Äîêóìåíò âçÿò èç êýøà ïîèñêîâîé ìàøèíû. Àäðåñ îðèãèíàëüíîãî äîêóìåíòà : http://www.imk.msu.ru/Structure/Linguistics/yakubovich/download/Hieroglyphs.pdf Äàòà èçìåíåíèÿ: Fri Apr 30 15:11:20 2010 Äàòà èíäåêñèðîâàíèÿ: Mon Oct 1 20:53:50 2012 Êîäèðîâêà:

LINGUISTICA PETROPOLITANA
OF THE INSTITUTE FOR LINGUISTIC STUDIES Vol. IV, part 1

ACTA
TRANSACTIONS

Edited by N. N. Kazansky

St. Petersburg Nauka 2008


RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES INSTITUTE FOR LINGUISTIC STUDIES

CLASSICA ET INDOGERMANICA

COLLOQUIA
IV
STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY AND INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES
Edited by N. N. Kazansky

Saint Petersburg Nauka 2008


Ilya Yakubovich HITTITE-LUVIAN BILINGUALISM AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANATOLIAN HIEROGLYPHS 1. The Anatolian hieroglyphic script represents a mixed syllabic and logographic system, which received a detailed synchronic treatment in Hawkins 20031. It was used for monumental inscriptions in the Hittite Empire of the Late Bronze Age and the Neo-Hittite states of the Early Iron Age, and also for letters and administrative records in the latter period. Accordingly, the term "Hittite hieroglyphs" was widely used in the late nineteenth /early twentieth century and still enjoys limited currency in the modern scholarly literature2. But as the understanding of the script improved, it gradually became clear that it was mostly used not for writing Hittite / Nesite, the main language of the cuneiform archives of the Hittite capital Hattusa, but for writing Luvian, a related Anatolian language that is otherwise attested through magic incantations and isolated words embedded in Hittite cuneiform texts. For those scholars who regarded Luvian as a provincial vernacular spoken in certain peripheral areas of the Hittite state, the hieroglyphic script must likewise have been imported to Hattusa from elsewhere. Thus, GÝterbock (1956b: 518) answered the question "von wem und fÝr welche Spache wurde die Bilderschrift entwickelt" with "von den Luwiern, fÝr das Luwische, in Luwischen Landen" 3.
1 Subject to the usual disclaimers. I am grateful to Th. Van den Hout (Chicago), H. Craig Melchert (Los Angeles), Zs. Simon (Budapest) and O. Soysal (Chicago) for their remarks on the substance of this paper, to A. Butts and D. Nanos, who helped me to improve its style, and to the lively audience of the VIIth International Congress of Hittitology (ãorum, Turkey, August 2008), where it was first presented. 2 It is characteristic that Emmanuel Laroche, who invested considerable efforts into proving a close relationship between Cuneiform Luvian and Hieroglyphic Anatolian, chose the name Les hiÈroglyphes hittites for his catalogue of Anatolian hieroglyphs (Laroche 1969). One can say in Laroche's defense that the title of his work did not directly refer to the language rendered by Anatolian hieroglyphs, but perhaps conveyed the idea of "hieroglyphs used in the Hittite Empire and Neo-Hittite states". Nevertheless, one must recognize that Laroche 1969, still remaining a useful research tool, has an enormous impact on the proliferation of the misleading term "Hieroglyphic Hittite". 3 According to GÝterbock 1956a, the distribution between Hittite and Luvianspeaking areas was mainly geographic. When he writes that "Hittite was not only the written, but also the spoken language in the Old Kingdom, and


Ilya Yakubovich This issue, however, can be revisited in light of recent advances made in the understanding of the sociolinguistic situation in the Hittite capital. Rieken's (2006) discussion of structural interference between Hittire and Luvian, Melchert's (2005) analysis of Luvian lexical borrowings in Hittite, and van den Hout's (2006) scrutiny of Luvian foreign words in the Hittite texts composed in Hattusa converge in the implication that Luvian was a spoken language alongside Hittite in the heart of the Hittite Empire. This opens the possibility that the Anatolian hieroglyphic script evolved in Hattusa, in the mixed Hittite and Luvian environment. In what follows, I will elaborate on this hypothesis by adducing both external evidence, namely information regarding the genres and dating of the first hieroglyphic inscriptions, and internal evidence, namely the analysis of acrophonic derivation yielding the syllabic values of individual Anatolian characters. Section 2 of the present paper introduces the stadial approach to the development of the hieroglyphic script, stressing its continuity in the central part of Anatolia. Section 3 dwells on the arguments adduced for the western Anatolian origin of the script and shows their inconclusive character. Section 4 addresses the methodological aspects of the derivational analysis of syllabic signs, while Section 5 contains the systematic tabulation of syllabograms with transparent "etymologies", showing that both Hittite-based and Luvian-based acrophony played part in their in their phonetization. The concluding Section 6 discusses the likely reasons for the simultaneous use of the hieroglyphic script and the cuneiform in the Hittite Empire and provides a tentative scenario of how this writing system was secondarily associated with the Luvian language. 2. The development of the Anatolian hieroglyphic script represented a long process. Stage I of this development features pictographic representations on the Anatolian cylinder seals of the Colony period (twentieth through eighteenth centuries BC), some of which formally resemble the later Anatolian signs. Thus Mouton 2002 has cogently argued for the association of the stag and the thunderbolt with the Protective God and the Storm-god, as depicted on the "Cappadocian" glyptics. Later, both signs evolved to become the logographic representations of the respective deities. In other cases, one can posit a formal link between certain elements of the glyptic iconography, which have uncertain associations, and the later hieroglyphic signs. For example, the same author discussed the connection between the "rod with balls" appearing as an attribute of gods and humans on the early
remained the spoken language in the central area even in the New Kingdom" (p. 138), it is clear from the general context of this statement that Hittite, according to him, was the main spoken language in the respective areas.

10


Hittite-Luvian Bilingualism second millennium cylinder seals in both Anatolia and Mesopotamia and the hieroglyphic sign L 153 , even though the iconographic significance of this motif remains a matter of conjectures4. Yet it does not seem possible to treat the pictographic inventory of the "Cappadocian" glyptics as a semiotic system because no direct connection between the function of seals and their elaborate iconography can be perceived5. Stage II chararacterizes the new situation of the Old Kingdom period (seventeenth through fifteenth centuries BC), when the now dominant stamp seals came to feature the little group of well-recognized auspicious signs in their middle part (the periphery was normally occupied by the cuneiform inscription)6. The most frequent among them were VITA (L 369), a sign reminiscent of the Egyptian "ankh" symbol, and BONUS (L 370), the sign denoting abundance whose precise origin is uncertain (Hawkins 2003: 166). This message interestingly resembles the reference to abstract auspicious concepts, such as 'pzwn´ `abundance' or SPYR `good(ness)' on the seals of the Sasanian notables (see e.g. Gignoux 1978: 51­63) 7. In some cases, a small number of additional signs could also be used in this period. Thus the bulla of Isputahsu, King of Kizzuwatna shows the additional signs TONITRUS and REX, presumably indicating that Isputahsu viewed himself as a king ruling by the authority of the Storm-god8. Since the Isputahsu sealing is frequently
4 For the previous appraisal of signs on "Cappadocian" glyptics, see BÆrkerKlÄhn 1995. Unfortunately, the author's conclusion that "das bild-luwische Schriftsystem sei zur Kolonistenzeit geschaffen worden", does not appear to gain much support from the isolated pictograms of the Colony period discussed in her paper. 5 The attempt of Alp (1968: 281­301) to interpret the pictographic elements of the Konya-KarahÆyÝk stamp seals, which probably go back to the end of the Colony period, as an early form of writing must be deemed unsuccessful. For its critique, see Boehmer and GÝterbock 1987: 36­40. 6 For the inventory of hieroglyphic symbols appearing on the Old Kigdom seals, see Mora 1991. The author concludes that "[n]on si puÐ parlare a nostro avviso di inizio della scrittura geroglifica anatolica (nel significato attribuito al sistema di scrittura in uso dall'etÞ imperiale ittita in poi) nei secoli XVII-XVI" (ibid: 22). At the same time, she concedes that the pictograms of this period were used in order to convey semiotic messages and thus represented true signs (ibid:20). 7 This parallel between the Hittite and Sasanian seals appears to be typological rather than areal, since the invocation of abstract concepts is not typical of Babylonian or Achaemenid seals. 8 For the description of this famous seal, see Mora 1987, #8.1.1. Cf. Carruba 1974: 88­90 for an unconvincing attempt to read TONITRUS.REX phonetically as Taruhsu, the alleged by-name of Isputahsu. According to Houwink ten Cate 1992: 250, the same group of signs can be read as Tarhuntassa, in spite of the

11


Ilya Yakubovich mentioned in connection with the evolution of hieroglyphic writing, it is important to stress the fact that no other hieroglyphic seals belonging to Kizuwatna kings are known to us. For all we know, this object may well reflect Hittite cultural influence on Kizzuwatna, just as the name Isputahsu appears to have a Hittite origin9. Stage III, achieved in the Early New Kingdom period (early fourteenth century BC), can be as a rudimentary writing system, which included phonetic (syllabic) signs in addition to the logograms. The kings of Hattusa, from Tuthaliya I onwards, used the digraphic seals containing their names and titles recorded in the Anatolian hieroglyphs in the middle surrounded by one or more rings of the cuneiform rendering the same name10. Thus the name of Sata(n)duhepa, wife of Tuthaliya II, was rendered as sÞ(-)tÞ-tu-ha-pa and placed next to her title MAGNUS.DOMINA on the two sealings of a royal seal found in MaatHÆyÝk (Mora 1987, #8.4.1 a-b). The short texts such as this do not yield direct evidence as to whether the relevant seals should be considered bilingual as well as digraphic. On the one hand, the cuneiform legends consisting entirely of personal names and Sumerographic titles can be read in either Hittite or Akkadian, or even in Luvian. On the other hand, the hieroglyphic legends were likewise limited to (semi-) phonetically written personal names and logographic titles and therefore likewise can be read in any appropriate language (cf. Hawkins 2003: 140). To this one must add a group of sealings belonging to high officials, which appear to predate the Empire period on stylistic grounds (see their representative selection in Boehmer and GÝterbock 1987: 43­46). Unlike the royal seals, the specimens of this group show the hieroglyphic signs without cuneiform equivalents11.
absence of the determinative REGIO and the lack of attestations of Tarhuntassa in written sources before the reign of Muwattalli II. 9 The likely pronunciation of the name Isputahsu was /spudahsu/. The morpheme ­hsu was a very common formative element in Hittite names of the early second millennium BC. The reconstruction of the initial consonant cluster in this name, precluding its Luvian origin, is assured through the variant Su-puda-ah-su attested in an Akkadian text from Kanes/Nesa of the Colony period (Kt o/k 53.3). On the simplification of clusters sC- in Luvian, see Melchert 1994: 271. 10 The hieroglyphic renderings of the names of the New Kingdom rulers are collected in Boehmer and GÝterbock 1987: 80. For the digraphic seal impression mentioning Tuthaliya I, see Otten 2000. 11 Boehmer and GÝterbock (1987: 39, figure 35c) published the seal containing the hieroglyphic combination HATTI+li (= Hattusili), which they assigned to the Old Kingdom period on stylistic grounds (ibid: 36). This seal was found in a secondary context, within the wall of the Phrygian fortifications in Hattusa. Pending further discoveries of the similar kind, caution dictates to regard this

12


Hittite-Luvian Bilingualism Stage III of the Anatolian hieroglyphic script does not yet give the impression of an elaborate system capable of rendering complex messages. The renditions of royal names or the names of high officials can be fairly described as rebus writings that hint at their phonetic shape as opposed to conveying them according to a standard convention. Thus the spelling MONS.TU of the name Tuthaliya consists of the image of the homonymous sacred mountain and the phonetic indicator hinting at its first syllable. By contrast, the spelling PURUS.FONS.MAx of the name Suppiluliuma contains the logographic rendering of the toponym Suppiluli (lit. "pure spring"), enhanced by the phonetic indicator MAx hinting at the last syllable of the royal name (cf. GÝterbock 1998: 203). It appears that the scribes were facing the task of inventing a new rebus each time they had to deal with a new personal name. The simplest way to account for this distribution is to assume that the consistent conventions of syllabic hieroglyphic writing had not yet been developed in fourteenth century Anatolia. The main innovation of Stage IV is the established association between the Anatolian hieroglyphic script and the Luvian language. The earliest datable hieroglyphic inscriptions that contain phonetically written Luvian words are FIRAKTN and ALEPPO 1 (cf. Hawkins 2000: 19a)12. The former is a group of inscriptions accompanying the relieves of King Hattusili III and Queen Puduhepa, while the latter mentions Talmi-Sarruma, King of Aleppo, who, like Hattusili III, was a grandson of Suppiluliuma I. The last half of the same century witnessed the creation of large monumental inscriptions written in Luvian, such as YALBURT, SýDBURG, and the EMRGAZ altars (all edited in Hawkins 1995). The association between the Luvian language and the hieroglyphic writing was firmly established by the end of the Empire period, while the development of the script reached the stage when it was fit for the rendition of long continuous narratives. What emerges from this brief survey is the gradual character of the development of the original pictograms into a full-fledged writing system. This, of course, does not mean that the Hieroglyphic Script developed in isolation in Central Anatolia. Individual Anatolian pictograms, as mentioned above, have suggestive parallels in Mesopotamia and Egypt, and it is only logical to assume that the use of the Mesoptamian cuneiform by the Hittites facilitated the creation of hieroglyphic syllabograms. But none of the four stages discussed above
isolated object as the late imitation of the Old Kingdom artistic style, and not as the first precursor of New Kingdom seals inscribed with hieroglyphic syllabograms. 12 Note the recent detailed publication of the FIRAKTN relief and the accompanying inscription in Ehringhaus 2005: 59­65.

13


Ilya Yakubovich appears to represent a drastic innovation that would require us to assume a wholesale adaptation of foreign practices. The development of hieroglyphic writing in the Hittite milieu, where most of its early known specimens have been created, represents a prima facie hypothesis. 3. There is but one assuredly Luvian hieroglyphic text, whose possible Early New Kingdom date has been seriously debated. The ANKARA bowl, published in Hawkins 1997 and again in Hawkins 2005, refers to the victorious expedition of a certain Labarna Tuthaliya against the city of Tarwiza. Since the annals of Tuthaliya I (CTH 142) tell us that this Hittite king fought against the Assuwa coalition, which included Wilusiya and Tarwisa, and since the later Hittite texts do not mention the western Anatolian toponym Tarwisa, Hawkins (1997, 2005) hypothetically suggested that Tuthaliya Labarna of the ANKARA bowl is to be identified with Tuthaliya I and that the artifact under discussion can be dated back to the early fourteenth century BC. This dating, as he justly observed, "would make it an extraordinary document of high significance for the development of the Hieroglyphic script". Indeed, the ANKARA bowl inscription represents a cohesive text with a large number of phonetically written Luvian forms, which stand in stark contrast with the formulaic seal inscriptions of the Early New Kingdom period. If it were indeed made in the early fourteenth century BC, and if its western Anatolian internal reference were relevant for establishing its provenance, this would represents an argument for the hypothesis that the phonetization of the Anatolian Hieroglyphic script was first accomplished in the Aegean area. For further discussion, it appears to be appropriate to cite the relevant text in full. Note that my translation of this inscription is substantially different from one given in its previous editions. (1) ANKARA BOWL, cf. Hawkins 2005: 19413 za/i-wa/i-ti CAELUM-pi *a-sa-ma-i(a) REGIO.HATTI VIR2 (*273)i(a)-sa5-za-tÞ REX ma-za/i-kar-hu-ha REX PRAE-na tara/i-wa/i-zi/a-wa/i(REGIO) REL+ra/i MONS.[TU] LABARNA.LA hu-la-(i)a-tÀ *a-wa/i-na *a-pa-ti-i(a) ANNUSi(a) i(a)-zi/a-tÞ `This bowl Asamaia, man of Hattusa, bought from (lit. "in the presence of") the king Maza-Karhuha. When Labarna Tuthalia smote Tarwiza, in that year he (Tuthaliya) had it made'.

13

For the autograph of the inscription, see Hawkins 2003: 144.

14


Hittite-Luvian Bilingualism Hawkins 2005 notes the formal possibility of connecting (*273)i(a)sa5-za- with the Luvian stem iasa- `to buy', but rejects this connection on semantic grounds. In my opinion, the problemtic character of this comparison is exaggerated. It is true that iasa- normally appears with the preposition CUM, lit. `with', governing the counter-agent, but the royal dignity of the salesman may have dictated a more polite turn of phrase with PRAE-na = /parran/, lit. `before' in this case. On the other hand, the assumption that we are dealing with an ownership inscription, and not a dedicatory inscription as thought by Hawkins, helps to explain why it consists of two separate sentences. The first part of the inscription records the act of transfer, while the second one establishes the pedigree of the transferred object. If my interpretation is correct, then the mention of Tuthaliya I in the text of the inscription does not have bearing on its chronological attribution because the bowl could be bought as an antique object. What clearly tips the scales in favor of dating the inscription to the Hittite Empire or the later period is the mention of king Maza-Karhuha. Since the god Karhuha was worshipped mainly in Carchemish, it is difficult to envisage such a name of a Hittite vassal king in the period when Carchemish remained firmly within the fold of the Mitanni Kingdom. Pace Hawkins (2005: 200), the military campaigns of Tuthaliya I against Mitanni, which are retrospectively mentioned in a thirteenth-century treaty, cannot alone justify the hypothesis that this king controlled Carchemish for an extended period of time (cf. Bryce 2005: 140)14. A related argument is the use of the kar sign (L 315) in our inscription, which is restricted to the documentation originating in Carchemish (Hawkins 2005: 196). A more specific indication of the Late Empire date of the inscription is the hieroglyphic title LABARNA (L 277) written next to the name of Tuthaliya. Although the Hittite kings had been using this title in their cuneiform inscriptions since the beginning of the Old Kingdom period, the sign L 277 was apparently introduced only during the reign of Tuthaliya IV (Hawkins 1995: 107). The attribution of the ANKARA bowl to the times of Tuthaliya I becomes even less likely once we take into consideration the sociolinguistic situation of the Early New Kingdom. The use of the Luvian language in official written discourse was systematically

14

It is unlikely that Maza-Karhuha was one of the viceroys of Carchemish, whose names are generally well known. It is, however, possible that another Syrian or Anatolian vassal king used the theonym Karhuha as a part of his own name in the period after the gods of Carchemish were incorporated into the Hittite pantheon.

15


Ilya Yakubovich discouraged in the early fourteenth century Hattusa15. Hittite was the standard language for writing on clay tablets (for most textual genres), while Akkadian remained an acceptable alternative for inscriptions on durable materials, such as the sword dedicated by Tuthaliya I to the Storm-god after a victory over Assuwa (ýnal et al. 1991). Incising a Luvian inscription on a silver bowl, which was clearly made for the use of the elites, would represent an obvious faux pas under such conditions. These considerations, taken together, militate against the early fourteenth century date of the ANKARA bowl inscription. I concur with the recent conclusions of Mora (2007) that the late thirteenth century BC is the most likely date for the composition of this text. On the other hand, since the mention of Tuthaliya's conquest of Wiluza represents anything more than the dating formula, while the mention of Maza-Karhuha serves the purpose of establishing the immediate provenance record for the bowl itself, not for the inscription, the mention of Asamaya, man of Hatti, represents the only internal reference that can be potentially useful for discussing the geographic origin of the text. Accordingly, the inscription under discussion does not offer any difficulties for the scenario of the continuous development of the hieroglyphic script in the central part of Anatolia. A different type of argumentation for the Aegean origin of the Anatolian hieroglyphic script is advanced in Hawkins 1986. Hawkins bases his conclusion on the observed structural similarities between the Anatolian hieroglyphic writing and the Aegean scripts, such as Linear A and B. In particular, Hawkins acknowledged the dominance of the syllabic signs of the CV type in the Aegeo-Anatolian area, as against the Cuneiform CV+VC/CVC type. Hawkins 2003: 166­169 essentially advocates the same view, although this discussion makes clear that the Aegeans syllabaries can be viewed only as triggers for the development of the "Luvian" script, not as its direct prototypes. Since the kingdom of Arzawa was closer than Hatti to the Minoan and Mycenaean cultural sphere, this is where, Hawkins claims, the Anatolian hieroglyphic writing probably originated. In my opinion, the similarities discussed by Hawkins can all be accounted for in the stadial and typological terms, without invoking either direct borrowing or cultural influence. "The pictographicHieroglyphic character common to the Aegean and Anatolian script" reflects a stage passed by every original (non-borrowed) script. "[T]he
This conclusion can be made based on the analysis of the Instruction for the Royal Bodyguard (CTH 262) and the Instruction for the Gate-keeper (CTH 263), both composed in the Early New Kingdom Period. Although these instructions contain direct speech passages that are expected to be uttered luwili `in Luvian', they are rendered in Hittite in the written text.
15

16


Hittite-Luvian Bilingualism same range and type of logograms drawn from the same spheres of material world" attested in both scripts bear witness to the social and economic similarities between the Aegean and the Anatolian states of the second millennium BC. As for the preponderance of the CV signs, it represents an unmarked property of syllabic scripts, be it the Ethiopian or the Kharoshthi syllabaries. Furthermore, there are a number of languages featuring only or mostly open syllables, and this is why the Optimality Theory and a number of other constraint-based phonological frameworks assume that open syllables are inherently less marked than their closed counterparts. Therefore, the syllabaries that develop from logographic systems were likely to give preference to CV signs at a certain stage of their development, just as children normally begin their first language acquisition with CV syllables. It is the elaborate system of VC and CVC signs characterizing the Akkadian and, by extension, Hittite systems that should be analyzed as an exceptional areal feature, presumably to be explained through the mediation of the Sumerian semi-logographic writing. Part of the problem with the hypothesis that the Aegean syllabaries triggered the development of the hieroglyphic writing without providing a direct model for its development is that such a claim cannot in principle be falsified. We simply know too little about Anatolian intellectual history too rule out the hypothesis that a Hittite man of letters stumbled upon the idea of developing the national writing system upon seeing a Linear A tablet. But the claim about Arzawa as the original locus of the development of the script can be tested. In order to do it, it is enough to look at the dates and content of hieroglyphic texts that were actually found in western Anatolia. I am aware of four monumental Luvian inscriptions that come from the Aegean area. The name ku-pa-ia appearing on the LATMOS inscription and accompanied by the title MAGNUS.REX.INFANS may represent an abbreviation of Kupantakruntiya, the early thirteenth century king of Mira (Peschlow-Bindokat 2002). Targasnawa, king of Mira, who ruled in the late thirteenth century BC, commissioned the KARABEL inscription (Hawkins 1998). SIPYLOS 1 mentions a certain Kuwalanamuwa, tentatively identified with a Hittite prince at the time of Mursili II and the commissioner of HANYER and MAMKULU inscriptions (cf. Bossert 1954: 144­47). SIPYLOS 2 contains the name of a palace attendant ("eunuch") Zuwalla, who is otherwise unknown (GÝterbock and Alexander 1983). To this can add four inscribed seals found in Western Anatolia or connected with it through internal references. The famous "Tarkondemos" digraphic seal, as we now know, belonged to the above-mentioned Targasnawa, king of Mira (Hawkins and Morpurgo-Davies 1998). The imitation(?) of an Anatolian 17


Ilya Yakubovich hieroglyphic seal was found in Metropolis (Schachner and Merià 2000), while a genuine hieroglyphic sealing found in the area of Eskiehir (Darga and Starke 2003). Finally, one must mention the hieroglyphic seal found in Troy VIIb (the layer of the 12th century BC) in the excavation season 1995 (for its recent extensive discussion, see Latacz 2004: 49­ 71). None of the hieroglyphic inscriptions discussed above can be shown to predate the conquest of Arzawa by Mursili II in the late fourteenth century BC, while several of them likely or assuredly postdate it. Therefore, the choice of a writing system must reflect, first and foremost, the political dominion of Hatti over the vassal kingdom of Mira, comprising the central part of the former kingdom of Arzawa16. If the rulers of Mira tried to imitate the traditions of the Hittite court, it was only natural for them to follow the pattern of epigraphic code alternation that was familiar to Hattusa scribes. Cuneiform script was mostly used for writing on clay tablets, while hieroglyphs were carved in stone. If the commissioner of SIPYLOS 1 has been correctly identified, we have the ready example of a Hittite official whose inscription could provide a model for the local rulers. At the same time, the small number of inscriptional finds coming from western Anatolia suggests that this imitation was practiced on a moderate scale. The content of all the inscriptions mentioned above is limited to personal names and logographic expressions, and none of them contains phonetically spelled forms that force their attribution to a particular language. Thus, although the hieroglyphic texts found in the Aegean chronologically belong to Stage IV, from the point of view of their structure, they did not go beyond the level of Stage III. In other words, the development of hieroglyphic writing in this region trailed behind the level that it had achieved in the Hittite core area. This is only natural given its provincial status in the eyes of the Hittite kings, whose ambitions were normally turned in the southeastward direction. The hypothesis that the Anatolian Hieroglyphic Script was invented in the western part of Asia Minor lacks empirical confirmation. In the following, I will assume that the true first specimens of the Anatolian hieroglyphic writing (understood here as a semiotic system containing a phonetic component) are the Hattusa seals of the Early New Kingdom period.
16

This can be contrasted with the presence of the cuneiform "Arzawa Lettres" in the archive of El-Amarna, which contain the correspondence between Tarhuntaradu, king of Arzawa, and the Egyptian pharaoh Amenhotep IV. The cuneiform literacy may have not been widespread in the independent kingdom of Arzawa, but it definitely arrived there before the Hittite rule.

18


Hittite-Luvian Bilingualism 4. It is a well-known fact that many early phonetic writing systems established the values of their signs via the principle of acrophonic derivation. Thus, in the early Canaanite alphabet, the letter depicts a house, reflecting the fact that the Canaanite word for house, *bayt, begins with [b], is a pictogram depicting a hand, since *kapp `(palm of) hand' begins with [k], and so on (Hackett 2004: 367). If the same principle underlies the phonetization of Anatolian hieroglyphic signs on Stages III-IV, it is reasonable to presume that syllabograms were likewise assigned values based on the language(s) that the inventors of the new script perceived as their own. If both Hittite and Luvian played a role in this process, then both languages were at home in the community where the script was created. Discussing the characteristic empirical data that can lend support to this claim constitutes the task of the present section. The starting point for the present discussion is the often-cited paper by GÝnter Neumann, who made the first attempt to study the acrophonic derivation of Anatolian hieroglyphic signs in order to establish the origin of the script. Although Neumann (1992: 26, fn. 3; 27, fn 5) rejects Aegean influence on the system of Anatolian hieroglyphs and regards Kizzuwatna, and not Arzawa, as the most likely area where it could be created, he concurs with GÝterbock's view that this writing system must have been of Luvian origin. On the one hand, he acrophonically derives the arrow-shaped sign L 376, which had the value in the Empire period, from the Luvian proximal demonstrative pronoun za-, whose Hittite counterpart was ka-. On the other hand, he follows Hawkins 1986 in deriving the phonetic value of the sign L 105 = BOS, graphically the head of a bovine, from the Luvian form that he reconstructed as *uwau-`cow'< IE. *gwou- `id.' (Neumann 1992: 25­26, fn. 2)17. Out of these two examples cited by Neumann, only the first one holds water. The archaic inscriptions BOAZKæY 1 and 2 lack any unambiguously phonetic signs, but contain L 376 functioning as a demonstrative. For these inscriptions, one can perhaps entertain the logographic value L 376 = HIC, on the assumption that the cross-cultural metaphoric use of an arrow as a pointing device was also known in Bronze Age Anatolia. If one takes this step, there is no way around accepting Neumann's claim that L 376 acquired its syllabic value in the Luvian-speaking milieu.
17

Cf. the pessimistic assessment by Hawkins (2003: 168): "[R]ecognizable derivations of syllabic values indicate a Hittite-Luwian origin, but provide no diagnostic distinction between the two languages except in one sole case: the derivation of the syllabogram u from Luvian *uwau- `ox', as against the postulated Hittite *guwau- (Neumann 1992: 251, cf. 39)"