may well be an Indo-European
Plakia and Skylake on the Hellespont, who once lived with
language of Thraco-Phrygian type. Further instances can
the Athenians.414 Thucydides adds to this information that
be adduced to emphasize this point, like Adrastos,425 cor-
the Pelasgians of Akte, who are of origin Tyrrhenians once
responding to the Phrygian MN Adrastos,426 and Arkas,427
living in Lemnos and Attica, are bilingual and speak Greek
related to the root of the Phrygian patronymic Arkiae-
next to their own
language.415
vas.428
Now, as the Pelasgians in
mainland Greece appear to be ancestral to their kinsmen in
The situation is different with the Pelasgians in west-
the north-Aegean region (and western Anatolia), it seems
ern Anatolia. Thus, it is reported by Strabo that at the time
advisable to have a look at them first. An interesting tradition in this respect is formed by the story of the Pelasgian
Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995: 33; 652; 835; pace Beekes 1998.
king of Argos,416 Akrisios, son of Abas and brother of
419 See note 404 above.
Proitos, who in fear of his grandson Perseus flees from his hometown to Larisa in Thessaly under the rule of the like-
420 Homeros, Iliad II, 840-3. Note that the Late Bronze Age date
wise Pelasgian king Teutamias.417 Here we encounter at
of this onomastic element is emphasized by its presence in Linear B te-u-ta-ra-ko-ro, see Chantraine 1958: 127.
least one clearly Indo-European name, Teutamias, which is
421 Haas 1966: 95; Detschew 1976, s.v.
based on the PIE stem *teutƗ- “society, folk, people”.418
422 Homeros, Iliad II, 536-45; Strabo, Geography X, 1, 3; cf.
Woudhuizen 1989: 196. 412 Mee 1978: 148; cf. Hope Simpson 1981: 206, who distin-
423 Diakonoff & Neroznak 1985: 91; based on the PIE root *akr-
guishes as many as three building phases in Mycenaean IIIC1b for Emborio.
“high”, see Lochner-Hüttenbach 1960: 160-1 and cf. Sakellariou 1980: 207-10, or *ak̗er-, see Haas 1966: 145, 213 and cf. Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995: 96.
413 Strabo, Geography XIII, 3, 3; Dionysios Pieregetes as presented by Lochner-Hüttenbach 1960: 59.
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 names, cf. Hittite Labarnas < labarna- “king”, Lydian Kandaules < Luwian ® antawat- “king”, Etruscan Porsenna < pur-ne “prytanos”, Etruscan Camitlna < camthi (title), Etruscan Macstrna < Latin magister “magistrate”, Latin Lucius < Etruscan lucumo “king”, Phoenician Malchus < mlk- “king”, and, from Homeros, Palmus < Lydian pal1ml1u- “kingship” and Prutanis < prutanos, again.
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 *h2erg̗- “bright white”) may well be considered a Pelasgian place name, which would add further substance to the Indo-European nature of this people.
425 Lochner-Hüttenbach 1960: 13 (Euripides).
417 Lochner-Hüttenbach 1960: 3 (Pherekydes of Athens, Frag-
426 Herodotos, Histories I, 34-5; Woudhuizen 1993b. Cf. Lydian
mente der griechischen Historiker 3 F 12); 4 (Hellanikos of Lesbos F 91); 29-30 (Apollodoros of Athens); cf. 23 (Kallimachos); 160 (general discussion).
AtraĞta-, see Gusmani 1964, s.v. 427 Lochner-Hüttenbach 1960: 68 (Hesychius Alexandrinus).
418 Lochner-Hüttenbach 1960: 151-3; Sakellariou 1977: 132-3;
428 Brixhe & Lejeune 1984: M-01a; Woudhuizen 1993b.
99
of their foundation of Kume, the Aiolian Greeks have to
one finds evidence for Pelasgians as well.437 Apparently,
cope with the resistence of the local Pelasgians under the
Thucydides is right in considering the Tyrrhenians a sub-
leadership of
Piasos.429
The latter personal name is clearly
group of the Pelasgians – who after all have a wider distri-
based on the root of Luwian piya- “to give” as present in
bution over the Aegean. In line with this deduction, the
Luwian names of the type Piyamaradus and Natrbije1mi-
Lemnos stele (c. 600 BC), which is generally agreed to be
(= the Lycian equivalent of Greek Apollodoros or Apollo-
conducted in the Tyrrhenian language, may inform us
dotos).430
An Anatolian background seems also plausible
about Pelasgian just as well. At any rate, the two versions
for the Pelasgians who according to Hellanikos of Lesbos
of the dating formula inform us that the monument was
under the leadership of Nanas, son of Teutamides, are re-
erected during the reign of the Phokaian Holaie (= Pelas-
ported to have colonized Cortona in Italy.431 At any rate,
gian Holaias!),438 who is specified as king over the
the personal name Nanas, which is paralleled for Lydian,
Myrinians and Seronians in the Aiolian coastal zone of
Lycian, and Cilician sources, ultimately originates from
Mysia – i.e. precisely the region where we situate the Pe-
the Luwian kinship term nani- “brother” – a typical Lu-
lasgian allies of the Trojans at the time of the Trojan war
wian reflex of PIE *n-g̗enh1-.432 Finally, it deserves atten-
(see above).439 Now, the language of the Lemnos stele
tion in this connection that the king of the Pelasgians at
shows some features, like the titular expression *vanaca-
Lemnos at the time of the invasion by the Athenian
“king” and the 3rd person singular of the past tense in -ke,
Miltiades (c. 510 BC) is called
Hermǀn433
– a name paral-
which are unparalleled for Luwian and rather point to a re-
leled for a Lydian king434 and likely to be based upon the
lationship with Phrygian (dating formula midai lavagtaei
Arma-.435
If we confine our-
vanaktei “during the military leadership and kingship of
selves to this latter class of evidence, the Pelasgian lan-
Midas”)440 and/or Greek (Mycenaean wa-na-ka, Homeric
guage might well come into consideration as an Indo-
anaks “king”; kappa-perfectum).441 This relation of the
European vernacular of Luwian type.
Tyrrhenian or Pelasgian language with (pre-)Greek can be
Luwian onomastic element
Is it feasible to assume that the Pelasgians from
further illustrated by pointing to the correspondence of
Greece, who at the outset spoke a Thraco-Phrygian lan-
Etruscan hu- “4”, netĞvis or netsvis “haruspex”, puia
guage, with the change of their habitat to western Anatolia
“wife”, pur-ne or purtsna “prytanis”, turan (form of ad-
also went over to speak a Luwian dialect? We can go into this matter a little further if we realize that the distinction
rodotos, Histories I, 94 (Lydia), and Konon, Fragmente der griechischen Historiker 26 F 1 (Kyzikos), cf. Schachermeyr 1929: 262-76, Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopädie, s.v. Tyrrhener, and Beekes 2002: 226-7.
of the Pelasgians from the Tyrrhenians is a futile one: for almost every location where Tyrrhenians are attested,436
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 (Samos), Menekrates of Elaia (Mykale in Caria), Strabo, Geography XIII, 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.
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 Antiquities I, 28, 3. 432 Neumann 1991: 65; Woudhuizen 1998-9; contra Beekes 2002: 222 (“Lallname”).
438 Fick 1905: 104.
433 Lochner-Hüttenbach 1960: 61 (Zenobius Paroemiographus 3,
439 Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 139-53; Woudhuizen 1998: 109-
85).
11. For the settlement of Lemnos by Pelasgians from the east, in casu Tenedos, see Hellanikos of Lesbos Fragmente der griechischen Historiker 4, 71 (not in Lochner-Hüttenbach 1960). Probably, this took place in the late 8th or early 7th century BC – the foundation date of Hephaistia, see Beschi 1994; cf. Beekes 2001: 362.
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 named after the Tyrrhenian Metas (Lesbos), Philogoros, frg. 5 (Imbros), Neanthes, frg. 30: the brother of Pythagoras is called TurrƝnos (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-
440 Brixhe & Lejeune 1984: M-01; Woudhuizen 1993a: 2. 441 Charsekin 1963: 28; 48; 65 compares Etruscan turuce to Greek
dedǀrƝke (< dǀrein “to give”); for code-mixing in a bilingual environment, see Adams, Janse & Swain 2002.
100
dress of Aphrodite), to (pre-)Greek HuttƝnia “Tetrapolis”,
wards,448 but in the course of time spread all over the is-
nƝdus “entrails”, opuiǀ “to take as wife”, prutanis “ruler”,
land and, in the time of the Minoan thalassocracy, even
and turannos “tyrant”,
respectively.442
On the basis of this
beyond to the islands in the Aegean, Ayios Stephanos in
evidence, then, it may safely be concluded that the Tyrrhe-
mainland Greece, and Miletos and Troy in western Asia
nian or Pelasgian ancestors of the later Etruscans, although
Minor.449 As first suggested by Cyrus Gordon, Linear A is
basically speaking a Luwian vernacular at least since the
used to write a Semitic language. Thus, Gordon pointed
time of their move to western
Anatolia,443
had a long his-
out that the Linear A equivalent in the Hagia Triada (=
tory of contact with (pre-)Greek, which can only be ac-
HT) corpus of Linear B to-so “total”, in his reading with
counted for if the literary tradition about the original
Linear B values ku-ro, corresponds to Hebrew kull “all”.
habitat of the Tyrrheno-Pelasgians in Attica is historically
Furthermore, he convincingly identified pot names, which
valid.444
appear in direct association with their image on tablet HT
What remains to be discussed is the language of the
31, with Semitic counterparts.450 This work was supple-
Pelasgians whom we have seen reason to identify as (a
mented by Jan Best, who, amongst others, showed that the
component of) the Late Bronze Age population of the Me-
Linear A equivalents in the HT corpus of Linear B a-pu-
sara plain in Crete. Now, there are three types of script re-
do-si “delivery” and o-pe-ro “deficit” read, with their
corded for Crete: hieroglyphic, Linear A, and Linear B. Of
original Linear A values, te-lnj and ki-lnj, which forms re-
these, Linear B is either introduced from the Greek
call Akkadian tƝlû “Einkünfte, Ertrag” and kalû(m) as in
mainland or developed at Knossos after the period of the
eqla kalû(m) “Pachtabgabe schuldig bleiben”, respec-
desastrous Santorini-eruption at the end of Late Minoan IB (c. 1450 BC), which marks the end of the Minoan thalas-
tively.451 In addition to this, he compared the transaction term pu-knj in HT 31 to Akkadian pnj® u “exchange” and
socracy and presents the Mycenaean Greeks the opportu-
the element pnj-tnj, which is used in association with ku-lnj
nity to take over control of the weakened island. It is found
on the back side of tablet HT 122 in a similar way as Lin-
Khania.445
ear B pa with to-so for to-so-pa “grand total”, to Akkadian
Since its decipherment by the British architect Michael
pnjtu “front side”, leading to the interpretation of pnj-tu-ku-
Ventris in 1952, we know that it is used to write an early
lnj as “total with the front side included”.452 Definite proof,
form of the Greek language, the so-called Mycenaean
however, of the west-Semitic nature of the language of
Greek.446
mainly in the palace of Knossos, but also at
Simultaneously with the Linear B archives at
Linear A came with Best’s unravelling of the libation for-
Knossos, which date to the period of Late Minoan II to
mula frequently attested for wash-hand stone-basins from
Late Minoan IIIA1/2 ( c. 1450-1350 BC), modest Linear A
peak-sanctuaries destroyed at the end of Middle Minoan III
archives of about 150 tablets in sum are found in Hagia
(c. 1600 BC), which presents a full phrase and reads
Triada – the harbor town of the palace of Phaistos in the Mesara.447 This latter script is recorded for Phaistos from
(y)a-ta-nnj-tƯ wa/u-ya (y)a-dƯ ® i-t e-te (y)a-sa-sa-ra-
the Middle Minoan II period (c. 1800-1700 BC) on-
ma/e “I have given (Ugaritic ytn/’tn, -t) and (Ugaritic w/u, y) my hand (Ugaritic yd/d, -Ư) has made an expiatory offering (Ugaritic ® t , -t), Oh Assara (Hebrew GN
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-
448 Vandenabeele 1985: 18.
nian acropolis by the Pelasgians (Herodotos, Histories VI, 137-40) is correct, their presence in Attica can even be dated archaeologically to the period of the 15th to 13th century BC, see Broneer 1956: 12-3.
449 Vandenabeele 1985: 18 (Kea, Melos, Thera, Kythera); Niemeier 1996 (Miletos); Godart 1994 and Faure 1996 (Troy). 450 Gordon 1957; Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 1-7.
445 Hallager 1992.
451 Best 1973: 54-5.
446 Ventris & Chadwick 1973.
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 & Woudhuizen 1989: 1-7.
447 Best 1981b: 37-45; Achterberg, Best, Enzler, Rietveld &
Woudhuizen 2004, section 3. For the Hagia Triada tablets, see Meijer 1982.
101
Asherah, Ugaritic y-, -m)!”.453
ing in hieroglyphs, like that of Linear A, is discontinued – having succumbed to the Mycenaean koinƝ.
As a final eample, it deserves our attention that even
Among the earliest hieroglyphic seals, there is a small
the typical Semitic dative by the prefix l is attested for
group with the so-called libation formula – one example
Linear A in form of a-re as occurring in the phrase
stemming from the Mesara plain – , which is connected with the later Linear A formula discussed above and con-
a-ta-nu-tƯ de-ka a-re ma-re-na ti-ti-ku
sists of hieroglyphic forerunners of Linear A signs from its final section, reading with the Linear A values a-sa-sa-ra-
“I, Titikos, have given this to our guild-master”
me “Oh Assara!”. On the basis of the presence of a corresponding form of the Ugaritic emphatic particle -m, the
on a pithos from Epano Zakro, usually assigned to the the end of Late Minoan IB (c. 1450
language of this text may be identified as Semitic.459 For
BC).454
However, the fact that Linear A records a west-
our understanding of the hieroglyphic inscriptions more in
Semitic language is not the end of our inquiry into the lan-
general, however, it is important to realize that the signary
guages of Crete. We still need to discuss the hieroglyphic
is basically related to that of Luwian hieroglyphic from
script. This is found from the beginning of the Old Palace
primarily southern Asia Minor and North Syria, which is
phase in the Early Minoan III/Middle Minoan IA transi-
already attested from the beginning of the Middle Bronze
tional period (c. 2000 BC) onwards both in the regions of
Age (c. 2000 BC) onwards.460 On Crete, the signs of Lu-
Knossos and Malia in the north and the Mesara plain in the
wian hieroglyphic origin were supplemented by loans from
south.455
Hieroglyphic archives are attested for the palaces
Egyptian hieroglyphic, like the bee- and “trowel”-signs,461
of Knossos and Malia in the Middle Minoan II (c. 1800-
and, from Middle Minoan II (c. 1800-1700) onwards, by
1700 BC) period, when the script is even exported to
hieroglyphically drawn signs from Linear A.462 This being
north-Aegean.456
Most of the seals with
the case, we should rather apply the term “Luwianizing”
an hieroglyphic legend consist of chance finds, and are
for this class of Cretan documents. At any rate, if we fill in
therefore not archaeologically datable. But from the fact
the Luwian values for their Cretan counterparts, we are
that some of the hieroglyphic signs are taken over by the
confronted with three categories of evidence on the seals
Cyprians at the time they devised the Cypro-Minoan script
with what I have called profane formulas: (1) titles, (2)
(= c. 1525-1425 BC), it can be deduced that the use of the
names of places and countries, and (3) personal names.
script continued into the Late Minoan I period (c. 1550-
Confining ourselves to the evidence with a bearing on the
Samothrace in the
BC).457
Finally, the double-axe of Arkalokhori and
Mesara, two seals are of importance to our purposes. In the
the famous discus of Phaistos, which bear hieroglyphic in-
first place # 271 from Malia, which dates to the earliest
scriptions of unusual length, can positively be assigned to
phase of the script (no signs from Linear A!) and reads:
1450
the period of Late Minoan II to Late Minoan IIIA1/2 (c.
1.
1450-1350 BC).458 After this period, the tradition of writ-
SASA UTNA/,
2. /sà-® ur-wa/ 3. la+PÁRANA
TARKU-
MUWA
“seal (with respect to) the land (of) Skheria, king
453 Best 1981a; Best 1981b: 17-20; Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 26;
Tarkumuwas”.
Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 25; cf. Hiller 1985: 125-7. 454 Best 1982-3a; for yet another Linear A inscription with a-re,
As Skheria can be identified as the ancient name of
see the gold ring from Mavro Spelio (= Best 1982-3b: 22-5).
Hagia Triada, the seal, although found in Malia, nonethe-
455 Grumach 1968: 9; cf. Poursat in Olivier & Godart 1996: 31
who dates from Middle Minoan IA onwards.
tion.
456 Poursat in Olivier & Godart 1996: 29-30.
459 Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 25-6; Woudhuizen 2001b: 608-9.
457 Woudhuizen 2001b: 610.
460 Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 30-89; Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 65-137; Woudhuizen 1990-1; Woudhuizen 1992c: pl. 26; Woudhuizen 2004a : 112-20; 129-43; Woudhuizen forthc. 1.
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-
461 Woudhuizen 1997; Woudhuizen 2002b. 462 Woudhuizen 1992c: pl. 24; Woudhuizen forthc. 1.
102
less informs us about the situation in the Mesara.463 The
singular – used in the realm of the noun as well in the re-
second seal is # 296 of undetermined findspot, which for
lated Cyprian dialect (te-lu sa-ne-me-ti “delivery to Sane-
the use of three Linear A signs may be assigned to the pe-
mas”).469 Furthermore, in HT 28 and 117 mention is made
riod after c. 1800 BC and reads:
of u-mi-na-si, which appears to be an adjectival derivative of the Luwian hieroglyphic root umina- “town”.470 Finally,
1. SASA UTNA SARU, 2. PÁRA-tá-rú, 3. pi-ni, 4. pa3-ya-ki
the functionary in the heading of HT 31 is designated as
“seal (with respect to) the land (and) official(s) (of)
mi-ti-sa – an honorific title paralleled for Luwian hiero-
the Phaiakians, representative Bartaras”.
glyphic texts.471 The Luwian nature of the primary language of the inhabitants of the Mesara plain is further
Here Hagia Triada is referred to by the ethnonym
examplified by the hieroglyphic inscriptions of the double-
Phaiakians (= Homeric Phaiakes), the root of which is also
axe from Arkalokhori and the Phaistos disc, especially the
present in the name of nearby Phaistos.464 From a linguis-
latter of which bears testimony of a local Luwian dialect
tic point of view, it is interesting to note that the personal
(a-tu instead of à-tá “in”, u-pa instead of
names are Luwian, the first corresponding to Luwian
hind”).472 Now the Phaistos disc, which, as we have seen
Tarkimǀs or Tarkomǀs,465 and the second to Lydian Barta-
in section 8, according to the reading and interpretation re-
raĞ.466 Furthermore, the title in the first instance is like-
cently put forward by a Dutch group of scholars (cf. note
wise Anatolian, being identical to Hittite labarna-,467
472) consists of a letter to the Akhaian king Nestor by an
whereas the second seal is characterized by a Semitic title, recalling Ugaritic bn in expressions like bn lky “representa-
Anatolian great king likely to be identified as Tar®undaradus of Arzawa, is particularly of interest to our
tive of the Lycians”, etc.468 The impression we gain from
purposes as it informs us that the king of Phaistos is called
this evidence is that the region of Hagia Triada and Phais-
Kunawa. This name, which in the form ku-ne-u is also at-
tos in the Old Palace phase is inhabited by Luwians, who
tested for the Linear B tablets from Knossos,473 bears a
adopted the Semitic language in religious and official mat-
close resemblance to Gouneus, the leader of the Peraibians
ters in order to adapt to the international standards of the
and the people from Dodona and the Peneios region in
time.
Thessaly at the time of the Trojan war.474 To all probabil-
APA-à
“after, be-
The foregoing conclusion can be further underlined if
ity, then, we are dealing here with a Pelasgian personal
we take a look at the evidence from the Late Minoan IIIA1
name, thus confirming that there are Pelasgians among the
period. As noted above, the corpus of Hagia Triada texts is conducted in the Semitic language. From slips of the pen,
469 Meijer 1982: 60; Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 123; Woudhuizen
however, it is deducible that the primary language of the
1992a: 96. See also section 5, note 90, above.
scribes happens to be Luwian. Thus, in the sequence te-lnj
470 Cf. Laroche 1960a: *228; Woudhuizen 1994-5: 183; Woud-
da-ku-se-ne-ti “delivery to Taku-šenni” from HT 104 the
huizen 2004a: 41.
dative singular is expressed by the ending -ti, which recalls
471 Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 4. For Luwian hieroglyphic, see
the Luwian hieroglyphic pronominal ending of the dative
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 evidence, 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.
463 Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 115-8; Woudhuizen 2004a: 13943; Woudhuizen forthc. 1. 464 Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 126; Best 2000: 29; Woudhuizen
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.
forthc. 2; see further appendix I. 465 Houwink ten Cate 1961: 127. 466 Gusmani 1964, s.v. Bartara- (Lyd. no. 40).
473 Ventris & Chadwick 1973: glossary, s.v.
467 Laroche 1960a: *277; as a personal name, this title is used for
474 Homeros, Iliad II, 748-55; Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 76; 83.
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.
According to Simonides (= Strabo, Geography IX, 5, 20) the Perrhaibians (= 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 Pelasgian presence in Crete, see appendix IV.
468 Gordon 1955: glossary, s.v. bn; Astour 1964: 194. On Cretan
hieroglyphic, see further appendix I.
103
inhabitants of the Mesara plain at the time!
question it is relevant to note that Pelasgians colonizing the
To recapitulate our evidence on the language of the
north of Italy were confronted with Umbrians,478 whereas
Pelasgians, we have experienced the following. First, at the
their colleagues preferring the south had to drive out
time that the Pelagians formed part of the earliest recorded
Auronissi (= variant form of Aurunci, a Latin indication of
inhabitants of Greece, they probably spoke a Thraco-
Oscans).479 Accordingly, the migration in question can
Phrygian language. Second, when – driven out by the
only be situated after the arrival of the Urnfield ancestors
Greeks – they migrated to western Anatolia, the Pelasgians
of the Oscans and Umbrians in Italy at the end of the
adapted to the local language and went over to speak a
Bronze Age (see section 10), which means in the course of
Luwian vernacular, which, however, still bore testimony of
the Early Iron Age. In southern Etruria and Latium, the Pe-
a long history with (pre-)Greek. Third, those Pelasgians
lasgians are reported to have stumbled upon Sicels,480
which went to the Mesara plain in Crete likewise adapted
which is more problematic to situate in the Early Iron Age,
to the local linguistic situation, using Luwian as their pri-
because the latter were already kicked out of this environ-
mary language and Semitic in religious and official matters
ment by the Umbrians and the Opicans (= Greek indication
in order to keep up with the international standards at the
of the Oscans) apparently at the turn of the Bronze Age to
time. Evidently, the migrations of the Pelasgians were not
the Early Iron Age.481 Their presence in central Italy at the
massive enough to alter the existing linguistic situation in
arrival of the Pelasgians may therefore well be due to an
the new homeland. The latter conclusion ties in with the
anachronism of our source, Dionysios of Halikarnassos,
fact that the Pelasgians in western Anatolia were not so
basing himself on antiquarian relics.482
important as to enter into the Hittite records as a distinct
As we have seen in the above, there is reason to be-
population group. As a closing remark to this section, it
lieve that the Pelasgians in the Aegean region are actually
may be of interest to note that all three linguistic layers
identical with the Tyrrhenians recorded for the same area.
discussed are demonstrable for the Philistines in their new
This identification by and large holds good for their kins-
home in the Levant: Thraco-Phrygian in the place name
men in Italy as well, but not in every case. Thus, the Pe-
Ekron, which bears witness of the PIE root *akr- or *ak̗er-
lasgian presence at Caere is clearly distinct from the
“high”, Luwian in the personal name Goliath, which re-
subsequent one of the Tyrrhenians, identified as Lydians.
calls Lydian names of the type Alyattes, Sadyattes, etc.,475
At the time of the Pelasgians, the site is called Agylla.
and Semitic in the divine name ’šrt “Asherah (with Phoe-
When the Lydians attacked the site, so the story goes, one
nician feminine ending -t)” as recorded for Ekron.476 As it
of them asked how it is called. A Pelasgian, not under-
seems, then, the Pelasgian ancestors of the Philistines pre-
standing the question, saluted him in Greek: khaire. As a
served their ethnic identity during the period of the
consequence, the Lydians believed the site to be called like
Mycenaean koinƝ (c. 1350-1200 BC)! 478 Justinus, Epitoma historiarum philippicarum Pompei Trogi XX, 1, 11 (Spina); Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman Antiquities I, 20, 4 (Cortona); II, 49, 1 (ager Reatinus).
Additional note 1: Pelasgians in Italy
479 Dionysios of Halikarnasso, Roman Antiquities I, 21, 3.
Pelasgian population groups are not only recorded for the
480 Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman Antiquities I, 20, 4-5; cf. Briquel 1984: 175, note 31 (Caere); 298-9 (Pisa, Saturnia, Alsium); Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman Antiquities I, 21; cf. Briquel 1984: 351-2 (ager Faliscus); Briquel 1984: 361, note 14 (various locations in Latium).
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
481 Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman Antiquities I, 22, 4-5. 475 Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopädie, s.v. Philister; Dothan 1982:
482 Cf. Briquel 1984: 300-1. Note in this connection the Sicel nature 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 Halikarnassos, 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.
22; Machinist 2000: 63-4; Indo-European more in general is the genitive in -š as recorded for the patronyms in a Philistine inscription 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.
104
Additional note 2: The inventor of the trumpet: Tyrrhenian, Pelasgian, or Lydian?
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
In his Geography, Strabo informs us about Regisvilla – the
(see section 11). As a final example of relevance here, it
harbor of Vulci – that it once used to be the seat of the pal-
may be put forward that the Pelasgians at Pisa, called Teu-
ace of Maleos, a Pelasgian king. After having reigned here,
tones, Teutoni or Teutae, are considered to be Greek
this king is said to have moved with his Pelasgian follow-
speaking, whereas at a later time the dominant language
ing to Athens.486 In line with the latter reference, it is in-
here became Lydian.485
teresting to note that a Tyrrhenian Maleos or MaleotƝs is
If we realize that the name of the leader of the Pelas-
actually recorded for Attica in connection with the feast of
gians at Rome, Evander, constitutes a Greek formation, be-
Aiora.487 Now, the Tyrrhenians who once lived with the
ing a compound of eu “good” with anƝr (G andros) “man”,
Athenians were notorious for their piracy,488 and it hence
the distinctive feature of these Pelasgian groups as opposed
comes as no surprise that an excellent site for piratical
to the Tyrrhenians appears to be their Greek or Greek-like
raids like cape Malea is reported to have been named after
language. In the present section, however, we have experi-
their leader Maleos. This very same Maleos, then, is also
enced that language is not a defining “criterium” for Pelas-
credited with the invention of the trumpet – a handy in-
gians in the Aegean during the Late Bronze Age, as they
strument for the coordination of military and/or piratical
may speak either Greek-like Thraco-Phrygian when in an
action.489 (The dedication of a stone in the harbor of Phais-
European environment or Luwian when in an Anatolian
tos to Poseidon is also ascribed to a certain Maleos, but we
environment, or even Semitic as a secondary language
do not know whether this refers to one and the same per-
when in a Cretan environment to keep up with the interna-
son.490 Note in this connection that in form of Marewa or
tional standards of the time. As such, the distinction be-
Marewo (genitive) or Mareu the name in question is al-
tween Pelasgians and Tyrrhenians in the given Italian
ready attested for Linear B inscriptions from Malia and Py-
situations results from secondary interference by later his-
los, respectively.491)
torians. Nevertheless, it allows us to assume that the home-
The invention of the trumpet, however, is not only as-
land of some Pelasgians must be sought in those sections
cribed to the Pelasgian or Tyrrhenian Maleos, but also to
of the Aegean where Greek or Greek-like Thraco-Phrygian
the Tyrrhenian Pisaios492 or Tyrrhenos or his son – which
was spoken at the time of departure, whereas that of others
evidently keeps us in the sphere of influence of the Tyr-
in sections of the Aegean where Luwian or Luwian-like
rheno-Pelasgians493 – or the Lydian MƝlas, a son of
then predominated. Finally, it deserves our attention that
Herakles and Omphale.494 The latter name cannot be dis-
the Greek-like language of some of the Pelasgians in Italy for the presence of the roots *h2nƝr- “man, strength”, *sal-
486 Strabo, Geography V, 2, 8.
or *seh2l- “salt” (as in the TN Alsium), and *teutƗ- “soci-
487 Hesykhios, s.v. Aiǀra; Etymologicum Magnum, s.v. AlƝtis; cf. Briquel 1984: 264-5.
ety, folk, people” may further underline its overall IndoEuropean nature.
488 Hesykhios, s.v. TyrrhƝnoi desmoi and desmoi TyrrhƝnikoi; 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.).
483 Strabo, Geography V, 2, 3.
492 Photios, s.v. lƝistosalpigktas; cf. Briquel 1991: 365, note 92.
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.
493 Hyginus, Fabulae 274; Pausanias, Guide to Greece II, 21, 3; cf. Briquel 1991: 322.
485 Briquel 1984: 304-5.
note 53.
494 Scholiast ad Homeros, Iliad XVIII, 219; cf. Briquel 1991: 332,
105
sociated from that of MƝlƝs, 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 further emphasized by the attestation in an epichoric Lydian inscription of Me1llali-, an adjectival derivative in -li- of Me1l1aĞ.496 Given the relationship of the name Maleos to Lydian Melas or Meles, the Tyrrheno-Pelasgian and Lydian traditions 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 Pontic region as indicated by the Lydian supremacy over Abydos 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 southwest as indicated by archaeological and epigraphical evidence from the late 8th century BC. 499 Anyhow, whatever the merits of the TyrrhenoPelasgian 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 contingent 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 Me1l1aĞ (and hence the related Tyrrheno-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).
106
13. TEUKROI, AKAMAS, AND TROJAN GREY WARE The Tjeker of the Egyptian sources, who are mentioned
course, possible that, like in the case of the Mycenaean
among the Sea Peoples attacking Egypt in the fifth and eighth year of Ramesses III (= 1179 and 1176 BC), and are
Greeks being called Tanayu “Danaoi” by the Egyptians but A® ® iyawa “Akhaians” by the Hittites, the Egyptians pre-
later recorded in the Wen Amon story (1076-1074 BC) as
ferred a different ethnonym from the Hittites, but because
inhabitants of the region of Dor in the Levant, have been
of the silence in the Hittite sources on this point we do not
identified with the Teukroi of Greek literary tradition by
know for sure. What the Hittite sources do tell us is that in
Lauth in
1867.500
This identification was subsequently
the reign of the Hittite great king Muwatallis II (1295-1271
taken over by François Chabas,501 and after him, the ma-
BC) the region of Wilusa (= Greek Ilion) is reigned by a
topic.502
As a minority view,
certain Alaksandus, whose name recalls the Homeric Alex-
however, it has been proposed by H.R. Hall to identify the
andros alias Paris.507 Now, in Herodotos’ version of the
Tjeker rather with the Sikeloi of Greek literary tradition.503
story of the abduction of Helena, according to which an
The latter view received new impetus by Elmar Edel’s argument that Egyptian [t] as a rule corresponds with the
unfavorable wind brings Paris and his company to Egypt,
jority of the authors on the
samekh.504
Paris is called of Teukrian birth.508 In this manner, then, a
However, a serious disadvantage of
direct link between Alaksandus of Wilusa from the Hittite
the latter line of approach is that the Shekelesh would re-
sources and the Teukroi from the Greek ones can be estab-
main without proper identification. Moreover, the equation
lished.
Hebrew
of Tjeker with the Teukroi receives further emphasis from
As far as the ultimate origins of the Teukroi are con-
archaeological as well as historical evidence (see below),
cerned, there are three different versions of myth. In the
whereas the one with the Sikeloi does not, for which rea-
first place, we have the autochthonous version according to
son in the following we will stick to the majority view.
which the heros eponym Teukros is the son of the river-
The Teukroi and their heros eponym Teukros are
god Skamandros and a nymph of mount Ida; in this version
definitely at home in the Troad. According to Herodotos,
his daughter Bateia married with Dardanos, the heros epo-
remnants of the ancient Teukroi are, under the name of
nym of the Dardanians – as we have seen the Egyptian de-
Gergithai, still traceable for the Troad at the beginning of
nomination of the inhabitants of the Troad.509 Secondly,
the 5th century BC.505 A problem is posed, however, by
we have the Cretan version which holds that the Teukroi
the fact that the Teukroi are not straightforwardly associ-
were colonists from Crete who settled in Hamaxitos510 and
ated with the Troad in our Late Bronze Age sources.
introduced the cult of the goddess Kybele.511 In archaeo-
Thus,506
in the Egyptian list of the Hittite allies at the bat-
logical terms, this version of the myth might be linked up
tle of Kadesh (1274 BC) troops from the region of the
with the radiation of Minoan influence to nearby
Troad are referred to as Drdny “Dardanians”. It is, of
Samothrace as deducible from the discovery of Cretan hieroglyphic 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
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).
507 Gurney 1990: 46.
503 Hall 1922: 301; cf. Gardiner 1947: 199-200 (undecided).
509 Apollodoros, Library III, 12, 1; Diodoros of Sicily, Library of
508 Herodotos, Histories II, 114.
History IV, 75, 1; cf. Strobel 1976: 50.
504 Edel 1984; cf. Lehmann 1985: 34-5 (critical, but undecided).
510 Strabo, Geography XIII, 1, 48; Strobel 1976: 50-1.
Edel’s view is now backed up by Drews 2000: 178-80, who herewith withdraws his earlier (1993: 52, note 13) objection. 505 Herodotos, Histories V, 122; VII, 43.
511 Vergilius, Aeneid III, 104 ff.; Vürtheim 1913: 4-8; Strobel 1976: 50.
506 Barnett 1969: 4.
512 Olivier & Godart 1996: 30 (# 135-7); cf. Matsas 1991: 168.
107
found here.513 It is interesting to note in this connection
section 7 above on the ethnogenesis of the Greeks we have
that Phrygian Kybele is attested in Luwian form Kupapa
seen reason for Thraco-Phrygian population groups of
for a magic spell to conjure the Asiatic pox in the language
Middle Helladic Greece who wanted to stay free to seek
of the Keftiu (= Cretans) as preserved in an Egyptian
new homes among their kinsmen to the north and northeast
medical papyrus presumably from the reign of Amenhotep
as a result of the arrival of foreign conquerors from the be-
III (1390-1352 BC) or one of his forerunners.514 Thirdly,
ginning of Late Helladic I (c. 1600 BC) onwards.521
there is the Athenian version according to which Teukros
Which of these three scenarios applies, cannot be deter-
ultimately originates from the Attic deme Xytepê515 or is
mined in the present state of the evidence. Therefore, it
staged as the son of Telamon, king of Salamis in
may suffice for our present purposes to observe that ac-
Greece.516 As duly noted by Einar Gjerstad, this last men-
cording to Greek literary sources “Teukroi” is the oldest
tioned form of the myth may have received emphasis from
designation of the population of the Troad, followed by
the Athenian policy vis-à-vis Cyprus in the 5th century
“Dardanians” (after Dardanos) and “Trojans” (after
BC.517
Tros).522
At any rate, from an archaeological point of view
the mythical relation between the Troad and southern
The literary tradition on Teukros also contains a num-
Greece might be reflected in the formal resemblance of the
ber of what appear to be dim reflections of the Tjeker’s
so-called Minyan ware, characteristic of mainland Greece
partaking in the upheavals of the Sea Peoples. Thus, it is
for the Early Helladic III and Middle Helladic periods,
related that Teukros, after the sack of Troy and the ban-
with Trojan grey ware (from the beginning of Troy VI on-
ishment from Salamis in Greece by his father Telamon,
wards)518
– a relation which in fact is so close that numer-
visited Egypt where he received an oracle about his ulti-
ous archaeologists used the term Minyan ware for the latter
mate destination, Salamis in Cyprus.523 Next, the story
as well.519 This would lead us to the assumption that the
goes that Teukros visited Sidon on his way to Cyprus and
inhabitants of the Troad from c. 1800 BC onwards are
received help from its king Belos (< Semitic Ba‘al “lord”)
kinsmen of the Thraco-Phrygian population groups of
in the colonization of Salamis.524 Finally, tradition has it
Middle Helladic Greece – a thesis materialized to some ex-
that Teukros takes Gergines from the Troad and Mysia
tent by Leonid
Gindin.520
with him as prisoners of war during the colonization of Sa-
Note in this connection that in
lamis in Cyprus.525 Considering the fact that Gergines is an ancient form of Gergithae,526 under which name, as we 513 Godart 1994; Faure 1996. 514 Woudhuizen 1992a: 1-10; see also appendix III below.
521 The expansion of the Mycenaean civilization to the north and
515 Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman Antiquities I, 61; Strabo,
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 generation before the Trojan war (c. 1280 BC). Furthermore, the Kaskans, who are characterized by a Thracian type of onomastics (see Woudhuizen 1993b: passim), became a growing threat to the Hittites 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.
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 (KebrionƝs); 263 (Laomedǀn ho Phrux, and his wife Strumǀ), to which may be added the Thracian nature of the personal name Paris, cf. Detschew 1976, s.v., and the Phrygian descent of Priamos’ wife HekabƝ (Iliad XVI, 718). Note that the analysis of Priamos < Luwian Pariya-muwas by Watkins 1986: 54 is dubious and that the first element of this personal name is rather linked up with that of local place names like Priapos, PriƝnƝ and Phrygian Prietas as stipulated 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.
522 Diodorus Siculus, Library of History IV, 75, 1; cf. Apollodoros, 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.
108
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 between the king of Ugarit and his superior, the king of Cyprus-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 actual colonization to Cyprus, again, and the Levant, is archaeologically traceable in the distribution of Trojan grey ware – not a widely desired export product, but evidence 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 Trojans 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 destroyed in the Late Bronze Age and subsequently characterized 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
have seen, the Teukroi were living in the Troad at the beginning of the 5th century BC, their being taken as prisoners of war probably results from a rationalization which tries to cope with the situation that Teukros, although being at home in the Troad, fights on the Greek side in the Iliad. 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 accomplished 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 recorded 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, opposite the island of Tenedos) and of Ephesos engaged in maritime trade, receiving goods at Enkomi529 and delivering 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 recorded 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 alexǀ “to ward off, protect” and anƝr “man”), the name of Akamas is of Greek type, being derived from Greek akamas “untiring”, 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.
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.
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 atipini is 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 Celtic eti, see Delamarre 2003, s.v.
537 Rutter 1975, who likewise attributes the presence of this ware in southern Greece at the beginning of Late Helladic IIIC to Balkan invaders.
531 Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 104 (Tablet Inv. no. 1193, line 3).
538 Dothan 1982: 69.
109
Fig. 21. Distribution of Trojan grey ware (from Heuck Allen 1994).
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!
the end of the Late Bronze Age, some, no doubt subsequent, 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.
110
14. THE CENTRAL MEDITERRANEAN CONTRIBUTION Sherden
as mercenaries in his army, for in the memorial of the battle 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 Majesty’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
The Sherden541 are first mentioned in the correspondence of the king of Byblos, Rib-addi, with the Egyptian pharaoh, 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 complains 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 alphabetic form t rtnm they occur in the context of t nnm “hand-to-hand fighters or skirmishers”, mrjnm “chariot fighters” and mdrg̗lm “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 acculturated 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 warships 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 Mediterranean 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
(a)
(b)
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.
Fig. 22. Sherden in the Egyptian reliefs from the reigns of
542 Moran 1992: 150 (EA 81: 16); Mercer 1939: EA no. 81.
Ramesses II and Ramesses III with (a) long slashing swords and
543 Moran 1992: 201-2 (EA 122: 35; 123: 15); Mercer 1939: EA
round shields, and (b) javelins (from Sandars 1980: 29, afb. 12 and
nos. 122-3.
32, afb. 14).
544 Loretz 1995: 128-32; cf. Drews 1993a: 155 (RS 15.103). 545 Drews 1993a: 155.
548 Gardiner 1960: P25-30; Drews 1993a: 131; cf. Breasted 1927: Vol. III, no. 307.
546 Gardiner 1961: 259; Drews 1993a: 153; cf. Breasted 1927:
Vol. IV, no. 491.
549 Drews 1993: 178-9; 184 (with reference to Sandars 1980: 32,
547 Gardiner 1947: 195.
afb. 14); 199 (with reference to Sandars 1980: 29, afb. 12).
111
The story continues with the Sherden fighting, like
pero. The latter argued that, on the analogy of the fact that
the Shekelesh, Ekwesh, Lukka, and Teresh, as allies or
the original homeland of the Tyrsenians is traced back to
mercenaries on the side of the Libyans, who, under the
Lydia by ancient authors, the Sherden are more likely to
leadership of their king Meryey, made an attempt to invade
originate from western Anatolia as well, where the name of
the Egyptian delta in order to settle there in the fifth year
the capital of the Lydians, Sardis, and related toponyms
of the reign of Merneptah (= 1208 BC).550 Subsequently,
like mount Sardena and the Sardanion plain and an eth-
in the memorial of the invasion of the Sea Peoples in year
nonym like Sardonians would be reminiscent of their pres-
eight of Ramesses III (= 1176 BC) at Medinet Habu, we
ence.556 Accordingly, the Sherden were considered to be
encounter the Sherden both as attackers and as mercenaries
on their way from their original home in Lydia to their
on the Egyptian side.551 The service of Sherden in the
later home in Sardinia at the time of the upheavals of the
Egyptian army can be shown to continue into the reign of
Sea Peoples.557 The revised view of Maspero has been par-
Ramesses V (1147-1143 BC), when members of this ethnic
ticularly influential. Thus a cautious scholar like the Egyp-
group are staged as proprietors of land granted to them by
tologist Alan Gardiner concluded: “Provisionally it seems
the pharaoh. As in the case of their kinsmen in the Levant,
plausible to accept the identification of the name Sherden
the Sherden in Egypt by then had acculturated to the extent
with that of Sardinia, and the identification of the name
that they all bore Egyptian names.552
Tursha with that of the TyrsƝnoi, but to regard Sardinia
The final mention of Sherden in the Near East is pro-
and Etruria as much later homes of the peoples in ques-
vided by the Onomasticon of Amenope, which reflects the
tion.”558 Similarly, Margaret Guido in her book on Sar-
political situation in the 11th century BC. Here the Sher-
dinia, after weighing the pro’s and con’s, is inclined to an
den occur in an enumeration followed by the Tjeker and
eastern origin of the Sherden.559 As we have seen in sec-
Peleset. From this enumeration one has deduced that there
tion 10 above, there is considerable evidence that Mas-
were Sherden living to the north of the Tjeker at Dor and
pero’s eastern origin of the Tyrsenians is correct. In the
the Peleset in their Philistine pentapolis at the time, in a lo-
case of the Sherden, however, the literary evidence from
cation plausibly identified with Akko.553 In archaeological
ancient authors to back up their eastern origin is absent:
terms, their settlement here may well be reflected in Late
here Maspero’s thesis rests upon nothing more than a like-
Helladic IIIC1b pottery554 – as we have noted before, the
ness in names, which might be spurious. It comes as no
hallmark of settlement of Sea Peoples in the Levant.
surprise, therefore, that de Rougé’s identification of the
Having reviewed the history of Sherden in the Near
Sherden as Sardinians can still count on some supporters
East, the question remains to be answered: where did they
up to the present day, like Richard D. Barnett in his contri-
come from? As we have seen, the Egyptian sources inform
bution to the third edition of the Cambridge Ancient His-
us that they came overseas. Now, two propositions have
tory560 and Drews in his book on the end of the Bronze
been put forward as to the origin of the Sherden: the island
Age.561
of Sardinia in the central Mediterranean and the region of
As it comes to the actual facts, it must be admitted
Sardis in western Anatolia. The first option was proposed
that these are meagre, indeed. The often referred to men-
by Emmanuel de Rougé already in 1867.555 Some years
tion of Šrdn “Sardinia” in a Phoenician inscription on a
later, in 1873, his view was challenged by Gaston Mas-
stele from Nora, dated to the 9th century BC, can only provide us with a terminus a quo for the name of the is-
550 Breasted 1927: Vol. III, no. 574; Drews 1993a: 49. 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.
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.
557 Hall 1926: 282.
552 Gardiner 1947: 195; for a full survey of the references to
Sherden in Egyptian texts, see Kahl 1995.
558 Gardiner 1947: 198.
553 Moshe Dothan 1986; Bikai 1992: 133.
559 Guido 1963: 187-91.
554 Bietak 1993: 297-8.
560 Barnett 1969: 12.
555 De Rougé 1867: 39.
561 Drews 1993a: 53-61; 70-2.
112
land.562 More revealing is the archaeological evidence pre-
basis of C14 datings to the period between 1400 and 1000
sented by Roger Grosjean. He drew our attention to simi-
BC, with a margin of error of 200 years.568 They give the
larities of the depictions of Sherden at Medinet with statue-
impression of a society of which the members are proud of
menhirs from southern Corsica,563 depicting so-called
their martial qualities and hence excellently fit for service
Torre-builders, who are identical with the Nuraghe-
as mercenaries, in which capacity we encountered the
builders from Sardinia.564 These entail: (1) the helmet with
Sherden in the Egyptian and Levantine sources.
horns, the latter element of which can be reconstructed for
Remaining archaeological evidence is of a circum-
some statue-menhirs on the basis of shallow holes once
stantial nature. As shown by Birgitta Pålsson Hallager,
holding another material;565 (2) the corselet with five rib-
contacts between Sardinia and the eastern Mediterranean,
bons;566 and (3) the long sword (see Fig. 23).567
especially Crete, can be detected for the later Bronze Age in the form of Mycenaean IIIB and C (including Late Helladic IIIC1b) material discovered foremostly in the nuraghe 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
(a)
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 belong 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 oxhide 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
(b)
world country in our present era, which is likely to provide the more developed eastern Mediterranean with mercenaries and raw materials.
Fig. 23. Statue-menhirs from Corsica: (a) Cauria (with horns reconstructed on the helmets), (b) Scalsa Murta (from Grosjean
568 Grosjean 1966a: 90; cf. Grosjean 1966b: 190 (from c. 1500 BC onwards).
1966b, Fig. 5; Sandars 1980: 99, afb. 60).
569 Pålsson Hallager 1985; Dothan & Dothan 1992: 214.
The statue-menhirs in question are assigned on the
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. 562 Donner & Röllig 1964: 63, nr. 46; cf. Dupont Sommer 1948 & 1974.
564 Grosjean 1966b: 194.
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, however, that Buchholz 1999 : 222 variously dates the oxhide ingots to the period of 1200 to 700 BC.
565 Grosjean 1966a: pls. 44-6.
572 Guido 1963: 110-1; cf. Pålsson Hallager 1985: 304.
566 Grosjean 1966a: pl. 46.
573 So also Buchholz 1999 : 229.
567 Grosjean 1966a: pls. 35-6; 40-1.
574 Guido 1963: 156.
563 Grosjean 1966a: 70-1.
113
On the basis of the combined evidence from Corsica
Tjeker.)581 Little later, we encounter the Shekelesh among
and Sardinia, the one presenting the closest parallels for
the Sea Peoples who invaded Egypt in the eighth year of
Sherden as depicted in the Egyptian memorial at Medinet
Ramesses III (= 1176 BC).582 In the memorial for
Habu and the other furnishing evidence for contacts with
Ramesses III’s victory at Medinet Habu, the Shekelesh are
the eastern Mediterranean during the later Bronze Age, it
distinguished by a special headdress, the “nach hinten ge-
seems viable to conclude that the Sherden originated from
bogene Mutze”.583
this part of the Central Mediterranean.
As to the origin of the Shekelesh, two suggestions have been put forward. In the first place, de Rougé pro-
Shekelesh575
posed to identify them as inhabitants of the island of Sic-
The earliest attestation of the Shekelesh concerns their par-
name of the Shekelesh with the place name Sagalassos in
taking as allies or mercenaries in the Lybian campaign against Egypt as recorded for the fifth year of Merneptah
Pisidia – a region in between the Hittite province Tar®untassa and the Lukka lands in southern Anatolia.585
(= 1208 BC).576 In the count of the dead bodies after the
Like in the case of the Sherden, the Shekelesh were as-
battle, the Shekelesh – together with the Ekwesh, Teresh,
sumed according to this view to be on their way from their
and Sherden, and in contrast to the Peleset from the time of
original home to their later home Sicily at the time of the
Ramesses III – , are specified as being circumcised.577
Sea Peoples. Maspero’s Anatolian thesis was enthousiasti-
ily.584 As opposed to this, Maspero rather connected the
Next, a representative of the Shekelesh turns up in
cally received by H.R. Hall, who wrote: “The next tribe,
maritime trade as recorded by Cypro-Minoan cylinder
the Shekelesha, are undoubtedly, as Maspero concluded
seals from Kalavassos (K-AD 389) and Enkomi (Inv. no.
twenty years ago, the Sagalassians of Pisidia. (…) The
19.10), which we have seen reason in section 8 above to
identification absolutely hits the nail on the head. (…) And
assign to the period of the Hittite domination of Cy-
the Sagalassians are not too far off, as de Rougé’s Sicels
prus/Alasiya during the reign of Suppiluliumas II (1205-
were.”586 It echoes on into recent literature, as in, for ex-
1180? BC).578 The man in question, Sanemas, singles him-
ample, Ronald Redford’s monograph on Egypt’s relations
self out as the author of the Kalavassos seal, and hence can
with the Levant.587 The problem with Maspero’s Anatolian
be shown to master the Luwian language.
thesis, however, is that, as we have seen above, the Hittite
This peaceful episode is followed by one of maritime
great king Suppiluliumas II happens to be unacquainted
agression. A first indication of this is formed by a letter
with the Sikalayu or Shekelesh, whereas, as we have seen
from the destruction layer of Ras Shamra/Ugarit (RS
earlier (see section 8), he is in full control of western Asia
34.129), in which the Hittite great king, who must be iden-
Minor. In other words: if the Shekelesh were Sagalassians,
tified as Suppiluliumas II, urgently requests information
the Hittite great king would have known them. Conse-
about the ŠikalƗynj “who live in boats” and about their
quently, it seems preferable to opt for de Rougé’s solution
homeland Šikila from a certain Lunadusu or Ibnadusu who
and identify the Shekelesh with the inhabitants of Sicily in
had been taken prisoner by
them.579
the central Mediterranean.
(Note in this connec-
tion that Sikalayu and Sikela are variant forms of Sheke-
Now, Sicily was in contact with the Mycenaean world
lesh without the additional suffix -sh also attested for
during the Late Bronze Age, as Mycenaean pottery has
Ekwesh and Weshesh,580 and that we have seen reason not
been found in Sicilian sites. As argued by Pålsson Hal-
to follow Elmar Edel in his proposal to identify Sikela with 581 Edel 1984; see section 13 above. 575 Lehmann 1979: 492-4.
582 Pritchard 1969: 262-3; cf. Breasted 1927: Vol. IV, no. 64; Edgerton & Wilson 1936: 53; Strobel 19 76: 14; Drews 1993: 51.
576 See note 551 above.
583 Widmer 1973: 73-4.
577 Widmer 1975: 71, note 23.
584 See note 555 above.
578 Woudhuizen 1992a: 94-145; Woudhuizen 1994: 524-6.
585 Maspero 1873: 84-6; Maspero 1910: 432, note 2.
579 Dietrich & Loretz 1978; Hoftijzer & van Soldt 1998: 343.
586 Hall 1901-2: 181.
580 Wainwright 1961: 72; see section 8, note 212 above.
587 Redford 1992: 246.
114
lager, these contacts may have been especially close with
Peoples in the eighth year of Ramesses III (= 1176 BC).594
Crete in view of the amount of Minoan pottery discovered
According to a proposition by François Chabas, they have
in Thapsos. Vice versa, Khania, Knossos, and Kommos in
been identified as Oscans.595 In order to fully grasp the va-
Crete have produced Italian (no distinction is made for Sic-
lidity of this suggestion, it is important to note that the fi-
ily) ware during the later phase of the Late Bronze Age
nal -sh of Weshesh constitutes a suffix, also present, as we
(Late Minoan IIIA2-B for Kommos and Late Minoan IIIB-
have seen, in Ekwesh (< Akhaia) and Shekelesh (< Sikela),
To this comes that the Sicilians are
and that the root hence consists of Wesh-.596 Furthermore,
known to the Homeric world (which, as we have seen in
in spite of its general derivation from earlier *Opsci,597 the
section 2 above, mainly reflects Late Bronze Age politico-
root of the Italic ethnonym Oscans consists of Os- as ex-
historical conditions) as sturdy traders, specialized in the
amplified by its variant form Aus- or rhotacized Aur- in
C for
slave
Khania).588
trade.589
Ausones or Aurunci, respectively. This root, then, is used
In our literary sources, the Sicilians or Sicels are as-
in combination with the typically Italic suffix for the for-
sumed to have once inhabited the mainland of Italy, up to
mation of ethnics, -ci (cf. Aurunci, Etrusci, Falisci, Graeci,
Latium and southern Etruria, and to have crossed over to
Umbrici, Volsci, etc.). Alternatively, inspired by Mas-
war590
or 300
pero’s pan-Anatolianism with respect to the homeland of
years before the arrival of the first Greeks, which means in
the Sea Peoples, which led him to associate the ethnonym
Sicily either some time before the Trojan BC.591
They are specified to have been
Weshesh with the place name Wassos in Caria, it has been
driven out of their original habitat by either Umbrians (to-
suggested by Hall to compare the root of this same eth-
gether with Pelasgians) or Opicans (= Greek indication of
nonym to that of the place name Waksos in Crete.598
the 11th century
the Oscans), who, as we have seen in section 10 and will
The identification of the Weshesh with the Italic
further elaborate below, both make their entrance in the
Oscans can be bolstered by archaelogical evidence. As we
Italian peninsula from Urnfield Europe at the end of the
have seen in section 10 above, the Italic peninsula is char-
Bronze Age. Therefore, Minoan and Mycenaean ware
acterized at the end of the Late Bronze Age by a new ma-
found in the Italian mainland may also be indicative of
terial culture called proto-Villanovan, which, as convinc-
contacts of the Aegean region with the Sicels, or vice
ingly demonstrated by Hugh Hencken, shows close
versa.592 According to inscriptions from the Archaic pe-
affinities with Urnfield Europe and, as we have argued, is
riod, the language of the Sicels was closely related to
likely to be introduced by the ancestors of the historical
Oscan at the time.593
Umbrians, Oscan, Latins, and Faliscans, whose languages are most intimately related to Celtic and Germanic. Now,
Weshesh
as pointed out most recently by Shelley Wachsmann, the
The Weshesh figure only in the attack launched by the Sea
Ramesses III’s memorial at Medinet Habu is(/are) charac-
fact that the boat(s) of the Sea Peoples as depicted in terized by bird-head devices at both the bow and the stern constitutes a typical Urnfield feature.599 As it seems, then,
588 Pålsson Hallager 1985; Shaw 1998: 15. For Cyprian material
there were bearers of the Urnfield culture among the Sea
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.
Peoples, which conclusion only applies if we are right in
594 See note 582 above.
589 Homeros, Odyssey XX, 382-3.
595 Chabas 1872: 299; cf. Reinach 1910: 36, note 3; Macalister
590 Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman Antiquities I, 9; 16; 20 ff.
1913: 25.
591 Thucydides, Peloponnesian War VI, 2, 5; cf. Dionysios of Ha-
596 See note 580 above.
likarnassos, Roman Antiquities I, 22, 5.
597 As based on Greek Opikoi and Ennius’ Opscus.
592 For the distribution of Mycenaean ware in Italy, see Buchholz
598 Hall 1901-2: 184; cf. Reinach 1910: 36; Albright 1975: 508;
1999 : 83, Abb. 23.
Redford 1992: 246.
593 Vetter 1953: 359-60, no. 514 (Centuripa vase, 5th century
599 Wachsmann 1998: 178; Wachsmann 2000: 122; cf. Kimmig
BC): bratome; cf. Oscan brat or bratom (= Latin gratum “pleasant, grateful”), see Pulgram 1978: 72-3; 151.
1964: 223-4, Abb. 1; de Boer 1991.
115
our identification of the Weshesh with the Italic Oscans.
opments. Thus the devastations in Thessaly are likely to be
The connection thus achieved with the developments
ascribed to warlike Balkan tribes bordering to the north of
in Urnfield Europe at the time, also go a long way in pro-
the Mycenaean realm, always looking for an opportunity to
viding us with a model to explain the resurrections of the Sea Peoples. The invasion of Italy by bearers of the Urn-
plunder their much richer neighbor. Furthermore, the sackers of the Hittite capital Bo÷azköy/Hattusa are likely to be
field culture – a true mass migration – caused great disrup-
identified as Kaskans and Phrygians, who, when the
tion of peoples living in the area, as the displacement of
smoke-screen had disappeared, turned up in great numbers
the Sicels living in Latium and southern Etruria mentioned
along the Assyrian border at the time of Tiglathpileser I
in the above, who in turn were forced to displace other
(1115-1070 BC).602 As an historical parallel for these de-
population groups in their search for new homes. More-
velopments one could point to the fact that when Diony-
over, the finds of handmade barbarian ware either linked
sios I of Syracuse wanted to attack the Etruscans of Caere,
up with Italy or Urnfield Europe in various locations of the
he made a common cause with the Celts in their hinterland,
Aegean at the end of the Late Bronze
Age600
and the
who, just like the northern neigbors of the Greeks and the
growing popularity of the rite of cremation from that time
Kaskans and Phrygians in Anatolia, were only waiting for
onwards,601
the opportunity to plunder the lands of their hated oppres-
suggest that some of the invaders, like we pos-
sor.
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 population of Italy and the central Mediterranean islands, as we have seen, had been in contact. This resulted in a dominoeffect. 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
(a)
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 Cyprus/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 upheavals of the Sea Peoples failed…. I am not suggesting that the foregoing model explains
(b)
everything. It is highly unlikely that the Sea Peoples are responsible for, to name but two examples, the devastations in Thessaly and the fall of the Hittite capital Bo÷azköy/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-
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).
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.
602 Lehmann 1970: 34; Diakonoff 1984: 123; see also section 7,
601 Vanschoonwinkel 1991: 191-6, carte 7.
esp. note 147.
116
15. CONCLUDING REMARKS Having reached the end of our quest into the vicissitudes of
induce us, however, to exclude a certain amount of ethnic
the Sea Peoples, it seems worthwhile to summarize the re-
diversity, as Linear B texts, next to the geographic name
sults with respect to their ethnicity.
Akawija (KN) “Akhaia”, already bear testimony of the
As far as the Lukka are concerned, there can be little
ethnonyms Rakedamonijo (TH) “Lacedaimonian”, Ijawone
doubt that they originate from the lower Xanthos valley in
(KN) “Ionians”, and the personal name related to an eth-
later Lycia. This area looks out onto the Mediterranean sea
nonym Dorijewe (PY) “Dorieus (dative)”.603 After the fall
in the south, but is otherwise separated from the surround-
of their palatial civilization, some of the Mycenaean
ing regions by a spur of the formidable Taurus mountains.
Greeks took the boat and looked for new homes in the
From this geographical situation alone it seems permissible
eastern Mediterranean, one group under the name of
to assume that the Lukka formed a close knit ethnic com-
H iƗwa “Akhaians” colonizing the Cilician plain in Anato-
munity. At any rate, this is the case with their Early Iron
lia, and an other group under the name of Dan “Danaoi”
Age descendants, who call themselves Termilai and write
colonizing various locations in the Levant. These migra-
in a distinct dialect of Luwian, the so-called Lycian A.
tions were not numerous enough, however, to plant the
From an archaeological point of view, however, our infer-
Greek language in the given regions, the Akhaians in the
ence about the ethnic coherence of the Lukka cannot be
Cilician plain going over to Luwian and the Danaoi in the
backed up by a distinct material culture because archaeo-
Levant resorting to Semitic. This being the case, the
logical data from the lower Xanthos valley are thus far
Greeks in question may safely be assumed to have mixed
lacking for the Late Bronze Age period.
to a significant extent with the indigenous population.
The Ekwesh and Denye(n) are alternative indications
If the literary traditions about the Philistines originat-
for the Late Bronze Age Greeks, corresponding to Ho-
ing from Crete and/or Lydia in western Asia Minor are
meric Akhaians and Danaoi. Of these indications, the one, in form of A®®iyawa, is preferred by the Hittites, while the
correct, this particular people is likely to be identified with
other, in form of Tanayu, is most of the time preferred by
various population groups living in mainland Greece be-
the Egyptians. In archaeological terms, the ethnic coher-
fore the Greek ethnos came into being, and hence at least
ence of the Late Bronze Age Greeks is strongly indicated
partly responsible for the Middle Helladic culture with its
by the so-called Mycenaean koinƝ of Late Helladic IIIB – a
characteristic Minyan ware. As far as can be determined
cultural unity unparalleled for Greece until the Hellenistic
from the evidence of place and personal names, the Pelas-
period. The latter archaeological culture cannot be dissoci-
gians were of Indo-European tongue, to be more specific
ated from the records in Linear B, which are conducted in
of a Thraco-Phrygian type. When southern and central
a distinct Greek dialect most closely related to Arcado-
Greece were conquered by foreign invaders from Egypt
Cyprian of later date. That the Late Bronze Age Greeks in-
and the Levant, Pelasgian population groups who wanted
deed considered themselves as Akhaians may be further il-
to preserve their independence fled to the north into Thes-
lustrated by an episode in Herodotos’ Histories (V, 72),
saly, which remained predominantly Minyan up till Late
according to which the Spartan king Kleomenes, being re-
Helladic IIIA, and to the region of Larisa Phrikonis in the
fused entrance into the temple on the acropolis of Athens
Mysian-Lydian borderland of western Asia Minor. On the
by the priestess on the ground that he was considered a
basis of the evidence from personal names, again, the latter
Dorian, replied that he was not a Dorian, but an Akhaian –
group was not numerous enough to cause a language shift,
a point of view which tallies with the fact that the Dorians
but went over to the local Luwian dialect. As opposed to
from central Greece, when taking possession of the Pelo-
their kinsmen who had fled, Pelasgian population groups
ponnesos at the end of the Submycenaean and beginning of
which stayed in southern and central Greece became thor-
the Protogeometric periods, are led by Heraklid kings with
oughly Mycenaeanized and in this process, as Herodotos
the Pelasgians of Greek sources. The latter were one of the
a legitimate claim on the Mycenaean throne as descendants of Perseus, who return to their ancestral lands. The cultural
603 Ventris & Chadwick 1973: glossary, s.v.; Shelmerdine 1997:
and linguistic unity of Late Bronze Age Greece should not
564; cf. Driessen 1998-9 and Vanschoonwinkel 1991: 361.
117
(Histories I, 57) reports, adopted the Greek language –
long way in backing up our reconstruction of Pelasgians
which, considering our view that Greek is a split from
originally speaking a Thraco-Phrygian vernacular, but go-
Thraco-Phrygian under foreign influences, is only a small
ing over to Luwian with their migration from mainland
step. The exact date of the migration of Pelasgians to Crete
Greece to western Anatolia. A distinct branch of migrants
as recorded in the literary sources and backed up by place,
from western Anatolia to Italy is formed by the Trojan fol-
divine, and personal names eludes us, but, at any rate it is
lowers of Aeneas. As these are likely originating from the
clear that these latter became fully Minoanized and, like
region south of mount Ida, where to all probability a Lu-
their fellow Cretans, used a Luwian dialect as their first
wian dialect was spoken, we are seemingly dealing here
language and a Semitic one for religious and administra-
with kinsmen of the Tyrrhenians. However, contrary to the
tive purposes in order to keep up with the current interna-
situation in Etruria, the Trojan followers of Aeneas, for
tional standards. At the time of their migration to the
mere lack of numbers, did not plant their name, language,
Levant and settling down in the Philistine pentapolis, the
culture, and customs in Latium, but were only held respon-
Pelasgians of Crete were in close contact with their kins-
sible for the introduction of the cult of the Penates here.
men of western Anatolia, both producing Late Helladic
Tjeker or Teukroi is an indication of the population of
IIIC1b pottery – as we have seen, the hallmark of the set-
the Troad, which alternatively can be addressed as Drdny
tlement of Sea Peoples in the Levant. This may be a sign
or Dardanians. To all probability this people spoke a
of their ethnic coherence, though it must be admitted that
Thraco-Phrygian language, and hence they likely were
the same material culture is shared with the Mycenaean
kinsmen of the pre-Greek population groups of Greece like
Greeks. It goes without saying that the Pelasgians during
the Phrygians, Thracians, and Pelasgians. The latter infer-
their colonization of the Philistine pentapolis mixed with
ence gains weight from the fact that the characteristic Tro-
the local population and went over to the local Semitic dia-
jan grey ware is closely related to the so-called Minyan
lect – with which the Cretan branch was already familiar
ware of Middle Helladic Greece. At the end of the Late
anyway.
Bronze Age, this grey ware, attested from the beginning of
Notwithstanding the fact that the Teresh and Peleset
Troy VI onwards, is distributed to Cyprus and the Levant,
are explicitly distinguished in one Egyptian text, it seems
thus enabling us to trace the epigraphically and historically
highly attractive to consider the related ethnonyms of the
recorded trade contacts and migrations of the Teukroi
Tyrrhenians and Pelasgians from Greek literary sources, on
archaeologically. All in all, the Teukroi form a clear case
the analogy of Akhaians and Danaoi being alternative
of a coherent ethnic entity according to our protohistoric
means to refer to the Mycenaean Greeks, as competing
criteria.
forms of address of one and the same population group.604
The homeland of the Sherden is likely to be located in
Under the related name of Etruscans, the Tyrrhenians are
Sardinia in the central Mediterranean, as we find statue-
especially known to us as an archaeologically, epigraphi-
menhirs in this region (in casu nearby Corsica) depicting
cally, and linguistically traceable entity from c. 700 BC in
the same type of warriors as the Egyptian reliefs associated
Italy. In all these aspects, however, their homeland can be
with this ethnonym. The specificity of the outfit of the
traced back to the Aegean region and western Anatolia. A
Sardinian warriors seems to indicate a strong ethnic bond.
crown witness of their early history is formed by their lan-
On the analogy of the fact that an Hittite princess betrothed
guage, which, although basically of Luwian nature, shows
to Ramesses II is rebaptized with an Egyptian name on the
clear signs of a long early history with Greek – a linguistic
event of her marriage,605 the Semitic and Egyptian names
deep layer explicable only if the literary traditions of the
for individual Sherden mentioned in the Akkadian cunei-
Tyrrhenians once living in Attica are correct. Mutatis mu-
form and Egyptian texts bear testimony only of their accul-
tandis, the evidence of the Etruscan language also goes a
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-
604 As we have stipulated in section 10 above, Herodotos, Histo-
rant.
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.
605 Bryce 1998: 312; compare Greeks in Hellenistic Egypt taking
Egyptian names, on which see Goudriaan 1988.
118
About the origin of the Shekelesh we have only cir-
and Larisa Phrikonis) in the east to Sardinia (nuraghe An-
cumstantial evidence that their homeland is unlikely to be
tigori) in the west – and language. That these ethnic groups
situated in Anatolia, as the last of the Hittite great kings,
were indeed cohesive entities appears from the fact that,
Suppiluliumas II, is unfamiliar with them. As opposed to
after their abortive attempt to conquer Egypt, they settled
this negative evidence, an association with Sicily in the
separately in various locations in the Levant: the Peleset or
central Mediterranean can be underlined by the fact that
Philistines in their pentapolis, the Tjeker or Teukroi in
the latter island was in contact with Greece, Crete, and
Dor, the Sherden or Sardinians in Akko, Denye(n) or Dan
Cyprus during the Late Bronze Age. A representative of
in Joppa and later in Laish, European Urnfielders likely to
the Shekelesh involved in trade with Cyprus and the east-
be identified with the Weshesh or Oscans in Hamath, and
ern Mediterranean singles himself out as mastering the
Ekwesh or Akhaians in the Cilician plain. Nevertheless,
Cypro-Minoan script and the Luwian language, but this
this conglomerate of cultures and languages was able to
does not help us very much in determining his native Sicil-
work together very effectively for some time, as the down-
ian language about which we only know that in the archaic
fall of palatial empires caused by them may illustrate. In
period it was closely related to Oscan. For the question
order to demonstrate that a multi-lingual coalition is a pri-
whether the Sicilians had a pronounced idea about their
ori possible, one may point to the fact that the Trojan side
ethnicity we can only draw back to the fact that the Egyp-
in Homeros’ Iliad consisted of a multi-lingual coalition as
tians depicted them with a special type of headdress, the
well.606
“nach hinten gebogene Mutze”, which, to say the least, is meagre evidence.
In his Ethnicity in eastern Mediterranean proto-
The identification of the Weshesh with the Oscans is
history: Reflections on theory and method (forthc.), chap-
crucial for our understanding of the catastrophic events at
ter 6, Wim van Binsbergen formulates three hypotheses
the end of the Bronze Age. The invasion of Italy by bear-
which are of relevance to our subject.
ers of the European Urnfield culture, which we have seen
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 ethnic classification was generally known and generally subscribed to.
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
The validity of this hypothesis can be underlined by
Peoples. Even though the Oscans may have been numeri-
the fact that some of the groups of the Sea Peoples are re-
cally a relatively small party among the coalition of the
ferred to by the same ethnonym in various sources, like the Ekwesh as A® ® iyawa in Hittite and Shekelesh as ŠikalƗynj
Sea Peoples, they nonetheless may be considered like the leaven in the Biblical bread. Thus the ships of the Sea
in Ugaritic and as Sikeri- in Cypro-Minoan: this proves
Peoples with bird-head devices at both the bow and the
that we are not dealing with the whim of an individual
stern of a typically Urnfield type, the spread of handmade
Egyptian scribe, but a classificatory system with a wider
barbarian ware of proto-Villanovan Italian or European
geographical range shared by the Egyptians with the Hit-
Urnfield backgrounds, and the growing popularity of the
tites, Ugaritians, and Cyprians. Even the fact that there are
rite of cremation during and after the catastrophic events
competing indications for the same ethnic group, like in
may be attributed to the influence of our Oscan partici-
case of the Egyptian preference of Tanayu or Denye(n)
pants. Considering their highly specific cultural and lin-
“Danaoi” over Ekwesh “Akhaians”, or their indication of
guistic traits, the Oscans are likely to be considered a
the Trojans as Drdny alongside Tjeker does not undermine
coherent ethnic entity according to our protohistoric crite-
such a conclusion, as it rather signals the sophistication of
ria.
this classificatory system. As to the origin of the different
By means of conclusion, we seem to be confronted
ethnonyms, it is interesting to note that Sherden and Sheke-
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
606 Iliad II, 804; IV, 437-8. Note that in this respect the title of my
almost every Sea People, from western Anatolia (Pitane
book The Language of the Sea Peoples is oversimplifying the reality.
119
lesh are geographically based, being derived from the
Sea Peoples with the exception of the Weshesh if our iden-
names of the islands Sardinia and Sicily, respectively,
tification of the latter with the Ausones or Oscans applies.
whereas for example Weshesh “Ausones” or “Osci” and
Another unifying element may have been formed by the
Tanayu or Denye(n) are ultimately rooted in the hydro-
fact that all members of the Sea Peoples might ultimately
nymy of Europe and the North Pontic steppe (PIE *av- or
be of Indo-European stock. But this is by no means sure
*au- “source, stream” and *dƗnu- “river”) and hence may
for the Sherden and the Shekelesh, and, if these might turn
safely be assumed to have been introduced by the people
out to be Indo-Europeans after all, the differences between
in question themselves from that region into their new
the various groups are already too pronounced to allow for
homeland.607
the perception of a common heritage as a binding factor. Finally, there is the question of how to classify the
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 coalesced, albeit never completely, into the Sea Peoples.
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
Given the fact that, as we have noted above, various
once and for all.
groups of the Sea Peoples settled separately in various locations of the Levant, and that they have distinct names
One might be tempted to classify the post-conflict lo-
and features in the Egyptian sources, this negative hy-
cal accommodation between Sea People settlers and their
pothesis appears to come nearer to the truth than the posi-
host groups with the melting pot model (no. 6 in our sec-
tive hypothesis 2B below. As a consequence, we may
tion 1), with this proviso that the colonists, contrary to the
conclude that to a certain extent a process of ethnogenesis
situation in the modern Americas, merge with the indige-
took place (= the emergence of the Sea Peoples as a dis-
nous population to the extent that they ultimately become
tinct phenomenon), but was not followed by ethnicization
extinct as a separate ethnic group (= ethnothanasia).608
(i.e. that prospective Sea Peoples, each in their own corner
However, even if locally, in the Levant, all sense of a dis-
of the Mediterranean, took ideological consciousness of
tinct Sea Peoples identity was ultimately lost, there are in-
the fact that they had so much in common with the other
dications that yet some knowledge of distant Central
eight groups that they could adopt a common destiny).
Mediterranean origins lingered on, laying the foundations for the subsequent Phoenician exploration and colonization
HYPOTHESIS 2B. The mobilization process bringing the nine groups to ultimately constitute the Sea Peoples, 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 Peoples’ mobilization and exploits.
of the Central Mediterranean in the Early Iron Age. Perhaps 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-
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-
608 Of the remaining cases of colonization assumed in the preceding sections, the Pelasgian ones from presumably c. 1600 BC onwards 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 adjustment 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.
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 suggested that the Egyptian artist who drew the boats of the Sea Peoples took one example as the norm, so that the apparent 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.
120
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 accommodation, 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.
121
APPENDIX I: ON THE DECIPHERMENT OF CRETAN HIEROGLYPHIC As there are only two other hieroglyphic writing systems
linked up with a Luwian hieroglyphic counterpart.617
current in the region, from a comparative point of view the
However, as soon realized, the script of the discus is not an
Cretan hieroglyphic (= CH) script may be assumed to be
isolated phenomenon on Crete, but further attested for a
related to either Egyptian hieroglyphic (= Eg.) to the
double-axe from Arkalokhori and an altar-stone from Ma-
southeast of Crete or Luwian hieroglyphic (= LH) from
lia.618 As a matter of fact, as indicated by the 14 corre-
Anatolia to the northeast of Crete. Both these two possible
spondences in sum listed in table 4 below, it is nothing but
lines of approach have been put into practice in the past.
a manifestation – be it on the largest extant scale – of Cre-
Thus Arthur Evans, the discoverer of the script, started to
tan hieroglyphic itself.619 Mutatis mutandis, the possible
compare Cretan hieroglyphic signs to Luwian counter-
relationship of the latter script with Luwian hieroglyphic
parts,609
comes to the fore again.
whereas at a later stage he rather preferred to look
for correspondences with Egyptian.610 Next, three of the
This relationship is a viable one, as I hope to show in
pioneers in the deciphering process of Luwian hiero-
my table 4 below. In this table I present a list of corre-
glyphic, Ignace Gelb,611 Helmuth Bossert,612 and Piero
spondences between Cretan hieroglyphic and Luwian hi-
Meriggi,613 pointed out numerous relationships of Cretan
eroglyphic for signs which occur in a reasonably clear
hieroglyphic with the script they were engaged with. Since
context. This list, which is an elaboration of earlier ef-
then, Turkish scholars like Sedat Alp614 and Nimet Özgüç,
forts,620 includes signs from the discus of Phaistos and the
who were involved in the earliest manifestations of the
aforesaid double-axe from Arkalokhori, which texts, for
Luwian hieroglyphic script during the Middle Bronze Age,
reasons beyond my comprehension, are omitted from the
showed an awareness of Cretan connections.
recent corpus of Cretan hieroglyphic inscriptions (=
The whole matter received renewed attention at the
CHIC).621 In order to overcome this omission, I have as-
time that Jan Best definitely succeeded to place the famous
signed to these two texts a number adding up to the last
discus of Phaistos in an Anatolian context, first by demon-
one recorded for CHIC, thus the double-axe of Arkalo-
strating the relationship of signs D 11 and D 39 to the Lu-
khori becomes # 332 and the discus of Phaistos # 333. I
wian symbols of royalty, winged sun-disc (LH *190), and
further present the numbering of the signs according to
of lightning (LH
*199),615
and later by embedding the
Evans’ original publication (1909) next to that of CHIC,
Luwian connection in a network of internal evidence in the
because in a number of instances he distinguishes a sign
form of a doublet and triplets and a vowel analysis.616
which is not recognized as such by CHIC. Finally, for
Working out this relationship, it turned out that of the total
brevity’s sake I refer to standard formulas by an abbrevia-
amount of 47 signs on the discus, 29 can convincingly be
tion, thus the libation formula is referred to as LF and the profane formulas as PF 1-7.622
609 Evans 1895: 33 ff. 617 Achterberg, Best, Enzler, Rietveld & Woudhuizen 2004, section 4.
610 Evans 1909. 611 Gelb 1931: 79 ff.
618 Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 87, fig. 1b; Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 74, fig. 1b; 77, fig. 2c.
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.
619 Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 86-9; Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 73-7; 97-128. 620 Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 87, fig. 3; Woudhuizen 1992c: Pl. XXVI.
614 Alp 1968: 276. 615 Best 1981b: 49-56; numbering of the Luwian hieroglyphic signs according to Laroche 1960a.
621 Olivier & Godart 1996.
616 Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 30-53.
2002a: 124 (= PF 7).
622 Woudhuizen 2001b: 608-12 (= LF & PF 1-6); Woudhuizen
123
1.
Evans
CHIC
LH
value
2
001
1
AMU
attestation # 310 [® ar]
# 332,623 # 333
2.
–
–
10
H ARMAH I,
3a.
73
018
13
PÁRA
# 255, # 296, # 314, #332
14
PÁRANA
# 271
–
–
15
mi4
# 333
3
002624
19
á
# 332, # 333
6.
16
007625
29
tá
7.
7
006
31
H ISH IA,
8.
58
040
35
na
# 309, # 333626
9.
10
095
41
tà
# 332
10.
–
–
56-7
KATA,
11.
9
009
66
PIA,
12.
27
057
80-1
SARU
PF 7 (8x), # 333
13.
11
010
82
ta6
PF 5 (41x), # 258
14.
–
–
85
l(a)
15.
–
–
90
TIWA,
3b. 4. 5.
# 296, # 314 [® i]
kà
# 246, # 333
# 333
pi
# 003J, # 139
# 332 ti
# 333
16.
–
–
97
WALWA,
17.
65
016
101
TARKU
ú
18.
99
028
102-3
KURUNT,
19.
63
011
104
sà
20.
62
012
107
MUWA,
# 333 # 193, # 271, # 310
rú627
# 255, # 296 # 271
mu
# 253, # 271
21.
–
–
108
SURNA,
sú
# 333
22.
64
013
109
MALIA,
ma6
# 139, # 312
23.
67
–
110
ma
# 333
® a4
24.
–
–
111
H AWA,
25.
77
–
125
lí
26.
82
–
128
TINTAPU,
27.
80
–
130-3
ARA,
28.
59
–
138
[wa]
29.
92
031
153
nú
30.
–
–
160
WIANA,
31.
–
–
167
[PARNA, pa]
# 333
32.
96
–
175
LALA,
# 271628
33.
–
–
181
TURPI,
[tu]
# 333
34.
–
–
189
WASU,
[wa1]
# 333
35.
–
–
190
sol suus
# 328 # 333
ti5
ra
# 314, # 333 LF (7x), # 333 # 333 PF 5 (25x), PF 6 (11x)
wi
la
# 333
# 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.
124
36.
5
005
191
TIWATA,
[ti]
37.
–
–
199
TARH UNT,
38.
115
061/069
212
H APA,
PF 2 (35x), PF 3 (4x)
®à
# 333
ná
# 196, # 333
39.
–
–
223
s6
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
45.
# 333
LH
value
attestation
300
gens
# 277
46.
15
051
312-3
ZITI,
47.
24
056
327
SASA,
zi
48.
–
–
369
vita
# 328
sa5
PF 7 (10x), # 193, # 255, # 328 (= Cretan knot), cf. Bossert 1932: 12-3
49.
–
–
370
ASU,
50.
14
050
383, 1
(determ. of PN)
as, su
# 333 # 310, # 314, # 333
51.
–
–
383, 2
[+ta/i], +ra/i
# 332, # 333
52.
122
077
415
sa
# 003J, # 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
A1
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
L2
bi’ty
# 003J, # 018, # 039, # 139, # 310
58.
–
–
M 23
nswt
# 018, # 039
59.
116
*156
M 43
WAINU,
60.
109
–
N5
sol
40.
114
034
N 26
UTNA,
tu5
PF 7 (10x), # 333
41.
41
041
O 11
WANA,
wa6
# 246, # 271, # 309
wa
# 274, # 314 # 310
48.
–
–
S 34
vita
(= Cretan knot)
61.
21
046
U 21
tƯ
PF 4 (7x)
62.
18
044
X8
pi (< PIA)
63.
31
076
Y3
TUPA,
35.
–
–
–
PF 1 (72x), PF 2 (35x), PF 3 (4x), PF 4 (7x), # 255 du
# 312 # 333
sol suus
Table 5. Correspondences between Cretan hieroglyphic and Egyptian hieroglyphic (values as attested for Cretan hieroglyphic).
125
Notwithstanding the fact that Cretan hieroglyphic is basi-
mitic tuppu “tablet”,634 and the palace-sign (CHIC no. 41),
cally related to Luwian hieroglyphic, there are a number of
of which the acrophonic value wa6 can only be explained
cases in which Egyptian hieroglyphic provides the closest
in terms of a mixing-up with its Luwian hieroglyphic look-
comparative evidence. This concerns first of all the bee-
alike wana “stele, altar” (LH *267). Although direct con-
sign, which – apart from a singular occurrence – goes un-
tact between Egypt and Crete cannot be excluded, the
represented among the Luwian hieroglyphic repertoire.
given evidence is conducive to the conclusion that Egyp-
Like in Egyptian, the latter sign turns up in combination
tian signs reached Crete through the intermediary of the
with a floral motif, to indicate the king of Lower and Up-
Levant and/or Anatolia. Or, at the very least, the handling
per Egypt. This royal title is also attested for Middle
of this category of signs in Crete is “more loose” than the
Bronze Age inscriptions from Byblos, which was subject
one received by the category of signs originating from
to strong Egyptian influences at the
time.629
In Crete, the
Luwian hieroglyphic.
bee-sign undergoes a typical local treatment in the sense
In table 5 I present a list of correspondences between
that, apart from its regular depiction from the side (CHIC
Cretan hieroglyphic and Egyptian hieroglyphic for signs
no. 20), it also tends to be represented from the top (CHIC
which occur in a reasonably clear context.635
no. 21). 630 Besides the bee-sign, the symbol of royalty in
A third source for signs from Cretan hieroglyphic is
form of a winged sun-disc, mentioned among the Luwian
formed by Cretan Linear A (= CL). It is a general miscon-
correspondences, ultimately originates from Egyptian hi-
ception that Cretan hieroglyphic constitutes a forerunner of
eroglyphic as well, but its ductus in Crete betrays Anato-
Linear A: this is particularly true in case of the libation
lian influences in the fact that the sun-disc is represented
formula, which develops in the course of time into its Lin-
as a rosette. The same holds good for the ankh-sign, which,
ear A descendant as attested for wash-hand stone-basins
like it is the case in Anatolia, in Crete is characterized by
from peak-sanctuaries the destruction of which is usually
two side stems (note, however, that in Anatolia the central
assigned to the Middle Minoan III/Late Minoan I transi-
stem is lost, whereas in Crete this is preserved). Appar-
tional period (c. 1600 BC).636 In most other instances,
ently, these two signs, belonging to the oldest layer of Lu-
however, the representation of Linear A signs among Cre-
wian hieroglyphic during the Middle Bronze Age,631
tan hieroglyphic results from a merger between the two
reached Crete via an Anatolian intermediary.
scripts, which started from the time of the earliest attesta-
The indirect route for signs originating from Egyptian
tion of Linear A in Middle Minoan II (c. 1800-1700 BC)
hieroglyphic may further be illustrated by the trowel-sign
onwards, thus providing us with a terminus post quem for
(CHIC no. 040). In ductus this is closest to a Byblian par-
seals showing Linear A influences other than the libation
allel; it also receives a value based on the translation of its
formula.637 Table 6 below presents correspondences between Cre-
Egyptian meaning, d͑ “to give”, into Luwian, hence pi as acrophonically derived from piya- “to
give”.632
A similar
tan hieroglyphic and Cretan Linear (A) for signs which occur in a reasonably clear context.638
adaptation of the value can be observed for the wine ideogram (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-
634 Friedrich 1946: Wörterverzeichnisse III, s.v. 635 Numbering of the Egyptian hieroglyphic signs according to
629 Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 8, fig. 7.
Gardiner 1994.
630 Woudhuizen 1997.
636 Woudhuizen 2001b: 608.
631 Woudhuizen, forthc. 2.
637 Vandenabeele 1985: 18.
632 Woudhuizen 2002b.
638 Cf. Woudhuizen 1992c: Pl. XXIV; numbering of the Linear A
633 Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 8, fig. 8; 13, fig. 17; 15-6.
signs according to Meijer 1982: 38-47.
126
64. 65.
Evans 46 112
CHIC 039 070
CL L1 L 22
value pa3 lnj
20. 66. 67. 68. 69. 27. 70. 57. 71. 72. 73. 59.
62 101 60 44 36 80 30 85 103 40 – 116
012 029 019 038 042 – 092 021 024 052 – *156
L 27 L 30 L 31 L 32 L 52 L 53 L 55 L 56 L 60 [L 61] L 78 L 82
mu da sa ya a ra ru pi (< bi’ty) NIKULEON , ni me ti WAINU, wa
61. 74. 63. 75. 76.
21 97 31 74 47
046 025 076 – 053
L 88 L 92 L 93 L 95 L 103
tƯ te du ma ki
attestation # 296 # 310 (note that this seal presents a variant of the sign in question catalogued separately by Evans as his no. 91), # 328 # 253, # 271 # 328 LF (14x), # 193, # 196, # 277 PF 5 (41 x), # 258, # 296, # 310, # 328 LF (14x), # 255, # 309, # 310 LF (7x), # 333 PF 6 (17x) # 310 # 122 LF (6x) # 328 # 274, # 314 (note that this seal presents a variant of the sign in question catalogued separately by Evans as his no. 4) PF 4 (7x) # 328 # 312 # 196, # 257, # 309 # 296, # 309
Table 6. Correspondences between Cretan hieroglyphic and Cretan Linear.
century BC (Woudhuizen 1992a: 87-90; Woudhuizen
The relationship of Cretan hieroglyphic with Cypro-
2001b: 610).
Minoan (= CM) has no bearing on the origins of Cretan hi-
The Cretan hieroglyphic contribution to Cypro-
eroglyphic, but only on the date of its continuation, prov-
Minoan entails the following signs:
ing that it still florished at the time of the earliest attestations of Cypro-Minoan in the late 16th or early 15th
77. 62. 78. 36.
Evans 13 18 54 5
CHIC 049 044 047 005
CM 28 51 76 116
value ni pi le ti
attestation PF 1 (72x), PF 3 (4x), # 255, # 312 PF 1 (72x), PF 2 (35x), PF 3 (4x), PF 4 (7x) # 258, # 310, # 312 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
ther Luwian hieroglyphic or Egyptian hieroglyphic) ren-
the Cretan hieroglyphic script, Wim van Binsbergen took
dering supplementary services only. This does not dimin-
the analysis of Jan Best as his starting point. Best main-
ish the usability of van Binsbergen’s models as an aid to
tains that Egyptian hieroglyphic contributed as many as 35
develop our own – slightly adapted – version, according to
signs to Cretan hieroglyphic, Luwian hieroglyphic only 30
which a large arrow from Cappadocia and/or North Syria
signs, and the Byblos script 10 signs. He did not back up
represents the Luwian hieroglyphic contribution, and small
this analysis, however, by a further specification. As
arrows from Egypt directly to Crete and from Egypt via
shown above, our analysis of the situation is different, with
Byblos to Crete represent the subsidiary Egyptian contri-
Luwian hieroglyphic providing the bulk of the material (56
bution (see Fig. 25).640
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 ei640 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.
639 Van Binsbergen 1996-7: 134-42.
127
son of Talmitesup, king of Karkamis, (…)”.646 Most of the MNs are of Luwian type: Muwas (cf. Hittite Muwatallis),647 Partarus (= Lydian BartaraĞ),648 Nuwas
(cf.
Cappadocian
Taparas (= Lycian
reduplicated
Daparas),650
Nuwanuwas),649
Tarkus, Tarkumuwas (=
Cilician Tarkomǀs),651 and possibly Manas (= Lydian Manes).652 Next, one is of Kaskan type: Pitaparas (= Kaskan Pittaparas),653 whereas the first element of Ankiwas seems 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-tarrašap), etc.655 Finally, under consideration of the aforesaid Fig. 25. Origins of the Cretan hieroglyphic script. (a) Luwian hiero-
interchangeability of [l] with [r] and on the analogy of Luwian hieroglyphic Murlis and H alis,656
glyphic (56 signs); (b) Egyptian hieroglyphic (14 signs).641
Manile may657 be analyzed as an abridged form of Egyptian Men-r‘.
1 Egypt; 2 Byblos; 3 Cyprus; 4 Asia Minor; 5 Crete; 6 mainland
Of the titles, laparnas (= Hittite labarnas)658, PÁRA-
Greece
custos “viceroy” (cf. titles like Latin pro-consul), and As to the linguistic context of the signs discussed
tupa- “scribe”659 are of Anatolian type. Next, pini
above, this has been dealt with elsewhere as far as the dis-
corresponds to Semitic bn as in Ugaritic bn Lky “represen-
cus of Phaistos (# 333),642 the double-axe from Arkalok-
tative of the Lycians”.660 Finally, bi’ty or pitƯ or piti is
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
646 Hawkins 2000: 574-5; cf. Hawkins 2003, 144, Fig. 1c.
are concerned. It therefore may suffice here, as an example
647 Hawkins 2003: 144, Fig. 1b.
of what the analysis of the signs may lead up to in the field
648 Gusmani, 1964: 264, no. 40, 2; cf. Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 126; Woudhuizen forthc. 2.
of linguistics, to present an overview of seals recording the categories (1) “man’s name” (= MN) and (2) “title” or (1)
649 Laroche 1966, s.v.; cf. Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 126.
“MN”, (2) “title”, and (3) “place or country name” (see ta-
650 Friedrich 1932: 55, TL 6, 1; cf. Best & Woudhuizen 1989:
ble 8 and Fig. 26) – categories to be expected on seals in
126.
the light of the parallels: compare, for example, the Lu-
651 Houwink ten Cate 1961: 127.
wian hieroglyphic part of the Tarkondemos seal, bearing the legend
TARKU-tí+mi H ANTAWAT
652 Gusmani 1964: 250, no. 1, 3; 252, no. 4a, 1 and no. 4b, 1; cf.
mi+r(a)-àUTNA “Tar-
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 beautiful seal, used by Evans for the cover of his book on the topic!
kondemos, king (of) the land Mira”,645 or that of the seal of Kuzitesup from Lidarhöyük, reading ku-zi!-TESUP-pa H ANTAWAT
ká+r-ka-mi-sà
TAL-mi-TESUP-pa
H ANTAWAT
ká+r-ka-mi-sà (…) infans “Kuzitesup, king of Karkamis,
653 Von Schuler 1965: Indices, 2. Personennamen, s.v. 654 Homeros, Iliad II, 820, etc.
641 Diagram drawn by Wim van Binsbergen.
655 Gröndahl 1967, s.v. ytr.
642 Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 30-84; Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 65-97; Woudhuizen 1992a: 11-41; Achterberg, Best, Enzler, Rietveld & Woudhuizen 2004.
656 Beran 1967: nos. 180 (um+r-li) and 186 (® á+li). 657 Ranke 1935, s.v. mn-® pr-r‘.
643 Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 97-128.
658 Friedrich 1991, s.v.; cf. Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 117-8.
644 Woudhuizen 2002a.
659 Laroche 1960a: *326.
645 Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 108-11; cf. Hawkins 2003: 144,
660 Gordon 1955: glossary, s.v.; Astour 1964: 194; Woudhuizen
Fig. 1a and Woudhuizen 2005 : appendix I.
128
identical to Egyptian bi’ty “king of Lower Egypt”,661 so
shift,667 that Taruni in the same legend bears testimony of
that pinipiti actually constitutes a Semito-Egyptian calque
the dative singular in -i of Tarunu “Atlunu” as paralleled
+H ANTAWAT- “prince”.662
of Luwian hieroglyphic infans The geographic name Sa® urwa is attested in writing
for Luwian hieroglyphic,668 that yatanu in the legend of
variant Sa® arwa for other Cretan hieroglyphic inscrip-
“he as given”,669 and that pititi in the legend of seal # 314
tions, and occurs, in adjectival derivative, in Linear B as
shows the dative singular in -ti as attested for Linear A
Sakarijo or Saqarejo. It has been plausibly identified with
(telnj Dakuseneti “delivery to Taku-šenni”) and Cypro-
Homeric Skheria, which in turn appears to be the ancient
Minoan (telu Sanemeti “delivery to Sanemas”),670 we ar-
Mesara.663
rive in sum at the following transliteration and interpreta-
name of Hagia Triada in the western part of the
seals # 257, # 312, and # 314 corresponds to Ugaritic ytn
tion of the legends of our 10 Minoan seals (cf. Fig. 26).
Next, the frequent Tarunu is, considering the fact that Cretan hieroglyphic [r] may also express [l] and, as we have
Remaining seals or sealings used in our discussion of
just seen, vice versa, and on the analogy of Tìtarma being
the signs are # 003J and # 139 from Knossos, which read
the Luwian hieroglyphic form of Hittite Attarima, likely to
bi’ty ma6-sa
be read Atlunu – which resembles Plato’s mythical Atlantis
masa representing either D sg. in -a or D pl. in -ai of Lu-
PIA
“the king has given to the god(s)”, with
too much to be dismissed as accidental. On the basis of the
wian hieroglyphic masa(na)- “god”, # 196, presenting the
distribution of the seals with this geographic name, it probably refers to the northern zone of Crete from Knossos
personal name sa-ná-ma, and # 246 from Kritsa, which reads pi-ti ® i-a-wa6 “king (of) Akhaia”, thus presenting671
to Kato Zakro.664 Furthermore, Ayalnj, which turns up in
the earliest recorded reference to the Greek mainland.
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 Linear B Rukito “Lyktos” lies at hand, which name is mentioned in the itinerary of Aegean place names from 667 Laroche 1960a: *57, 2; cf. atu “in”, corresponding to Luwian hieroglyphic ata, and upa “behind”, corresponding to Luwian hieroglyphic apa, from the text of the Phaistos disc, see Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 79-82.
Amenhotep III’s (1390-1352 BC) temple tomb at Kom elHetan (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
668 See section 5, note 88 above.
Phaiakes, the form Payaki is likely to be considered an
669 Gordon 1955: 70; Segert 1984: 44; 74; cf. Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 127; Woudhuizen 2001b: 612. Note that this element is paralleled by the presence of “the hand that gives” pia (Laroche 1960a: *66) in the legends of Middle Bronze Age Luwian hieroglyphic seals, see Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 135-6; Woudhuizen 2001b: 612; Woudhuizen 2004a: 119-20.
ethnonym referring to the inhabitants of Skheria – the ancient 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
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 -i mentioned 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.
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.
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. section 2 above.
665 Best 1996-7: 116; Woudhuizen 2002a: 126-7. 666 Best 2000: 29; see section 12 above.
129
1. 2. 3.
CHIC # 253 # 255 # 257
4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
# 258 # 271 # 296 # 309 # 310 # 312 # 314
MN muwa pi-ta5-PÁRA ma-ná? (if the “snake” (Evans no. 84) may be identified with “coiling water” (Evans no. 115, CHIC 069)) 'ya-ta6-le TARKU-MUWA PÁRA-tá-rú a-na-ki-wa6 'TARKU ma6-ni-le 'tá-PÁRA pi-ni 'nú-wa
title pi-ni-pi-ti pi-tƯ pi-tƯ
place/country ta5-rú-ni ta5-ru-nú
pi-ni la+PÁRANA pi-ni pi-ti bi’ty/pi-tƯ TUPA PÁRA-custos pi-ni-ti
ta5-ru-nú sà-® ur-wa6 pa3-ya-ki ta5-ru-nú a-ya-lnj ta5-ru-nú 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 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-tƯ “under the seal with respect to Atlunu, king Pittaparas”
# 257
1
2
1. ma-ná ya-ta6-nú 2. pi-tƯ 3. ta5-ru-nú “Manes has granted, king (of) Atlunu”
130
3
# 258
1
2
3
1. 'ya-ta6-le 2. pi-ni 3. ta5-ru-nú “Yatar, representative (of) Atlunu”
# 271
1 1.
SASA UTNA
2 2. sà-® ur-wa6 3. la+PÁRANA
TARKU-MUWA
3 “seal (with respect to) the land (of) Skheria (= Hagia
Triada), king Tarkumuwas”
# 296
1 1.
SASA UTNA SARU
2 2.
PÁRA-tá-rú
3
4
3. pi-ni 4. pa3-ya-ki “seal (with respect to) the land (and) official(s) (of) the
Phaiakians, representative Bartaras”
1
2
3
4
# 309
1. a-na-ki-wa6 2. pi-ti ma 3. ta5-ru-nú 4. ya-ta6-nú “Ankiwas, king (of) Atlunu, has granted”
131
1
2
3
4
# 310
1.
SASA UTNA
le
SARU
2. a-ya-lnj 3.
AMU 'TARKU
sol (3X) 4. bi’ty/pi-tƯ “seal (with respect to) the sun-blessed land
(and) official(s) (of) Ayalu (= Malia), I (am) king Tarkus, (person) blessed by the sun-god”
1
2
3
4
# 312
1. ma6-ni-le 2. ma6 TUPA 3. ta5-ru-nú 4. ya-ta6-nú “Men-r‘, scribe (of) Atlunu, has granted”
132
1 2 3 # 314
4 5 6 7 8 1. 'tá-PÁRA 2. pi-ni 3. 'nú-wa 4.
PÁRA-custos
-ti- 5. pi-ni
PÁRA-custos
6. ta5-ru-nú 7. ya-ta6-nú 8. pi-ti5-tƯ
“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 publications, except in the case of # 309).
133
APPENDIX II: ON THE POSITION OF THE ETRUSCAN LANGUAGE The following list of comparanda for the Etruscan language is based on Woudhuizen 1992b and Woudhuizen
CUNEIFORM LUWIAN
ETRUSCAN
1998 (with references to earlier literature), and supple-
vocabulary
mented by Steinbauer 1999 as discussed in Woudhuizen
18.
Ɨnnan “under”
ana, en-
2001a. For the comparisons with Greek and Latin I have
19.
Ɨnta “in”
inte-
made use of Charsekin 1963, especially 24-8, amplified, as
20.
Ɨppan “behind; re-”
apa, epn
far as Greek is concerned, by Schachermeyr 1929: 248, Fi-
21.
Aššiya- “Assiya [GN]”
Asi-
esel 1931: 43; 51-2, and van der Meer 1992: 68. The
22.
awƯ- “to come”
av-, ev-, hev-
meaning of the Etruscan words, elements and endings is in
23.
-® a “and; also”
-c, -Ȥ
24.
® andawat(i)- “king”
cam-i-, can--
25.
® nj® ® a- “grandfather”
ceȤa-, ceȤi-
26.
® ui(ya)- “to run, march”
cu(vu)-
27.
kattawatnalli- “vindictive,
qutef-
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.
® aštƗi- “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”
-m
8.
man (optative particle)
man
9.
maniya® ® - “to handle,
mena-, meni-
revengeful”
administer” 10.
neku- “to diminish, be-
nace-, neȤ-
newa® ® - “to renew”
nuca-673
12.
nu- (introductory particle)
nu-
13.
parku- “high”
parȤi-
14.
purullia- “new year’s
ril
feast” 15.
sannapi “sporadic”
snuiaij
16.
wal® - “to strike, hit,
Velc-, VelȤ-
smite” 17.
weda-, wete- “to build”
kui- “who, what”
-Ȥva-
29.
maššani- “god(dess)”
masan-
30.
mawa- “4”
muva-
31.
nani- “brother”
Nana-
32.
niš “not”
nes, neĞ, nis
33.
-pa “but, and”
-pa
34.
parran, parƯ “before, pre-”
per-
35.
pƯ(ya)- “to give”
p-
36.
sarlƗtta- “libation-offering” sela- (< *serla-)
37.
samnai-, samniya- “to
38.
Tar® unt- “Tar®unt [GN]”
TarȤna-
39.
Tiwat- “sun-god [GN]”
tiur-
40.
dnjp(a)i- “to strike, hit”
tupi
41.
tnjwa- “to place, put”
tva-
42.
wa- (introductory particle)
va-, fa-
43.
walli(ya)- “to elevate”
fal(a)-
44.
walwa- “lion”
VelaveĞna-
45.
wanatt(i)- “woman,
Uni-
hamai-, amei-
found”
come twilight” 11.
28.
mother”
vatie-
46.
wini(ya)- “vine, wine”
vina-
word formation 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® ® -.
135
47.
adjectival -ašši-
-s-, -Ğ-
48.
adjectival -alli-
-l-
49.
ethnic -wanni-
-ni-
50.
factitive -nu(wa)-
-nv-, -nu-
51.
iterative -š(š)-
-s-, -Ğ-, -z-
52.
“-ship” -® i-
-c-, -Ȥ-
73.
(pro)nominal declension & verbal conjugation 53.
N(m/f) sg. -š
36.
sa5r- “smoke offering”
seril (adjective)674
SARLAsa5rlata4-
sela- (< *serla-)
“libation
offering”
– , -s (gentilicium)
54.
A(m/f) sg. -n
– , -n (pronoun)
74.
SURA(R)sura/i-
55.
D sg. -i, -iya
-a, -i
75.
tàma- “precinct”
56.
Abl. sg. -ti
-ș, -r(i)
76.
ta4ma- “to build”
-amu-
TARH UNT-
TarȤna-
TARH UNT+UMINA-
57.
N-A(n) pl. -a
-a
38.
58.
3rd pers. sg. pres./fut. -ti
--(i)
77.
59.
3rd pers. pl. pres./fut. -nti
-nt ETRUSCAN
vocabulary 18.
ANANnana
20.
APAna
“under”
“behind; re-”
60.
àrma- “altar”
61.
ARAnu(wa)ta-
tesi-
39.
TIWATA-
tiur-
79.
tiwat/ra- (onomastic ele-
“sun-god”
apa, epn
40.
tupi- “to strike, hit”
tupi
heram(v)-
41.
TUWA-
tva-
80.
tuwa- “2”
-u-, tu-
42.
wa- (introductory particle)
va-, fa-
heĞn-
43.
wáliƗ- “to elevate”
fal(a)-
[MN]”
“to place, put”
ASA(NU)-
21.
ás(i)Ư- “to love”
Asi-
44.
WALWA
19.
àntá “in”
inte-
45.
WANATInati4-
22.
áawa- “to come”
av-, ev-, hev-
H ANTAWAT-
“king”
23.
-® a(wa) “and; also”
25.
H UH A® a-
63.
H WA
28.
H WA-
“grandfather”
“when; because” “who, what”
“lion”
cam-i-, can--
warƗ- “to help”
vƝr-675
-c, -Ȥ
82.
wasa5r(i)ti “by the grace
user
of”
ceȤa-cve
83.
WATA-
“water”
-Ȥva-
46.
WIANAwaƗna-
H WÁ-
“to run, march”
cu(vu)-
64.
H WAr
“when; because”
cver
47.
65.
Ưla- “to (be) favor(ed)”
ila-
“bowl”
67.
kutúpili- “fire offering”
Uni-
woman”
26.
KATANA-
VelaveĞna-
“mother;
81.
word formation
66.
Ĭefarie-
ment)
62.
24.
TarȤumenaia-
tàĞa- “stele; grave”
ana, en-
“Arnuwandas Arn--
“to settle”
“Tar®unt [GN]”
tmia-
“Tar®untassa [TN]” 78.
LUWIAN HIEROGLYPHIC
“abundance” Ğuri-
“vine”
utuvina-
adjectival -sa-
-s-, -Ğ-
48.
adjectival -ali-
-l-
qutum-, qutun-
49.
ethnic -wana-
-ni-
Caușa-
50.
factitive -nu(wa)-
-nv-, -nu-
iterative -s-
-s-, -Ğ-, -z-
“-ship” -® i-
-c-, -Ȥ-
-ma “but, and”
-m
51.
68.
maluwa- “thank-offering”
muluva-
52.
8.
man (optative particle)
man
(pro)nominal declension & verbal conjugation
29.
MASANA-
“god(dess)”
masan-
53.
30.
MAUWA-
“4”
muva-
54.
A(m/f) sg. -na
– , -n (pronoun)
D sg. -Ɨ, -i
-a, -i
G sg. -sa
-s (D-G)
7.
N(m/f) sg. -sa
– , -s (gentilicium)
69.
*mek- “5”
maȤ-
55.
70.
*mek- “numerous”
meȤ-
84.
71.
mi- “my”
mi-
56.
Abl. sg. -ti, -ri
--, -r(i)
N(m/f) pl. -i
-i
N-A(n) pl. -a
-a
72.
mukasa- “Muksas [MN]”
MuȤsie-
85.
31.
nana- “brother”
Nana-
57.
32.
na4sa “not”
nes, neĞ, nis
34.
PÁRA
33.
-pa(wa) “but, and; or”
“before, pre-”
-pa
674 Not yet in Woudhuizen 1998.
35.
PIA-
p-
675 Agostiniani & Nicosia 2000: 54 (= Tabula Cortonensis, sec-
“to give”
per-
tion II) .
136
86.
D pl. -aƯ
-e (< *-ai [D-G])
58.
3rd pers. sg. pres./fut. -ti
-ș(i)
59.
3rd pers. pl. pres./fut. -nti
-nt
LYCIAN/SIDETIC
ETRUSCAN
59.
3rd pers. pl. pres./fut. -ñti
-nt
LYDIAN
ETRUSCAN
vocabulary
Vocabulary
21.
Asi1i- “Asia [GN]
Asi-
apa, epn
96.
Baki- “Bakkhos [GN]”
PaȤie-
20.
epñ “behind; re-”
18.
e1ne1 “under”
ana, en-
14.
borl-, forl- “year”
ril
87.
ese “with”
s-
35.
bi- “to give”
p-
88.
e1tri- “lower, inferior”
etera-
71.
emi1 “me”
mi
37.
hm1me-, m1mai-,
hamai-, amei-
42.
fa- (introductory particle)
va-, fa-
97.
isl- “first”
esl-, sal, zal
m1mei(ye)- “to found” 60.
hrm1ma- “altar”
heram(v)-
23.
-k “and; also”
-c, -Ȥ
6.
iye- “to make”
ia-
24.
Kandaules “Kandaules
camși-, canș-
23.
-ke “and; also”
-c, -Ȥ
68.
malvam1a- “thank-
muluva-
[MN]”
offering”
7.
-m “but, and”
-m
68.
ml1ve1nd- “thank-
muluva-
offering”
89.
me- (introductory particle)
me-
71.
m1i “me”
mi-
98.
nak (introductory particle)
nac
31.
neni- “brother”
Nana-
31.
Nanna- “Nanas [MN]”
Nana-
32.
ni “not”
nes, neĞ, nis
32.
ni “not”
nes, neĞ, nis
19.
ñte “in”
inte-
99.
palmu- “king”
(toga) palmata
35.
piye- “to give”
p-
3.
qla- “precinct”
cleva-
28.
pe-, pi- “who, what”
-Ȥva-
28.
ti- “who, what”
-Ȥva-
100.
silu- (magistracy)
zila-
90.
tibe(i) “or”
tev
75.
tam- “precinct”
tmia-
91.
tlli- “to pay”
tle-
78.
taĞe- “stele; grave”
tesi-
40.
tub(e)i- “to strike, hit”
tupi
79.
Tivadali- “Tivdalis [MN]”
4efarie-
41.
t1uv(e)- “to place, put”
tva-
-s-, -Ğ-
40.
ut1ba- “to strike, hit”
tupi
vit1i1- “to build”
vatie-
(Lat.)
word formation 47.
adjectival -hi-
48.
adjectival -li-
-l-
17.
49.
ethnic -(v)ñni-
-ni-
word formation
92.
ethnic -zi-
-Ğ-, -z-
47.
adjectival -si-
-s-, -Ğ-
93.
ethnic -de-
--e-, -te-
48.
adjectival -li-
-l-
(pro)nominal declension & verbal conjugation
101.
ethnic -k
-F
53.
N(m/f) sg. – , -s
– , -s (gentilicium)
52.
“-ship” -k-
-c-, -F-
54.
A(m/f) sg. – , -ñ
– , -n (pronoun)
(pro)nominal declension & verbal conjugation
55.
D sg. -a, -i
-a, -i
53.
N(m/f) sg. -s
– , -s (gentilicium)
84.
G sg. -h
-s (D-G)
54.
A(m/f) sg. -n
– , -n (pronoun)
56.
Abl. sg. -di, -de
-- -r(i)
102.
D sg. -l1
-l (D-G)
85.
N(m/f) pl. -i
-i
103.
G sg. -l
-l (D-G)
94.
A(m/f) pl. -as, -is
-es, -is
56.
Abl. sg. -di1, -d, -l1
--, -r(i)
57.
N-A(n) -ã, -e1
-a
85.
N(m/f) pl. -i1
-i
N-A(n) pl. -a
-a -e (< *-ai [D-G])
86.
D pl. -a, -e (< *-ai)
-e (< *-ai [D-G])
57.
95.
G pl. -ãi, -e1
-ai
86.
D pl. -ai1
3rd pers. sg. pres./fut. -ti,
--(i)
95.
G pl. -ai1
-ai
58.
3rd pers. sg. pres./fut. -d
--(i)
58.
-di 137
59.
3rd pers. pl. pres./fut. -nt LEMNIAN
-nt
120.
emmenai “to be” (Aiolic)
am-
121.
epiouros“guardian,
epiur-, epru-678
watcher, ward”
ETRUSCAN 108.
(v)anaks “king”
vanec-
104.
avi- “year”
avil-
122.
themeros “holy”
tameresc- “holy gift”
23.
-c “and”
-c, -Ȥ
123.
themis “law, custom, right”
șemi-
klǀn “twig, spray, slip”
clan “son”
vocabulary
41.
-o- “to place, put”
tva-
124.
7.
-m “but, and”
-m
125.
kulikhnƝ “small cup”
culiȤna, ȤuliȤna
69.
mara- “5”
maȤ-
105.
naijo-- “grandson”
neft-
66.
kǀthǀn “drinking vessel”
qutum (vase name)
106.
sia- “6”
Ğa-, Ğe-
126.
la(v)os “host, people”
lavt- “freedman”
tevera-
127.
le(v)ǀn “lion”
lev
128.
lƝkuthos “oil-flask”
leȤtumuza (vase
129.
brotos (< *mrtos) “mortal”
mur- “to die”
10.
nekus “corps”
nace-, neȤ- “dimin-
107.
tavarĞio, toveronarom
(vase name)
(magistracy) 108.
vanaca- “king”
name)
vanec-
word formation 47.
adjectival -si-, -Ği-
-s-, -Ğ-
109.
-lȤvei- (multiples of ten)
-lȤl-
ishing” 105.
(pro)nominal declension & verbal conjugation 55.
D sg. -i
-a, -i
84.
(D-)G sg. -Ğ
-s
102-
D-G sg. -l
-l
103. 110.
Loc. sg. --
nƝdus “stomach, belly, womb”
“entrails”
131.
opuiǀ “to marry, take to
puia- “wife”
N(m/f) pl. -i
-i
86.
D pl. -ai
-e (< *-ai [D-G])
133.
GREEK a(v)elios “sun”
polos “pole-(star)”
pulum- “star(s)”
prokhous “vessel for pour-
pruȤum (vase name)
ing out”
-ce, -Ȥe ETRUSCAN
134.
prutanis “ruler, lord”
135.
spondeion “cup for pouring spanti “libation
vocabulary 104.
ne--, net-, ni-u-
wife”
--(i)
85.
3rd pers. sg. past tense -ke
neft- “grandson”
130.
132.
111.
nepous, pl. nepodes “children”
pru--, pur--
a drink- offering”
bowl, plate”
avil- “year”676
136.
tauros “bull”
șevru
tris “thrice”
trais-
turannos “tyrant”
turan (divine form of
112.
hals, (G halos) “salt, sea”
als-
137.
113.
askos “wineskin”
aska (vase name)
138.
114.
Aphrios (month name)
apiras-
96.
Bakkhos “Bakkhos”
PaȤie-
139.
hupnos “sleep, slumber”
hupnina “tomb”
115.
brontƝ “roar, thunder”
fronta-677
140.
HuttƝnia (= Tetrapolis)
huș, hut “4”
141.
kharistƝrion “thank-
Ȥarste[r]iun
142.
khoros “dance”
143.
pharthenos “girl, virgin”
116
deinos “round vessel”
-ina (vase name)
76.
demǀ “to built”
-am (u)-
117.
dǀreǀ “to give”
tur(u)-
118.
hekatombƝ “sacrifice of
Ȥim-m-
address) 679
offering” dances”
hundred oxen” 119.
elai(v)Ɨ “olive”
Ȥurvar “month of the far-na-
(Aiolic)
eleiva-
678 Correspondence used by Agostiniani & Nicosia 2000: 105 without due reference to the original source Charsekin 1963.
676 Maresch 1957, who further points out that related words for
“sun”, like Latin sol, are also used for “year”.
679 Possibly related with Luwian hieroglyphic tarwana- “law-
677 Note the preservation of the Greek [o] in the Etruscan form.
giver”.
138
verbal conjugation 111.
3rd pers. sg. perfect (or ao-
verbal conjugation -ce, -Ȥe
160.
rist) -ke
3rd pers. pl. passive pres.
-n(a)-ur (now also
-ntur
Agostiniani & Nicosia 2000: 54 (=
LATIN/ITALIC
Tabula Cortonensis,
ETRUSCAN
section III)
vocabulary 161.
infinitive passive -ri
-ri
PHOENICIAN/HEBREW
ETRUSCAN
144.
capio “to take (away)”
capi-
145.
esuna- “offering”
aisna-
146.
idus (middle of the month)
etul-
147.
kletram “bier”
cletram
vocabulary
127.
leo “lion”
lev
162.
148.
lustrum “lustrum”
lurs--
of old inherited form
149.
magister (magistracy)
macstrev-
of the Phoenician di-
150.
maro- (magistracy)
maru-
vine name Astarte
151.
mundus “bothros”
mun--
needs to be distin-
129.
morior “to die”
mur-
guished from Astre-
152.
munus “offering, tribute,
munist-
in the inscriptions on
Asherah
the Pyrgi gold tab-
duty” 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
spanti “libation
a drink- offering”
bowl, plate”
156.
subulu “fluteplayer”
suplu
157.
suus (reflexive pronoun,
sva-
Aisera (note that this
lets, which is an ad hoc attempt to render ‘štrt in the Phoenician version of the text) 142.
krr “month of the dances”
Ȥurvar, Ȥurve, Ȥuru
163.
mlh̙̙ “beautiful”
mlaȤ (G mlakas)
164.
slt- “power”
seleita- “sultanate”
3rd pers.) 158.
teneo “to hold (a magis-
-en(u)-, ten(u)-
tracy)” 159.
touto-, tuta- “people”
-uta-, tu--
46.
vinum “wine”
vina-
The salient points from this list are the following:
Etruscan with Luwian hieroglyphic is the phe-
(1)
Correspondences of Etruscan with Hittite have a
nomenon of rhotacism of the dental, as attested
bearing on vocabulary alone: hence Etruscan is
for the onomastic element tiwat/ra- and the end-
not to be identified with Hittite, as Vladimir
ing of the Abl. sg. -t/ri. (3)
Georgiev wants to have it. (2)
Nevertheless, Etruscan is not to be identified as a
Considering the fact that the correspondences of
dialect of Luwian hieroglyphic, as it shares the
Etruscan with Luwian hieroglyphic outmatch all
loss of the N(m/f) sg. -s and A(m/f) sg. -n in the
other categories, Etruscan shows the closest affin-
realm of the noun with Lycian, which also pro-
ity with Luwian hieroglyphic. Note especially that
vides comparative evidence for the A(m/f) pl. in
the shared use of the endings of the N(m/f) pl. in
-es or -is. To this comes that Etruscan shows some
-i and D pl. in -ai exclude a particularly close re-
evidence of the typical Lycian phonetic develop-
lationship with cuneiform Luwian, which is
ment [s] > [h] in the case of the verb hamai-
characterized by N(m/f) pl. -nzi and D pl. -nza.
/amei- “to found” < cuneiform Luwian samnai-.
Yet another feature which stresses the relationship
Another deviation from the Luwian hieroglyphic
of Etruscan with Luwian hieroglyphic is the phe139
pattern is formed by the G pl. in -ai, which Etruscan 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 -Fva-, 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 phonetic 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 century 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 finetuned 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 -Fe from the Greek kappaperfect (or -aorist), amounted to the level of codemixing.680
(6)
The correspondences with Italic and Latin are easily 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 infinitive -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.
140
APPENDIX III: A LUWIAN TRIFUNCTIONAL DIVINE TRIAD RECORDED FOR CRETE
The Egyptian hieroglyphic text of a medical papyrus,
whereas the vocabulary words, in conformity with the
probably stemming from to the reign of Amenhotep III
situation in Cretan Linear A, are Semitic, waya corre-
(1390-1352 BC), preserves a magical spell against the Asi-
sponding to wy “and” as recorded for a Phoenician inscrip-
atic pox in the language of the Keftiu. In transliteration,
tion from Cyprus and ’ayaman to ‘immanu “with us” as in
this text reads:
Biblical ‘immanu’el “with us god”, so that in its entirety the translation of the formula runs as follows: “Santas, Ku-
snt͑k3pwpyw3y͑ym‘nt͑rk3k3r,
papa, and with us Carian Tar®u(nt)”.
or, in the vocalized transliteration as adopted by
Of the three gods in question, Tar®u(nt) is the storm-
Wolfgang Helck:
or weather-god, often depicted with the symbol of lightning in his hand. Next, Kupapa, who is likely to be identi-
sa-n-ta-ka-pu-pi-wa-ya-’a-ya-ma-n-ta-ra-kú-ka-ra.
fied with the Phrygian Magna Mater, Kybele, no doubt
As argued at length in my contribution on the topic
likewise represents agricultural richness and procreation.
from 1992 (with references), the formula can be subdi-
Finally, there is some evidence to consider Santas as a
vided into six individual entities, four of which render
war-god, because (1) he is depicted armed with a bow, (2)
three divine names in sum, viz. Santas, Kupapa, and Tarku
in his capacity as chief god of Tarsus during the Classical
Kara, and the remaining two of which consist of vocabu-
period he is identified with the Greek war-hero par excel-
lary words, viz. waya (w3y) and ’ayaman (͑ym‘n).681 The
lence, Herakles, and (3) in a Hittite text he is staged as
three divine names are all of Luwian background,682
dressed in bloodred cloths – red being the color of the warrior class.683 At this point, one cannot help to be reminded of Georges Dumézil’s epoch-making thesis of a trifunc-
681 Woudhuizen 1992a: 1-10; according to the expert Egyptologist
tional ideology of the Indo-Europeans, Tar®u(nt) repre-
J.F. Borghouts, the sign Gardiner 1994: N 31 “road” does not ren-
senting royal sovereignty (= F1), Santas standing as a
der a phonetic value in the present context.
protagonist for the class of warriors (= F2), and Kupapa
682 For Luwian hieroglyphic, see Savaú 1998: 41-2 (Santas); 17-
29 (Kupapa); 47-63 (Tar® unt); note that Tar® u(nt) is represented
acting as protectress of the class of agricultural producers
as Trqqñt- or Trqqas in Lycian inscriptions, see Melchert 1993,
(= F3). At any rate, the parallels from the pantheon of
s.v., and as Zeus TarguƝnos in Lydia, see Woudhuizen 1990: 101;
other Indo-European peoples like the Romans, the Indians,
Santas and Kupapa are recorded in form of ĝãnt2aĞ and Kufad in
and the Germans for trifunctional divine triads are conspi-
Lydian no. 4, see Gusmani 1964. Related onomastic elements of
cious:684
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. precisely 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), Kupapa and the stag-god Kar®u®as, see Laroche 1960b: 120; this lat-
683 Melchert 2002: 241-2; Kammenhuber 1940: 193; cf. Dumézil
ter divine triad is mentioned together in, amongst others, a Luwian
1958: 26.
hieroglyphic inscription on a stone bowl dedicated by the Phrygian king Midas and hence dating to the late 8th century BC, which was
684 Dumézil 1958: 48 f. (Roman); 34 (Indic); 58 (Germanic); ac-
transported as a spolia from Karkamis to Babylon, see Hawkins
cording to Littleton 1973: 12 the Germanic evidence should rather
2000: 394-6 and Woudhuizen 2004b: 105-6 (= Babylon 2).
be analysed as follows: F1 Othinn, F2 Thǀrr, and F 3 Freyr.
141
LUWIAN
ROMAN
INDIC
GERMANIC
F1
Tarku Kara
Jupiter
Mitra-Varuna
Thor
F2
Santas
Mars
Indra
Wodan
F3
Kupapa
Quirinus
Nasatya-AĞvin
Freyr
Table 9. Trifunctional divine triads among various Indo-European speaking groups.
Now, the present Luwian divine triad is not the only evi-
lian languages Hittite and Palaic, of Celtic, Italic, and
dence for trifunctionalism in Crete. Recently, Chris Lynn
Tocharian.688 Hence, the preservation of a reflex of laryn-
and Dean Miller argued that the cup with a man with a staff (= F1), the rhyton with a depiction of boxers and
geal [h2] in IE Anatolian may safely be ascribed to the influence of the indigenous Anatolian languages like Hattic
other sports (= F2), and the vase with a procession of
and Hurritic on that of the Indo-European intruders. No
farmers (= F3) from one and the same Late Minoan IB
need, therefore, to saddle the Indo-Europeans of Anatolia
context at Hagia Triada present yet another instance of this
up with 1700 years of fictitious history, as Robert Drews,
typical Indo-European ideology.685 Contrary to the opin-
in the wake of the linguists Thomas Gamkrelidze & Va-
ion of the latter authors, however, I would not attribute this
þeslav Ivanov, does in his Greater Anatolia!689
example of trifunctionalism to the Mycenaean Greeks, who only gained possession of the island of Crete after the disastrous Santorini eruption at the end of Late Minoan IB (c. 1450 BC), but to the Luwian population groups which presumably 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 evidence of trifunctionalism among the Indo-European population 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 coincides
markedly
with
the
straightforwardly
Indo-
European nature of the Luwian language as attested for the hieroglyphic monuments, which, apart from some individual developments like the loss of the voiced velars, is particularly related to the conservative group among the IndoEuropean languages consisting, next to the other IE Anato685 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 Indo-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.
688 Woudhuizen 2004a: section 9. 689 Drews 2001.
142
APPENDIX IV: PELASGIAN DEMETER AND ZEUS
The earliest attestation of the divine name Demeter is on a
Another deity attributed with a Pelasgian origin is
stone laddle inscribed with the Linear A legend da-ma-te
Zeus. Thus already in Homeros’ Iliad, which, as we have
from a peak-sanctuary at Kythera, dated to the transition
seen in section 2 above, basically reflects Late Bronze Age
BC.690
history, Zeus of Dodona – at that time still the one near
According to Herodotos, the cult of Demeter originated
Skotussa in Thessaly – is referred to by Akhilleus in a
from Egypt, and the rites were taught by the daughters of
prayer as “Pelasgian” (Zeu Dǀdǀnaie Pelasgike).697 Now,
from Middle Minoan III to Late Minoan I, c. 1600
Danaos to Pelasgian
women.691
As the arrival in Greece of
the linguistic analysis of the divine name Zeus is undis-
Danaos with his daughters from Egypt can be situated in
puted, all specialists tracing it back to the PIE root *DyƝws
the period of the shaft-graves at Mycenae c. 1600 BC, this
for the sky-god.698 If, then, Zeus’ mythical Pelasgian ori-
tallies well with the afore-mentioned date of the earliest
gin applies, we are confronted with a second pre-Greek di-
epigraphical evidence for the divine name Demeter. In the
vine name based on a PIE root.
variant of the myth by Pausanias, however, Demeter is
The Pelasgian nature of Demeter and Zeus may well
welcomed in his home by Pelasgos, the mythical ancestor
account for their incorporation in the Lydian pantheon as
of the Pelasgians who ruled the Argolid before the arrival
Lametru- and LevĞ or LefĞ, respectively.699 As we have
of Danaos and his daughters and thus brings us back to
seen in section 12 above, namely, Pelasgians were living in
sometime in the Middle Bronze
Age.692
the region of Larisa Phrikonis at the time of the Trojan war
The name Demeter or Damater is variously analyzed
and for this reason may be assumed to have been in close
by linguists, but all agree that the second element consists
contact with the ancestors of the historical Lydians, in
of a reflex of PIE *méh2tƝr “mother”.693 Generally, this is
which process they evidently radiated their cult of Demeter
taken for evidence of the Greek language, but the interpre-
and Zeus.
tation of Linear B ma-ka as Ma Ga “Mother Earth” mili-
The identification of Demeter and Zeus as Pelasgian
tates against a Greek solution along the line of da- in
gods does not exclude their ultimate Cretan origin as sug-
Damater being a reflex of Greek ga or gƝ “earth”.694 To
gested by the Homeric hymn to Demeter700 and Hesiodos’
this comes that the Phrygian language, which, as we have
Theogony,701 which squares with the earliest attestation of
seen in section 7 above, was presumably spoken by pre-
Demeter in a Linear A inscription from a Minoan peak-
Greek population groups of mainland Greece, is likewise
sanctuary at Kythera, and the myth of Zeus being born in
characterized by a reflex of PIE *méh2tƝr as exemplified
the cave of Dikte:702 as we have already noted with respect
by the Old Phrygian expression matar Kubileya or matar
to Demeter, the cult of these gods may have radiated to the
Kubeleya “mother
Kybele”.695
Greek mainland already in Middle Helladic times! From a
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
“Pelasgian Demeter”.
Pausanias’ version of the myth suggests.696
697 Homeros, Iliad XVI, 233; cf. Strabo, Geography V, 2, 4. 698 Sihler 1995: 58; cf. Beekes 1990: 96.
690 Sakellarakis & Olivier 1994 (= KY Za 2); Duhoux 1994-5:
290-1; Suter 2002: 164.
699 Gusmani 1964, s.v.
691 Histories II, 171.
700 Homeric Hymn to Demeter 123; cf. Nilsson 1927: 506.
692 Guide to Greece 1, 14, 2.
701 Theogony 969-74, with Iasiǀn 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.
693 Suter 2002: 160-1. 694 Aravantinos, Godart & Sacconi 2001: 184; 358; cf. Douhoux
1994-5: 290.
702 Apollonios of Rhodes, Argonautika I, 605-6; for the associa-
695 Brixhe & Lejeune 1984: W-04; B-01.
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.
696 Cf. Pausanias, Guide to Greece 2, 22, 1: DƝmƝtƝr Pelasgis
143
linguistic point of view, however, the names Demeter and
comprehensive
Zeus should be assigned to a Pelasgian layer or group in
Mother”. According to Elwira Kaczynɩska, this runs up
Cretan society.
against the fact that the Cretan oronym Ida originates from
elucidation
by
Boufidis
as
“Idaian
*Wida, and hence an initial digamma should be expected for the Linear A legend709 – an inference which even re-
Additional note 1: Linear A I-DAMA-TE
ceives further support if the related Greek idƝ “timber-tree” (leading to the interpretation of Ida as “wooded hill”)710 ultimately derives from PIE *uʗidhu- “tree”.711 However,
Two double-axes, one of gold and the other of silver, from the cave of Arkalokhori are inscribed with the Linear A
the man’s name Idaios, which, of course, cannot be dis-
legend L 100a-30-95-92, reading, with the values of their
connected from the mountain name Ida, appears in Linear
This legend has re-
B as i-da-i-jo, that is to say without an initial digamma.712
ceived various interpretations by the different authors. In
As it seems, then, the initial digamma has been dropped al-
the first place, the excavator of the find, Nikolaos
ready in the 14th century BC, which, needless to say, seri-
Linear B counterparts,
i-da-ma-te.703
ously undermines Kaczynɩska’s objection.
Boufidis, suggested to consider it as the equivalent of Secondly, the
The validity of Boufidis’ interpretation can be further
editor princeps of the inscription on the gold axe, Maurice
supported by circumstantial evidence. As indicated in the
Pope, took it for a variant of the pre-Greek divine name
above, the legend is inscribed on double-axes. Now, the
i-.705
double-axe is the symbol par excellence of the foremost
Thirdly, Franco Crevatin explained the second part of the
Cretan goddess, which according to her Semitic form of
legend as a reflex of the onomastic element -martis as at-
address is called Assara. This goddess, especially known
tested for the pre-Greek Cretan divine name Britomar-
from libation inscriptions on wash-hand stone-basins from
tis.706
In the fourth place, finally, Paul Faure proposed to
peak-sanctuaries, is depicted on a seal with the double-axe
split up the second part of the legend in a theonym Ma and
on her head. Furthermore, her name is written with the
Greek Ida hƝ matƝr “The Idaian
Mother”.704
DƝmƝtƝr characterized by an enigmatic prefix
a reflex of the Greek vocabulary word
double-axe sign for the expression of the initial vowel,
theos.707
Of these interpretations, the last two have a bearing
which in one instance is placed between punctuation marks
only on the second element -ma-te, which the authors in
to stress its symbolic value as a totem for the goddess.713
question try to disconnect from PIE *méh2tƝr “mother”. In
According to three Cretan hieroglyphic sealings with the
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
possible, would nonetheless collide with the PIE nature of the rest of the legend.
latter remark also holds good for Pope’s interpretation,
709 Kaczynɩska 2002: 138.
which, although recognizing the plausible relation of ma-te
710 LSJ, s.v. Note in this connection that in Homeros, Iliad XXIII,
with PIE *méh2tƝr, saddles us up with an enigmatic prefix
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.
i-.708 This leaves us, by means of deduction, with the only
711 Pokorny 1994: I, 1177; cf. Delamarre 2003: 319 for Celtic uidu- “tree, wood”.
703 Godart & Olivier 1982: 142-3, AR Zf 1-2; for the numbering
of the Linear A signs, see Meijer 1982: 38-47.
712 Ventris & Chadwick 1973: glossary, s.v.; cf. also i-da-me-na-
704 Boufidis 1953-4.
ja, the female counterpart of Homeric Idomeneus, which latter is plausibly interpreted by Kretschmer (Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopädie, 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 emphasis 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 Assuwa “Asia”.
705 Pope 1956. 706 Crevatin 1975. 707 Faure 2002: 78. Cf. Duhoux 1994-5: 289-90; Kaczynɩska 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
713 Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 19-21, esp. figs. 19 and 20a.
144
Additional note 2: Poseidon “consort of Da”
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
In his stimulating monograph on the Greek deity Poseidon,
foremost Cretan goddess was Kapupi, a local dialectal
Fritz Schachermeyr followed the linguistic analysis of this
variant of Luwian Kupapa,715 it seems not farfetched to
divine name by Paul Kretschmer as a compound of Greek
assume that the Kybela (= Phrygian form of Luwian Ku-
potis or posis “consort” of PIE nature (cf. Latin potis, San-
papa) cult at the Trojan mount Ida was introduced from
skrit pátih̙) with a form of address of mother earth, Da,
Crete in this particular period. If so, our connection of the
hence leading to the interpretation of the entire form as
double-axe with the “Idaian Mother” is substantially en-
“consort of Da”.718 Now, the second element da-, which is
hanced.
also present in the divine name DamatƝr or DƝmƝtƝr (< da-
The question remains to be answered to which lin-
+ PIE *méh2tƝr), may well come into consideration as the
guistic layer on Crete Linear A i-da-ma-te “Idaian Mother”
Pelasgian indication of “earth”, related to Greek ga or gƝ
should be ascribed. To this aim, it is important to deter-
and originating from the common proto-form *gda- as at-
mine the date of the inscribed double-axes. This can be
tested for the Phrygian place name Gdanmaa,719 Demeter
achieved by their association with pottery from the same
being the earth-mother par excellence. If so, the divine
cave, which according to Pierce Blegen runs on from Early
name Poseidon, just like Demeter, is likely to be attributed
Minoan to Late Minoan IA or perhaps even Late Minoan
with Pelasgian antecedents.
IB and Late Minoan II.716 If the latest possible date ap-
The latter inference gains weight by the fact that ac-
plies, the two Linear A legends may well be assumed to
cording to literary tradition Poseidon, together with Deme-
have been produced in consigment of a Greek customer,
ter, was venerated in Arkadian Thelpusa and some other
because, as we have seen in section 8, the Mycenaean
locations in horse shape720 – a feature which Schacher-
Greeks have earned themselves a foothold in Crete after
meyr plausibly explains as ultimately rooted in the time of
the desastrous Santorini-eruption at the end of Late Mi-
the introduction of the horse in Greece,721 which, as we
noan IB (c. 1450 BC). If, however, the double-axes belong
have seen in section 7, took place in two distinct phases
to an earlier period, an attribution to the Pelasgian layer or
during the Early Helladic III (horse-like animal) and Mid-
group in Cretan society, which we have just seen to be re-
dle Helladic (true horse) periods. Interesting to note in this
sponsible for the divine name Demeter, seems preferable.
connection is that the prominent position of the horse in
At any rate, to suggest that for the presence of the divine
Middle Helladic times clearly appears from the horse bur-
name “Idaian Mother” in two Linear A inscriptions this
ial associated with a royal tumulus at Marathon.722 Con-
script in its entirety notates an Indo-European language of
trary to Schachermeyr, however, and in line with a
the Greek or Thraco-Phrygian type bears testimony of a
suggestion by Joost Crouwel, I think it is unlikely that this
grave methodological error and a reductio ad absurdum of
prominent position of the horse in Middle Helladic times is
the complexities of Cretan society during the Middle and
solely based on its function as food provider (milk and
Late Bronze Age.717 718 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.
714 Olivier & Godart 1996: 192, # 135-7.
721 Schachermeyr 1950: 64; 143.
715 Woudhuizen 1992a: 4-5; see also appendix III.
722 Marinaotos 1973: Pls. 13-4; Papadimitriou 2001: figs. 44-7.
716 Vandenabeele 1985: 5 “and the decoration of the double axes
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 Lapithos in Cyprus, see Gjerstad 1926 : 81 (Politiko tomb 3) and cf. Herscher 1978 : 793.
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.
145
meat) or as a sacred animal per se:723 it must have had al-
and with pre-Greek population groups in Greece, the con-
ready military significance in this early period and hence
nection of Poseidon with the chariot (Pelops at Olympia,
have been used for
riding724
(note in this connection that
Onkhestos, the two horses of Peleus named Xanthos and
the outcome of the sacred marriage between Poseidon and
Balios)732 – as we have seen in section 7, the military
Demeter in horse shape at Thelpusa, the divine horse
weapon newly introduced by the foreign invaders c. 1600
Areion, is reported to have been mounted by Adrastos, i.e.
BC – and with the ones who are responsible for its intro-
a king with a Phrygian name whose antecedents hence may
duction in Greece (Kadmos),733 appears to be of secondary
likewise go back to Middle Helladic times, in the mythical
nature.
war of the seven heroes from the Argolid against
Just like Demeter and Zeus, Poseidon is also attested
Thebes).725
for Crete. Thus, in the genitive form po-se-da-o-ne he oc-
The ultimately Pelasgian origins of Poseidon can be
curs together with other deities on a Linear B tablet from
further underlined by other literary evidence. First of all, it
Knossos (KN V 52).734 Furthermore, if our location of
is conspicuous that Poseidon is particularly worshipped in
Skheria and the Phaiakians in the western part of the Me-
the regions where we have situated the local allies of the
sara valley holds good, it is noteworthy that Poseidon had
foreign invaders which arrived in Greece c. 1600 BC, viz.
a temple here and is considered to be the father of Nau-
in Pylos (Nestor is sacrificing to Poseidon when Tele-
sithoös, the founding father of the Phaiakians.735 At any
makhos visits him in the Odyssey),726 Attica (think of the
rate, this latter evidence ties in perfectly with our indica-
contest between Athena and Poseidon, which the former
tions of Pelasgian presence in the very same region of
won because of her gift of the olive
tree),727
Crete as presented in section 12 above!
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 (Eumolpos, Kykhreus, the Abantes and Aones, the Eteobutades),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 – notwithstanding 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 burials as discovered at Dendra (Protonotariou-Deilaki 1990), which cannot be dissociated from the war-chariot and hence must be assigned 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.
732 Schachermeyr 1950: 22; 39; 42.
727 Herodotos, Histories VIII, 55.
733 Schachermeyr 1950: 170.
728 Schachermeyr 1950: 43.
734 Ventris & Chadwick 1973: 311-2.
729 Schachermeyr 1950: 22; 41.
735 Schachermeyr 1950: 172. Note in this connection that striking evidence for the cult of Poseidon in the region in question is provided 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 Poseidon, cf. Briquel 1984: 266.
730 Schachermeyr 1950: 36-7; 41; cf. Detschew 1976, s.v. BoutƝs
and Kukhris, and Woudhuizen 1989: 196. 731 Schachermeyr 1950: 41; 43.
146
BIBLIOGRAPHY can Journal of Archaeology 69. Pp. 253-258.
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.
––– , 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.
Adams, J.N., Janse, Mark, & Swain, Simon, 2002, Bilingualism in Ancient Society, Language Contact and the Written Word. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Balkan, Kemal, 1954, Kassitenstudien I: Die Sprache der Kassiten. New Haven, Connecticut: American Oriental Society.
Agostiniani, Luciano, & Nicosia, Francesco, 2000, Tabula Cortonensis. Roma: «L’Erma» di Bretschneider.
Barako, Tristan J., 2004, [Review of: Eliezer D. Oren, The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment]. American Journal of Archaeology, 108: 453-455.
Agostino, Bruno d’, 1977, Tombe «Principesche» dell’ orientalizzante antico da Pontecagnano. Monumenti Antichi, Serie miscellanea Volume II, 1. Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei.
Barnett, Richard D., 1969, ‘The Sea Peoples’. In: Cambridge Ancient History II, 2, Chapter 28. Pp. 3-21. Cambridge: At the University Press (3rd edition).
Åkerstrøm, Åke, 1934, Studien über die Etruskischen Gräber, Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Entwicklung des Kammergrabes. Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup.
––– , 1975, ‘The Sea Peoples’. In: Cambridge Ancient History II, 2, Chapter 28. Pp. 359-378. Cambridge: At the University Press (3rd edition).
Akurgal, Ekrem, 1992, ‘L’Art Hatti’. In: Hittite and Other Anatolian 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.
Barth, Frederik, 1969, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Bergen-Oslo: Universitets Forlaget. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Albright, William Foxwell, 1932, The Excavations of Tell Beit Mirsim in Palestine, I: The Pottery of the First Three Campaigns. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 12.
BartonČk, 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.
––– , 1959, ‘Dunand’s new Byblos Volume: A Lycian at the Byblian court’. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 155. Pp. 31-34.
Bass, George, 1997, ‘Beneath the Wine Dark Sea: Nautical Archaeology and the Phoenicians of the Odyssey’. In: Greeks and 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. 71101. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press.
––– , 1975, ‘Syria, the Philistines, and Phoenicia’. In: Cambridge Ancient 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.
Beekes, Robert S.P., 1990, Vergelijkende taalwetenschap, Tussen Sanskrit en Nederlands (= Aula Paperback 176). Utrecht: Uitgeverij Het Spectrum BV.
Alp, Sedat, 1968, Zylinder- und Stempelsiegel aus Karahöyük bei Konya. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
––– , 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.
Alt, Albrecht, 1944, ‘Ägyptische Tempel in Palästina und die Landnahme der Philister’. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 67. Pp. 1-20.
––– , 1998, ‘The origin of Lat. aqua, and of *teutƗ “people”’. Journal of Indo-European Studies 26. Pp. 459-466.
Altheim, Franz, 1950, Der Ursprung der Etrusker. Baden-Baden: Verlag für Kunst und Wissenschaft.
––– , 2001, [Review of C. De Simone, I Tirreni a Lemnos, Evidenza linguistica e tradizioni storiche, Firenze, Olschki 1996]. Mnemosyne 54. Pp. 359-364.
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.
––– , 2002, ‘The Prehistory of the Lydians, the Origin of the Etruscans, Troy and Aeneas’. Bibliotheca Orientalis 59, 3/4 meiaugustus. Pp. 205-239.
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.
Beekes, Robert S.P., & Meer, L. Bauke van der, 1991, De Etrusken Spreken. Muiderberg: Coutinho.
––– , 1965a, ‘New Evidence on the Last Days of Ugarit’. Ameri-
147
uity 50. Pp. 40-47.
Behn, Friedrich, 1924, Hausurnen. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Bietak, Manfred, 1993, ‘The Sea Peoples and the End of the Egyptian Administration in Canaan’. In: Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990, Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, June-July 1990, eds. Avraham Biran & Joseph Aviram. Pp. 292-306. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
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 Archéologique 37. Pp. 124- 142.
––– , 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.
Bernal, Martin, 1991, Black Athena, The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, II: The Archaeological and Documentary Evidence. London: Free Association Books.
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.
Beschi, Luigi, 1994, ‘I Tirreni di Lemno alla luce dei recenti dati di scavo’. Magna Graeca, Etruschi, Fenici. Pp. 23-56. Taranto. Best, Jan G.P., 1973, ‘Six contributions to the decipherment of Linear A—I. The Semitic equivalents of Mycenaean a-pu-dosi and o-pe-ro’. Ugarit-Forschungen 5. Pp. 53-59.
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.
––– , 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.
––– , 1999, ‘‘Cultures do not exist’, Exploding self-evidences in the investigation of Interculturality’. Quest, An African Journal of Philosophy XIII, no. 1-2, Special Issue: Languge & Culture. Pp. 37-114.
––– , 1981a, ‘YAŠŠARAM!’. Ugarit-Forschungen 13. Pp. 291293.
––– , forthc., ‘Ethnicity in eastern Mediterranean protohistory: Reflections on theory and method’, in: Binsbergen, Wim M.J. van, & Woudhuizen, Fred C., Ethnicity in Mediterranean Protohistory, Oxford: BAR (British Archaeological Reports) International Series.
––– , 1981b, Supplementum Epigraphicum Mediterraneum ad Talanta, Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 13. ––– , 1982-3a, ‘The Zakro Pithos Inscription, Again’. Talanta, Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 14-15. Pp. 9- 15.
Blegen, Carl W., 1963, Troy and the Trojans. London: Thames and Hudson.
––– , 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.
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.
––– , 1992-3, ‘Racism in Classical Archaeology’. Talanta, Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 24-25. Pp. 7-10.
––– , 1999, The Greeks Overseas, their early colonies and trade. London: Thames and Hudson (Fourth edition).
––– , 1996-7, ‘The Ancient Toponyms of Mallia: A postEurocentric 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.
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, Sozopol, October 6-12, 1988. Pp. 43-50. Sofia.
––– , 2000, ‘The First Inscription in Punic, Vowel Differences between Linear A and B’. Ugarit-Forschungen 32. Pp. 27-35.
Bonfante, Guliano, 1946, ‘Who were the Philistines?’. American Journal of Archaeology 50. Pp. 257-262.
Best, Jan, & Woudhuizen, Fred, 1988, Ancient Scripts from Crete and Cyprus. Publications of the Henri Frankfort Foundation 9. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Bonfante, Giuliano, & Bonfante, Larissa, 2002, The Etruscan Language, An Introduction. Manchester: Manchester University Press (2nd edition).
––– , 1989, Lost Languages from the Mediterranean. Publications of the Henri Frankfort Foundation 10. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Bosch-Gimpera, Pedro, 1939, Two Celtic Waves in Spain. The Sir John Rhǔs Memorial Lecture, British Academy. London: Humphrey Milford Amen House, E.C.
Best, Jan G.P., & Yadin, Yigael, 1973, The Arrival of the Greeks. Publications of the Henri Frankfort Foundation 1. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert.
Bossert, Helmuth, 1932, Šantaš und Kupapa. Mitteilungen der Altorientalischen Gesellschaft VI, 3. Leipzig: Verlag von Otto
Betancourt, Philip P., 1976, ‘The End of the Bronze Age’. Antiq-
148
Harrassowitz.
Burn, A.R., 1930, Minoans, Philistines and Greeks, B.C. 1400900. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd.
Boufidis, Nikolaos Kr., 1953-4, ‘Kritomikinaikai epigraphai eks Arkalokhǀriou’, Arkhaiologiki Ephimeris 2. Pp. 61-74.
Byrne, Ryan, 2002, ‘Philistine Semitics and Dynastic History at Ekron’. Ugarit- Forschungen 34. Pp. 1-23.
Bouzek, Jan, 1997, Greece, Anatolia and Europe: Cultural Interrelations during the Early Iron Age. Studies in Mediterranean Archeology CXXII. Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag.
Cabrera, Paloma, & Olmos, Ricardo, 1985, ‘Die Griechen in Huelva, Zum Stand der Diskussion’. Madrider Mitteilungen 26. Pp. 63-74.
Breasted, James Henry, 1927, Ancient Records of Egypt, Historical Documents from the earliest times to the Persian Conquest, collected, edited, and translated with commentary. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (3rd impresssion).
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.
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 doctrine dans l’Antiquité. Rome: École Française de Rome.
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 edition).
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’. Antiquity 30. Pp. 9-18.
––– , 1973, ‘Greece and the Aegean Islands in the Middle Bronze Age’. Cambridge Ancient History II, 1. Pp. 117-140. Cambridge: At the University Press (3rd edition).
Brown, Raymond A., 1985, Evidence for Pre-Greek Speech on Crete from Greek Alphabetic Sources. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert-Publisher.
Casson, Stanley, 1968, Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria. Groningen: Bouma’s Boekhuis N.V. Publishers.
Bryce, Trevor R., 1974, ‘The Lukka Problem—and a possible solution’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 33. Pp. 395-404.
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.
––– , 1986, The Lycians in Literary and Epigraphic Sources. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. ––– , 1989, ‘Ahhiyawans and Mycenaeans—an Anatolian viewpoint’. Journal of Oxford Archaeology 8. Pp. 297-310.
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 Museum.
––– , 1992, ‘Lukka Revisited’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 51. Pp. 121-130.
Chabas, François, 1872, Études sur l’Antiquité Historique d’après les sources égyptiennes et les monuments réputés préhistorique. Chalon-s-S.: Dejussien. Paris: Maissonneuve et Cie.
––– , 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. LondonNew York: Routledge.
––– , 1873, Recherches pour servir à l’Histoire d’Égypte sous la XXe Dynastie.
Buchholz, Hans-Günter, 1973, ‘Grey Trojan Ware in Cyprus and North Syria’. In: Bronze Age Migrations in the Aegean: Archaeological 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.
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.
–––, 1999, Ugarit, Zypern und Ägäis, Kulturbeziehungen im zweiten Jahrtausend v.Chr. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Charsekin, A.I., 1963, Zur Deutung etruskischer Sprachdenkmäler. Untersuchungen zur Römischen Geschichte III. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.
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.
Cifola, Barbara, 1991, ‘The Terminology of Ramses III’s Historical Records, with a Formal Analyses of the War Scenes’. Orientalia 60. Pp. 9- 57. Cline, Eric H., 1987, ‘Amenhotep III and the Aegean: A Reassessment of Egypto-Aegean Relations in the Fourteenth Cen-
149
tury B.C’. Orientalia 56. Pp. 1-36.
Baden: Bruno Grimm Verlag für Kunst und Wissenschaften.
––– , 1991, ‘A Possible Hittite Embargo against the Mycenaeans’. Historia 40. Pp. 1-9.
Desborough, Vincent R. d’A., 1964, The Last Mycenaeans and their Successors. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
––– , 2001, ‘Amenhotep III, the Aegean, and Anatolia’. In: Amenhotep III, Perspectives on His Reign, eds. David O’Connor & Eric H. Cline. Pp. 236-250. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan 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.
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: Institute of Archaeology.
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.
Coleman, J.E., 2000, ‘An Archaeological Scenario for the “Coming of the Greeks” ca. 3200 B.C.’. Journal of Indo-European Studies 28. Pp. 101- 153.
Dickinson, Oliver T.P.K., 1977, The Origins of Mycenaean Civilization. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 49. Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag.
Coles, J.M., & Harding, A.F., 1979, The Bronze Age in Europe. London: Methuen & Co.
Dietrich, Manfried & Loretz, Oswald, 1978, ‘Das ‘Seefahrende Volk’ von Šikila (RS 34.129)’. Ugarit-Forschungen 10. Pp. 53-56.
Colonna, Giovanni, 1980, ‘Virgilio, Cortona e la leggenda etrusca di Dardano’. Archeologia Classica 32. Pp. 1-14.
––– , 1998, ‘Amurru, Yaman und die ägäischen Inseln nach den ugaritischen Texten’. Israel Oriental Studies 18. Pp. 335-363.
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.
Dikaios, Porphyrios, 1971, Enkomi, Excavations 1948-1958, II: Chronology, Summary and Conclusions, Catalogue, Appendices. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.
Cramer, J.A., 1971, A Geographical and Historical Description of Asia Minor. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert-Publisher (Reprint).
Docter, Roald F., 2000, ‘Pottery, Graves and Ritual I: Phoenicians of the First Generation in Pithekoussai’. In: La ceramica fenicia di Sardegna, Dati, problematiche, confronti, Atti del Primo Congresso Internazionale Sulcitano, Sant’Antioco, 19-21 Settembre 1997, eds. Piero Bartoloni & Lorenza Campanella. Pp. 135-149. Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerce.
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.
Donner, H., & Röllig, W., 1964, Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (3. Auflage).
Crossland, Ronald A., 1971, ‘Immigrants from the North’. Cambridge Ancient History I, 2. Pp. 824-876. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (3rd edition).
Dossin, G., 1970, ‘La Route de l’étain en Mésopotamie au temps de Zimri-Lim’. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archeologie Orientale 64. Pp. 97- 106.
Crouwel, Joost H., 1981, Chariots and other means of land transport in Bronze Age Greece. Allard Pierson Series 3. Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Series.
Dothan, Moshe, 1986, ‘Sardinia at Akko?’. In: Studies in Sardinian Archaeology II, Sardinia in the Mediterranean, ed. M.S. Balmuth. Pp. 105- 115. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
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.
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 Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Delamarre, Xavier, 2003, Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise, Une approche linguistique du vieux-celtique continental. Paris: Editions Errance (2e édition revue et augmentée).
––– , 1992, ‘Herodotus 1.94, the Drought ca. 1200 BC, and the Origin of the Etruscans’. Historia 41. Pp. 14-39.
Demoule, Jean-Paul, 1999, ‘Ethnicity, culture and identity: French archaeologists and historians’. Antiquity 73. Pp. 190-198.
––– , 1993a, The End of the Bronze Age, Changes in warfare and the catastrophe ca. 1200 B.C. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Demus-Quatember, Margarete, 1958, Etruskische Grabarchitektur, Typologie und Ursprungsfrage. Baden-
150
M. Hakkert Publisher.
––– , 1993b, ‘Myths of Midas and the Phrygian Migration from Europe’. Klio 75. Pp. 9-26.
Eisler, Robert, 1939, ‘Loan-words in Semitic Languages meaning “Town”’. Antiquity 13. Pp. 449-455.
––– , 2000, ‘Medinet Habu: Oxcarts, Ships, and Migration Theories’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 59. Pp. 161-190.
Evans, Sir Arthur J., 1895, Cretan Pictographs and PraePhoenician Script. London: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.
––– , 2001, ‘Greater Anatolia, Proto-Anatolian, Proto-Indo-Hittite, and Beyond’. In: Greater Anatolia and the Indo-Hittite Language 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.
––– , 1909, Scripta Minoa I. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. Faure, Paul, 1996, ‘Deux inscriptions en écriture Linéaire A découvertes à Troie par Schliemann’. Cretan Studies 5. Pp. 137146. ––– , 2002, ‘Écritures préhelléniques dans dix cavernes de Crète’. Cretan Studies 7. Pp. 75-87.
––– , 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.,
Fernandez, James W., 2000, ‘Peripheral wisdom’. In: Signifying Identities, Anthropological perspectives on boundaries and contested values, ed. Anthony P. Cohen. Pp. 117-144. London-New York: Routledge.
Driessen, Jan, & Macdonald, Colin F., 1997, The Troubled Island, Minoan Crete before and after the Santorini Eruption. Aegeum 17. Université de Liège.
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.
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 milieu du Grand Vert». Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters Press.
Forrer, Emil, 1924, ‘Vorhomerische Griechen in den Keilschriften von Boghazköi’. Mitteilungen der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft zu Berlin 63. Pp. 1-22.
Dumézil, Georges, 1958, L’idéologie tripartie des IndoEuropéens. 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).
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, hébreux, phéniciens, égyptiennes, grecs … jusqu’au temps de Cyrus. Paris.
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.
Friedrich, Johannes, 1932, Kleinasiatische Sprachdenkmäler. Berlin: Verlag von Walter de Gruyter & Co.
––– , 1974, ‘Les Phéniciens à Chypre’. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus. Pp. 75-94.
––– , 1946, Hethitisches Elementarbuch II. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
Edel, Elmar, 1966, Die Ortsnamenliste aus dem Totentempel Amenophis III. Bonn: Hanstein.
––– , 1991, Kurzgefaßtes Hethitisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
––– , 1984, ‘Die Sikeloi in den ägyptischen Seevölkertexten und in Keilschrifturkunden’. Biblische Notizen 23. Pp. 7-8.
Frisk, Hjalmar, 1973, Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
––– , 1988, ‘Der Name di-q!j-j-s in der minoisch-mykenischen Liste ENli 8 gleich ThƝbais?’. Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 115, 1. Pp. 30-35.
Fugazzola Delpino, M.A., 1979, ‘The Proto-Villanovan: A Survey’. 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.
Eder, Birgitta, 1998, Argolis, Lakonien, Messenien, Vom Ende der mykenischen Palastzeit bis zur Einwanderung der Dorier. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Galinsky, G. Karl, 1969, Aeneas, Sicily, and Rome. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Edgerton, William F., & Wilson, John A., 1936, Historical Records of Ramses III, The Texts in Medinet Habu, Volumes I and II, Translated with explanatory notes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gamkrelidze, Thomas V., & Ivanov, Vjaþeslav V., 1995, IndoEuropean and the Indo-Europeans, A Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and a Proto- Culture, Part I: Text, Part II: Bibliography, Indexes. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Edwards, Ruth B., 1979, Kadmos the Phoenician, A Study in Greek Legends and the Mycenaean Age. Amsterdam: Adolf
Garbini, Giovanni, 1997, I Filistei. Milano: Rusconi.
151
Gardiner, Alan H., 1947, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldman, Hetty, 1956, Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus II, From the Neolithic through the Bronze Age. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
––– , 1960, The Inscriptions of Ramesses II. Oxford: Printed for the Griffith Institute at the University Press by Vivian Ridler.
Gordon, Arthur E., 1983, Illustrated Introduction to Latin Epigraphy. Berkeley, Los Angeles-London: University of California Press.
––– , 1961, Egypt of the Pharaohs. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press.
Gordon, Cyrus Herzl, 1955, Ugaritic Handbook, I: Grammar. Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.
––– , 1994, Egyptian Grammar. Oxford: Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum (3rd edition).
––– , 1956, ‘The Rôle of the Philistines’. Antiqity 30. Pp. 22-26.
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.
––– , 1957, ‘Notes on Minoan Linear A’. Antiquity 31. Pp. 124130.
Garstang, John, & Gurney, O.R., 1959, The Geography of the Hittite Empire. London: The British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.
––– , 1965, Ugaritic Textbook. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Goudriaan, Koen, 1988, Ethnicity in Ptolemaic Egypt. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, Publisher.
Gehring, Augustus, 1901, Index Homericus. Lipsiae: In Aedibus B.G. Teubneri.
Gras, Michel, 1976, ‘La piraterie tyrrhénienne en mer Egée: mythe ou réalité?’. In: Mélanges offerts à J. Heurgon I. Pp. 341-370. Rome.
Gelb, Ignace, 1931, Hittite Hieroglyphs I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gröndahl, Frauke, 1967, Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit. Rom: Päpstliches Bibelinstitut.
Georgiev, Vladimir, 1950-1, ‘Sur l’origine et la langue des Pélasges, des Philistins, des Danaens et des Achéens’. Jahrbuch für Kleinasiatische Forschung 1. Pp. 136-141.
Grosjean, Roger, 1966a, La Corse avant l’histoire. Paris: Éditions Klincksieck.
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.
––– , 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.
Gindin, Leonid A., 1999, Troja, Thrakien und die Völker Altkleinasiens, Versuch einer historisch-philologischen Untersuchung. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft.
––– , 1969, ‘The Coming of the Greeks’. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 51. Manchester.
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.
Gurney, Oliver R., 1990, The Hittites. London: Penguin Books.
Gitin, Seymore, Dothan, Trude, & Naveh, Joseph, 1997, ‘A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron’. Israel Exploration Journal 47. Pp. 1-16.
Gusmani, Roberto, 1964, Lydisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
Guido, Margaret, 1963, Sardinia. London: Thames and Hudson.
––– , 2002, ‘The Authorship of the Tawagalawas Letter’. In: Silva Anatolica, Anatolian Studies Presented to Maciej Popko on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. Piotr Taracha. Pp. 133141. Warsaw: Agade.
Gjerstad, Einar, 1926, Studies on Prehistoric Cyprus, Uppsala: A.B. Lundequistska Bokhandeln.
Güterbock, Hans Gustav, 1942, Siegel aus Bo÷azköy II. Die Königssiegel von 1939 und die übrigen Hieroglyphensiegel. Berlin: Im Selbstverlage des Herausgebers.
––– , 1944, ‘The Colonization of Cyprus in Greek Legend’. Opuscula Archaeologica III. Pp. 107-123.
––– , 1967, ‘The Hittite Conquest of Cyprus Reconsidered’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 26, 2. Pp. 73-81.
Godart, Louis, 1994, ‘La scrittura di Troia’. Rendiconti dell’Academia dei Lincei, serie 9, vol. 5. Pp. 457-460.
––– , 1983, ‘The Hittites and the Aegean World: Part 1. The Ahhiyawa Problem Reconsidered’. American Journal of Archaeology 87. Pp. 133-138.
Godart, Louis, & Olivier, Jean-Pierre, 1982, Recueil des Inscriptions en linéaire A, Volume 4: Autres Documents. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.
–––, 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 & Aygül Süel. Pp. 235-243. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
Goetze, Albrecht, 1954, ‘The Linguistic Continuity of Anatolia as Shown by its Proper Names’. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 8. Pp. 74-81.
Haas, Otto, 1966, Die Phrygischen Sprachdenkmäler. Linguistique
152
Balkanique X. Sofia: Academie Bulgare des Sciences.
frühgriechische Welt und der östliche Mittelmeerraum in der Zeit der ‘Seevölker’-Invasionen um 1200 v. Chr.]. Gnomon 58. Pp. 626-629.
Haas, Volkert, 2000, ‘Hethitische Bestattungsbräuche’. Altorientalische Forschungen 27, 1. Pp. 52-67.
Helck, Wolfgang, & Otto, Eberhard, 1984, Lexicon der Ägyptologie, Band V, s.v. Seevölker. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
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.
Hellbing, Lennart, 1979, Alasia Problems. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 57. Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag.
––– , 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: Librairie ancienne honoré Champion Édouard Champion.
Hencken, Hugh, 1955, Indo-European Languages and Archaeology. Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association 57, No. 84. ––– , 1968, Tarquinia, Villanovans and Early Etruscans. Cambridge Massachusetts: The Peabody Museum.
––– , 1926, ‘The Keftians, Philistines and other Peoples of the Levant’. In: Cambridge Ancient History II, Chapter 12. Pp. 275295. Cambridge: At the University Press.
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-ParisNew York: Mouton Publishers.
––– , 1929, ‘The Caucasian Relations of the Peoples of the Sea’. Klio 22. Pp. 335-344.
Herbig, Gustav, 1914, ‘Kleinasiatisch-etruskische Namengleichungen. Sitzungsberichte der bayrischen Akademie, Phil.-Hist. Klasse. Pp. 3-39.
Hall, Jonathan M., 1997, Ethnic identity in Greek antiquity. Cambridge: University Press.
Herbordt, Suzanne, 1998, ‘Seals and Sealings of Hittite Officials from the Niúantepe Archive, Bo÷azköy’. In: Acts of the IIIrd International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum, September 1622, 1996, eds. Sedat Alp & Aygül Süel. Pp. 309-318. Ankara.
––– , 2002, Hellenicity, Between Ethnicity and Culture. ChicagoLondon: The University of Chicago Press. Hallager, Erik, 1992, ‘New Linear B Tablets from Chania’. Kadmos 31. Pp. 61-87. Harrisson, Richard J., 1988, The Beaker Folk, Copper Age archaeology in Western Europe. London: Thames and Hudson.
Herscher, Ellen Carol, 1978, The Bronze Age Cemetery at Lapithos, Vrysi tou Barba, Cyprus, Parts 1-2. [No place:] University of Pennsylvania (PH.D.).
Hawkins, John David, 1990, ‘The New Inscription from the Südburg of Bo÷azköy-Hattusa’. Archäologischer Anzeiger 1990. Pp. 305-314.
Heuck Allen, Susan, 1994, ‘Trojan Grey Ware at Tel MiqneEkron’. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 293. Pp. 39-51.
––– , 1995, The Hieroglyphic Inscription of the Sacred Pool Complex at Hattusa (SÜDBURG), With an Archaeological Introduction by Peter Neve. Studien zu den Bo÷azköy-Texten, Beiheft 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
Heurgon, Jacques, 1969, ‘Les Dardaniens en Afrique’. Revue des Études Latines 47. Pp. 284-294. ––– , 1992, ‘Les Étrusques et l’Europe’. Archeologia 284. Pp. 1924.
––– , 2000, Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, Vol. I: Inscriptions of the Iron Age, Parts 1-3. Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Hiller, Stefan, 1985, [Review of Jan G.P. Best, Supplementum Epigraphicum Mediterraneum ad Talanta, Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 13 (1981)]. Archiv für Orientforschung 32. Pp. 125-127.
––– , 2003, ‘Scripts and Texts’. The Luwians, Handbook of Oriental Studies 68, ed. H. Craig Melchert. Pp. 128-169. LeidenBoston: Brill.
––– , 1996, ‘Knossos and Pylos, A Case of Special Relationship’. Cretan Studies 5. Pp. 73-83.
Heinhold-Krahmer, Susanne, 1977, Arzawa, Untersuchungen zu seiner Geschichte nach den hethitischen Quellen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
Hitzig, Ferdinand, 1845, Urgeschichte und Mythologie der Philister. Leipzig: Weidmann.
––– , 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.
Hoftijzer, J., & Soldt, W.H. van, 1998, ‘Texts from Ugarit Pertaining to Seafaring’. In: Seagoing Ships & Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant, ed. Shelley Wachsmann. Pp. 333-344. College Station: Texas A & M University Press.
Helck, Wolfgang, 1971, Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz (2., verbesserte Auflage).
Högemann, Peter, 2000, ‘Der Iliasdichter, Anatolien und der griechische Adel’. Klio 82. Pp. 7-39.
––– , 1986, [Review of G.A. Lehmann, Die mykenisch-
Hölbl, Günther, 1983, ‘Die historischen Aussagen der Ägyptischen Seevölkerinschriften’. In: Griechenland, Die
153
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.
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.
Holloway, R. Ross, 1981, Italy and the Aegean 3000-700 B.C. Louvain-la-Neuve: Collège Erasme.
Katzenstein, H. Jacob, 1973, The History of Tyre, From the Beginning 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.
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.
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.
Hope Simpson, Richard, & Dickinson, Oliver T.K.P., 1979, A Gazetteer of Aegean Civilisation in the Bronze Age I: The Mainland and islands. Göteborg: Paul Åström Förlag.
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.
Houwink ten Cate, Philo Hendrik Jan, 1961, The Luwian Population Groups of Lycia and Cilicia Aspera during the Hellenistic Period. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Kennedy, D.A., 1959, ‘Sceaux hittites conservés à Paris’. Revue Hittite et Asianique 65. Pp. 147-172.
Isaac, Benjamin, 2004, The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity. Princeton-Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Killebrew, A.E., Lehmann, G., & Artzy, M., in preparation, Philistines and other “Sea Peoples”: In Text and Archaeology, Leiden: Brill.
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. Johnston).
Kimmig, Wolfgang, 1964, ‘Seevölkerbewegung und Urnenfelderkultur, Ein Archäologisch-Historischer Versuch’. In: Studien aus Alteuropa I (= Festschrift K. Tackenberg). Pp. 220-283.
Johnston, Alan W., 1983, ‘The Extent and Use of Literacy; the Archaeological Evidence’. In: The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century B.C.: Tradition and Innovation, Proceedings of the Second International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 1-5 June, 1981, ed. Robin Hägg. Pp. 63-68. Stockholm: Paul Åströms Förlag.
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.
Jones, Siân, 1997, The Archaeology of Ethnicity, Constructing Identities in the past and present. London-New York: Routledge.
––– , 1989, ‘The Basics of Egyptian Chronology in Relation to the Bronze Age’. In: High, Middle or Low, Acts of an International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of Gothenburg, 20th-22nd August 1987. Pp. 37-55. Gothenburg: Paul Åströms Förlag.
Kaczynɩska, Elwira, 2002, ‘Greek ǿįĮ ‘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 Šerdannj et la fin d’Ougarit, À propos 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, Paris, 28 juin-1er juillet 1993, eds. Marguerite Yon, Maurice Sznycer & Pierre Bordreuil. Pp. 137-140. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilations.
Kitson, Peter R., 1997, ‘Reconstruction, typology, and the “original homeland” of the Indo-Europeans’. In: Linguistic Reconstruction and Typology, ed. Jacek Fisiak. Pp. 183-239. BerlinNew 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.
Kammenhuber, Annelies, 1940, ‘Marduk und Santa in der hethitischen Überlieferung des 2. Jt.s v. Chr.’. Orientalia 59. Pp. 188-195.
––– , 1964, Unsere ältesten Flussnamen. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
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.
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. 189201. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
––– , 1992, ‘The Crisis Years: Cyprus’. In: The Crisis Years, The 12th Century B.C. From Beyond the Danube to the Tigris,
Laroche, Emmanuel, 1957, ‘Notes de Toponymie Anatolienne’. In:
154
MnƝmis Charin, Gedenkschrift Paul Kretschmer, 2. Mai 1866 – 9. März 1956. Pp. 1-7. Wien: Bruder Hollinek; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
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.
––– , 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.
Liddell, Henri George, Scott, Robert, & Jones, Henry Stuart (= LSJ), A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press.
––– , 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.
Littauer, Mary A., & Crouwel, Joost H., 1979, Wheeled Vehicles and Ridden Animals in the Ancient Near East. Leiden-Köln: E.J. Brill.
––– , 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.
Littleton, C. Scott, 1973, The New Comparative Mythology, An Anthroplogical Assessment of the Theories of Georges Dumézil. Berkeley-Los Angeles: University of California Press (revised edition).
––– , 1961b, ‘Réflexions sur des problèmes de linguistique étrusque’. Revue Études Latines 38. Pp. 70-72.
Lochner-Hüttenbach, Fritz, 1960, Die Pelasger. Wien: Gerold & Co.
––– , 1966, Les Noms des Hittites. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck.
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 London: Accordia Research Institute.
––– , 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).
Loretz, Oswald, 1995, ‘Les Šerdannj 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, Paris, 28 juin-1er juillet 1993, eds. Marguerite Yon, Maurice Sznycer & Pierre Bordreuil. Pp. 125-136. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
Lehmann, Gustav Adolf, 1970, ‘Der Untergang des hethitischen Grossreiches und die neuen Texte aus Ugarit’. UgaritForschungen 2. Pp. 29-73. ––– , 1979, ‘Die ŠikalƗynj—Ein neues Zeugnis zu den “Seevölker”- heerfahrten im späten 13. Jh. v. Chr. (RS 34.129)’. Ugarit- Forschungen 11. Pp. 481-494.
Lorimer, H.L., 1950, Homer and the Monuments. London: Macmillan & Co. Ltd. Loulloupis, M., 1973, ‘Mycenaean ‘Horns of Consecration’ in Cyprus’. In: Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium “The Mycenaeans in the Eastern Mediterranean”, Nicosia 27th March–2nd April 1972. Pp. 225-244, Pls. XXVIIIXXIX. Nicosia: Zavallis Press Ltd.
––– , 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.
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.
––– , 1985, Die mykenisch-frühgriechische Welt und der östliche Mittelmeerraum in der Zeit der “Seevölker”-Invasionen um 1200 v. Chr. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Macalister, R.A. Stewart, 1913, The Philistines, Their History and Civilization. London: Oxford University Press.
––– , 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.
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.
Lejeune, Michel, 1969, ‘Observations sur l’épigraphie Élyme’. Revue des Études Latines 47. Pp. 133-183.
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.
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.
Mallory, James P., 1989, In Search of the Indo-Europeans. Language, Archaeology and Myth. London: Thames and Hudson.
Lepsius, Richard, 1900, Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien III. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung.
Manning, Sturt W., 1999, A Test of Time, The Volcano of Thera and the Chronology and History of the Aegean and east Medi-
155
terranean in the mid second millennium BC. Oxbow Books: Oxford and Oakville.
tolian Studies Presented to Maciej Popko on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. Piotr Taracha. Pp. 241-251. Warsaw: Agade.
Maresch, Gustav, 1957, ‘Etruskisch avil’. In: MnƝmis Charin, Gedenkschrift Paul Kretschmer, 2. Mai 1866—9. März 1956. Pp. 27-8. Wien: Otto Harrassowitz Wiesbaden-Bruder Hollinek Wien.
Mellaart, James, 1971, ‘Anatolia c. 4000-2300 B.C.’. Cambridge Ancient History I, 2. Pp. 363-416. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (3rd edition).
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.
Mellink, Machteld J. , 1972, ‘Excavations at Karataú-Semayük and Elmalı, Lycia , 1971’. American Journal of Archaeology 76. Pp. 257-269.
Maspero, Gaston, 1873, [Review of Chabas’ Études]. Revue Critique d’Histoire et de Littérature. Pp. 81-86.
––– , 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.
––– , 1875, Histoire Ancienne des peuples de l’orient classique. Paris: Librairie Hachette et Cie.
Mercer, S.A.B., 1939, The Tell El-Amarna Tablets I-II. Toronto: Macmillan.
––– , 1878, [Review of de Rougé’s Inscriptions hiéroglyphique]. Revue Critique d’Histoire et de Litterature. Pp. 317-321.
Meriggi, Piero, 1937, ‘Osservazioni sull’Etrusco’. Studi Etruschi 11. Pp. 129-201.
––– , 1881, ‘Notes sur quelques points de Grammaire et d’Histoire’. Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Alterthumskunde 19. Pp. 116-131.
––– , 1967, Manuale di eteo geroglifico. Parte II: Testi-1e serie, I testi neo-etei più o meno completi. Roma: Edizioni dell’Ateneo.
––– , 1910, The Struggle of the Nations, Egypt, Syria and Assyria. London: Society for promoting Christian knowledge.
––– , 1980, Schizzo grammaticale dell’Anatolico. Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei.
Masson, Olivier, 1983, Les inscriptions Chypriotes syllabiques. Paris: Éditions E. de Boccard.
Merlo, Paolo, 1998, La dea Ašratum – Atiratu – Ašera. Un contributo allo storia della religione semitica del Nord. Mursia: Pontificia Università Lateranense.
Matsas, D., 1991, ‘Samothrace and the Northeastern Aegean: the Minoan Connection’. Studia Troica 1. Pp. 159-179.
Mertens, Paul, 1960, ‘Les Peuples de la Mer’. Chronique d’Égypte 35. Pp. 65-88.
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.
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.
Mee, Christopher, 1978, ‘Aegean Trade and Settlement in Anatolia in the Second Millennium BC’. Anatolian Studies 28. Pp. 121-156.
Meyer, Eduard, 1928, Geschichte des Altertums 2, 1., StuttgartBerlin: J.G. Cotta’sche Buchhandlung, Nachfolger. ––– , 1968, Geschichte des Koenigreichs Pontos. Chicago: Argonaut, Inc., Publishers (Reprint of the Leipzig 1879 Edition).
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.
Monte, Giuseppe F. del, & Tischler, Johann, 1978, Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der hethitischen Texte. Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes 6. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert.
Mégalomatis, Cosimo. 1996, ‘Les peuples de la mer et la fin du monde mycenien, essai de synthese historique’. Atti e Memorie del Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, Roma-Napoli, 14-20 ottobre. Pp. 805-814. Roma: Gruppo Editoriale Internazionale.
Moran, William L., 1992, The Amarna Letters. Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkin’s University Press.
Meid, Wolfgang, 1993, Die erste Botorrita-Inschrift, Interpretation eines keltiberischen Sprachdenkmals. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.
Mühlestein, H., 1956, Die oka-Tafeln von Pylos. Basel: Selbstverlag. Muhly, J.D., 1979,[Review of: Sanders, N.K., The Sea Peoples]. American Journal of Archaeology, 83: 355-356.
––– , 1996, Kleinere keltiberische Sprachdenkmäler. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.
Muhly, J.D., Maddin, R., & Stech, T., 1988, ‘Copper Ox-hide Ingots and the Bronze Age Metal Trade’. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus. Pp. 281- 298.
––– , 2000, ‘Forschungsbericht, Altkeltische Sprachen, 3. Keltiberisch’. Kratylos 45. Pp. 1-28. Melchert, H. Craig, 1993, Lycian Lexicon. Chapel Hill, N.C.
Müller, Karl Otfried, & Deecke, Wilhelm, 1877, Die Etrusker I-II. Stuttgart: Verlag von Albert Heitz.
––– , 2002, ‘The God Sanda in Lycia?’. In: Silva Anatolica, Ana-
156
Müller-Karpe, Hermann, 1959, Beiträge zur Chronologie der Urnenfelderzeit Nördlich und Südlich der Alpen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
––– , 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.
Neumann, Günter, 1991, ‘Hethitisch negna- ‘Bruder’’. Historische Sprachforschung 104. Pp. 63-66.
Owens, Gareth Alun, 1996, ‘New Evidence for Minoan ‘Demeter’’. Kadmos 35. Pp. 172- 175.
––– , 1999, ‘Wie haben die Troer im 13. Jahrhundert gesprochen?’. Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft, Neue Folge 23. Pp. 15-23.
––– , 1999, ‘The Structure of the Minoan Language’. Journal of Indo-European Studies 27: 1&2, Spring/Summer. Pp. 15-49.
Nibbi, Alexandra, 1975, The Sea Peoples and Egypt. Park Ridge, New Jersey: Noyes Press.
––– , 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 Studies 28: 1-2, Spring/Summer. Pp. 237-253.
Niemeier, Wolf-Dietrich, 1996, ‘A Linear A Inscription from Miletos (MIL Zb 1)’. Kadmos 35. Pp. 87-99. ––– , 1998a, ‘The Mycenaeans in Western Anatolia and the Problem of the Origins of the Sea Peoples’. Mediterranean Peoples in Transition, Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE, In honor of Professor Trude Dothan, eds. Seymor Gitin, Amihai Mazar & Ephraim Stern. Pp. 17-65. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
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.
––– , 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.
Palmer, Leonard Robert, 1956, ‘Military Arrangements for the Defence 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).
Nilsson, Martin Persson, 1927, The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and its Survival in Greek Religion. Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup.
––– , 1998, The Interpretation of Mycenaean Greek Texts. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press (Sandpiper reprint).
––– , 1933, Homer and Mycenae. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.
Papadimitriou, Nikolas, 2001, Built Chamber Tombs of Middle and Late Bronze Age Date in Mainland Greece and the Islands. BAR International Series 925. Oxford.
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.
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.
Olivier, Jean-Pierre, & Godart, Louis, 1996, Corpus Hieroglyphicarum Inscriptionum Cretae. Paris: De Boccard ÉditionDiffusion. Onyshkevych, Lada, 2002, ‘Interpreting the Berezan Bone Graffito’. 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.
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 Twentieth Dynasty. Jonsered: Paul Åströms förlag.
Oren, Eliezer, 1997, The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum.
Pedley, John Griffiths, 1972, Ancient Literary Sources on Sardis. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Ormerod, H.A., 1924, Piracy in the Ancient World. Liverpool: University Press of Liverpool.
Pfuhl, Ernst, 1923, Malerei und Zeichnung der Griechen I. München: F. Bruchmann A.-G.
Otten, Heinrich, 1988, Die Bronzetafel aus Bo÷azköy, Ein Staatsvertrag Tud® alijas IV. Studien zur Bo÷azköy Texte, Beiheft 1, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Pilides, D., 1994, Handmade Burnished Wares of the Late Bronze Age in Cyprus. Studies in Mediterranean Archeaology 105. Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag.
––– , 1989, ‘Die hieroglyphen-luwische Inschrift, Ausgrabungen in Bo÷azköy-Hattuša 1988’. Archäologischer Anzeiger 1989. Pp. 333-337.
Poetto, Massimo, 1993, L’iscrizione luvio-geroglifica di Yalburt, Nuove acquisizioni relative alla geografia dell’anatolia sud-
157
occidentale. Studia Mediterranea 8. Pavia: Gianni Iuculano Editore.
mer’. Revue Archéologique 15. Pp. 1-65. Renfrew, Colin, 1987, Archaeology and Language, The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. London: Jonathan Cape.
Pohl, Ingrid, 1972, The Iron Age Necropolis of Sorbo at Cerveteri. Skrifter Utgivna Svenska Institutet I Rom, 4º, 32. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet I Rom.
Ridgway, David, 1988, ‘Italy from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age’. Cambridge Ancient History IV. Pp. 623-633. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2nd edition).
Pokorny, Julius, 1994, Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Tübingen-Basel: Francke Verlag (3. Auflage).
Riemschneider, Margarete, 1954, Die Welt der Hethiter. Zürich: Fretz & Wasmuth Verlag AG.
Polomé, Edgar C., 1982a, ‘Balkan Languages (Illyrian, Thracian and Daco-Moesian)’. Cambridge Ancient History III, 1. Pp. 866-888. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (3rd edition).
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.
––– , 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.
Rix, Helmut, 1991, Etruskische Texte, Editio minor. I: Einleitung, Konkordanz, Indices, II: Texte. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Romey, Kristin, 2003, ‘The Vogelbarke of Medinet Habu’, MA thesis, archaeology, Texas A&M University.
Pope, Maurice, 1956, ‘Cretan Axe-Heads with Linear A Inscriptions’, Annual of the British School at Athens 51. Pp. 132-135.
Rosenkranz, Bernhard, 1966, ‘Fluß- und Gewässername in Anatolien’. Beiträge zur Namenforschung, neue Folge 1. Pp. 124-144.
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. 277303. Oxford: Oxford University Press (reissued paperback edition of 1997).
Ross Holloway, R., 1994, The Archaeology of Early Rome and Latium. London-New York: Routledge.
Popham, Mervyn, Touloupa, E., & Sackett, L.H., 1982, ‘The Hero of Lefkandi’. Antiquity 56. Pp. 169-174.
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.
Poultney, James Wilson, 1959, The Bronze Tables of Iguvium. Illinois: American Philological Association. Pritchard, James B., 1969, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press (3rd edition).
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.
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.
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 Hellénique 118. Pp. 343-351.
Pugliese Carratelli, Giovanni, 1954, [Review of H. Mühlestein, Olympia in Pylos, Basel 1954]. La Parola del Passato 9. Pp. 468-471.
Sakellariou, Michel B., 1977, Peuples préhelléniques d’origine indo-européenne. Athens: Ekdotikè Athenon S.A.
Pulgram, Ernst, 1978, Italic, Latin, Italian, 600 B.C. to A.D. 1260, Text and commentaries. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
––– , 1980, Les Proto-Grecs. Athens: Ekdotikè Athenon S.A. Salmon, Edward Togo, 1988, ‘The Iron Age: The Peoples of Italy’. Cambridge Ancient History IV. Pp. 676-719. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2nd edition).
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.
Sandars, Nancy K., 1978, The Sea Peoples, Warriors of the ancient Mediterranean 1250-1150 BC. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd.
Reden, Sibylle von, 1992, Ugarit und seine Welt, Die Entdeckung einer der ältesten Handelsmetropolen am Mittelmeer. Bergisch Gladbach: Gustav Lübbe Verlag.
––– , 1980, De Zeevolken, Egypte en Voor-Azië bedreigd, 12501150 v.C. Haarlem: Fibula-Van Dishoeck.
Redford, Donald B., 1992, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Sauter, Hermann, 2000, Studien zum Kimmerierproblem. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 72. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH.
Reinach, A.J., 1910, ‘Le disque de Phaistos et les Peuples de la
158
Barometer for East-West Interconnections’. In: Eastern Mediterranean, Cyprus- Dodecanese-Crete 16th -6th cent. B.C., Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Rethymnon - Crete in May 1997, eds. V. Karageorghis & N. Chr. Stampolidis. Pp. 13- 27. Athens: University of Crete-A. G. Leventis Foundation.
Savaú, Özkan Savaú, 1998, Divine, Personal and Geographical Names in the Anatolian (Hittite-Luwian) Hieroglyphic Inscriptions. Istanbul. Schachermeyr, Fritz, 1929, Etruskische Frühgeschichte. BerlinLeipzig: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Shefton, B.B., 1994, ‘Massalia and Colonization in the NorthWestern Mediterranean’. In: The Archaeology of Greek Colonisation, Essays dedicated to Sir John Boardman, ed. Gocha R. Tsetskhladze & Franco De Angelis. Pp. 61-86. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology.
––– , 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.
Shelmerdine, Cynthia W., 1997, ‘The Palatial Bronze Age of the Southern and Central Greek Mainland’. American Journal of Archaeology 101. Pp. 537- 585.
––– , 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.
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.
––– , 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.
Singer, Itamar, 1985, ‘The Beginning of Philistine Settlement in Canaan and the Northern Boundary of Philistia’. Tel Aviv 12. Pp. 109-122.
–––, 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.
––– , 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. LipiĔski. Pp. 239-250. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters.
–––, 1984, Griechische Frühgeschichte, Ein Versuch, frühe Geschichte wenigstens in Umrissen verständlich zu machen. Wien: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Smit, Daniel W., 1989, ‘Mycenaean Penetration into Northern Greece’. In: Thracians and Mycenaeans, Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Thracology, Rotterdam, 2426 September 1984, eds. Jan Best & Nanny de Vries. Publications of the Henri Frankfort Foundation 11. Pp. 174-180. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
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.
––– , 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.
Schnapp-Gourbeillon, Annie, 2002, Aux origines de la Grèce (XIIIe-VIIIe siècles avant notre ère), La genèse du politique. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
––– , 1990-1, ‘KUB XIV 3 and Hittite History, A Historical Approach to the Tawagalawa-letter’. Talanta, Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 22-23. Pp. 79111.
Schuler, Einar von, 1965, Die Kaškäer, Ein Beitrag zur Ethnographie des Alten Kleinasien. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Snodgrass, Anthony M., 1978, [Review of: Sanders, N.K., The Sea Peoples]. Antiquity, 52: 161.
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.
––– , 2000, The Dark Age of Greece, An archaeological survey of the eleventh to eighth centuries BC. Edinburgh: At the University Press (reprint of 1971 edition).
Schulze, W., 1966, Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen. Berlin-Zürich-Dublin: Weidmann (2. unveränderte Auflage).
Snowden, Jr., Frank, 1997, ‘Greeks and Ethiopians’. In: Greeks and Barbarians, Essays on the Interaction between Greeks and Non-Greeks in Antiquity and the Consequences for Eurocentrism, eds. John E. Coleman & Clark A. Waltz. Pp. 103121. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press.
Seeger, Ulrich, n.d. [2002], ‘Fonts apt to the transcription of Semitic texts’, at: http://semitistik.unihd.de/seeger/english/fonts_e.htm#anfang Segert, Stanislav, 1984, A Basic Grammar of the Ugaritic Language. Berkeley, California.
Sollors, Werner, 1996, Theories of Ethnicity, A Classical Reader. New York: New York University Press.
Seters, John van, 1966, The Hyksos, A New Investigation. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Somella, Paolo, 1974, ‘Das Heroon des Aeneas und die Topographie des antiken Lavinium’. Gymnasium 81, 4. Pp. 273-297.
Shaw, Joseph W., 1998, ‘Kommos in Southern Crete: an Aegean
159
Sommer, Ferdinand, 1932, Die A® ® ijavƗ-Urkunden. München: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Tovar, Antonio, 1977, Krahes alteuropäische Hydronymie und die westindogermanischen Sprachen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
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.
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 University Committee for Archaeology.
Stadelmann, Rainer, 1969, ‘Die Abwehr der Seevölker unter Ramses III’. Saeculum 19. Pp. 156-171. Stager, Larry, 1998. ‘Forging an Identity: The Emergence of Ancient Israel.’ In: The Oxford History of the Biblical World, ed. M.D. Coogan. Pp. 123-75. New York: Oxford University Press.
Vagnetti, Lucia, 2000, ‘Western Mediterranean Overview: Peninsular 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.
Starke, Frank, 1981, ‘Die Keilschrift-luwischen Wörter für Insel und Lampe’. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft 95. Pp. 142-152.
––– , 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.
––– , 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 “LukkƗ”’. In: Akten des II. Internationalen Lykien-Symposions, eds. Jürgen Borchhardt & Gerhard Dobesch. Pp. 123-137. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Vandenabeele, Frieda, 1985, ‘La chronologie des documents en Linéaire A’. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 109. Pp. 3-20.
Strange, John, 1980, Kaphtor/Keftiu, A new investigation. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Vanschoonwinkel, Jacques, 1991, L’Égée et la méditerranée orientale à la fin du IIe millénaire, Témoignages archéologiques et sources écrites. Louvain-la-Neuve: Université Catholique de Louvain. Providence (Rhode Island): Brown University.
Strobel, August, 1976, Der spätbronzezeitliche Seevölkersturm, Ein Forschungsüberblick mit Folgerungen zur biblischen Exodusthematik. Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Ventris, Michael, & Chadwick, John, 1973, Documents in Mycenaean Greek. Cambridge: At the University Press (2nd edition).
Strøm, Ingrid, 1971, Problems Concerning the Origin and Early Development of the Etruscan Orientalizing Style. Odense: Odense University Press.
Vetter, Emile, 1953, Handbuch der italischen Dialekte. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
Strid, Ove, 1999, Die Dryoper, Eine Untersuchung der Überlieferung. Uppsala.
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.
––– , 1990, ‘Relations between Etruria and Campania around 700 BC’. In: Greek Colonists and Native Populations, ed. JeanPaul Descoeudres. Pp. 87-97. Canberra: Humanities Research Centre. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Vürtheim, J.J.G., 1913, Teukros und Teukrer, Untersuchung der Homerischen und der Nachhomerischen Ueberlieferung. Rotterdam: Verlag W.L. & J. Brusse.
Stubbings, Frank H., 1973, ‘The Rise of Mycenaean Civilization’. Cambridge Ancient History II, 1. Pp. 627-658. Cambridge: At the University Press (3rd edition).
Wachsmann, Shelley, 1998, Seagoing Ships & Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant. College Station: Texas A & M University Press.
Suter, Ann, 2002, The Narcissus and the Pomegranate, An Archaeology of the Homeric Hymn to Demeter. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan 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.
Symeonoglou, S., 1973, Kadmeia I, Mycenaean Finds from Thebes, Greece, excavation at 14 Oedipusstreet. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 35. Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag.
Wainwright, G.A., 1959, ‘The Teresh, the Etruscans and Asia Minor’. Anatolian Studies 9. Pp. 197-213. ––– , 1961, ‘Some Sea-Peoples’. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 47. Pp. 71-90.
Teko÷lu, Recai, & Lemaire, André, 2000, ‘La bilingue royale Louvito-Phénicienne de Çineköy’. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 2000. Pp. 9611006.
––– , 1962, ‘A Teucrian at Salamis in Cyprus’. Journal of Hellenic Studies 83. Pp. 146-151.
160
ciety 22-23. Pp. 139-149.
Waldbaum, Jane C., 1966, ‘Philistine Tombs at Tell Fara and their Aegean Prototypes’. American Journal of Archaeology 70. Pp. 331-340.
––– , 1992a, The Language of the Sea Peoples. Publications of the Henri Frankfort Foundation 12. Amsterdam: Najade Press bv.
Warren, Peter, 1972, Myrtos, An Early Bronze Age Settlement in Crete. Oxford: Thames and Hudson, The British School of Archaeology at Athens.
––– , 1992b, Linguistica Tyrrhenica, A Compendium of Recent Results in Etruscan Linguistics. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, Publisher.
Warren, Peter, & Hankey, Vronwy, 1989, Aegean Bronge Age Chronology. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press.
––– , 1992c, ‘Evidence of Bilinguism in Cretan Hieroglyphic’. Cretan Studies 3. Pp. 191-201; Pls. XXIV-XXVII.
Watkins, Calvert, 1986, ‘The Language of the Trojans’. In: Troy and the Trojan War, A Symposium held at Bryn Mawr College, October 1984, ed. Machteld Mellink. Pp. 45-62. Bryn Mawr, P.A.: Bryn Mawr College.
––– , 1992-3, ‘On the Dating of Luwian Great Kings’. Talanta, Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 24-25. Pp. 167-201. ––– , 1993a, ‘Old Phrygian: Some Texts and Relations’. Journal of Indo-European Studies 21. Pp. 1-25.
Webster, Thomas B.L., 1960, From Mycenae to Homer. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd. (2nd edition).
––– , 1993b, ‘Historical Backgrounds to the Old Phrygian-Greek Linguistic Relationship’. In: Atti del IVº Congresso Internazionale di Tracologia, Palma de Mallorca 24-28 March 1992, ed. Alexander Fol. Pp. 377-394. Roma: Nagard.
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.
––– , 1994, ‘Tablet RS 20.25 from Ugarit, Evidence of Maritime Trade in the Final Years of the Bronze Age’. UgaritForschungen 26. Pp. 509-538. ––– , 1994-5, ‘Luwian Hieroglyphic Monumental Rock and Stone Inscriptions from the Hittite Empire Period’. Talanta, Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 26-27. Pp. 153-217.
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.
––– , 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.
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.
––– , 1998-9, ‘Nanas, A Luwian Personal Name in the West’. Talanta, Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 30-31. Pp. 175-179.
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.
––– , 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, Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 32-33). Pp. 289-305.
––– , 1984-5b, ‘Origins of the Sidetic Script’. Talanta, Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 1617. Pp. 115- 127.
––– , 2001a, [Review of Dieter H. Steinbauer, Neues Handbuch des Etruskischen, Mercaturae, St. Katharinen 1999]. Journal of Indo-European Studies 29. Pp. 499-508.
––– , 1989, ‘Thracians, Luwians and Greeks in Bronze Age Central Greece’. In: Thracians and Mycenaeans, Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Thracology, Rotterdam, 24-26 September 1984, eds. Jan Best & Nanny de Vries. Publications of the Henri Frankfort Foundation 11. Pp. 191- 204. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
––– , 2001b, ‘Defining Atlantis in Space and Time’. UgaritForschungen 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.
––– , 1990, ‘The Sardis Bilingue Reconsidered’. Orpheus, Journal of Indo-European, Palaeo-Balkan and Thracian Studies 0. Pp. 90-106.
––– , 2004a, Luwian Hieroglyphic Monumental Rock and Stone Inscriptions from the Hittite Empire Period. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft.
––– , 1990-1, ‘The Dawn of Indo-European Literacy’. Talanta, Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical So-
161
––– , 2004b, Woudhuizen, Fred C., Selected Luwian Hieroglyphic Texts, Innsbruck: Innbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft.
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 Pennsylvania Press.
––– , 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 Congress of Hittitology, Çorum, September 2-8, 2002, ed. Aygül Süel.
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 Publishing Company.
––– , forthc. 2, ‘Untying the Cretan Hieroglyphic Knot’. Ancient West & East 5.
Zgusta, Ladislav, 1984, Kleinasiatische Ortsnamen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
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 (dissertation).
162
NEDERLANDSE SAMENVATTING: DE ETNICITEIT VAN DE ZEEVOLKEN De episode van de Zeevolken aan het eind van de
Het bepalen van een etnische identiteit aan de hand
Bronstijd leidt tot de val, dan wel de verzwakking, van de
van deze vier indicia kan in de moderne tijd vrij gemakke-
grote rijken in het Nabije Oosten zoals dat van de
lijk plaatsvinden, omdat er voldoende informatie is en wij
Hettieten en de Egyptenaren. Tevens betekent het een
in de meeste gevallen de mensen die het betreft ook zelf
keerpunt in de historie, als gevolg waarvan het econo-
nog kunnen vragen wat ze er van vinden. Als we een te-
mische en politieke centrum uiteindelijk wordt verlegd
ruggaan in de tijd, echter, valt deze laatste mogelijkheid al
van het Nabije Oosten naar de centraal Mediterrane regio.
snel weg. In het geval van de Zeevolken, wier activiteiten
De centrale vraag in het onderhavige onderzoek is in
voornamelijk aan het eind van de Bronstijd gesitueerd zijn
hoeverre de Zeevolken uit coherente etnische groepen
(ca. 1200 voor Christus), wordt het bepalen van etnische
bestaan. Alvorens deze vraag te kunnen beantwoorden,
identiteiten nog verder bemoeilijkt omdat we ons niet
dienen we ons af te vragen: wat is etniciteit en wie waren
meer in de historische periode bevinden, maar in de pro-
de Zeevolken?
tohistorie. Dit betekent dat er geen contemporaine ges-
Voor het begrip etniciteit bestaan mooie moderne de-
chiedwerken zijn overgeleverd, zoals dat van de vader
finities, maar de belangrijkste kenmerken worden in al
van de geschiedenis, Herodotos, over de Perzische oorlo-
hun eenvoud opgesomd in een passage uit Herodotos’
gen of Thucidydes over de Peloponnesische oorlog, maar
Historiën. Daarin laat Herodotos de Atheners aan de voo-
dat wij ons moeten behelpen met literaire overleveringen
ravond van de Perzische inval in Griekenland van 480
uit de historische periode die lijken terug te verwijzen
voor Christus de Spartaanse gezanten, die bezorgd zijn
naar de Bronstijd. Voorzover er in deze periode al cultu-
voor een Atheens vergelijk met de Perzen, als volgt ant-
ren bestaan die een vorm van schrift kennen, zoals Egypte
woorden:
met zijn hierogliefen en het Nabije Oosten met zijn cuneiform, kunnen we deze informatie aanvullen met die van de contemporaine inscripties, die echter vaak van propa-
“Dat de Lakedaimoniërs bang zijn, dat wij met de
gandistische aard zijn. Tenslotte, beschikken we voor de
barbaren een overeenkomst sluiten, is volkomen be-
protohistorische periode nog over de archeologische res-
grijpelijk. Maar gij blijkt de gezindheid der Atheners
ten die door opgravingen aan het licht zijn gekomen en als
wel bijzonder slecht te kennen, dat gij u daarover
het ware een gestold surrogaat voor ons historische begrip
zorgen maakt, want nergens ter wereld bestaat er
cultuur leveren, namelijk de materiële cultuur.
zoveel goud en er bestaat geen land, hoezeer het in
Om kort te gaan: voor de periode van de Late Brons-
schoonheid en voortreffelijkheid ook alle andere
tijd zullen we ons onderzoek naar etniciteit moeten ver-
mag overtreffen, dat wij het zouden willen aanne-
richten met behulp van een aangepaste protohistorische
men als prijs voor Perzische gezindheid en onder-
methode, waarin informatie over gezamenlijke herkomst
werping van Griekenland. Er zijn immers vele
en verwantschap in taal, religie en zeden van de Zeevol-
belangrijke redenen, die ons, zelfs al wilden we het,
ken voor zover mogelijk wordt ontleend aan latere mythes
daarvan zouden weerhouden: (…) de bloed- en taal-
en sagen, epigrafische bronnen en de resten van materiële
verwantschap van het Griekse volk, de gemeens-
culturen. Bij deze methode wordt aangenomen dat een
chappelijke heiligdommen der goden en
ethnische groep kan worden geïdentificeerd daar waar
offerplechtigheden en onze gelijksoortige zeden
bijvoorbeeld een bepaalde taalgroep en een bepaalde ma-
(…).” (Herodotos, Historiën VIII, 144, vertaling
teriële cultuur met elkaar overlappen (zie figuur 1b). Of
Onno Damsté)
dit juist is, kan nooit op waterdichte wijze worden bewezen: wij kunnen de betreffende mensen niet meer vragen of zij zich inderdaad allemaal als leden van een etnische
De vier kenmerken van etniciteit die hier worden
identiteit beschouwen. In principe is het mogelijk dat er
opgesomd zijn: verwantschap in bloed of gezamenlijke
mensen zijn die tot dezelfde taalgroep behoren en de-
herkomst, verwantschap in taal, religie en zeden.
zelfde materiële cultuur hebben, maar zich toch tot een 163
dus in totaal negen Zeevolken onderscheiden worden.
hele andere etnische groep rekenen. Evenzeer is het mo-
Alvorens we ons met de vraag kunnen bezighouden
gelijk dat mensen met verschillende talen en materiële
of de Zeevolken hetzij uit coherente etnische groepen bes-
culturen zich toch tot dezelfde etnische groep rekenen. Dit in ogenschouw nemend, dienen wij dan ook afs-
tonden hetzij uit bijeengeraapte piraten bendes, dienen we
tand te nemen van Gustav Kosinna’s opvatting, die later
te bepalen waar zij vandaan kwamen. Vanaf het begin van
door de Nazi’s is misbruikt voor hun “Blut und Boden”
de literatuur over de Zeevolken, die aanvangt met de ont-
theorie, dat iedere vastomlijnde archeologische cultuur
cijfering van het Egyptisch hiëroglifisch door François
precies samenvalt met het woongebied van een specifieke
Champollion, is hier verschillend over gedacht. De eerste
etnische bevolkingsgroep. Zoals we hebben gezien, is de
onderzoekers, zoals Emmanuel de Rougé en François
werkelijkheid veel complexer. Maar om daartegenover te
Chabas, dachten aan een coalitie van krachten uit zowel
stellen dat het onderscheid van archeologische culturen in
de centrale als oostelijke Mediterrane regio op basis van
geen enkele relatie staat met dat van etnische groeperin-
hun associatie van aan de ene kant de Shekelesh, Sherden
gen die in de betreffende regio gewoond hebben is eve-
en Teresh met Sicilië, Sardinië en Etrurië, en aan de an-
neens onhoudbaar: op deze manier gooien we het kind
dere kant de Ekwesh en Lukka met de Akhaïsche Grieken
weg met het badwater. Per geval zal met een open oog
en de Lyciërs. Daartegenover stelde Gaston Maspero, aan
moeten worden bekeken in hoeverre onze protohistorische
wie we de term “Zeevolken” te danken hebben – een zeer
methode werkt.
terechte benaming als we bedenken dat deze tegenstan-
De periode van de woelingen van de Zeevolken kent
ders volgens de teksten als Vikingen met schepen overzee
twee duidelijk onderscheiden fasen. De eerste fase bestaat
van hun eilanden in de Mediterrane regio naar Egypte
uit een aanval van de Libische koning Meryey op de wes-
kwamen om aanvallen uit te voeren – , dat alle Zeevolken
telijke Nijl delta in het vijfde jaar van de Egyptische farao
uit het oostelijke Mediterrane gebied afkomstig waren.
Merneptah, dat wil zeggen in 1208 voor Christus, waarin
Uitgangspunt voor dit idee was dat de Tyrsenoi of Etrus-
de Libische koning zich gesteund weet door huurlingen
ken volgens Herodotos uit westelijk Anatolië (= het hui-
van de Zeevolken. Onder deze Zeevolken bevinden zich
dige Turkije) afkomstig waren. In overeenstemming
volgens Merneptah’s verslag van de gebeurtenis te Kar-
hiermee, associeerde Maspero de Sherden met de latere
nak in Egyptische hoofdstad Thebe de Sherden, Sheke-
Lydische hoofdstad Sardis, de Shekelesh met Sagalassos
lesh, Ekwesh, Lukka en Teresh. Uit de begeleidende tekst
in Pisidië en de Weshesh met Wassos in Karië. Na hun
blijkt dat het doel van de Libische koning Meryey was om
mislukte aanval op Egypte, zouden deze Anatolische
zich met zijn gevolg in Egypte te vestigen, maar helaas
Zeevolken naar hun uiteindelijke verblijfplaatsen in Sar-
voor hem werd de aanval door Merneptah afgeslagen. De
dinië, Sicilië en Etrurië geëmigreerd zijn.
tweede fase wordt gekenmerkt door een aanval op de Nijl
Als we alle beschikbare gegevens met betrekking tot
delta over zee en over land door de Zeevolken in het
de oorsprong van de verschillende groepen van de Zee-
vijfde en achste jaar van de Egyptische farao Ramesses
volken op een rijtje zetten, dan blijkt dat Maspero’s pan-
III, dat wil zeggen in 1179 en 1176 voor Christus. Uit de
oost-Mediterrane these niet houdbaar is. Het is zeker een
afbeeldingen van deze gecombineerde zee- en landslag
feit dat een aantal van de Zeevolken uit westelijk Anatolië
van Ramesses III te Medinet Habu in de Egyptische
afkomstig is. Dit geldt voor de Lukka, die niet anders als
hoofdstad Thebe (zie figuren 5 en 6) en de begeleidende
als Lyciërs geïdentificeerd kunnen worden, en voor de
tekst kunnen we afleiden dat de Zeevolken in kwestie, in
Tjeker, waarin we de Trojaanse Teukriden kunnen her-
navolging van de Libische koning Meryey, nu van plan
kennen. Voorts is het zeer aannemelijk dat Ekwesh en
waren zich te vestigen in het rijke Egypte. Ook in dit ge-
Denye(n) concurrerende benamingen voor de Myceense
val, echter, wordt de aanval afgeslagen door Ramesses III,
Grieken zijn, corresponderend met de Homerische varia-
en vestigen de Zeevolken zich in de regio van waaruit zij
tie tussen Akhaioi en Danaoi als aanduiding voor deze
hun gecombineerde land- en zeeslag hadden georgani-
zelfde bevolkingsgroep (vergelijk in dit verband Germa-
seerd, de Levant. De in deze fase betrokken Zeevolken
nia, Allemagne en Deutschland voor onze oosterburen).
waren de Peleset, Tjeker, Shekelesh, Denye(n) en Wes-
Ten derde valt er veel voor te zeggen dat de Peleset of Fi-
hesh. Gegeven het feit dat de Shekelesh bij beide fasen
listijnen, die uit Lydië dan wel Kreta afkomstig zouden
van de woelingen van de Zeevolken betrokken waren,
zijn, in de Griekse literaire overleveringen als Pelasgen
kunnen we concluderen dat er in de Egyptische bronnen
aangeduid worden, een voor-Griekse bevolkingsgroep die
164
tijdens de verovering van het Griekse vasteland door de
slechts diffuse piraten bendes of coherente ethnische
aartsvaders van de Grieken is uitgeweken naar de Egeïs-
groepen. Een eerste aanwijzing voor het antwoord dat wij
che eilanden en westelijk Anatolië en ook voor Kreta
wel degelijk met coherente ethnische groepen te maken
geattesteerd is. Omdat het ethnonym Pelasgen in de
hebben is gelegen in het feit dat zij door de Egyptenaren
vroegste Griekse literaire bronnen een concurrerende be-
met onderscheiden ethnonymen worden aangeduid.
naming voor de Tyrsenoi is, waarmee de Teresh in het al-
Voorts worden zij in de afbeeldingen met fenotypische en
gemeen geassocieerd worden, staat het buiten kijf dat
culturele kenmerken afgebeeld. Zo dragen de Sherden een
Maspero de herkomst van laatstgenoemd Zeevolk terecht
helm met horens, de Shekelesh een naar achteren gebogen
in het Egeïsche gebied traceert en aanneemt dat deze la-
muts en de Peleset een vederen hoofddeksel. Maar het be-
ter, na de Bronstijd, naar Italië zijn verhuist. Maar dit al-
langrijkste argument is dat de verschillende groepen van
les laat onverlet dat er graviterende redenen zijn om met
de Zeevolken zich, na de afgeslagen aanval op de Nijl
Maspero’s tegenstanders van het eerste uur aan te nemen
delta, afzonderlijk vestigen in bepaalde regio’s van de Le-
dat de Sherden, Shekelesh en Weshesh uit de centraal Me-
vant, te weten van zuid naar noord: de Peleset of Filistij-
diterrane regio afkomstig zijn en gewoon refereren aan
nen in hun zogenaamde pentapolis in Palestina (Gaza,
Sardiniërs, Siciliërs en Osken of Ausones. In deze zin is
Askelon, Asdod, Ekron en Gath), de Tjeker of Teukriden
mijn oplossing voor het vraagstuk van de herkomst der
in Dor, de Sherden of Sardiniërs in Akko, de Denye(n) of
Zeevolken een compromis tussen de these van de Rougé
Danaoi in Joppa en later in Laïsh, de dragers van de Eu-
en Chabas en de antithese van Maspero: de laatste had ge-
ropese urnenvelden-cultuur, waaronder mogelijk de Wes-
lijk in zijn idee over de oorsprong der Etrusken, die in de
hes of Osken in Hamath, en de Ekwesh of Akhaioi in de
Egeïs en Anatolië gesitueerd moet worden, maar gaat te
Cilicische vlakte (cf. figuur 17). Kennelijk wilden de on-
ver wanneer hij vervolgens de centrale Mediterrane regio
derscheiden groepen zich, ondanks hun gezamelijke op-
uitsluit als herkomstoord van sommige der Zeevolken en
treden tijdens de woelingen van de Zeevolken, niet
deze ook uit Anatolië laat komen.
mengen maar zich alleen temidden van hun eigen stamgenoten vestigen!
Als ik gelijk heb in deze oplossing van het vraagstuk naar de herkomst van de verschillende groepen der Zee-
De woelingen van de Zeevolken aan het eind van de
volken, dan zijn wij ook dichter bij het antwoord naar de
Bronstijd brengen niet alleen maar verwoestingen met
oorzaak van de woelingen van de Zeevolken periode. Het
zich mee, maar ook vernieuwingen. Zo introduceren de
feit wil, namelijk, dat het Italische schiereiland aan het
Sherden een nieuwe strijdwijze voor de infanterie, met
eind van de Bronstijd wordt gekenmerkt door een massale
ronde schilden en lange zwaarden, die, bij voldoende aan-
immigratie van dragers van de Europese urnenvelden-
tallen, opgewassen is tegen de strijdwagens van de oude
cultuur, waartoe de Osken of Ausones behoren. Deze
Bronstijd rijken – de aanzet tot de latere Griekse falanx.
nieuwkomers verdrijven deels de zittende bevolking, die
Voorts zijn de Peleset of Filistijnen, volgens de overleve-
op drift raakt, en gaan deels met deze op drift geraakte
ring van de Bijbel, gespecialiseerd in de bewerking van
bevolkingsgroepen op zoek naar betere oorden, die in het
ijzer – het metaal van het nieuwe tijdperk, de IJzertijd.
veel rijkere oostelijke Mediterrane gebied gezocht wor-
Tenslotte lijkt het waarschijnlijk dat de kennis van de
den, waar de oorsponkelijke bewoners van Italië, Sardinië
Zeevolken uit de centrale Mediterrane regio met betrek-
en Sicilië onder andere door handel mee in contact ston-
king tot de wateren in dit gebied de Feniciërs in de vroege
den. Op hun drift naar het oosten wordt het paleis van Py-
IJzertijd heeft gefaciliteerd bij hun fascinerende explora-
los in de westelijke Peloponnesos in de as gelegd en de
tie en kolonisatie van het west Mediterrane bekken.
lokale Myceense bevolking ten dele in de trek naar het oosten meegezogen. Vervolgens wordt de maritieme verdedigingslijn 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 gegarandeerd (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
165
CURRICULUM VITAE VAN FREDERIK CHRISTIAAN WOUDHUIZEN 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 protohistorie
2002-2003
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: Gieben
1992
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, Innsbruck: 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
167
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.
1
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. P[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’, P[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). 2
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. P[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 P[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. P[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 P[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 grè 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). 3
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’.
4
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.
5
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 . 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
1
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
2
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 etruscoungherese (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
3
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. 4
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 5
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 PaleoUngheresi 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 6
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.
7
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 precristiano e pre-islamico, ed anche in importanti termini storico-linguistici come come pre-IE, e preromano, 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 8
(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 9
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
10
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 11
appare regolarmente nei suoi continuatori: finl. arpa (gen. arvan) ‘destino, fato, bacchetta magica’, arpamies (mies ‘uomo’) ‘divinatore’, arpo- ‘estrarre la sorte’, arpoja ‘mago, divinatore’, arpeledivinare, 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 (LiddellScott), 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 12
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.
13
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. 14
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’.
15
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. 16
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, 694704. 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).
17
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 linguisticostorica 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.
1
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 sudorientale, 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 2
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 etruscoungherese. 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 3
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 etruscoungherese, 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
4
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 5
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… 6
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.
7
Anzitutto, di fronte a iχeme, dato che l’equivalenza grafematica = 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.
8
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. tanin 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"
9
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 10
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 storicolinguistico, 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 11
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, 12
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 ; 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 - non vedo cosa impedisca al mio critico di ipotizzare anche per la etrusca che potesse servire a rappresentarne una variante palatale, in armonia con la . 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 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 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.
13
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 –odavanti 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 14
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 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 , 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 15
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 protoungherese, 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 altoitaliani - 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 16
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’ Æ ‘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.
17
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 18
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 19
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 20
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 21
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
22
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.
23
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
1
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.
2
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
3
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.
4
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 SouthWestern 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.
5
6
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 7
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.
8
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
9
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.
10
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.
11
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. 12
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 Comparison with ‘combinatorial’ Etruscology Hungarian on the main linguistic traits of Etruscan: 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 = Hungarian and postpositions are added to the word Uralic stem The occlusive consonants are = Uralic exclusively voiceless (P T K) The syllable structure is open (= it = Uralic ends in vowel)
13
GRAMMATICAL WORDS AND MORPHEMES ETRUSCAN ASCERTAINED HUNGARIAN TRANSLATION BY ETRUSCOLOGISTS AN ECA, ICA; ETA, ITA
Relative pronoun (‘who, which’) Demonstrative (‘this’)
ENIACA
‘so much, so many’
ETANAL, ETNAM, ITANIM IΧ, IΧNAC
Conjunction
ME MI MENE MINI ΘUI
‘I, me’
-A -AC -AΘ -AT -C, -Χ -L -NA -R -S, -AS -SE, -SI -U
Grammatical term
‘here’
Formant Formant Formant Formant Formant Formant Formant Formant Pertinentive Formant of Nomina agentis -ΘI, -TI Locative -KE, -CU, -U, Diminutives -ZA
AM-, ŐN PHu. E(Z), I-, Yen. EKE, EKO; Finn. ETTÄ ENNYÍ, dial. ENNYIKÓ EZENNEL, EZENNEN (17° c.) ÍGY/ IGYEN + NAK ( ?) PHu. *ËME > ÉN, Khanty MÄ Ug *TŌ ‘that’, Manshi TOT, TÜT ‘here’ -A -AK -AT -K -L -N, NY -R -S, -AS; -SZ –ASZ -I, -SI -U, -Ű, -Ó, -Ő -T (e.g. itt, ott, Pécsett) -KE, KÓ, -U/-Ú, -A
14
GRAMMATICAL WORDS AND MORPHEMES ETRUSCO UNTRANSLATED HUNGARIAN BY ETRUSCOLOGISTS ΧURVAR
??
LURI
??
NAC NACEME -LUM -LEΘ -TALA/-TALE -VANI, -VANA, -VENE -VENAS -VA, -VE -RA, -RE -VAL, -VEL
??
KORBAN (16° c.) (or KORRAL) ROLA, dial. LERA, LERUJJA -NAK/-NEK, NEKEM
?? ?? ??
-ALOM -LET -DALOM –DELEM -VÁNY, -VÉNY
?? ?? ??
–VÁ, -VÉ –RA, -RE –VAL, -VEL
15
ETRUSCAN NAMES OF POLITICAL LEADERS, OFFICERS AND PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS ETRUSCAN TRANSLATION BY HUNGARIAN ETRUSCOLOGISTS ALREADY ASCERTAINED IN THE 19° CENTURY ZILA CANΘE MARU
PURΘ-/PURT-
CEPLAUC, LUC, LAUΧUM-, LUΧUM-, LAUΧME etc.
PRINCEPS CIVITATIS ‘chief of the Etruscan comunity’ REX ‘king, highest institutional authority’ Lat. MARO, -ONIS, Umbr. MARON ‘competent in constructions and in the acquisition of lands’ ‘connected to political power’
GYULA (< TU), (ancient forms JILA, DZ-LA) KUNDE (< TU), (ancient form K-ND-) (FÖLD)MÉRŐ
Ciuv. PURTƏ ‘battle axe’ > Hng. BALTA (> Lat. BALTEUS ‘sword belt’) KÉP (< TU)
‘connected to political power’ LÓ (< TU) + Mansi Latin LUCUMO/LUCMO/LUCMO KOM/KUM (cf. Ungh. N, -ONIS ‘lucumon’ (‘??’) HÍM) ‘horseman’ = ‘noble man, knight’
THE ETRUSCANS’ PHRASE TO DEFINE THEIR LEADER OR HIS FUNCTION ETRUSCAN TRANSLATION BY HUNGARIAN THE EARLIEST ETRUSCOLOGISTS « ZILA(Θ) MEΧL RASNAL/-S » ZILA(Θ) MEΧL
Latin PRAETOR (PRAETURA?) ETRURIAE Latin PRAETOR (PRAETURA?) ??
« MAGYAR RÉSZ GYULA(T)JA » *GYULA(T) MEG- (ancient form of 16
RASNAL
ETRURIAE
NAMES OF FAMILY MEMBERS ETRUSCAN TRANSLATION BY ETRUSCOLOGISTS APA APA NACNA ATI ATI NACNA
‘father’ ‘grand father’ ‘mother’ ‘grand mother’
CLAN PUIA SEC, SEΧ
‘son’, ‘child’ ‘wife’ ‘sister’ ‘daughter’
MAGY(AR)) RÉSZ RÉSZÉN (15° c. ‘region, zone’)
HUNGARIAN APA NAGYAPA ÉDES *NAGYEDES (NAGYANYA) ?? BULYA (< TU) FUg *SÄĆE ‘father or mother’s sister’
UNTRANSLATED BY ETRUSCOLOGISTS ARCE
??
MANI(I)M ZAMAΘI
?? ??
ARA, Manshi ÄR ‘matrilinear kin’, Ug *AR3 MENY *GYÁMÉDES (GYÁMANYA)
17
ETRUSCAN RELIGION ETRUSCAN TRANSLATION BY HUNGARIAN ETRUSCOLOGISTS EIS AIS CEL NATIS NETSVIS TRUTNVT TURAN
‘god’ ‘ goddess of birth, East’ ‘Etruscan priest, haruspex’ ‘Etruscan priest, fulguriator’ ‘name of a goddess’
IS/ŐS, ISTEN KEL , KELET NÉZ or NESZEL + VISZ TÁLTOS < Ug *TULT3 Khanty TUREM ‘deity’, Manshi TŌRƏM ‘deity’
18
PROFESSIONS ETRUSCAN TRANSLATION BY HUNGARIAN ETRUSCOLOGISTS ZICU
‘writer’
MARU
Umbro MARON ‘aedilis’
OHu. GYAK, Manshi JĒK ‘incidere’ + -U (FÖLD)MÉRŐ-
UNTRANSLATED BY ETRUSCOLOGISTS FULU PAZU PARLIU SUNU ŚUPLU ΘELU
FŰTŐ < FŰLFŐZŐ PÁRLÓ ZENE/ZONG/SENGŐ dial. SUPÁL, SUPRÁL TELŐ
19
PLACE AND RIVER NAMES Italian ETRUSCAN LATIN
HUNGARIAN
(Bologna) (Orvieto)
FELSINA VELZNA, VELSU etc.
FELSŐ BELSŐ
---
--ALSŐ (the main Etrusco port, near Pyrgi/Caere) PUPLUNA POPULONIA FŐ + FŰLFUFLUNA (famous for (FŰT) its metallurgical furnaces) VEI(S) VEII VEJSZE (11° (on the sec. VEIESE) Tevere river) ‘fish weir’ MUTINA MUTINA MUTIMOLA IMOLA IMOLA VETLUNA VETULONIA VEZET?? ARNUS ARANYOS
(Populonia)
--(Modena) (Imola) (Vetulonia) (Arno)
FELSINA VOLSINII (> Italian Bolsena) ALSIUM
20
BILINGUAL TEXT (TLE 472) Latino: Q. SCRIBONIUS Etrusco: VL ZICU LATIN ETRUSCAN HUNGARIAN SCRIB- ‘to ZIC-U = MHu GYAK-U write’ ‘writer’ ‘engraver’, BILINGUAL TEXT (TLE 899) Latin: VEL MAX Etruscan: VEL PEM or PEPN LATIN ETRUSCAN HUNGARIAN VEL(IUS) VEL -MAXIMUS PEM o FEJ, FŐ o ‘(the) PEPN = FŐFŐ greatest, (the) (the) highest, greatest, maximum’ (the) highest, maximum’
21
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”
22
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”
23
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”
24
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”
25
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”
26
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” 27
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 + MÉRTANŚINA 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” 28
Ëàòûïîâ Ô.Ð.
ÝÒÐÓÑÑÊÀß ÍÀÄÏÈÑÜ ÂU 899 ÍÀ ÊÀÌÅÍÍÎÌ ÂÊËÀÄÛØÅ ÏÐÈÄÎÐÎÆÍÎÃÎ ÎÁÅËÈÑÊÀ: ÏÐÈÇÛÂ Ê ÓÂÀÆÅÍÈÞ È ÏÎÐßÄÊÓ Ñòàòüÿ ïîñâÿùåíà êîìáèíàòîðíî-ýòèìîëîãè÷åñêîìó àíàëèçó ýòðóññêîé íàäïèñè Bu 899 íà êàìåííîì òàáëî-âêëàäûøå ïðèäîðîæíîãî îáåëèñêà âáëèçè ã. Ñàíòà-Ìàðèíåëëà. Îñíîâûâàÿñü íà ôîíîýâîëþöèîííîé ïðàòþðêñêîé ãèïîòåçå [14] è ó÷èòûâàÿ ñåìàíòè÷åñêèå ñâÿçè ðèôìóþùèõñÿ êðèïòîïàð, îñóùåñòâëÿåòñÿ ïîýòàïíàÿ èäåíòèôèêàöèÿ ëåêñåì ðàññìàòðèâàåìîãî òåêñòà. Êîíñòàòèðóåòñÿ åãî ôèëîñîôñêîýòè÷åñêàÿ íàïðàâëåííîñòü.
Èññëåäóåìàÿ íàäïèñü íàíåñåíà íà îáðàáîòàííîå ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû ïðÿìîóãîëüíîå êàìåííîå ïàííî, êîòîðîå âñòàâëÿëîñü â íèøó ñòåíû ïðèäîðîæíîãî îáåëèñêà. Ýòà äîðîãà (ïîçæå ñòàâøàÿ Via Aurelia) â òîì ìåñòå, ãäå íàéäåíî ðàññìàòðèâàåìîå ïàííî, íàõîäèòñÿ ìåæäó ãîðîäàìè ×èâèòàâåêêüÿ è Ñàíòà-Ìàðèíåëëà, â 1700 ì îò ïîñëåäíåãî.  öåíòðå ñîâðåìåííîé Ñàíòà-Ìàðèíåëëû íàéäåí è ðàñêîïàí ýòðóññêèé õðàì Ìèíåâðû IV â. äî í. ý., ñ ïðîòÿæåííîé, íå ìåíåå çàãàäî÷íîé íàäïèñüþ íà àëòàðå [17]. Ñîäåðæàíèå ýòîé ïðîñòðàííîé íàäïèñè ðàññìàòðèâàëîñü â íàøèõ ñòàòüÿõ è êíèãå [1, 2]. Ýêñêëþçèâíîñòü íàäïèñè íà ïðèäîðîæíîé êàìåííîé ìåòêå ñîñòîèò â òîì, ÷òî â íåé âñòðå÷àþòñÿ î÷åíü ðåäêèå ñëîâà è ãðàììàòè÷åñêèå ôîðìû, ñóæàþùèå äî íóëÿ âîçìîæíîñòè ïðèìåíåíèÿ êîìáèíàòîðíîãî ìåòîäà ñ èñïîëüçîâàíèåì ïîçèöèîííî-÷àñòîòíûõ õàðàêòåðèñòèê, ïîëó÷åííûõ ðàíåå íà ìàòåðèàëàõ äðóãèõ ðàñïðîñòðàíåííûõ ïî æàíðó ýòðóññêèõ òåêñòîâ. Íåò îñîáûõ òåìàòè÷åñêèõ îðèåíòèðîâ, ïîçâîëèâøèõ áû ïðèáëèçèòüñÿ ê ïîíèìàíèþ ñîäåðæàíèÿ òåêñòà ÷åðåç èçâåñòíûå ðåëèãèîçíûå òåðìèíû, êàëåíäàðíûå äàòû è èìåíà ïðàâèòåëåé.  ñïðàâî÷íîì èçäàíèè Ìàðèî Áóôôà [3] òðàíñëèòåðàöèÿ òåêñòà èññëåäóåìîé íàäïèñè âûãëÿäèò òàê: halusi : cnas : snut(i) parax : pateri : snuti aîex : alax : snuti stvi : leièrmeri : len faneri : urèui : uèari·n ei : îrie : van : mertari : î îr. iîr. esi
Ïðè ïåðâè÷íîì ðàññìîòðåíèè èçó÷àåìîãî òåêñòà áðîñàþòñÿ â ãëàçà ñëåäóþùèå îáñòîÿòåëüñòâà: 1. Òðèæäû â êîíöå ïåðâûõ òðåõ ñòðîê ïîâòîðÿåòñÿ ñëîâî snuti, à äàëåå â ðèôìó ñ íèì ïîïàäàþò ñëîâà leiîrmeri, uîari, mertari, esi. Òàêæå íàáëþäàåòñÿ êàêàÿ-òî ñìûñëîâàÿ ïàðíîñòü ñëîâ, íà÷èíàþùèõñÿ íà îäíó è òó æå áóêâó (îíè ðàñïîëîæåíû ïîî÷åðåäíî â òåêñòå):
parax pateri, aîex alax, leiîrmeri len, urîui uîari.
Âñå ýòî ãîâîðèò î ïîýòè÷åñêîì, ñòèõîòâîðíîì õàðàêòåðå ðàññìàòðèâàåìîé íàäïèñè. Êàê ïîêàçûâàåò îáçîð ïåðåâåäåííûõ ýòðóññêèõ òåêñòîâ, ýòðóñêè â óñòíîì è ïèñüìåííîì ÿçûêå ÿâíî òÿãîòåëè ê ñòèõîòâîðíîìó æàíðó èçëîæåíèÿ, îñîáåííî â ìíîãî÷èñëåííûõ ïîãîâîðêàõ è àôîðèçìàõ (ñì. [2], §2.10 ãë. 2).  êîíòåêñòå ñêàçàííîãî, íàçâàííîå îáñòîÿòåëüñòâî óêàçûâàåò åùå íà ôèëîñîôñêî-ýòè÷åñêóþ îêðàñêó óêàçàííîãî òåêñòà. Êðîìå ýòîãî, òàêîé ðàñêëàä êðèïòîïàð, íåñîìíåííî, óêàçûâàåò åùå íà òî, ÷òî ñîïðÿæåííûå ñëîâîôîðìû ñâÿçàíû ìåæäó ñîáîé ñêðûòûìè ôóíêöèîíàëüíî-öåëåâûìè (à âîçìîæíî, è òåõíîëîãè÷åñêèìè) çàâèñèìîñòÿìè è ëåæàò â îäíîé ñóáúåêòèâíî-ñìûñëîâîé ïëîñêîñòè. 2. Èç ïðåäûäóùèõ èññëåäîâàíèé ýòðóññêèõ òåêñòîâ â ðàññìàòðèâàåìîé íàäïèñè èçâåñòíûìè äëÿ ìåíÿ â ñåìàíòè÷åñêîì çíà÷åíèè ÿâëÿþòñÿ 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 1 sntnam «ïî ïîðÿäêó ñ÷åòà, ïî î÷åðåäè»; sans «ïîäñ÷åò»); aî – êîðåíü ñëîâà öåëîãî ñåìàíòè÷åñêîãî ãíåçäà ëåêñåì, ñâÿçàííîãî ñ óñèëèåì èëè ñ ðåçêèì, íî äèñêðåòíûì ïåðåìåùåíèåì â ïðîñòðàíñòâå (øàã, ñêà÷îê, âûáðîñ, ðåçêîå îòäåëåíèå îò ÷åãî-ëèáî, êðàòêîâðåìåííîå ñîäåéñòâèå, ïîìîùü); len ïîêðûòûå ðàñøèòûìè ëüíÿíûìè ñêàòåðòÿìè ñòîëû òðèêëèíèÿ (ýòî ñëîâî âñòðå÷àåòñÿ â íàäïèñè íà æåðòâåííîé òàðåëêå â ñêëåïå ([4], ñòð.75, NRIE. Ñ. 200, Ìèëàí, Ìóçåé òîïîãðàôèè); lei – ëåãêî ïåðåìåøèâàåìàÿ òåêó÷àÿ ñìåñü, ãàðíèð ê áëþäàì, ñîóñ, ñìîëà ( ñì. TLE 1: leive «áàëüçàìèðóþùàÿ ñìîëà»); ÂÅÑÒÍÈÊ ÎÃÓ 11`2004
161
Ðîìàíî-ãåðìàíñêàÿ ôèëîëîãèÿ
fani «áðåííûé» (áóëã. fäni «áðåííûé», ýòî ñëîâî âñòå÷àåòñÿ â òåêñòå ïåëåíû Çàãðåáñêîé ìóìèè TLE 1); nei – «÷òî (âî ìíîæ. ÷èñëå )», ne, ni-«÷òî (â åä. ÷èñëå)»; es «ãëàç» (â ðåäêèõ ñëó÷àÿõ èñïîëüçóåòñÿ è â êà÷åñòâå ñëîâà «ñëåä» (âîçìîæíî, òî, ÷òî îòñëåæèâàåòñÿ ãëàçàìè). 3. Ìíîãîêðàòíî ïîâòîðÿþùèåñÿ àôôèêñû ñëîâ -ari, -eri ÿâëÿþòñÿ õàðàêòåðíûìè ïðèçíàêàìè ýòðóññêèõ ïðèëàãàòåëüíûõ âî ìíîæåñòâåííîì ÷èñëå [5]. Äàëåå äëÿ èäåíòèôèêàöèè îñòàâøèõñÿ ñëîâ òåêñòà âîñïîëüçóåìñÿ ýòèìîëîãè÷åñêèìè ïðèâÿçêàìè ê ìàòåðèàëàì äðåâíåòþðêñêîãî ñëîâàðÿ (ÄÒÑ [9]). Èçëàãàåìûé çäåñü êîìáèíàòîðíîýòèìîëîãè÷åñêèé àíàëèç âñåöåëî áàçèðóåòñÿ íà ãèïîòåçå î ëîêàëüíîì ïðàòþðêñêîì õàðàêòåðå ýòðóññêîãî ÿçûêà [2]. Ýòà ãèïîòåçà â 1988 ãîäó ïîëó÷èëà âåùåñòâåííîå ïîäòâåðæäåíèå ïðè èññëåäîâàíèÿõ òåëà ýòðóññêîé ìóìèè èç Ñðåäíåãî Åãèïòà [14]. Ðàññìîòðèì îñòàâøèåñÿ íåèäåíòèôèöèðîâàííûå ñëîâà òåêñòà ïîî÷åðåäíî. halusi.  ìàòåðèàëàõ ÄÒÑ ê ýòîìó ñëîâó âåñüìà áëèçêèìè ÿâëÿþòñÿ: qalïsïz «áåçíåáåñíûé, ïîëíûé, àáñîëþòíûé», qalïs «îòñòàâàíèå», qalït «ïîäíèìàòüñÿ äûáîì», à òàêæå hal (ñåìèò.) «ñîñòîÿíèå, ïîëîæåíèå». Åñëè îðèåíòèðîâàòüñÿ íà ïåðâûé íàáîð äðåâíåòþðêñêèõ ñëîâ, òî, íåñîìíåííî, äåðèâàòîì ýòîé êîðíåâîé ôîðìû qal- ÿâëÿåòñÿ è ñîâðåìåííîå òþðêñêîå qalqu «âûïÿ÷èâàòüñÿ, âçäûáèòüñÿ», qalu «îñòàâàòüñÿ». Íî, íåêîòîðûå èç ïîäîáíûõ ñëîâ óæå áûëè èäåíòèôèöèðîâàíû íàìè â ýòðóññêèõ òåêñòàõ, íàïðèìåð, cal - «îñòàâàòüñÿ». Êðîìå ýòîãî, íà÷àëüíîìó h â äðåâíåòþðêñêîì ÿçûêå ÷àùå âñåãî ñîîòâåòñòâóåò èìåííî h â ýòðóññêîì ÿçûêå: ñð. ýòð. huviîun «ìåðòâîå òåëî» ~ äð. òþðê. hövitoç «ìåðòâîå òåëî» [2]. Ïîýòîìó, âûáèðàÿ ðàçëè÷íûå âàðèàíòû ýòèìîëîãè÷åñêîé èäåíòèôèêàöèè íàçâàíîãî ñëîâà, ìû îñòàíàâëèâàåìñÿ íà âòîðîì âàðèàíòå ñåìèòñêîì çàèìñòâîâàíèè â ýòðóññêîì ÿçûêå halu «ñîñòîÿíèå, ïîëîæåíèå». Îêîí÷àíèå -si, íàèáîëåå âåðîÿòíî, ãîâîðèò î ïîêàçàòåëå ñóáúåêòà (êàê è ñòàðîëàòèíñêàÿ ôîðìà àíàôîðè÷åñêîãî âîçâðàòíîãî ìåñòîèìåíèÿ *se).  èòîãå î÷åíü ìíîãîå ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò î òîì, ÷òî íàçâàííîå ñëîâî ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé íà÷àëî êîñâåííîé ðå÷è ñî çíà÷åíèåì «[Èõ (êîãî-òî)] ñîñòîÿíèå äåë, ïîëîæåíèå». cnas. Òàêîå îêîí÷àíèå -s èìåþò ýòðóññêèå êà÷åñòâåííûå ïðèëàãàòåëüíûå [5]. Ïîýòîìó äàííîå ñëîâî, ñ ó÷åòîì âûøåóêàçàííîãî êîðíÿ, ìîæíî ïîïûòàòüñÿ èíòåðïðåòèðîâàòü â ñåìàí-
162
ÂÅÑÒÍÈÊ ÎÃÓ 11`2004
òè÷åñêîì çíà÷åíèè «òåêó÷è, èçìåí÷èâû, ïåðåìåí÷èâû». snuti. Çäåñü snut ãëàãîë 3-ãî ëèöà ìíîæåñòâåííîãî ÷èñëà â íàñòîÿùåì âðåìåíè [2] «ñ÷èòàþò». Îêîí÷àíèå -i âñòðå÷àåòñÿ ÷àñòî ó ýòðóññêèõ ãëàãîëîâ è ñâÿçàíî ñ îïðåäåëåííûìè êëàññàìè ìîäàëüíîñòè ñóáúåêòèâíî-íåîïðåäåëåííîãî òèïà. Èñõîäÿ èç ýòîãî, ðàññìàòðèâàåìîå ñëîâî ìîæíî ïîïûòàòüñÿ îòîæäåñòâèòü ñ êîíòåêñòóàëüíîé ôðàçîé «êàê (âîîáùå â îáùåñòâå) ñ÷èòàþò» èëè «ñ÷èòàåòñÿ îáùåïðèçíàííûì». parax pateri. Äåòåðìèíàöèÿ ñåìàíòè÷åñêèõ ïðèçíàêîâ ýòîé ñèíòàêòèêî-ñåìàíòè÷åñêîé ïàðû ïîòðåáîâàëà ïåðåñìîòðà áîëüøîãî êîëè÷åñòâà áëèçêèõ ïî çâó÷àíèþ ñëîâîôîðì è âñåâîçìîæíûõ òåðìèíîâ âî ìíîãèõ òþðêñêèõ è íåòþðêñêèõ ÿçûêàõ, à òàêæå îñîáîé àêòèâèçàöèè âíèìàíèÿ ê âûÿâëåíèþ áëèçêèõ ê íèì ïî êîðíåâûì îñíîâàì ðåôåðåíòîâ â äîñòóïíûõ äëÿ èçó÷åíèÿ ýòðóññêèõ òåêñòàõ.  ìàòåðèàëàõ ïî èçó÷åíèþ ýòðóññêîãî ÿçûêà â ñâÿçè ñ ðàññìàòðèâàåìîé êðèïòîïàðîé íàøå âíèìàíèå ïðèâëåêëè äâà ïðèìåðà.  ïåðâîì ðå÷ü èäåò î ïîäðèñóíî÷íîé íàäïèñè, âûïîëíåííîé íà ýòðóññêîì áðîíçîâîì çåðêàëå, ãäå ìèôè÷åñêèé ãåðîé ïîõèùàåò äåâóøêó. Íàäïèñü âûãëÿäèò òàê: parsura. Áîëüøèíñòâî èññëåäîâàòåëåé óæå îòîæäåñòâèëè ýòî ñëîâî ñ ýòðóññêèì ãëàãîëîì íàñòîÿùåãî âðåìåíè, îáîçíà÷àþùèì êàêîé-òî ñïîñîá ïîõèùåíèÿ. Åñëè ó÷åñòü, ÷òî çàâåðøàþùàÿ ïîëîâèíà ñëîâà -sura â ñåâåðî-çàïàäíûõ òþðêñêèõ ÿçûêàõ (èñõîäÿ èç âîçìîæíûõ ïîñëåäóþùèõ ôîíîýâîëþöèé ýòîãî ñëîâà) ñîîòâåòñòâóåò ãëàãîëó «òàùèòü», òî ïåðâàÿ ïîëîâèíà ñëîâà ìîæåò ñèíèôèöèðîâàòü ñïîñîá ïåðåòàñêèâàíèÿ. Òàêîãî ðîäà ñëîæíîñîñòàâíûå ñëîâà (ãëàãîëüíî-ãëàãîëüíûå, ãëàãîëüíî-èìåííûå è äâîéíûå èìåííûå) íåðåäêî âñòðå÷àþòñÿ â ýòðóññêèõ òåêñòàõ, íàïðèìåð: municlet (muni-clet «ïîäúåìíûì ñäåëàííûé», teimeitn (tei-meit-n «îïóñêàíèå òðóïíîå ≡ çàõîðîíåíèå») è äð. [2]. Êàê óæå íàìè îòìå÷àëîñü ðàíåå â [2], ãðàììàòè÷åñêèå ôîðìû ýòðóññêîãî ÿçûêà êàê îäíîãî èç ñàìûõ çàïàäíûõ ïðàòþðêñêèõ ÿçûêîâ Ñðåäèçåìíîìîðüÿ äåìîíñòðèðóþò õàðàêòåðíûå äðåâíåéøèå ÷åðòû êûï÷àêñêîé è áóëãàðñêîé äèàëåêòíûõ ïîäãðóïï òþðêñêèõ ÿçûêîâ. Ïîýòîìó íàèáîëåå ïðîäóêòèâíûì, íåñîìíåííî, ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïîèñê ìîäåëüíûõ àðõåòèïîâ â ìàòåðèàëàõ ýòèõ ïîäãðóïï ÿçûêîâ è, â ÷àñòíîñòè, â êèðãèçñêîì è êàçàíñêî-òþðêñêîì ÿçûêàõ. Ïðèìåíèòåëüíî ê ôåíîòèïó íà÷àëüíîé ÷àñòè ñëîâà â íàäïèñè íà çåðêàëå par- â ìàòåðèàëàõ êèðãèçñêîãî ÿçûêà îáíàðóæèâàþòñÿ ñëîâà para
Ëàòûïîâ Ô.Ð.
Ýòðóññêàÿ íàäïèñü Bu 899 íà êàìåííîì âêëàäûøå ïðèäîðîæíîãî îáåëèñêà...
«÷àñòü, êóñîê» [6], parak «ðåøåòî, äðîáèëêà», à â êàçàíñêî-òþðêñêîì ÿçûêå åñòü ðîäñòâåííîå èì ñëîâî parga «÷àñòü, îáðàçåö, ÷åãî-ëèáî». Ñõîæèé ñèãíèôèêàò èìååòñÿ è â ÿçûêå îãóçñêîé ïîäãðóïïû â òóðêìåíñêîì: park «îòäåëüíûé» [7]. Äëÿ ïîâûøåíèÿ âàëèäíîñòè ðàññóæäåíèé ìîæíî ðàññìîòðåòü åùå è íîñòðàòè÷åñêèå ïàðàëëåëè â èíäîåâðîïåéñêèõ ÿçûêàõ è íåêîòîðûå àðõàè÷åñêèå çàèìñòâîâàíèÿ â äðåâíåòþðêñêîì ÿçûêå.  ÷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 ðåôåðåíòîì ñâÿçàí è ñòîÿùèé íåñêîëüêî îñîáíÿêîì êóëèíàðíûé òåðìèí â êàçàíñêî-òþðêñêîì ÿçûêå pärämäè (êðóãëîé ôîðìû ìÿñíîé ïèðîæîê), ñèíèôèöèðóþùèé, ïî-âèäèìîìó, ïîíÿòèå «ñäåëàííûé ïî êðóãó». Èòàê, èíòåãðèðóÿ âñå ñåìàíòè÷åñêèå çíà÷åíèÿ ýòðóññêîãî ñëîâà parsura â íàäïèñè íà çåðêàëå, ìû îòäàåì ïðåäïî÷òåíèå òàêîìó ïåðåâîäó: «îòäåëÿÿ, îòðûâàÿ òàùèò». Ñëåäñòâèåì æå èç òàêîãî çàêëþ÷åíèÿ, â êà÷åñòâå âòîðîãî ëîãè÷åñêîãî øàãà, óæå ïðèìåíèòåëüíî ê ýòðóññêîé íàäïèñè íà òàáëî ïðèäîðîæíîãî îáåëèñêà, ñòàíîâèòñÿ âûâîä î òîì, ÷òî ïåðâîå ñëîâî â ðèôìóþùåéñÿ êðèïòîïàðå parax – pateri íàèáîëåå âåðîÿòíî ñâÿçàíî ñ ñåìàíòè÷åñêèìè ïðèçíàêàìè: «äðîáíîñòü», «÷àñòü, êóñî÷åê ÷åãî-òî», «îòäåëüíûé ïðèçíàê ñ êàêèìè-òî èíäèâèäóàëüíûìè îñîáåííîñòÿìè». Êîðåíü âòîðîãî ñëîâà â ðàññìàòðèâàåìîé êðèïòîïàðå (-pateri) âñòðå÷àåòñÿ â îäíîé ýòðóññêîé íàäïèñè íà òàðåëêå ([2], ñòð. 66), óæå â ãëàãîëüíîé èìïåðàòèâíîé ôîðìå patna «ðàçáèâàéñÿ âäðåáåçãè!». Òóò æå ïðèõîäèò íà ïàìÿòü àíàëîãèÿ â äð. òþðê. ÿçûêå: pat- «çâóê ïàäàþùåãî òÿæåëîãî ïðåäìåòà», à â ìàòåðèàëàõ êèðãèçñêîãî ÿçûêà èìååòñÿ ãëàãîë pata- «ðàçáèâàòüñÿ è ðàçëåòàòüñÿ âäðåáåçãè»[6]. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ïîäâîäÿ èòîã ñåìàíòèêîýòèìîëîãè÷åñêîìó è êîìáèíàòîðíîìó àíàëèçó ïåðâîé êðèïòîïàðû èçó÷àåìîé íàäïèñè parax– pateri, íàèáîëåå âåðîÿòíûì ïåðåâîäîì ýòîé ñâÿçêè ìû ñ÷èòàåì òàêèå êîðåôåðåíòíûå ïåðèôðàçû: «ñïîñîáíîå ê äðîáëåíèþ ðàíî èëè ïîçäíî ðàññûïàåòñÿ», «ðàçëè÷èÿ êàê ïðàâèëî, õðóïêè», «îêðóæàþùèé ìèð õðóïêèé». aex alax. Ñëîâ, íà÷èíàþùèõñÿ íà aî, î÷åíü ìíîãî â ýòðóññêîì ÿçûêå. Ýòî è aîes «äðóã» («èäóùèé ðÿäîì»), è aîumics «ïîìîùü, ñîäåéñòâèå», è aîna «ïðîäâèæåíèå âïåðåä». Àôôèêñ -x ãîâîðèò î êëàññå ñóùåñòâèòåëüíûõ, êîòîðûå îáðàçîâàëèñü èëè îò ãëàãîëîâ, èëè îò ïðèëàãà-
òåëüíûõ.  ëþáîì ñëó÷àå, êîðíåâàÿ îñíîâà ýòîãî ñëîâà áîëåå âñåãî ñâÿçàíà ñ äåéñòâèåì, óñèëèåì. Îòêàçàâøèñü îò èäåíòèôèêàöèè ýòîãî ñëîâà ñ âîçìîæíûì *aîac «íîãà» (ïî àíàëîãèè ñ äð. òþðê. aäaq «íîãà»), îñòîðîæíî ïðåäïîëîæèì, ÷òî çäåñü ðå÷ü èäåò î êàêîì-òî äåéñòâèè ñ óñèëèåì èëè îáúåêòå, ñâÿçàííîì ñ äâèæåíèåì è ïåðåìåùåíèåì. Âòîðàÿ ëåêñåìà êðèïòîïàðû alax èìååò ñõîäñòâî ñ äð. òþðê. aš «ïåðåõîäèòü, ïåðåñåêàòüñÿ, âîçíàãðàæäàòüñÿ, ïîëó÷àòü ïî çàñëóãàì». Ïîäáèðàÿ ðàçëè÷íûå âàðèàíòû ñî÷åòàíèÿ ýòîé ñìûñëîâîé ïàðû è ó÷èòûâàÿ, ÷òî ýòî íàäïèñü íà ïðèäîðîæíîé êàìåííîé ìåòêå, íàèáîëåå óáåäèòåëüíûìè â êîíòåêñòå ôèëîñîôñêî-ñåíòåíöèîçíîãî ñîäåðæàíèÿ äâóõ ïðåäûäóùèõ êðèïòîïàð, çàâåðøàþùèõñÿ â òåêñòå óòâåðäèòåëüíûì ñèãíèôèêàòîì «ñ÷èòàåòñÿ» (snuti), íàèáîëåå âåðîÿòíûìè ïåðåâîäàìè ðàññìàòðèâàåìîé ïàðû ñëîâ íàì ïðåäñòàâëÿþòñÿ òàêèå: «(âñå) óñèëèÿ (êîãäà-íèáóäü) ïðåñåêàþòñÿ (ñòàíîâÿòñÿ íàïðàñíûìè (áåññìûñëåííûìè))»,«(âñå) ïóòè (?) (êîãäà-íèáóäü) ïåðåñåêàþòñÿ (?)». stvi. Ýòðóññê. st «ñòàâèòü, ñîñòàâëÿòü», -vi îêîí÷àíèå ïðèëàãàòåëüíîãî. leiîrmeri. Ðàçëîæèì ýòî ñëîâî íà ñîñòàâëÿþùèå: lei-îrm-eri. Äð. òþðê. lev «ÿâñòâà, åäà», töri «çàòåâàòü, ñîçäàâàòü». Ïðåäïîëîæèòåëüíûé ïåðåâîä ýòîãî ñëîâà: «ïðèãîòîâëåííûå ÿñòâà, ñåðâèðîâàííûå». urîui. Äð. òþðê. urî «ïîðÿäîê, ïðàâèëî». Íîñòðàòè÷åñêîå ñîîòâåòñòâèå â èíäîåâðîïåéñêèõ 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 ýòðóññêîãî ïèñüìà. Îäíàêî î÷åíü íà ýòî ñëîâî ïîõîæà èòàëüÿíñêàÿ àðõàè÷åñêàÿ ëåêñåìà meritare «áûòü äîñòîéíûì, óäîñòîèòüñÿ» [10]. îîr. Ýòðóññ. îut «äåðæàòü». Àôôèêñ -îr áëèçîê ê îêîí÷àíèþ ãëàãîëîâ áóäóùåãî íåîïðåäåëåííîãî âðåìåíè îur [11] è îêîí÷àíèþ ïîâåëèòåëüíîãî íàêëîíåíèÿ ýòðóññêèõ ãëàãîëîâ. Ïîäâîäÿ èòîã êîìáèíàòîðíî-ýòèìîëîãè÷åñêîìó àíàëèçó íàäïèñè Bu 899, â êà÷åñòâå ïåðâîãî ïðèáëèæåíèÿ íàì ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ âîçìîæíûì ïðåäëîæèòü ñëåäóþùèé âàðèàíò ïåðåâîäà ðàññìàòðèâàåìîé íàäïèñè: «(Õîòÿ) ñîñòîÿíèÿ âñåõ (ïîä íåáåñàìè) íåïðåðûâíî ìåíÿþòñÿ òàê ñ÷èòàþò (ýòî îáùåïðèçíàííî), ÂÅÑÒÍÈÊ ÎÃÓ 11`2004
163
Ðîìàíî-ãåðìàíñêàÿ ôèëîëîãèÿ
(Ëþáîå) õðóïêîå (èëè ñûïó÷åå) (ðàíî èëè ïîçäíî, êîãäà-íèáóäü) ðàçáèâàåòñÿ è ðàññûïàåòñÿ è ýòî îáùåèçâåñòíî, (Ëþáûå) ñòàðàíèÿ âñå æå êîãäà-ëèáî ñòàíîâÿòñÿ íàïðàñíûìè (áåññìûñëåííûìè) è ýòî îáùåèçâåñòíî, È, áîëåå òîãî, âñå ÿñòâà, ñîñòàâëåííûå íà òðèêëèíèè, ïîêðûòûå ïðåêðàñíûìè ëüíÿíûìè ñêàòåðòÿìè, âñë æå áðåííû, È òåì íå ìåíåå, ïåðåä òåìè, êòî áóäåò ïðèäåðæèâàòüñÿ çàêîíîâ, èçëîæåííûõ íà äîñòîéíûõ êàìåííûõ ïàííî, ïðåêëîíè (îïóñòè) âçîð, (â çíàê óâàæåíèÿ)». ÂÛÂÎÄÛ 1. Ñîäåðæàíèå òåêñòà òàáëî íà ïðèäîðîæíîì îáåëèñêå (Bu 899) ãîâîðèò î åãî ýñòåòè÷åñêî-ïñèõîëîãè÷åñêîé íàïðàâëåííîñòè, ìîæíî ñêàçàòü ôèëîñîôñêîé ýêçàëüòèðîâàííîñòè. Ýòèì èçó÷åííûé òåêñò ðåçêî îòëè÷àåòñÿ îò áîëåå ïîçäíèõ ïðàêòè÷íûõ è ëàêîíè÷íûõ ëàòèíñêèõ íàäïèñåé [12]. Êàê óæå îòìå÷àëîñü â íàøèõ èññëåäîâàíèÿõ, íå èìåÿ ïðàâèëüíûõ ýòàëîíîâ ñîöèàëüíî-ýòíè÷åñêîãî è ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî ðàçâèòèÿ, ýòðóñêè óïðàæíÿëèñü â ñîçäàíèè è ôîðìèðîâàíèè ìîðàëüíî-ýòè÷åñêèõ ñåíòåíöèé è îáñóæäåíèè ïðèíöèïîâ ïîñòðîåíèÿ èäåàëüíîãî óòîïè÷åñêîãî îáùåñòâà.
2.  íàäïèñè íà òàáëî îòðàæåíà îäíà èç îñíîâíûõ èäåé ãðå÷åñêîé àíòè÷íîñòè taxis «ïðàâèëüíîå ïîñòðîåíèå, ïîâåäåíèå» [13].  ýòðóññêîé òåðìèíîëîãèè ýòî çâó÷èò êàê urîui uîari «ñëåäîâàíèå ïðàâèëüíîìó ïîâåäåíèþ». Îäíàêî êàê ïðàâèëüíî ñåáÿ âåñòè, êàæäûé èç äðåâíèõ íàðîäîâ ãðåêè, ðèìëÿíå, ýòðóñêè ïðåäñòàâëÿëè ñåáå ïî-ðàçíîìó. Äëÿ ýòðóñêîâ ýòî áûëî ñîáëþäåíèå ïðàâèë ñâÿùåííîãî áðàòñòâà rana [2], îçíà÷àþùåãî íàëè÷èå îïðåäåëåííîãî óðîâíÿ êóëüòóðû è ðåëèãèîçíîñòè (ñîãëàñíî 12 ýòðóññêèì äèñöèïëèíàìè). 3. Òàê êàê íà êàìåííîì ïðèäîðîæíîì òàáëî çâó÷èò ïðèçûâ ê ñîáëþäåíèþ ýòè÷åñêèõ ïðàâèë, èçëàãàåìûõ íà äðóãèõ ïîäîáíûõ ýòîìó êàìåííûõ ïàííî, ýòî îáñòîÿòåëüñòâî óêàçûâàåò íà âîçìîæíîå ìíîæåñòâî ïîäîáíûõ íàäïèñåé âáëèçè ìåñò ïðîëåãàíèÿ äðåâíèõ ýòðóññêèõ äîðîã, êîòîðûå ìîãóò áûòü íàéäåíû â áóäóùåì. 4.  èçó÷åííîé ïðèäîðîæíîé íàäïèñè èíòåðåñíà ñèíòàêñè÷åñêàÿ ôîðìà ïîñòðîåíèÿ ïðåäëîæåíèÿ, ãäå âàæíîå çíà÷åíèå èìåþò êîíòåêñò è êàòåãîðèè ñóáúåêòèâíî-íåîïðåäåëåííîé ìîäàëüíîñòè. Ñòèëü íàäïèñè íåíàâÿç÷èâûé, ïîä÷åðêèâàåòñÿ ïîçèòèâ îðãàíèçîâàííîñòè íà ôîíå çûáêîñòè è õàîòè÷íîñòè îêðóæàþùåãî 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 ìèêåíîëîãèþ). 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.: ÃÌÈÈ èì. À.Ñ. Ïóøêèíà, 1990. 15. Ëàòûïîâ Ô.Ð. Ìîðàëüíî-ýòè÷åñêèå ïðèíöèïû ðå÷åâîãî îáùåíèÿ, îòðàæåííûå â ñâåòñêîì ñòèëå ýòðóññêîãî ïèñüìà // Ìàòåð. 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 ïðàòþðêñêîãî ìèðà 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 (serie II). 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.
164
ÂÅÑÒÍÈÊ ÎÃÓ 11`2004
«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 позиционночастотных 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 поразному. 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.
Игральная кость в развороте
THU
S'A
MAX
1
CI
4
5
3
HUTH
6
ZAL
2
этрусские слова
принятые этрусские числа
THU - душе юной MAX - мои рожденные хвалил HUTH - хвалил юной душе ZAL - жатву лил CI - сияющей SA - жатва
Рис. 1 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 Египетские боги боги Этрусские боги Зевс Осирис
TINA -Тина (L)UNIЛуна TUR
Юпитер Юнона
Гера
NEP-Нептун VELXANS PEP/ PUMPUПепел MARISМарс MNRVA Минерва ARITMAI Артемида VENE - Венера APLU - Апла
Нептун Вулкан -
Посейдон Гефест -
Марс
Арес
Амон
Минерва
Афина
-
Диана
Артемида
-
Венера Аполлон
Афродита Аполлон
Апис
Сильван Геркулес Сатурн -
Пан Геракл Кронос -
Анубис -
SELVA –Сильван ANE – Ани HERCL - Геркле TESENA SATRE RALNA TURAN
Исида
Назначение
верховное божество богиня земли, плодородия божество месяца (рогатого) бог морей бог огня Бог погребального костра (пепла) бог войны богиня (бог) искусств и ремесел Богиня охоты
Бог плодородия/искусств Бог лесов Богиня погребений богочеловек - герой Божество - младенец бог посевов, семян богиня ранней луны богиня месяца
LASA PêtruscПетрушка
-
-
-
Умбрские боги Зевс Осирис Зевс Осирис -
ATIIERIA IAPUS TALENA 8ELI - Желя KARNVS - Карна TITA - Тит TAGES - Таг TESENA Дюжина APH - Апис
Юпитер Юпитер Карна -
-
Апис
SETU - Сет RIE - Ра AMEM - Амон AMPRE8V Амбариш LVNA - Луна
-
-
Сет Ра Амон -
ABELLANO NEP-Нептун ALLO- Ладо AMPERT BAN HEREKLUIГеркулес KERRI- Церера TIN-Тина NUC-Ночь
Луна
Селена Сет Оскские боги
Богиня лжи бог растительности
верховное божество верховное божество ? Богиня плача Богиня скорби Божество стога Божество - младенец Божество - младенец Бог плодородия/искусств бог злых духов Бог солнца бог войны Бог урожая Богиня луны
Белый Лунь Нептун Геркулес
Бог луны Посейдон Геракл
-
бог урожая бог бани богочеловек - герой
Церера Юпитер -
Деметра Зевс -
Осирис -
богиня плодородия верховное божество богиня ночи
бог морей
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 № Этрусское слово п/п 1 ac 2 acazr 3 4 5
acale ais/as aisiu
Перевод этрускологами [9] делать, предлагать предметы положения в могилу июнь бог божественный, боги
Перевод со славянскими языками рожденные колосья очами зреть обозревать бог боги
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
aisar aisna al alpan, alpnu alφaze alumnaθe am apa apcar ar er arac arim ars aska aθre ati ati nacna аvil, аvils araθiale ca camθi cape capr capra capu ceχa
33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
cela celi celu cehen cepen ces cetur сezp/ сezpalχ ceχase ci cialθ/ cealθ ciz cisra clan cletram cleva clevsin creal creice culiχna
53
cupe
боги божественный, боги давать, предлагать подарок, предложение предложение тайное общество быть отец счеты делать, двигать, строить делать, двигать, строить сокол обезьяна отталкивать тип вазы строение мать бабушка года ? это имя управляющего ваза, контейнеп апрель урна сокол ритуал, церемония, молитва целла сентябрь заглавие молитвы это один из них заглавие молитвы лежать ? восемь/восемьдесят имя управляющего три 30 (числ.) три раза Цезарь сын таз, корзина предложение управление грек ваза кубок
озарить ясный рожденный дух ? ? ? яма/могила рожденной положил ? рождать яровые рожденные колосья нет в словаре рожденная жатва чашка рожденные дарил отец отцу принес коноплю явился рожденные дарил колосья ? колосьями пеленал ? каился, прощался /шапка колосьями поил семена хвалил чествовал духа чествовал, лил чествовал любимую семена гению серпень (месяц) чествовать чествовал Тура чествовал, опалил чествовал, хвалил семена сияющий/сирый сияющему дарил голубка голубка рожденная кланяться колотый баран хлев хлев сына кричать рожденному духу кричал ей, чествовал кулич (возможно, вид горшка) кубок
54 55 56 57 58 59
cver χosfer eca eleivana aska eleivana -em
подарок, предложение октябрь это из масла сосуд для масла минус
60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82
enac, enaχ epl pi pul eslz etera, eteri etnam vacal vacil vacl vel velcitna velclθi velsnalθi velsnaχ versvinum, vinm ic iχ iχnac ica ika ilu
83 84 85
in inc ipe, ipa
86 87 88 89 90 91
ita, itu itu-, ituare itna, itan θafna θam θapna
92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
θaurχ θaure, θaura θez θezl, θezi θi θial θina θu
тогда, после того предлог на, в, до предлог на, в, до предлог на, в, до дважды чужеземец, раб предлог и, также священнодействие священнодействие священнодействие ? Марс (бог) в Вульчи в Волсинии из Волсинии огонь вино как, каким образом как, каким образом как, каким образом это это начало жертвоприношения или молитвы они (местоимение) они (местоимение) кто бы ни, что бы ни (относ. местоимение) это (местоимение) делиться ? кубок строить, находить ваза (для жертвоприношений ?) похороны могила делать жертвование Название города Этрурии местоимение ? ваза, банка, Тина (бог) один (числ.)
свирель/цветы, яровые ? ягненок елея запах (масло) чашка с маслом окончание сущ. (напр. сiem земля) иначе Аполлон (бог) писать поил духа/половина пейте духи жатву еда, яровые иди к нам вокруг Василий (имя) вокруг великий (ая) величествен-ая/ый величественной дарил великикоясной дарил великую хвалил вера вино ? им, их ихний ? ? Илья (имя)/ей, любимой
в иначе ? это ? один (числ.) давно дам топать Тура хвалил Тур; рога Дюжина, жена дия ? дар дарить Тина (бог) душа
100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111
θucte θui θuni θunz θve θrie θucer zal zanena zilat zaθrum zilχ ceχaneri
название меясца здесь, сейчас ниже один раз ? ? ? два кубок ? десять глава
112 113 114
zilc, zilaθ hanθin hec
115 116 117
herma heramasva hermе, hermu
118
heχ
119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128
hinθial hinθa, hinθu hinθθin hus husiur husnatre huth, huθ lar lauχum lauχumna
129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145
lautni lautniθa, lautnita lautun, lautn leχtum leχtumuza leine les leu lucair luθ lupu -m, -um ma macstrev mal malena malstria
неизвестная должность перед чем-либо поставить, место перед чем-либо место, статуя место, статуя священное общество Гермесов , август поставить, место перед чем-либо душа, гость, отражение ниже, внизу (наречие) ниже, внизу (наречие) молодой, ребенок молодой, ребенок группа молодых шесть Лариса (имя человека) король (лукумон) принадлежащее королю, дворец из семейства, граждании гражданка семья, клан ваза для масла маленькая ваза умереть ? священная жертва лев править священное место он умер и ? имя управляющего давать, посвящать зеркало зеркало
душистый дуть, пить душе поникшей душе новая жатва душе великой душе родной/три дочь жалиться/жатва духу жатву Нептуну принес желать заутрене (рано утром) печень хвалил, чествовал, хвалил, принес яровые желчь (печень)/печень дарил ? ? Гермес Гермеса мазал Гермес Гермеса хвалил гимн дарил гимн дарил гимн дарил Тине хозяин хозяин хозяину трава хватит дух лохань умершей лохань умершей принес латину поникшему латину поникшему дарил латину юному/латину принес духам хвалил душу умершей духам хвалила душу мужа ленивй духам сияющим лев/ духам юным любимую корил любимой дарил/лютна любимой /любимому умершей мать/молодая/моя ? молодой/ая/малый молодой принес молодой сторожил
146 147 148 149 150
мертвый мертвый жертва манам неизвестная должность ?
маны манить/ману ману принес мара ночи хвалил мара ягненка/мара хвалил, принес жатву мазанный матери могиле матери дарил моей хоти Минерва мед лил умершей мед хвалил мой/моя малевать/молотить малевать, хвалить/ молиться молотить юной мурава/умершая умершая мутный принес колосья Нефертити/Танаквисли няньчить вода/озеро Нерли принесенный
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169
man mani manin maru nuch marcni, marcniś, marcnisa, marχnaś, marχnei masan, masn matam maθ maχ men meθlum meχ mi mul mulaχ, mlaχ mun, muni mur murs mutana nac nefts nene neri nesna
170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187
neθsra neθsvis nuna nurph paχaθur paχie paχana pacusnasie papa, papacs papals parniχ patna pata peθnei penθuna, penθna pi prut pruχ, pruχum
название месяца выше, до мед, медовое вино пять жертва участок люди, союз мой/моя жертвовать, посвящать жертва, посвящение могила стоять урна, саркофаг саркофаг как, потому что внук нянчить вода принадлежащее мертвому гаруспика гаруспик жертва ? девять вакханка, менада Бахус (бог) Бахус (бог) Бахус, Дионис дедушка дедушки внук администратор название вазы ? ? стела, плита у, в, через ? проушина, шпора
188 189 190 191 192
prumaθi, prumats puia pul pulumχva pupluna
племянник жена у, в, через звезды ? Популония
Нептуну рожденному Нептуну высшему ночи принес ночи робил Бахусу, Туру Бахусу Бахусу принес Бахусу нашему папа/ папу чествовал папы духу барана хвалил пятка/пятнать пята бедный/ая пеленал, душе принес писать брат прах/прах умершей/брата хвалил брату моему дарил поить половина/ поле половину умершей хвалил Пепел (бог погребального
193
purθ, purθne
имя управляющего, диктатор ? кубок, ваза, стена ? ваза ? Рамта (имя человека)
194 195 196 197
198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207
put-, puθ qutun, qutum racvanies ramutaś, ramutas, ramutasi, ramturnas, ramnunas, ramta, ramueθ, ramutasi rasenna, rasna raθ ratum raχ ril ritθnai rumaχ ruva sa sac
208
sacni
этрусский, из Этрурии священный предмет согласно закону подготовить возраст или рожден ? римский, из Рима брат четыре (числ.) проводящий священодействие заказник
209
sacnisa
сonsecrate ?
210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222
sal sar saθ, sat seс sealχ setre seχ semph semphalχ sval sin slicaχes snenaθ
223 224
spur spurana, spureni
225 226 227 228 229 230 231
sran, sren srenсve suc suplu suθ-, sutsuθi suθina
232
sval
делать, проводить десять ставить, учредить дочь сорок (числ.) ? дочь семь (числ.) семьдесят (числ.) жить ? тайное общество ? горничная, служанка, компаньон город намерение сделать чтолибо с городом орнамент, фигура декорированный фигурой декларировать флейтист ставить, поместить могила, усыпальница для могилы, надгробный подарок живой, жить
костра) родитель путать кутать раззвонил барана тащил/ барана Туру нашему/ барана ночи нашей/ барана дарил/барана ей дарил расену принес радовать на заре (утром) рожденной хвалил родной родной римлянина хвалил вожь варил свой/ жатва жатва колосьев зажигать огонь/ жатва колосьев поникших зажигать огонь свой/ загнивать жаловаться/жатва духу заря/жатва рожденная садиться сечь сеяющую хвалить сестра семена хвалить землю пахал землю пахал, хвалил звал сын слушай, ешь семена нате собирать собрал, принес (spura na) рано (с утра) срывать, приносить цветы сучья флейта святил душу/суть святил, дарил/суть святил душу/суть наша звал
233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244
sve svemaχ ta tamera tarχnalθi ten tes-, tesamtesinθ teta tev tetina tevaraθ
245 246 247 248 249
tin titi tiu, tiv, tiur thu tmia
250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260
trin truθ, trut trutnuθ, trutnut tul tular, tularu tunur tur tura turza tus tusurθir
261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274
tuθi, tuti tuθin, tutina tutina ulpaia une umra usil uslane ut falatu fan fanu favi fler
275 276 277 278
flerhva flere fleres frontaс
подобный из Сованы это имя управляющего У Тарквинии действовать как заботиться уборщик бабушка показать, установить ? зритель, свидетель, судья в игре день ? луна, месяц 1 (числ.) место, священная постройка просить, умолять священнодействие молитва камень граница, предел однажды давать стимул жертва похоронная ниша супружеская пара общество статусный, публичный люди кубышка тогда ? солнце в полдень выполнять, проводить небо посвящать священное место Могила, замковый свод жертва, священнодействие все статуи, жертвы божество, бог статуя интерпретация света, видеть
светить, светлый светлой моей хоти твой дам яровые тарху налил дар тебе принес тешить дюжине дарил дедушка/деда дивный детина/ребенок дивиться, радоваться день дитя дивный душе темень рог принес/траву принес траву дарил/трут трут новый дарил тело, туловище/душа тело, туши дух душе новые рожденные Тур (бог)/рог Туру рожденные Туру жатва душистый/душе жатва душистые (колосья) урне дарил тут/все душе дань принес душе дань принес ? юной умершей взял услада юной душе небо пахучий пахучий варить вино дух Зерна духа Зерна хвалил духу Зерна яровые Дух Зерна, ешь перед
279 280 281
trutnuθ fufluna fasti
bronte – греч. ? Популония ?
трут новый(ночи) дарил Пепел 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 NakhDaghestanian 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 RaetoEtruscan 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 HurroUrartian 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 ProtoNakh 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 >lmnr< 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 >eiez< may have been pronounced as an affricate or as a fricative, but is represented by /z/ here. The Etruscan letters >pt< 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 noncreation 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 sheepcounting 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 IndoEuropean 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 sheepcounting 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 ProtoNakh 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 PreEtruscan *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 being used to transcribe the sound of the Etruscan >e /(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 1. eith, eth “thus” 2. thez “sacrifice” 3. thn “together” 4. thu “one” 5. thuva “place” ( > thui “here”)
Chechen ots:(-al) “so much” (the -al is a common adverbial morpheme) tsostu “chop, slash, take a bite out of” ts?`an “together” (see discussion of pharyngeals above) ts?`a “one” 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 6. tham “build” 7. neth “entrails” 8. thap(-na) “(flat) dish, bowl” (-na = adj.) 9. thra “breast”
Chechen 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). not. “pus” (also notq.a - see discussion of -k/tq.a below) t.a:p “flat, wide” (of a hat) 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 10. thi “water” 11. -thi locative case ending 12. meth, mex “people, nation”
Chechen xi “water” -xi locative case ending 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 13. huth “four” 14. kautha, katha “marigold”
Chechen =i? “four” 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 3a. thn “together” 4a. thu “one” 6a. tham “build” 10a. thi “water”
Hurro-Urartian Suine “all, completely” (U.) Su(-k/gV) “one” (H., U.) (-k/gV is a sheep-counting affix) Sumu(-ni) “hand” (H.) (-ni is the definite article) 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 4. thu “one” 15. alx (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 13. huth “four” 17. huS, huSu “child, boy”
Chechen =i? “four” j-iSa “sister” as opposed to vaSa “brother” from same root
As may Etruscan /au/: Etruscan 41. *thaun “horse”
Chechen 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 >-osd< 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 14. kautha, katha “marigold” 36. lauk-, laux-, luk-, lux- “rule, king” 42. -k “and” 43. ki (< *ke) “three” 44. kes, kesu “lie” 45. kexa, kexe “law, right” 46. lek(-in) “high” (-in = old genitive)
Chechen qa:(-pa), qa?`(-pa) “sunflower” laq “upwards, upstairs” tq.a “and” qo “three” qo:zu “hang, drape, be suspended” qoiqu “proclaim” 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 26. kalu(-s-na) “best” (-s gen.; -na adj.) 27. kar- “to make” 47. hek “lay, put, place”
Chechen kaja:lan “to manage, to succeed” kar “hand” =oxka “put”
The Etruscan cluster /kl/ is either an attempt to represent, or is derived from, initial glottalic /k./: Etruscan 28. klan, klante/i “son, adoptive son” 48. kluthi, kluti “drinking vessel”
Chechen k.ant “boy” k.ud(-al) “water jug”
Sometimes, because of dissimilation, this does not happen: Etruscan 19. krankru “panther, cat” 25. kalu “Kalu (divinity of hell)”
Chechen k.ark.ar “jaws” 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 31. nak “since, as, because”
Chechen naga?` “if”, nag:a?` “sometimes”
The correspondence between Hurrian and Urartian /k/ and /q/ and Nakh /k/, /k./ and /q/ is confused: Hurro-Urartian 19a. qarqara(-ni) (U.) “panther” 43a. ki(-g) (H.) “three” ak:i “other” (H.), akuki dem. pron. (U.) nek (H.) “to swim”, nik- (U.) “to water”
Chechen k.ark.ar “jaws” qo “three” qin “other” 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 1. eith, eth “thus” 2. thez “sacrifice” 7. neth “entrails” 12. meth, mex “people, nation” 43. ki (< *ke) “three” 44. kes, kesu “lie” 45. kexa, kexe “law, right” 46. lek(-in) “high” (-in = old genitive) 47. hek “lay, put, place” 48. elu “celebrate, pray” 49. neS “deceased” 50. phersu “mask (of an animal)”
Chechen ots:(-al) “so much” tsostu “chop, slash, take a bite out of” not. “pus” moxk “people, land” qo “three” qo:zu “hang, drape, be suspended” qoiqu “proclaim” loq(-alla) “height” (-alla forms abstractions) =oxka “put” o:lu “speak, sing” noS “overripe” 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 13. huth “four” 17. huS, huSu “child, boy” 47. hek “lay, put, place”
Chechen =i? “four” vaSa “brother” (v- = masc. CM; cf. j-iSa “sister” with fem. CM) =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 43. ki (< *ke) “three” 51. kialx (< *kealxu) “thirty” 52. kiz/kizi “three times”
Chechen qo “three” qoalGa “third” 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 NakhDaghestanian. 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 (vigesimals are also used in Avar, but with a different affix); Andi -ol- ; Godoberi -ali ; Chamalal -L- ; Tinda -l'iL- ; Botlikh -ali- ; Akhwakh -olo- (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- ; Hinukh -eLa ; Lak -al=a ; Agul -gelaj ; Lezgi -laGaj ; Tsakhur -al:e. 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 ProtoDaghestanian 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. 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 and -li , 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 , and Batsbi -ts. . 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.- (+ -ali), -ts.i- (+ -ul); Andi -ts.- (+ -ol); Botlikh -ts.- (+ -ali-), -ts.i ; Godoberi -ts.- (+-ali); Karata -ts.e , -ts.a-; Bagwalal -ts.a , -ats.is ; Tinda -ts.aja ; Chamalal -ts.a- , -ts.u ; Khvarshi -ts.a ; Lak -ts.- (+ -al=a); Lezgi -tsu/ts.i ; Tsakhur -ts.- (+ -al:e). Hurro-Urartian is represented by the Hurrian -zi . The pattern in this numerical paradigm is in itself unusual enough to count (just) as being of an individualidentifying 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) iv)
*-L *-se
dative case, and 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 NakhDaghestanian 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 hül-i hül-i-k hül-i-k-aj hül-i-k-di
“sea” “sea” “under the sea” “from under the sea” “(to) under the sea”
(absolutive case) (ergative case) (subessive case) (subelative case) (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 NakhDaghestanian 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: Witnessed past tense: Inferential past tense: Remote past tense: Imperfect tense: Future tense: Masdar: Infinitive:
-in -ira -(i)na -(i)niera -ura, -ara -ur, -ar -ar -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 =atS.:-in =atS.:-una =atS.:-ana =atS.:-ina =atS.:-un =atS.:-une= =atS.:-ara=
“arrival” “to arrive” “arrive” “arrived” “will arrive” “having arrived” “arriving” “arrived”
(masdar) (infinitive) (present) (past) (future) (past gerund) (present gerund) (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 -nindicating 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 3. thn “together” 4. thu “one”
Chechen ts?`an “together” 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 (< *lautVni) “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 HurroUrartian 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” (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 macrocomparatist 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. ProtoAlarodian 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 NakhDaghestanian 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 IndoEuropean, 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< /x/ [x] {chi}
= grapheme x = transliterated grapheme x = phoneme x = narrower phonetic transcription of x = letter name in a non-Roman alphabet
CM PHU PIE PN PND
= class marker = Proto-Hurro-Urartian = Proto-Indo-European = Proto-Nakh = Proto-Nakh-Daghestanian
D&S ET NDC O&S RI TLE
= Diakonoff and Starostin (1986) = Rix and Meiser (1991) = Nichols (2003) = Orel and Starostin (1990) = Schumacher (1992) = 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. @ { ? ?` 3 B E G k. k' l' L n' ph q. r' R S t. t' th ts ts. Z
mid central unrounded vowel near-open front unrounded vowel glottal stop unvoiced pharyngeal voiced pharyngeal voiced bilabial fricative open-mid front unrounded vowel voiced velar fricative glottalic unvoiced velar plosive palatalised unvoiced velar plosive palatalised lateral approximant lateral fricative or affricate palatalised nasal aspirated unvoiced labial plosive glottalic unvoiced uvular plosive or affricate palatalised coronal approximant voiced uvular fricative unvoiced postalveolar fricative glottalic unvoiced dental or alveolar plosive palatalised unvoiced dental or alveolar plosive aspirated unvoiced dental or alveolar plosive unvoiced palatal affricate glottalic unvoiced palatal affricate 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, 1997 Alekseev, M. E.: Nakhsko-dagestanskie jazyki in V. N. Jartseva et al. (eds.) Jazyki mira: Kavkazskie jazyki, Moskva: Academia, 2001 Alekseev, M. E.: Sravnitel’no-istoricheskaja morfologija nakhsko-dagestanskikh jazykov: Kategorii imeni, Moskva: Academia, 2003 Beekes, Robert S. P.: The origin of the Etruscans, Amsterdam: Koningklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschapen, 2003 Belle, 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, 1994 Bokarëv, E .A.: Sravnitel’no-istoricheskaja fonetika vostochnokavkazskikh jazykov, Moskva: Nauka, 1981 Bomhard, 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, 2002 Campbell-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, 1996 Cristofani, Mauro: Introduzione allo studio dell’ etrusco (new edn.), Firenze: Leo S. Olschki, 1991 Curnow, 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, 2001 D’Aversa, Arnaldo: Dizionario della lingua etrusca, Brescia: Paideia, 1994 D’Aversa, Arnaldo: L’eredità della lingua etrusca, Brescia: Paideia, 2003 Desheriev, 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, 1971 Diakonoff, 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, 1982 Dzhaukjan, G. B.: Urartskij i indo-evropejskie jazyki, Erevan: AN Armjanskoj SSR, 1963 Ellis, Robert: Sources of the Etruscan and Basque Languages, London: Trübner, 1886 Facchetti, Giulio M.: L'enigma della lingua etrusca, Roma: Newton & Compton, 2000 Facchetti, Giulio M.: Appunti di morfologia etrusca, Firenze: Leo S. Olschki, 2002 Foscarini, Giuseppe: La lingua degli etruschi, Firenze: Loggia de’ Lanzi, 1996 Furneé, E. J.: Etruskisch en Burushaski: Vijf opstellen, Leiden: Hakuchi Press, 1993 Georgiev, V. I.: Voprosy rodstva sredizemnomorskikh jazykov, in Voprosy jazykoznanija No. 4, 1954 Georgiev, V. I.: Sovremennoe sostojanie ‘deshifrovki’ ètrusskogo jazyka, in Voprosy jazykoznanija No. 2, 1972 Gluhak, 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, 2002 Gusmani, Roberto: Lydisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1964 Greenberg, Joseph H.: Indo-European and its closest relatives: The Eurasiatic language family (2 vols.), Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000/2002 Hamp, Eric: Etruscan max “4”?, in Glotta, Vol. XXXVII, Göttingen: Vandenbroeck u. Ruprecht, 1958 Handel, 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, 1993 Haspelmath, Martin: How hopeless is genealogical linguistics, and how advanced is areal linguistics?, in Studies in Language, Vol. 28 No. 1, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004 Holisky, 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 IndoEuropean Studies, Vol. 1, Los Angeles, 1999 Jartseva, V. N. et al. (eds.): Jazyki mira: Kavkazskie jazyki, Moskva: Academia, 2001 Klimov, G. A. and M. Sh. Khalilov: Slovar’ kavkazskikh jazykov: Sopostavlenie osnovnoj leksiki, Moskva: Vostochnaja Literatura, 2003 Koryakov, Yuri B.: Atlas of Caucasian languages, Moskva: Russian Academy of Sciences, 2002 Kretschmer, Paul: Die vorgriechischen Sprach- und Volksschichten, in Glotta, Vols. XXVIII and XXX, Göttingen: Vandenbroeck u. Ruprecht, 1941/1943 Laroche, Emmanuel: Glossaire de la langue hourrite, Paris: Klincksieck, 1980 Mallory, J. P.: In search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, archaeology and myth, London: Thames and Hudson, 1989 Mańchak, Witold: Das etruskische Numerale s’a, in Glotta, Vol. LXI, Göttingen: Vandenbroeck u. Ruprecht, 1983 Melikišvili, G. A.: Die urartäische Sprache, Roma: Biblical Institute Press, 1971 Nichols, 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.): Protolanguages 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, 1984 Perrotin, Damien Erwan: Paroles Etrusques: Liens entre Etrusque et Indo-Européen ancien, Paris: L’Harmattan, 1999 Perrotin, Damien Erwan: The position of Etruscan in the western Mediterranean ancient linguistic landscape, in Language and history Vol. 6 No. 2, 2000 Pfiffig, Ambros Josef: Der Akkusativ im Etruskischen, in Glotta, Vol. XXXVII, Göttingen: Vandenbroeck u. Ruprecht, 1958 Pfiffig, 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, 1997 Pliev, R. S.: Nakhskie jazyki: Kljuch k ètrusskim tajnam, Groznyj: Kniga, 1992 Pliev, R. S.: Nakhsko-ètrusskie leksicheskie vstrechi (Kand. Filol. Nauk dissertation), Nal’chik: KabardinoBalkarskij Gosudarstvennyj Universitet, 2000 Rix, Helmut: Zwei bisher mißdeutete etruskische Verwandschaftsbeziehungen, in Wilhelm Brandenstein et al. Sybaris: Festschrift Hans Krahe, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1958 Rix, Helmut: Das etruskische Cognomen, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1963 Rix, 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, 1989 Rix, 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, 1998 Rix, Helmut: Etruscan, in Roger D. Woodard (ed.): Cambridge encyclopedia of the world’s ancient languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004 Ruhlen, 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, 2003 Shakhbieva, M. Kh.: Problemy nakhskoj ètimologii, in Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta: Serija 9: Filologija, No. 4, Moskva, 1998 Shevoroshkin, 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, 1999 Tamburini, 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, 2004 Watmough, Margaret M. T.: Studies in the Etruscan loanwords in Latin, Firenze: Leo S. Olschki, 1997 Wegner, Ilse: Hurritisch: Eine Einführung, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000 Wells, 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, 1996 Zavaroni, 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 -mena. 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.
Etruscan Glossary Glen Gordon Draft 010 (15 Jul 2008) http://paleoglot.blogspot.com
[email protected]
Abbreviations abl. acc. adess. adj. adv. aor. conj. dat. dir. gen. inf. loc. midd. na. na.(I) na.(II) ni.(I) ni.(II) num. part. pass. perf. pl. pres. pret. pron. pron.1ps. pron.3ps.an. pron.3ps.in. pron.3pp. pron.dist. pron.loc. pron.prox. pron.rel. sg. v.d. v.i. v.tr.
ablative case (noun) accusative case (noun) adessive case (noun) adjective adverb aorist aspect (verb) conjunctive mood (verb) dative case (noun) directive case (noun) genitive case (noun) infinitive (verb) locative case (noun) middle voice, mediopassive voice (verb) nomino-accusative case (noun) animate noun, type 1 (plural -ar, genitive in -as) animate noun, type 2 (plural -ar, genitive in -al) inanimate noun, type 1 (plural -χva, genitive in -as) inanimate noun, type 2 (plural -χva, genitive in -al) numeral participle (verb) passive voice (verb) perfective aspect (verb) plural present-future tense (verb) preterite tense (verb) pronoun first person pronoun third person singular animate pronoun third person singular inanimate pronoun third person plural pronoun distal demonstrative pronoun locative pronoun proximal demonstrative pronoun relative pronoun singular ditransitive verb intransitive verb transitive verb
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008)
3
Acale ni.(I) Acale [month] Acale (na.sg.) // Acalia (adess.sg.)
aisu na.(II) deity of the overworld, deus superior ais, eis (na.sg) // aisvale (dat.sg.) // aiser (na.pl.) // aiseras, eiseras (gen.pl.)
Acarie na.(I/II) Acarie [gentilicium] Acries (gen.)
aisuna ni.(II) sacrifice, offering aisna, eisna (na.sg.) // aisunal (gen.sg.)
Acarnaie na.(I/II) Acarnaie [gentilicium] Acrniś (gen.)
aisuna adj. divine, of the Dii Superiores aisna
acas v.tr. to craft (out of stone or clay) acas (inf.) // acasce (perf.pret.) // acasri, acazr (nec.)
aisunaiu ni.(II) small sacrifices, small offerings eisnev-c (na.sg.)
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.)
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) 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.)
4 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.)
Alfina na.(I/II) Alfina [gentilicium] Alfnal (gen.) // Alfni (loc.) // Alfnisa (adess.) // Alfnalisle (abl.+loc.)
Amicie na.(I/II) Amicie [gentilicium] Amcie (na.)
Alfinaie na.(I/II) Alfinaie [gentilicium] Alfnis (gen.) // Alfnisa (adess.)
Aminθ na.(I) Aminth [deity] Aminθ (na.)
alil ni.(I) offertorium, offering room alile (loc.sg.)
Amφare na.(I) Amphiaraos [male praenomen] Amφare, Anφare (na.)
Alχa na.(I/II) Alcha [gentilicium] Alχas (gen.)
Amuce na.(I) Amykos [mythos] Amuke, Amuχe (na.)
alpan ni.(II) gift alpan (na.sg.)
an pron.3ps.an. he, she an, an-c (na.) // ana (obl.)
Alpan na.(II) Alpan [deity] Alpan (na.)
Anaie na.(I/II) Anaie [gentilicium] Aneie (na.)
Alpana na.(I/II) Alpana [gentilicium]
Anaiena na.(I/II) Anaiena [gentilicium]
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) Aninas (gen.) // Aneinal, Aninal (gen.) // Aninai-c (loc.)
5 aper (inf.) // apire (pret.) // apirase (aor.pret.) // aperu (part.)
Anaienaie na.(I/II) Anaienaie [gentilicium] Aninieś (gen.)
Apirie na.(I) Apirie [gentilicium] Apries (gen.)
anan ni.(II) [vessel containing a votive offering] enan, anan-c (na.sg.) // anancveś (dir.pl.)
apirinśa ni.(II) divine will aprenśaiś (dat.sg.)
Ane na.(I) Ane [male praenomen] Anes (gen.)
apirinθ ni.(II) sanctified offering aprinθu (na.pl.) // aprinθvale (dat.pl.)
Ani na.(I) Ani [deity] Ani (na.)
Apirθina na.(II) Apirthina [female praenomen] Aprθnal, Aprθnal-c (gen.)
aniaχ ni.(II) [type of offering] aniaχ (na.sg.) // aniaχeś (dir.sg.)
apirθinaiu ni.(II) small libations eprθnev-c (na.sg.)
Antiiuce na.(I) Antioch [male praenomen] Atiuce (na.)
Apius na.(I) Apius [male praenomen] Appius (na.)
Antipater na.(I) Antipater [gentilicium] Antipater (na.)
Apula na.(I) Apula [male praenomen] Apulas (gen.)
Anturmaca na.(I) Andromaca [mythos] Aturmucas (gen.)
Apulie na.(I/II) Apulie [gentilicium] Afli (na.) // Afles (gen.)
apa na.(I) father apa, apa-c (na.sg.) // apas, apaś (gen.sg.)
Apulun na.(I) Apollo [deity] Aplun, Aplu (na.)
apacar ni.(II) calculator, tallier apcar (na.sg.)
Apuna na.(I/II) Apuna [gentilicium] Afuna (na.) // Apunas, Afunas (gen.) // Apunal, Apunal-c, Apnal (gen.) // Afuniś (dir.)
apana na.(II) clan apana (na.sg.) // apanal (gen.sg.) // apanes (abl.sg.)
Apunaie na.(I/II) Apunie [gentilicium] Apuniie (na.) // Apuniies (gen.)
Apiana na.(I/II) Apiana [gentilicium] Apianaś, Apnas (gen.)
Apunaθu na.(I) Apuna family member Afunaθur (na.pl.)
Apiatru na.(I/II) Apiatru [gentilicium] Apaiatrus, Apiatrus, Apatrual (gen.) // Apatrui (loc.) // Apatruis (dir.)
Aφe na.(I) Apis [deity] Aφes (gen.) ar v.i. to rise up
apir v.tr. to sanctify
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) ar (inf.) // ara (pres.) // araś, erś (aor.pres.) // ersce (aor.pret.) // arce (perf.pret.) // arθ (part.)
6 Asculaie na.(I/II) Asculaie [gentilicium] Asklaie (na.)
aracuna adj. of the hawk, hawk-related aracune-ta (na.sg.)
aśu na.(I) sphinx aśu (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.)
Atalanta na.(II) Atalanta [mythos] Atalanta, Atlenta (na.)
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.)
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) 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.)
7 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) 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.)
8 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.)
caper ni.(II) bowl with handles caper-c (na.sg.) // caperi (loc.sg.) // caperχva (na.pl.)
Carθazaie na.(I/II) Carthazaie [gentilicium] Karθazie (na.)
capra ni.(II) urn, vase capra (na.sg.)
Casantra na.(II) Cassandra [mythos] Casntra
Capuva ni.(II) Capua [city] Capue (loc.)
Castur na.(I) Castor [deity] Castur (na.)
Capuvana na.(I), adj. Capuan; of Capua Capuvane (loc.)
Catila na.(I) Catila [male praenomen] Katilas (gen.)
Capuvanaie na.(I/II) Capuvanie [gentilicium] Capvanes(gen.)
Catumite na.(II) Ganymede [mythos] Catmite (na.)
caraθas na.(II) loved one caraθsle(dat.sg.)
Caθa na.(I) Catha [deity] Caθas, Caθs-c (gen.sg.)
Carcu na.(I/II) Carcu [gentilicium] Carcu (na.) // Carcus (gen.)
caθar adj. abundance caθre (loc.) // caθra (adess.)
Carcvana na.(I/II) Carcvana [gentilicium] Karcuna (na.) // Karkanas (gen.)
Caθarna na.(I/II) Catharna [gentilicium] Caθarnaial (gen.)
Carcvanaie na.(I/II) Carcvanie [gentilicium] Carχvanies (gen.)
Caulia na.(I/II) Caulia [gentilicium] Caulias (gen.)
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 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.)
9 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.)
Cemina na.(I/II) Cemina [gentilicium] Camnas (gen.)
ceś v.tr. to deposit, to lay down ceś-um (inf.) // ceśu, cesu (part.) // ceśasi, cesasin (aor.midd.)
Ceminaie na.(I/II) Ceminaie [gentilicium] Camnai (na.) // Cemnil (gen.)
ceśa ni.(II) burial cesal (gen.sg.)
Ceminaχ na.(I) Janus Geminus, Bifrons [deity] Cemnaχ, Cemnac
ceθu ni.(II) kyathos, dipper ceθu (na.sg.)
cen v.tr. to bear, to hold, to carry, to bring
cezp num. eight
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 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]
10 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) Cneunas (gen.)
11 culsl (gen.sg.) // culścva (na.pl.)
Cracia na.(I) Cracia [male praenomen] Cracia (na.) // Cracias (gen.)
Culśanś na.(II) Culsans [deity] Culśanśl (gen.)
Craice na.(I) Greek (person) Crece (na.sg.) // Creices (gen.sg.)
Cumni na.(I) Cumni [male praenomen] Cumniś (gen.)
Craicina na.(I/II) Craicina [gentilicium] Creicnal (gen.)
Cuna na.(I) Cuna [male praenomen] Kunaś (gen.)
crapi ni.(I) vessel, container crapis-ces (gen.sg.) // crapś-ti (dir.sg.)
Cupana na.(I) Cupana [gentilicium] Cupana, Cupna (na.)
Craupania na.(I/II) Craupania [gentilicium] Craupania (na.)
Cupariena na.(I/II) Cupariena [gentilicium] Cuprna (na.)
Crauzaθu na.(I) of the Crauzae (gens) Cravzaθuras (gen.pl.)
Cupe na.(I) Cupe [male praenomen] Cupe, Qupe (na.) // Cupes (gen.)
creial na.(I) priest of Ceres creals (gen.sg.)
Curte na.(I) Curte [male praenomen] Kurtes (gen.)
Crespe na.(I) Crespe [cognomen] Crespe (na.)
Curtun ni.(II) Cortona [city] Curtun (na.)
Cuclu na.(I) Cyclops [deity] Cuclu (na.)
Curvana na.(I/II) Curvana [gentilicium] Kurvenaś, Curunas (gen.)
Cuclunaie na.(I/II) Cuclunaie [gentilicium] Cuclnies (gen.) // Cuclnial (gen.)
Cusina na.(I/II) Cusina [gentilicium] Cusinas (gen.)
Cucrina na.(I/II) Cucrina [gentilicium] Cucrina (na.)
Cusu na.(I/II) Cusu [gentilicium] Cusu, Cuśu (na.) // Cusuś, Cusual, Cusul, Cus. (for *Cusul) (gen.)
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
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) 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
12 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) 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.)
13 falas (gen.) faliś ni.(II) mound, hill; hypogeal tomb fals-ti (loc.sg.) falza ni.(II) mound, hill; hypogeal tomb falza-θi (loc.sg.)
etias ni.(I) ides etiasas (gen.sg.)
fan v.tr. to consecrate faniri, faneri (nec.) // fanuśe (aor.pret.) // fanu (part.)
etna adv. then, so ituna, itna, etna-m, -tna-m
Fanacna na.(I/II) Fanacna [gentilicium] Fanacnal (gen.)
Etule na.(I) Aitolos [mythos] Etule (na.)
far v.tr. to go farice, farce (perf.pret.)
eθ ni.(II) fruit eθ (na.sg.) // eθe (loc.sg.) // eθl (gen.sg.)
farθan v.tr. to bear children farθne // farθnaχe (pass.pret.)
eθar v.tr. to receive aθre (pret.) // eθri (nec.) // etras (aor.) // etraśa (aor.pres.) // eθrse (aor.pret.)
farθanna adj. born, newborn farθana (na.sg.)
Eutarpa na.(II) Eutarpa [deity] Euturpa (na.) Evan na.(I) Evan [deity] Evan (na.)
Fasti na.(I) Faustus [male praenomen] Fast (na.) // Fastiś (gen.) Fastiia na.(II) Fastiia [female praenomen] Fastia, Fasti // Fastial (gen.)
ez ni.(II) age, lifetime ez (na.sg.) // esi-c (loc.sg.)
faśa ni.(II) exta, intestines faśeiś (gen.sg.) // faśei, faśei-c, faśe, faśi (loc.sg.) // fasle (dat.sg.)
Ezpu na.(I/II) Ezpu [gentilicium] Ezpus (gen.)
fau v.tr. to receive favin (midd.pres.)
Ezpuia na.(II) Ezpuia [female praenomen] Espial (gen.)
favi ni.(II) offertorium, offering room favi-ti-c (loc.sg.)
fac v.tr. [verb operating on votive offerings] faca (pres.) // face (pret.) // faci (inf.)
fel v.tr. to devote vhelequ (perf.part.)
fal ni.(I) mountain; hypogeal tomb
Felcie na.(I/II) Felcie [gentilicium]
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 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.)
14 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) hatrencu (na.sg.)
15 halχza (na.sg.) // halχze (loc.sg.)
Haθiasna na.(I/II) Hathiasna [gentilicium] Haθiasnas (gen.)
helna ni.(II) sacrifice halna (na.)
Haθlia na.(II) Hathlia [male praenomen] Haθlials (abl.)
Heracle na.(I) Herakles [mythos] Hercle, Herecele, Herχle (na.) // Hercles (gen.)
Haθna na.(I) Hathna [deity] Haθna (na.)
Heraclite na.(I/II) Herakleides [gentilicium] Herclite, Ferclite (na.)
Haurana na.(I/II) Haurana [gentilicium] Havrnas (gen.)
heram v.tr. to collect herma (pres.) // heramve (pret.) // hermu (part.)
Hauranaie na.(I/II) Hauranaie [gentilicium] Havrenies (gen.)
heramaś ni.(II) pillar, phallus, Hermes idol heramaśva (na.pl.)
hec v.i. to lay down hecia (pres.) // hece (pret.) // hecece (perf.pret.) // heczri (aor.nec.) // heχśθ (aor.part)
Herame na.(I) Hermes [deity] Herme (na.)
Heiri na.(I/II) Heiri [gentilicium] Heiri (na.)
het v.tr. to pour het-um (inf.)
Heirina na.(I/II) Heirina [gentilicium] Herina (na.)
hetran ni.(II) [type of liquid religious offering] hetrn (na.sg.)
Heirinaie na.(I/II) Heirinaie [gentilicium] Herine, Herini (na.) // Herinial (gen.) // Herneśa (adess.)
Heuχle na.(I/II) Heuchle [gentilicium] Hevχle (na.)
Heiule na.(I) Heiule [male praenomen] Heul, Hevl (na.) hel v.tr. to sacrifice, to kill helu (part.)
heva adj. every, each heva (nom.) // hevn (acc.) hi v.tr. to call out hia (pres.)
heliś ni.(II) small sacrifice hels, hels-c (na.sg.)
hil ni.(I) enclosed land hil (na.sg.) // hils-c (gen.sg.) // hilχve-tra (dat.pl.)
helχ ni.(II) sacrificial animal halχ (na.)
hilar v.i. to enclose hilar (inf.) // hilare (pret.) // hilarθ (part.)
helχza ni.(II) small sacrificial animal
Himaraie na.(I) Himaraie [mythos]
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 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.)
16 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) 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.)
17 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.)
Laχu na.(I) Lachu [male praenomen] Laχuś (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.)
Lanie na.(I) Lanie [male praenomen] Lanies, Lenies (gen.)
Larθiia na.(II) Larthia [female praenomen] Larθia, Larθiia, Larθi (na.) // Larθiale (dat.)
Lapana na.(I/II) Lapana [gentilicium] Lapanas, Lapinasͯ (gen.)
lasa na.(II) nymph lasa (na.sg.)
Lapse na.(I) Lapse [male praenomen] Lapse (na.)
Latiiu na.(I/II) Latiiu [gentilicium] Latiu (na.)
Laran na.(I) Laran [deity] Laran (na.) // Laruns (gen.)
Latini na.(I/II) Latini [gentilicium] Latini (na.) // Laθinial (gen.)
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) laθ v.tr. to watch, to guard laθ (inf.)
18 lautni, lautni-c, lavtni, lau. (na.) // lautunis, lautnes, lautneś (gen.sg.)
Laθerna na.(I/II) Latherna [gentilicium] Laθerna (na.)
lautunniθa na.(I) freewoman lautniθa, lautnita, lutniθa, lutnita (na.sg.)
Laucane na.(I/II) Laucane [gentilicium] Laucane (na.)
Lave na.(I) Lave [male praenomen] Laves (gen.)
Laucie na.(I) Laucie [male praenomen] Luvce (na.) // Laucies, Lauciś (gen.) // Laucieia (adess.)
Lazie na.(II) Lazie [male praenomen] Lazi (na.) // Lazia (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.)
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.)
lautun adj., na.(I) liberated, free lavtun, lavutn, lautn (na.sg.) // lavtunuis (gen.sg.)
Leθams na.(I) Lethams [deity] Leθam (for *Leθams) (na.) // Leθamsul (gen.)
lautunni na.(I) freeman
Leθana na.(I/II) Lethana [gentilicium] Leθanei (loc.)
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) leu na.(I) lion, lioness leu (na.)
19 luθ, lut (na.sg.) // luθ-ti (loc.sg.) // luθcva, ruθcva (na.pl.) // luθcval (gen.pl.)
Levia na.(I/II) Levia [gentilicium] Levial (gen.) // Levei (loc.)
Luθuma na.(I) Luthuma [male praenomen] Luθumas (gen.)
Licantre na.(I/II) Lykandros [gentilicium] Licantre (na.)
macistraiu ni.(II) [small religious offerings] macstrevc (na.sg.)
Limurice na.(I/II) Limurice [gentilicium] Limurces (gen.) // Limrceśla (adess.)
Macistrana na.(I) Mastarna (Servius Tullus) [mythos] Macstrna (na.)
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
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) maru (part.)
20 Mean (na.)
maranuχ ni.(II) bounty, harvest marunuχ, marnuχ (na.sg.) // marunuχva
meian ni.(II) youth meiani (loc.sg.)
Marce na.(I) Marcus [male praenomen] Marce (na.) // Marces (gen.) // Marces (dir.) // Marcesi-c (dat.) // Marcesla (abl.)
meχ na.(II) person, people meχ (na.sg./pl.) // meχl, meχl-um (gen.sg./pl.)
Marcina na.(I/II) Marcina [gentilicium] Marcena, Macena (for Marcena), Marcna (na.)
men v.tr. to place, to set down mena (pres.) // mene (pret.) // menece (perf.pret.) // menaχe (pass.pret.) // menaqu (perf.part.)
Mariś na.(II) Maris [deity] Mariś (na.) // Mariśl, Marisl (gen.)
Menarva na.(I) Menarva [deity] Meneravas, Menrva (na.)
Marχarie na.(I) Marcarius [male praenomen] Marχars (gen.)
Menele na.(I) Menelaos [mythos] Menle (na.)
marza ni.(II) small harvest marza, marza-c (na.sg.)
Metelie na.(I/II) Metelie [gentilicium] Meteliś (gen.) // Metli (loc.)
mas v.tr. to entomb, to bury mes (inf.) // maśu (part.)
Metie na.(I/II) Metie [gentilicium] Meties (gen.)
Masan na.(I) Month of Burial [calendar] Masan, Masn (na.sg.)
Metiena na.(I/II) Metiena [gentilicium] Metienas (gen.)
mat v.tr. to pick (fruit) matu, maθu (part.)
Metru na.(I) Metru [male praenomen] Metru (na.)
matam ni.(II) pickings, gathered fruit matam, matan (na.sg.) // matani (loc.sg.)
meθlum ni.(II) people, populus, state meθlum (na.sg.) // meθlum-θ, meθlum-t, meθlm-θ, meθlume-ri-c (loc.sg.) // meθlumeś-c (dir.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]
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) Mlacuχ (na.)
21 murinaśie (loc.pl.)
mler ni.(I) gift mler, fler (na.sg.) // flerś (gen.sg.) // flere (loc.sg.) // flereri (dat.sg.) // flerχva (na.pl.) // flerχve (loc.pl.)
muriś ni.(II) container for the dead (ossuary, urn, sarcophagus) murs (na.sg.) // murśl (gen.sg.) // murśś (dir.sg.) // murzva (na.pl.)
mler-eθar v.i. to receive gifts flerθrce (perf.pret.)
Musclena na.(I/II) Musclena [gentilicium] Musclena (na.)
mleriś ni.(II) small gift flereś, fleres (na.sg.)
Muse na.(I/II) Muse [gentilicium] Muses (gen.)
muχ ni.(II) [type of vessel for liquids] muχ (na.sg.)
Musina na.(I/II) Musina [gentilicium] Musenial (gen.) // Muśni (loc.)
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.)
mut v.tr. to die mutin (midd.) // mutince (midd.perf.pret.)
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
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) namer (na.sg.)
22 nesna (na.)
Nane na.(I) Nane [male praenomen] Nanes (gen.)
Neθunś na.(II) Neptune [deity] Neθunaś (na.) // Neθunśl (gen.)
Nanisia na.(I/II) Nanisia [gentilicium] Nanisiei (loc.)
Nicipur na.(I) Nikephoros [male praenomen] Nicipur (na.)
nap ni.(II) [a place for offerings] nap-ti (loc.sg.)
Nipe na.(I) Nipe [male praenomen] Nipe (na.)
naper ni.(II) cup naper (na.sg.)
niθu ni.(I) [type of libation offering] niθus-c (gen.sg.)
naplan ni.(II) wineskin naplan (na.)
nuc na.(I) wrestler nucr (na.pl.)
natiś na.(II) haruspex natis (na.sg.) // natisal (gen.sg.)
Nuiχilna na.(I) [gentilicium] Nuiχlnei (loc.)
natiśraχ adj. haruspical, pertaining to haruspicy neθśrac (na.)
Numa na.(I) Numa [male praenomen] numa (na.sg.)
natiśviś ni.(II) haruspical priesthood netśvis (na.sg.)
Numaclanie na.(I/II) Numaclanie [gentilicium] Numclanies (gen.)
neputś na.(I) grandson neftś (na.sg.)
Numana na.(I/II) Numana [gentilicium] Numnaś (gen.) // Numnal (gen.)
neri na.(I) [type of offering] neri (na.) // neriś (gen.)
Numisie na.(I/II) Numisie [gentilicium] Numisiies, Numusieś (gen.)
Nerina na.(I/II) Nerina [gentilicium] Nerinai (loc.)
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.)
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
Nuparzina na.(I/II) Nuparzina [gentilicium] Nufrznal (gen.) nurφ num. nine
nurφizi adv. nine times
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) nurφzi
23 papals (na.sg.) // papalser (na.pl.)
nuza ni.(II) feast nuza (na.sg.)
Papana na.(I/II) Papana [gentilicium] Papnas (gen.) // Papanai (loc.)
nuzana ni.(II) feasting, feast nuzinaia (na.pl.)
Papas na.(II) Papas [male praenomen] Papas (na.) // Papasla (adess.) // Papaśliś (gen.+gen.)
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.)
Papasina na.(I/II) Papasina [gentilicium] Papsinaś (gen.) Papaθna na.(I/II) Papathna [gentilicium] Papaθnas (gen.)
Paiθina na.(I/II) Paithina [gentilicium] Paiθunas, Paiθnas (gen.)
par ni.(II) house, temple
Paiθinaie na.(I/II) Paithinaie [gentilicium] Paiθinaie (na.)
parniχ adj. temple-related, religious parniχ (na.)
Paχa na.(I) Pacha [deity] Paχa (na.) // Paχies (gen.)
Partunu na.(I/II) Partunu [gentilicium] Partunus (gen.)
Paχaie na.(I) Pachaie [male praenomen] Paχies (na.)
patara ni.(II) patera, shallow cup patara (na.sg.) // pateri (loc.sg.)
paχana adj., ni.(II) bacchanal, pertaining to Pacha; Bacchic temple paχana-ti (loc.sg.)
Patrucle na.(I) Patroclus [mythos] Patrucles (gen.)
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)
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) 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.)
24 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.)
Petui na.(I) Petui [female praenomen] pluti ni.(II) [libation offering]
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) pluti-m (na.sg.)
25 Pultuce (na.) // Pultuceś (gen.)
Prastina na.(I/II) Prastina [gentilicium] Prastnas (gen.)
Pumpia na.(I) Pumpia [male praenomen] Pupias (gen.)
pruχu ni.(I) prochous, pitcher pruχś (gen.sg.)
Pumpilie na.(I/II) Pumpilie [gentilicium] Pumplial-χ (for *Pumplial-c) (gen.)
pruχum ni.(II) prochous, pitcher pruχum (na.)
Pumpu na.(I/II) Pumpu [gentilicium] Pumpu (na.) // Pumpus, Pupuś (gen.)
pruχuna adj. of or relating to a prochous prucuna (na.)
Pumpuna na.(I/II) Pumpuna [gentilicium] Punpunas (gen.) // Pumpanal, Pumpnal (gen.) // Pumpnaliśa, Pumpnalisa (abl.)
prumaθś na.(I) great-grandson prumaθś, prumts (na.sg.) prunta na.(I) augur of lightning, fulguriator fronta-c (na.sg.)
Pupuluna ni.(II) Populonia [city] Pupluna, Fufluna (na.) Pupuluns na.(I) Pupuluns [deity] Fufluns, Fuflus (na.) // Fuflnsul (gen.)
Pruśilna na.(I/II) Prusilna [gentilicium]
Pruślnas (gen.) // Pruślnai (loc.)
puratum adj. private puratum (na.)
puia na.(II) wife puia (na.sg.) // puial (gen.)
Pure na.(I) Pure [male praenomen] Pures (gen.)
Puiana na.(I/II) Puiana [gentilicium] Puiunal (gen.)
Puriia na.(I) Puriia [male praenomen] Puriiaś (gen.)
Pulia na.(I/II) Pulia [gentilicium] Pulia, Pulia-c, Puli (na.) // Pulias, Puliuś, Pules (gen.) // Pulialisa (gen.+adess.)
Purni na.(I/II) Purni [gentilicium] Purni (na.)
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]
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) put v.d. to leave behind pute (pret.) // puts, puθs (aor.) // puθce (perf.pret.)
26 Rameθa, Ramaθa, Ramuθa, Ramθa (na.) // Ramaθas, Ramθaś, Ramθas, Ramθas-c (gen.) // Ramθes-c (dir.) // Ramuθasi (dat.)
putina ni.(II) cup for libations putina (na.)
ran v.tr [unknown transitive verb] rane-m (pret.)
putiza ni.(II) small cup for libations putiza (na.sg.)
Ranazu na.(I) Ranazu [male praenomen] Ranazu (na.)
φeχ v.tr. [unknown transitive verb] φeχucu (perf.part.)
Rapalni na.(I/II) Rapalni [gentilicium] Raplni (na.)
Φerse na.(I) Perseus [male praenomen] Φerse (na.)
Rasena na.(I/II) Etruria Rasna, Raśna // Rasnas (gen.) // Rasnal, Raśnal (gen.) // Rasne (loc.) // Rasnes (dir.)
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]
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) 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]
27 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) 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.)
28 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) 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]
29 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) Sveamaχ (na.sg.) Sveitu na.(I/II) Sveitu [gentilicium] Sveitus (gen.)
30 śetil v.tr. to approve, to accept śetilune-c (midd.pret.) śeu na.(I) morning śeu-c (na.sg.) // śeuś (gen.sg.)
svel v.tr. to live sval (inf.) // svalce (perf.) // svalas (aor.) // svalasi (aor.conj.)
śi v.tr. to set down to, to lower to śin (midd.pres.)
svel na.(I) living person svelereś-c (gen.pl.)
śi ni.(II) evening śi-c (na.sg.)
svelθ v.i. to be lived svalθas (aor.)
śialχ num. sixty śealχls-c (abl.)
Svincina na.(I/II) Svincina [gentilicium] Svincinas (gen.)
Śiθurina na.(I/II) Sithurina [gentilicium] Śiθurnas, Śitrinas (gen.)
śa num. six śa, sa, sa-m (na.) // śeas, śas (gen.)
śuci ni.(II) incense śuci, śuci-c, zuci, zuc (na.sg.) // śuciva (na.pl.)
śar num. ten śar, śar-c (nom.) // śariś (gen.)
Śupilna na.(I/II) Supilna [gentilicium] Śupelnas (gen.)
Śarśinaia na.(I/II) Sarsinaia [gentilicium] Śarśinaia (na.)
Śupilu na.(I/II) Supilu [gentilicium] Śuplu, Suplu (na.)
śarvana ni.(II) tithe śarvenas (gen.pl.)
śuri ni.(II); adj. bronze śuri, sure (na.) // śuuris, śuris (gen.)
Śatilna na.(I/II) Satilna [gentilicium] Śatlnal-c (gen.) // Śaθnai (loc.)
Śurnu na.(I/II) Surnu [gentilicium] Śurnus (gen.)
Śatna na.(I) Satna [female praenomen] Śatnal-c (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.)
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.)
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) ita, ta, -ta (nom.) // itane, itani-m, itan, itun, etan, etun, -tn (acc.) // teiś (gen.) // tei (loc.)
31 Tarna na.(I/II) Tarna [gentilicium] Tarnai (loc.) // Tarnes (dir.)
Taitale na.(I) Daidalos [mythos] Taitle (na.)
Tarsal na.(I/II) Tarsal [gentilicium] Tarsalus (gen.)
Tama na.(I) Tama [male praenomen] Tama (na.)
Tarsimina na.(I) Lake Tarsimenna Tarsminaśś (gen.+dir.)
tamera ni.(II) urn tamera (na.sg.)
Tartanium adj. Dardanian Dardanium (na.)
tameraiś ni.(II) little urn tameres-ca (na.sg.)
taś ni.(II) [funerary object] taśri (dat.sg.)
Tanna na.(I/II) Tanna [gentilicium] Tanna
tatanu na.(I) bird tatanuś (gen.sg.)
Tantale na.(I/II) Tantalos [gentilicium] Tantle (na.) // Tantleś (gen.)
tau v.tr. to see, to behold, to watch; to show, to demonstrate tev (inf.) // tva, etva (pres.) // etve (pret.)
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.)
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) Tenies (gen.)
32 tius (gen.sg.) // tiuśa(adess.sg.)
tenθ v.i. to be presented tenθ (inf.) // tenθas (aor.)
tiiu adj. small, little tiu (na.)
Teriasia na.(I) Teriasia [mythos] Terasiaś (gen.) // Teriasals (gen.+gen.)
tiiur na.(I) month, moon tiur (na.sg.) // tiiurś, tivrs (gen.sg.) // tiuri-m (loc.sg.)
Termuna na.(I/II) Termuna [gentilicium] Termunas (gen.)
tiiuza na.(I) small child tiuza (na.)
tesiam na.(I) sacrificial animal, sacrifice tesim (na.sg.) // teśami-tn (acc.sg.) // teśns (gen.sg.) // teśne, tesiame-itale (loc.sg.) // teśamsa (adess.sg.)
tin ni.(I) sun; day tin (na.sg.) // tinas, tinś (gen.sg.) // tinśi (dat.sg.) // tina (adess.sg.)
tesianθ na.(I) sacrificer, butcher tesinθ (na.sg.)
tinaś-cvil ni.(I) sundisc tinścvil, tinscvil (na.sg.)
teta na.(II) aunt teta (na.sg.)
Tinia na.(I) Tinia [deity] Tinia (na.) // Tinias (gen.)
Tetaie na.(I/II) Tetaie [gentilicium] Titaie (na.) // Teta (adess.)
Tinusi na.(I) Dionysios [male praenomen] Tinusi (na.)
tetals na.(II) nephew, niece (matrilineal) tetals (na.sg.)
Tiφile na.(I/II) Diphilos [gentilicium] Tiφile (na.) // Tiples (gen.)
tetana adj. materteral, pertaining to the aunt tetana (na.) // tatanuś (gen.)
tiria ni.(I) metal tirias (gen.sg.)
Tetina na.(I/II) Tetina [gentilicium] Tetinaś (gen.)
tiria adj. metallic tiria (na.)
Tetinaie na.(I/II) Tetinaie [gentilicium] Tetnie (na.) // Tetnies, Tetnis (gen.)
Tite na.(I/II) Tite [male praenomen] Tite, Titi (na.) // Titias (gen.) // Titial-c (gen.)
tez v.i. to stand tez (inf.)
Titena na.(I/II) Titena [gentilicium] Titenas (gen.)
tezan ni.(II) cippus tezan (na.sg.)
Titula na.(I/II) Titula [gentilicium] Tetula (na.)
tiiu na.(I) little one, child
Tlamunius na.(I/II) Telamonios [mythos]
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 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.)
33 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) Turan (na.) // Turan-pi (loc.)
34 tuθina (na.sg.) // tuθineś (dir.sg.)
Turaniu na.(I) Turaniu [deity] Turnu
θaca ni.(II) [a place of offering] θaca-c (na.sg.) // θaclθi, θaclθ
Turmina na.(I/II) Turmina [gentilicium] Turmna (na.)
θaχś v.tr. to worship θaχśin (midd.) // θaχśeri (nec.)
Turmiś na.(II) Turmis [deity] Turms (na.) // Turmsal (gen.)
θam v.tr. to establish, to found θamuce, θamce (perf.pret.) // θemiasa (aor.) // θamequ (perf.part.)
turza ni.(II) little gift turza (na.sg.) // turzais (gen.sg.) // turzai (loc.sg.)
Θamrie na.(I) Thamrie [male praenomen] Θamries (gen.)
tusna na.(I) swan tusna (na.sg.) // tusnas (gen.sg.)
θan v.tr. to be mindful of, to remember, to mourn θanasa (aor.pres.) // θanu (part.)
tuś ni.(II) funerary niche tuś-θi, tuś-ti (loc.sg.)
Θanacvil na.(I) Thanacvil [female praenomen] Θankvil, Θancvil, Θanχvil (na.) // Θanakviluś, Θanaχvils, Θanχvilus (gen.) // Θanχviluis-c (dir.)
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.)
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.)
Tutina na.(I/II) Tutina [gentilicium] Tutnal (gen.) // Tutnaśa (adess.) // Tutnaliśa (gen.+adess.)
Θanse na.(I) Thanse [male praenomen] Θanse (na.) // Θanses-ca (gen.)
tuθi na.(I) community tuθi (na.sg.)
Θansina na.(I) Thansina Θansinas (gen.)
tuθina ni.(II) district
Θanura na.(I) Thanura [deity]
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) Θanra, Θanr (na.) // Θanruś, Θanrś (gen.) // Θanurari (loc.) θapic v.tr. to curse, to doom θapicun (midd.)
35 θesan na.(I) dawn, ascension θesan (na.sg.) // θesns (gen.sg.) // θesnin, θesane-c (loc.sg.) Θese na.(I) Theseus [mythos] Θese (na.)
θapuna ni.(II) shallow bowl θapna, θafna, tafina (na.sg.) // θapneś-tś (dir.sg.)
Θestiia na.(II) Thestia [female praenomen] Θestia (adess.)
θapunaza ni.(II) small shallow bowl θapnza-c (na.sg.)
θesθiu adv. eastward θesθu
θarθie ni.(II) [animal offering?] θarθie (na.)
Θesu na.(I) Thesu [male praenomen] Θesus (gen.)
θaura na.(I) bull θaura (na.sg.) // θauruś (gen.sg.) // θaure (loc.sg.)
Θeθis na.(II) Thethis [deity] Θeθis (na.)
Θaura-Mineś na.(I) Minotaur [deity] Θevrumineś (na.)
θez v.tr. to dedicate tez, θezi (inf.) // θezeri, θezeri-c (nec.) // θezin (midd.) // θezince (midd.perf.pret.)
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.)
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.)
θes v.i. to dawn Θucerna na.(I/II) Thucerna [gentilicium]
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) Θucernas (gen.)
36 ucnt-m (na.sg.)
θuχ ni.(II) chamber θuχ (na.sg.) // θuχ-ti, θuχ-t (loc.sg.)
Ucerna na.(I/II) Ucerna [gentilicium] Ucernei (loc.)
θuluθ na.(I) twin θuluter (na.pl.)
Uhtave na.(I) Uhtave [male praenomen] Uhtave (na.)
θum ni.(I) tomb θumi-tle, θumi-zle (loc.sg.) // θumsa (adess.sg.)
Uχulnaie na.(I) Uchulnaie [male praenomen] Uχulni (na.)
θun num. one θun (na.) // θunis, θunś (gen.) // θuni, θun-t (loc.)
Ultimna na.(I/II) Ultimna [gentilicium] Ultnas (gen.) // Ultimne (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]
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.) // Unialastres (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) 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.)
37 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]
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.)
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.)
usil na.(I) setting (of sun, moon, stars), dusk usil (na.sg.) // usils (gen.sg.) // usli (loc.sg.)
Vel na.(I) Vel [male praenomen] Vel (na.) // Velus (gen.) // Veluis (dir.) // Velusi (dat.) // Veluśa (adess.) // Veluśla (abl.)
usilan ni.(II) setting (of sun, moon, stars), dusk usilane (loc.sg.)
Velaria na.(II) Velaria [female praenomen] Velaral (gen.)
ut v.tr. to serve uθ (inf.) // uθari (nec.) // utuśe, utuse (aor.pret.) // utince (midd.perf.pret.)
Velaśna na.(I/II) Velasna [gentilicium] Velasnaś (gen.) // Velaśnei (loc.)
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]
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.)
Velθaiena na.(I/II) Velthaiena [gentilicium] Velθina (na.) // Velθienas, Velθinas (gen.)
Veliana na.(I/II) Veliana [gentilicium] Velianas, Veliiunas, Vilianas, Velanas (gen.)
Velθaienaθu na.(I) Velthaiena family member Veltinaθuras (gen.pl.)
Velie na.(I/II) Velie [gentilicium] Veliies (gen.) // Velieśa (adess.)
velθina na.(I) offerings to the veltha velθineś (gen.sg.)
Velimna na.(I/II) Velimna [gentilicium] Velimna (na.) // Velimnas, Velimnaś (gen.) // Velimnei (loc.)
Velθuna ni.(II) Voltumna [city] Veltune (loc.)
Velχ ni.(II) Vulci [city] Velχ (na.) // Velχl (gen.) // Velχi, Velχe, Velclθi (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.)
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.)
Velχe na.(I) Velche [male praenomen] Velχe (na.) // Velχeś, Velχes (gen.)
Venel na.(I) Venel [male praenomen] Venel, Vener (na.) // Venelus, Venerus (gen.) // Venelisi, Venelasi (dat.) // Venlis (dir.) // Venala (adess.)
Velχina na.(I/II) Velchina [gentilicium] Velχinei (loc.)
Venete na.(I/II) Venete [gentilicium] Venetes (gen.)
Velχitie na.(I/II) Velchitie [gentilicium] Velχite (na.) // Velcitial (gen.)
Venu na.(I) Venu [male praenomen] Venuś, Venus (gen.)
Velśu na.(I/II) Velsu [gentilicium] Velśu (na.) // Velśui (loc.)
veras v.tr. to burn versu-m (na.sg.)
velθa na.(I) deity of the underworld, deus inferior
verasie ni.(II) firepot versie (na.sg.)
velθa (na.sg.) // velθe (loc.sg.) // velθur (na.pl.) // velθre (loc.pl.)
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 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]
39 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) 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.)
40 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.)
zar v.i. to be high, to be large zar (inf.)
ziχ v.tr. to write down, to record ziχuχe (pass.pret.) // ziχri (nec.) // ziχne (midd.pret.) // ziχunce (midd.perf.pret.) // ziχu (part.)
Zarapiiun na.(I) Sarapion [male praenomen] Zarapiu, Zerapiu (na.)
ziχ ni.(II) text ziχ (na.sg.)
zarfan v.i. [action regarding sacrificial animals] zarfneθ (part.)
zil ni.(II) supervision, reign zili (loc.sg.)
zarva ni.(II) [type of offering]
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 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, zilcθi, 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]
41 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.)
