Anatolian hieroglyphs

Last updated
Anatolian hieroglyphs
Hamath inscription.jpg
An inscription from Hama, in Anatolian hieroglyphs
Script type
Time period
14th century BC — 7th century BC
DirectionLeft-to-right  OOjs UI icon edit-ltr-progressive.svg
Languages Hieroglyphic Luwian language
ISO 15924
ISO 15924 Hluw(080),Anatolian Hieroglyphs (Luwian Hieroglyphs, Hittite Hieroglyphs)
Unicode
Unicode alias
Anatolian Hieroglyphs
U+14400–U+1467F
[1]
 This article contains phonetic transcriptions in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA).For an introductory guide on IPA symbols, see Help:IPA.For the distinction between [ ], / / and  , see IPA § Brackets and transcription delimiters.

Anatolian hieroglyphs are an indigenous logographic script native to central Anatolia, consisting of some 500 signs. They were once commonly known as Hittite hieroglyphs, but the language they encode proved to be Luwian, not Hittite, and the term Luwian hieroglyphs is used in English publications. They are typologically similar to Egyptian hieroglyphs, but do not derive graphically from that script, and they are not known to have played the sacred role of hieroglyphs in Egypt. There is no demonstrable connection to Hittite cuneiform. [2] [3] [4]

Contents

History

Geographical distribution of Anatolian hieroglyphs. Thick lines represent the most finds Luwian Language de V2.svg
Geographical distribution of Anatolian hieroglyphs. Thick lines represent the most finds
Anatolian hieroglyphs surround a figure in royal dress. The inscription, repeated in cuneiform around the rim, gives the seal owner's name: the ruler Tarkasnawa of Mira. This famous bilingual inscription provided the first clues for deciphering Anatolian hieroglyphs. Anatolian - Seal of Tarkummuwa, King of Mera - Walters 571512.jpg
Anatolian hieroglyphs surround a figure in royal dress. The inscription, repeated in cuneiform around the rim, gives the seal owner's name: the ruler Tarkasnawa of Mira. This famous bilingual inscription provided the first clues for deciphering Anatolian hieroglyphs.

Individual Anatolian hieroglyphs are attested from the second and early first millennia BC across Anatolia and into modern Syria. A biconvex bronze personal seal was found in the Troy VIIb level (later half of the 12th century BC) inscribed with Luwian Hieroglyphs. [5] The earliest examples occur on personal seals, but these consist only of names, titles, and auspicious signs, and it is not certain that they represent language. Most actual texts are found as monumental inscriptions in stone, though a few documents have survived on lead strips.

The first inscriptions confirmed as Luwian date to the Late Bronze Age, ca. 14th to 13th centuries BC. After some two centuries of sparse material, the hieroglyphs resume in the Early Iron Age, ca. 10th to 8th centuries BC. In the early 7th century BC, the Luwian hieroglyphic script, by then aged some 700 years, was marginalized by competing alphabetic scripts and fell into oblivion.

Language

While almost [6] all the preserved texts employing Anatolian hieroglyphs are written in the Luwian language, [7] some features of the script suggest its earliest development within a bilingual Hittite-Luwian environment. For example, the sign which has the form of a "taking" or "grasping" hand has the value /ta/, which is precisely the Hittite word ta-/da- "to take," in contrast with the Luwian cognate of the same meaning which is la-. [8] There was occasionally some use of Anatolian hieroglyphs to write foreign material like Hurrian theonyms, or glosses in Urartian (such as Hieroglyph Luwian Urartian aqarqi.jpg á – ḫá+ra – ku for Hieroglyph Urartian aqarqi.jpg aqarqi or Hieroglyph Luwian Urartian tyerusi 1.jpg tu – ru – za for Hieroglyph Urartian tyerusi.jpg ṭerusi, two units of measurement).

Typology

As in Egyptian, characters may be logographic or phonographic—that is, they may be used to represent words or sounds. The number of phonographic signs is limited. Most represent CV syllables, though there are a few disyllabic signs. A large number of these are ambiguous as to whether the vowel is a or i. Some signs are dedicated to one use or another, but many are flexible.

Words may be written logographically, phonetically, mixed (that is, a logogram with a phonetic complement), and may be preceded by a determinative. Other than the fact that the phonetic glyphs form a syllabary rather than indicating only consonants, this system is analogous to the system of Egyptian hieroglyphs.

A more elaborate monumental style is distinguished from more abstract linear or cursive forms of the script. In general, relief inscriptions prefer monumental forms, and incised ones prefer the linear form, but the styles are in principle interchangeable. Texts of several lines are usually written in boustrophedon style. Within a line, signs are usually written in vertical columns, but as in Egyptian hieroglyphs, aesthetic considerations take precedence over correct reading order.

Decipherment

Anatolian hieroglyphs first came to Western attention in the nineteenth century, when European explorers such as Johann Ludwig Burckhardt and Richard Francis Burton described pictographic inscriptions on walls in the city of Hama, Syria. The same characters were recorded in Boğazköy, and presumed by A. H. Sayce to be Hittite in origin. [9]

By 1915, with the Luwian language known from cuneiform, and a substantial quantity of Anatolian hieroglyphs transcribed and published, linguists started to make real progress in reading the script. [9] In the 1930s, it was partially deciphered by Ignace Gelb, Piero Meriggi, Emil Forrer, and Bedřich Hrozný. Its language was confirmed as Luwian in 1973 by J.D. Hawkins, Anna Morpurgo Davies and Günther Neumann, who corrected some previous errors about sign values, in particular emending the reading of symbols *376 and *377 from i, ī to zi, za.

Sign inventory

The script consists of on the order of 500 unique signs, [10] some with multiple values; a given sign may function as a logogram, a determinative or a syllabogram, or a combination thereof. The signs are numbered according to Laroche's sign list, with a prefix of 'L.' or '*'. Logograms are transcribed in Latin in capital letters. For example, *90, an image of a foot, is transcribed as PES when used logographically, and with its phonemic value ti when used as a syllabogram. In the rare cases where the logogram cannot be transliterated into Latin, it is rendered through its approximate Hittite equivalent, recorded in Italic capitals, e.g. *216 ARHA. The most up-to-date sign list was compiled by Massimiliano Marazzi in 1998. [11]

Hawkins, Morpurgo-Davies and Neumann corrected some previous errors about sign values, in particular emending the reading of symbols *376 and *377 from i, ī to zi, za.

List of CV syllabograms

Anatolian Cv and vC syllabograms [12] [13]
CaCiCuaCiCuc
a = 𔗷

á = 𔐓
aₓ ? = 𔗨‎

i = 𔓯

í = 𔕐

u = 𔑻
h-ha = 𔓷

ha ? = 𔔁‎
= 𔓟‎
haₓ = 𔕡‎

hi = 𔗒

= 𔕘

hu = 𔕙

= 𔖈

hw-hwa = 𔘰‎hwi = 𔘰‎

hwiₓ = 𔓎‎

k-ka = 𔗧

= 𔐾

ki = 𔗳

ki₄ = 𔔓
kiₓ = 𔔓

ku = 𔗜
kw-kwa = 𔕰kwi = 𔕰
l-la = 𔓊

la = 𔗲
laₓ = 𔗽

li = 𔔹

li = 𔗲
= 𔒖
= 𔕇‎

lu = 𔗲
m-ma = 𔒅

= 𔖘
= 𔕖
maₓ = 𔕖, 𔘅‎

mi = 𔖻

= 𔗘
= 𔖷

mu = 𔑿, 𔖛, 𔑾, 𔒀
n-na = 𔐤

= 𔕵

ni = 𔗐

= 𔓵‎
= 𔐽‎
niₓ = 𔗴

nu = 𔒴

= 𔖿‎

p-pa = 𔕸, 𔔁 ?

= 𔘅
paₓ = 𔓐

pi = 𔑉‎pu = 𔕯

= 𔗣

r-ra = 𔖱ri = 𔖱ru = 𔗑

= 𔑳, 𔑵

ur = 𔖙‎
s-sa = 𔗔

= 𔗦
= 𔑷
sa₄ = 𔗆‎
sa₅ = 𔕮
sa₆ = 𔔀
sa₇ = 𔕣
sa₈ = 𔖭‎

si = 𔓉

 ? = 𔗾‎

su = 𔖢

= 𔒂‎
= 𔗵

us = 𔗚‎
t-ta = 𔑰

= 𔐞
= 𔐬
ta₄ = 𔕦
ta₅ = 𔓇
ta₆ = 𔑛
taₓ = 𔐭

ti = 𔑣

= 𔘟
 ? = 𔕦
ti₄ ? = 𔓇

tu = 𔑡, 𔑢

= 𔕬
= 𔕭
tu₄ = 𔔈

w-wa = 𔗬

= 𔓁‎
= 𔓀
wa₄ = 𔓬‎
wa₅ = 𔓩‎
wa₆ = 𔓤
wa₇ = 𔕁‎
wa₉ = 𔔻‎

wi = 𔒻

wi = 𔗬
= 𔓁‎
= 𔓀
wi₄ = 𔓬‎
wi₅ = 𔓩‎
wi₆ = 𔓤
wi₇ = 𔕁‎
wi₉ = 𔔻‎

y-ia = 𔓱

= 𔕑‎
= 𔖬

z-za = 𔖪‎, 𔖩

= 𔕹
= 𔕼‎
za₄ = 𔒈‎
zaₓ = 𔕽‎

zi = 𔖩

= 𔕠‎
= 𔕻‎
zi₄ = 𔒚

zu ? = 𔗥, 𔕀

= 𔗵‎

Anatolian CVC(V) syllabograms [14] [13]
a+ra = 𔗸a+ri = 𔗸a+ = 𔐷
ara = 𔒟ara = 𔒠ari = 𔒟
ari = 𔒠
hara = 𔕆hari = 𔕆hur = 𔗹‎
i+ra = 𔓰i+ri = 𔓰
kar = 𔕢
la+ra+a = 𔓍
pari = 𔐎
ra+a = 𔗸ri+i = 𔓰
sara = 𔕕sari = 𔕕
tal = 𔖞tana = 𔗢tapa = 𔒋‎
tár = 𔖤taraₓ = 𔖤tariₓ = 𔖤
tara = 𔖹tari = 𔖹
zuwa = 𔕀
IUDEX+ra = 𔖤IUDEX+ri = 𔖤

Transliteration of logograms is conventionally the term represented in Latin, in capital letters (e.g. PES for the logogram for "foot"). The syllabograms are transliterated, disambiguating homophonic signs analogously to cuneiform transliteration, e.g. ta=ta1, tá=ta2, and ta6 transliterate three distinct ways of representing phonemic /ta/. [15] Some of the homophonic signs have received further attention and new phonetic interpretation in recent years, e.g. tà has been argued to stand for /da/, [16] and á seems to have stood for /ʔa/ (distinct from /a/), representing the descendant of Proto-Indo-European */h₁/. [17] One of the latest confirmed discoveries pertaining to the decipherment of Anatolian Hieroglyphs is the re-interpretation of the signs ta4 and ta5 as la/i and lá/í respectively [18]

List of Anatolian ideograms

Anatolian ideograms [19] [20]
ADORARE = 𔐅AEDIFICARE = 𔔘, 𔒐AEDIFICIUM = 𔔖AEDIFICIUM.PONERE = 𔔘, 𔒐
AEDIFICIUM+MINUS = VASTUS) = 𔔗ALA = 𔑗AMPLECTI = 𔐈‎, 𔗱‎ANIMAL = 𔗈
ANNUS = 𔕺ANNUS+ANNUS = 𔖁AQUA = 𔓳, 𔓴AQUILA = 𔒟
ARGENTUM = 𔔣, 𔔤, 𔔦‎ARHA = 𔓸, 𔓹ASCIA = 𔔼ASINUS = 𔑯, 𔒍
ASINUS₂ = 𔑱AUDIRE = 𔑒, 𔓅AURIGA = 𔕄AURIS+TU+MI = 𔑒, 𔓅
AVIS = 𔒚AVIS₂ = 𔒞AVIS₃ = 𔒜AVIS₄ = 𔒟
AVIS₅ = 𔒝AVISₓ = 𔒡AVUS = 𔕳BESTIA = 𔑫
BIBERE = 𔐇BONUS = 𔕧 (2nd mil.), 𔓀BONUS₂ = 𔖢BOS = 𔑺
BOS₂ = 𔑼BOS+MI = 𔑾BOS.MI = 𔒀BOS₂.MI = 𔒁
BRACCHIUM = 𔐡CAELUM = 𔓑CANIS = 𔑬CANIS₂ = 𔑭
CAPERE = 𔐫CAPERE+SCALPRUM = 𔕲CAPERE₂ = 𔐮, 𔒣CAPERE₂.CAPERE₂ = 𔐭
CAPRA = 𔑶CAPRA₂ = 𔑸CAPRA2A = 𔑹‎ CAPUT = 𔐉
CAPUT+SCALPRUM = 𔐊CASTRUM = 𔔉, 𔔊, 𔔋CENTUM = 𔗃, 𔕂, 𔕔CERVUS = 𔑳
CERVUS₂ = 𔑴CERVUS₃ = 𔑵‎CONTRACTUS = 𔖅‎COR = 𔖂‎
CORNU = 𔒂‎CORNU+CAPUT = 𔙀‎CRUS = 𔑛CRUS₂ = 𔑝
CRUS.CRUS = 𔑟, 𔑠CRUS+FLUMEN = 𔑜CRUX = 𔕛CUBITUM = 𔔕‎
CULTER = 𔕿CUM = 𔑀CURRUS = 𔕃DARE = 𔑈
DARE.DARE = 𔑊DECEM = 𔗁DELERE = 𔔚DEUS = 𔖖
DEUS.DOMUS = 𔔛(DEUS)VIA+TERRA = 𔓧DIES = 𔖓, 𔖔, 𔖕DOMINA = 𔐏
DOMINUS = 𔖺DOMUS = 𔔙DOMUS+MINUS = 𔔚DOMUS+SCALA = 𔔞, 𔔟
DOMUS+X = 𔔝EDERE = 𔐆EGO = 𔐀‎, 𔘞‎ ?EGO₂ = 𔐁
ENSIS = 𔐻EQUUS = 𔑮EUNUCHUS = 𔘑, 𔘐EUNUCHUS₂ =
EXERCITUS = 𔔰‎FALX ? = 𔘝FEMINA = 𔑘, 𔗌FILIA = 𔐱
FILIUS = 𔐰FILIUS.NEPOS = 𔕒FINES = 𔓸FINES+ha = 𔓹
FLAMMAE ? = 𔘔, 𔗅, 𔘖‎FLUMEN = 𔓳, 𔓴FONS = 𔓶FORTIS = 𔐝
FRATER = 𔐰FRATER₂ = 𔔷FRONS = 𔐚, 𔒉FULGUR = 𔓣
FUSUS = 𔕗GAZELLA = 𔑶GENUFLECTERE = 𔑞GRYLLUS = 𔒑
+LI = 𔓠HALA = 𔕈HALI = 𔕈HALPA = 𔑞
HANA = 𔘮HASTARIUS = 𔓈‎HATTI = 𔓟HATTI+li = 𔓠
HEROS = 𔐕HORDEUM = 𔓎, 𔗻, 𔗼HORREUM ? = 𔔡, 𔔢‎HUR = 𔗹‎
HWI = 𔘰IANUS = 𔒯INFANS = 𔐰INFRA = 𔐾, 𔐿
IRA = 𔐘IŠUWA(URBS) = 𔔃IUDEX = 𔖣IUDEX.LA = 𔔸
IUSTITIA = 𔖣IUSTITIA.LA = 𔔸LA+LA = 𔓋‎LAPIS = 𔔮‎
LAPIS+SCALPRUM = 𔔭LECTUS = 𔕓LEO = 𔑪LEO₂ = 𔑫
LEO+MONS.TU+LEO = 𔓭LEPUS = 𔒋LEPUS₂ = 𔒌LIₓ = 𔒗‎
LIBARE = 𔐜LIBATIO = 𔒤LIGARE = 𔐠LIGNUM = 𔖰‎, 𔓄
LINGERE = 𔒈LINGUA = 𔓊LINGUA+CLAVUS = 𔓌LIS = 𔐘
LITUUS = 𔖫‎LITUUS+Á/LITUUS+á = 𔐔‎LITUUS+na = 𔐥LITUUS+u = 𔒊
LOCUS = 𔓤, 𔕝LOQUI = 𔐖‎LUNA = 𔓜MAₓ = 𔒃
MAGNUS = 𔖙MAGNUS.DOMINA = 𔐐MAGNUS.DOMUS = 𔔜MAGNUS.FILIA = 𔐴
MAGNUS.REX = 𔐒MALLEUS = 𔔻MALUS = 𔖟MALUS₂ = 𔖠‎
MANDARE = 𔑊MANUS = 𔑁, 𔑂, 𔑂‎MANUS.CULTER = 𔐺MANUS+CULTER = 𔐻
MANUS+MINUS ? (LONGUS) = 𔑄, 𔑍MATER = 𔑘, 𔗌MENSA = 𔕊MENSA₂ = 𔕋
.REGIO = 𔔇MILLE = 𔗄MINISTRARE ? = 𔓐MINUS = 𔖮
MONS = 𔓬MONS₂ = 𔐃MONS.SARPA = 𔕍, 𔕎MORI = 𔖯
MURUS ? = 𔔎NEG = 𔕴NEG₂ = 𔕵‎NEG₃ = 𔕶
NEPOS = 𔕒OCCIDENS = 𔖬OCULUS = 𔐙OMNIS(+MI) = 𔖝
OMNIS₂ = 𔗣ORIENS = 𔓛OVIS = 𔒇OVIS₂ = 𔘺
PANIS = 𔓐PANIS.SCUTELLA = 𔗛‎PASTOR = 𔗫PES = 𔑣
PES₂ = 𔑦PES₂.PES = 𔑩PES₂.PES₂ = 𔑨PES.SCALA.ROTAE = 𔑤‎, 𔑥‎, 𔑧
PINCERNA = 𔖆, 𔖍, 𔖎, 𔖏, 𔘻PISCIS = 𔒥PITHOS = 𔕾PITHOS.SCUTELLA/PITHOS = 𔕺
POCULUM = 𔖇PODIUM = 𔔪PONERE = 𔑇PORTA = 𔔏, 𔔐
PORTA₂ = 𔔑POST = 𔐣PRAE = 𔐍, 𔐎PROPHETA ? = 𔙀‎
PUGNUS = 𔐨, 𔐪, 𔐯PUGNUS+PUGNUS = 𔐠PUGNUS+URBS = 𔐹PUGNUS+X = 𔐩
PURUS = 𔕩, 𔕪REGIO = 𔔆REL = 𔕰REX = 𔐑
REX.FILIA = 𔐳REX.FILIUS = 𔐲REX.INFANS = 𔐲ROTA = 𔕈
SACERDOS = 𔖐SACERDOS₂ = 𔖥‎SARA = 𔕕‎SARI = 𔕕‎
SARMA = 𔑙‎, 𔑚‎SARMA₂ = 𔑙‎, 𔑚SARPA = 𔕋SCALPRUM = 𔔯
SCRIBA = 𔕭SCUTELLA = 𔗆‎SCUTUM = 𔔳SERVUS = 𔖷
SIGILLUM = 𔕮SOL = 𔓚, 𔘈, 𔘊‎ SOL₂ = 𔓙SOL₂.MENSA = 𔕌‎
SOL₂.THRONUS = 𔕌‎SOLIUM = 𔕐‎SPHINX = 𔒒STATUA = 𔐌
STELE = 𔔭SUB = 𔐾, 𔐿SUPER = 𔔱 (earlier variant), 𔑏‎ (?) = 𔐞
TAL (?) = 𔖞TALA (?) = 𔖞TANA (?) = 𔗢‎TELIPINU = 𔒲
TERRA = 𔓤, 𔕝TEŠUB = 𔕥THRONUS = 𔕊THRONUS = 𔕋
THRONUS₂ = 𔕏TONITRUS = 𔓢TURRIS ? = 𔔍UNGULA = 𔒗‎
UNUS = 𔖭‎UR = 𔖙URBS = 𔔂URBS+li = 𔔅
URBS-li = 𔔅URBS-RA+li = 𔔄‎URBS-RI?+li = 𔔄‎URBS+RA-li = 𔔄‎
URBS+RI?-li = 𔔄‎URCEUS = 𔖆, 𔖍, 𔖎, 𔖏, 𔘻US = 𔗚‎VACUUS = = 𔔗
VAS = 𔖂‎VASTUS = 𔔗VIA = 𔓾, 𔑕, 𔓿VIA+TERRA.SCALPRUM = 𔓥
VIA+TERRA+SCALPRUM = 𔓦VINUM = 𔒻‎VIR = 𔕟 (earlier variant), 𔕠‎VIR₂ = 𔖶 (word separator)
VIR₂.MINUS = 𔖯VITA = 𔖡VITELLUS = 𔒃VITIS = 𔒻‎
2 = 𔖳3 = 𔖸4 = 𔖻5 = 𔖼‎
8 = 𔖽9 = 𔖿12 = 𔘍

Unicode

Anatolian hieroglyphs were added to the Unicode Standard in June, 2015 with the release of version 8.0.

The Unicode block for Anatolian Hieroglyphs is U+14400–U+1467F:

Anatolian Hieroglyphs [1] [2]
Official Unicode Consortium code chart (PDF)
 0123456789ABCDEF
U+1440x𔐀𔐁𔐂𔐃𔐄𔐅𔐆𔐇𔐈𔐉𔐊𔐋𔐌𔐍𔐎𔐏
U+1441x𔐐𔐑𔐒𔐓𔐔𔐕𔐖𔐗𔐘𔐙𔐚𔐛𔐜𔐝𔐞𔐟
U+1442x𔐠𔐡𔐢𔐣𔐤𔐥𔐦𔐧𔐨𔐩𔐪𔐫𔐬𔐭𔐮𔐯
U+1443x𔐰𔐱𔐲𔐳𔐴𔐵𔐶𔐷𔐸𔐹𔐺𔐻𔐼𔐽𔐾𔐿
U+1444x𔑀𔑁𔑂𔑃𔑄𔑅𔑆𔑇𔑈𔑉𔑊𔑋𔑌𔑍𔑎𔑏
U+1445x𔑐𔑑𔑒𔑓𔑔𔑕𔑖𔑗𔑘𔑙𔑚𔑛𔑜𔑝𔑞𔑟
U+1446x𔑠𔑡𔑢𔑣𔑤𔑥𔑦𔑧𔑨𔑩𔑪𔑫𔑬𔑭𔑮𔑯
U+1447x𔑰𔑱𔑲𔑳𔑴𔑵𔑶𔑷𔑸𔑹𔑺𔑻𔑼𔑽𔑾𔑿
U+1448x𔒀𔒁𔒂𔒃𔒄𔒅𔒆𔒇𔒈𔒉𔒊𔒋𔒌𔒍𔒎𔒏
U+1449x𔒐𔒑𔒒𔒓𔒔𔒕𔒖𔒗𔒘𔒙𔒚𔒛𔒜𔒝𔒞𔒟
U+144Ax𔒠𔒡𔒢𔒣𔒤𔒥𔒦𔒧𔒨𔒩𔒪𔒫𔒬𔒭𔒮𔒯
U+144Bx𔒰𔒱𔒲𔒳𔒴𔒵𔒶𔒷𔒸𔒹𔒺𔒻𔒼𔒽𔒾𔒿
U+144Cx𔓀𔓁𔓂𔓃𔓄𔓅𔓆𔓇𔓈𔓉𔓊𔓋𔓌𔓍𔓎𔓏
U+144Dx𔓐𔓑𔓒𔓓𔓔𔓕𔓖𔓗𔓘𔓙𔓚𔓛𔓜𔓝𔓞𔓟
U+144Ex𔓠𔓡𔓢𔓣𔓤𔓥𔓦𔓧𔓨𔓩𔓪𔓫𔓬𔓭𔓮𔓯
U+144Fx𔓰𔓱𔓲𔓳𔓴𔓵𔓶𔓷𔓸𔓹𔓺𔓻𔓼𔓽𔓾𔓿
U+1450x𔔀𔔁𔔂𔔃𔔄𔔅𔔆𔔇𔔈𔔉𔔊𔔋𔔌𔔍𔔎𔔏
U+1451x𔔐𔔑𔔒𔔓𔔔𔔕𔔖𔔗𔔘𔔙𔔚𔔛𔔜𔔝𔔞𔔟
U+1452x𔔠𔔡𔔢𔔣𔔤𔔥𔔦𔔧𔔨𔔩𔔪𔔫𔔬𔔭𔔮𔔯
U+1453x𔔰𔔱𔔲𔔳𔔴𔔵𔔶𔔷𔔸𔔹𔔺𔔻𔔼𔔽𔔾𔔿
U+1454x𔕀𔕁𔕂𔕃𔕄𔕅𔕆𔕇𔕈𔕉𔕊𔕋𔕌𔕍𔕎𔕏
U+1455x𔕐𔕑𔕒𔕓𔕔𔕕𔕖𔕗𔕘𔕙𔕚𔕛𔕜𔕝𔕞𔕟
U+1456x𔕠𔕡𔕢𔕣𔕤𔕥𔕦𔕧𔕨𔕩𔕪𔕫𔕬𔕭𔕮𔕯
U+1457x𔕰𔕱𔕲𔕳𔕴𔕵𔕶𔕷𔕸𔕹𔕺𔕻𔕼𔕽𔕾𔕿
U+1458x𔖀𔖁𔖂𔖃𔖄𔖅𔖆𔖇𔖈𔖉𔖊𔖋𔖌𔖍𔖎𔖏
U+1459x𔖐𔖑𔖒𔖓𔖔𔖕𔖖𔖗𔖘𔖙𔖚𔖛𔖜𔖝𔖞𔖟
U+145Ax𔖠𔖡𔖢𔖣𔖤𔖥𔖦𔖧𔖨𔖩𔖪𔖫𔖬𔖭𔖮𔖯
U+145Bx𔖰𔖱𔖲𔖳𔖴𔖵𔖶𔖷𔖸𔖹𔖺𔖻𔖼𔖽𔖾𔖿
U+145Cx𔗀𔗁𔗂𔗃𔗄𔗅𔗆𔗇𔗈𔗉𔗊𔗋𔗌𔗍𔗎𔗏
U+145Dx𔗐𔗑𔗒𔗓𔗔𔗕𔗖𔗗𔗘𔗙𔗚𔗛𔗜𔗝𔗞𔗟
U+145Ex𔗠𔗡𔗢𔗣𔗤𔗥𔗦𔗧𔗨𔗩𔗪𔗫𔗬𔗭𔗮𔗯
U+145Fx𔗰𔗱𔗲𔗳𔗴𔗵𔗶𔗷𔗸𔗹𔗺𔗻𔗼𔗽𔗾𔗿
U+1460x𔘀𔘁𔘂𔘃𔘄𔘅𔘆𔘇𔘈𔘉𔘊𔘋𔘌𔘍𔘎𔘏
U+1461x𔘐𔘑𔘒𔘓𔘔𔘕𔘖𔘗𔘘𔘙𔘚𔘛𔘜𔘝𔘞𔘟
U+1462x𔘠𔘡𔘢𔘣𔘤𔘥𔘦𔘧𔘨𔘩𔘪𔘫𔘬𔘭𔘮𔘯
U+1463x𔘰𔘱𔘲𔘳𔘴𔘵𔘶𔘷𔘸𔘹𔘺𔘻𔘼𔘽𔘾𔘿
U+1464x𔙀𔙁𔙂𔙃𔙄𔙅𔙆
U+1465x
U+1466x
U+1467x
Notes
1. ^ As of Unicode version 15.1
2. ^ Grey areas indicate non-assigned code points

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Egyptian hieroglyphs</span> Formal writing system used by ancient Egyptians

Egyptian hieroglyphs were the formal writing system used in Ancient Egypt for writing the Egyptian language. Hieroglyphs combined logographic, syllabic and alphabetic elements, with more than 100 distinct characters. Cursive hieroglyphs were used for religious literature on papyrus and wood. The later hieratic and demotic Egyptian scripts were derived from hieroglyphic writing, as was the Proto-Sinaitic script that later evolved into the Phoenician alphabet. Through the Phoenician alphabet's major child systems, the Egyptian hieroglyphic script is ancestral to the majority of scripts in modern use, most prominently the Latin and Cyrillic scripts and the Arabic script, and possibly the Brahmic family of scripts.

A phonetic complement is a phonetic symbol used to disambiguate word characters (logograms) that have multiple readings, in mixed logographic-phonetic scripts such as Egyptian hieroglyphs, Akkadian cuneiform, Japanese, and Mayan. Often they reenforce the communication of the ideogram by repeating the first or last syllable in the term.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anatolian languages</span> Extinct branch of Indo-European languages

The Anatolian languages are an extinct branch of Indo-European languages that were spoken in Anatolia, part of present-day Turkey. The best known Anatolian language is Hittite, which is considered the earliest-attested Indo-European language.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lycian language</span> Extinct Indo-European language of southwestern Anatolia

The Lycian language was the language of the ancient Lycians who occupied the Anatolian region known during the Iron Age as Lycia. Most texts date back to the fifth and fourth century BC. Two languages are known as Lycian: regular Lycian or Lycian A, and Lycian B or Milyan. Lycian became extinct around the beginning of the first century BC, replaced by the Ancient Greek language during the Hellenization of Anatolia. Lycian had its own alphabet, which was closely related to the Greek alphabet but included at least one character borrowed from Carian as well as characters proper to the language. The words were often separated by two points.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Luwian language</span> Ancient Indo-European language of the Hittite Empire

Luwian, sometimes known as Luvian or Luish, is an ancient language, or group of languages, within the Anatolian branch of the Indo-European language family. The ethnonym Luwian comes from Luwiya – the name of the region in which the Luwians lived. Luwiya is attested, for example, in the Hittite laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cuneiform</span> Writing system of the ancient Near East

Cuneiform is a logo-syllabic writing system that was used to write several languages of the Ancient Near East. The script was in active use from the early Bronze Age until the beginning of the Common Era. Cuneiform scripts are marked by and named for the characteristic wedge-shaped impressions which form their signs. Cuneiform is the earliest known writing system and was originally developed to write the Sumerian language of southern Mesopotamia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hittite language</span> Extinct Bronze Age Indo-European language

Hittite, also known as Nesite, is an extinct Indo-European language that was spoken by the Hittites, a people of Bronze Age Anatolia who created an empire centred on Hattusa, as well as parts of the northern Levant and Upper Mesopotamia. The language, now long extinct, is attested in cuneiform, in records dating from the 17th to the 13th centuries BC, with isolated Hittite loanwords and numerous personal names appearing in an Old Assyrian context from as early as the 20th century BC, making it the earliest attested use of the Indo-European languages.

Palaic is an extinct Indo-European language, attested in cuneiform tablets in Bronze Age Hattusa, the capital of the Hittites. Palaic, which was apparently spoken mainly in northern Anatolia, is generally considered to be one of four primary sub-divisions of the Anatolian languages, alongside Hittite, Luwic and Lydian.

A determinative, also known as a taxogram or semagram, is an ideogram used to mark semantic categories of words in logographic scripts which helps to disambiguate interpretation. They have no direct counterpart in spoken language, though they may derive historically from glyphs for real words, and functionally they resemble classifiers in East Asian and sign languages. For example, Egyptian hieroglyphic determinatives include symbols for divinities, people, parts of the body, animals, plants, and books/abstract ideas, which helped in reading, but none of which were pronounced.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Proto-Anatolian language</span> Reconstructed ancestor of the Anatolian languages

Proto-Anatolian is the proto-language from which the ancient Anatolian languages emerged. As with almost all other proto-languages, no attested writings have been found; the language has been reconstructed by applying the comparative method to all the attested Anatolian languages as well as other Indo-European languages.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hieroglyphic Luwian</span> Extinct Luwian language

Hieroglyphic Luwian (luwili) is a variant of the Luwian language, recorded in official and royal seals and a small number of monumental inscriptions. It is written in a hieroglyphic script known as Anatolian hieroglyphs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hittite cuneiform</span> Ancient Mesopotamian script

Hittite cuneiform is the implementation of cuneiform script used in writing the Hittite language. The surviving corpus of Hittite texts is preserved in cuneiform on clay tablets dating to the 2nd millennium BC.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sumerogram</span>

A Sumerogram is the use of a Sumerian cuneiform character or group of characters as an ideogram or logogram rather than a syllabogram in the graphic representation of a language other than Sumerian, such as Akkadian, Eblaite, or Hittite. This type of logogram characterized, to a greater or lesser extent, every adaptation of the original Mesopotamian cuneiform system to a language other than Sumerian. The frequency and intensity of their use varied depending on period, style, and genre. In the same way, a written Akkadian word that is used ideographically to represent a language other than Akkadian is known as an Akkadogram.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Writing system</span> Convention of symbols representing language

A writing system comprises a particular set of symbols, called a script, as well as the rules by which the script represents a particular language. Writing systems can generally be classified according to how symbols function according to these rules, with the most common types being alphabets, syllabaries, and logographies. Alphabets use symbols called letters that correspond to spoken phonemes. Abjads generally only have letters for consonants, while pure alphabets have letters for both consonants and vowels. Abugidas use characters that correspond to consonant–vowel pairs. Syllabaries use symbols called syllabograms to represent syllables or moras. Logographies use characters that represent semantic units, such as words or morphemes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Šanta</span>

Šanta (Santa) was a god worshiped in Bronze Age Anatolia by Luwians and Hittites. It is presumed that he was regarded as a warlike deity, and that he could additionally be associated with plagues and possibly with the underworld, though the latter proposal is not universally accepted. In known texts he frequently appears alongside Iyarri, a deity of similar character. He is first attested in documents from Kanesh dated to the Old Assyrian period, and continues to appear in later treaties, ritual texts and theophoric names. He is also present in an offering lists from Emar written in Akkadian, though he did not belong to the local pantheon and rituals involving him were only performed on behalf of the Hittite administration by local inhabitants.

Heterogram is a term used mostly in the study of ancient texts for a special kind of a logogram consisting of the embedded written representation of a word in a foreign language, which does not have a spoken counterpart in the main (matrix) language of the text. In most cases, the matrix and embedded languages share the same script. While from the perspective of the embedded language the word may be written either phonetically or logographically, it is never a phonetic spelling from the point of view of the matrix language of the text, since there is no relationship between the symbols used and the underlying pronunciation of the word in the matrix language.

The House of Astiruwa was the last known dynasty of rulers of Carchemish. The members of this dynasty are best known to us through Hieroglyphic Luwian sources. One member of the House of Astiruwa may also be referred to in Assyrian sources.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tarḫunz</span> Luwian deity

Tarḫunz was the weather god and chief god of the Luwians, a people of Bronze Age and early Iron Age Anatolia. He is closely associated with the Hittite god Tarḫunna and the Hurrian god Teshub.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fred Woudhuizen</span> Dutch historian and linguist (1959–2021)

Frederik Christiaan Woudhuizen was a Dutch independent scholar who studied ancient Indo-European languages, hieroglyphic Luvian/Luwian, and Mediterranean protohistory. He was the former editor of Talanta, Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society.

Luwian Studies is an independent, private, non-profit foundation based in Zürich, Switzerland. Its sole purpose is to promote the study of cultures of the second millennium BC in western Asia Minor. The foundation encourages and supports archaeological, linguistic and natural scientific investigations to complete the understanding of Middle and Late Bronze Age Mediterranean cultures. Western Anatolia was, at that point in time, home to groups of people who spoke Luwian, an Indo-European language.

References

  1. Final Accepted Script Proposal
  2. Payne, A. (2004). Hieroglyphic Luwian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. p. 1. ISBN   3-447-05026-8.
  3. Melchert, H. Craig (2004). "Luvian". In Woodard, Roger D. (ed.). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN   0-521-56256-2.
  4. Melchert, H. Craig (1996). "Anatolian Hieroglyphs". In Daniels, Peter T.; Bright, William (eds.). The World's Writing Systems . New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN   0-19-507993-0.
  5. Bryce, Trevor R. "The Trojan War: Is There Truth behind the Legend?" Near Eastern Archaeology, vol. 65, no. 3, 2002, pp. 182–95
  6. For a Hurrian text written with Anatolian Hieroglyphs, see Hawkins, J.D. (2003). "Scripts and Texts", in Melchert, H.C. (ed.), The Luwians, Brill, p. 141. On loanwords from different languages in the hieroglyphic texts of the Iron age see Giusfredi, F. (2012). Note sui prestiti accadici e urartei in luvio-geroglifico di età del Ferro, in P. Cotticelli Kurras et al. (eds.), Interferenze linguistiche e contatti culturali in Anatolia tra II e I millennio a.C. Studi in onore di Onofrio Carruba in occasione del suo 80° compleanno, pp. 153–171.
  7. Plöchl, R. (2003). Einführung ins Hieroglyphen-Luwische (in German). Dresden: Verlag der TU Dresden. p. 12. ISBN   3-86005-351-5.
  8. Yakubovich, I. (2008). "Hittite-Luvian Bilingualism and the Origin of Anatolian Hieroglyphs". Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. 4 (1): 9–36.
  9. 1 2 Pope, Maurice (1999). The Story of Decipherment: From Egyptian Hieroglyphs to Mayan Script (rev. ed.). New York: Thames & Hudson. ISBN   0-500-28105-X.
  10. Laroche (1960) lists 524, but several signs separated by Laroche are now considered identical (e.g. *63 and *64 with *69, itself possibly a variant of *59 MANUS; *94 with *91 PES.SCALA.ROTAE (the "rollerskate" glyph); *136 with *43 CAPERE, etc.)
  11. Payne 2010, p. 11.
  12. Marazzi, Bolatti-Guzzo & Dardano 1998, p. 27–32.
  13. 1 2 Payne 2010, p. 203-206.
  14. Marazzi, Bolatti-Guzzo & Dardano 1998, p. 33.
  15. see also the article at the Indo-European Database Archived July 12, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
  16. Rieken, E. (2008): "Die Zeichen <ta>, <tá> und <tà> in den hieroglyphen-luwischen Inschriften der Nachgroßreichszeit." In: Archi, A.; Francia, R. (eds.): VI Congresso Internazionale die Ittitilogia, Roma, 5.-9. Settembre 2005. Roma: CNR, 637–647.
  17. Simon, Zsolt (2013). "Once again on the Hieroglyphic Luwian sign *19 〈á〉". Indogermanische Forschungen. 118 (2013): 1–22. doi:10.1515/indo.2013.118.2013.1. S2CID   171055457.
  18. Rieken, E. and Yakubovich I (2010): "The New Values of Luwian Signs L 319 and L 172." In: Singer, I.(ed.): Ipamati kistamati pari tumatimis: Luwian and Hittite studies presented to J. D. Hawkins on the occasion of his 70th birthday. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, Institute of Archaeology, 199–219.
  19. Marazzi, Bolatti-Guzzo & Dardano 1998, pp. 24–70.
  20. Payne 2010, p. 197-203.

Sources