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.
The Anatolian branch is often considered the earliest to have split from the Proto-Indo-European language, from a stage referred to either as Indo-Hittite or "Archaic PIE"; typically a date in the mid-4th millennium BC is assumed. Under the Kurgan hypothesis, there are two possibilities for how the early Anatolian speakers could have reached Anatolia: from the north via the Caucasus, or from the west, via the Balkans;[1] the latter is considered somewhat more likely by Mallory (1989), Steiner (1990), and Anthony (2007). Statistical research by Quentin Atkinson and others using Bayesian inference and glottochronological markers favors an Indo-European origin in Anatolia, though the method's validity and accuracy are subject to debate.[2][3]
It has been theorized that Cernavodă culture, together with the Sredny 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 BC, via a migration route through the Caucasus.[7]
Classification
Melchert (2012) has proposed the following classification:[8]
In addition, the Kalašma language is believed to be a Luwic language, though further analysis has yet to be published.[10]
Features
This article should specify the language of its non-English content, using {{lang}}, {{transliteration}} for transliterated languages, and {{IPA}} for phonetic transcriptions, with an appropriate ISO 639 code. Wikipedia's multilingual support templates may also be used.See why.(June 2022)
Phonology
The phonology of the Anatolian languages preserves distinctions lost in its sister branches of Indo-European. Famously, the Anatolian languages retain the PIE laryngeals in words such as Hittite ḫāran- (cf. Ancient Greekὄρνῑς, Lithuanianeręlis, Old Norseǫrn, PIE *h₃éron-) and Lycian 𐊜𐊒𐊄𐊀 χuga (cf. Latinavus, Old Prussianawis, Archaic Irish ᚐᚃᚔ (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 a fortis-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 a geminated pronunciation. By the first millennium, the lenis consonants seem to have been spirantized 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 Lycian 𐊐 (χ) and Carian 𐊼 (k), both pronounced [k], as well as labiovelars —Lycian 𐊌 (q), Carian 𐊴 (q)—when labialized. Suggestions for their realization in Proto-Anatolian include pharyngeal fricatives, uvular fricatives, or uvular stops.[13][14]
Verbs
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 and mediopassive), and two moods (indicative and imperative), lacking the subjunctive and optative moods found in other old IE languages like Tocharian, Sanskrit, and Ancient Greek. Anatolian verbs are also typically divided into two conjugations: the mi conjugation and ḫi conjugation, named for their first-person singular present indicative suffix in Hittite. While the mi conjugation has clear cognates outside of Anatolia, the ḫi conjugation is distinctive and appears to be derived from a reduplicated or intensive form in PIE.[11]
Gender
The Anatolian gender 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 in Tocharian.[15] This suggests the Anatolian gender system is the original for IE, while the feminine-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]
Case
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 additional allative 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 a split-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-IE ergative languages like Hurrian.[18]
Syntax
The basic word order in Anatolian is subject-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 in Wackernagel'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]
Languages
The list below gives the Anatolian languages in a relatively flat arrangement, following a summary of the Anatolian family tree by Robert 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]
The Hittite Empire at its greatest extent under Suppiluliuma I (c.1350–1322 BC) and Mursili II (c.1321–1295 BC)
Hittite (nešili) was the language of the Hittite Empire, dated approximately 1650–1200 BC, which ruled over nearly all of Anatolia during that time. The earliest sources of Hittite are the 19th century BC Kültepe texts, the Akkadian language records of the kârum kaneš, or "port of Kanes," an Assyrian enclave of merchants within the city of kaneš (Kültepe). This collection records Hittite names and words loaned into Akkadian from Hittite.[21] The Hittite name for the city was Neša, from which the Hittite endonym 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 Hittites were already in a position of influence, perhaps dominance, in central 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 of Hattuša, 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 native Hattians, 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 in cuneiform script borrowing heavily from the Mesopotamian system of writing. The script is a syllabary. This fact, combined with frequent use of Akkadian and Sumerian words, as well as logograms, 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 not glottochronologic. All cuneiform Hittite came to an end at 1200 BC with the destruction of Hattusas and the end of the empire.[23]
Palaic, spoken in the north-central Anatolian region of Palā (later Paphlagonia), 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 the Kaskas, which the Hittites could not prevent.
The term Luwic was proposed by Craig Melchert as the node of a branch to include several languages that seem more closely related than the other Anatolian languages.[24] This is not a neologism, as Luvic 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 Hittite luwili (𒇻𒌑𒄿𒇷). The earlier use of Luvic fell into disuse in favor of Luvian. 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 and Luvic have other meanings in English, so currently Luwian and Luwic are preferred. Before the term Luwic was proposed for Luwian and its closest relatives, scholars used the term Luwian 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.[25]
Area where the 2nd millennium BC Luwian language was spoken
The Luwian language is attested in two different scripts, cuneiform and Anatolian hieroglyphs, over more than a millennium. While the earlier scholarship tended to treat these two corpora as separate linguistic entities,[25] 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.[26]
The cuneiform corpus (Melchert's CLuwian) is recorded in glosses 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."[27] A large proportion of tablets containing Luwian passages reflect rituals emanating from Kizzuwatna.[28] On the other hand, many Luwian glosses (foreign words) in Hittite texts appear to reflect a different dialect, namely Empire Luwian.[29] 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 in Anatolian hieroglyphs, reflecting Empire Luwian and its descendant Iron Age Luwian.[30] 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."[31]
HLuwian texts are found on clay, shell, potsherds, pottery, metal, natural rock surfaces, building stone and sculpture, mainly carved lions. The images are in relief or counter-relief that can be carved or painted. There are also seals 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 are logograms, and the rest purely functional determinatives and syllabograms, representing syllables of the form V, CV, or rarely CVCV.[32]
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 the Late 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 of Syro-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, and Tabal.[33]
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 classical Lycia, in southwestern Anatolia. It is attested from 172 inscriptions,[34] mainly on stone, from about 150 funerary monuments, and 32 public documents. The writing system is the Lycian alphabet, which the Lycians modified from the Greek 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, the Létôon trilingual, is in Lycian, Greek, and Aramaic. The longest text, the Xanthus 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 as Milyan, renders the stele trilingual. The earliest of the coins date before 500 BC;[35] however, the writing system must have required time for its development and implementation.
The name of Lycia appears in Homer[36] but more historically, in Hittite and in Egyptian documents among the "Sea Peoples", as the Lukka, dwelling in the Lukka 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,[37] 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",[38] although they probably did not begin late. Analogously, Ivo Hajnal calls them – using an equivalent German term – Jungluwisch.[39]
Carian was spoken in Caria. It is fragmentarily attested from graffiti by Carian mercenaries and other members of an ethnic enclave in Memphis, Egypt (and other places in Egypt), personal names in Greek records, twenty inscriptions from Caria (including four bilingual inscriptions), scattered inscriptions elsewhere in the Aegean world and words stated as Carian by ancient authors.[40] Inscriptions first appeared in the 7th century BC.
The Pisidic language was spoken in Pisidia. 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 in Lydia. 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.[42] 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 of Persian domination. Extant Lydian texts now number slightly over one hundred but are mostly fragmentary.
Other possible languages
It has been proposed that other languages of the family existed that have left no records, including the pre-Greek languages of Lycaonia and Isauria unattested in the alphabetic era.[43] In these regions, only Hittite, Hurrian, and Luwian are attested in the Bronze Age. Languages of the region such as Mysian and Phrygian 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.
Extinction
Anatolia was heavily Hellenized following the conquests of Alexander the Great, as well as the previous Greek 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 is Tocharian, whose attestation ceases in the 8th century AD.
While Pisidian inscriptions date until the second century AD, the poorly-attested Isaurian language, which was probably a late Luwic dialect, appears to have been the last of the Anatolian languages to become extinct.[44][45] Epigraphic evidence, including funerary inscriptions dating from as late as the 5th century, has been found by archaeologists.[45]
Personal names with Anatolian etymologies are known from the Hellenistic and Roman era and may have outlasted the languages they came from. Examples include Cilician Ταρκυνδβερρας Tarku-ndberras "assistance of Tarḫunz", Isaurian Ουαξαμοας Ouaxamoas < *Waksa-muwa "power of blessing(?)", and Lycaonian Πιγραμος Pigramos "resplendent, mighty" (cf. Carian 𐊷𐊹𐊼𐊥𐊪𐊸 Pikrmś,Luwianpīhramma/i-).[46][47]
eléphās 'ivory', from Hittite laḫpa (itself from Mesopotamia; cf. Phoenicianʾlp, Egyptianꜣbw);
kýanos 'dark blue glaze; enamel', from Hittite kuwannan- 'copper ore; azurite' (ultimately from Sumeriankù-an);
kýmbachos 'helmet', from Hittite kupaḫi 'headgear';
kýmbalon 'cymbal', from Hittite ḫuḫupal 'wooden percussion instrument';
mólybdos 'lead', Mycenaean mo-ri-wo-do, from *morkw-io- 'dark', as in Lydianmariwda(ś)-k 'the dark ones';
óbryza 'vessel for refining gold', from Hittite ḫuprušḫi 'vessel';
tolýpē 'ball of wool', from Hittite taluppa 'lump'/'clod' (or Cuneiform Luwiantaluppa/i).[49]
A few words in the Armenian language have been also suggested as possible borrowings from Hittite or Luwian, such as Arm. զուռնա zuṙna (compare Luwian zurni "horn").[50][51]
The Hittites were an Anatolian Indo-European people who formed one of the first major civilizations of Bronze Age West Asia. Possibly originating from beyond the Black Sea, they settled in modern day Turkey in the early 2nd millennium BC. The Hittites formed a series of polities in north-central Anatolia, including the kingdom of Kussara, the Kanesh or Nesha kingdom, and an empire centered on Hattusa. Known in modern times as the Hittite Empire, it reached its peak during the mid-14th century BC under Šuppiluliuma I, when it encompassed most of Anatolia and parts of the northern Levant and Upper Mesopotamia, bordering the rival empires of the Hurri-Mitanni and Assyrians.
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.
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.
The Carians were the ancient inhabitants of Caria in southwest Anatolia, who spoke the Carian 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.
In Indo-European linguistics, the term Indo-Hittite is Edgar Howard Sturtevant's 1926 hypothesis that the Anatolian languages split off a Pre-Proto-Indo-European language considerably earlier than the separation of the remaining Indo-European languages. The prefix Indo- does not refer to the Indo-Aryan branch in particular, but stands for Indo-European, and the -Hittite part refers to the Anatolian language family as a whole.
The Carian language is an extinct language of the Luwic subgroup of the Anatolian branch of the Indo-European language family, spoken by the Carians. The known corpus is small, and the majority comes from Egypt. Circa 170 Carian inscriptions from Egypt are known, whilst only circa 30 are known from Caria itself.
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.
The Anatolians were Indo-European-speaking peoples of the Anatolian Peninsula in present-day Turkey, identified by their use of the Anatolian languages. These peoples were among the oldest Indo-European ethnolinguistic groups and one of the most archaic, because Anatolians were among the first Indo-European peoples to separate from the Proto-Indo-European community that gave origin to the individual Indo-European peoples.
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.
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.
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.
Tiwaz was the Luwian Sun-god. He was among the most important gods of the Luwians.
Arma was an Anatolian Moon god, worshipped by the Hittites and Luwians in the Bronze Age and early Iron Age.
Tarḫunna or Tarḫuna/i was the Hittite weather god. He was also referred to as the "Weather god of Heaven" or the "Lord of the Land of Hatti".
Luwian religion was the religious and mythological beliefs and practices of the Luwians, an Indo-European people of Asia Minor, which is detectable from the Bronze Age until the early Roman empire. It was strongly affected by foreign influence in all periods and it is not possible to clearly separate it from neighbouring cultures, particularly Syrian and Hurrian religion. The Indo-European element in the Luwian religion was stronger than in the neighbouring Hittite religion.
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.
References
↑ Models assuming an Anatolian PIE homeland of course do not assume any migration at all, and the model assuming an Armenian homeland assumes straightforward immigration from the East.
↑ Beekes, R. S. P.; Cor de Vaan, Michiel Arnoud (2011). Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction (2nded.). 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.
1 2 Linda 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.
Sources
Fortson, Benjamin W (2010). Indo-European Language and Culture: An introduction. Blackwell textbooks in linguistics (2nded.). 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 as Le 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 reviseded.). 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.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
