The Carian Language

The Carian Language

HANDBOOK OF ORIENTAL STUDIES SECTION ONE

THE NEAR AND MIDDLE EAST

Ancient Near East Editor-in-Chief

W. H. van Soldt Editors

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

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

The Carian Language by

Ignacio J. Adiego with an appendix by

Koray Konuk

BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON 2007

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

2006051655

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

Günter Neumann In memoriam

CONTENTS

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

xi xiii

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

1

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

7 7 7 10 12 12 14 15

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

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

viii

contents

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

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

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

166 166 176 187 187 191 197

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

205 205 206 219 219 223

159 164

226 228 230

contents

ix

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

234 234 234 242 251 253 254 256 257 259 262

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

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

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

312 312 312 313

contents

x

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

314 314 317 318 318 319 319 321

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

326 326 328 331 333 339 339 340 341

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

345

Chapter Eleven

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

348

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

443 455 456 464 471

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

493

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

508 509 511 519 521 523

FOREWORD

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

xii

foreword

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

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS FOR THE USE OF ILLUSTRATIONS

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

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

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

2

chapter one

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

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

introduction

3

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

chapter one

4

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

2

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

introduction

5

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

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

6

chapter one

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

CHAPTER TWO

THE INDIRECT SOURCES

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

8

chapter two

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

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

the indirect sources

9

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

7 8

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

10

chapter two

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

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

the indirect sources

11

If we accept these identifications, the problem of g°la is very similar to that of soËa(n): g°la and a Carian word kdow (“ ) have some points in common (the velar initial, a possible correspondence -l- : -d- ( l could be imaginable.

12

chapter two

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

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

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

the indirect sources

13

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

14

chapter two

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

the indirect sources

15

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

16

chapter two

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

CHAPTER THREE

THE INSCRIPTIONS

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

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

18

chapter three

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

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

the inscriptions

19

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

20

chapter three

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

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

the inscriptions

21

Nº (Masson)

Letters

Transcription

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

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

a d l y r l

q b m o t “ s ? u ñ ∞ n p ≤ i e

ÿ k d

w g

z ã j ? t / t2?

®

b b2?

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

22

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

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

the inscriptions

23

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

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

24

chapter three

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

the inscriptions

25

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

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

26

chapter three

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

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

the inscriptions

27

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

Ostrakon of Hou (Masson 1967)

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

28

chapter three

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

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

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

the inscriptions

29

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

Old Smyrna ( Jeffery 1964)

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

30

chapter three C. The Carian Inscriptions from Egypt

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

7

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

the inscriptions

31

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

8

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

32

chapter three

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

E.Sa 1 (= MY L)

E.Sa 1 (Masson-Yoyotte 1956)

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

the inscriptions

33

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

E.Sa 2 (= MY M)

E.Sa 2

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

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

34

chapter three

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

E.Me 1 (= MY A)

E.Me 1 (Masson-Yoyotte 1956)

← ttbazi[≤] | p. iub[a]Ωi≤ | aor[≤]

the inscriptions

35

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

E.Me 2 (= MY B)

E.Me 2 (Masson-Yoyotte 1956)

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

36

chapter three

E.Me 3 (= MY D)

E.Me 3

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

the inscriptions

37

E.Me 4 (= MY E)

E.Me 4 (Masson-Yoyotte 1956)

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

38

chapter three

E.Me 5 (= MY F)

E.Me 5 (Masson-Yoyotte 1956)

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

the inscriptions

39

E.Me 6 (= MY G)

E.Me 6 (Masson-Yoyotte 1956)

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

40

chapter three

E.Me 7 (= MY H)

E.Me 7

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

E.Me 8 (= MY K)

E.Me 8a

E.Me 8b

the inscriptions

41

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

E.Me 9 (= M 1)

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

42

chapter three

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

E.Me 10 (= M 2)

E.Me 10 (Masson 1978)

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

the inscriptions

43

E.Me 11 (= M 3)

E.Me 11 (Masson 1978)

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

44

chapter three

E.Me 12 (= M 4)

E.Me 12 (Masson 1978)

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

the inscriptions

45

E.Me 13 (= M 5)

E.Me 13 (Masson 1978)

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

chapter three

46 E.Me 14 (= M 6)

E.Me 14 (Masson 1978)

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

the inscriptions

47

E.Me 15 (= M 7)

E.Me 15 (Masson 1978)

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

48

chapter three

E.Me 16 (= M 8)

E.Me 16 (Masson 1978)

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

E.Me 17 (= M 9)

E.Me 17 (Masson 1978)

the inscriptions

49

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

E.Me 18 (= M 10)

E.Me 18 (Masson 1978)

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

50

chapter three

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

E.Me 19 (= M 11)

E.Me 19

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

the inscriptions E.Me 20 (= M 12)

E.Me 20

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

E.Me 21 (= M 13)

E.Me 21 (Masson 1978)

51

52

chapter three

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

E.Me 22 (= M 14)

E.Me 22

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

E.Me 23 (= M 15)

E.Me 23

the inscriptions

53

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

E.Me 24 (= M 16)

E.Me 24

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

54

chapter three

E.Me 25 (= M 17)

E.Me 25

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

the inscriptions

55

E.Me 26 (= M 18)

E.Me 26

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

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

56

chapter three

E.Me 27 (= M 19)

E.Me 27

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

E.Me 28 (= M 20)

E.Me 28 (Masson 1978)

the inscriptions

57

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

E.Me 29 (= M 21)

E.Me 29

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

58

chapter three

E.Me 30 (= M 22)

E.Me 30

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

E.Me 31 (= M 23)

E.Me 31

the inscriptions

59

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

E.Me 32 (= M 24)

E.Me 32

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

60

chapter three

E.Me 33 (= M 25)

E.Me 33

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

E.Me 34 (= M 26)

E.Me 34 (Masson 1978)

the inscriptions

61

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

E.Me 35 (= M 27)

E.Me 35

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

62

chapter three

E.Me 36 (= M 28)

E.Me 36

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

E.Me 37 (= M 29)

E.Me 37

the inscriptions

63

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

E.Me 38 (= M 30)

E.Me 38

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

64

chapter three

E.Me 39 (= M 31)

E.Me 39

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

E.Me 40 (= M 32)

E.Me 40

the inscriptions

65

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

E.Me 41 (= M 33)

E.Me 41

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

66

chapter three

E.Me 42 (= M 34)

E.Me 42 (Masson 1978)

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

E.Me 43 (= M 35)

E.Me 43

the inscriptions

67

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

E.Me 44 (= M 36)

E.Me 44 (Masson 1978)

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

68

chapter three

E.Me 45 (= M 37)

E.Me 45

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

E.Me 46 (= M 38)

E.Me 46

the inscriptions

69

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

E.Me 47 (= M 39)

E.Me 47 (Masson 1978)

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

70

chapter three

E.Me 48 (= M 40)

E.Me 48 (Masson 1978)

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

E.Me 49 (= M 41)

E.Me 49 (Masson 1978)

the inscriptions

71

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

E.Me 50 (= M 42)

E.Me 50 (Masson 1978)

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

E.Me 51 (= M 43)

E.Me 51 (Masson 1978)

72

chapter three

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

E.Me 52 (= M 44)

E.Me 52

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

the inscriptions E.Me 53 (= M 45)

E.Me 53

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

E.Me 54 (= M 45a)

E.Me 54

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

73

74

chapter three

E.Me 55 (= M 46)

E.Me 55

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

E.Me 56 (= M 47)

E.Me 56

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

the inscriptions

75

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

E.Me 57 (= M 47a)

E.Me 57

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

E.Me 58 (= M 47b)

E.Me 58

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

76

chapter three

E.Me 59 (= M 48)

E.Me 59

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

E.Me 60 (= M 48a)

E.Me 60

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

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

E.Me 61 (Masson 1978)

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

E.Me 62 (= M 48c)

E.Me 62 (Masson 1978)

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

E.Me 63 (= M 48d)

E.Me 63

← (a) idyes≤ (b) m [?

77

chapter three

78

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

E.Me 64 (= M 49)

E.Me 64 (Masson 1978)

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

E.Me 65 (= Stela of Abusir)

E.Me 65 (Schürr 2003)

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

the inscriptions

79

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

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

80

chapter three

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

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

E.Ab 1 (Friedrich 1932)

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

the inscriptions

81

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

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

E.Ab 2 (Friedrich 1932)

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

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

E.Ab 3 (Friedrich 1932)

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

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

E.Ab 4 (Friedrich 1932)

82

chapter three

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

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

E.Ab 5 (Friedrich 1932)

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

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

E.Ab 6 (Friedrich 1932)

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

the inscriptions

83

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

E.Ab 7 (Friedrich 1932)

← plat | pals≤

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

E.Ab 8 (Friedrich 1932)

← plat pals≤

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

E.Ab 9 (Friedrich 1932)

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

84

chapter three

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

E.Ab 10 (Friedrich 1932)

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

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

E.Ab 11 (Friedrich 1932)

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

the inscriptions

85

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

E.Ab 12 (Friedrich 1932)

← untri uantrpo

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

E.Ab 13 (Friedrich 1932)

← untri | uantrpu≤

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

E.Ab 14 (Friedrich 1932)

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

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

E.Ab 15 (Friedrich 1932)

86

chapter three

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

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

E.Ab 16 (Friedrich 1932)

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

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

E.Ab 17 (Friedrich 1932)

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

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

E.Ab 18 (Friedrich 1932)

← tamosi | inut≤

the inscriptions

87

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

E.Ab 19 (Friedrich 1932)

← tamosi utnu≤

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

E.Ab 20 (Friedrich 1932)

← ninut | tamosi≤

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

E.Ab 21 (Friedrich 1932)

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

13

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

chapter three

88

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

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

E.Ab 22 (Friedrich 1932)

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

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

E.Ab 23 (Friedrich 1932)

← be≤ol

14

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

the inscriptions

89

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

E.Ab 24 (Friedrich 1932)

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

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

E.Ab 25 (Friedrich 1932)

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

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

E.Ab 26 (Friedrich 1932)

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

90

chapter three

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

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

E.Ab 27 (Friedrich 1932)

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

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

E.Ab 28 (Friedrich 1932)

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

the inscriptions

91

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

E.Ab 29 (Friedrich 1932)

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

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

E.Ab 30 (Friedrich 1932)

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

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

E.Ab 31 (Friedrich 1932)

← ∞aye

92

chapter three

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

E.Ab 32 (Friedrich 1932)

← ∞arr≤

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

E.Ab 33 (Friedrich 1932)

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

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

E.Ab 34 (Friedrich 1932)

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

the inscriptions

93

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

E.Ab 35 (Friedrich 1932)

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

94

chapter three

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

E.Ab 43 (Murray 1904)

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

Ab 3a F (Friedrich 1932)

Ab 23 F (Friedrich 1932)

16

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

the inscriptions

95

Ab 30 F (Friedrich 1932)

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

96

chapter three

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

E.Th 1 (”evoro“kin 1965)

← uarbe E.Th 2 = 48 ” (= D 3)

E.Th 2 (”evoro“kin 1965)

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

E.Th 3 (”evoro“kin 1965)

pla?t

the inscriptions

97

E.Th 4 = 50 ” (= D 5)

E.Th 4 (”evoro“kin 1965)

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

E.Th 5 (”evoro“kin 1965)

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

chapter three

98 E.Th 6 = 52 ” (= D 7)

E.Th 6 (”evoro“kin 1965)

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

E.Th 7 (”evoro“kin 1965)

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

E.Th 8 (”evoro“kin 1965)

→ qutbe

the inscriptions

99

E.Th 9 = 55 ” (= D12)

E.Th 9 (”evoro“kin 1965)

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

E.Th 10 (”evoro“kin 1965)

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

(”evoro“kin 1965, 57 ”)

chapter three

100

E.Th 11 (”evoro“kin 1965, 58 ”)

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

E.Th 12 (”evoro“kin 1965)

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

the inscriptions

101

E.Th 13 = 60 ” (= D 14)

E.Th 13 (”evoro“kin 1965)

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

102

chapter three

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

the inscriptions

103

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

104

chapter three

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

the inscriptions

105

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

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

106

chapter three

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

E.Lu 1 (= G 19)

E.Lu 1 (ESS 1998)

→ ds-?

E.Lu 2 (= G 21)

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

the inscriptions

107

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

E.Lu 3 (= G 22)

E.Lu 3 (ESS 1998)

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

E.Lu 4 (= G 23)

E.Lu 4 (ESS 1998)

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

108

chapter three

E.Lu 5 (= G 24)

E.Lu 5 (ESS 1998)

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

E.Lu 6 (= G 25)

E.Lu 6 (ESS 1998)

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

the inscriptions

109

E.Lu 7 (= G 26)

E.Lu 7 (ESS 1998)

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

110

chapter three

E.Mu 1 (= ¥ába 1971, 196)

E.Mu 1 (¥ába 1971)

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

the inscriptions

111

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

E.Si 1 = Si 39 F

E.Si 1 (Friedrich 1932)

← ∞iqud | marariso[-. . .]

E.Si 2 = Si 53 F

Sayce I

Sayce II

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

112

chapter three

Legrain E.Si 2 (Friedrich 1932)

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

E.Si 3 = Si 54 F

E.Si 3 (Friedrich 1932)

← irasa | n[-]eakrnanb

E.Si 4 = Si 55 F

Sayce

Legrain E.Si 4 (Friedrich 1932)

the inscriptions

113

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

E.Si 5 = Si 56 F

E.Si 5 (Friedrich 1932)

→ betkrqit[—. . .]

E.Si 6 = Si 57 F

E.Si 6 (Friedrich 1932)

→ bÿta“ | sursiabk | dr[-. . .] qku

E.Si 7 = Si 58 F

E.Si 7 (Friedrich 1932)

→ psma≤k

114

chapter three

E.Si 8 = Si 59 F

E.Si 8 (Friedrich 1932)

→ bij≤≤pe (. . . ?)

E.Si 9 = Si 60 F

E.Si 9 (Friedrich 1932)

→ [. . .]rbn“a[—. . .

E.Si 10 = Si 61 F

E.Si 10 (Friedrich 1932)

← ∞?mpi

E.Si 11 = Si 62 F

E.Si 11 (Friedrich 1932, modified)

the inscriptions

115

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

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

116

chapter three

E.AS 1 = AS 1

E.AS 1 (Masson 1979)

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

E.AS 2 = AS 2

E.AS 2 (Masson 1979)

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

E.AS 3 = AS 3 = Lepsius Kar 4

E.AS 3 (Masson 1979)

← pisma“k | “arnw≤ | ÿnsmsos

the inscriptions

117

E.AS 4 = AS 4 + Lepsius Kar 7

E.AS 4 (Masson 1979 + Lepsius 1844)

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

E.AS 5 = AS 5 = Lepsius Kar 6

E.AS 5 (Masson 1979)

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

118

chapter three

E.AS 6 = AS 6 = Lepsius Kar 3

E.AS 6 (Masson 1979)

← platt slaÿ≤ ∞i

E.AS 7 = AS 7 = Lepsius Kar 1

E.AS 7 (Masson 1979)

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

E.AS 8 = AS 8

E.AS 8 (Masson 1979)

the inscriptions

119

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

E.AS 9 = Kar 2

E.AS 9 (Lepsius 1844)

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

120

chapter three

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

E.Bu 1 = M 50

E.Bu 1 (Masson 1978)

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

the inscriptions E.Bu 2 = M 51

E.Bu 2 (Masson 1978)

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

E.Bu 3 = M 52

E.Bu 3 (Masson 1978)

← [-]tmai≤[—]

121

chapter three

122 E.Bu 4 (= M 53)

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

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

E.Bu 5 (= M 54)

E.Bu 5 (Masson 1978)

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

the inscriptions

123

E.Bu 6 (= M 55)

E.Bu 6 (Masson 1978)

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

124

chapter three

Friedrich (1932)

”evoro“kin (1965)

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

E.xx 1 (= MY C)

E.xx 1 (Masson-Yoyotte 1956)

the inscriptions

125

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

E.xx 2 (= MY I)

E.xx 2

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

E.xx 3 (= MY a)

E.xx 3

chapter three

126

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

E.xx 4 (= MY b)

E.xx 4

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

E.xx 5 (= MY c)

E.xx 5 (Friedrich 1932)

the inscriptions

127

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

E.xx 6 (= 4 ”)

E.xx 6

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

chapter three

128

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

E.xx 7 (= Lion)

E.xx 7 (Masson 1976)

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

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

the inscriptions

129

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

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

chapter three

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

Deroy (1955)

Kubitschek’s copy conserved in Vienna C.Tr 1

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

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

the inscriptions

131

C.Tr 2 (= D 2)

Pappakonstatinou’s drawing (Meier-Brügger 1978)

Kubitschek’s copy conserved in Vienna C.Tr 2

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

chapter three

132

2. Alabanda and Surroundings (C.Al)

C.Al 1 (= D 13)

(Deroy 1955)

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

3. Euromos (C.Eu)

C.Eu 1 (= D 3)

Drawing conserved in Vienna

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

the inscriptions

133

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

C.Eu 2 (= D 8)

C.Eu 2 (Blümel 1988)

134

chapter three

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

C.Kn 1 (Deroy 1955)

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

the inscriptions

135

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

C.Hy 1 (col a: Adiego-Debord-Varinlio T) and for “ (already T). The starting point of Kaunian T t is not attested but the abovementioned formal similarities between t and T point to a t, or at least to a form equally similar to both t and T. In conclusion, before Kaunian T and / there seems to have existed a pair of letters that were very close to those present in the rest of the Carian alphabets (t, T/F/f).18 We can now imagine a sort of Carian ‘Uralphabet’ that would include at least all of the letters attested in all, or at least most, of the Carian local varieties. The resulting Carian ‘Uralphabet’ could be the following: Carian ‘Uralphabet’ a dD l ùW rR L2 qQ bB5 mM o tT f F (> /) s H uU

a d l y r l q b m o t “ s (?) u

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

∞ n p ≤ i e

ÿ

k d w g ? z j t b

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

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

chapter five

230 ñ %

ñ ã ?

1 6

(?) ®

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

the carian alphabet

231

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

19

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

chapter five

232

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

Value

a dD l ùW

a d l y

rR L2

r l

qQ

q

bB5

b

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

m o t “ s (?) u ∞

nN p zZ

n p ≤

IIYy ÎÏ e2 w

i e ÿ

kK

k

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

the carian alphabet

233

table (cont.) Letter

Value

&

d

vÚ

w

08 199 jT_

g ?

c C (O ?)

t

$çØ4 (ÿ ? & ?)

b

z j

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

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

20

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

CHAPTER SIX

PHONOLOGICAL FEATURES

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

phonological features

235

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

u/w

y/ÿ

∞i/∞j

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

mdayn/mdaÿn

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

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

236

chapter six

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

phonological features

237

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

238

chapter six

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

phonological features

239

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

240

chapter six

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

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

phonological features

241

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

chapter six

242

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

t/T t

xX ∞

kK k

q/Q q

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

5

Adiego (1993a:273).

phonological features

243

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

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

244

chapter six

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

phonological features

245

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

dD d /d/ [ ä]?

&

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

chapter six

246

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

Ø, 4, (Hyllarima) B, (Mylasa) b

/mb/ or /b/?

&

Voiced Stops or Nasal + Voiced Stops & d

/nd/ or /d/?

phonological features

247

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

8

l l /l/

Cf. Boisson (1994:219).

6 ® /rj/?

L2L l

/l.l/?

248

chapter six

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

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

phonological features

249

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

chapter six

250

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

10

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

phonological features

251

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

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

252

chapter six

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

phonological features

253

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

254

chapter six

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

phonological features

255

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

256

chapter six

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

There are, however, few examples.

phonological features

257

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

258

chapter six

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

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

phonological features

259

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

13

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

260

chapter six

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

phonological features

261

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

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

262

chapter six

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

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

phonological features -dGreek

ÿdiq-

Paraudigow

263 -r-

ÿd∞-

Greek

yriq-

parÿd∞-≤ E

“aÿdiq-≤ E

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

Saurigow “ayriq E Senurigow

prpwri∞? E rather prpÿri∞?

Spareudigow Semeuritow?

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

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

CHAPTER SEVEN

ANALYZING CARIAN INSCRIPTIONS

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

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

analyzing carian inscriptions

265

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

chapter seven

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

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

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

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

analyzing carian inscriptions

267

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

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

268

chapter seven

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

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

analyzing carian inscriptions

269

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

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

270

chapter seven

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

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

8

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

analyzing carian inscriptions

271

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

272

chapter seven

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

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

analyzing carian inscriptions

273

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

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

274

chapter seven

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

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

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

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

analyzing carian inscriptions

275

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

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

chapter seven

276

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

pdubi≤ mno≤ semw≤ mno≤

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

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

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

analyzing carian inscriptions

277

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

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

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

278

chapter seven

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

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

analyzing carian inscriptions

279

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

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

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

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

280

chapter seven

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

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

analyzing carian inscriptions

281

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

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

282

chapter seven

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

analyzing carian inscriptions

283

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

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

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

284

chapter seven

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

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

14

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

analyzing carian inscriptions

285

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

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

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

286

chapter seven

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

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

analyzing carian inscriptions

287

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

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

chapter seven

288

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

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

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

16

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

analyzing carian inscriptions

289

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

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

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

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

290

chapter seven

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

19

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

analyzing carian inscriptions

291

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

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

chapter seven

292

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

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

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

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

analyzing carian inscriptions

293

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

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

294

chapter seven

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

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

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

analyzing carian inscriptions

295

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

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

chapter seven

296

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

Greek version

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

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

25

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

analyzing carian inscriptions

297

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

298

chapter seven

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

26

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

analyzing carian inscriptions

299

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

27

Strabo XIV, 651.

300

chapter seven

the archeological remains on the summit of Ölemez Da *-nt≤ > -t). 2) The contrast between alos ∞arnos (E.Me 45) and alos-d ∞arnos-d (C.xx 2) leads me to think that -d could be a true case ending in the latter example. The (very hypothetical) interpretation of C.xx 2 outlined in Adiego (2000:153–155; see here p. 284) pointed implicitly to an analysis of alos-d ∞arnos-d as ablative (‘from Halikarnassos’). The ending could then be compared to Lycian -adi/edi CLuw. -ati, HLuw. -ari-/ati, but this comparison is complicated by the fact that in most cases of the origin or Greek transcription of Carian d that can be controlled, this letter reflects an original -nd- group, which would not be the case of -d from *-Vdi (see p. 247). Other analyses are also possible: one could connect -d with the likely preposition d (cf. Lycian ñte) in C.Ka 5 d=rual (see p. 254). However, one ought to assume then that d became a sort of case ending, the only possible explanation for the iteration alos-d ∞arnos-d.

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

chapter eight

320

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

ebe-Ø eb˜eñn˜e eb˜e

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

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

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

6

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

morphological features

321

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

322

chapter eight

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

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

morphological features

323

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

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

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

324

chapter eight

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

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

morphological features

325

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

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

CHAPTER NINE

THE GENERAL VOCABULARY AND THE PROPER NAMES

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

the general vocabulary and the proper names

327

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

328

chapter nine B. Proper Names

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

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

the general vocabulary and the proper names

329

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

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

a[rb]ikarm

“arwljat

wliat/wljat Uliatow, Oliatow

u≤ol-/w≤olUssvllow

u≤ol/w≤ol

Panuassiw

Others

Ekamuhw, Ejamuhw Xeramuhw

Saruassiw

idyri∞-

ydiq-/yriq/yri∞-/-yd∞

idmn(-s) idmuonidyes-

Aktadhmow

Others

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

prpwri∞? Senurigow

Saurigow “aÿdiq“ayriq“rwli-

pñnmnnPonmoonnow?

Panablhmiw

Par(a)ussvllow parÿd∞ paraeymparyri∞ parpeym Paraudigow

dw≤ol-, idu≤ol Idussvllow

Aktauassiw Aktaussvllow

-uassiw

“aru≤olSarus(s)vllow

dbiks-

piks-

wli/jat-

“(a)r-

“rquq-

dbikrm, dbkrm

pik(a)rm

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

Saussvllow

“arkbiom-

dquqIdagugow

quqGugow

quq-

“a-

Panamuhw

-muhw

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

paraibrel-

Imbarhldow kbjomKebivmow

kbiom/kbjom-

p(u)n-

Pan(a)-

par(a)-

(i)d-

Akta-

Ø

ibrel-

Carian Compound Proper Names

330 chapter nine

the general vocabulary and the proper names

331

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

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

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

332

chapter nine

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

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

the general vocabulary and the proper names

333

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

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

334

chapter nine

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

the general vocabulary and the proper names

335

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

8

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

336

chapter nine

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

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

the general vocabulary and the proper names

337

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

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

338

chapter nine

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

the general vocabulary and the proper names

339

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

340

chapter nine

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

the general vocabulary and the proper names

341

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

12

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

342

chapter nine

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

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

the general vocabulary and the proper names

343

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

344

chapter nine

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

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

CHAPTER TEN

CARIAN AS AN INDO-EUROPEAN ANATOLIAN LANGUAGE

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

346

chapter ten

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

1

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

carian as an indo-european anatolian language

347

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

CHAPTER ELEVEN

CARIAN GLOSSARY

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

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

carian glossary

349

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

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

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

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

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

350

chapter eleven

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

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

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

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

carian glossary

351

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

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

amt [ C.Tr 1

352

chapter eleven

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

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

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

carian glossary

353

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

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

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

354

chapter eleven

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

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

carian glossary

355

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

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

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

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

356

chapter eleven

Anatolian Storm-God, Hitt. Tarhu-, CLuw. Tarhunt-, Lyc. Trqqñt-, see below, trqude). A (possessive?) ending -os (= Luw. -a““a-?) has been added to the compound stem armo+trqd-. On this form, and for a different possible analysis, see Adiego-Debord-Varinlio o change (cf. otonosn and the preceding entry), a comparison with the Carian name Sarow could be feasible (for the adaptation of a Carian u-stem in Greek as a thematic one, cf. pau- = Paow).

“rb˚[-]sal E.Th 49 “rquq E.Lu 2 (“?rquq), C.xx 1 “rquq≤ E.Me 43a, E.Me 44a PN in nominative (“rquq) and in genitive (“rquq≤ ). A compound name formed by “r- = “ar-/Sar- (cf. “ar+u≤ol-Sar+ussvllow, “ar+kbiom, “r +wli-) + quq (= Gugow in Greek sources). Adiego (1993a:243). A name †arquq (Adiego 1993a:241, 1994a:35) does not exist: all the alleged examples are actually misreadings of “rquq.

420

chapter eleven

“rwli≤ E.Me 20 PN in genitive. Can be analysed as a compound “r- (cf. “r-quq) + wli-, very probably the same stem behind wliat/wljat (q.v.). Moreover, wlican be directly compared to the Isaurian name Oualiw (Zgusta KPN § 1134–3/4). Cf. also Pisidian Oliw, Zgusta KPN § 1086–1. See Adiego (1993a:243).

“ÿin≤ E.Me 38, E.SS 1 PN in genitive. -ÿin- recalls -yin in [--]ryin (the Carian form of the dynast name Idrieus), where it is analyzed as a form of the ethnic suffix -yn-/-ÿn (see s. v. [--]ryin

tab C.Ka 5 tamosi E.Ab 18, E.Ab 19, E.Ab 21 tamosi≤ E.Ab 20 PN in nominative (tamosi ) and genitive (tamosi≤ ). Vittmann suggests that we can recognise here the Egyptian name Pt˙-ms (literally ‘Ptah is born’), note particularly the old Akkadian adaptation, Ta¢ma““i. Vittmann (2001:43). However, note that there is no further evidence to support pt > t in Carian adaptations of foreign names.

taqbos E.xx 6 PN in s-ending, coordinated with “arnaj-s by means of sb, ‘and’. ta“ubt≤ E.Me 18a PN in genitive. tazomd [ C.Ki 1

carian glossary

421

tbridbd≤ E.Me 42 PN in genitive. tdu≤ol E.Me 24 PN in nominative. It belongs to the u≤ol-family of names, but the first element, td-, is not clear. It is perhaps to be related to ted-, ‘father’? Schürr (2003b:69, n. 1) sugggests considering initial t as a mistake and that instead we should simply recognize here the same name as dw≤ol-.

tebot E.Th 28 [teb%ot], E.Th 44 tebwnqmw E.Th 38 ted E.Me 38 Common noun in nominative: ‘father’. Compare CLuw. tàta/i-, Lyc. tedi-, Lyd. taada- ‘father’. Note the apparent umlaut *a > e as in Lycian, which implies an original stem in -i- or with i-mutation (*tadi- > *tedi- > ted-). Schürr (1996[98], already suggested in 1996a:68), Hajnal (1997a:210).

temazi C.Eu 2 terÿez≤ E.Me 4 PN in genitive. tkrabi≤ E.Me 37 PN in genitive. tksr E.Lu 7

422

chapter eleven

tmonks E.Th 41 tñu≤ C.Hy 1a PN in genitive. The name appears adapted in Greek as Tonnouw in one of the inscriptions that accompanies C.Hy 1. Adiego-Debord-Varinlio ue; Schürr 1992:141; 1993:172) is attractive, but ad hoc.

uejresi E.Si 2 wet≤ E.Me 13 PN in genitive. uiomln C.Ka 5 [ui ? ]omlã C.Ka 2 Cf. also yomln, very likely to be a variant. Probably a verbal finite form, corresponding in some way to Greek ¶doje, ‘It seemed good’, in the bilingual inscription C.Ka 5. However, the precise analysis remains unclear. An alternative view, suggested by Melchert, is to analyze it as a noun with the meaning ‘decree’. All the analyses take as a starting point the example of the bilingual C.Ka 5, contextually more clear (note moreover that the value of the final letter of the C.Ka 2 example, here transcribed as , is far from being assured).

carian glossary

427

Frei-Marek (1997:30) propose a third plural person of a past tense with the meaning ‘to decide’, whose subject would be kbidn, interpreted as ‘the Kaunians decided’. Both Hajnal (1997b:151–153) and Neumann (1998:30) suggest that the verb must correctly be ºmln, and try to connect the verbal stem ml- with different Hittite verbs: malai- ‘to approve’ (Neumann), mald- ‘solemnly pronounce, vow’. Similar analysis and etymological connection given in Adiego (2002:20). Eichner’s interpretation (only partially deducible from references apud Tremblay 1998:117, 123) concurs in isolating mln as a verb. He translates kbidn uio mln as ‘il plaît/plaisant à la communauté des Cauniens’ with uio interpreted as a dative sg (‘communauté’). For Melchert’s view, see Melchert (1998:37): kbidn uiomln ‘decree of Kaunos’ (kbidn: place name, plurale tantum, here in genitive). In a supplementary note, Melchert suggests very tentatively a connection of uiomln with CLuw. wayamman-, ‘cry, howl’, cf. also Hitt. wiyài-, ‘to cry’, assuming a semantic development comparable to Lat. proclamatio to ‘proclamation’. However, in Melchert (mdane), Hajnal’s view is preferred: he isolates mln and analyzes it as a preterite third plural from, *mVld-onto, to be related to Hitt. mald-.

uksi E.xx 7 PN in nominative (?) uksmu E.Me 2 wksmu≤ E.Me 36 PN in nominative (uksmu) and genitive (wksmu≤ ). Cf. the Anatolian names Ouajamoaw (Zgusta KPN § 1141–2, Isauria, Cilicia), Ouajamvw (Zgusta KPN § 11141–2, ibid.). This compound name therefore contains as a second element the well-known Anatolian stem muwa-, ‘strength, force’. It is very likely that the individual alluded to could be the same in both inscriptions. Neumann apud Adiego (1993a:236). On the identification of both individuals (both show the same father’s name), see Masson (1976:38), Ray (1982b:187). See here p. 336.

ula[----]ol C.St 1

428

chapter eleven

uliade C.St 2 PN in nominative. Carian adaptation of the Greek name OÈliãdhw, very widespread in Caria, probably due to its resemblance to the purely Carian name wliat (see the following entry). Adiego (1994a:39–40). On the name OÈliãdhw see Masson (1988b).

wliat E.xx 2 wljat E.Th 7 wljat≤ E.Mu 1 PN in nominative (wliat/wljat) and genitive (wljat≤ ). It is the Carian name that appears in Greek sources as Uliatow or Oliatow. Note the compound name “arwljat-. For the identification, see Adiego (1992a:31). The stem of the name has been connected with Hittite walliwalli-, ‘strong, powerful’ (also on the basis of other Anatolian names: Walawala, Walawali, and particularly Carian Oaloalow, about which see Adiego 1993b), cf. Adiego (1993a:238). See here p. 339.

umot2 C.Ka 2 un C.Ka 5 (2×) Tentatively analyzed as an infinitive in Adiego (1998a:22), see here on p. 299. Segmentation in both cases is not guaranteed!

undo[--]tl“ C.Ka 5 Acc. pl. c. of a stem undo[--]tl-. It seems to correspond to Greek eÈrg°taw ‘benefactors’ in the bilingual inscription C.Ka 5. Already proposed in Frei-Marek (1997:38), who added the important observation that the sequence ºtl- could represent a suffix of a nomen agentis comparable to Hitt. -talla-.

carian glossary

429

In Adiego (1998a:22) a segmentation un do[--]tl“ is suggested, taking un as an iteration of un (infinitive: ‘to make’) that appears just before (see preceding entry), so that only do[--]tl“ was the word corresponding to eÈrg°taw.

untri E.Ab 12, E.Ab 13 PN in nominative. wnuti≤ E.Me 31 Genitive. According to Vittmann, this is a title rather than a PN, given the good correspondence to Egyptian wnwtj (*[w6nùti/e] or *[wnùti/e]) ‘hour-observer, horoscoper, astronomer’. Vittmann rightly observes that the absence of an article in the adaptation of the Egyptian title fits well with the Egyptian syntactical practice, consisting of omitting the article when the title precedes the noun that it qualifies (in E.Me 31, wnuti≤ is the first word of the inscription, followed by the personal name kwar≤ ). Vittmann (2001:48–49). See here on p. 278. Vitmann is reasonably cautious in suggesting this interpretation, but the correspondence Carian wnuti = Egyptian wnwtj cannot simply be a matter of chance.

uodrou C.St 2 uodryia[ C.St 2 upa E.Me 13 upe E.Me 17, E.Me 4, E.Me 9, E.Me 22, E.Me 26, E.Me 38, E.Me 43a, E.Me 64a ([. . . u?]pe) wpe E.Me 36, E.Me 41 Common noun in nominative: ‘(funerary) stela’, or ‘tomb’. Its connection with ue, used in similar contexts, is not clear. Perhaps somehow related to Lycian xupa ‘tomb’?

430

chapter eleven

It is clear that upe/upa, independently of its precise meaning, makes reference to the object where the inscription stands (‘funerary stela’), or to its function (‘tomb’): see Meriggi (1980:36), followed by Adiego (1993a:208). E.Me 26 clearly supports this explanation, where upe appears accompanied by the demonstrative sa, ‘this’ (Adiego 1993a:209). Other interpretations (‘son’, Ray 1982b, followed by Kammerzell 1993; ‘I am’, Ray 1990a:72; a demonstrative, Ray ibid.) must be ruled out. Schürr has argued in favour of a generic meaning ‘stela’ instead of ‘tomb’, assuming that E.Me 4 is a ‘stèle de donation’, and that the Carian text does not seem to contain a typical onomastic formula (Schürr 1992:155). However, pace Schürr, this stela has clearly been re-used (there is no connection between the Egyptian and Carian texts), and the Carian inscription poses serious reading problems that do not allow us to identify the type of formula used. For upe/wpe vs. ue, Schürr has proposed a purely phonetic explanation, by resorting to an alleged tendency in Carian to drop p in intervocalic position (Schürr 1993:172; however, the evidence adduced is not convincing).

uqsi E.Me 20 PN in nominative. Perhaps a simple graphical variant of PN uksi-? urm≤ E.Bu 1 wrm≤ E.xx 7 PN in genitive. Note also the “vocalized” variant urom≤ in E.Bu 2, which possibly alludes to the same person as urm≤ in E.Bu 1. On the possible connection of this name to Luw. ura-, ‘great’, an adjective that enters into the formation of Anatolian proper names, see above p. 338.

ur#o E.Th 34 urom≤ E.Bu 2 PN in genitive. See urm≤, wrm≤. urq E.Lu 6

carian glossary

431

ursea∞k E.Bu 6 urs∞le≤ E.Me 15 PN in genitive. It appears transcribed as 3rskr in the Egyptian part of the bilingual inscription E.Me 15. Final º∞le of the stem has led us to imagine a Carian adaptation of a Greek name in -kl∞w (Neumann ers. comm. suggested ÉOrsikl∞w). The use of palatal ∞ for Greek k recalls Lyc. k (also a palatal) in Perikle < Gr. Perikl∞w.

urt E.Th 34 PN in nominative? u≤bzol C.Hy 1a PN in nominative. u≤ol E.Ab 35 u≤ol≤ C.Hy 1a (2×), C.St 2 w≤ol≤ E.Me 12 PN in nominative (u≤ol) and genitive (u≤ol≤/w≤ol≤ ), corresponding to the Carian name that appears as Ussvldow, Ussvllow in Greek sources (Zgusta KPN § 1629–7/8, Blümel KarPN:27); u≤ol- enters in composition with a series of prefixes (pn-u≤ol, “ar-u≤ol, id-u≤ol, etc.) For the identification u≤ol = Ussvllow, one of the most decisive steps in the Carian decipherment, see Ray (1981:160). About the possible etymology of the name, see here p. 344, n. 16.

usot C.Ke 1, C.Ke 2 On the doubts about these inscriptions, see p. 150.

432

chapter eleven

utnu≤ E.Ab 19, E.Ab 21 (u?tnu≤?) PN in genitive. uHbit C.Ka 2 u[. . .]ü≤q E.Th 12 ya C.Ka 8 ÿasd≤ E.Me 46a PN in genitive. Initial ÿasº recalls the ethnic name (?) yiasi-, yjas[i]- ‘Iasean’ (see s. v.); ÿ vs. yi/yj- finds a good parallel in y≤biks vs.- yi≤{∞}biks-. As for ºd-, it can be interpreted as a nt-suffix.

ybrs≤ C.Hy 1a PN in genitive. The stem ybrs- recalls the family of names in -(d)ybr/(d)ÿbr-, particularly smdÿbrs (see pp. 283, 314). It is possible that this indigenous name was identified with the Greek name ÑUbr°aw (Zgusta KPN § 1624), commonly used in Caria, in a process similar to that of wliat-OÈliãdhw. Adiego-Debord-Varinlio (. . .) g¤ssa går tª Kar«n fvnª l¤yow •rmhneÊetai. ka‹ nËn toÁw plak≈deiw ka‹ malak≈deiw l¤youw g¤ssa l°gousi. kÒon ‘sheep’

Scholia ad Il. XIV, 255: tÚ d¢ prÒbaton kÒon (ms. ko›on) ofl Kçrew Ùnomãzousin, ˜yen K«w ≤ poluyr°mmvn. Cf. Eustathius, ad. Hom. Il. XIV, 255: K«w (. . .) fas‹ d¢ toÁw Kãraw oÏtv kale›n tå prÒbata, ˜yen ka¤ ı n∞sow K«w …w poluyr°mmvn.

g°la ‘king’ soËa or soËan ‘tomb’

Stephan of Byzantium, s. v. Souãggela: Souãggela, pÒliw Kar¤aw, ¶nya ı tãfow ∑n toË KarÒw , …w dhlo› ka‹ toÎnoma. kaloËsi går ofl Kçrew soËan tÚn tãfon, g°lan d¢ tÚn basil°a.

1

Reading mãnda in the two best manuscripts of Stephan.

APPENDIX C

CARIAN NAMES IN GREEK SOURCES

A. Place Names (§: Zgusta KON) Aba § 2–1. Agan/a/ § 8. Aggvr/a/ § 65 Agorhsow § 10. Adhssow § 17–3. Ayumbra § 25. Alabanda § 37–4. Alikarnassow § 44–7. Alinda § 44–11. Alkizv § 45. Allianoi § 44–4. Allvss/ow/ § 50–2 Amnist/ow/ cf. § 820, Blümel

KarON:165. Amow § 60. Amuzvn, Amuzvn/a/ § 61–1. Amunand/a/ § 61–2. Andanow § 66–3. Anyemi § 71. Apodes[ Blümel KarON:165. Arara § 85–16. Ardur/a/ § 90–6. Arissoullh Blümel KarON:165. Arlai/a/ § 95–1. Arlissow § 95–2. Armel/a/ Blümel KarON:165. Armokodvka § 96–1. Arnaso/w/ § 97–3. Arpasa Lat. Harpasa § 98. Artoub/a/ § 100–2. Asshsow § 108–3. Babein § 122–3. Bargasa (var. Pargasa, Bargaza)

§ 135–1. Bargulia (later var. Barbulia) § 135–2. Barkok≈mh Blümel (KarON:166). Boll- § 158.

Bridaw § 173. Bubassow, Boubassow, Bubastow, Boubastow § 177. Bvnitv § 159–2. Bvrand/a/ § 181. Gerga § 202–1. Gordio/n/ § 215–3. D°dmasa § 250. Didassai § 263. Dundason § 281. Enn/a/ § 297. Eorma § 298. Erezow § 302–1. Ermapilow § 305–1. Yaruai § 335. Yasyar/a/ § 336. Yembrihmow, Yembrimow § 338. Yemhs(s)ow, Yemissow § 339–1. Yigrow § 343. Yudonow § 351. Yuhssow § 352–1. Yumbria § 353–3. Yussanouw § 355. Yvdasa Blümel (KarON:167). Iasow § 358. Idriaw § 363. Iduma § 364–1. Imbrow § 373–1. Io.d- § 378. Kaduih § 403–2. Kalbisso/w/ § 413. Kalunda § 414–2. Kandasa § 426–2. Kandhb/a/, Kendhb/a/ § 428 (s. v. Kanduba). Kanhbion § 430. Kaprima § 436.

carian names in greek sources Karbasuand/a/, Karpasuand/a/

§ 439–5. Karoura § 452–2. Karu/a/ § 454–3. Karuanda § 454–1. Kasa § 455–2 (s. v. †Kasaio/n/). Kasar/a/ § 455–7. Kastabo/w/ § 458–1. Kasvk/a/ § 461–1. Kasvlaba § 461–2. Kasvsso/w/ § 461–4. Ka.nar/a/ § 423–6. Kebialea § 471. Kelimara Blümel (KarON:169). Kemhsso/w/ Blümel (KarON:169). Kendhbocorow § 477. Kenendvlab/a/ § 479. Keni- § 480. Kepranow § 481. Keraskord/a/ § 486. Kecaro/w/ § 496–1. K¤dram/a/ § 501. Kildar/a/, Killar/a/ § 510. Kinduh, later var. Kunduh § 518–1. Kisariw § 522. Koarbvnd/a/ § 538–1. Koar(r)end/a/, Koarenz/a/ Koaranz/a/, Kvra(n)z/a/ § 538–2. Kodap/a/ § 541. Kodouvka § 544. Kozanata § 547. Koliorg/a/, Kolierg/a/ § 552. Koloura § 558–1 (not in Blümel!). Komurion § 658. Komvond/a/ § 568. Kond- Blümel (KarON:170). Konodvrkond/a/ § 575. Korell/a/ § 581. Kormoskvn/a/ § 583–4. Korrit/a/ § 589. Kostobalo/w/, Kvstobalo/w/ § 662. Kot- Blümel (KarON:171). Kot/a/ § 593–1. Kourb/a/ § 607. Crusa § 631. Kruassow § 632–2. Kuarda § 635.

457

Kubassow § 636. Kubim/a/ § 639–1. Kubisyih § 639–2. Kubliss/ow/, hublis/ow/ § 1396. Kullandow § 645–1. Kumniss/ow/ § 646. Kumvr/a/ § 647–2. Kuogrissiw § 649. Kuon § 652–2. Kuprand/a/ Blümel (KarON:172). Kurbasa § 651–2. Kuw § 652–1. Kushr/a/ § 653–1. Kusshliw § 653–2. Kvrai/vn/ § 659. Labara § 665. Labraunda (var. Larabiunda, Labranda, Labrainda, Labrauunda, Labrenda, Lambraunda Labraenda)

§ 666. Lagina, Lageina § 670 Lagnvk/a/ § 671. Laras/a/ § 688–2. Larb/a/ § 689. Latmow § 696. Leibo/w/ (rather a person or god name)

§ 704. Leukoid/a/ Blümel (KarON:173). Lec- (epiclesis ZeÁw Lecunow, Lecinow.

cf. also Lepsia, a Carian island) § 706. Lhcimandow (different variants for the inhabitants’ name: Lefsimãnioi, Lefs¤mandoi, LefsimandÇew, LefsumandÇew, LhcimandÇew) § 707. Lidh § 712–1. Lobold/a/ § 716. Lor.os/a/ § 720. Lurisso/w/ § 731. Lvm/a/ § 736. Lvndarg/a/ § 737. Lvndokvmh Blümel (KarON:173). Lvr/a/ § 738. Lvruma § 739. Lvsso/w/ § 740. Madnas/a/, M°dmasow, Medmassa/

Mednassa § 748. Mali/a/ § 756–2.

458

appendix c

Masanvrada § 782. Massvn/a/ § 787. Mastaura § 788. Maunn/a/, Maiunn/a/ § 793. Messaba § 804–1. Mhyasai § 806. Milhtow § 809. Mniesu/a/ § 819. MÒboll/a/, Mogola, Mvgla § 822. Mokold/a/ § 828. Monnara pl § 832. Monogissa § 833. Mosoun/a/ § 842–1. Mugissow § 858. Mudon- § 859. Muhss/ow/ § 863. Mulas(s)a (very late form: Milasa)

§ 861–1. Mundow § 862. Murshl/a/ § 866–1. Mursileia § 866–2. Mvss/on/ § 871. Naras/a/ § 885–3. Narisbar/a/ § 886. Naruandow § 888. NinÒh § 898–1. Nouik/a/ Blümel (KarON:175). Jerasso/w/ § 907. Ogond/a/ § 912. Ol/a/, Oul/a/ § 925. Oloss/iw/ § 930–2. Olumo/w/ § 932. Omb/a/ § 934. Ondoura § 935. Orbhla § 938–4. Oryondouvk/a/ § 941. Orsubli/a/ Blümel (KarON:176). Orsvll/a/ § 950. Otvrkond/a/ § 958. Ouasso/w/ § 966. Palgosvlda § 996. Panamara § 1000. Pandaj/a/ § 1001–2. Parableia (Parablia?) § 1005. Parembvrd/a/ § 1007. Parkall/a/ § 1009. Parpar- § 1012.

Pasand/a/, Pasada § 1015. Passala § 1018. Patarous/a/ § 1022–3. Pedanass/ow/, Pedanass/ow/ § 1028,

1059–2. Peig°lasow § 1031. Peldek-ìt- § 1035. Phgasa § 1053–1. Phdasa, Pidasa § 1054–1. Piginda § 1058–1. Pidvssow, Pidossus § 1059–2. Pisymoi § 1065. Pisiliw § 1066–1. Pisuh § 1066–4. Pitaon, Pitaium § 1067–3. Pladas/a/, Platas/a/ § 1068, 1072. Plamow § 1070. Plarasa § 1071. Pluar/a/ § 1080. Poluara § 1083–1. Pounomou/a/ § 1093–1. Prinassow § 1101–1. Proposs/ow/ Blümel (KarON:178). Pruondr- Blümel (KarON:178). Purindow § 1114–1. Purnow § 1114–2. Pustow § 1116. Salei/a/ § 1148–2. Salmakiw § 1150–1. Samn/h/ § 1153. Samulia § 1152–2. Saranso/w/ § 1165–2. Sasanda § 1176–2. Siana § 1261–1. Sikim/a/ Blümel (KarON:178). Sind/a/ § 1219–2. Sindhssow § 1219–4 Sinuri § 1222. Solo/a/ § 1244–1. Solvn/a/ § 1244–3. Sparz/a/ § 1255. Suana § 1261–1. Suaggela, Souaggela, Sfaggela (later Yeaggela, Theangela) § 1261–2. Suarbeu[ § 1262. Suista § 1267. Surna § 1272.

carian names in greek sources Svbala § 1274. Svssow Blümel (KarON:179). Tabai § 1277–1. Tabarniw § 1277–5. Talagr/a/ § 1284. Tapass/oi/ § 1294. Taramptow § 1295. Tarban/a/ § 1297–1. Tarbetv (?, or rather a personal name?)

Blümel (KarON:179). Tarkondar/a/ § 1299. Tarm/ow/ (?, or rather a personal

name?) § 1300. Tezhra (?, or rather a personal name?)

§ 1310. Teleseitiw § 1312. Telmhssow, Telmessow, Telmissow, Telemessow, Telmisum § 1314. Temoesso/ow/ Blümel (KarON:180). Tendhba § 1318. Termera, Telmera, Termera § 1320–2. Terssvgass/ow/ Blümel (KarON:181). Tnussow § 1347. Traldeiw, Tralleiw, Trallis § 1361–1. Trara § 1362. Trobaliss/ow/ § 1368. Truban/a/ § 1374. Tuennesso/w/ § 1379. Tumnhssow § 1384–5. Tumnow § 1384–4.

459

Ualvka § 1393. Uarbesu/a/ § 1394. Ubliss/ow/ § 1396. Ugas(s)ow 1397. Udai, Kudai § 1398–2. Udis(s)ow § 1398–4. Uyubir/a/ § 1400. Uissow § 1402. Ulim/a/ § 1404–1. Ullarima § 1404–2. Ullouala § 1404–3. Umess/ow/ § 1405. Urvmow, Kurvmow, Eurvmow, Eurvpow

§ 1412. Usarbid/a/ § 1414. Ussome[ Blümel (KarON:182). Utarm/ow/ Blümel (KarON:182). Xalkhtvr, Xalkhetorew Blümel

(KarON:182). Vlasha § 1443. Vndr/a/ § 1444. Vnzvssuaso/w/ § 1445. Vspraonno/w/ § 1447. ]akondia Blümel (KarON:182). ]eadovka § 1450. ]erra Blümel (KarON:182). ]hvka § 1457. ]kermu.ion Blümel (KarON:182). ]nirea Blümel (KarON:182).

B. Personal Names (§; Zgusta KPN) Aba, Abaw, Abbaw § 1–1/2/3/5. Abersi § 5. Ada § 15–1. Ayuasiw § 128. Akarmomeldvw § 27. Aktadhmow § 38–1. Aktauassiw § 38–2. Aktaussvllow § 38–3. Alasta § 42–1. Alganiw § 44. Alleaw § 52–3. Amiaw, Ammiaow, Ammh, Ammin, Ammeiaw,

etc. § 57.

Andarsvw § 59–4. Appa, Apfia, Apfiaw, Apfion, Apfianow, Afia, Afion, Affion, etc. § 66. Apoukvw § 79. Arbhs(s)iw § 85–2/3. Arduberow § 86–6. Ariauow § 89–2. Aridvliw § 89–4. Arlissiw § 95–1/2. Arlivmow § 95–3. Arris(s)iw § 106–1/2. Arshliw § 107–12. Artaow Blümel (KarPN:11).

460

appendix c

Arthumow § 109. Artimhw Arteimhw § 108–4/6. Artuassiw, Aryuassiw § 110–1/2. Aruassiw § 111. Arvsiw Blümel (KarPN:11). Atthw § 119–10. Beryaw § 162–1. Berrablviow Blümel (KarPN:11). Boivmow § 178–4. Bruajiw, Bruassiw § 196–1/2. Brvlvw § 197. Geiw § 210–3. Glouw § 224. Gugow Blümel (KarPN:12). Dandvmow § 251. Daru . . . ow § 254. Deibow § 264. Dersvmanhw Blümel (KarPN:12). Dersvw Blümel (KarPN:12). Dersv . . . tiw § 275. Ekamuhw Blümel (KarPN:12). Ekatomnvw (more recent variants: Ekatomnvn, Ekatomnow) § 325–1/2/3. Ejamuhw § 340–2. Ermapiw § 355–21. Zermeduberow (var. Jermedurow)

Blümel (KarPN:13). Zonzolow § 390. Yekuilow § 417. Youw Blümel (KarPN:14). Yualdiw § 438. Yussow § 445–1 Ibanvlliw § 450. Idagugow § 451–4. Idakow § 451–5. Idbelaw Blümel (KarPN:14). Ideghbow Blümel (KarPN:14). Idmamu . . . ow § 452–6. ÉIdrieÊw § 453. Idubl[ § 454. Idussvllow Blümel (KarPN:15). Il[.]uthw § 1678. Imbarhldow § 467. Imbarsiw, Imbras(s)iw § 469–3/4/5. Imbrhw § 469–9. Innivn § 471–8. Indow § 473–1.

Isedum.xow § 485. Isemenda . . . ow § 486. Iublhsiw § 494. I . . . uagow § 1679. Kay.divn § 1680. Kakraw § 509–1. Kalbalaw § 512. Karama . . . ow § 531. Karjaw § 539. Karreiw § 540–3. Karusvldow § 544. Kasballiw § 546. Kasbvlliw § 545. Kashsiw § 547–1. Kaifenh § 558. Kbondiassiw § 566. Kbvdhw § 567–1. Kebivmow Blümel (KarPN:16). Keldnassiw § 573. Kemptuw § 575. *Kendhbhw § 576–9. Ketambissiw § 593. Kindacow (KarPN:16). Kinjimow § 617. Kit.essvw (KarPN:16). Koboldvow (KarPN:16). Koibilow § 652–1. Koidvw § 653. Kolaldiw, Kulaldiw (KarPN:17). Koldobaw § 660. Kolvldow § 661. Kondalow § 676–1. Kondmalaw § 676–2. Kondo[ § 676–5. Korollow (KarPN:17). Korriw § 686–3. Koshtiow (KarPN:17). Kosinaw § 703. Kostvlliw § 705. Kotbelhmow (KarPN:17) cf. Kutbelhmiw. Kotobalvw (KarPN:17). Kouldoiw § 727. Kourvn § 737–5. Ktouboldow § 761. Kuaremow § 764. Kuatbhw § 765. Kulaldiw (KarPN 18) cf. Kolaldiw.

carian names in greek sources Kutbelhmiw § 771. Kutpiw § 772. Kvbhw § 774–1. Kvglvw § 775. Latarshw § 799. Lugdamiw § 834. Lujhw § 836. Makow § 848–1. Malosvow (KarPN:18). Manhw § 858–1. Manitaw § 864–1. Mareuw § 873–6. Marow § 873–13. Massarabiw § 880–2. Matiw § 882–6. Mausvllow § 885–1–6. Memakow Blümel (KarPN:19). Metebiw Blümel (KarPN:19). Mindrvn § 921. Minnaw, Minnion, Minniw, Minnh, Minnivn, Minnow, etc. § 922. Miskow/Miskvw § 929–2. Mohnnow § 941. Moiw § 942. Mokollhw § 944–1. Molhw § 946–1. Monnhw § 959. Mosraiow Blümel (KarPN:19). Mouzeaw § 980–2. Naduw § 1008a. Nana, Nanh, Nanaw, Nannh, Nannion, Nanniw, Nannixow, Nannow, Nannv, etc. Narbaw § 1013. Neterbimow Blümel (KarPN:20). Nonnh, Nonnow, etc. Nutar Blümel (KarPN:20). Nvtrassiw Blümel (KarPN:20). Oaloalow § 1134–2 (cf. Adiego 1993b). Oa3a3iw § 1145–8. Obrokaw Blümel (KarPN:20). Oletaw § 1085–1. Oliatow § 1085–2 Olohtow Blümel (KarPN:20). Opinaw § 1096–2. Ordomaw § 1104–3. Oridhumiw Blümel (KarPN:20). Ortassiw § 1114–2.

461

O(?sa)rthumow § 1114–3. Oseaw § 1121. Ouvkhw § 1180. Pagadow § 1186. Paktuhw § 1193. Patkuvlliw Blümel (KarPN:21). Paktuiskow Blümel (KarPN:21). Panablhmiw § 1197–3. Panamuhw § 1197–6. Panuassiw § 1198. Paow Blümel (KarPN:21). Papaw, Papiaw, Papow, etc. § 1199. Paparivn § 1200–2. Paraskvw § 1203–3. Paraudigow § 1203–5. Paraussvllow, Paraussvldow, Parussvldow § 1203–6/8. Pargistaw § 1205. Parmumiw Blümel (KarPN:22). Parnow § 1207. Paruv § 1212–2. Paruinna § 1212–1. Passidhrow § 1219. Pedvldow § 1232. Pelaow Blümel (KarPN:22). Peldemiw, Peldemvw

§ 1234–1. Peldhkow § 1234–2. Pel(l)ekvw § 1234–3/4. Pelkisiw § 1235. Perbilaw § 1239. Perignaw/Petignaw § 1241. Phdisaw § 1249. Pigassvw Blümel (KarPN:22). Pigrhw § 1255–6. Pijvdarow § 1263–3. Pirvmiw § 1266. Pisindhliw § 1268. Pisku[ Blümel (KarPN:23). Pis.nvw Blümel (KarPN:23). Pitakolow (not †Gitakolow, Zgusta

§ 221!) Blümel (KarPN:23). Pittaw § 1270–1. Plouw § 1277–1. Ponmoonnow Blümel (KarPN:23). Ponusvllow § 1189. Pormounow Blümel (KarPN:23).

462

appendix c

Purkeaw/Purkehw Saggotbhriw Blümel (KarPN:23). Saggvw § 1369. Samassiw § 1361. Sampaktuhw, Sambaktuw § 1364–1. Samvow § 1367–1. Samvuow § 1367–2. Sanamvw Blümel (KarPN:24). Sanortow § 1371. Sarow § 1377. Saruassiw Blümel (KarPN:24). Sarussvllow § 1378–1/2. Saskow/Saskvw § 1381. Sassvmow § 1379–6. Saurigow Blümel (KarPN:24). Sausvllow Blümel (KarPN:24). Seikilow § 1390. Semeuritow Blümel (KarPN:25). Senurigow Blümel (KarPN:25). Seskvw § 1410–1. Sesvlhw § 1411. Sibilvw § 1416–1. Siduatow Blümel (KarPN:25). Sidulhmiw § 1422. Silbow § 1426. Skoaranow Blümel (KarPN:25). Spareudigow § 1466. Sueskurebow § 1477. S[u]s[k]h[w] (?)Blümel (KarPN:25). Suskvw § 1486. Svmnhw Blümel (KarPN:25).

Tarmow Blümel (KarPN:25). Tarv § 1515–2. Tata, Tatarion, Tataw, Tateiw, Tath, Tatia, Tatiaw, Tation, etc. § 1517. Tausaw § 1520. Tendessiw § 1534. Territow § 1538. Tiaimow § 1533. Tobororow § 1577. Tounobow § 1592. Totoliw § 1598. Trus(s)hw § 1608. Truvlhw/Truvlow § 1609. Tumnhw/Tumnow § 1615. Uarkelaw Blümel (KarPN:26). Uyesmaw Blümel (KarPN:26). Uyhw Blümel (KarPN:26). Uliatow § 1627. Urgaw Blümel (KarPN:26). Urgilow Blümel (KarPN:26). Urgosvw Blümel (KarPN:26). Ussaldow Blümel (KarPN:26). Ussaldvmow/Usseldvmow § 1629–4/6. Ussiw § 1629–1. Ussisiw § 1629–2. Ussvihw/Ussviow § 1629–3. Ussvldow, Ussvllow, Ussvlow

§ 1629–7/8. Xasbvw Blümel (KarPN:27). Xhramuhw (cf. § 1639).

Acephalic Forms (Blümel KarPN 27–28) ]alvldow ]anvrremow ]ketaw ]kokvw ]ldoudhw ]llv[do]w ]omvliw ]ramow ]rgigougou

]rouessiw ]ruassiw ]teieow ]toldiw ]uassiw ]ujki ]vldow ]vllow ]vrlemiw

carian names in greek sources

463

River Names Idumow Tischler (1977:66). Indos, (var.) Lindow (an erroneus

form?) Tischler (1977:67) cf. KON § 375. Kalbiw Tischler (1977:69). Kenivw (var. Kinevw) Tischler (1977:78). Kitvn (var. Keitvn) Tischler (1977:80–81) Kubersow Tischler (1977:85–86), KON § 639–4).

Maiandrow Tischler (1977:93–94), Cf. KON § 752. Marsuaw Tischler (1977:96–97). Morsunow Tischler (1977:102). Salmakiw (a source) Tischler (1977:128).

Telmedius(?) Tischler (1977:143–144) Timelhw, Teimelhw Tischler (1977:143, 148). Cf. KON § 1338. Ubando/w/ Tischler (1977:64) Cf. KON § 1395.

God Names in Literary Sources ÖImbramow, var. ÖImbrasow (= Hermes; St. Byz. s. v. ÖImbrow, Scholia vetera in

Theogoniam v. 338, and Eustathius, Commentarii ad Iliadem XIV, 281)

Mãsariw (= Dyonisus; St. Byz. s. v. Mãstaura) ÉOsog«a (= Zenoposeidon; Strabo XIV,

659, Pausanias VIII; 10, 4).

APPENDIX D CONCORDANCES

A. Present book

Former editions

EGYPT Sais E.Sa 1 E.Sa 2

MY L MY M

Memphis E.Me 1 E.Me 2 E.Me 3 E.Me 4 E.Me 5 E.Me 6 E.Me 7 E.Me 8 E.Me 9 E.Me 10 E.Me 11 E.Me 12 E.Me 13 E.Me 14 E.Me 15 E.Me 16 E.Me 17 E.Me 18 E.Me 19 E.Me 20 E.Me 21 E.Me 22 E.Me 23 E.Me 24 E.Me 25 E.Me 26 E.Me 27 E.Me 28 E.Me 29 E.Me 30 E.Me 31

MY A MY B MY D MY E MY F MY G MY H MY K M 1 M 2 M 3 M 4 M 5 M 6 M 7 M 8 M 9 M 10 M 11 M 12 M 13 M 14 M 15 M 16 M 17 M 18 M 19 M 20 M 21 M 22 M 23

E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

M 24 M 25 M 26 M 27 M 28 M 29 M 30 M 31 M 32 M 33 M 34 M 35 M 36 M 37 M 38 M 39 M 40 M 41 M 42 M 43 M 44 M 45 M 45a M 46 M 47 M 47a M 47b M 48 M 48a M 48b M 48c M 48d M 49 Abusir Kammerzell *180

concordances Abydos E.Ab 1 E.Ab 2 E.Ab 3 E.Ab 4 E.Ab 5 E.Ab 6 E.Ab 7 E.Ab 8 E.Ab 9 E.Ab 10 E.Ab 11 E.Ab 12 E.Ab 13 E.Ab 14 E.Ab 15 E.Ab 16 E.Ab 17 E.Ab 18 E.Ab 19 E.Ab 20 E.Ab 21 E.Ab 22 E.Ab 23 E.Ab 24 E.Ab 25 E.Ab 26 E.Ab 20 E.Ab 21 E.Ab 22 E.Ab 23 E.Ab 27 E.Ab 28 E.Ab 29 E.Ab 30 E.Ab 31 E.Ab 32 E.Ab 33 E.Ab 34 E.Ab 35 E.Ab 36 E.Ab 37 E.Ab 38 E.Ab 39 E.Ab 40 E.Ab 41 E.Ab 42 E.Ab 43

Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab

1 F 2a F 2b F 3b F 3c F 4 F 5a F 5b F 5c F 6 F 7 F 8a F 8b F 9 F 10 F 11 F 12 F 13a F 13b F 14 F 15 F 16 F 17 F 18 F 19 F 20 F 14 F 15 F 16 F 17 F 21 F 22 F 24 F 25 F 26a F 26b F 27 F 28 F 29 F 8 Y 9 Y 15 Y 26 Y 27 Y 28 Y 29 Y 34 Y

465

Thebas E.Th 1 E.Th 2 E.Th 3 E.Th 4 E.Th 5 E.Th 6 E.Th 7 E.Th 8 E.Th 9 E.Th 10 E.Th 11 E.Th 12 E.Th 13

Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th

Luxor E.Lu 1 E.Lu 2 E.Lu 3 E.Lu 4 E.Lu 5 E.Lu 6 E.Lu 7

G G G G G G G

Murwàw E.Mu 1

¥aba (1971), nº 196

Silsilis E.Si 1 E.Si 2 E.Si 3 E.Si 4 E.Si 5 E.Si 6 E.Si 7 E.Si 8 E.Si 9 E.Si 10 E.Si 11

Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si

Abu Simbel E.AS 1 E.AS 2 E.AS 3 E.AS 4 E.AS 5

47 ” 48 ” 49 ” 50 ” 51 ” 52 ” 53 ” 54 ” 55 ” 56 ” 57+58 ” 59 ” 60 ”

19 21 22 23 24 25 26

39 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62

F F F F F F F F F F F

AS 1 AS 2 AS 3 AS 4 + Lepsius Kar 4 AS 5

appendix d

466 E.AS E.AS E.AS E.AS

6 7 8 9

Buhen E.Bu 1 E.Bu 2 E.Bu 3 E.Bu 4 E.Bu 5 E.Bu 6

AS 6 AS 7 AS 8 Lepsius Kar 2

M M M M M M

Gebel Sheik Suleiman E.SS 1 72 F Unknown origin, likely to be from Egypt E.xx 1 MY C E.xx 2 MY I E.xx 3 MY a E.xx 4 MY b E.xx 5 MY c E.xx 6 4 ” E.xx 7 Lion

50 51 52 53 54 55

CARIA Tralles C.Tr 1 C.Tr 2

D 1 D 2

Stratonikeia C.St 1 C.St 2

D 12 36*

Alabanda and surroundings C.Al 1 D 13

Halikarnassos C.Ha 1 33*

Euromos C.Eu 1 C.Eu 2

Didyma C.Di 1

21*

Iasos C.Ia 1 C.Ia 2 C.Ia 3 C.Ia 4 C.Ia 5 C.Ia 6 C.Ia 7

20a* 20b* 38a* 38b* 47* 48* Berti-Innocente 2005

Keramos C.Ke 1 C.Ke 2

39a* 39b*

Kaunos C.Ka 1 C.Ka 2 C.Ka 3 C.Ka 4 C.Ka 5 C.Ka 6

D 14 D 16 28* 30* 44* 45*

Kindye C.Kn 1 Hyllarima C.Hy 1

Mylasa C.My 1

D 3 D 8

D 6

D 7 + AdiegoDebordVarinlio