TheAnatolian languages are anextinct branch ofIndo-European languages that were spoken inAnatolia. The best known Anatolian language isHittite, which is considered the earliest-attested Indo-European language.
The Anatolian branch is often considered the earliest to have split from theProto-Indo-European language, from a stage referred to either asIndo-Hittite or "Archaic PIE"; typically a date in themid-4th millennium BC is assumed for the evolution of this branch, followed by a migration into Anatolia in the early 2nd millenium BC. Under theKurgan hypothesis, there are two possibilities for how the early Anatolian speakers could have reached Anatolia: from the north via theCaucasus, or from the west, via theBalkans;[1] the latter is considered somewhat more likely by Mallory (1989), Steiner (1990), and Anthony (2007). Statistical research by Quentin Atkinson and others usingBayesian inference andglottochronological markers favors anIndo-European origin in Anatolia, though the method's validity and accuracy are subject to debate, and this is a minority view concerning the urheimat of PIE.[2][3]
It has been theorized thatCernavodă culture, together with theSredny Stog culture, was the source of Anatolian languages and introduced them to Anatolia through the Balkans after Anatolian split from the Proto-Indo-Anatolian language, which some linguists and archaeologists place in the area of the Sredny Stog culture.[4][5][6] Petra Goedegebuure suggests Anatolian separated from PIE in the north by 4500 BC and had arrived in Anatolia by about 2500 -2000 BC, via a migration route through the Caucasus.[7]
The phonology of the Anatolian languages preserves distinctions lost in its sister branches of Indo-European. Famously, the Anatolian languages retain the PIElaryngeals in words such as Hittiteḫāran- (cf.Ancient Greekὄρνῑς,Lithuanianeręlis,Old Norseǫrn, PIE*h₃éron-) and Lycian𐊜𐊒𐊄𐊀χuga (cf.Latinavus,Old Prussianawis,Archaic Irishᚐᚃᚔ (avi), PIE*h₂éwh₂s). The three dorsal consonant series of PIE also remained distinct in Proto-Anatolian and have different reflexes in the Luwic languages, e.g. Luwian where*kʷ >ku-,*k >k-, and*ḱ >z-.[11] The three-way distinction in Proto-Indo-European stops (i.e.*p,*b,*bʰ) collapsed into afortis-lenis distinction in Proto-Anatolian, conventionally written as/p/ vs./b/. In Hittite and Luwian cuneiform, the lenis stops were written as single voiceless consonants while the fortis stops were written as doubled voiceless, indicating ageminated pronunciation. By the first millennium, the lenis consonants seem to have beenspirantized in Lydian, Lycian, and Carian.[12]
The Proto-Anatolian laryngeal consonant *H patterned with the stops in fortition and lenition and appears as geminated-ḫḫ- or plain-ḫ- in cuneiform. Reflexes of *H in Hittite are interpreted as pharyngeal fricatives and those in Luwian as uvular fricatives based on loans in Ugaritic and Egyptian, as well as vowel-coloring effects. The laryngeals were lost in Lydian but became Lycian𐊐 (χ) and Carian𐊼 (k), both pronounced [k], as well aslabiovelars —Lycian𐊌 (q), Carian𐊴 (q)—when labialized. Suggestions for their realization in Proto-Anatolian includepharyngeal fricatives, uvular fricatives, oruvular stops.[13][14]
Anatolian morphology is considerably simpler than other early Indo-European (IE) languages. The verbal system distinguishes only two tenses (present-future and preterite), two voices (active andmediopassive), and two moods (indicative andimperative), lacking thesubjunctive andoptative moods found in other old IE languages likeTocharian,Sanskrit, and Ancient Greek. Anatolian verbs are also typically divided into two conjugations: themi conjugation andḫi conjugation, named for their first-person singular present indicative suffix in Hittite. While themi conjugation has clear cognates outside of Anatolia, theḫi conjugation is distinctive and appears to be derived from a reduplicated or intensive form in PIE.[11]
The Anatoliangender system is based on two classes: animate and inanimate (also termed common and neuter). Proto-Anatolian almost certainly did not inherit a separate feminine agreement class from PIE.[15][unreliable source?] The two-gender system has been described as a merger of masculine and feminine genders following the phonetic merger of PIE a-stems with o-stems. However the discovery of a group of inherited nouns with suffix*-eh2 in Lycian and therefore Proto-Anatolian raised doubts about the existence of a feminine gender in PIE. The feminine gender typically marked with-ā in non-Anatolian Indo-European languages may be connected to a derivational suffix*-h2, attested for abstract nouns and collectives in Anatolian.[16] The appurtenance suffix*-ih2 is scarce in Anatolian but fully productive as a feminine marker inTocharian.[15] This suggests the Anatolian gender system is the original for IE, while thefeminine-masculine-neuter classification of Tocharian + Core IE languages may have arisen following a sex-based split within the class of topical nouns to provide more precise reference tracking for male and female humans.[17]
Proto-Anatolian retained the nominal case system of Proto-Indo-European, including the vocative, nominative, accusative, instrumental, dative, genitive, and locative cases, and innovated an additionalallative case.[11] Nouns distinguish singular and plural numbers, as well as a collective plural for inanimates in Old Hittite and remnant dual forms for natural pairs. The Anatolian branch also has asplit-ergative system based on gender, with inanimate nouns being marked in the ergative case when the subject of a transitive verb. This may be an areal influence from nearby non-IEergative languages like Hurrian.[18]
The basic word order in Anatolian issubject-object-verb except for Lycian, where verbs typically precede objects. Clause-initial particles are a striking feature of Anatolian syntax; in a given sentence, a connective or the first accented word usually hosts a chain of clitics inWackernagel's position. Enclitic pronouns, discourse markers, conjunctions, and local or modal particles appear in rigidly ordered slots. Words fronted before the particle chain are topicalized.[11]
The list below gives the Anatolian languages in a relatively flat arrangement, following a summary of the Anatolian family tree byRobert Beekes (2010).[19] This model recognizes only one clear subgroup, the Luwic languages. Modifications and updates of the branching order continue, however. A second version opposes Hittite to Western Anatolian, and divides the latter node into Lydian, Palaic, and a Luwian group (instead of Luwic).[20]
Hittite (nešili) was the language of theHittite Empire, dated approximately 1650–1200 BC, which ruled over nearly all ofAnatolia during that time. The earliest sources of Hittite are the 19th century BCKültepe texts, the SemiticAkkadian language records of thekârum kaneš, or "port of Kanes," anAssyrian trading colony within the city ofKanesh (Kültepe). This collection records Hittite names and words loaned into Akkadian (Old Assyrian) from Hittite. Other such examples are found in other Assyrian Karums in Southeast Anatolia.[21] The Hittite name for the city wasNeša, from which the Hittiteendonym for the language,Nešili, was derived. The fact that the enclave was Assyrian, rather than Hittite, and that the city name became the language name, suggest that the Hittite language was already in a position of influence, perhaps dominance, incentral Anatolia.
The main cache of Hittite texts is the approximately 30,000 clay tablet fragments, of which only some have been studied, from the records of the royal city ofHattuša, located on a ridge near what is now Boğazkale, Turkey (formerly named Boğazköy). The records show a gradual rise to power of the Anatolian language speakers over the nativelanguage isolate speakingHattians, until at last the kingship became an Anatolian privilege. From then on, little is heard of the Hattians, but the Hittites kept the name. The records include rituals, medical writings, letters, laws and other public documents, making possible an in-depth knowledge of many aspects of the civilization.
Most of the records are dated to the 13th century BC (Late Bronze Age). They are written incuneiform script borrowing heavily from theMesopotamian system of writing of nearbyAssyria. The script is asyllabary. This fact, combined with frequent use of Akkadian andSumerian words, as well aslogograms, or signs representing whole words, to represent lexical items, often introduces considerable uncertainty as to the form of the original. However, phonetic syllable signs are present also, representing syllables of the form V, CV, VC, CVC, where V is "vowel" and C is "consonant".[22]
Hittite is divided into Old, Middle, and New (or Neo-). The dates are somewhat variable. They are based on an approximate coincidence of historical periods and variants of the writing system: the Old Kingdom and the Old Script, the Middle Kingdom and the Middle Script, and the New Kingdom and the New Script. Fortson gives the dates, which come from the reigns of the relevant kings, as 1570–1450 BC, 1450–1380 BC, and 1350–1200 BC respectively. These are notglottochronologic.
All cuneiform Hittite came to an end at the end of the 13th century BC during theBronze Age Collapse, with the destruction of Hattusas and the end of the empire, much of it having been annexed by theMiddle Assyrian Empire over the preceding century and the capital and its surrounds sacked by thePhrygians in 1200 BC.[23]
Palaic, spoken in the north-central Anatolian region ofPalā (laterPaphlagonia), extinct around the 13th century BC, is known only from fragments of quoted prayers in Old Hittite texts. It was extinguished by the replacement of the culture, if not the population, as a result of an invasion by theKaskas, which the Hittites could not prevent.
The termLuwic was proposed byCraig Melchert as the node of a branch to include several languages that seem more closely related than the other Anatolian languages.[25] This is not a neologism, asLuvic had been used in the early 20th century to mean the Anatolian language group as a whole, or languages identified as Luvian by the Hittite texts. The name comes from Hittiteluwili (𒇻𒌑𒄿𒇷). The earlier use ofLuvic fell into disuse in favour ofLuvian. Meanwhile, most of the languages now termed Luvian, or Luvic, were not known to be so until the latter 20th century. Even more fragmentary attestations might be discovered in the future.
Luvian andLuvic have other meanings in English, so currentlyLuwian andLuwic are preferred. Before the termLuwic was proposed for Luwian and its closest relatives, scholars used the termLuwian in the sense of 'Luwic languages'. For example, Silvia Luraghi's Luwian branch begins with a root language she terms the "Luwian group", which logically is in the place of Common Luwian or Proto-Luwian. Its three offsprings, according to her are Milyan, Proto-Luwian, and Lycian, while Proto-Luwian branches into Cuneiform and Hieroglyphic Luwian.[26]
Area where the 2nd millennium BC Luwian language was spoken
The Luwian language is attested in two different scripts,cuneiform andAnatolian hieroglyphs, over more than a millennium. While the earlier scholarship tended to treat these two corpora as separate linguistic entities,[26] the current tendency is to separate genuine dialectal distinctions within Luwian from orthographic differences. Accordingly, one now frequently speaks of Kizzuwatna Luwian (attested in cuneiform transmission), Empire Luwian (cuneiform and hieroglyphic transmission), and Iron Age Luwian / Late Luwian (hieroglyphic transmission), as well as several more Luwian dialects, which are more scarcely attested.[27]
The cuneiform corpus (Melchert's CLuwian) is recorded inglosses and short passages in Hittite texts, mainly from Boğazkale. About 200 tablet fragments of the approximately 30,000 contain CLuwian passages. Most of the tablets reflect the Middle and New Script, although some Old Script fragments have also been attested. Benjamin Fortson hypothesizes that "Luvian was employed in rituals adopted by the Hittites."[28] A large proportion of tablets containing Luwian passages reflect rituals emanating fromKizzuwatna.[29] On the other hand, many Luwian glosses (foreign words) in Hittite texts appear to reflect a different dialect, namely Empire Luwian.[30] The Hittite language of the respective tablets sometimes displays interference features, which suggests that they were recorded by Luwian native speakers.
The hieroglyphic corpus (Melchert's HLuwian) is recorded inAnatolian hieroglyphs, reflecting Empire Luwian and its descendant Iron Age Luwian.[31] Some HLuwian texts were found at Boğazkale, so it was formerly thought to have been a "Hieroglyphic Hittite". The contexts in which CLuwian and HLuwian have been found are essentially distinct. Annick Payne asserts: "With the exception of digraphic seals, the two scripts were never used together."[32]
HLuwian texts are found on clay, shell, potsherds, pottery, metal, natural rock surfaces, building stone and sculpture, mainly carved lions. The images are inrelief or counter-relief that can be carved or painted. There are alsoseals and sealings. A sealing is a counter-relief impression of hieroglyphic signs carved or cast in relief on a seal. The resulting signature can be stamped or rolled onto a soft material, such as sealing wax. The HLuwian writing system contains about 500 signs, 225 of which arelogograms, and the rest purely functionaldeterminatives andsyllabograms, representing syllables of the form V, CV, or rarely CVCV.[33]
HLuwian texts appear as early as the 14th century BC in names and titles on seals and sealings at Hattusa. Longer texts first appear in the 13th century BC. Payne refers to the Bronze Age HLuwian as Empire Luwian. All Hittite and CLuwian came to an end at 1200 BC as part of theLate Bronze Age collapse, but the concept of a "fall" of the Hittite Empire must be tempered in regard to the south, where the civilization of a number ofSyro-Hittite states went on uninterrupted, using HLuwian, which Payne calls Iron-Age Luwian and dates 1000–700 BC. Presumably these autonomous "Neo-Hittite" heads of state no longer needed to report to Hattusa. HLuwian caches come from ten city states in northern Syria and southern Anatolia:Cilicia,Charchamesh,Tell Akhmar,Maras,Malatya,Commagene,Amuq,Aleppo,Hama, andTabal.[34]
Luwic branch of Anatolian languages attested in the mid-1st millennium BC
Lycian (called "Lycian A" when Milyan was a "Lycian B") was spoken in classicalLycia, in southwestern Anatolia. It is attested from 172 inscriptions,[35] mainly on stone, from about 150 funerary monuments, and 32 public documents. The writing system is theLycian alphabet, which the Lycians modified from theGreek alphabet. In addition to the inscriptions are 200 or more coins stamped with Lycian names. Of the texts, some are bilingual in Lycian and Greek, and one, theLétôon trilingual, is in Lycian, Greek, and Aramaic. The longest text, theXanthus stele, with about 250 lines, was originally believed to be bilingual in Greek and Lycian; however the identification of a verse in another, closely related language, a "Lycian B" identified now asMilyan, renders the stele trilingual. The earliest of the coins date before 500 BC;[36] however, the writing system must have required time for its development and implementation.
The name of Lycia appears inHomer[37] but more historically, in Hittite and in Egyptian documents among the "Sea Peoples", as the Lukka, dwelling in theLukka lands. No Lycian text survives from Late Bronze Age times, but the names offer a basis for postulating its continued existence.
Lycia was completely Hellenized by the end of the 4th century BC,[38] after which Lycian is not to be found. Stephen Colvin goes so far as to term this, and the other scantily attested Luwic languages, "Late Luwian",[39] although they probably did not begin late. Analogously,Ivo Hajnal calls them – using an equivalent German term –Jungluwisch.[40]
Carian was spoken inCaria. It is fragmentarily attested from graffiti byCarian mercenaries and other members of an ethnic enclave inMemphis, Egypt (and other places in Egypt), personal names in Greek records, twenty inscriptions fromCaria (including fourbilingual inscriptions), scattered inscriptions elsewhere in the Aegean world and words stated as Carian by ancient authors.[41] Inscriptions first appeared in the 7th century BC.
The Pisidic language was spoken inPisidia. Known from some thirty short inscriptions from the first to second centuries AD, it appears to be closely related to Lycian and Sidetic.
Lydian was spoken inLydia. Within the Anatolian group, Lydian occupies a unique and problematic position due, first, to the still very limited evidence and understanding of the language and, second, to a number of features not shared with any other Anatolian language.[43] The Lydian language is attested in graffiti and in coin legends from the end of the 8th or the beginning of the 7th century BC down to the 3rd century BC, but well-preserved inscriptions of significant length are presently limited to the 5th–4th centuries BC, during the period ofPersian domination. Extant Lydian texts now number slightly over one hundred but are mostly fragmentary.
It has been proposed that other languages of the family existed that have left no records, including the pre-Greek languages ofLycaonia andIsauria unattested in the alphabetic era.[44] In these regions, only Hittite,Hurrian, and Luwian are attested in theBronze Age.Languages of the region such asMysian andPhrygian are Indo-European but not Anatolian, and are thought to have entered Anatolia from the Balkan peninsula at a later date than the Anatolian languages.[citation needed]
Anatolia was heavilyHellenized following the conquests ofAlexander the Great, as well as the previousGreek colonisation, and the native languages of the area ceased to be spoken as a result of assimilation in the subsequent centuries, making Anatolian the first well-attested branch of Indo-European to become extinct. The only other well-known major branch with no living descendants isTocharian, whose attestation ceases in the 8th century AD.
WhilePisidian inscriptions date until the second century AD, the poorly-attestedIsaurian language, which was probably a lateLuwic dialect, appears to have been the last of the Anatolian languages to become extinct.[45][46] Epigraphic evidence, including funerary inscriptions dating from as late as the 5th century, has been found by archaeologists.[46]
Personal names with Anatolian etymologies are known from the Hellenistic and Roman era and may have outlasted the languages they came from. Examples includeCilician ΤαρκυνδβερραςTarku-ndberras "assistance ofTarḫunz",Isaurian ΟυαξαμοαςOuaxamoas < *Waksa-muwa "power of blessing(?)", andLycaonian ΠιγραμοςPigramos "resplendent, mighty" (cf.Carian 𐊷𐊹𐊼𐊥𐊪𐊸Pikrmś,Luwianpīhramma/i-).[47][48]
eléphās 'ivory', from Hittitelaḫpa (itself from Mesopotamia; cf.Phoenicianʾlp,Egyptianꜣbw);
kýanos 'dark blue glaze; enamel', from Hittitekuwannan- 'copper ore; azurite' (ultimately fromSumeriankù-an);
kýmbachos 'helmet', from Hittitekupaḫi 'headgear';
kýmbalon 'cymbal', from Hittiteḫuḫupal 'wooden percussion instrument';
mólybdos 'lead', Mycenaeanmo-ri-wo-do, from *morkw-io- 'dark', as inLydianmariwda(ś)-k 'the dark ones';
óbryza 'vessel for refining gold', from Hittiteḫuprušḫi 'vessel';
tolýpē 'ball of wool', from Hittitetaluppa 'lump'/'clod' (orCuneiform Luwiantaluppa/i).[50]
A few words in theArmenian language have been also suggested as possible borrowings from Hittite or Luwian, such as Arm. զուռնաzuṙna (compare Luwianzurni "horn").[51][52]
^Models assuming an Anatolian PIE homeland of course do not assume any migration at all, and the model assuming anArmenian homeland assumes straightforward immigration from the East.
^Beekes, R. S. P.; Cor de Vaan, Michiel Arnoud (2011).Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction (2nd ed.). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. pp. 20–22.
^Dercksen, J. G., "On Anatolian Loanwords in Akkadian Texts from Kültepe", Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie , vol. 97, no. 1, pp. 26-46, 2007
^Melchert, H. Craig (1994).Anatolian Historical Phonology. Leiden Studies in Indo-European. Vol. 3. Amsterdam: Rodopi. pp. 11–12.
^Melchert 2012, p. 14. "I, followed by some others, have adopted the label 'Luvic' for this group instead of the more popular 'Luvian', in order to forestall confusion with Luvian in the narrow sense of just the language represented by Cuneiform and Hieroglyphic Luvian."
^Colvin, Stephen (2004).The Greco-Roman East: Politics, Culture, Society. Yale Classical Studies. Vol. 31. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 45.
^Hajnal, Ivo. 2003. “Jungluwisch” – eine Bestandsaufnahme. In M. Giorgieri et al.(eds.):Licia e Lidia prima dell’ ellenizzazione, 187-205. Rome: CNR.Online
^Adiego, I. J. (2007). "Greek and Carian". In Christidis, A. F.; Arapopoulou, Maria; Chriti, Maria (eds.).A History of Ancient Greek from the Beginning to Late Antiquity. Translated by Markham, Chris. Cambridge University Press. pp. 759, 761.ISBN978-0-521-83307-3.
^Frank R. Trombley; John W. Watt (2000).The Chronicle of Pseudo-Joshua the Stylite. Liverpool University Press. p. 12.
^abLinda Honey (2006). "Justifiably Outraged or Simply Outrageous? The Isaurian incident of Ammianus Marcellinus 14.2".Violence in Late Antiquity: Perceptions and practices. Ashgate. p. 50.
^Greppin, John A. C. (1991). "The Survival of Ancient Anatolian and Mesopotamian Vocabulary until the Present".Journal of Near Eastern Studies.50 (3):203–207.doi:10.1086/373501.JSTOR546019.S2CID162282522.
^Martirosyan, Hrach (2017). "Notes on Anatolian loanwords in Armenian." In Pavel S. Avetisyan, Yervand H. Grekyan (eds.),Bridging times and spaces: papers in ancient Near Eastern, Mediterranean and Armenian studies: Honouring Gregory E. Areshian on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday. Oxford: Archaeopress, 293–306.
Fortson, Benjamin W (2010).Indo-European Language and Culture: An introduction. Blackwell textbooks in linguistics (2nd ed.). Chichester, U.K.; Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 19.
Keen, Anthony G. (1998) [1992].Dynastic Lycia: A political history of the Lycians & their relations with foreign powers, c. 545–362 BC. Mnemosyne: bibliotheca classica Batavia. Supplementum. Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill.
Luraghi, Silvia (1998) [1993], "The Anatolian Languages", in Ramat, Anna Giacalone; Ramat, Paolo (eds.),The Indo-European Languages, Routledge Language Family Descriptions, London; New York: Routledge. Originally published asLe Lingue Indoeuropee.
Rieken, Elisabeth (2017). "The dialectology of Anatolian". In Fritz, Mathias; Joseph, Brian; Klein, Jared (eds.).Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter Mouton. pp. 298–308.
Payne, Annick (2010).Hieroglyphic Luwian: An Introduction with original Texts. SILO: Subsidia et Instrumenta Linguarum Orientis (2nd revised ed.). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Yakubovich, Ilya (2011). "Luwian and the Luwians". In Steadman, Sharon R.; McMahon, Gregory (eds.).The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 534–547.
.svg)
