Institute for Linguistic Studies

588 Pages·2008·4.36 MB·English

РОССИЙСКАЯ АКАДЕМИЯ НАУК

Институт лингвистических исследований

RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
Institute for Linguistic Studies
AC TA

LINGUISTICA

PETROPOLITANA

TRANSACTIONS
OF THE INSTITUTE FOR LINGUISTIC STUDIES

Vol. IV, part 1

Edited by N. N. Kazansky

St. Petersburg
Nauka
2008
AC TA

LINGUISTICA

PETROPOLITANA

ТРУДЫ
ИНСТИТУТА ЛИНГВИСТИЧЕСКИХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ

Том IV, часть 1

Отв. редактор Н. Н. Казанский

Санкт-Петербург
Наука
2008
RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
INSTITUTE FOR LINGUISTIC STUDIES

C O L L O Q U I A

CLASSICA ET INDOGERMANICA
IV
STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY
AND INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES

Edited by N. N. Kazansky

Saint Petersburg
Nauka
2008
РОССИЙСКАЯ АКАДЕМИЯ НАУК
ИНСТИТУТ ЛИНГВИСТИЧЕСКИХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ
НАУЧНЫЙ СОВЕТ РАН ПО КЛАССИЧЕСКОЙ ФИЛОЛОГИИ,
СРАВНИТЕЛЬНОМУ ИЗУЧЕНИЮ ЯЗЫКОВ И ЛИТЕРАТУР

C O L L O Q U I A

CLASSICA ET INDOGERMANICA
IV
К
ЛАССИЧЕСКАЯ ФИЛОЛОГИЯ
И ИНДОЕВРОПЕЙСКОЕ ЯЗЫКОЗНАНИЕ

Под редакцией Н. Н. Казанского

Санкт-Петербург
Наука
2008
УДК 80/81
ББК 81.2
А 38
COLLOQUIA CLASSICA ET INDO -GERMANICA – IV / Отв. ред.
Н. Н. Казанский. СПб.: Наука, 2008. – 588 с. (Acta linguistica
Petropolitana. Труды ИЛИ РАН. Т. IV. Ч. 1)
Утверждено к печати
Институтом лингвистических исследований РАН

РЕДАКЦИОННАЯ КОЛЛЕГИЯ «ACTA LINGUISTICA PETROPOLITANA. ТРУДЫ ИЛИ РАН»:
Н. Н. Казанский (председатель),
А. В. Бондарко, Н. Б. Вахтин, М. Д. Воейкова, Е. В. Головко,
С. Ю. Дмитренко, М. Л. Кисилиер (секретарь), С. А. Мызников,
А. П. Сытов, В. С. Храковский.

РЕДАКЦИОННАЯ КОЛЛЕГИЯ ВЫПУСКА:
Н. Н. Казанский (отв. редактор), Л. Г. Герценберг, А. В. Грошева,
Е. Р. Крючкова, И. М. Стеблин-Каменский, А. П. Сытов.

ИЗДАНИЕ ОСУЩЕСТВЛЕНО ПРИ ФИНАНСОВОЙ ПОДДЕРЖКЕ
РГНФ – грант № 06-04-00471а «Модели описания диахронических
процессов и проблемы индоевропейского сравнительного языкознания»
(рук. Н. Н. Казанский),
и грант № 08-04-00157а «Этимологический словарь языка фарси»
(рук. И. М. Стеблин-Каменский),
РФФИ – грант 08-06-00122 «Сложные слова (композиты) и формульные
словосочетания в праиндоевропейском языке (составление
компьютерной базы данных)»
(рук. Н. Н. Казанский),
гранта № НШ-1319.2008.6 Президента РФ
«Школа индоевропейского сравнительно-исторического языкознания»
(рук. Л. Г. Герценберг, Н. Н. Казанский)
и
Программы фундаментальных исследований Президиума РАН
«Адаптация народов и культур к изменениям природной среды,
социальным и техногенным трансформациям»

ISBN 978-5-02-025540 © Коллектив авторов, 2008
© ИЛИ РАН, 2008

9 785020 255401
Я
ЗЫКОВАЯ СИТУАЦИЯ

И ЯЗЫКОВАЯ ТРАДИЦИЯ
Г М А
В РЕЦИИ И АЛОЙ ЗИИ

rR

Ilya Yakubovich

HITTITE-LUVIAN BILINGUALISM
AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANATOLIAN HIEROGLYPHS

1. The Anatolian hieroglyphic script represents a mixed syllabic and
logographic system, which received a detailed synchronic treatment in
Hawkins 20031. It was used for monumental inscriptions in the Hittite
Empire of the Late Bronze Age and the Neo-Hittite states of the Early
Iron Age, and also for letters and administrative records in the latter
period. Accordingly, the term “Hittite hieroglyphs” was widely used in
the late nineteenth /early twentieth century and still enjoys limited
currency in the modern scholarly literature2. But as the understanding of
the script improved, it gradually became clear that it was mostly used not
for writing Hittite / Nesite, the main language of the cuneiform archives
of the Hittite capital Hattusa, but for writing Luvian, a related Anatolian
language that is otherwise attested through magic incantations and
isolated words embedded in Hittite cuneiform texts. For those scholars
who regarded Luvian as a provincial vernacular spoken in certain
peripheral areas of the Hittite state, the hieroglyphic script must likewise
have been imported to Hattusa from elsewhere. Thus, Güterbock (1956b:
518) answered the question “von wem und für welche Spache wurde die
Bilderschrift entwickelt” with “von den Luwiern, für das Luwische, in
Luwischen Landen” 3.

1 Subject to the usual disclaimers. I am grateful to Th. Van den Hout (Chicago),
H. Craig Melchert (Los Angeles), Zs. Simon (Budapest) and O. Soysal
(Chicago) for their remarks on the substance of this paper, to A. Butts and D.
Nanos, who helped me to improve its style, and to the lively audience of the
VIIth International Congress of Hittitology (Çorum, Turkey, August 2008),
where it was first presented.
2 It is characteristic that Emmanuel Laroche, who invested considerable efforts
into proving a close relationship between Cuneiform Luvian and Hieroglyphic
Anatolian, chose the name Les hiéroglyphes hittites for his catalogue of
Anatolian hieroglyphs (Laroche 1969). One can say in Laroche’s defense that
the title of his work did not directly refer to the language rendered by Anatolian
hieroglyphs, but perhaps conveyed the idea of “hieroglyphs used in the Hittite
Empire and Neo-Hittite states”. Nevertheless, one must recognize that Laroche
1969, still remaining a useful research tool, has an enormous impact on the
proliferation of the misleading term “Hieroglyphic Hittite”.
3 According to Güterbock 1956a, the distribution between Hittite and Luvian-
speaking areas was mainly geographic. When he writes that “Hittite was not
only the written, but also the spoken language in the Old Kingdom, and
Ilya Yakubovich
This issue, however, can be revisited in light of recent advances made
in the understanding of the sociolinguistic situation in the Hittite capital.
Rieken’s (2006) discussion of structural interference between Hittire and
Luvian, Melchert’s (2005) analysis of Luvian lexical borrowings in
Hittite, and van den Hout’s (2006) scrutiny of Luvian foreign words in
the Hittite texts composed in Hattusa converge in the implication that
Luvian was a spoken language alongside Hittite in the heart of the Hittite
Empire. This opens the possibility that the Anatolian hieroglyphic script
evolved in Hattusa, in the mixed Hittite and Luvian environment. In what
follows, I will elaborate on this hypothesis by adducing both external
evidence, namely information regarding the genres and dating of the first
hieroglyphic inscriptions, and internal evidence, namely the analysis of
acrophonic derivation yielding the syllabic values of individual
Anatolian characters.
Section 2 of the present paper introduces the stadial approach to the
development of the hieroglyphic script, stressing its continuity in the
central part of Anatolia. Section 3 dwells on the arguments adduced for
the western Anatolian origin of the script and shows their inconclusive
character. Section 4 addresses the methodological aspects of the
derivational analysis of syllabic signs, while Section 5 contains the
systematic tabulation of syllabograms with transparent “etymologies”,
showing that both Hittite-based and Luvian-based acrophony played part
in their in their phonetization. The concluding Section 6 discusses the
likely reasons for the simultaneous use of the hieroglyphic script and the
cuneiform in the Hittite Empire and provides a tentative scenario of how
this writing system was secondarily associated with the Luvian language.

2. The development of the Anatolian hieroglyphic script represented a
long process. Stage I of this development features pictographic
representations on the Anatolian cylinder seals of the Colony period
(twentieth through eighteenth centuries BC), some of which formally
resemble the later Anatolian signs. Thus Mouton 2002 has cogently
argued for the association of the stag and the thunderbolt with the
Protective God and the Storm-god, as depicted on the “Cappadocian”
glyptics. Later, both signs evolved to become the logographic
representations of the respective deities. In other cases, one can posit a
formal link between certain elements of the glyptic iconography, which
have uncertain associations, and the later hieroglyphic signs. For
example, the same author discussed the connection between the “rod
with balls” appearing as an attribute of gods and humans on the early

remained the spoken language in the central area even in the New Kingdom” (p.
138), it is clear from the general context of this statement that Hittite, according
to him, was the main spoken language in the respective areas.
10