Phoenician and Luwian in Early Iron Age Cilicia

Abstract

The relationship between the Luwian and Phoenician versions of the bilingual texts emanating from Cilicia has never been systematically studied from the philological viewpoint. In this paper I endeavour to demonstrate that a converging set of formal arguments supports the primary character of the Phoenician versions of the ÇINEKÖY and KARATEPE 1 bilinguals and the secondary character of their Luwian versions. I interpret this as a metaphor for the relationship between two ethnic constituents of the Neo-Hittite principality of Que, whose coexistence was earlier argued for on independent grounds. According to the proposed interpretation, the Phoenician language was emblematic of the rulers of Que, who claimed Greek descent and therefore attempted to distance themselves from the traditional elites of the neighbouring Neo-Hittite states. The use of the Luwian language was a concession to the indigenous population of Que. The adoption of Phoenician as a language of written expression by the Greek colonists in Cilicia happened at the point when the Linear B script had been forgotten and represented the first step toward the creation of the Greek alphabet.

Kubaba and other Divine Ladies of the Syro-Anatolian Iron Age: Developmental Trajectories, Local Variations, and Interregional Interactions

“…However, stronger differences between eastern and western scenarios are encountered in the linguistic milieu. Epichoric Iron Age inscriptions from Cilicia include Luwian-Phoenician bilinguals as well as monolingual Phoenician inscriptions (Yakubovich 2015). By contrast, east of the Amanus, Luwian intermingled in many locales with Aramaic dialects, whereas Phoenician seems to have played only a minor role.…”

Comparative-historical linguistics of the 19th–21st centuries. On the 200th anniversary of the birth of August Schleicher (1821–1868): Proceedings of the XI International Scientific Conference on Comparative Historical Linguistics (Lomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Philology, November 23–25, 2021)

“…Это может объяснить, у кого и когда была заимствована в хурро-урартской традиции мифологема Тешуба / Тейшебы. А греки-ахейцы в нашем регионе -в Киликии -появляются в конце бронзового -начале железного веков [Gander 2012;Yakubovich 2015;Brice 2016]. Киликия всегда развивалась в контакте с Сирией, притом именно там, в Северной Сирии, на горе Хацци (современная Джебель Акра) и в заливе Искендерун локализуется ключевой эпизод мифа о Тешубе и Улликумми [Hoffner 1990: 55-56;Вильхельм 1992: 104].…”

Addendum to ‘Phoenician and Luwian in Early Iron Age Cilicia’ by Ilya Yakubovich

“…Additional comment on 'Adanawa or Ahhiyawa?' Now Dr Yakubovich chooses to advance further ingenious arguments which could support the reading Hiyawa (Yakubovich 2015b). Again, readers must judge these too for themselves.…”