1

The Ethnicity of the Sea Peoples

2
3
THE ETHNICITY OF THE SEA PEOPLES
DE ETNICITEIT VAN DE ZEEVOLKEN
Proefschrift
ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
op gezag van de
rector magnificus
Prof.dr. S.W.J. Lamberts
en volgens besluit van het College voor Promoties.
De openbare verdediging zal plaatsvinden op
vrijdag 28 april 2006 om 13.30 uur
door
Frederik Christiaan Woudhuizen
geboren te Zutphen
4
Promotiecommissie
Promotor:
Prof.dr. W.M.J. van Binsbergen
Overige leden:
Prof.dr. R.F. Docter
Prof.dr. J. de Mul
Prof.dr. J. de Roos
5
To my parents
Dieser Befund legt somit die Auffassung nahe, da zumindest fr
den Kern der Seevlker-Bewegung des 14.-12. Jh. v. Chr. mit
Krieger-Stammesgruppen von ausgeprgter ethnischer Identitt und
nicht lediglich mit einem diffus fluktuierenden Piratentum zu
rechnen ist. (Lehmann 1985: 58)
7
CONTENTS
Preface ................................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Note on the Transcription, especially of Proper Names.................................................................................................... 11
List of Figures................................................................................................................................................................... 12
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................................................... 13
1. Defining Ethnicity....................................................................................................................................................... 15
2. Ethnicity and Protohistory .......................................................................................................................................... 21
3. Historical Setting ........................................................................................................................................................ 29
4. An Historiographic Outline......................................................................................................................................... 35
5. Contemporary Sources................................................................................................................................................ 43
6. Lukka and the Lukka Lands........................................................................................................................................ 57
7. Ethnogenesis of the Greeks......................................................................................................................................... 59
8. The Rise and Fall of the Mycenaean Greeks............................................................................................................... 69
9. From Danaoi to Dan.................................................................................................................................................... 77
10. Etruscan Origins.......................................................................................................................................................... 79
11. The Aeneas Saga: Etruscan Origins in parvo ............................................................................................................ 89
12. Philistines and Pelasgians ........................................................................................................................................... 95
13. Teukroi, Akamas, and Trojan Grey Ware................................................................................................................. 107
14. The Central Mediterranean Contribution .................................................................................................................. 111
15. Concluding Remarks................................................................................................................................................. 117
Appendix I. On the Decipherment of Cretan Hieroglyphic ............................................................................................ 123
Appendix II. On the Position of Etruscan ....................................................................................................................... 135
Appendix III. A Luwian Trifunctional Divine Triad Recorded for Crete ....................................................................... 141
Appendix IV. Pelasgian Demeter and Zeus .................................................................................................................... 143
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................................... 147
Nederlandse Samenvatting: De Etniciteit van de Zeevolken .......................................................................................... 163
Curriculum Vitae Frederik Christiaan Woudhuizen........................................................................................................ 167
9
PREFACE
Significance of the topic
Bringing down the Hittite empire and dealing Egypt a
blow from which it never recovered, the Sea Peoples epi-
sode at the end of the Bronze Age was crucial for a shift of
the economic and political centre of gravity of the Mediter-
ranean world away from the Levant and towards Greece,
Africa Minor, and Italy. Soon this shift was to give rise to
the splendors of archaic and classical Greece developing
into Hellenism, Carthage, Etruscan civilization, Rome, the
Roman empire, early Christianity, and, in the long run, the
emergence the modern western European civilization,
dominated by speakers of Indo-European languages, but
greatly influenced by a Levantine religion (Judaism). For
better or worse, the Sea Peoples episode was one of the
few major turning points in world history, comparable to
the period of the great migrations which led to the collapse
of the Roman empire, or the rise and early spread of Islam.
The present books argument
With the help of modern anthropological theories about
ethnicity, I seek, in the present study, to determine whether
the enigmatic Sea Peoples were merely a bunch of pirates
or whether they constituted a set of coherent ethnic enti-
ties, temporarily making common cause in pursuit of the
richnesses of, and hence a better life in, the Near East.
Of vital importance to this endeavour is the question
of the homelands of the various groups which make up the
Sea Peoples. In order to tackle this problem, an inter-
disciplinary proto-historical method has been applied,
which makes full use of the available archaeological, his-
torical, and linguistic data as provided by Egyptian, Levan-
tine, Anatolian, Aegean, and central Mediterranean
sources.
As such, the work aspires at an historical synthesis, in
which the Masperonian thesis of a homeland for the Sea
Peoples in Asia Minor and the Aegean is balanced with the
opinion of others who rather attribute such a role to the is-
lands of Sardinia and Sicily and the Italian peninsula in the
central Mediterranean. It will be shown that both the Ana-
tolian thesis and the central Mediterranean antithesis
are partly valid, and that some of the groups of the Sea
Peoples originated from Anatolia and the Aegean, whereas
others rather came from the central Mediterranean region.
It will further be argued that the prime mover, which
set into motion the whole process leading to the upheavals
of the Sea peoples, is formed by the truly massive migra-
tion of bearers of the central European Urnfield culture
into the Italian peninsula c. 1200 BC.
Building upon over a century of scholarly Sea Peo-
ples research, and offering a combination of various spe-
cialist (and therefore often relatively inaccessible)
approaches from a variety of disciplines, this study will of-
fer the reader synthetic perspectives onto a crucial period
of human history.
Acknowledgments
The work I have been engaged with let us say about the
last eight years could not have been accomplished without
the help of good friends and colleagues. First of all, my
sincere feelings of gratitude are due to my supervisor Wim
van Binsbergen, who initiated the project, arranged a sti-
pendium to work it out granted by the Erasmus University,
and, in addition to stimulating supervision, provided a
theoretical framework on ethnicity suitable for the analysis
of the Mediterranean in the Late Bronze Age. Next, the
Indo-Europeanist Frits Waanders was so kind to proofread
an early draft of the entire manuscript and save me from
many errors in spelling and judgment needless to say that
remaining ones are my sole responsibility. Furthermore, I
am greatly indebted to the specialist in Linear A, Jan Best,
who so to say raised me in the interdisciplinary field of
protohistory and kindly proofread an early draft of the sec-
tions on the Greeks and the Pelasgians. For the systemati-
zation of the transliteration of the Ugaritic texts, I am
much obliged to the Assyriologist Frans Wiggermans,
whereas in matters of Egyptian hieroglyphic I was guided
by the Egyptologists J.F Borghouts and Willem van Haar-
lem. Also of much help was the letter (d.d. 11 January
2002) by the archaeologist Manfred Bietak on the sensa-
tional find of Minoan tephra at Tell el-Daba/Avaris. Un-
failing support came from the members of the editorial
board of Talanta, consisting of Jan de Boer, Ton Bruijns,
Roald Docter, Jorrit Kelder, Vladimir Stissi, Jan Stronk,
Reinier Telling, and Maarten de Weerd, which not only
generously facilitated a prepublication of the section on the
Etruscans, but also brought to my attention relevant litera-
ture and, where necessary, severe criticism. My work also
10
profited from the collaboration with Winfried Achterberg,
Kees Enzler, and Lia Rietveld, as duly acknowledged in
the bibliography. Further, my thanks are due to the Etrus-
cologist Bauke van der Meer, the Classical archeologist
Eric Moorman, and the Mediterranean archeologist
Jacques Vanschoonwinkel, for kindly bringing relevant lit-
erature to my attention.
Finally, I am indebted to Ulrich Seeger (cf. 2002) and
Peter Broers for allowing me to use their fonts Bock and
Kefas2, respectively, as sources of special characters.
11
NOTE ON THE TRANSCRIPTION, ESPECIALLY OF PROPER
NAMES
In the transcription of proper names, I have in most in-
stances preferred one closest to the Greek original: thus
Akhaians, Herakles, Herodotos, Homeros, Korinthos, etc.
Encouraged by the German saying that Jeder Kon-
zequenz fhrt zum Teufel, however, I have not aimed at
being entirely systematic in this respect, since I found it
hard to transform the current English forms of Cilicia,
Crete, Crimea, Cyclades, Mycenae, Thucydides, Tiryns,
Troy, Tyre, etc. into less familiar ones closer to the Greek
original. The same license has been adopted with respect
to the ending of the ethnonyms, now using the Greek one,
as with Danaoi and Teukroi, then using the English one,
as with Pelasgians. When originating from a Latin source,
the Latin forms of the proper names are preferred, as in
the section on the Aeneas saga. As far as possible, I have
preferred to use (in general discussions outside the con-
text of my presentation of original texts) the simple s in-
stead of the cumbersome sh for the transcription of the
sibilant in Hittite personal names and Philistine place
names, thus Hattusilis, Suppiuliumas and Askalon, As-
dod. However, for the sake of clarity sh is maintained for
Eshtaol, Kadesh, and Laish as well as for the ethnonyms
of the Sea Peoples from the Egyptian sources, hence Ek-
wesh, Teresh, etc.
12
LIST OF FIGURES
Frontispiece. Rowers depicted on a Late Helladic
IIIC sherd from Seraglio on Kos (from Sandars 1980:
131, afb. 92)..................................................................... 5
Fig. 1a. Diagram of the extremities in the spec-
trum of possibilities of the relation between ethnic
groups and the indicia language, religion, and material
culture ............................................................................ 16
Fig. 1b. Diagram of the partial relationship between
ethnicity and its indicia, kinship, material culture, lan-
guage, and religion......................................................... 21
Fig. 2. Distribution of the Greek dialects (from Hall
1997: 154, Fig. 25)......................................................... 23
Fig. 3. The ethnonyms of the Sea Peoples in Egyp-
tian writing, transliteration, and standardized transcription
(from Kitchen 1982: IV, 4 and Kitchen 1983: V, 40) .... 36
Fig. 4. Plan of Ramesses IIIs temple at Medinet
Habu, Thebes (after Cifola 1991: 12) ............................ 51
Fig. 5. Land battle scene of Medinet Habu (from
Oren 2000: 96, Fig. 5.5)................................................. 53
Fig. 6. Sea battle scene of Medinet Habu (from Oren
2000: 98, Fig. 5.6).......................................................... 53
Fig. 7. Prisoners of war: (a) Hittite, (b) Amorite, (c)
Tjeker, (d) Sherden, (e) Shasu, and (f) Teresh (from Nibbi
1975: Pl. I) ..................................................................... 53
Fig. 8. Map of Lycia (from Mellink 1995)............. 58
Fig. 9. Distribution of centres of radiation of Late
Helladic I material. (a) Pottery in combination with archi-
tectural remains (Pylos, Kirrha, Thebes, Eleusis, and Ath-
ens); (b) pottery in shaft graves, tholos- and chamber
tombs (Koryphasion, Peristeria, Epidauros Limera, Lerna,
Mycenae, Prosymna, and Thorikos). Sources: van Royen
& Isaac 1979 and Hope Simpson 1981.......................... 63
Fig. 10. Reconstruction of the split between Greek
and Thraco-Phrygian on the basis of the development of
the mediae aspiratae (after Haas 1966: 209) .................. 66
Fig. 11. Sites in southern and central Greece de-
stroyed and/or abandoned at the end of Late Helladic
IIIB. 1. Teikhos Dymaion, 2. Pylos, 3. Nikhoria, 4. Mene-
laion, 5. Ayios Stephanos, 6. Krisa, 7. Tsoungiza, 8.
Mycenae, 9. Zygouries, 10. Berbati, 11. Prosymna, 12.
Midea/Dendra, 13. Tiryns, 14. Orkhomenos, 15. Iria, 16.
Gla, 17. Eutresis, 18. Thebes, 19. Brauron. Source: Hope
Simpson & Dickinson 1979........................................... 72
Fig. 12. Sites and cemeteries (a) in Late Helladic
IIIB and (b) in Late Helladic IIIC (from Popham 2001:
282-3) ............................................................................ 75
Fig. 13. Distribution of biconical urns in the Urnfield
world (from Hencken 1968: 441, fig. 452) .................... 81
Fig. 14. Distribution of house urns (from Bouzek
1997: fig. 49) ................................................................. 82
Fig. 15. Distribution of (a) proto-Villanovan and (b)
Villanovan sites (after Hencken 1968: fig. 466) ............ 83
Fig. 16. The Heroon of Aeneas at Lavinium (from
Somella 1974: Taf. VII)................................................. 90
Fig. 17. Settlement of the Sea Peoples in the Levant
and the remains of the Egyptian sphere of influence (from
Bietak 1993: 295, Fig. 4) ............................................... 96
Fig. 18. Figurines from (a) Asdod, (b) Cyprus, and
(c) Mycenae (from Sandars 1980: 165, afb. 116) .......... 97
Fig. 19. Comparison of (a) Philistine chamber tombs
from Tell Fara with (b) Mycenaean prototypes (from
Waldbaum 1966: 332, Ill. 1; 336, Ills. 11-14)................ 97
Fig. 20. Late Helladic IIIC1b ware with antithetic
horns and bird looking backwards: (a) Crete, (b) Cy-
pr us, and ( c) Phi l i st i a (after Schachermeyr 1979:
160, Abb. 41a; Noort 1994: 122, Abb. 36; 115, Abb. 38)
....................................................................................... 98
Fig. 21. Distribution of Trojan grey ware (from
Heuck Allen 1994)....................................................... 110
Fig. 22. Sherden in the Egyptian reliefs from the
reigns of Ramesses II and Ramesses III with (a) long
slashing swords and round shields, and (b) javelins (from
Sandars 1980: 29, afb. 12 and 32, afb. 14) .................. 111
Fig. 23. Statue-menhirs from Corsica: (a) Cauria
(with horns reconstructed on the helmets), (b) Scalsa
Murta (from Grosjean 1966b, Fig. 5; Sandars 1980: 99,
afb. 60)......................................................................... 113
Fig. 24. Distribution of Urnfield culture and the route
of the Sea Peoples; (a) c. 1180 BC; (b) 12th-10th century
BC (after Kimmig 1964: 269-70, Abb. 17-8) .............. 116
Fig. 25. Origins of the Cretan hieroglyphic script. (a)
Luwian hieroglyphic (56 signs); (b) Egyptian hiero-
glyphic (14 signs) ........................................................ 128
Fig. 26. Cretan hieroglyphic seals with the categories
mans name, title, and place or country name
(drawings of the original publications, except in the case
of # 309) ................................................................130-133
13
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Overview of the mention of the Sea Peoples
in the various Egypt i an sources from the Late Bronze
Age ................................................................................ 56
Table 2. Literary traditions with a bearing on the
transition from Middle Helladic to Late Helladic I, c.
1600 BC. ....................................................................... 63
Table 3. Developments in the innovative group of
Indo-European languages related to the progressive use of
the horse ........................................................................ 67
Table 4. Correspondences between Cretan hiero-
glyphic and Luwian hieroglyphic (values in square brack-
ets attested for Cretan hieroglyphic only) ............. 124-125
Table 5. Correspondences between Cretan hiero-
glyphic and Egyptian hieroglyphic (values as attested for
Cretan hieroglyphic) .................................................... 125
Table 6. Correspondences between Cretan hiero-
glyphic and Cretan Linear ........................................... 127
Table 7. Correspondences between Cretan hiero-
glyphic and Cypro-Minoan.......................................... 127
Table 8. Seals with the categories mans name, ti-
tle, and place or country name................................ 130
Table 9. Trifunctional divine triads among various
Indo-European speaking groups. ................................ 142
15
1. DEFINING ETHNICITY
In a work which deals with the ethnicity of the Mediterra-
nean population groups which attacked Egypt at the end of
the Bronze Age, commonly referred to as the Sea Peoples,
it should first of all be specified what ethnicity actually
means and how we will put this concept into practice. To
this aim, it is interesting to note that the word is derived
from Greek ethnos (plural ethne), number of people living
together, body of men; nation, people; foreign, barbarious
nations; class of men, caste, tribe.
1
According to Werner
Sollors in his Theories of Ethnicity, A Classical Reader of
1996, the modern formation ethnicity came into use during
the Second World War (1940-1945), being first attested in
a publication by W. Lloyd Warner (p. vii). As a definition
of this term, the same author presents the one formulated
by R.A. Schermerhorn in 1970, which runs as follows
(ibid., p. xii):
An ethnic group is a collectivity within a larger
society having real or putative common ancestry,
memories of a shared historical past, and a cultural
focus on one or more symbolic elements defined as
the epitome of their peoplehood. Examples of such
symbolic elements are: kinship patterns, physical
contiguity (as in localism or sectionalism), religious
affiliation, language or dialect forms, tribal affilia-
tion, nationality, phenotypal features, or any combi-
nation of these. A necessary accompaniment is some
consciousness of kind among members of the group.
Not explicitly mentioned in this definition, but of vital
importance to our subject, is the fact that ethnic groups are
in most of the cases referred to by a name, coined either by
themselves or by outsiders, which we call an ethnonym.
In the study of ethnicity, various approaches can be
encountered. In the first place, the ethnic group under con-
sideration can be studied from the perspective of the mem-
bers of this group themselves. This approach is called
emic. Alternatively, the ethnic group under consideration
can be studied from the perspective of outsiders. The latter
approach is called etic. As explained by Wim van Binsber-
gen, these terms are rooted in the field of linguistics, where
phonetics furnishes a purely external description of a lan-
guage (hence -etic), and phonemics deals with the smallest

1
LSJ, s.v.; in modern literature, one also finds the plural ethnoi or
ethnes (from singular ethne) or the originally French form ethnie
used for both singular and plural.
units of speech sound distinguished by the language users
themselves (hence -emic).
2
Another pair of concepts is
formed by primordialism and instrumentalism. According
to the primordial approach, the ethnic features of a specific
group are immutable qualities, inherited from father to son
and mother to daughter, and thus a historically given. As
opposed to this, the instrumentalist approach, initiated by
Frederik Barth in his classic Ethnic Groups and Bounda-
ries of 1969, holds that ethnic features can be manipulated
for certain causes by the members of a specific group and
that hence the ethnic boundaries are permeable. Accord-
ingly, instrumentalists will stress the dynamic and negotia-
ble nature of ethnicity, whereas primordialists will do the
opposite. In reality, the truth lies somewhere in between
these opposites, some ethnic boundaries being difficult to
cross or even impermeable in a certain period of time, es-
pecially when there is a high ethnic conscience (= ethnici-
zation), and others, or the same but in a period of time
when there is a low ethnic conscience, being easy to cross.
Furthermore, dynamism also needs to be called into play in
order to account for the fact that an ethnos can die out (=
ethnothanasia) or be newly created (= ethnogenesis).
The determination of an ethnic identity is in essence
an historical process. As we will be working in the proto-
history, which lacks contemporary works of history, the
definition of ethnicity needs to be translated into protohis-
torical categories of evidence. In addition, these categories
of evidence should be workable in the context of the east-
ern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age, which with
societies ranging from highly developed multiethnic em-
pires through individual kingdoms and city leagues to
merely tribal forms of organization
3
is far more complex
than, for example, the modern African one where the vari-
ous ethnic groups are all of a similar degree of organiza-
tion in the words of van Binsbergen: like cookies shaped
with different cookie moulds from one and the same large
rolled out slab of dough.
4
Hence, following in the tracks of

2
Van Binsbergen 1999: 43.
3
For the definition of tribe as an ethnic group within the global
space but outside the politically dominant civilization, see van
Binsbergen, forthc. 10.
4
Van Binsbergen 1999: 69; the same observation to some extent
16
Jonathan Hall in his Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity of
1997, we might apart from ethnonyms suitably adopt
the following indicia for the distinction of ethnic groups: 1.
kinship or race, 2. language or dialect, 3. religion, and 4.
material culture (= the materialisation of shared cultural
traits).
5
As we will see in the next section, these indicia for
ethnic groups are very close to the categories of evidence
distinguished by the ancients themselves to this aim.
Of the given indicia for the distinction of ethnic
groups, the first one, kinship or race is a tricky one, as
one has to steer carefully between the Scylla of Blut und
Boden theory of indigenous development and the
Charybdis of an invading Herrenvolk. In effect, how-
ever, although Egyptian artists do distinguish phenotypal
features in their reliefs, the eastern Mediterranean in the
Late Bronze Age appears to be not particularly preoccu-
pied with the race issue.
6
To all probability, this results
from the fact that the eastern Mediterranean population is
thoroughly mixed: even the Ionians, who were so proud of
their pure blood, had killed the male Carians and taken the
female ones as their wives at the time of their colonization
of western Asia Minor, as Herodotos slily remarks (Histo-
ries I, 146). In the course of our investigations, we will ex-
perience that in all cases of a migration some measure of
mixing between the invaders and the indigenous popula-
tion took place, so that the category of race will not fig-
ure prominently in our treatment not in the least also
because we lack the sources whether the population groups
under discussion considered themselves of pure descent (=
emic point of view).
A complicating factor in our work with the remaining
three indicia for the distinction of ethnic groups is the fact
that, as duly stressed by Hall, the boundaries of speech
communities, religious entities, and material cultures are
not always coterminous. Thus, to stipulate the extremities
of the entire spectrum of possibilities, a language can be
shared by two or more ethnic groups, like in the case of the
English and the Americans or the formerly west- and east-
Germans, or a single ethnic group can be characterized by

also holds good for Europe during the Bronze Age.
5
Hall 1997: 19 ff. I consulted Jones 1997, but did not grasp her
coming up with a protohistorical method. For a definition of
culture as everything one acquires as a member of society, see
van Binsbergen, forthc. 11.
6
Cf. Snowdens (1997: 121) characterization of the Graeco-
Roman world as a society which () never made color the basis
for judging a man. But see now Isaac 2004.
two or more languages, like the Franks on the east (Ger-
manic) and the west (Romance) side of the Rhine or the
Swiss (German, French, and Italian). Similarly, a religion
can be shared by two or more ethnic groups, like in the
case of the Orthodox religion adhered to by the Greeks and
numerous Slavic population groups, or a single ethnic
group can be characterized by two or more religions, like
the Dutch by Protestantism and Catholicism. In certain
cases, the differences of religion may cause a once united
people to break up into different ethnic groups, like in the
case of the former Yugoslavia, now being split up into
Serbia (Orthodox), Croatia (Catholic), and Bosnia (partly
Muslim). And finally, a material culture can be shared by
two or more ethnic groups, like in the case of the Flemings
and the Walloons in Belgium, or a single ethnic group can
be characterized by two or more material cultures, like in
the case of the Phrygians using grey ware in the west and
so-called mattpainted ware in the east (see Fig. 1a).
7
language 1
religion 1
culture 1
language 1
religion 1
culture 1
language 2
religion 2
culture 2
ethnos 1 ethnos 2 ethnos 1
Fig. 1a. Diagram of the extremities in the spectrum of possibilities
of the relation between ethnic groups and the indicia language, re-
ligion, and material culture.
8
Given this complicating factor, it cannot be denied,
however, that the different indicia for the distinction of
ethnic groups often overlap and that precisely here we may
find a nucleus of an ethnic group (see Fig. 1b, below): if
we would assume otherwise we would throw away the
child with the bathwater (for an elaboration of this point of
view, see section 2)! The latter observation should not be
mixed up with Gustav Kosinnas adagium that cultural
provinces clearly outlined archaeologically coincide in all
periods with precise peoples or tribes,
9
which simplifies
the actual state of affairs in an irresponsible manner. In

7
Haas 1966: 17.
8
I am indebted to Wim van Binsbergen for drawing this diagram.
9
Demoule 1999: 194.
17
similar vein, to accuse Georges Dumzil of racialism, as
Tim Cornell does,
10
because he discovered the remnants of
a tripartite Indo-European religious ideology among vari-
ous peoples speaking an Indo-European tongue, means an
irresponsible mixing up between the categories of kinship
or race and religion, elements of the latter of which
namely can also be inherited by genetically mixed descen-
dants. On the other hand, we cannot rule out the possibility
that in the overlap of our protohistoric indicia for ethnic
groups lurks yet another ethnic group, which, notwith-
standing the fact that it shares in with the same phenotype,
language, religion, and material culture of a particular eth-
nic group, simply considers itself distinct, like some of the
Dryopes in Greece
11
or the Asturians who, while speak-
ing Spanish, being Catholic, and sharing the Spanish mate-
rial culture, consider themselves Celtiberians in Spain.
12
As we will also see in the next section, here our protohis-
toric method by its mere definition simply fails to help us
out.
As cogently argued by van Binsbergen, the shortcom-
ings of our protohistorical method can be partly compen-
sated by working within a theoretical framework, based on
experience with ethnic studies from the historical period.
In the following, then, I will present a summary of van
Binsbergens attempt at such a framework in his Ethnicity
in eastern Mediterranean protohistory, Reflections on the-
ory and method (forthc.), sections 1-3.
Starting point is the realization that ethnicity is not
just a classification of human individuals in terms of an
ethnic lable, but a way of creating a wide-ranging, supra-
local socially structured space as a context for social, eco-
nomic, political, military, and ritual interaction over a rela-
tively vast area. To underline this, there can be
distinguished three constituent aspects to make clear what
ethnicity is about:
1. a system of classification into a finite number of
specific ethnic names;
2. a socio-political structure, notably the devise to turn
the overall, neutral geographical space into an ethni-
cally structured space, accommodating a number of

10
Cornell 1997: 14, note 18.
11
Hall 1997: 74-7.
12
Fernandez 2000.
concrete named groups in interaction; and
3. a process, involving both the interaction of these
ethnic groups over time, and the dynamics (emer-
gence, maturation, change, decline, replacement,
etc.) of the overall ethnic space they constitute to-
gether; of this process, we distinguish at least three
important movements:
a. ethnogenesis, as the redefinition (through
changes in the classification system) of the over-
all ethnic space so as to accommodate a new
ethnic group (often with repercussions for the
other groups already recognized within that
space);
b. ethnicization, as the internal process of taking
consciousness through which members of an
essentially non-ethnic category in the socio-
economic-political space redefine their identity
increasingly in ethnic terms (usually under the
influence of a local elite);
c. ethnothanasia, the decline and eventually loss of
ethnic consciousness by an ethnic group, which
merges with another ethnic group already exist-
ing in the same geographic space or having
newly arrived there.
Much of the structure and dynamics of ethnicity de-
pends on the framing of communities into wider organiza-
tional settings, be they states, regional cultic networks, or
commercial networks. In themselves, these latter forms of
organization are alternative, and hence competing, ways of
structuring wider socio-political space.
The ethnic name may be either geographically based
or referring to some quality of the designated group as per-
cepted by others or the group itself. The process of naming
is contrastive: by calling the other category A, ones
own category in any case is identified as not-A. The lat-
ter is usually also given a name, B, by those which it has
called A, and third parties within the social space can ei-
ther adopt this nomenclature or replace it by one of their
own invention. With the naming, a classification system is
imposed. Obviously, it is impossible for an ethnic system
to comprise only one ethnic group (in that case the group
usually identifies itself simply as humans) the plurality
of subsets is a precondition for ethnicity. The distinction
between ethnic groups, side by side in the same social
space, tends to involve an element of subordination and hi-
erarchy, at least from the perspective of the historical ac-
tors themselves.
We would call a named set of people an ethnic
18
group only if certain additional characteristics are present,
namely:
when individual membership is primarily derived
from a birth right (ascription);
when the set of people consciously and explicitly dis-
tinguishes itself from other such sets by reference to
specific cultural differences; and
when the members of such a set identify with one an-
other on the basis of a shared historical experience.
The social process creates boundaries, but also in or-
der to cut across them. Thus, most ethnic groups include a
minority of members who have gained their membership
not at birth but only later in life, in a context of marriage,
migration, language acquisition, adoption, the assumption
of a new identity and new life style, religious conversion,
etc.
Boundary markers include:
a distinct ethnic name;
a distinct home territory (although many members of
any ethnic group may have taken up residence, tem-
porarily or permanently, outside that territory);
associated with the home territory, a distinct language
or dialect (although many if not most adults will be at
least bilingual);
distinct traditional authorities (kings, chiefs, head-
men);
distinct details of custom, especially in the sphere of
expressive, ceremonial, and ritual production (music,
dance, puberty rites, other life crisis ritual, patterns of
sacrification, hairstyle and clothing, royal ritual)
which may be taken as distinguishing ethnic markers
between adjacent ethnic groups even though in fact
the spatial distribution of the custom in question may
be much more widespread.
In general, ethnicity is conceived as holistic and bun-
dled, involving language, cultural customs, somatic fea-
tures, territory, and political leadership, which integrated
package is claimed to determine the total mode of being of
that person. In reality, however, ethnic groups often differ
from each other only with respect to a very limited selec-
tion of cultural features functioning as boundary markers.
Now, ethnicization displays a remarkable dialectics which
one might consider its engine: on the one hand, the binary
opposition through nomenclature offers a logical structure,
which is further ossified through ascription (i.e. being
made into a birth right) and which presents itself as uncon-
ditioned, bounded, inescapable, and timeless (= primor-
dial); on the other hand, the actual processual realization
(through the construction of a culture coinciding with the
group boundary, through distinctive cultural symbols,
through a shared historical consciousness, through that part
of membership which is non-ascriptive but acquired)
means flexibility, choice, constructedness, and recent
change (= instrumental). Both, entirely contradictory, as-
pects of ethnicization belong to ethnicity. As a result, eth-
nicity is often of a highly kaleidoscopic nature, constantly
changing in shape and difficult to pin down to specific,
general analytical formulae. Above all, it should be real-
ized that for every set of historical actors involved their
particular vision on ethnic relations and ethnic history is
per definition that of partisans, and therefore must be sub-
jected to severe historical criticism before it can be used as
an historical source.
The given
(1) model of nominal ethnicity within a continuous
cultural space
is only one of several very distinct shapes that the ethnic
space can take in different periods and in different regions.
Several major alternative models are:
(2) The immigrant model, found in all continents
throughout history, where a set of immigrants
(not necessarily less numerous than the original
population) have managed to insert themselves
into the local geographic space, and while re-
taining a selection of linguistic and cultural spe-
cific traits (often as a result of continued
contacts with these immigrants original home,
which may be quite distant, and both culturally
and linguistically very distinct from their new
host society), have begun to function as an inte-
gral part of that host societys ethnic space.
(3) The conquest model, found in all continents
throughout history as a variant of the immigrant
model, in situations where an immigrant domi-
nant minority (of pastoralists, metal-workers,
warriors with superior skills and weapons, etc.)
has imposed itself as a distinct ethnic minority
19
upon a pre-existing local population, retaining
its distinct identity and thus its prerogatives of
inequality through a package that, in addition to
military, technological superiority, may include
a language and customs different from the local
majority, special ritual functions, and a strategy
of endogamy.
(4) The millet system that was the standard form of
ethnic space under the Ottoman empire in the
Middle East and eastern Europe from the late
Middle Ages to the early 20th century AD (al-
though in fact this may be traced back to the
Babylonian, Assyrian, and Achaemenid empires
of the second and first millennium BC, as medi-
ated through Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine,
and early Islamic empires): the states overall
political and military space encompasses a
number of distinct ethnic groups (Turks, Jews,
Greeks, Circassians, etc.) each of which are
largely self-contained in cultural, linguistic,
marital, judicial, and religious matters, and each
of which displays both in life-style and in
physical appearance a distinct identity (per-
petuated over time because these ethnic groups
are endogamous), although they share the over-
all public economic space production, exchange
and state appropriation, often against the back-
ground of a lingua franca.
(5) The colonial plural societies of Asia, Africa,
and Latin America in the 19th and 20th centu-
ries AD, which mutatis mutandis are rather
similar to the millet system, but whose top-
ranking ethnic groups in terms of political
power (the European civil servants, agricultural
settlers, and industrialists, with their secondary
entourage from the distant metropolitan coloniz-
ing country) in fact function as an example of
the conquest model (3).
(6) The melting-pot model of the urban society of
North America in the late 19th and 20th centu-
ries AD, where very heterogenous sets of nu-
merous first-generation immigrants rapidly shed
much of the cultural specificity of their society
of origin, although it is true to say that the de-
scendants of many of these immigrant groups,
rather than disappearing in the great melting pot
of Americanness, continue to stand out with a
distinct ethnic identity, to inform especially the
more private, intimate aspects of life (family,
reproduction, recreation, religion) and main-
tained by a selection of language and custom
and a tendency to endogamy.
(7) Very common and widespread (e.g. in south
Central Africa, Central Asia, the Ottoman em-
pire, medieval Europe, the Bronze Age Mediter-
ranean, etc.) is the specialization model where,
within an extended ethnic space, each ethnic
group is associated with a specific specialization
in the field of production, circulation or ser-
vices, so that the ethnic system is largely also a
system of social, economic, and political inter-
dependence, exchange, and appropriation. Agri-
culture, animal husbandry, fishing, hunting,
trading, banking, military, judicial, royal, reli-
gious, recreational, performative, artistic func-
tions may each be associated (in actual practice,
or merely in ideology) with specific ethnic
groups. Often such a specialization model is
combined with, or is a particular application of,
some of the other systems listed above.
More models could easily be added to this list. Each
of these models displays a different mix, a different pack-
age of cultural, linguistic, and ritual elements, with differ-
ing degrees of explicit ethnic consciousness at the level of
the social actors involved. It is therefore important to re-
peat that the specific composition of the distinct package in
a concrete ethnic situation in space and time, can never be
taken for granted and needs to be established by empirical
research in each individual case.
21
2. ETHNICITY AND PROTOHISTORY
The study of the Sea Peoples, whose attack on Egypt and
the Levant marks the watershed between palace-bound
Late Bronze Age empires and more or less polis-oriented
Early Iron Age societies, leads us into the field of Mediter-
ranean protohistory as there are not yet any contemporary
works of history to inform us about the course of events.
As a result of this, we have to content ourselves with
piecemeal preserved epigraphical records, often of a
propagandistic nature, or bits of information from literary
sources of a later date, which can be supplemented by
relevant archaeological data. However, as the title of this
monograph suggests, our aim is not merely to study the
protohistorical Sea Peoples as such, but in particular to fo-
cus on their ethnicity, thus stimulating us to combine the
methods of ethnic studies with that of protohistory.
The factors which play a role in the definition of eth-
nicity are neatly summed up by Herodotos when he makes
the Athenians answer to the Spartan envoys, who feared
that Athens might come to terms with Persia:
There is not enough gold in the world, nor any land
so beautiful, that we would accept it in return for col-
luding with the Persians and bringing Hellas into
slavery. There are many important reasons to prevent
us from doing so, even if we wished to there is a
Greek nation our shared blood and language, our
common temples and rituals, our similar way of
life.
13
In similar vein, Jonathan Hall distinguishes race,
language, religion, and shared culture as factors in the self-
expression of ethnic groups. Rightly, he stresses in this
connection that these factors are not defining criteria of
ethnicity, but indicia, as he goes to great length to show
that, for example, a language may have a more restricted
distribution than the ethnic group or, vice versa, may have
a wider distribution than the ethnic group, or that the eth-
nic group may be bilingual or multilingual, or change from
one language to another altogether (cf. section 1).
14
Another point rightly emphasized by Hall is that the
determination of ethnic identity is in essence an historical
process. Thus it can happen that individuals consider
themselves as members of an ethnic group without distin-
guishing themselves from other ethnic groups by any of

13
Histories VIII, 144; cf. Hall 1989: 165.
14
Hall 1997: 19-26.
the ethnic indicia: Someone is a Lue [= ethnic group in
Thailand] by virtue of believing and calling himself a
Lue.
15
It is clear that we are at a loss to trace this type of
ethnic group with a protohistorical method, as the contem-
porary epigraphical records or literary sources of a later
period we will be working with often fall short in present-
ing the so-called emic point of view.
16
The best thing we
can do is to reconstruct distribution patterns of language
groups and archaeological cultures, and assume that where
these two overlap the nucleus of an ethnic entity will to all
probability be lurking at the background (cf. Fig. 1b).
religion culture ethnicity
kinship
language
Fig. 1b. Diagram of the partial relationship between ethnicity and
its indicia, kinship, material culture, language, and religion.
17
According to Hall, this latter approach is fallacious,
because linguistic and cultural boundaries are seldom co-
terminous.
18
However, in my view that is overstating the
evidence: there are numerous instances in which archaeo-
logical cultures overlap with language groups, especially
in contrastive situations like, for example, the colonization
by the Greeks of culturally different regions in the Early
Iron Age.
As far as the Black Sea area is concerned, there is un-

15
Hall 1997: 24.
16
Cf. Lomas 1997: 2.
17
I am indebted to Wim van Binsbergen for drawing this diagram.
18
Hall 1997: 23.
22
certainty about the 8th century BC colonization of Sinope
and Trapezus on the northern Anatolian coast, because this
cannot be backed up by archaeological evidence. But the
refoundation of Sinope by the Milesians Kretinos and
Koos after the period of the Kimmerian invasion coincides
with late 7th century BC east-Greek and a little Korinthian
pottery from graves. Similarly, the Milesian colonization
of Histria in present-day Romania, which is variously
dated to 656/5 (Eusebios) or the late 7th century BC
(pseudo-Skymnos), is archaeologically matched by Middle
Wild Goat (= east-Greek) style pottery dating from c. 630
BC onwards. Furthermore, the likewise Milesian colony at
Borysthenes or Berezan, an emporion near the mouth of
the river Bug, the foundation of which is dated to 646/5
BC by Eusebios, produced a wide variety of east-Greek
(besides some Attic and Korinthian) pottery from occupa-
tion deposits dating from the second quarter of the 7th cen-
tury BC onwards. Here were also found Milesian coins
(late 7th century BC) and a Greek inscription on a bone
plaque (late 6th or early 5th century BC). As a final exam-
ple from the Black Sea region, we may point to Khersone-
sos in the Crimea, which was founded by Dorians from
Herakleia Pontica (the latter being a Megarian colony) in
422/1 BC, but used already before this date as a trading
station. Next to burials in amphorae from Samos and
Thasos dated to the beginning of the 5th century BC, os-
traka from about the same time were found here inscribed
first in the Megarian alphabet and later in the Milesian one
with Dorian personal names.
19
If we turn to Egypt, it so happens that pharaoh Psam-
metichos I (664-610 BC) granted Greeks, who had served
him as mercenaries, the right to settle in a trading colony
called Naukratis a site 3 km from present day el-Niqr
along the western branch of the Nile delta. The validity of
this historical information is underlined by the fact that
Greek pottery is attested for the earliest layer of the site
dating from c. 630 BC onwards. The privileged position of
the Greeks at Naukratis is subsequently reinforced by
Amasis (570-526 BC), under whose rule the Greeks built a
joint sanctuary, the Hellenion. In this sanctuary pottery has
been found inscribed with the Greek text to the gods of
the Greeks. Next, there have been excavated temples of
individual states, like that of Aphrodite (Chian), Hera
(Samian), Apollo (Milesian), and the Dioskouroi (unspeci-

19
Tsetskhladze 1994: 115-23; for the Berezan inscription on a
bone plaque, see Onyshkevych 2002.
fied), whereas pottery finds range from Rhodian, Chian
(one inscribed with a dedication by Sostratos [= Aeginetan
trader who also dedicated an inscription at Graviscae in
Etruria] to Aphrodite), Samian, Clazomenian, Lesbian
(bucchero) from the Aegean islands to Spartan, Korinthian,
and Attic from the Greek mainland. Interesting also is a fa-
ience factory producing scarabs and other Aegyptiaca for
the Greek market.
20
Finally, the Greeks also expanded into the western
Mediterranean. The earliest site in this area is Pithecussae
on the island of Ischia before the coast of present-day
Naples. This emporion produced Euboian and Korinthian
ware next to Greek inscriptions (among which the famous
Nestor cup) dating from c. 770-675 BC, which coincides
nicely with the fact that according to literary evidence
Euboians from Khalkis and Eretria were once stationed
here. Of these two Greek population groups, the Khalkidi-
ans went over to the Italian mainland and settled at Cumae
the oldest of all the Sicilian and Italiotic cities
21
, an
event reflected in the archaeological record by Greek in-
humation graves dating from c. 725 BC onwards.
22
But as
Naxos in Sicily is the earliest Greek colonial foundation in
the west, we should refrain from considering Pithecussae
and Cumae as purely Greek enterprises. In Pithecussae,
next to Greek inscriptions, Aramaic and proto-Etruscan
ones came to light, indicating the presence of Aramaean
and Tyrrhenian merchants and/or resident aliens from
North Syria and the Aegean, respectively, whereas Cumae
is named after Kume in Aiolia on the coast of western
Anatolia, and, next to Greek graves, produced a very rich
Etruscan cremation burial, the so-called fondo Artiaco, and
an Etruscan inscription in the earliest period of its exis-
tence.
23
The story of the subsequent colonization of Naxos
(by the Khalkidians, 734 BC), Syracuse (by the Korin-
thians, 733 BC) and the other sites in Sicily, and their im-
portance for the absolute chronology of Greek (especially
Korinthian) pottery, may be considered familiar by now.
24
Still interesting to adduce is that the historical tradition of
the Phokaians from Aiolia in western Anatolia sailing all

20
Boardman 1994; cf. Boardman 1999: 118-33.
21
Strabo, Geography V, 4, 4.
22
Boardman 1999: 165-9.
23
Buchner 1982: 293; Woudhuizen 1992a: 154-64; Woudhuizen
1998-9: 176-8 (cf. section 10, esp. notes 298 and 303-5 below).
24
Boardman 1999: 169 ff; cf. Dunbabin 1999 (esp. 435-8).
23
the way to Tartessos just outside the pillars of Herakles in
southern Iberia is reflected in the archaeological record of
Huelva by north-Ionian bird bowls and Aiolian bucchero
dating from c. 630-580 BC.
25
Apparently to accommodate
this long-distance trade the Phokaians founded colonies
along the route at Marseilles (= Massalia, c. 600 BC) and
Ampurias (= Emporion, also c. 600 BC).
26
With a view to linguistics, it deserves our attention
that there can be distinguished four types of names for the
Greek colonies in general: (1) after or derived from geo-
graphic names in the motherland, like Cumae, Megara Hy-
blaia, and Naxos; (2) based on Greek divine names, like
Apollonia, Herakleia, and Posidonia; (3) based on Greek
vocabulary words, like Emporion, Naukratis, Olbia, and
Khersonesos; or (4) derived from local geographic (espe-
cially river) names, like Borysthenes, Gela, Histria, and
Sybaris.
Fig. 2. Distribution of the Greek dialects (from Hall 1997: 154,
Fig. 25).
Thus far our interdisciplinary method to detect proto-
historical ethnic groups, notwithstanding its shortcomings,
seems to work fairly well. But what about less contrastive
situations, when a population shift takes place from one
point to another within a cultural continuum? The best ex-
ample of such a case is the migration of the Dorians from
various regions in Phokis and Thessaly to the Peloponne-
sos under the leadership of Heraklid kings, who, as the

25
Cabrera & Olmos 1985; cf. Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 150.
26
Shefton 1994: 61-3 (east-Greek and Korinthian wares reported
for the earliest layer); 70-1
myth goes, return to their ancestral lands some time after
the Trojan war. In fact, the evaluation of the historicity of
this event is a central theme in Halls study of ethnicity in
antiquity.
The problem of the coming of the Dorians and the re-
turn of the Heraklids involves three categories of evidence:
linguistic, historical (or mythical),
27
and archaeological.
The linguistic thesis is presented by the map of the distri-
bution of the Greek dialects (see Fig. 2). What strikes us
about this distribution is that speakers of Arkado-Cyprian
which is the dialect closest to the Mycenaean Greek lan-
guage as attested for Linear B tablets from the Late Bronze
Age besides their extension to Cyprus (not on the map),
are locked up in the Arkadian upland plain in the centre of
the Pelopponesos and entirely surrounded by speakers of
the West Greek or Doric dialect. From this distribution pat-
tern it may be extrapolated that Arkado-Cyprian was once
spoken in a wider area including the coastal regions of the
Pelopponesos in order to explain the maritime connection
with Cyprus, and that West Greek or Doric is a latecomer
in the region, having been introduced in the Pelopponesos
and spread to Crete, the Dodekanesos, southwest Asia Mi-
nor, and Rhodes after the downfall of the Mycenaean civi-
lization.
The historical antithesis consists of mythical tradi-
tions that the Dorians once lived in various regions of
Thessaly (first Phthia in the south and later Histiaiotis ei-
ther at the foot of the Pindos mountain in the midwest or
between mounts Ossa and Olympos in the northeast) and
Phokis (Dryopis, later called Doris). In Thessaly, the Dori-
ans became associated with a royal house descended from
Herakles, who during his labors visited the region of His-
tiaiotis and helped the Dorians to defeat their enemies, the
Lapiths, in return of which he received a third share of the
land and the kingship from them. Now, Herakles is, like
Eurystheus, who through the wiles of Hera became king in
his place, a member of the Perseid dynasty of Mycenae.
This latter dynasty was subsequently replaced by the house
of Pelops, to which Agamemnon, the king of Mycenae at
the time of the Trojan war, belongs. After a futile attempt
of the Heraklids to regain their throne under Herakles son
Hyllos, the great-grandson of the latter, Temenos, together

27
In general, concerning the category the historical or mythical
evidence as presented by the literary sources, Forsdykes (1957:
162) adagium that Plausible fiction can only be distinguished
from fact by external evidence (). should be applied whenever
possible.
24
with the Heraklids Kresphontes and Aristodemos, led an
army of Dorians to the Pelopponesos, drove out the last
representative of the Pelopids, Teisamenes, the son of
Orestes, and divided the Pelopponesos in three parts, Te-
menos himself taking Argos, the sons of Aristodemos
(whose father had been killed by a thunderbolt) receiving
Sparta, and Kresphontes being allotted Messenia.
Apparently, the literary traditions tally very well with
the linguistic evidence, but the missing link to solve the
riddle of the Dorian invasion once and for all is formed by
the archaeological side of the story. Like others before
him, Hall is not able to find archaeological evidence for a
migration from the region of Thessaly to the Pelopponesos
and gets so frustrated that he altogether denounces the
mythical stories as inventions of later date (whether, and if
so, how he revaluates the evidence of the dialects is not
clear).
28
The solution of this problem, however, has been
presented by Birgitta Eder in a thorough study of the ar-
chaeological evidence from the Argolid, Lakonia, and
Messenia from the end of the Late Bronze Age to the Pro-
togeometric period. As Eder convincingly shows, all three
regions of the Pelopponesos suffer from heavy depopula-
tion during the Submycenaean period (= dearth of material
evidence) and receive new population impulses at the end
of the Submycenaean and beginning of the Protogeometric
period (= reappearance of material evidence). In the course
of this latter process, there are some traces of discontinuity
in material culture with that of the previous Mycenaean
one in the form of graves for individual burials dug in for-
mer habitation areas (Mycenae and Tiryns), the introduc-
tion of handmade ware with affinities to pottery of middle
Greece (Tiryns and Asine), and the (re)introduction of ap-
sidal houses.
29
As after the low ebb in material finds from
the Submycenaean period the archaeological culture in the
regions of the Pelopponesos under discussion develops
without a break from the Protogeometric period to the
Classical one and beyond, Eder rightly concludes that this
is the time that the ancestors of the historical Dorians have
arrived and, we would like to add to this conclusion, that
the ancestors of the historical Dryopes, a distinct ethnic
group inhabiting Asine in the Argolid until the end of the
8th century BC, might be among them!
30

28
Hall 1997: 56-65; 184-5; Hall 2002: 73-89.
29
Eder 1998: esp. 57 (Mycenae); 58-62 (Tiryns); 67-8 (Asine).
30
On the Dryopes, see Strid 1999.
Instead of addressing Eders archaeological results,
however, Hall energetically persists in his disqualification
of the literary traditions on the return of the Heraklids and
the coming of the Dorians as mere inventions a very un-
satisfactory point of view for an adherent of what he calls
the historically positivist school like myself.
31
And he
puts some venom in this, when he associates the interdisci-
plinary method propagated here in his words the cul-
ture-historical approach with its nationalistically
colored application by Gustav Kossinna and the subse-
quent abuse of the latters views for the Blut und Boden
propaganda of the German Nazis.
32
In section 1 above we
have seen how Kosinnas adagium that cultural provinces
clearly outlined archaeologically coincide in all periods
with precise peoples or tribes falls short of explaining the
complexities of reality and that the different categories of
evidence need to be tackled individually.
If, for the sake of argument, we would join Hall in his
rejection of the interdisciplinary method propagated here
notwithstanding its noted shortcomings and deficiencies,
the immediate consequence would be that the phenomenon
of ethnic groups detectable for the historical period did not
exist in protohistorical and prehistorical times a basically
improbable assumption. The more so, because already in
this early period we are confronted with ethnonyms those
of the Sea Peoples being at the heart and core of the inves-
tigation we are presently embarking on , which Hall him-
self considered a vital component of ethnic conscious-
ness.
33
Homeros and History
An important literary source for the reconstruction of the
early history of the region of Greece and the Aegean is
formed by Homeros epics the Iliad and the Odyssey. As
related forms of six from the total of nine ethnonyms of the
Sea Peoples figure in them, the Homeric poems also have a
direct bearing on our topic.
34
The fundamental question is,
however, which period do the Iliad and the Odyssey re-
flect, the Late Bronze Age or the Early Iron Age, or both,

31
Hall 2002: 73-89; Hall 1997: 41.
32
Hall 1997: 129; Hall 2002: 38.
33
Hall 2002: 55.
34
Akhaioi-Ekwesh, Danaoi-Denye(n), Lukioi-Lukka, Pelasgoi-
Peleset, Sikeloi-Shekelesh, and Teukros-Tjeker.
25
or none at all?
A lot of ink has been spilled on this question, and I
am not aiming to present an exhaustive treatment of the
relevant literature, but only to briefly adstruct my own po-
sition in this matter. One work needs to be mentioned here,
however, and that is Martin Persson Nilssons Homer and
Mycenae (1933), which, in my opinion, offers the best in-
troduction to the Homeric question.
35
As the latter author
goes at great length to explain, the Homeric poems are the
result of a long lasting epic tradition, in which bards con-
stantly rehandled their material for instant public perform-
ances and old and new elements are mixed together like
currants and raisins in a well-kneaded dough. Conse-
quently, the efforts made by many a scholar to distinguish
early and late passages are altogether futile: there can, with
the help of archaeological, historical, and linguistic data,
only be distinguished early and late elements!
Among the late elements, the first that comes to mind
is iron. This metal is mentioned 23x in the Iliad and 25x in
the Odyssey.
36
Now, it is clear that in the Homeric poems
a conscious attempt is made at archaizing by having the
weapons made of bronze. Only in two instances, Iliad IV,
123 and Odyssey XIX, 13, the poet (= poetic tradition
epitomized in Homeros) makes a slip of the tongue and
speaks of weapons of iron. In this respect, then, the Iliad
and the Odyssey may be assumed to have reached their fi-
nal form in about the same period and not the one earlier
than the other as is often assumed. Note further in this
connection that the iron club of Arethos (Iliad VII, 141-
4) is a special case: it may have been made of meteoric
iron, which was already known in the Bronze Age, or it
may be one of those rare objects of mined iron on the pro-
duction of which the Hittites had a monopoly during the
Late Bronze Age.
Another definite Early Iron Age element is formed by
the close association of the Phoenicians with the Sidonians
the latter being mentioned 4x in the Iliad and 13x in the
Odyssey. Although George Bass makes a strong case for
Canaanite shipping to Greece and the central Mediterra-
nean already in the Late Bronze Age on the basis of the
shipwrecks found by him off the coast of Lycia at Ulubu-
run near Kas (c. 1300 BC) and at cape Gelidonya near

35
Other pertinent literature: Page 1959, Webster 1960, and Latacz
2003.
36
Gehring 1901, s.v. sidereios, sidereos, sideros.
Finike (c. 1200 BC),
37
Jacob Katzenstein convingingly
demonstrates that the prominent position of the Sidonians
among the Phoenicians dates from the refoundation of
Tyre by the Sidonians in 1197 BC to the Assyrian con-
quest of the city at the end of the reign of Eloulaios, 694
BC: in this period the kings of Tyre were addressed as
king of the Sidonians.
38
Next, it so happens that the standard burial rite in the
Homeric poems is cremation. The latter rite is already
known in the Late Bronze Age for Hittite royal burials,
39
and there are more than 200 cinerary urns reported for the
cemetery of Troy VIh.
40
But for Greece, one is especially
reminded of the burial of the hero of Lefkandi in the 10th
century BC and the burials at the west gate of Eretria from
the 8th century BC.
41
In general, it may be stated that the
popularity of the rite of cremation in Greece is an Early
Iron Age feature.
A further Early Iron Age feature is the use of the term
basileus as a mere substitute for anaks king. Both these
titles are already found in Linear B, where they occur as
qa-si-re-u and wa-na-ka, respectively, but only the latter
renders the meaning king here, whereas the former de-
notes a functionary of lower rank in, so far specified, the
bronze industry.
42
It is interesting to observe in this con-
nection that the titular expression anaks andrn, with only
one exception in which it is associated with Eumelos of
Iolkos (Iliad XXIII, 288), is reserved for the supreme
commander of the Greeks, Agamemnon.
Also in the field of armory and fighting methods
Early Iron Age elements have slipped in. Thus the warriors
are often equipped with a round shield, two spears, and
greaves the latter in one instance from tin (Iliad XVIII,
613). As Robert Drews cogently argues, the innovative
round shield is introduced into the eastern Mediterranean
by Sherden mercenaries from Sardinia fighting in the
Egyptian army from the beginning of the 13th century BC
onwards. Its earliest attestation in Greece is on the warrior
vase from Mycenae, dated to Late Helladic IIIC, i.e. just

37
Bass 1997.
38
Katzenstein 1973: 58-63; 130-2.
39
Haas 2000 (esp. 66-7).
40
Vanschoonwinkel 1991: 195.
41
Popham, Touloupa & Sackett 1982; Brard 1970 (cf. section
10, esp. note 288 below).
42
Ventris & Chadwick 1973: glossary, s.v.
26
after the end of the Bronze Age.
43
Drews further shows
that the round shield is used together with a slashing
sword, two spears or javelins, and metal greaves in hand-
to-hand fighting by skirmishers.
44
In an earlier period,
Greek infanterists were used to the towershield, which
covered the entire body. The latter shield also turns up in
the Iliad particularly in association with the Salaminian
hero Aias. But sometimes the poet (= poetic tradition
epitomized in Homeros) gets confused and calls the tower-
shield (sakos) small (Iliad XIV, 376) and wrongly asso-
ciates it with greaves (Iliad III, 330-5), whereas the round
shield (aspis) is stated to reach the feet (Iliad XV, 645-
6).
45
Another striking Late Bronze Age reminiscent be-
sides the towershield is the boars tusk helmet (Iliad X,
261-5). An important factor, however, in Late Bronze Age
fighting is formed by the chariot. In Egyptian reliefs it is
shown that the chariot was used as a mobile platform to
shoot arrows with the composite bow.
46
In the Iliad the
chariots are sometimes used for fighting with a long lance
or spear, just as it is depicted on a Late Helladic IIA seal
from Vapheio in the Argolid.
47
But in general the original
use of the chariot as a mobile platform from which the
warrior actually fights seems no longer clear to the poet
and he stages it, in line with pictorial evidence from Late
Helladic IIIC,
48
as a taxi for elite warriors to move to the
front, where they get out and fight on foot as infanterists
(note, however, that in some instances, as at the beginning
of Iliad XII, this tactic is merely determined by the terrain,
because the chariots cannot possibly cross the ditch in
front of the wall near the ships of the Greek camp).

43
Drews 1993a: 177-9.
44
Drews 1993a: 176-208.
45
For the erroneous coalescence of these data into a very big
round shield which can only be carried by fairy tale heroes, see
van Wees 1992: 17-22.
46
Drews 1993a: 104-34; Drews 1988: 84 ff.
47
Crouwel 1981: Pl. 11; cf. Wiesner 1968: F 27; F 95.
48
E.g. Crouwel 1981: Pl. 59; note that Crouwels (1981: 119 ff.)
downplaying of the early evidence for Mycenaean warriors actu-
ally fighting from the chariot, reducing it to the scene of the seal
from Vapheio just mentioned to the neglect of, for example, the
scenes on the stelae from the shaft graves (Crouwel 1981: Pls. 35-
7), is induced by his preoccupation with the most common Ho-
meric use of the chariot as a taxi, so that his conclusion (Crouwel
1981: 151) that the iconographic evidence agrees with this particu-
lar Homeric use is not only a simplification of the state of affairs
but in effect rests on circular reasoning.
The palace-bound civilization of Late Bronze Age
Greece was characterized by an intricate system of admini-
stration on clay tablets inscribed in Linear B. Homeros, on
the other hand, is totally unaware of this script his only
reference to a regular script, the semata lugra baneful
signs in the Bellerophon story (Iliad VI, 168), defines this
as an exotic phenomenon.
It also seems reasonable to suggest that the use of
clothing pins or fibulae, as referred to in both the Iliad (X,
133; XIV, 180 [both verbal forms]) and the Odyssey (XIX,
226; 256), constitutes an Early Iron Age feature, because
these objects only turn up in graves from the latter period.
Note in this connection that the perone according to Hero-
dotos is a characteristic feature of Doric dress.
49
Finally, there are some names paralleled only for
Early Iron Age texts. This has a bearing on the Arimoi in
the territory where Typhoeus is situated, which probably
refers to the volcanic island of Pithecussae off the coast of
present-day Naples in Italy, and hence we are likely to be
dealing here with Aramaeans (Iliad II, 781-3);
50
the Kim-
merians, who invaded Anatolia and northern Mesopotamia
from the Russian Crimea at the end of the 8th century BC
and therefore are thoroughly out of place in the context of
Odysseus visit to the underworld somewhere in the central
Mediterranean (Odyssey XI, 14); lake Gygaia in Maeonia,
likely to be named after the Lydian tyrant Gyges, who
ruled from 685 to 657 BC (Iliad XX, 390-1; cf. II, 865);
51
and the Dorians on Crete, who, as we have shown above,
can only be surmised to have colonized the island at the
end of the Submycenaean or beginning of the Proto-
geometric period (Odyssey XIX, 177).
Notwithstanding these Early Iron Age features, which
have filtered in during the hundreds of years of improvised
epic performances by the bards and which no doubt can be
multiplied by closer study, the heart and core of the Ho-
meric poems reflects a Late Bronze Age politico-historical
setting. One of the strongest arguments to underline this
statement is formed by the fact that Heinrich Schliemann
on the basis of the geographical information in Homeros
epics excavated the citadels of Troy (1870), Mycenae
(1876), and Tiryns (1884) an empirical approach in the

49
Lorimer 1950: 337; cf. also porpe mentioned in Iliad XVIII,
401. For the Dark Ages in general, see Desborough 1972 and
Snodgrass 2000.
50
Bernal 1991: 192.
51
Kullmann 1999: 192.
27
humaniora which comes closest to experiment in the natu-
ral sciences. To these epoch-making finds, Carl Blegen
supplemented the discovery of the Mycenaean palace of
Pylos (1939), which was destroyed at the end of the Late
Bronze Age and therefore cannot possibly be accommo-
dated in an Early Iron Age environment. To this comes
that the king of Mycenae, Agamemnon, is endowed with
the power to call all the other Greek kings from both the
mainland and the Aegean islands to service in war which
presumes a political unity reflected in the archaeological
record by the so-called Mycenaean koine of Late Helladic
IIIB, but never reached again until the unification of
Greece by Alexander the Great at the start of the Hellenis-
tic period.
The historical validity of the supreme power of the
king of Mycenae is further emphasized by the recognition
of the king of Aiyawa (= Greek Akhaians) as a great
king in correspondence with the Hittites, namely in the so-
called Tawagalawas-letter from presumably the reign of
the Hittite great king Muwatallis II (1295-1271 BC). The
latter source of evidence further affirms the historicity of
Agamemnons father and predecessor, Atreus, who appears
in the so-called Indictment of Madduwattas from the reigns
of Tudaliyas II (1390-1370 BC) and Arnuwandas I (1370-
1355 BC) as Attarissiyas, the man of Aiy (= a short-
hand variant of Aiyawa). Moreover, in a treaty also from
the reign of Muwatallis II the kingdom of Troy is referred
to as Wilusa, the Hittite equivalent of Greek Ilios (<
*Wilios), and turns out to be headed by a king named
Alaksandus, the Hittite equivalent of Greek Aleksandros.
As a matter of fact, in the aforesaid Tawagalawas-letter, a
conflict between the Hittite king and his Aiyawan col-
league over Wilusa is explicitly mentioned an incident
which inflated in Greek memory to the famous Trojan war
(see further section 8 below)!
In alignment with the Hittite evidence, it is of no little
consequence for the historicity of the Trojan war that the
Hittites, as first realized by Thomas Webster, are staged in
Homeros account of it as allies of Troy in two capacities:
first in the enumeration of the Trojan allies at the end of
book II of the Iliad as Halyzones from far away Alybe a
city, like the Hittite capital Hattusa, associated with silver
(Iliad II, 856); and second as Keteioi, whose leader Eu-
rypylos, the son of the Mysian king Telephos, is killed by
Akhilleus son Neoptolemos (Odyssey XI, 521).
52
To this

52
Webster 1960: 67; Meyer 1968: 12 identifies Alybe with the
may also be added
53
the mythical Amazones, an enemy
whom the Phrygians run up against when trying to carve
out a territorium for themselves along the Sangarios river
in Anatolia at the time when Priamos still fought himself
(Iliad III, 184) and whom Bellerophon stumbles upon dur-
ing his adventures inland from Lycia (Iliad VI, 186).
Furthermore, another strong argument in favor of the
Late Bronze Age politico-historical setting of the Homeric
poems is provided by the catalogue of the ships. As far as
the Greek mainland is concerned, it stands out that Aitolia
and Thessaly are represented, but northwest Greece is not.
This coincides with the distribution of Late Helladic IIIB
ware in connection with settlements and chamber tombs
with multiple burials, from which northwest Greece is ex-
cluded: apparently the latter region is not Hellenized be-
fore the Early Iron Age.
54
Similarly, as duly stressed by
Joachim Latacz, the Cyclades and the west coast of Asia
Minor are also not represented, which, as far as the last
mentioned area is concerned, is historically correct since
the Aiolian, Ionian, and Doric migrations to western Ana-
tolia date from the Submycenaean period onwards. A prob-
lem is posed, however, by the position of Miletos (= Hittite
Millawanda), which according to Homeros is inhabited by
Carians and sides with the Trojans (Iliad II, 686), whereas
it definitely belonged to the Mycenaean (archaeologically)
or Akhaian (historically) sphere of influence at the time of
the Trojan war (c. 1280 BC). As Millawanda is in the Hit-
tite records reported to have changed sides during the reign
of Tudaliyas IV (1239-1209 BC), the Homeric position of

Khalybes from the Black Sea coast, which is linguistically possi-
ble, but chronologically inadequate as these latter are only attested
for the Early Iron Age. Note in this connection that Hittite invol-
vement in Mysia is assured by their foundation of Sarawa there,
see Woudhuizen 1992a: 138.
53
Smit 1988-9: 54, with reference to Garstang 1929: 86 f. for the
Amazones and 172 for the Keteioi; see further Leonhard 1911: 15-
6. Note with Gindin 1999: 225-6 that the relation between Keteioi
and Amazones is enhanced by the fact that the name of the leader
of the former, Eurypylos, is a masculine variant of that of the
queen of the latter, Eurypyle. The same author also rightly stressed
the relation of the name Telephos with the Hittite royal name Tele-
pinus (p. 248-9), and that of his second son Tarkhn with the Lu-
wian divine name Tar unt (p. 225). The close knit fabric of
mythical associations is further elaborated by the fact that the wife
of Telephos is recorded to fight from the chariot like an Amazone
(Gindin 1999: 248-9). On top of this, the leader of the Keteioi is
called a megas basileus great king by Quintus of Smyrna, see
Gindin 1999: 231.
54
Smit 1989: esp. 180 (map); cf. Latacz 2003: 266, Abb. 22, and
section 8, Fig. 12a below.
28
Miletos may be due to an historical hypercorrection.
55
Finally, the close contacts of the Mycenaean Ak-
haians with the Hittites as attested for Hittite correspon-
dence can be further illustrated by the fact that Homeros in
two instances has applied a standard expression from Hit-
tite texts in annalistic tradition according to which the
chief deity, in the case of the Hittites the stormgod, runs
before the king and his army in battle to secure victory.
56
Thus, in one passage Apollo, the chief god of the Trojans,
mentioned in form of Appaliunas as one of the local oath-
gods in the Alaksandus-treaty,
57
precedes the Trojans with
the aegis in their attempt to storm the Greek wall (Iliad
XV, 307-11), and in another Athena, one of the deities on
the Greek side, precedes Akhilleus when he conquers
Lyrnessos and Pedasos to the south of mount Ida (Iliad
XX, 94-6)!

55
Latacz 2003: 278 ff.; 339 f. See further section 8 below.
56
For the earliest example, see Bryce 1998: 135 (annals of
Tudaliyas I, 1430-1400 BC); Woudhuizen 1994-5: 181, note 131;
Woudhuizen 2004a: 38, note 42 (the literal translation of Hittite
pran uya- or uw(i)- is to run before); see Yalburt, phrases
4, 7, 11, and 32 for Luwian hieroglyphic examples.
57
Latacz 2003: 58; 138 ( 20).
29
3. HISTORICAL SETTING
In this section I will present a brief overview of the main
historical developments in the Near East with a bearing on
the Levant from the catastrophic events at the end of the
reign of Narm-Sin of Akkad and during the First Interme-
diary Period in Egypt to those marking the end of the
Bronze Age. In doing so, I will base myself on Redford
1992 (with chronology adapted to Kitchen 1989) and
Bryce 1998, unless indicated otherwise.
At the end of his reign, Narm-Sin of Akkad (2291-
2255 BC) was defeated by a group of mountain dwellers
called the Guti, who conquered Babylon and ruled it for a
period of about one century. At the time of their onslaught
on Babylon, these Guti came from the mountainous region
of the Lower Zb in western Iran. A later source from the
time of Hammurabi (1792-1750 BC) reports that part of
their land was called Tukri. From this piece of information,
W.B. Henning deduced that we may well be dealing with
the Tocharians inhabiting the Tarim basin along the west-
ern border of China in the historical period, who addressed
themselves both as Tugri and as Kuci (< Guti).
58
If this is
correct, we actually have here the first historical evidence
about a group of Indo-Europeans.
In about the same time as the Gutian onslaught on
Akkad, at the end of Early Bronze Age II, there is massive
evidence for large-scale destruction of settlements in Ana-
tolia, especially in the Konya region and Cilicia later oc-
cupied by Luwians. The subsequent lack of reoccupation
suggested to James Mellaart that the affected regions be-
came the grazing grounds of nomads.
59
The origin of the
nomads in question may perhaps be indicated by the evi-
dence of the royal burials at Alaca Hyk, which are of
similar type as those of the later Mycenaeans and Phry-
gians, and characterized by solar discs and theriomorphic
standards recalling counterparts from Horoztepe and
Mahmatlar in the Pontic region: all these elements have
been attributed by Ekrem Akurgal to Indo-Europeans
60

nomadic cattle-breeders and herdsmen originating from
61
the steppe zone north of the Black Sea, the Caucasus, and

58
Henning 1978.
59
Mellaart 1971: 406-10.
60
Akurgal 1992: 1-5.
61
Mallory 1989.
beyond. Accordingly, we appear to be confronted with two
concerted invasions by Indo-Europeans in the 23rd century
BC: one by the ancestors of the later Tocharians across the
Caucasus into Mesopotamia and another by the ancestors
of the later Hittites, Luwians, and Palaians across the
Bosporus into the Anatolian highland and along the west-
ern and southern coasts into the plains of Konya and
Cilicia the latter event marked by the spread of Trojan
IIg ware with as its Leitmotiv the so-called depas am-
phikupellon.
The upheavals at the end of Late Bronze Age II in the
23rd century BC also affected the Greek mainland, Crete,
and the Levant. In Greece, for instance the House of the
Tiles at Lerna was burned down and covered by a tumu-
lus a burial custom characteristic of the Kurgan culture
of the Russian steppe. This event is commonly associated
with the arrival of the earliest Indo-Europeans in southern
Greece (see further section 7). As far as Crete is con-
cerned, the flourishing settlements at Vasiliki near the bay
of Mirabello and Myrtos (Fournou Korifi) along the south
coast were destroyed by fire and the ruins of the first cov-
ered by simple hovels and that of the second by a peak-
sanctuary a completely new phenomenon for the is-
land.
62
Against the background of the events in Anatolia
and Greece, it seems not farfetched to assume that the
Indo-European invasions also affected eastern Crete an
assumption which would allow us to explain the evidence
for the Luwian language in Cretan hieroglyphic documents
dating from the Middle Bronze Age onwards (see further
section 12 and appendix I). Finally, the Levant bears testi-
mony of a similar lapse to nomadism as Anatolia: if Indo-
Europeans were responsible for this development, as
Marija Gimbutas argued on the basis of Kurgan-like shaft-
tombs (among which a twin catacomb grave) at Bb edh-
Dr east of the Dead Sea, these have not been traced in the
records which surface again from the Middle Bronze Age
onwards.
63

62
Caskey 1971: 803; Best 1981b: 8-9. Note that according to
Hiller 1985 : 127 there was no peak-sanctuary at Myrtos after its
destruction, even though Warren 1972: 92 does suggest such a
function for an Early Minoan III arc-shaped building.
63
Gimbutas 1973 groups these Indo-European migrations together
as her second wave of Indo-Europeanization. As opposed to
this, Best 1976: 218 associates these graves with the apsidal hou-
30
It lies at hand to correlate the fall of central authority
during the First Intermediate Period in Egypt, assigned to
about 2140 BC, with the upheavals at the end of Early
Bronze Age II.
Under the 11th dynasty the unity of Egypt was re-
stored and the country rose to great power during the 12th
dynasty. At that time Byblos in the Levant was drawn
within the orbit of Egyptian influence, as can be deduced
from inscriptions by its rulers in Egyptian hieroglyphic and
the influence of the latter script on the indigenous Byblian
proto-Linear script. Synchronous with the rise of Egypt
under the 12th dynasty (= 20th and 19th centuries BC) was
the regular trade connection between Assyria and Anatolia
as examplified by Assyrian trading colonies or kru asso-
ciated with major Anatolian towns. The cuneiform tablets
from the kru inform us that the Assyrian merchants im-
ported annukum tin and woolen textiles in exchange for
Anatolian metals, especially silver and gold. The metal tin
played a crucial role in international trade from c. 2000 BC
onwards, when the bronze industry went over from arsenic
bronze to the much harder alloy of copper and tin for the
production of weapons and other artefacts. In response to
the introduction of cuneiform writing by the Assyrian trad-
ers, the indigenous Anatolians who on the basis of ono-
mastic evidence were to a large extent Indo-European, in
casu Hittite and Luwian developed their own writing
system, the so-called Luwian hieroglyphic, which to some
extent follows the model of Egyptian hieroglyphic but de-
rives its values acrophonically from the indigenous Anato-
lian vocabulary.
64
Under influence of the international tin
trade, the island Crete, which lies on a junction of mari-
time trade routes, acquired great wealth and developed a
palatial civilization,
65
with a script to write down the eco-
nomic transactions basically derived from Luwian hiero-
glyphic but with a more substantial Egyptian component
than the original received either through the medium of

ses of Meser, dated c. 3300 BC, which by and large coincides with
the early 3rd millennium BC date of a comparable twin catacomb
grave at Palermo in Sicily (Conca dOro culture) and catacomb
grave with a single chamber of the Rinaldone culture in Tuscany,
see de Vries 1976. At any rate, early Indo-European presence in
the region is indicated by the river name Jordan, based on Proto-
Indo-European *dnu- river, see Rosenkranz 1966: 136.
64
Woudhuizen 1990-1; Woudhuizen 2004a: appendix I.
65
Note that the Mari-texts from the reign of Zimri-lim (early 18th
century BC) bear testimony of kaptaraim Cretans (< Kaptara- =
Biblical Kaphtor Crete) involved in the tin-trade, see Dossin
1970: 99.
Byblos or through direct contacts with Egypt itself (see
further section 12 and appendix I).
The period of the Assyrian merchant colonies ended
in destruction, and when the smoke screen rose, a new era
had arrived. From a military point of view, a dominant fac-
tor in this new era was formed by the war chariot, which
maintained its central position untill the end of the Bronze
Age. It is true that experiments with the chariot are already
recorded for the Karum-period, as the Anatolian king Anit-
tas, who ruled in the late 19th century BC and is consid-
ered the founder of the Hittite royal house, reported his
acquisition of forty teams of horses in the course of his
capture of the town Salatiwara teams of horses which no
doubt pulled war chariots.
66
Now, the war chariot was in-
troduced in the Near East by Indo-Europeans, to be more
specific speakers of Indo-Aryan, the forerunner of Indo-
Iranian. These Indo-Aryan chariot fighters, thanks to their
military superiority, conquered the Hurritic population liv-
ing along the upper Euphrates river, and established a
royal house here. At least, this course of events is deduci-
ble from the fact that the 14th century BC text by a Mitan-
nian horse trainer named Kikkuli contains Indo-Aryan
technical terms, that the Mitannian royal house was char-
acterized by personal names with the Indo-Aryan element
ratha- chariot, and that the Mitannian nobility consisted
of maryannu, an Indo-Aryan indication of chariot fighters.
Next, they went on to the Levant and even further to Egypt
in the south, where they founded the royal house of the
Hyksos (= foreign ruler), also known as the 15th dynasty
(c. 1720-1550 BC), which was centred at Tell el-
Daba/Avaris in the eastern Delta.
67
The connection of the
Hyksos with the Levant is stressed by the fact that in the
lowest levels of their capital Tell el-Daba/Avaris so-called
Tel el-Jehudiya ware has been found comparable to that of
Byblos, and that, when they were finally kicked out by
Ahmose, the founder of the 18th dynasty who had organ-
ized his own chariot force, a remnant of their regime fled
to Sharuhen on the coast south of Gaza. Yet another Indo-
Aryan conquest with the help of the chariot is that of
Babylon by the Kassites, who, in the wake of the Hittite
king Mursilis Is sack of the latter city in 1595 BC, took
over control and founded a royal dynasty here. Finally, as

66
Drews 1988: 101-2.
67
See now Oren 1997, and note especially the warrior graves and
introduction of the horse as characteristic elements of Hyksos
culture.
31
evidenced by the decoration of their stone stelae the rulers
buried in the shaftgraves at Mycenae in Greece around
1600 BC were chariot fighters, and therefore likely foreign
conquerors.
In his eager to whipe out the last remnants of the
hated Hyksos, Ahmose (1550-1525 BC) grabbed the op-
portunity to conquer Palestine in toto and brought back
Byblos into the Egyptian sphere of influence, thus laying
the foundations for the Empire period. This imperial policy
of territorial expansion was subsequently continued by
Ahmoses successor, Amenhotep I (1525-1504 BC), who
conquered Tunip along the upper Orontes river, and Tuth-
moses I (1504-1492 BC), who campaigned up to the Eu-
phrates river. However, after a lull especially during the
reign of Hatshepsut (1479-1457 BC), it reached its zenith
under Tuthmoses III (1479-1425 BC), who even crossed
the Euphrates, defeated Mitanni, and incorporated North
Syria up to and including Ugarit, where a garrison was sta-
tioned. As a corollary to Tuthmoses IIIs defeat of Mitanni,
the latter sought a truce with Egypt, which materialized
under Amenhotep II (1427-1400 BC) in an alliance ce-
mented by the marriage of Amenhotep IIs son, the later
Tuthmoses IV, with the daughter of the Mitannian king Ar-
tatama I. What followed is a period of consolidation by di-
plomacy, vividly described in the Amarna tablets covering
the period from the later part of the reign of Amenhotep III
(1390-1352 BC) to the reign of Tutankhamon (1336-1327
BC).
68
Most striking in this correspondence is the reluc-
tance of Akhenaten (1352-1336 BC) to comply with the
desparate appeals by his loyal vassal king of Byblos, Rib-
addi, and curb the encroachments on the latters territory
by the upcoming power of Amurru under the leadership of
Abdi-asirta and his son Aziru. The story ended with the
death of Rib-addi by the hand of Aziru. The Amarna tab-
lets also provide early mentions of some groups of the Sea
Peoples, namely the Lukka and the Sherden the first as
pirates raiding Alasiya (= Cyprus)
69
and the coast of Egypt
and the second as body guards or mercenaries of Rib-addi
of Byblos.
70

68
Moran 1992: xxxv.
69
Hellbing 1979; note, however, that Egyptian Isy is not an alter-
native indication of Cyprus, as the author maintains, but a refe-
rence to the western Anatolian region Asiya or Assuwa, see section
8.
70
The earliest mention of the Lukka occurs in an Egyptian hiero-
glyphic text on an obelisk from Byblos dated c. 2000 BC, which
In the long run, however, the major concurrent of the
Egyptians for control in North Syria was not the kingdom
of Mitanni, but that of the Hittites. These had already cam-
paigned in the region under the kings of the Old Kingdom,
Hattusilis I (1640-1620 BC), who burned down Alalakh
along the lower Orontes river, and Mursilis I (1620-1590
BC), who, as we have already noted, went all the way to
Babylon, but both were not able to consolidate their con-
quests. The same holds good for Tudaliyas I (1430-1400
BC) of the New Kingdom, who is recorded to have made
peace with Aleppo, probably after a campaign in the wake
of Tuthmoses IIIs defeat of Mitanni. After a period of se-
rious troubles under Tudaliyas III (1360-1344 BC), in
which the Hittite realm had to be rebuilt from scratch, the
Hittites manifested themselves again in the North Syrian
theatre during the reign of Suppiluliumas I (1344-1322
BC). The latter defeated Mitanni decisively and was sub-
sequently able to draw Mitannis dependencies in North
Syria within his orbit. But that is not all, Suppiluliumas I
also extended his sphere of influence to Kadesh, Amurru,
and Ugarit, which fell under Egyptian suzerainty. When he
beleaguered Karkamis along the Euphrates river and ex-
pected retaliation by the Egyptians for his transgression in
their dominions, a miracle happened: the Egyptian queen,
whose husband Tutankhamun had been murdered, asked
Suppiluliumas I for a son to be remarried with, which
would mean not only an alliance but also that a Hittite
prince became king of Egypt. Unfortunately, the son which
Suppiluliumas I sent for the marriage got killed by machi-
nations of the Egyptian court. Nevertheless, he was able to
consolidate his foothold in North Syria without the danger
of Egyptian retaliation, and, after the capture of the city, he
appointed one of his sons, Piyassilis, as king of Karkamis,
who under the Hurritic throne-name Sarri-Kusu ruled
from here as viceroy over the dependencies in North Syria
an arrangement which through the latters heirs would
last to the end of what now truly may be called the Hittite
Empire.
After the untimely death of his elder brother, the
youngest son of Suppiluliumas I inherited the throne and
ruled as Mursilis II (1321-1295 BC). His main achieve-
ment was the conquest of Arzawa in western Anatolia,
from where he deported as much as 65,000 or 66,000 pris-
oners of war to other parts of the Hittite realm. Further-

renders the sequence kwkwn s rwqq Kukkunis, son of the Ly-
cian, see Albright 1959; but cf. van Seeters 1966: 79, note 24,
who dates this inscription c. 1700 BC.
32
more, he rearranged the western province into four Arzawa
lands, Mira-Kuwaliya, the Sea River Land, Hapalla-
Appawiya, and Wilusa, each under a vassal king an ar-
rangement which lasted to at least an advanced stage of the
reign of Tudaliyas IV near the end of the 13th century
BC, its resilience being due largely to the fact that it was
cemented by dynastic marriages so that the vassal kings in
question became members of the royal family themselves.
Mursilis II was followed by his son and successor, Muwa-
tallis II (1295-1272 BC). By this time, the Egyptian throne
had come into the hands of a new and militant dynasty,
founded by a former general, Ramesses I (1295-1294 BC).
With the accession of his descendant Ramesses II (1279-
1223 BC), it became clear that Egypt wanted to regain its
former dependencies in North Syria by force. In anticipa-
tion of the coming war with Egypt, Muwatallis II moved
the Hittite capital from the somewhat eccentric Hattusa to
Taruntassa in the south. Furthermore, to gather allied
forces or mercenaries he launched a campaign in the west.
Therefore, it comes as no surprise that at the inevitable
showdown of forces which eventually took place near
Kadesh in the fifth year of Ramesses IIs reign (1274 BC),
the Hittites according to the Egyptian records were, inter
alia, aided by troops from Arzawa (- later Lydia), Darda-
nia (= Troas), Masa (= Mysia), Karkisa (= Karia), and
Lukka (= Lycia). (Interesting for our purposes is that the
same records bear testimony of Sherden mercenaries on
the Egyptian side.) During his campaign in the west, how-
ever, Muwatallis II wanted to avoid a conflict with the
Aiyawans (= Akhaians or Mycenaean Greeks), who
were in control of Millawanda (= Miletos) at the time, and
for this reason settled his dispute in diplomatic terms, ad-
dressing the king of Aiyawa as his brother and hence in-
cluding him into the illustrious ranks of the great kings
(see further section 8). According to the Egyptian records,
again, the Hittite forces at the ensuing battle of Kadesh
numbered in total 3,500 chariotry and 37,000 infantry. The
propaganda of Ramesses II claimed the outcome as an out-
standing victory for the Egyptians, but at the end of the
day the bone of contention, Kadesh, remained within the
sphere of influence of the Hittites!
The eldest son of Muwatallis II, Uritesup, who on
his ascendance took the throne-name Mursilis III, occupied
the throne only for a brief period (1272-1267 BC), before
he was deposed by his uncle Hattusilis III (1267-1239 BC).
The latter distinguished himself particularly in interna-
tional diplomacy, as he was responsible for the peace
treaty with Egypt of 1259 BC an entente between the two
great powers which lasted till the end of the Bronze Age.
Furthermore, his wife Puduepa played a vital role in ce-
menting the relationship by dynastic marriages, which
boiled down to a one-sided affair in which Hatti dispatched
princesses to the harem of the pharaoh, but the latter did
not return the favor as no princesses of Egypt were allowed
to be betrothed to a foreigner with all possible conse-
quences for foreign claims on the throne (the request by
the widow of Tutankhamun for a Hittite prince to remarry
with mentioned above was quite exceptional, indeed, and,
as we have seen, doomed to fail). In the reign of Hattusilis
III mention was first made of shipments of grain from
Egypt to Hatti, which later under Merneptah became so
important that they were claimed to keep Hatti alive.
Evidently, the Hittite Empire suffered from food shortage,
but it is a longstanding problem which cannot be hold re-
sponsible, as it often is, for its final downfall.
The son and successor of Hattusilis III, Tudaliyas IV
(1239-1209 BC) exercized an active military policy in the
west. In the text of a bronze tablet found during the late
80s of the last century in the capital Bogazky/Hattusa,
which meticulously describes the borders of the viceregal
province of Taruntassa under his uncle Kuruntas, a cam-
paign against Para (= Perge) along the Kastaraya (=
Kestros) in Pamphylia to the west of Taruntassa was an-
ticipated, the spoils of which would fall to Kuruntas. Next,
a Luwian hieroglyphic text from Yalburt commemorizes a
campaign in the Xanthos river valley of Lycia, where the
towns Talawa (= Tls), Pinata (= Pinara), and Awarna (=
Arinna) were subdued, as Tudaliyas IV proudly claims,
for the first time in Hittite history. After this, the so-called
Milawata-letter informs us that the governor of Milla-
wanda (= Miletos), which formerly resided under the king
of Aiyawa (= Akhaia or Mycenaean Greece), turned
sides and joined the Hittites.
71
In this manner, then, a long-
standing source of troubles in the west was eventually
eliminated. Tudaliyas IVs next move was in the east: in a

71
In the Milawata Letter mention is made of an exchange of hos-
tages from Pina(ta) and Awarna with those from Atria and Utima,
which can only be situated after Tudaliyas IVs Lycian campaign.
Also prior to, and as a kind of conditio sine qua non for, the
change of sides by Millawanda is Tudaliyas IVs campaign
against Tarundaradus of the Sea River Land (= the Meander val-
ley) as reported in his Chronicle, when Aiyawa is specified to
have withdrawn, see Garstang & Gurney 1959: 120-1 (note that
according to Gterbocks (1992) improved translation of this text,
Tarundaradus is stated to have relied on the king of Aiyawa.)
33
treaty with Sausgamuwa of Amurru he forbade the latter to
serve as an intermediary for trade between Aiyawa and
Assyria the new enemy in the east since Suppiluliumas
Is decisive victory over Mitanni. Bereft of his stronghold
in western Anatolia, the king of Aiyawa was no longer
considered a great king, which must have been a recent
development as he was first enumerated among the great
kings in the text of the Sausgamuwa treaty but then de-
leted. The ultimate goal of Tudaliyas IVs campaigns in
the west, and a further guarantee for the success of his
economic boycot against the maritime trade between
Aiyawa and Assyria, was the conquest of Alasiya (=
Cyprus), which he achieved near the end of his reign.
Notwithstanding a serious defeat against the Assyrians un-
der the able leadership of Tikulta-Ninurta (1233-1197 BC)
somewhere in between of the given events, we cannot
avoid the conclusion that the reign of Tudaliyas IV
marked a high point in the history of the Hittite Empire.
After the death of Tudaliyas IV, there was a short
reign of his eldest son, Arnuwandas III (1209-1205 BC). In
this period, to be more exact the fifth year of Merneptah
(1213-1203 BC), the Egyptians had to deal with an attack
by the Libyan king Meryey, who was supported by merce-
naries from various groups of the so-called Sea Peoples,
viz. the Sherden, Shekelesh, Ekwesh, Lukka, and Teresh.
Merneptah succeeded in defeating this coalition and in
preventing the Libyan king Meryey to settle himself in the
Nile-delta apparently the latters ultimate objective.
Arnuwandas III was succeeded by his brother Sup-
piluliumas II (1205-1180? BC). The latter was forced to
reconquer Cyprus-Alasiya, again, which apparently had
taken advantage of the mishap during the short reign of
Arnuwandas III. After his victory, he set up a memorial (=
Nisantas at Bogazky/Hattusa) also for that of his father,
who did not have the time to do so. Later in his reign, Sup-
piluliumas II was forced to conduct a campaign in western
Anatolia against, inter alia, Masa (= Mysia), Wiyana-
wanda (= Oinoanda in the upper Xanthos valley), and
Lukka (= Lycia), the ensuing victory of which he com-
memorated in the Sdburg monument at Bogaz-
ky/Hattusa. The same Luwian hieroglyphic inscription,
however, shows him very much in control of the imperial
machinery in provinces like Pala, Walma, and
Taruntassa.
72
The final downfall caused by the Sea Peo-

72
On the Yalburt and Sdburg texts, see Woudhuizen 2004a, sec-
tions 3 and 7, respectively.
ples (this time the Peleset, Tjeker, Shekelesh, Denye(n),
and Weshesh) as vividly described by the letters from Ras
Shamra/Ugarit and Ramesses IIIs (1184-1153 BC) memo-
rial at Medinet Habu, came as a flash of lightning in a clear
sky by total surprise.
Under the energetic leadership of Ramesses III, the
second pharaoh of the 20th dynasty, Egypt survived the
onslaught by the Sea Peoples, who, unsuccesful in their
plan to settle in Egypt, took up their abode in various
places along the Levant, especially in the Philistine penta-
polis. In the former Hittite Empire, there was some conti-
nuity in the earliest phase of the Iron Age at Karkamis,
where the viceregal family planted by Suppiluliumas I
maintained its position through Aritesup and Initesup, and
in the former province of Taruntassa, where likewise a
descendant of the Hittite royal family, Hartapus, son of
Mursilis, is recorded. According to their inscriptions in
Luwian hieroglyphic, both these branches of the Hittite
royal family claimed the imperial title of great king. Only
after this imperial afterglow, a dearth of material sets in
which lasts to the beginning of the 10th century BC, when
a new royal house at Karkamis under great king
Uratarundas entered the stage.
73

73
See Woudhuizen 1992-3 and Woudhuizen 2004a: appendix V.
35
4. AN HISTORIOGRAPHIC OUTLINE
In this section we will present an outline of the most im-
portant modern literature on the Sea Peoples. Special atten-
tion in this historiographic outline will be given to the
identification of the individual population groups, which is
still a matter of debate. Another point of interest is the
cause (or causes) of their sudden appearance on the stage
during the period aptly called the catastrophe at the end of
the Late Bronze Age. Our main purpose, to determine
whether the shortlived coalition of forces which we call the
Sea Peoples consists of a number of individual cohesive
ethne, is a question barely touched upon in the literature: it
surfaces only in the discussion between Gustav Adolf
Lehmann and Wolfgang Helck in the 1980s and in Drews
1993. For conveniences sake, I will in the following use
standardized transcriptions for the ethnonyms of the Sea
Peoples as commonly used in the English language. An
example of how these ethnonyms can be written in Egyp-
tian hieroglyphic the writing is not standardized and
therefore can vary per attestation and their proper trans-
literation is rendered in figure 3.
74
Note that the eth-
nonyms are distinguished as such by the determinative of
foreign people (Gardiner 1994: T14 + A1).
The modern literature on the Sea Peoples commences
with the decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphic by Jean-
Franois Champollion in the first half of the 19th century
AD. In his Grammaire gyptienne of 1836 he proposed to
identify the Peleset as mentioned in the texts of Ramesses
III (1184-1153 BC) in his mortuary temple at Medinet
Habu (Thebes) with the Biblical Philistines an identifica-
tion which goes unchallenged till the present day. Follow-
ing in his footsteps, Emmanuel de Roug set out in his
contribution to the Revue Archologique 16 of 1867 to
connect the other ethnonyms in the same texts and in the
one of Merneptah (1213-1203 BC) on a wall of the main
temple at Karnak (Thebes) with names of known Mediter-
ranean peoples or locations on the basis of similarity in
sound (Gleichklang). Thus he proposed to identify the
Teresh with the Tyrrhenians or Etruscans, the Shekelesh
with the Sicels, the Sherden with the Sardinians, all in the

74
As the Egyptologist J.F. Borghouts assures me, the use of Gar-
diner 1994: T 12 bowstring (phonetic value 3r) for Gardiner
1994: V 4 lasso (phonetic value w3) in the ethnonym Ekwesh is
a peculiarity of the Karnak text, paralleled, for example, in the wri-
ting of Meswesh.
central Mediterranean, the Ekwesh with the Akhaians in
mainland Greece, and the Lukka with the Lycians in south-
west Asia Minor. These suggestions were subsequently
amplified by Franois Chabas in his tudes sur lAntiquit
Historique daprs les sources gyptiennes et les monu-
ments rputs prhistoriques of 1872, who connected the
Tjeker with the Teukroi of the Troas in northwest Asia
Minor, the Denye(n) with the Daunians and the Weshesh
with the Oscans, the latter two both at home in Italy.
Moreover, he ventured to equal the Peleset, which we have
seen to be identified with the Biblical Philistines since the
time of Champollion, with the Pelasgians of Greek literary
sources an equation, as far as the Philistines are con-
cerned, with a respectable history, first being put forward
by Etienne Fourmont in 1747.
The proposals of de Roug and Chabas, with identifi-
cations of the ethnonyms of the Sea Peoples running as
widely as from the western part of Asia Minor in the east
via mainland Greece in the centre to Sicily, Italy, and Sar-
dinia in the west were almost directly challenged by Gas-
ton Maspero who, by the way, coined the term Sea
Peoples (peuples de la mer) in 1881, which is an apt
form of address considering the association of these peo-
ples with the sea and islands in the midst of the sea in the
Egyptian texts in review articles of the former authors
works and, more elaborately, in his monographs Histoire
Ancienne des peuples de lorient classique of 1875 and
Struggle of the Nations, Egypt, Syria and Assyria of 1910.
In Masperos view, then, the homeland of the Sea Peoples
should be restricted to western Anatolia and mainland
Greece. Thus, apart from embracing the equation of the
Ekwesh with the Akhaians of mainland Greece, the Sher-
den were supposed to be linked up with the Lydian capital
Sardis, the Shekelesh with the Pisidian town of Sagalassos,
and the Weshesh with the Carian place name Wassos. His
main reason for the central position of Anatolia in his re-
constructions was formed by Herodotos location of the ul-
timate homeland of the Tyrrhenians in Lydia (Histories I,
94). Like in the case of the Tyrrhenians, these Anatolian
peoples were suggested to have moved after their attack on
Egypt to their later Central Mediterranean homelands.
Only the Philistines were supposed to have turned east and
settled in Canaan.
36
(a)
(b)
I
no.
II
hieroglyphics
transliteration
(Borghouts)
vocalization as employed in
the present study
1* 3rdn Sherden
2* 3kr3 Shekelesh
3* ik3w33 Ekwesh
4* rkw Lukka
5* twr3 Teresh
1 prwst Peleset
2 t3k3r Tjeker
3 3kr3 Shekelesh
4 d3iniw Denyen
5 w333 Weshesh
Fig. 3. The ethnonyms of the Sea Peoples in Egyptian writing, transliteration, and standardized transcription
(from Kitchen 1982: IV, 4 and Kitchen 1983: V, 40).
75
(a) Merneptah, Karnak, marked with * in column I above
(b) Ramesses III, Medinet Habu

75
I am indebted to J.F. Borghouts for providing the transliteration, and to Wim van Binsbergen for identifying the specific transliterated
strings with the hieroglyphic sections, and preparing and tabulating the graphics in this table.
37
The view of Maspero that the Sea Peoples originated
solely from the eastern Mediterranean has had a great in-
fluence on his successors, even up to the present day (cf.
Redford 1992: 246). At any rate, it has been taken over
without much critical reflection by H.R. Hall, who domi-
nated the field in the first half of the 20th century AD. In a
first contribution to the Annual of the British School at
Athens 8 of 1901-2, he expressed himself in favor of Mas-
peros identifications with the only noted exception of
Weshesh, which he preferred to connect with Cretan Wak-
sioi instead of Carian Wassos. Next, in a collection of pa-
pers to the memory of Champollion which appeared in
1922 Hall presented a useful summary of the literature on
the topic of the Sea Peoples up to that moment. In this
summary, he proposed to identify the Denye(n), whom
Maspero had equated with the Danaoi of the Argolid in
mainland Greece, with the Danuna of Cilicia as mentioned
in the El-Amarna texts from the reigns of Amenhotep III
(1390-1352 BC) and Akhenaten (1352-1336 BC). Halls
work culminates in his contribution to the first edition of
the Cambridge Ancient History, which appeared in 1926.
Here he expressly distinguished the Sea Peoples, which, as
we have seen, according to him originated from western
Anatolia and mainland Greece, from the Keftiu, i.e. the
designation of the Cretans in Egyptian texts. Confronted
with the Biblical sources, according to which the Peleset
originated from Crete, he came up with the solution that
they had come from Asia Minor via Crete. Furthermore, he
noted in alignment with his earlier association of the De-
nye(n) with the Danuna, that some of the Sea Peoples, like
the Sherden and the Lukka, were already mentioned in the
El-Amarna texts. Of them, the Sherden were stipulated to
have fought both on the Egyptian side and that of the Sea
Peoples in the upheavals at the time of Ramesses III. Fi-
nally, in true Masperonian way, he envisioned the Sherden,
Shekelesh, and Teresh, after their failing attack on Egypt,
as being on their way to their ultimate homes in the central
Mediterranean. The career of Hall ended with his going
Caucasian so to say: in his last contribution on the subject
of 1929 he explained all ethnonyms of the Sea Peoples as
reflections of similar sounding Caucasian tribal names a
fine example of the dangers of the etymological approach
when applied without further backing.
After the second World War, the first to take up the
subject of the Sea Peoples again, was Alan Gardiner. In his
Ancient Egyptian Onomastica of 1947 he meticulously de-
scribed all that was known at the time of a number of the
ethnonyms, especially so of the Sherden and the Peleset.
Remarkable is that in connection with the Denye(n) he
spoke against their relation with the Danuna in Cilicia and
in favor of that with the Danaoi of the Argolid in mainland
Greece. Moreover, he sided with Hall in his opinion that
the Peleset were not originally at home in Crete, but used
this island as an intermediary station in their way to the
Levant. In connection with the Sherden, finally, he re-
marked, with reference to an earlier contribution by
Wainwright (1939: 148), that the Teresh were known to
the Hittite world (probably implying a linguistic relation of
the ethnonym with Tarwisa (= Troy), which, however, is
dubious), but the Sherden and the Shekelesh not and hence
that the latter might be assumed to originate from outside
of it the first rudimentary attempt to bring the contro-
versy between de Roug and Chabas on the one hand and
Maspero on the other to a higher level.
Next, Paul Mertens presented in the Chronique
dgypte 35 of 1960 a nice overview of the Egyptian
sources on the Sea Peoples from their first occurrence in
the El-Amarna texts and those of Ramesses II (1279-1212
BC) up to their alignment with the Libyan king Meryre (=
Meryey) in the reign of Merneptah and their ultimate at-
tack on Egypt in the reign of Ramesses III. However, as far
as origins are concerned, he did not choose between the
central to east Mediterranean thesis of de Roug and the
solely east Mediterranean antithesis of Maspero, whereas,
in connection with the Peleset, he followed Bonfante
(1946) in identifying them as Illyrians who migrated to the
Levant via Crete.
The first to address the question what caused the up-
heavals of the Sea Peoples at the end of the Late Bronze
Age was Wolfgang Kimmig in a lengthy paper in the Fest-
schrift Tackenberg of 1964. In his view, these are a mere
function of the expansion of the Urnfield peoples of central
and eastern Europe into all directions, so also to the Medi-
terranean in the south. As Kimmig keenly observed, the
contribution of bearers of the Urnfield culture to the
movement of the Sea Peoples is indicated by their ships as
depicted in the reliefs at Medinet Habu having bird head
protomes at the stern as well as the prow a typical Urn-
field feature. He further rightly stipulated that some of the
Sea Peoples were already in contact with the Near East
when the expansion of the Urnfielders motivated them to
look for new homelands in an agreeable surrounding. Al-
though he tried to avoid the vexed question of the origins
of the Sea Peoples as much as possible, Kimmig restricted
his Urnfield model for the cause of the latters movement
to the eastern Mediterranean: an incursion of Urnfielders
38
into mainland Greece in his eyes set the whole process in
motion.
Against the background of Kimmigs answer to the
question of causality, Richard D. Barnetts treatment of the
Sea Peoples in the 3rd edition of the Cambridge Ancient
History, which first appeared as a separate issue in 1969
and subsequently as an integral part of Volume II, 2 in
1975, means a step back to the level of identifications on
the basis of likeness in sound, in which the author sides
with Masperos eastern Mediterranean thesis: thus the
Teresh are said to originate from Lydia, the Shekelesh to
be on their way to Sicily, whereas for the Sherden a home-
land in Cyprus is taken into consideration, from where, of
course, they departed to colonize Sardinia. As far as the
Peleset are concerned, he saw no problem in identifying
them with the Philistines and having them colonize cities
in Canaan in his view Gaza, Askelon, Asdod and Dor
from Crete. From an historical point of view, Barnett
pointed to the fact that the famine reported by Herodotos
(Histories I, 94) as the cause of part of the Lydian popula-
tion to leave their country and settle in Etruria might be a
reflection of the grain shipments by Merneptah to keep the
country of Hatti alive. Furthermore, he suggested that the
naval victory of the last Hittite great king Suppiluliumas II
(1205-1180? BC) against the island of Alasiya has a bear-
ing on his battle against the Sea Peoples having gained
themselves a foothold on Cyprus.
76
In the same year that Barnetts contribution first ap-
peared, Rainer Stadelmann put forward an interesting pa-
per in Saeculum 19 in which he offered an alternative
answer to what caused the upheavals of the Sea Peoples. In
his view the prime move is made by the Phrygians, who,
originating from the Balkans, overran the Anatolian pla-
teau at the end of the Late Bronze Age and destroyed the
Hittite Empire. As a corollary to this migration, the Philis-
tines joined the Phrygians in their movement from the Bal-
kans to Asia Minor, but, instead of settling here, they
moved on to the Levant and Egypt via Crete and Cyprus.
Having been defeated by Ramesses III, the Philistines set-
tled in Palestine an event which was previously assumed
by Albright (1932) and Alt (1944) to have been orchestred
by the Egyptian pharaoh, but, taking the evidence at face
value, the latter appeared no longer in control of this re-

76
For a critical review of Barnetts contribution to the Cambridge
Ancient History, pointing out numerous instances of sloppiness,
see Astour 1972.
gion. As opposed to this, Stadelmann assumed that the
Sherden, Shekelesh, and Teresh went to the central Medi-
terranean to find their new homes in Sardinia, Sicily, and
central Italy, from where they maintained trade contacts
with their former comrades in arms in the Levant up to the
time that the Phoenicians seized the opportunity to take
these over.
The following years are dominated by a German
scholar, Gustav Adolf Lehmann. In a series of works, start-
ing in 1970 and continuing to 1996, he tried to reconstruct
an historical outline of the events that led to and made up
the catastrophe at the end of the Late Bronze Age, using a
wide range of sources from Egyptian hieroglyphic through
Ugaritic alphabetic up to Hittite cuneiform. With only
slight adaptations, this historical picture forms the basic
background for my own studies on the ethnicity of the Sea
Peoples; for a brief summary of the main events, see sec-
tion 3 above. Two points are of special interest to us here,
namely Lehmanns position on the cause (or causes) of the
upheavals of the Sea Peoples and that on their ethnic rele-
vance. Now, as to what caused the catastrophe, it can be
deduced from the distribution map of groups of the Sea
Peoples in the central and eastern Mediterranean in Die
mykenisch-frhgriechische Welt und der stliche Mittel-
meerraum in der Zeit der Seevlker-Invasionen um 1200
v. Chr. of 1985 (p. 47) and the accompanying text (pp. 43-
9) that he considered the Adriatic as the source of trouble
for the wider Mediterranean, population groups here possi-
bly being uprooted by developments in the Danubian area.
As against this model, it might be objected that the afore-
said distribution map rather reflects the situation after the
catastrophe, when the Sea Peoples had been subject to a
widespread diaspora. With respect to the ethnic relevance
of the ethnonyms, Lehmann pointed out that the Egyptian
depictions of the Sherden in reliefs from the reigns of
Ramesses II and Ramesses III with very specific features
testifies to the fact that at least the nucleus of the Sea Peo-
ples consisted of pronounced ethnic groups (p. 58; see also
our motto). In a review article of Lehmanns work of 1985
in Gnomon 58 of 1986, Wolfgang Helck reacted against
this inference with the words that
Der Gedanke, da wir es mit reinen Seeruber zu
tun haben, die sich durch eine Naturkatastrophe
veranlat in den Ausgangszentren des bisher von
ihnen nur auf See geplnderten Handels festsetzen,
wird nicht herausgezogen. (p. 628).
Hand-in-hand with this degradation of the Sea Peo-
39
ples as mere pirates goes Helcks denial of a migrational
aspect to the period of the upheavals set in motion by the
expansion of the bearers of the Urnfield culture whereas
in his Die Beziehungen gyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und
2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. of 1971 he still held the Phrygian
migrations from the Balkans to Anatolia responsible as a
prime mover for the ensuing catastrophe.
An even more extreme position with reference to the
migrational aspect of the upheavals of the Sea Peoples than
the one maintained by Helck was presented by Alexandra
Nibbi in her The Sea Peoples and Egypt of 1975. Accord-
ing to this author the Sea Peoples are all Asiatics living in
the Nile delta, with the exception of the Peleset, the identi-
fication of whom with the Philistines from Palestine as
proposed already by Champollion she accepts. At the
background of Nibbis views lurks the interpretation of
what is generally considered as the Egyptian words for the
Mediterranean sea (w3d-wr great green), islands (iww),
and sea (ym) as references to the Nile delta and inland
lakes here. She even went as far as to suggest that Retenu,
which is generally considered as an indication of the Le-
vant, is a reference to the Nile delta, too. I think it is not
advisable to follow Nibbi in her extremist standpoint.
77
In the next year, 1976, August Strobel published his
Der Sptbronzezeitliche Seevlkersturm, Ein Forschungs-
berblick mit Folgerungen zur biblischen Exodusthematik,
which offers a wealth of detailed information on the indi-
vidual groups of the Sea Peoples and the Near Eastern
texts in which they appear, and hence may serve us as a
valuable reference book. However, it is less outspoken
about the matters which primarily concern us here, like the
origins of the Sea Peoples, the causes for the catastrophe
though Strobel favors a severe drought in this respect and
the articulation of the Sea Peoples ethnicity.
Still a classic in the field is Nancy K. Sandars The Sea
Peoples, Warriors of the ancient Mediterranean 1250-
1150 BC of 1978, which two years afterwards appeared in
Dutch translation as De Zeevolken, Egypte en Voor-Azi
bedreigd, 1250-1150 v.C. both editions being highly

77
In variant form Nibbis extremist point of view has recently
been embraced by Yves Duhoux, according to whom (2003: 272)
la base oprationelle des envahisseurs tait le centre du Delta.
Although I am not challenging the fact that, for example, w3d-wr
great green in certain contexts does refer to the Nile and the Red
Sea, it certainly goes too far to deny that in other contexts, like
that of the Sea Peoples, it clearly denotes the Mediterranean Sea.
valuable for their rich illustrations.
78
However, as far as
the origins of the individual population groups are con-
cerned, the author happens to be wavering between the
views of de Roug on the one hand and Maspero on the
other hand. Thus the Sherden are in first instance linked up
with either Sardinia or Sardis, whereas later they are sup-
posed to have migrated from Cyprus or North Syria to Sar-
dinia. Similarly, the Shekelesh are now associated with
Anatolia and then with southern Italy and Sicily. Only with
respect to the Teresh Sandars straightforwardly committed
herself to an Anatolian homeland, be it Lydia or the Troas.
The latter region is also considered the place of origin of
the Tjeker and, less persuasively, of the Weshesh, whilst
the Lukka, the Ekwesh, and the Denye(n) are more or less
conventionally identified as the Lycians of southwest Ana-
tolia, the Akhaians of western Anatolia, the Aegean islands
or mainland Greece, and the Danuna of Cilicia, respec-
tively. Finally, the Peleset are, like the Teresh, traced back
to an Anatolian homeland. Also as far as the causes of the
catastrophe are concerned, Sandars position is rather dif-
fuse, now stressing internecine war and internal decay (=
systems collapse), then economic crisis and last but not
least attacks from hostile tribes or states along the borders.
This unsatisfactory mixture of causes of the catastrophe
should not surprise us, because, as long as the problem of
the origins of the Sea Peoples remains unsolved, the re-
lated problem of these causes can in fact not possibly be
adequately dealt with.
In his book on Caphtor/Keftiu, subtitled A new Inves-
tigation, from 1980, John Strange also pays some attention
to the Sea Peoples (pp. 138-142; 157-165). In doing so, he
is exceptional in presenting the spelling of the five eth-
nonyms recorded for Medinet Habu in Egyptian hiero-
glyphic writing. As far as the origins of the Sea Peoples
are concerned, however, he adheres to common views in
the literature at the time according to which most of them
originated from Asia Minor (Denye(n)), particularly its
western outskirts (Lukka, Shekelesh, Teresh, Tjeker), but
some came from farther west, the Aegean (Ekwesh), or
north, the Caucasus (Sherden), and the Balkans (Peleset).
Crucial to his main theme, the identification of Biblical
Kaphtor and Egyptian Keftiu with Cyprus, is the fact that a
substantial number of the Sea Peoples can be shown to
have colonized the Syro-Palestine coast from the latter is-

78
Cf. the reviews of this book by Muhly 1979 and Snodgrass
1978.
40
land, which Strange correlates to the well-known Biblical
information that the Philistines originated from Kaphtor,
hence his adagium Kaphtor = Cyprus. Although Cyprus
may have functioned as a way station for some of the Sea
Peoples in their trek to the Levant, it is an oversimplifica-
tion of the evidence to consider it as their main sallying
point as we will see, the diagnostic ceramics in the form
of Mycenaean IIIC1b ware have a much wider distribution,
including Crete and western Anatolia. To this comes that
there is positive evidence, duly assembled by Strange him-
self, indicating that Alasiya is the Late Bronze Age name
of Cyprus, and Kaptara (> Kaphtor) or Keftiu that of Crete.
In line with Lehmanns view on the cause of the up-
heavals of the Sea Peoples, Fritz Schachermeyr in his Die
Levant im Zeitalter der Wanderungen, Vom 13. bis zum 11.
Jahrhundert v.Chr. of 1982 traces the origin of some of the
Sea Peoples back to the Adriatic, in particular Illyria, from
where the Shekelesh and Sherden are supposed to have
migrated to the Levant by sea, uprooting the Mycenaean
Greeks along the route, and the Tjeker and Peleset to have
done the same by land, in this way causing the fall of the
Hittite empire.
Another milestone in the study of the Sea Peoples
next to Sandars work is formed by Trude Dothans The
Philistines and their Material Culture of 1982, which pro-
vides the archaeological evidence of the settlements in
Palestine on a site to site basis an indispensable working
tool. For a more popular representation of this material, fo-
cussing on the personal contribution of Trude and her hus-
band Moshe Dothan to the excavation of Philistine sites,
see Trude Dothan & Moshe Dothan, People of the Sea, The
Search of the Philistines of 1992.
In the next year, 1983, Gnther Hlbl argued em-
phatically for the historical relevance of the Egyptian texts
on the Sea Peoples by Merneptah at Karnak and by
Ramesses III at Medinet Habu in his contribution to the
Zwettl Symposium dedicated to the Aegean and the Le-
vant during the period of the Dark Age. In doing so, he
was able to distinguish two phases in the period of the up-
heavals of the Sea Peoples: (1) a strictly military one at the
time of Merneptah in which the groups of the Sea Peoples
mentioned act as mercenaries or auxiliaries to the Libyan
king Meryre (= Meryey) who himself takes with him his
wife and children with the obvious intent of settling in the
Egyptian delta; and (2) a migratory one at the time of
Ramesses III in which at least some of the groups of the
Sea Peoples mentioned are decided to settle in the Egytian
delta as evidenced by the fact that they take with them
their wives and children in oxcarts.
In 1984 appeared the Lexicon der gyptologie, Band
V, edited by Wolfgang Helck and Eberhard Otto, which
contains the lemma Seevlker written by Rainer Stadel-
mann. This section is well-referenced and therefore still
handy to consult, notwithstanding its Masperonian bias
(e.g. the Sherden are traced back to Sardis, and, with the
Shekelesh and Teresh, believed to have reached the central
Mediterranean only after the resurrections at the end of the
Bronze Age) and the mistaken opinion that the Sherden
only fought on the side of the Egyptians in the land- and
sea-battles of Ramesses IIIs years 5 and 8 (as a distinction
the Sherden on the side of the enemies wear horned hel-
mets without a sun-disc in between them).
Subsequently, Jacques Vanschoonwinkel dedicated a
section to the Sea Peoples in his Lge et la Mditerrane
orientale la fin du II
e
millnaire of 1991. In this section,
he decisively refuted Nibbis thesis according to which the
Sea Peoples (with the noted exception of the Philistines)
are Asiatics who had already been living in the Nile delta
for a long time. As it comes to the question of the origins
of the Sea Peoples, however, Vanschoonwinkel merely
sums up the various possibilities circulating since the times
of de Roug and Maspero without showing any preference
for the one or the other. No wonder, therefore, that his
view on the cause or causes of the catastrophe is as diffuse
as that of Sandars adding in particular violent earth-
quakes.
One of the most important and stimulating contribu-
tions on our topic is formed by Robert Drews The End of
the Bronze Age, Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe
ca. 1200 B.C. of 1993. In this work, the author set out to
treat the various causes of the catastrophe as suggested in
the relevant literature, like earthquakes, drought, systems
collapse, and migrations, in order to refute them all; in his
criticism of the migrational explanation, he launched a ve-
hement attack on Masperos identification of the Sherden,
Shekelesh, and Teresh with peoples from Anatolia, main-
taining instead that these are just persons from Sardinia,
Sicily, and Etruria. As indicated by the subtitle of his
book, according to Drews the real explanation of the catas-
trophe at the end of the Late Bronze Age constitutes a mili-
tary innovation. In the palatial societies of the Late Bronze
Age empires, chariot warfare formed the heart and core of
the army, being supplemented only by infantry auxiliaries,
particularly handy for special tasks like guarding the camp
41
site or manoeuvring in mountainous terrain. At the end of
the Bronze Age, however, a new style of infantry is intro-
duced with, amongst others, round shields, slashing
swords, metal greaves, and javelins, which can outmatch
the until then unchallenged chariotry, especially by elimi-
nating the horses with javelins thrown in full run. In gen-
eral, this shift from chariotry to infantry warfare during the
period from the end of the Late Bronze Age to the early
phase of the Iron Age is undisputable. But it did take place
more gradually than Drews wants us to believe. In the first
place, especially the Egyptian pharaohs from the time of
Ramesses II onwards were quick to adapt to the military
innovations by hiring Sherden mercenaries from (as we
will argue) Sardinia, who were specialists in the new style
of fighting. Secondly, certain groups that overran the Late
Bronze Age states during the catastrophe, like the Kaskans
of Anatolia and the Philistines of Palestine, still used
chariots in their army during the Early Iron Age. This be-
ing so, it should not be overlooked that one of the greatest
military assets of the Sea Peoples was (as their name im-
plies) their sea power: once they had cleared the waters of
the eastern Mediterranean from enemy ships, they could,
just like the Vikings in a later age, attack any location of
their choosing by hit and run actions, thus leaving the land-
locked imperial armies no chance at a proper defence! An-
other point of criticism of Drews views concerns his
denial of a migratory aspect to the catastrophe, which leads
him to the assertion that the Peleset and Tjeker were al-
ready living in Palestine during the Late Bronze Age a
supposition which, insofar as the period of Ramesses III is
concerned, is simply untenable. As Drews himself admits,
the innovative infantry is only effective when applied in
overwhelming numbers (p. 211). Furthermore, the Pele-
set and the Tjeker are never mentioned in contemporary
Late Bronze Age texts, thanks to which the situation in the
Levant before the catastrophe is reasonably clear; for the
Peleset, Drews can only fall back on the Biblical account
of the Philistine ruler Abimelech from the times of Abra-
ham and Isaac, which, however, is a patent anachronism.
Finally, as we have just noted, in the period of Ramesses
III some of the groups of the Sea Peoples clearly had the
intention to settle in the Egyptian delta as evidenced by the
oxcarts with women and children depicted on the enemys
side in the reliefs of Medinet Habu. Of special interest to
our main theme is the fact that Drews denies that the per-
sons referred to by the ethnonyms which belonged to the
Sea Peoples were ever a cohesive group (p. 71; my ital-
ics). In my opinion, his military explanation of the catas-
trophe, stressing the advancement of infantry, would gain a
lot if the groups were indeed cohesive. In a contribution to
the Journal of Near Eastern Studies 59 of 2000, Drews
elaborates his anti-migratory view on the catastrophe at the
end of the Bronze Age.
The treatment of the Philistines by Ed Noort in his
Die Seevlker in Palstina of 1994 is, like the work of
Drews just discussed, characterized by the modern fashion
to minimalize the migratory aspect of the catastrophe. In
the end, however, he cannot but admit that the Philistine
culture of the Early Iron Age is a mixture of an intrusive
element from Crete, the Peleset, with the indigenous Late
Bronze Age population of Canaan. Consistently within this
frame of reference, he considers the mention of Abimelech
in the Bible as a Philistine ruler in the period of the Patri-
archs an anachronism.
In his work of 1999 on Ugarit, Cyprus and the Ae-
gean, Hans-Gnter Buchholz, specifically discussed the
problem of the Sea Peoples, especially in his concluding
remarks (pp. 708-741), where he presents a wealth of re-
cent literature. Like many of his predecessors, however, he
considers it an open question whether the Sherden and the
Shekelesh originated from the West or not.
In 2000 appeared a collection of papers edited by
Eliezer D. Oren entitled The Sea Peoples and Their World:
A Reassessment.
79
Most shocking news is that Annie
Caubet informs us that the famous oven in Ras
Shamra/Ugarit, in which tablets were found which pre-
sumably had a bearing on the last days of Ugarit, is not an
oven at all but a ceiling from an upper storey. In addition
to this, Peter Machinist presents a valuable overview of the
sources on the Philistines in their pentapolis of Asdod, As-
kelon, Gaza, Ekron, and Gath. Also worthy of note here,
finally, is the fact that Shelley Wachsmann takes up the
suggestion by Kimmig, again, that the ship(s) of the Sea
Peoples as depicted at Medinet Habu are characterized by
Urnfield influence for their having a bird head ornament at
the stern as well as the prow.
The latest publication on the topic I know of is Eric
H. Clines and David OConnors contribution to a collec-
tion of papers edited by David OConnor and Stephen
Quirke entitled Mysterious Lands, which appeared in 2003.
This presents a handy and up-to-date overview of the
Egyptian sources on the Sea Peoples, but, as it leaves out

79
Cf. Barako 2004.
42
all the relevant evidence from other sources, it fails to an-
swer the question of their origins not to mention that of
their ethnicity.
Whilst we are writing this overview of the literature
of the Sea Peoples, a new major study on the topic has
been announced by Killebrew et al. (in preparation), but it
had not yet appeared.
43
5. CONTEMPORARY SOURCES
The contemporary sources with a bearing on the period of
the upheavals of the Sea Peoples at the end of the Late
Bronze Age are threefold: Egyptian, Cypro-Minoan, and
Ugaritic. Egyptian records inform us about the Libyan at-
tack supported by allies or mercenaries from the Sea Peo-
ples in year 5 of the reign of Merneptah (= 1208 BC),
about the ultimate combined land- and seaborne attack of
the Sea Peoples themselves in years 5 and 8 of the reign of
Ramesses III (= 1179 BC and 1176 BC), and, in the form
of the Wen Amon story, about the immediate aftermath of
the crisis. Next, in Cypro-Minoan documents we encounter
representatives of the Sea Peoples engaged in maritime
trade in the interlude between the Libyan invasion from the
reign of Merneptah and the ultimate combined land- and
seaborne attack from the reign of Ramesses III. Finally,
Ugaritic letters vividly describe the situation just before
the ultimate attack by the Sea Peoples on Egypt in the
reign of Ramesses III. I will present the Cypro-Minoan and
Ugaritic texts both in transliteration and translation,
whereas in connection with the Egyptian ones I will con-
fine myself to the translation only as a transliteration of the
full set is, to the best of my knowledge, yet to be pub-
lished.
Egyptian
The chief source on the Lybian invasion is formed by the
great historical inscription of Merneptah (1213-1203 BC)
inscribed on a wall of the main temple at Karnak (Thebes).
The inscription consists of 79 lines in sum, but unfortu-
nately the text is only lacunarily preserved, about half of it
being lost.
80
The following two passages are relevant to
our subject:
Karnak inscription
Lines 13-15

80
Schulman 1987: 23.
[Year 5, 2nd month of] Summer, day (1), as follows:
the wretched, fallen chief of Libya, Meryey, son of
Ded, has fallen upon the country of Tehenu with his
bowmen () Sherden, Shekelesh, Ekwesh, Lukka,
Teresh, taking the best of every warrior and every
man of war of his country. He has brought his wife
and his children () leaders of the camp, and he has
reached the western boundary in the fields of Per-
ire.
81
In conjunction with the information from the so-called
Athribis stele (numbers between parentheses), the count of
the victims (lines 52-54) can be reconstructed as follows:
Libyans 6359, Shekelesh 222 (200), Teresh 742
(722), Ekwesh (2201), Sherden ( ).
82
Note that the allies of the Sea Peoples are explicitly re-
ferred to as being circumcised, for which reason their
hands instead of their penises are cut off and counted.
83
Cypro-Minoan
The Cypro-Minoan documents bearing testimony of repre-
sentatives of the Sea Peoples engaged in maritime trade
come from Enkomi (cylinder seal Inv. no. 19.10) and
Kalavassos (cylinder seal K-AD 389) in Cyprus and Ras
Shamra/Ugarit (tablet RS 20.25) on the adjacent coast of
the Levant. Of these documents, two were discovered in a
datable context, the Kalavassos cylinder seal in an ashlar
(= dressed stone) building abandoned at the end of Late
Cypriote IIC and the tablet from Ras Shamra/Ugarit in the
remains of an archive of a villa in the residential area east
of the palace, destroyed, like the entire town, at the end of
the Late Bronze Age.
84
Accordingly, we arrive at a date of
c. 1180 BC as a terminus ante quem for the recording of

81
Breasted 1927: Vol. III, no. 574; Davies 1997: 155; cf. Drews
1993a: 49.
82
Breasted 1927: Vol. III, nos. 588, 601; Davies 1997: 163; cf.
Lehmann 1979: 490; Drews 1993a: 49.
83
Widmer 1975: 71, note 23.
84
For the exact location of tablet RS 20.25, see Buchholz 1999:
134-5, Abb. 34 (TCM).
44
these texts.
85
That the Enkomi cylinder seal belongs to the
same chronological horizon is indicated by the fact that
some of the persons mentioned in its text also figure in the
texts of the Kalavassos cylinder seal and the tablet from
Ras Shamra/Ugarit.
The relationship between these three texts not only
involves the mention of the same persons, but also entails
the underlying structure of recording.
86
Thus, in all three
there can be distinguished basically four types of informa-
tion, (1) heading(s), (2) indications of deliverers, (3) indi-
cations of recipients, and (4) indications of products. The
headings are mostly singled out as such by the locative in
-ti: Umi(a)tisiti at Amathus in the texts of the Enkomi
and Kalavassos cylinder seals, and Lamiyaneti kapariti at
the Lamiyan trade centre in the text of the tablet from Ras
Shamra/Ugarit.
87
Of the deliverers, only the name of the
scribe, who identifies himself by the Luwian personal pro-
noun of the 1st person singular emu or -mu I, is pur-
posely put in the nominative written without its proper
ending -s according to the standards in Linear B and Lu-
wian hieroglyphic at the time. Thus: Pika, tamika Likike -
mu Pias, I, trader from Lycia in the text of the Enkomi
cylinder seal, emu Sanema I, Sanemas in the text of the
Kalavassos cylinder seal, and Wesa -mu I, Wesas in the
text of the tablet from Ras Shamra/Ugarit. As opposed to
this, the main deliverer next to the scribe is written in the
Luwian dative in -i,
88
to stress that the transactions are re-

85
Yon 1992: 120 dates the destruction of Ras Shamra-Ugarit bet-
ween 1195 and 1185 BC, but note that her dates of the Egyptian
pharaohs are 4 years higher than the ones presented by Kitchen
1989, which are followed here. The destructions in Cyprus at the
end of Late Cypriote II, assigned by Karageorghis 1992: 80 to c.
1190 BC, are likely to be synchronized with the destruction of Ras
Shamra/Ugarit.
86
For a full treatment, see Woudhuizen 1992a: 94-145 and
Woudhuizen 1994.
87
This ending corresponds with the Luwian hieroglyphic locative
singular in ti, as attested for the Cekke text, see Woudhuizen
2005: section 1.
88
Bulgarmaden, phrase 10: Muti
MASANA
WATIti for the divine
mountain Muti, Boga, phrase 4:
MASANA
RUWANTti to, for
Runt, Karaburun, phrases 8 and 9: Sapi HANTAWATti for king
Sapis, Boga, phrase 2:
MASANA
TARHUNTti for Tarunt, see
Hawkins 2000: passim; ineky, phrase 10: parnwai for the
house, see Tekoglu & Lemaire 2000: 988, etc.; also cf. Woud-
huizen 2004b.
corded on behalf of the person in question: samuri
mane<si>kaasi on behalf of the Samian, representative of
the Maeonians (?) in the text of the Enkomi cylinder seal,
Remi taasa wetuti wasaka on behalf of Remus, governor
of this town in the text of the Kalavassos seal, and Akami
pini Mali ati pini Apesa on behalf of Akamas, representa-
tive of Malos and representative of Ephesos in the text of
the tablet from Ras Shamra/Ugarit.
89
If there are more de-
liverers, as in the case of the Enkomi and Kalavassos cyl-
inder seals, these are likewise intended to be in the dative
even if this case is not always properly indicated by over-
sight or because of sloppiness. The recipients, distin-
guished as such by the fact that they follow the deliverers
after a punctuation mark and/or a transaction term (telu, PI,
etc.), are also rendered in the dative case, either in -ti
90
or
in -we
91
as in the text of the Enkomi cylinder seal, or also
in -i as in the text of the Kalavassos seal, or exclusively in
-i as in the text of the tablet from Ras Shamra/Ugarit
with only a few exceptions from oversight or sloppiness.
E.g.: Sanemeti Sikerisikaasi to Sanemas, representative of
the Shekelesh and Lemapesiti Talimetu/natewe Sekeriya-
kati to Lemapesi from Talmitesups town in Sangaria in
the text of the Enkomi cylinder seal, Isimiriti mitisa to the
servant from Smyrna and tameki Pese<we>we to the
Pisidian trader in the text of the Kalavassos seal, and Isi-
pali to Isibaal in the text of the tablet from Ras
Shamra/Ugarit. Finally, the indications of products, often
occurring in abbreviation and in combination with num-
bers, so far identifiable appear to have a bearing on the
cloth industry: ketu cotton, MA for maru wool, PA for
pharweha cloth, pupuru purple (colored cloth), RI for
linon linen, and SA for sarara spun flax with the ex-
ception of E for elaiwon (linseed) oil in the text of the
Enkomi cylinder seal and WA or wane wine in the texts
of the Kalavassos cylinder seal and the tablet from Ras
Shamra/Ugarit.

89
For the improvement of our interpretation of this phrase, see
section 13, note 530 below.
90
This ending corresponds with the Luwian hieroglyphic dative
singular of the pronoun in -ti, see Meriggi 1980: 322-3.
91
This ending corresponds with the Sidetic dative singular in -va
as attested for the form Trataseva for Tratases in Sid. no. 3, line
1, see Woudhuizen 1984-5: 124.
45
Enkomi cylinder seal (Inv. no. 19.10)
1. u-mi-a-ti-si-ti At Amathus.
2. ya-sa.sa-ne-me-ti/i (On behalf of) Iasos: to
Sanemas, this,
3. te/ma-li-ki-pi-ti/E delivery to Malkipi(ya)s,
(linseed) oil
4. i
1
-ma-[..].pe-pa-e-ru- I-ma-??: to Pe-pa-e-ru,
5. ti/RI
1
[/]sa-mu-ri. linen On behalf of the Samian:
6. i/ti-pa-pi-ti/PA/ this to Tispapi(ya)s, cloth
7. ke-tu/.PA/e
1
-ma-pi- (and) cotton,: cloth to
Ermapi(ya)s,
8. ti/SA/pi-ka.E/ spun flax Pias: (linseed) oil
9. sa-ne-me-ti/li-ki-ke(-) to Sanemas I, trader from
10. mu/ta-mi-ka.pu-pu- Lycia: purple (colored) cloth
11. ru/u-li-mu-te-we/u- to U(wa)s from Urimu(wa)s
12. we/MA
1
/le(?)-ma
1
-pe-si- town, wool to Le-ma
1
-pe-si
13. ti/ta-li-me-tu(or na)-te-we from Talmitesups town
14. se-ke-ri
1
-ya-ka-ti ta- in Sangaria Trader (from
15. mi-ka.se-wa-ru a- Lycia): (to) lord Akamas,
16. ka-mu a-pe-si-ka-a- representative of Ephesos,
17. si ta-mi-ka.mi-we-tu(or na)- trader (from Lycia): to Mi-we-
18. we pa-ma
1
-ti -ma 2 I a- tu/na and Baam 2 (units of) I
19. ka-i
1
-ru-tu(or na).wa
1
-we- (On behalf of) A-ka-i-ru-tu/na: to
20. ru-ti/ya-ru/ri
1
-ti- Wa
1
-we-ru, master (?) from the
21. si-te-we/e
1
-ka-ta-ti town of Rhytiassos (and) to E
1
-ka-
22. pe-lu ka-ta-ri[-te]-ti ta, lord from the town of Gadara;
23. ta-mi-ka.se-wa-ru-ti trader (from Lycia): to the lord
24. ka-ta-ri-te 3 PA ma-ne<-si>- from Gadara, 3 (units of) cloth
25. ka-a-si sa-mu-ri.te-lu On behalf of the Samian,
representative of the Maeonians
26. sa-ne-me-ti si-ke-ri- (?), delivery to Sanemas,
27. si-ka-a-si sa-mu-ri representative of the Shekelesh
On behalf of the Samian
Kalavassos cylinder seal (K-AD 389)
12. u-mi-ti-si-ti sa-mi- At Amathus, for the Samian
13. ya we-tu-ti.i-le-mi town. On behalf of Ilm (he
brings)
14. i se-mi/a ne-si- this for Samos, i.e. for the Hittite
15. ri sa-re-ki/[I] SA. from Sarawa: I (and) spun flax.
16. i-ya/pi-ti(?)[ These (products) he gives ()
17. [ ]/a[ (), i.e. (:)
18. i-le-mi/[le(?)]-mu-ne[-ti] On behalf of Ilm to (the servant
from) Lemnos,
1. i-le-mi/i-si-mi-ri-ti on behalf of Ilm to the servant
2. mi[-ti]-sa/i-a 2 I/SA; from Smyrna: these 2 (units of) I
46
(and) spun flax;
3. re-mi/a-wa/mu
1
-sa-se On behalf of Remus he brings
4. wa-ne/e-we
1
/a-ti-mi-we
1
divine wine in veneration to
5. mu
1
-sa/wa-si-ri-ti
1
the goddess Artemis
6. e-mu sa-ne-ma/ya-sa-ti I, Sanemas, to Iasos,
7. re-mi/ta-a-sa/we[-tu]-ti on behalf of Remus, governor of
8. wa-sa-ka/i-si-mi-ri[-ti] this town, to Smyrna:
9. I SA.wa-sa-ka I (and) spun flax.
10. e-pe[-se]/pi-mi-se/i
2
(On behalf of) the governor himself being given
11. ta-me-ki/pe-se-we
1
PA this to the Pisidian trader: cloth
Tablet RS 20.25 from Ras Shamra/Ugarit
Side A
1. a-ka-mi/pi-ni/ma-li On behalf of Akamas, representative of Malos
2. a-ti pi-ni/a-pe-sa PI. and representative of Ephesos, he (= Wasas) gives
3. i-si
1
-pa-li. to Isibaal;
4. a-we
1
-ri/ma-ka-pi-ti
1
(at) the entrept of the frontier outpost
5. a-ta-ta-ne/pi-ni/ta-si-ri to Adadanu, representative of tasiri;
6. i-si-pa-ti/pi-ni/u-ri
2
-ka-si
1
to Sipat, representative of urikasi;
7. pi-ni/u-wa
1
-ri. to the representative of the frontier outpost.
8. a wa
1
-sa PI/pi-ni/ka-pi-li Wasas, representative of the municipal
9. wa
1
-ta-ri.i-li-si-ri/wa
1
-si-ri-ti
1
cloth industry, gives in veneration to the Syrian god (?);
10. ta-pa-ri/pi-ni/i-li-ta-ma-ne to Tabaris, representative of ilitamane;
11. a-we-si-ri/pi-ni/me-ni-wa-ri to Awesiri, representative of meniwari.
Side B
12. la-mi-ya-ne-ti/ka-pa-ri-ti
1
At the Lamiyan trade centre:
13. we-sa -mu PI I, Wesas, give
14. i-li-ma-li-ki/pi-ni/la-mi-ya-ti to Ilimalik, representative of Lamiya;
15. a-ka-mi PI/pi-ni/ma-ki on behalf of Akamas I give to
16. u-we
1
-ta-sa-li/ Uwatasalis, representative of the customs collector;
a-mu PI ma-sa-we-li I give to Masawalis
17. a-pe-mu -ma/ZITI-si/ma-ki and Apamuwas, officers (?) of the customs collector:
3 PA NE WA
1
3 (units of) cloth, NE (and) wine;
18. ya-me-ri/pi-ni/ma-ki to Yameri, representative of the customs collector;
19. sa-si
1
-ma-li-ki/ME 2 NE/PA to Sasimalik: 2 (units of) ME, NE (and) cloth.
The fragmentarily preserved tablet 1687 from Enkomi, in-
scribed in the so-called Cypro-Minoan II script or Linear
D, appears to contain correspondence dealing with a naval
battle in the waters of southwest Asia Minor,
92
and hence
may plausibly be assigned to the same period as the Uga
ritic correspondence given below. The tablet is found in

92
Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 98-110; Best & Woudhuizen 1989:
64, note 39; Woudhuizen 1992a: 117.
the foundation course of a hearth outside its proper context
in an Enkomi IIIA (= Late Cypriote IIIA) level, postdating
the period of upheavals of the Sea Peoples.
93

93
Dikaios 1971: 885; Pl. 317.
47
Tablet 1687 from Enkomi
Side A
(15) a-ka-mu[/]e-le-ki/nu-ka-ru-ra/ Akamas of Ilion, the great enemy, smote me.
tu-pa-ta -mu
Note that the phonetic reading of
l
KUR
2
.ME in Ugaritic is nakr enemies, the root of which occurs here in variant nukar-
characterized by a/u-vowel change in combination with a suffixed form of Luwian ura- great.
Ugaritic
The advent of the Sea Peoples in the eastern Mediterranean
waters is vividly described in four Ugaritic letters, three of
which (RS L 1, RS 20.238, RS 20.18) belong to the so-
called Rapanu-archive, named after an Ugaritic dignitary
living in the residential area east of the palace (Lehmann
1979: 53; 59; cf. von Reden 1992: 266, Fig. 32), whereas
one (RS 34.129) originates from an archive which came to
light as a result of military defense works in the south of
the city (Lehmann 1979: 481; Lehmann 1985: 32, note 64).
Although the destruction of Ras Shamra/Ugarit c. 1180 BC
only serves as a terminus ante quem for both archives, it
seems clear from the contents that all four letters actually
have a bearing on the citys last days.
The transcription of the texts, which varies in the dif-
ferent publications, has been systematized and improved
by the Assyriologist Frans A.M. Wiggermann (letter d.d.
27 December 2003).
Contrary to the sequence of their publication, I belief,
with Hoftijzer & van Soldt (1998: 343), that letter RS L 1
precedes RS 20.238, because in the latter an answer is
given to the question from the former where the troops and
the chariotry of the king of Ugarit are stationed.
RS 34.129
94
1. um-ma
d
UTU-i-m[a] Thus says His Majesty, the
LUGAL GAL- Great King.
a-na
l
s-ki-in-ni Speak to the Prefect:
q-bi-ma

5. a-n[u]-um-ma it-tu-ka Now, (there) with you, the

LUG[AL] EN-ka se-e-er king your lord is (still too)
mi-i[m-m]a la-a i-de young. He knows nothing.
a-na-ku
d
UTU-i And I, His Majesty, had
a-na UGU-i-u um-da-e-ra-u issued him an order
10. a-um
m
ib-na-du-u concerning Ibnaduu,
a LU
2
.ME
kur.uru
i-ka-la-iu- whom the people from
i[s]-bu-tu-u--ni ikala who live on
a i-na UGU-i
gi
MA
2
.ME[] ships had abducted.
us-bu--ni

15. a-nu-um-ma n[i-i]r-ga-i-li Herewith I send Nirgaili,

it-tu-ia who is kartappu with me, to
l
kar-tap-pu you.

94
Malbran-Labat 1991: 38-9; cf. Dietrich & Loretz 1978.
48
a-na UGU-i-ka
um-da-e-ra-ku
20. at-ta
m
ib-na-du-u And you, send Ibnaduu,
a LU
2
.ME
kur.uru
i-ka-la- whom the people from ikala
is-bu-tu-u-ni had abducted, to me.
a-na UGU-i-ia
u-up-ra-u
25. a-ma-te a
kur.uru
i-ki-la I will question him about the
a-a-al-u land ikala,
a-na ku-ta-li-u and afterwards he may leave
a-na
kur.uru
u-ga-ri-ta for Ugarit again.
i-tu-ur-ra
30. i-ta-la-ka

(three erased lines)

RS L 1
95
1. u[m-m]a LUGAL-ma Thus says the king [of
a-na
m
am-mu-ra-p Alashiya]. Speak to
LUGAL
kur
-ga-rt Ammurapi, king of Ugarit:
q-bi-ma

5. lu- [u]l-mu a-na UGU-i-ka May you be well! May the

DINGIR-nu a-na ul-ma-ni gods keep you in good health!
PAP-ru-ka

a t-pu-ra ma-a
gi
MA
2
.MEKUR
2
Concerning what you wrote to
i-na A
3
A.AB.BA me: They have spotted
10. i-ta-am-ru-m[a] enemy ships at sea;
m-ma ki-it-tu if they have indeed spotted
gi
MA
2
.ME i-ta-am-ru ships, make yourself as
lu d-nu-na[-ta] strong as possible.
dan-n i-na-an-n[a] Now, where are your own
15. at-tu-ka [(x-x)] troops (and) chariotry
ERIN
2
.ME-ka
gi
GIGIR.M[E-ka] stationed?
a-ia-ka-ma-a
a-bu ul it-ta-ka-ma-a Are they not stationed with
a-bu i-i[a]-nu-um-ma-a you? If not, who will deliver
20. i-na i
?!
-re-et
l
KUR you from the enemy forces?
ma-am-ma -nam-ma-ka Surround your towns with
URU.DIDLI.HI.A-ka BAD
3
.ME walls;
li-i-mi
ERIN
2
.ME
gi
GIGIR.ME bring troops and chariotry
25. i-na A
3
u-ri-ib inside. (Then) wait at full
pa-ni
l
KUR d-gu
5
-ul strength for the enemy.

95
Nougayrol 1968: 83-9.
49
d-nu-na-ta
dan-n

RS 20.238
1. a-na LUGAL
kur
a-la-i-ia Speak to the king of
a-bi- ia q-bi-ma Alashiya, my father: Thus
um-ma LUGAL
kur
u-ga-ri-it says the king of Ugarit,
DUMU-ka-ma your son.

5. a-na GIR
3
.ME a-bi-ia a[m-qu]t I fall at the feet of my father.
a-na UGU-i a-bi-ia lu- [u]l-m[u May my father be well!
a-na E
2
.HI.A-ka NITLAM
4
.ME-k[a] May your estates, your
ERIN
2
-ka consorts, your troops,
a-na gab-bi [m]im-mu- everything that belongs to the
a LUGAL
kur
a-la-i-i[a] king of Alashiya, my father,
10. a-bi- ia d[a]n-n dan-n be very, very well!
lu- ul-m[u]

a-bi a-nu-ma
gi
MA
2
.ME My father, now enemy ships
a
l.me
KUR
2
il-l[a]-ka are coming (and) they burn
[U]RU.HI.A-ia i-na IZI : i-a-ti down my towns with fire.
15. i-a-ri-ip They have done unseemly
a-ma-at things in the land!
[la]-a ba-ni-ta
[i-n]a A
3
-bi KUR i-te-e[p]-
a-bu-ia -ul i-[d]e My father is not aware of the
20. ki-i gab-bu ERIN
2
.ME E[N] fact that all the troops of my
a-bi-ia fathers overlord are
i-na
kur
a-at-ti stationed in Hatti and that all
a-bu gab-bu
gi
MA
2
.ME-[ i]a my ships are stationed in
i-na
ku[r]
lu-uk-ka-a Lukk. They still have not
a-bu [a-d]i-ni ul ik-u-da-ni arrived and the country is lying like that!
25. KUR-[t]u
4
ka-am-ma na-da-at My father should know these
a-bu-ia a-ma-at an-ni-ta
5
things.
[l]u- i-de i-na-an-na Now, the seven enemy
7
gi
MA
2
.ME a
l.me
KUR
2
ships that are approaching
[]a il-la-ka-a[n]-ni have done evil things to us.
30. a-ma-at ma-ik-ta
it-ep-u-na-a-i
i-na-an-na um-ma
gi
MA
2
.[ME] Now then, if there are any
a
l.me
KUR
2
a-na-t[u
4
] other enemy ships send me a
i-ba-a-i-mi -m[a] report somehow, so that I will
35. [a-i]a-ka-am-ma u-up-r[a]-ni know.
lu- i-de
4

50
RS 20.18
1. um-ma
m
e-u-wa-ra Thus says Eshuwara, the
l
MAKIM GAL a
kur
a-la-i-a chief prefect of Alashiya.
a-na LUGAL
kur
-ga-ri-it Speak to the king of Ugarit:
q-bi-ma

5 a-na ku-a-a KUR-t[i]-ka

4
-ma May you and your country be
lu- ul-mu well.

a-um a-ba-te.ME a
l
KUR
2
.ME As for the matter concerning
al-lu-ti DUMU.ME KUR-ti-ka
4
those enemies: (it was) the
gi
MA
2
.ME-ka
4
-ma people from your country (and) your own ships (who)
10. a-ba-ta an-ni-ta did this!
i-te-ep-u-ni
i-te-eq-ta an-nu-ti And (it was) the people
DUMU.ME KUR-ti-ka
4
i-[t]e-ep-u from your country (who) committed these transgres-
sion(s).

it-ti-ia-ma So do not be angry with me!

15. lu la te-ze-em-me

i-na-an-na But now, (the) twenty enemy

20
gi
MA
2
.ME a
l
KUR
2
.ME ships even before they
i-na HUR.S[A]G.ME la-a-ma would reach the mountain
it-ta[l-ka]-ni-me (shore) have not stayed
20. l[a] it-ta-za-za around, but have quickly
a-mut-ta moved on, and where they
it-ta-mu-u-me have pitched camp we do not
a-ar it-ta-d- know.
la ni-i-de
4
-me
25. a-um ud-d-i-ka
4
I am writing to you to inform
a-um na-sa-ri-ka
4
and protect you. Be aware!
al-tap-ra-ku
lu- ti-i-de
4
-me

Translation of all four Ugaritic texts according to Hoftijzer & van Soldt 1998: 343-4
Egyptian
Our main source on the upheavals of the Sea Peoples is
Ramesses IIIs mortuary tempel at Medinet Habu,
96
which

96
i.e. Thebes.
offers depictions of the battles and their description in text.
However, the monument commemorates not only the wars
with the Sea Peoples from years 5 and 8 of Ramesses IIIs
reign (= 1179 BC and 1176 BC), but also preceding ones
against the Nubians (considered to be fictitious) and the
51
Libyans (year 5) as well as successive ones against the
Libyans (year 11), again, and the Asiatics (considered to
be fictitious).
97
The depictions of the land- and sea battle
against the Sea Peoples are located central on the outer
east side of the monument (nos. 31 and 37-9), whereas the
texts describing the wars of year 5 and year 8 are situated
on the inner west side of court 2 (nos. 27-8) and inner
north side of court 1 (nos. 44 and 46), respectively. Yet
another text referring to a military engagement with Sea
Peoples this time in year 12 , the so-called Sdstele, can
be found on the outer south side of the temple (no. 107)
(Fig. 4).
Fig. 4. Plan of Ramesses IIIs temple at Medinet Habu, Thebes (af-
ter Cifola 1991: 12).
The scenes of the land- and sea battles are embedded
in a pictorial narrative, which starts with the religious (1.
command of the god, 2. pharaoh leaves the temple) and
military (1. equipping the troops, 2. kings departure, 3.
march) preparations and ends with the military (1. seizure
of prisoners, 2. celebration of victory, 3. return in triumph)
and religious (presentation of prisoners to the god) out-
come. The central military action in form of the land- and
sea battle is broken in two by a lion hunt in the middle,

97
Widmer 1975: 68.
whereas this cluster is followed by a town siege.
98
The information on the wars with the Sea Peoples of
Ramesses IIIs Medinet Habu memorial is supplemented
by the text of the Stele from Deir el Medineh and the Pa-
pyrus Harris.
Medinet Habu
Inscription of year 5 (= 1179 BC)
The northern countries quivered in their bodies,
namely the Peleset, Tjek[er, ]. They were cut off
<from> their land, coming, their spirit broken. They
were thr-warriors on land; another (group) was on the
sea. Those who came on [land were overthrown and
slaughtered]; Amon-Re was after them, destroying
them. They that entered the Nile mouths were like
birds ensnared in the net (). Their hearts are re-
moved, taken away, no longer in their bodies. Their
leaders were carried off and slain; they were cast
down and made into pinioned ones ().
99
Inscription of year 8 (= 1176 BC)
As for the foreign countries, they made a conspiracy
in their isles. Removed and scattered in the fray were
the lands at one time. No land could stand before
their arms, from Hatti, Kodi, Karkemis, Yereth [=
Arzawa], and Yeres [= Alasiya] on, (but they were)
cut off at (one time). A camp (was set up) in one
place in Amor. They desolated its people, and its land
was like that which has never come into being. They
were coming, while the flame was prepared before
them, forward toward Egypt. Their confederation was
the Peleset, Tjeker, Shekelesh, Denye(n), and Wesh-
esh, lands united. They laid their hands upon the
lands to the (very) circuit of the earth, their hearts
confident and trusting our plans will succeed!
Now the heart of this god, the Lord of the Gods,
was prepared, ready to ensnare them like birds. He
made my strength to exist, while my plans succeed.
(). I organized my frontier in Zahi [= southern Le-
vant], prepared before them, (to wit,) the princes, the
commanders of the garrisons, and the Mariannu [=
charioteers]. I caused the Nile mouth to be prepared
like a strong wall with warships, galleys, and coast-
ers, equipped, for they were manned completely from
bow to stern with valiant warriors, with their weap-
ons; the militia consisting of every picked man of
Egypt, were like lions roaring upon the mountain
tops. The chariotry consisted of runners, of picked
men, of every good and capable chariot-warrior.
Their horses were quivering in every part of their
bodies, ready to crush the countries under their hoofs.

98
Cifola 1991: 15-6.
99
Edgerton & Wilson 1936: 30; cf. Breasted 1927: Vol. IV, no.
44; Pritchard 1969: 263; Strobel 1976: 8; Peden 1994: 17.
52
I was the valiant Montu [= war-god], standing fast at
their head, so that they might gaze upon the capturing
of my two hands; King of Upper and Lower Egypt:
Usermare-Meriamon; Son of Re: Ramses III.
As for those who reached my frontier, their seed
is not, their heart and soul are finished forever and
ever. As for those who came forward together on the
sea, the full flame was in front of them at the Nile
mouths, while a stockade of lances surrounded them
on the shore, (so that they were) dragged (ashore),
hemmed in, prostrated on the beach, slain, and made
into heaps from tail to head. Their ships and their
goods were as if fallen into the water.
I made the lands turn back from mentioning
Egypt; for when they pronounce my name in their
land, then they are burned up. Since I have sat upon
the throne of Harakhte [= manifestation of Horus]
and the Great Enchantress [= uraeus] was fixed upon
my head like Re, I have not let the countries behold
the frontiers of Egypt, to boast thereof to the Nine
Bows [= Egypts traditional enemies]. I have taken
away their land, their frontiers being added to mine.
Their chiefs and their tribespeople are mine with
praise, for I am upon the ways of the plans of the All-
Lord, my august, divine father, the Lord of Gods.
100
Text to the scene of the land battle (Fig. 5)
His majesty sets out for Zahi like unto Montu, to
crush every country that violates his frontier. His
troops are like bulls ready on the field of battle; his
horses are like falcons in the midst of small birds be-
fore the Nine Bows, bearing victory. Amon, his au-
gust father, is a shield for him; King of Upper and
Lower Egypt, Ruler of the Nine Bows, Lord of the
Two Lands ().
101
Text to the scene of the sea battle (Fig. 6)
Now the northern countries, which were in their
isles, were quivering in their bodies. They penetrated
the channels of the Nile mouths. Their nostrils have
ceased (to function, so that) their desire is <to>
breathe the breath. His majesty is gone forth like a
whirlwind against them, fighting on the battle field
like a runner. The dread of him and the terror of him
have entered in their bodies; (they are) capsized and
overwhelmed in their places. Their hearts are taken
away; their soul is flown away. Their weapons are
scattered in the sea. His arrow pierces him whom he
has wished among them, while the fugitive is become
one fallen into the water. His majesty is like an en-
raged lion, attacking his assailant with his pawns;
plundering on his right hand and powerful on his left
hand, like Set[h] destroying the serpent Evil of

100
Edgerton & Wilson 1936: 53-6; cf. Breasted 1927: Vol. IV,
no. 64; Pritchard 1969: 262-3; Strobel 1976: 14; Drews 1993a: 51;
Peden 1994: 29-31.
101
Edgerton & Wilson 1936: 38; cf. Pritchard 1969: 263.
Character. It is Amon-Re who has overthrown for
him the lands and has crushed for him every land un-
der his feet; King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of
the Two Lands: Usermare-Meriamon.
102
Depicted prisoners of war (Fig. 7):
1. chief of Hatti, 2. chief of Amor, 3. chieftain of the
foe of the Tjeker, 4. Sherden of the sea, 5. chieftain of
the foe Sha[su], 6. Teresh of the sea, 7. chieftain of
the Pe(leset).
103
Sdstele, year 12 (= 1172 BC).
Mention of Tjeker, Peleset, Denyen, Weshesh and
Shekelesh.
104
Stele from Deir el Medineh
Pharaoh boasts of having defeated Peleset and Teresh who
attacked Egypt.
105
Papyrus Harris
I extended all the boundaries of Egypt: I overthrew
those who invaded them from (or: in) their lands. I
slew the Denyen in (= who are in) their isles, the
Tjeker and the Peleset were made ashes. The Sherden
and the Weshesh of the sea, they were made as those
that exist not, taken captive at one time, brought as
captives to Egypt, like the sand of the shore. I settled
them in strongholds, bound in my name. Numerous
were their classes like hundred-thousands. I taxed
them all, in clothing and grain from the storehouses
and granaries each year.
106
The Wenamon story, as preserved on the Golenischeff
papyrus, informs us about the period after the wars with
the Sea Peoples, in which Egypt can no longer exert its
power in its former dependencies along the coastal region
of the Levant.

102
Edgerton & Wilson 1936: 41-2; cf. Pritchard 1963: 263.
103
Strobel 1976: 18; Sandars 1980: 106-7, afb. 68.
104
Kitchen 1983: no. 73, 9 f.; cf. Lehmann 1985: 23-4.
105
Lepsius 1900: Vol. III, 218c; Drews 1993a: 51.
106
Breasted 1927: Vol. IV, no. 403; Strobel 1976: 18.
53
Fig. 5. Land battle scene of Medinet Habu (from Oren 2000: 96, Fig. 5.5).
Fig. 6. Sea battle scene of Medinet Habu (from Oren 2000: 98, Fig. 5.6).
Fig. 7. Prisoners of war: (a) Hittite, (b) Amorite, (c) Tjeker, (d) Sherden, (e) Shasu, and (f) Teresh (from Nibbi 1975: Pl. I).
54
Golenischeff papyrus
Year 5, 4th month of the 3rd season, day 16 [= 23rd
year of Ramesses XI (1099-1069 BC)]: the day on
which Wen-Amon, the Senior of the Forecourt of the
House of Amon, [Lord of the Thrones] of the Two
Lands, set out to fetch the woodwork for the great and
august barque of Amon-Re, King of Gods, which is on
[the River and which is named:] User-her-Amon. On
the day when I reached Tanis, the place [where Ne-su-
Ba-neb]-Ded and Ta-net-Amon were, I gave them the
letters of Amon-Re, King of the Gods, and they had
them read in their presence. And they said: Yes, I will
do as Amon-Re, King of the Gods, our [lord], has
said! I spent up to the 4th month of the 3rd season in
Tanis. And Ne-su-Ba-neb-Ded and Ta-net-Amon sent
me off with the ship captain Mengebet, and I embarked
on the great Syrian sea in the 1st month of the 3rd sea-
son, day 1.
I reached Dor, a town of the Tjeker, and Beder, its
prince, had 50 loaves of bread, one jug of wine, and one
leg of beef brought to me. And a man of my ship ran
away and stole one [vessel] of gold, amounting to 5 de-
ben, four jars of silver, amounting to 20 deben, and a
sack of 11 deben of silver. [Total of what] he [stole]: 5
deben of gold and 31 deben of silver.
I got up in the morning, and I went to the place where
the Prince was, and I said to him: I have been robbed
in your harbor. Now you are the prince of this land, and
you are its investigator who should look for my silver.
Now about this silver it belongs to Amon-Re, King of
the Gods, the lord of the lands; it belongs to you; it be-
longs to Ne-su-Ba-neb-Ded; it belongs to Heri-Hor, my
lord, and the other great men of Egypt! It belongs to
you; it belongs to Weret; it belongs to Mekmer; it be-
longs to Zakar-Baal, the Prince of Byblos!
And he said to me: Whether you are important or
whether you are eminent look here, I do not recognize
this accusation which you have made to me! Suppose it
had been a thief who belonged to my land who went on
your boat and stole your silver, I should have repaid it
to you from my treasury, until they had found this thief
of yours whoever he may be. Now about the thief
who robbed you he belongs to you! He belongs to
your ship! Spend a few days visiting me, so that I may
look for him.
I spent nine days moored (in) his harbor, and I went (to)
call on him, and I said to him: Look, you have not
found my silver. [Just let] me [go] with the ship cap-
tains and with those who go (to) sea! But he said to
me: Be quiet! ().
() I went out of Tyre at the break of dawn (). Za-
kar-Baal, the prince of Byblos, () ship. I found 30
deben of silver in it, and I seized upon it. [And I said to
the Tjeker: I have seized upon] your silver, and it will
stay with me [until] you find [my silver or the thief]
who stole it! Even though you have not stolen, I shall
take it. But as for you, (). So they went away, and I
joined my triumph [in] a tent (on) the shore of the [sea],
(in) the harbor of Byblos. And [I hid] Amon-of-the-
Road, and I put his property inside him.
And the [Prince] of Byblos sent to me, saying: Get
[out of my] harbor! And I sent to him, saying: Where
should [I go to]? () If [you have a ship] to carry me,
have me taken to Egypt again! So I spent twenty-nine
days in his [harbor, while] he [spent] the time sending
to me every day to say: Get out (of) my harbor!
Now while he was making offering to his gods, the god
seized one of his youths and made him possessed. And
he said to him: Bring up [the] god! Bring the messen-
ger who is carrying him! Amon is the one who sent him
out! He is the one who made him come! And while the
possessed (youth) was having his frenzy on this night, I
had (already) found a ship headed for Egypt and had
loaded everything that I had into it. While I was watch-
ing for the darkness, thinking that when I descended I
would load the god (also), so that no other eye might
see him, the harbor master came to me, saying: Wait
until morning so says the Prince. So I said to him:
Arent you the one who spend the time coming to me
every day to say: Get out (of) my harbor? Arent you
saying Wait tonight in order to let the ship which I
have found get away and (then) you will come again
(to) say: Go away!? So he went and told it to the
Prince. And the Prince sent to the captain of the ship to
say: Wait until morning so says the Prince!
When morning came, he sent and brought me up, but
the god stayed in the tent where he was, (on) the shore
of the sea. And I found him sitting (in) his upper room,
with his back turned to a window, so that the waves of
the great Syrian sea broke against the back of his head.
So I said to him: May Amon favor you! But he said to
me How long, up to today, since you came from the
place where Amon is? So I said to him: Five months
and one day up to now. And he said to me: Well,
youre truthful! Where is the letter of Amon which
(should be) in your hand? Where is the dispatch of the
High Priest of Amon which (should be) in your hand?
And I told him: I gave them to Ne-su-Ba-neb-Ded and
Ta-net-Amon. And he was very, very angry, and he
said to me: Now see neither letters nor dispatches
are in your hand! Where is the cedar ship which Ne-su-
Ba-neb-Ded gave to you? Where is its Syrian crew?
Didnt he turn you over to this foreign ship captain to
have him kill you and throw you into the sea? (Then)
with whom would they have looked for the god? And
you too with whom would they have looked for you
too? So he spoke to me.
But I said to him: Wasnt it an Egyptian ship? Now it
is Egyptian crews which sail under Ne-su-Ba-neb-Ded!
He has no Syrian crews. And he said to me: Arent
there twenty ships here in my harbor which are in
commercial relations with Ne-su-Ba-neb-Ded? As to
Sidon, the other (place) which you have passed, arent
there fifty more ships there which are in commercial re-
lations with Werket-El, and which are drawn up to his
house? And I was silent in this great time.
And he answered and said to me: On what business
have you come? So I told him: I have come after the
woodwork for the great and august barque of Amon-Re,
King of the Gods. Your father did (it), your grandfather
did (it), and you will do it too! So I spoke to him. But
55
he said to me: To be sure, they did it! And if you give
me (something) for doing it, I will do it! Why, when
my people carried out this commission, Pharaoh life,
prosperity, health! sent six ships loaded with Egyp-
tian goods, and they unloaded them into their store-
houses! You what is it that youre bringing me me
also? And he had the journal rolls of his fathers
brought, and he had them read out in my presence, and
they found a thousand deben and all kind of things in
his scrolls.
So he said to me: If the ruler of Egypt were the lord of
mine, and I were his servant also, he would not have to
send silver and gold, saying: Carry out the commission
of Amon! There would be no carrying of a royal-gift,
such as they used to do for my father. As for me me
also I am not your servant! I am not the servant of
him who sent you either! If I cry out to the Lebanon,
the heavens open up, and the logs are here lying (on)
the shore of the sea! Give me the sails which you have
brought to carry your ships which would hold the logs
for (Egypt)! Give me the ropes [which] you have
brought [to lash the cedar] logs which I am to cut down
to make you () which I shall make for you (as) the
sails of your boats, and the spars will be (too) heavy
and will break, and you will die in the middle of the
sea! See, Amon made thunder in the sky when he put
Seth near him. Now when Amon founded all lands, in
founding them he founded first the land of Egypt, from
which you come; for craftsmanship came out of it, to
reach the place where I am, and learning came out of it,
to reach the place where I am. What are these silly trips
which they have had you make?
And I said to him: (Thats) not true! What I am on are
no silly trips at all! There is no ship upon the River
which does not belong to Amon! The sea is his, and the
Lebanon is his, of which you say: It is mine! It forms
the nursery for User-het-Amon, the lord of [every]
ship! Why, he spoke Amon-Re, King of the Gods
and said to Heri-Hor, my master: Send me forth! So
he had me come, carrying this great god. But see, you
have made this great god spend these twenty-nine days
moored (in) your harbor, although you did not know
(it). Isnt he here? Isnt he the (same) as he was? You
are stationed (here) to carry on the commerce of the Li-
banon with Amon, its lord. As for your saying that the
former kings sent silver and gold suppose that they
had life and health; (then) they would not have had
such things sent! (But) they had such things sent to
your fathers in place of life and health! Now as for
Amon-Re, King of the Gods he is the lord of this life
and health, and he was the lord of your fathers. They
spent their lifetimes making offering to Amon. And you
also you are the servant of Amon! If you say to
Amon: Yes, I will do (it)! and you carry out his com-
mission, you will live, you will be prosperous, you will
be healthy, and you will be good to your entire land and
your people! (But) dont wish for yourself anything be-
longing to Amon-Re, (King of) the Gods. Why, a lion
wants his own property! Have your secretary brought to
me, say that I may send him to Ne-su-Ba-neb-Ded and
Ta-net-Amon, the officers whom Amon put in the north
of his land, and they will have all kinds of things sent. I
shall send him to them to say: Let it be brought until I
shall go (back again) to the south, and I shall (then)
have every bit of the debt still (due to you) brought to
you. So I spoke to him.
So he entrusted my letter to his messenger, and he
loaded in the keel, the bow-post, the stern-post, along
with four other hewn timbers seven in all and he
had them taken to Egypt. And in the first month of the
second season his messenger who had gone to Egypt
came back to me in Syria. And Ne-su-Ba-neb-Ded and
Ta-net-Amon sent: 4 jars and 1 kak-men of gold; 5 jars
of silver; 10 pieces of clothing in royal linen; 10 kherd
of good Upper Egyptian linen; 500 (rolls of) finished
papyrus; 500 cowhides; 500 ropes; 20 sacks of lentils;
30 baskets of fish. And she [= Ta-net-Amon] sent to me
(personally): 5 pieces of clothing in good Upper Egyp-
tian linen; 5 kherd of good Upper Egyptian linen; 1
sack of lentils; and 5 baskets of fish.
And the Prince was glad, and he detailed three hundred
men and three hundred cattle, and he put supervisors at
their head, to have them cut down the timber. So they
cut them down, and they spent the second season lying
there.
In the third month of the third season they dragged
them (to) the shore of the sea, and the Prince came out
and stood by them. And he sent to me, saying: Come!
Now when I presented myself near him, the shadow of
his lotus-blossom fell upon me. And Pen-Amon, a but-
ler who belonged to him, cut me off, saying: The
shadow of Pharaoh life, prosperity, health! your
lord, has fallen on you! But he [= Zakar-Baal] was an-
gry at him, saying: Let him alone!
So I presented myself near him, and he answered and
said to me: See, the commission which my fathers car-
ried out formerly, I have carried out (also), even though
you have not done for me what your fathers would have
done for me, and you too (should have done)! See, the
last of your woodwork has arrived and is lying (here).
Do as I wish, and come to load it in for arent they
going to give it to you? Dont come to look at the terror
of the sea! If you look at the terror of the sea, you will
see my own (too)! Why, I have not done to you what
was done to the messengers of Kha-em-Waset, when
they spent seventeen years in this land they died
(where) they were! And he said to his butler: Take
him and show him their tomb in which they are lying.
But I said to him: Dont show it to me! As for Kha-
em-Waset they were men who he sent to you as mes-
sengers and he was a man himself. You do not have one
of his messengers (here in me), when you say: Go and
see your companions! Now, shouldnt you rejoice and
have a stela [made] for yourself and say on it: Amon-
Re, King of the Gods, sent to me Amon-of-the-Road,
his messenger [life], prosperity, health! and Wen-
Amon, his human messenger, after the woodwork for
the great and august barque of Amon-Re, King of the
Gods, I cut it down. I loaded it in. I provided it (with)
my ships and my crews. I caused them to reach Egypt,
56
in order to ask fifty years of life from Amon for myself,
over and above my fate. And it shall come to pass that,
after another time, a messenger may come from the
land of Egypt who knows writing, and he may read
your name on the stela. And you will receive water (in)
the West, like the gods who are here!
And he said to me: This which you have said to me is
a great testimony of words! So I said to him: As for
the many things which you have said to me, if I reach
the place where the High Priest of Amon is and he sees
how you have (carried out this) commission, it is your
(carrying out of this) commission (which) will draw out
something for you.
And I went (to) the shore of the sea, to the place where
the timber was lying, and I spied eleven ships belong-
ing to the Tjeker coming in from the sea, in order to
say: Arrest him! Dont let a ship of his (go) to the land
of Egypt! Then I sat down and wept. And the letter
scribe of the Prince came out to me, and he said to me:
What is the matter with you? And I said to him: Ha-
vent you seen the birds go down to Egypt a second
time? Look at them how they travel to the cool pools!
(But) how long shall I be left here! Now dont you see
those who are coming to arrest me?
So he went and told it to the Prince. And the Prince be-
gan to weep because of the words which were said to
him, for they were painful. And he sent out to me his
letter scribe, and he brought to me two jugs of wine and
one ram. And he sent to me Ta-net-Not, an Egyptian
singer who was with him, saying: Sing to him! Dont
let his heart take on cares! And he sent to me, say:
Eat and drink! Dont let your heart take on cares, for
tomorrow you shall hear whatever I have to say.
When morning came, he had his assembly summoned
and he stood in their midst, and he said to the Tjeker:
What have you come (for)? And they said to him:
We have come after the blasted ships which you are
sending to Egypt with our opponents! But he said to
them: I cannot arrest the messenger of Amon inside
my land. Let me send him away, and you go after him
to arrest him.
So he loaded me in, and he sent me away from there at
the harbor of the sea. And the wind cast me on the land
of Alashiya [= Cyprus]. And they of the town came out
against me to kill me, but I forced my way through them
to the place where Heteb, the princess of the town, was.
I met her as she was going out of one house of hers and
going into another of hers.
So I greeted her, and I said to the people who were
standing near her: Isnt there one of you who under-
stands Egyptian? And one of them said: I understand
(it). So I said to him: Tell my lady that I have heard,
as far away as Thebes, the place where Amon is, that
injustice is done in every town but justice is done in the
land of Alashiya. Yet injustice is done here every day!
And she said: Why, what do you (mean) by saying
it? So I told her: If the sea is stormy and the wind
casts me on the land where you are, you should not let
them take me in charge to kill me. For I am a messen-
ger of Amon. Look here as for me, they will search
for me all the time! As to the crew of the Prince of By-
blos which they are bent on killing, wont its lord find
ten crews of yours, and he also kills them?
So she had the people summoned, and they stood
(there). And she said to me: Spend the night ().
()
At this point the papyrus breaks off. Since the tale is
told in the first person, it is fair to assume that Wenamon
returned to Egypt to tell his story, in some measure of
safety or success (Pritchard 1969: 25-9).
El-Amarna Ramesses II Merneptah Ramesses III
Lukka x x x
Sherden x x x x
Shekelesh x x
Teresh x x
Ekwesh x
Denye(n) x
Tjeker x
Peleset x
Weshesh x
Table 1. Overview of the mention of the Sea Peoples in the various Egyptian sources from the Late Bronze Age.
57
6. LUKKA AND THE LUKKA LANDS
Since the time of Emmanuel de Roug, who wrote in 1867,
the Lukka have straightforwardly been identified with the
Lycians.
107
The latter are known from Homeros onwards
to inhabit the valley of the Xanthos river and its immediate
surroundings in Anatolia.
108
As to the precise habitat of
their equivalents in Hittite texts, Trevor Bryce has put for-
ward two specific theses, namely (1) Lycaonia to the east
and (2) Caria to the west of classical Lycia. Of these two
theses, the first one is primarily based on the fact that in a
fragment of Hattusilis IIIs (1264-1239 BC) annals, Keil-
schrifturkunden aus Boghazky (= KUB) XXI 6a, the
Lukka lands (KUR.KUR
ME URU
Luqqa) appear in a para-
graph preceding one on military campaigns against coun-
tries like Walma, Sanata, and Walwara known from the
border description of the province of Taruntassa a Hit-
tite province situated to the east of (the) Lukka (lands).
109
The second thesis takes as its starting point that in the so-
called Tawagalawas-letter (KUB XIV 3), probably from
the reign of Muwatallis II (1295-1271 BC),
110
people from
Lukka (LU
ME URU
Luqqa) are mentioned directly follow-
ing the destruction of Attarima. In the same letter Attarima
is associated with Iyalanda, which for its association with
Atriya must be located close to Millawanda (or Milawata).
If Millawanda (or Milawata) may be identified with classi-
cal Miletos (as is commonly asserted by now), it follows
according to this line of reasoning that people from Lukka
must be situated in its immediate Carian hinterland.
111
What strikes us about these suggestions is that precisely
the region of the Xanthos valley and its immediate sur-
roundings in the middle are left out a situation which, for
the lack of remains of Late Bronze Age settlements here,
appears to be neatly reflected in the archaeological record
(but as we will see deceitfully so).
112
Bryce makes an exception, though, for the Lycian

107
De Roug 1867: 39.
108
Bryce 1986: 13 There can be little doubt that for Homer Ly-
cia and the Xanthos valley were one and the same.
109
Bryce 1974: 397 (with reference to Cornelius); Bryce 1992:
121-3; cf. Otten 1988: 37-8.
110
Smit 1990-1 ; Gurney 1990.
111
Bryce 1974: 398-403; Bryce 1992: 123-6.
112
Bryce 1974: 130; cf. Keen 1998: 214.
coast. This seems to have formed part of Lukka according
to the combined evidence of El-Amarna text no. 38 and RS
20.238 from Ras Shamra/Ugarit.
113
Of these texts, the first
one bears reference to piratical raids on Alasiya (= Cyprus)
and apparently on the Egyptian coast by the people of the
land of Lukki, which is therefore likely to have had a
coastal zone. The second informs us that the king of Ugarit
has sent his entire fleet to the waters off the coast of Lukka,
presumably, as suggested by Michael Astour, in an attempt
to ward off the passage of the Sea Peoples from the Ae-
gean into the eastern Mediterranean.
114
If this latter sug-
gestion is correct, we are dealing here with the Lycian
coast, indeed.
A dramatic change in the state of affairs as presented
by Bryce occurred thanks to the recent discovery of a
monumental hieroglyphic inscription from the reign of
Tudaliyas IV (1239-1209 BC) at Yalburt in the neighbor-
hood of Ilgn. As demonstrated by Massimo Poetto, this
text, which deals with a military campaign in the Lukka
lands (lka
UTNAi
), bears reference to the place names Pi-
nata, Awarna, Talawa, and Patara, which are identifiable
with classical Pinale or Pinara, Arne or Arna, Tlawa or
Tls, and Pttara or Patara situated in the valley of the
lower Xanthos river.
115
It further mentions the place
names Luwanda and Hwalatarna, which correspond to
classical Loanda and Xbide or Kaunos in the valley of the
Indus river.
116
There can be little doubt, therefore, that, re-
gardless the blank in the archaeological record, the Lukka
lands are situated precisely within the confines of classical
Lycia proper. This conlusion receives even further empha-
sis if Machteld Mellink is right in her identification of the
Siyanta river, which figures in the border description of
Mira in Mursilis IIs (1321-1295 BC) treaty with Kupanta-
kuruntas, with the Xanthos river.
117
A question which remains to be answered is whether
the expression Lukka lands designates the same geo-

113
Bryce 1992: 128-9; for EA no. 38, see Moran 1992: 111.
114
Astour 1965a: 255; cf. Otten 1993; Keen 1998: 27.
115
Poetto 1993: 47-8 (block 9); 78-80. Note that these identifica-
tions are only partly followed by Keen 1998: 214-20.
116
Woudhuizen 1994-5: 174; Woudhuizen 2004a: 30-1.
117
Mellink 1995: 35-6.
58
graphical range as Lukka or a wider one. To answer this
question, we have little evidence to go on, as the Lukka
lands are mentioned only twice, (1) in the fragment of the
annals of Hattusilis III, KUB XXI 6a,
118
and (2) the annal-
istic hieroglyphic Yalburt text from the reign of
Tudaliyas IV. Now, it is interesting to observe that in the
introductory section of the Yalburt text Wiyanawanda (=
classical Oinoanda in the upper Xanthos valley) appears to
be included in the Lukka lands,
119
whereas in the hiero-
glyphic inscription of Suppiluliumas II (1205-1180? BC)
from the Sdburg in Bogazky/Hattusa the same place
name occurs alongside Lukka as a separate entity.
120
This
distinction may be further illustrated by the fact that in the
afore-mentioned treaty of Mursilis II with Kupantakurun-
tas (CTH 68) Wiyanawanda is staged as a border town of
the latters province Mira.
121
Next, as we have noted
above, in the Yalburt text the region of Loanda and Xbide
or Kaunos in the valley of the Indus river is likewise in-
cluded into the Lukka lands. Finally, in KUB XXI 6a the
hostile Lukka lands are mentioned in one and the same
paragraph as Para, which is convincingly identified by
Heinrich Otten with classical Perge in Pamphylia, on the
eastern border of classical Lycia.
122
It is interesting to ob-
serve in this connection that in his treaty with Kuruntas on
the Bronze Tablet from Bogazky/Hattusa, Tudaliyas IV
is announcing a military campaign against the land of
Para, which, when conquered, will be included in the ter-
ritory of Kuruntas province Taruntassa.
123
If we take this
evidence at face value, it may reasonably be argued that
Lukka refers solely to the lower Xanthos valley with
Patara, Awarna, Pinata, and Talawa, whereas the Lukka
lands includes the regions to the north, west, and east of
Lukka proper.
In the Yalburt text Tudaliyas IV proudly stipulates:
i-t-i -pa-wa UTNA-n-i URA+HANTAWAT-i H(TI)
UTNA
-mi-i
m
T(TI) HUHA-i na
4
- HWA--sa-a HW--t

118
Note that Steiner 1993: 129 draws attention to yet another ins-
tance of the Lukka lands in Hittite cuneiform (KUB XXI 31), but
the context is too fragmentary to be of any use here.
119
Poetto 1993: 48-9 (block 9); 80; cf. Woudhuizen 1994-5: 176
(phrase 4); Woudhuizen 2004a: 28; 32.
120
Hawkins 1995: 22-3 (phrases 1 and 4); 29; 54; cf. Woudhuizen
1994-5: 200 (phrases 1 and 4); Woudhuizen 2004a: 78; 83-4.
121
Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 201; cf. del Monte & Tischler, s.v.
122
Otten 1988: 37-8; VIII, 60-2; Para along the Kataraya
river, corresponding to classical Perge along the Kestros in Pam-
phylia.
123
Otten 1988: VIII, 63-4.
in these lands, the great kings of Hatti, my fathers
(and) grandfathers, no one has marched,
with which reference is made to the region of
Awarna, Pinata, and Talawa in the lower Xanthos
valley.
124
As opposed to this, the earlier section of
his campaign in the Indus valley concerns an uprising
of territory already within the Empire, as it is ex-
pressly stated to be apa muwa- reconquer(ed).
125
The inclusion of the land of Para in the Empire, as
hinted at in the Bronze Tablet from Bogaz-
ky/Hattusa, plausibly antedates Tudaliyas IVs Ly-
cian campaign as recorded for the Yalburt text.
Finally, as we have seen, Wiyanawanda already fig-
ures as a border town of the province of Mira in the
times of Mursilis II. From this sequence of affairs, we
may safely deduce that the Hittites slowly, but confi-
dently, encircled the region of the lower Xanthos val-
ley before they ultimately went over to conquer it.
The rationale behind this is easily explained by the
geographic situation, according to which the lower
Xanthos valley is separated from the surrounding re-
gions by a spur of the formidable Taurus mountains
(see Fig. 8). As I have argued elsewhere, the con-
quest of the lower Xanthos valley is not an objective
per se, but a prelude to Tudaliyas IVs Cyprus-
Alasiya campaign, launched by him in the final years
of his reign and made more permanent by his son
Suppiluliumas II.
126
Fig. 8. Map of Lycia (from Mellink 1995).

124
Woudhuizen 1994-5: 179; Woudhuizen 2004a: 35-6 (phrase
42). Note that the mention of hostages from Pina (= hieroglyphic
Pinata) and Awarna in the Milawata-letter (KUB XIX 55) plausi-
bly postdates Tudaliyas IVs Lycian campaign as recorded for the
Yalburt text, see Woudhuizen 2005: 115.
125
Woudhuizen 1994-5: 176; Woudhuizen 2004a: 42 (phrase 12).
126
Woudhuizen 1994-5: 175; cf. Woudhuizen 1994: 524-6;
Woudhuizen 2004a: 31-2.
59
7. ETHNOGENESIS OF THE GREEKS
The decipherment of Linear B by the British architect Mi-
chael Ventris has proved that Greek existed as a language
from the second half of the 15th century BC onwards: the
earliest tablets are in fact from the Late Minoan II-IIIA1
period at Knossos in Crete (= c. 1450-1350 BC).
127
The
question which will be addressed here is: when did the
Greek language, and hence probably the Greek ethnos in
later times at least the Greek language is one of the most
distinctive features of the Greek ethnos , come into be-
ing? Was it the result of an immigration by proto-Greeks
into the region we call Greece, or are there other processes
at work? In order to tackle this question, we will look at
the relevant archaeological, historical, and linguistic evi-
dence.
From an archaeological point of view, there are three
periods which might be of relevance to our question: first
the transition from Early Helladic II to Early Helladic III
(c. 2300 BC), then the transition from Early Helladic III to
Middle Helladic (c. 2000 BC), and finally the transition
from Middle Helladic to Late Helladic I (c. 1600 BC) (for
alternative opinions focussing on different periods, see ad-
ditional note at the end of this section). All these three
transitional periods in varying degrees show evidence of
discontinuity in occupation. The type site for the transition
from Early Helladic II to Early Helladic III is Lerna, ex-
pertly excavated by the Americans under the leadership of
John Caskey. Here the so-called House of the Tiles went
up in flames and was covered by a tumulus, new house
forms were introduced, characterized by apsidal ends, a
new pottery style was developed, first hand-made only,
which is baptized Minyan ware, and a new type of burial
came into fashion, namely individual burials in cist graves.
In the following transition from Early Helladic III to Mid-
dle Helladic, the new features characteristic of Lerna and
some other sites, are also introduced at places that re-
mained untouched in the first transitional period, some-
times, as at Eutresis, after a violent conflagration.
Although related cultural traits were introduced at both pe-

127
For the correlation of archaeological phases and absolute
chronology, see Warren & Hankey 1989; note however that the
lowering of the dates of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten as per
Kitchen 1989 has its repercussions for the date of the transition
from Late Minoan IIIA1 to Late Minoan IIIA2, which should
likewise be lowered from c. 1370 BC to c. 1350 BC.
riods, what distinguishes the transition at c. 2000 BC from
the previous one at c. 2300 BC is the presence at some
sites of Mattpainted ware, originating from the Cycladic
islands, and a little imported or locally imitated Middle
Minoan IA ware. It further deserves notice that at Lerna in
a context to be dated after the destruction of the House of
the Tiles bones have been found, first, in the Early Hella-
dic III period, of a horse-like animal and later, in the Mid-
dle Helladic period, of a true horse.
A majority of the archaeologists, led by Caskey, is of
the opinion that in the two aforesaid transitional periods a
new people arrived in Greece, coming from the north or
east or both, which spoke an Indo-European language, if
not already Greek then at least about to become Greek.
128
This majority standpoint is challenged by the penetrating
study of Ren van Royen & Benjamin Isaac, who convinc-
ingly demonstrated that the transition from Middle Hella-
dic to Late Helladic I, usually considered to be without a
true break, shows evidence of discontinuity in occupation
in about the same way as the two foregoing transitional pe-
riods. Thus it happens that sites are abandoned (Argos) or
destroyed by fire (Eleusis, Kirrha) at the time of the intro-
duction of the Minoanizing Late Helladic I ware.
129
An-
other new feature of this period, next to the Minoanizing
pottery style, is the introduction of new types of graves:
shaft graves, tholos- and chamber tombs the latter for
multiple burials. Of these, the shaft graves at Mycenae de-
serve special mention for their extremely rich contents:
clearly here were buried valiant warriors who appreciated
luxuries inspired by as far away a country as Egypt (think
of the daggers with Nilotic scenes, the gold masks and
Heinrich Schliemanns observation that one of the corpses
was mummified). As manifest from the scenes on the ste-
lae which marked their graves, the dignitaries in question
were specialized in chariot warfare. In line with these find-
ings, there has come into being a minority view according
to which the arrival of the proto-Greeks in Greece consists
of a so-called takeover by a comparatively small but well-
organized chariot-brigade in the transitional period from
Middle Helladic to Late Helladic I. As a variant, more

128
Caskey 1973.
129
Van Royen & Isaac 1979.
60
closely linked up with the given majority view, these in-
vaders are also considered non-Greek foreigners.
In order to decide between these conflicting views, it
may be of relevance to determine who were the inhabitants
of Greece before the arrival of the proto-Greeks. The most
serious attempt to tackle this question is formed by Jan
Bests investigation into the origins of the cultural traits of
the Middle Helladic period, in casu Minyan ware, cist
graves with individual burials and apsidal houses. The
closest parallels for these three features he was able to
trace in the northern Balkans in the period antedating their
introduction into Greece. As this region in historical times
is inhabited by Thracian tribes, Best extrapolated that
bearers of the Middle Helladic culture in Greece were
kinsmen of the latter.
130
This conclusion could be backed
up by literary tradition, according to which, as first noted
by Stanley Casson, central Greece had once been inhabited
by Thracians.
131
Thus it is recorded that the Thracians
with Eumolpos and his son Ismaros were driven from
Eleusis by the Athenian Erekhtheus, and that they took
refuge at the court of the Thracian king Tegyrios in Boeo-
tian Tegyra.
132
Furthermore, the Thracian king Tereus is
of old situated at Daulis in Phokis, and the likewise Odry-
sian royal name Sitalkas is recorded as an epiklesis of
Apollo at Delphi.
133
The presence of the Thracian tribe of
the Odrysians in Phokis is strikingly confirmed by evi-
dence from Linear B. On an inscribed stirrup jar from the
destruction layer of the House of Kadmos at Thebes,
dated c. 1350 BC, the ethnonym o-du-ru-wi-jo Odrysian
is recorded. As another inscribed stirrup jar was found in
Orkhomenos, it seems not unlikely to assume that the stir-
rup jars from the House of Kadmos, which in fact are of

130
Best in Best & Yadin 1973; cf. Coles & Harding 1979: 132 f.
To the three given comparanda should be added the tumulus for
elite burials as attested for Vraca in Bulgaria during the Early
Bronze Age, i.e. either previous to or simultaneous with its intro-
duction in southern Greece, see Coles & Harding 1979: 136, Fig.
47. Note that the tumulus ultimately constitutes a North Pontic
steppe or Kurgan element, further represented by sherds of corded
ware as recorded for Armenokhori in eastern Macedonia, Eutresis
in Boeotia, and Agia Marina in Phokis at the end of the Early
Bronze Age, see Sakellariou 1980: 151.
131
Casson 1968: 102-3.
132
Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopdie, s.v. Eumolpos.
133
Note in this connection that one of the harbors of Delphi,
Krisa, exemplifies a Thracian toponym originating from Proto-
Indo-European [= PIE] *krs- black, see Detschew 1976, s.v.
Krisos.
Cretan type and of which as many as 120 in sum have been
found, served export purposes for the at that time still pre-
dominantly Minyan hinterland of Thebes.
134
Finally, the
Thracian nature of the ancient population of Phokis may be
further enhanced by the fact that the Thracian tribe of the
Abantes are recorded to have moved from their city Abai
in Phokis to Euboeia across the Euripos.
It is rightly stipulated by Casson that there is also evi-
dence of Phrygians among the earliest inhabitants of
Greece. Most famous in this respect is, of course, the case
of Pelops, after whom the Peloponnesos (= island of
Pelops) is named. In later times, the presence of the Phry-
gian Pelops in southern Greece was no longer understood
and he was considered an immigrant from Anatolia the
later habitat of the Phrygians. But the fact that the Phry-
gians were originally at home in southern Greece is duly
indicated by scores of Phrygian place names (Azania,
Mideia, Mopsopia, Olympia, Phrikion, Phrixa, Phrixos,
Phrygia) and personal names (Adrastos, Akrisios,
135
Atreus, Azan, Azeus, Kelainos, Kharites,
136
Khlris,
137
Phorkys, Phrixos, Proitos) attested in the historical records.
In some instances, like a-da-ra-te-ja (= Greek Adrsteja)
or a-da-ra-ti-jo (= Greek Adrstijos), u-ru-pi-ja (= Greek
Olumpia), ke-ra-no (= Greek Kelainos), and mo-qo-so (=
Greek Mopsos) the ancient nature of these names can be
emphasized by their occurrence or of that of related forms
in Linear B.
138
With the Thracians and the Phrygians, we
have by no means exhausted the historical documentaries
on the earliest inhabitants of Greece. Yet another group
which figures prominently in the sources is that of the
Leleges, who Herodotos (Histories I, 171) identifies with
the Carians from the Cycladic islands. Their presence in
southern and central Greece may perhaps be reflected in

134
Woudhuizen 1989.
135
Brother of Proitos, see Sakellariou 1986: 133; cf. Akrisias, the
Phrygian name for Kronos according to a gloss by Hesykhios, see
Diakonoff & Neroznak 1985: 91.
136
Cult installed by Eteokles of Orkhomenos, see Pausanias,
Guide to Greece IX, 35, 1; cf. Old Phrygian agaritoi ungracious
(D. sg.) in G-02, see Brixhe & Lejeune 1984.
137
Wife of Neleus, descendant of the Minyan royal house of Ork-
homenos, see Pausanias, Guide to Greece IX, 36, 4 37, 1; cf. the
Phrygian gloss glouros gold (< PIE *g
h
lro- or *g
h
el-), see Haas
1966: 144, 209 and cf. Gamkrelizdge & Ivanov 1995: 618, from
which it follows that the personal name is of the same type as
Greek Khruses and English Goldy.
138
Woudhuizen 1993b.
61
the archaeological record by the Mattpainted ware, which,
as we have seen above, originates from the Cyclades as
well and of which the introduction, as we have just seen,
distinguishes the transition from Early Helladic III to Mid-
dle Helladic. As a complicating factor, it should be real-
ized that there are still more population groups mentioned
in the historical sources which cannot positively be as-
signed to either of the three tribes identified so far for the
lack of evidence. On the whole, however, it may safely be
stated that with the Thracians, Phrygians, and
Leleges/Carians we have discussed the most prominent of
the population groups present in Greece before the Greeks
or living there simultaneously with the Greeks in their ear-
liest history.
From a linguistic point of view, it deserves attention
that the Thracian language, although barely known, is con-
sidered of Indo-European stock and most closely related to
Phrygian, this to the extent that one speaks of the Thraco-
Phrygian language group.
139
As opposed to this, Carian,
which, it must be admitted, also largely eludes us because
the script in which the language is recorded still goes un-
deciphered, is generally assumed to be a member of the
Indo-European Anatolian group of languages, together
with Hittite, Luwian, and Palaic. As such, it may be held
responsible for place names in -ss- and -nth- in Greece,
which are decidedly of Indo-European Anatolian type.
140
Furthermore, one may be tempted to point to related Ly-
cian type of names like Glaukos (= Linear B ka-ra-u-ko),
Lykaon, Pandion, Sandion, and Leda. At any rate, we ob-
viously have to reckon with at least two distinct pre-Greek
linguistic layers of Indo-European (= IE) stock, namely
Thraco-Phrygian and IE Anatolian.
If the bearers of the Minyan culture of Middle Hella-
dic Greece are rightly identified as Thraco-Phrygians, then
it necessarily follows that the view according to which the
Greeks arrived or otherwise came into being in the only
remaining transition from Middle Helladic to Late Helladic
I at c. 1600 BC must be correct. Therefore, let us take a
look at the various theories proposed. In the first place,
Robert Drews in his stimulating monograph on the subject
argued that the proto-Greeks were a chariot gang who
came by boat from Pontos to Thessaly, from where they

139
Crossland 1971: 857; contra Polom 1982a: 888.
140
Laroche 1957: 7; Laroche 1961a: 91; cf. Woudhuizen 1989:
193-4.
colonized the rest of Greece.
141
Secondly, Jan Best de-
fended the thesis that the proto-Greeks were identical with
the Hyksos, the foreign conquerors of lower Egypt in the
Second Intermediary Period (c. 1720-1550 BC), who were
driven from the country by the founder of the 18th dy-
nasty, Ahmose, and with their kinsmen from Canaan and
Syria took refuge to the southern shores of Greece.
142
Fi-
nally, Frank Stubbings likewise painted the picture of a
conquest of the Argolid by displaced Hyksos leaders from
Egypt, only he did not consider them proto-Greeks, but a
foreign warrior caste who, like they did in Egypt, adapted
to the culture and language of the host country.
143
Of these
three theories, the last two take into consideration the well-
known historical evidence of Danaos, the ancestor of the
Danaoi, coming from Egypt to the Argolid, and of Kadmos
with his Phoenicians founding the city of Thebes. The va-
lidity of this literary evidence is strengthened a great deal
by the fact that the Mycenaean Greeks are referred to by
the name Tanayu (Tin3y) Danaoi in the Egyptian hiero-
glyphic inscriptions from the funerary temple of Amenho-
tep III (1390-1352 BC) at Kom el-Hetan in Egyptian
Thebes.
144
Which of the three models about what happened in
Greece c. 1600 BC is the right one? In order to answer this
question, we will examine them a little closer, starting with
the one presented by Drews. This author takes as his start-
ing point the view of the linguists Thomas Gamkrelidze &
Vjaceslav Ivanov, who argued that the Greek language is
closely related to Armenian on the one hand and Indo-
Iranian on the other hand, and that the homeland of the
proto-Greeks accordingly must be sought somewhere in
the region of what was once Armenia, just south of the
Caucasus. Here they found in abundance the different sorts
of wood to build their chariots and the horses to drive
them.
145
A problem posed by this view is that at the time
that Greek is supposed to have split off from the parent
language and the proto-Greeks are supposed to have under-
taken their journey to their new home in Greece, the Ar-

141
Drews 1988.
142
Best in Best & Yadin 1973.
143
Stubbings 1973.
144
Edel 1966; cf. Woudhuizen 1992a: 73; pace Strange 1980: 22,
note 33; 148.
145
Drews 1988: 32 ff.; 200-1; since 1995 the work of Gamkre-
lidze & Ivanov is available in English translation.
62
menians are not yet living in Armenia! As related by
Herodotos (Histories VII, 73), the Armenians are an
apoikia of the Phrygians, who prior to their migration to
the Anatolian plateau inhabited the Olympos region in the
borderland of northern Thessaly and southern Macedonia
on the European continent, and before this, as we have
seen above, even the region as far south as the Peloponne-
sos. There is some evidence that the Phrygians entered
Anatolia already in the Late Bronze Age, as according to
Homeros they are situated along the banks of the Sangarios
in the period before the Trojan war (c. 1280 BC). More-
over, a Hittite text from the reign of Tudaliyas II (1390-
1370 BC) or Arnuwandas I (1370-1355 BC) makes men-
tion of a certain Mita (= Phrygian Midas) of Pauwa, a
region to the northeast of the Hittite capital Bogaz-
ky/Hattusa.
146
However, there can be no doubt that the
greatest surge of Phrygians into the highland of Anatolia
took place only after the fall of the Hittite empire at the
end of the Bronze Age, when, under the name of Muski,
they are recorded by the annals of the Assyrian king Ti-
glathpileser I (1115-1077 BC) to have reached the region
of the upper Euphrates in great numbers. As cogently ar-
gued by Igor Diakonoff, this particular historical event
triggers the formative phase of the Armenian people, in a
country formerly inhabited by Luwians and Hurrians.
147
Another weakness in the scenario presented by Drews
is formed by the crucial role he attributes to the Thessalian
plain in the colonization of Greece by the proto-Greeks.
Thus it is assumed that the proto-Greeks first arrive in
Thessaly and from there go on to take over central and
southern Greece.
148
This view is contradicted by the ar-
chaeological evidence, which clearly shows that the
Mycenaean culture first develops in the Argolid and only
at a later time spreads to more northerly regions like Thes-
saly.
149
In fact, the plain of Thessaly, just like the hinter-
land of Thebes, remains predominantly Minyan in

146
Woudhuizen 1993b; contra Drews 1993b, who also denies the
European origin of the Phrygians on account of the fact that ar-
chaeological evidence, for which he is tendentiously looking only
c. 1200 BC, is lacking.
147
Diakonoff 1984 (65; 117 assigns a date of c. 1165 BC to the
invasion of the Muski, which is incompatible with the reign of Ti-
glathpileser I, but suits their first mention in the Assyrian records,
see Vanschoonwinkel 1991: 463).
148
Drews 1988: 192-4.
149
Dickinson 1977: 24.
character up to well in Late Helladic III. The centre from
which Mycenaean influence radiates, ancient Iolkos in the
south, is still characterized by Minyan cist graves as late as
the Late Helladic IIB-IIIA period, whereas a Mycenaean
palace is reported here only from Late Helladic IIB or
IIIA1 onwards.
150
From an historical point of view, the
persistence of Middle Helladic traditions in Iolkos during
the earlier phase of the Mycenaean period coincides with
the Minysche Schicht of its royal house as represented
by Kretheus, Pelias (= the brother of Neleus who with Pe-
lasgians settles at Pylos c. 1600 BC, see further below),
and Akastos.
151
Finally, it is noteworthy that Drews heavily leans on
the linguistic thesis put forward by William Wyatt, who
maintains that the Indo-European invaders of Greece knew
the chariot and the horse when they first entered Greece.
Wyatt arrived at this conclusion by comparing the words
for chariot and its major parts to that for the four-wheel
mule wagon, from which comparison it appeared that the
first category is based on Indo-European roots, whereas the
latter is not. However, the conclusion that the Greeks in-
troduced these Indo-European words is only valid in case
there is no evidence of Indo-European speech in Greece
prior to the Greeks, as Wyatt explicitly asserts.
152
In the
previous pages, we have seen reason to believe that there
were Indo-European speaking tribes in Greece before the
arrival of the Greeks or their otherwise coming into being.
This nullifies Wyatts reasoning. As we have noted in the
foregoing, the horse was already known in Greece from c.
2300 BC onwards. In line with this observation, it is of in-
terest to note that the Greeks have preserved the old cen-
tum form for horse, Mycenaean i-qo (= later Greek
hippos), instead of taking over the new Indo-Aryan satem
form asva- which came in vogue in other regions under the
influence of the from the late 18th century BC onwards
modern chariot warfare (cf. Luwian asuwa-).
153
Further-
more, the Greeks preferred their own word for the chariot
itself, Mycenaean a-mo (= later Greek harma), instead of

150
Hope Simpson 1981: 161; Vanschoonwinkel 1991: 135; Papa-
dimitriou 2001: 129; cf. Smit 1989. Note that Stubbings 1973: 642
is mistaken in assigning the Mycenaean palace at Iolkos to the
transition from Middle Helladic to Late Helladic I.
151
Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopdie, s.v. Iolkos.
152
Wyatt 1970.
153
In the centum languages the palatals k, g, and g
h
develop into
gutturals, whereas in the satem languages they become assibilized.
63
adopting the then modern Indo-Aryan indication ratha-.
More in general, I do not understand why Wyatt does not
take into account the evidence from Kassite, where the
parts of the chariot, with only one exception, are all indi-
cated by Akkadian instead of Kassite words (Balkan 1954:
127-30).
If we next turn to the scenario presented by Best, it
first deserves our attention that identification of the proto-
Greeks with the Hyksos from Egypt and their kinsmen
from Canaan and Syria, contrary to Drews thesis, is in ba-
sic outline in harmony with the relevant archaeological and
historical data. In order to estimate its validity, however,
we have to go more into detail. As we have noted earlier,
the transition from Middle Helladic to Late Helladic I c.
1600 BC shows evidence of discontinuity in occupation.
From an historical point of view, it is highly interesting to
observe that precisely the sites which show discontinuity
of occupation figure prominently in the stories about the
foundation of new royal houses or a memorable war (see
Fig. 9). The evidence may be summarized as follows:
site conqueror(s) subjected or expelled source
1. Argos Danaos from Egypt Pelasgos or Pelasgio-
tans
Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopdie, s.v. Da-
naos.
2. Thebes Kadmos with Phoenicians Hyantes and Aones Pausanias, Guide to Greece IX, 5, 1.
3 Kirrha-
Krisa
Cretans from Knossos women & daughters Homeric Hymn to Pythian Apollo 388 ff.
4. Pylos Neleus with Pelasgians
from Iolkos
Pylos with Leleges Pausanias, Guide to Greece IV, 36, 1.
5. Eleusis Erekhtheus from Athens Eumolpos with
Thracians
Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopdie, s.v.
Eumolpos.
Table 2. Literary traditions with a bearing on the transition from Middle Helladic to Late Helladic I, c. 1600 BC.
Fig. 9. Distribution of centres of radiation of Late Helladic I mate-
rial.
Square symbols: pottery in combination with architectural remains
(Pylos, Kirrha, Thebes, Eleusis, and Athens). Triangular symbols:
pottery in shaft graves, tholos- and chamber tombs (Koryphasion,
Peristeria, Epidauros Limera, Lerna, Mycenae, Prosymna, and
Thorikos). Sources: van Royen & Isaac 1979 and Hope Simpson
1981.
With respect to this overview it must be admitted that the
association of Danaos with Argos is problematic, since the
latter site is abandoned in the earliest phase of the
Mycenaean period. Probably Argos has seized the myth at
the expense of some other site in the Argolid. Furthermore,
Thebes is not included in the list of sites which lent itself
to a continuity/discontinuity analysis by van Royen &
Isaac, even though it might be pointed out that the different
orientation of the earliest Mycenaean walls as compared to
their Middle Helladic predecessors rather suggests discon-
64
tinuity.
154
However this may be, what primarily concerns
us here is the fact that in three instances the conquerors are
explicitly identified as foreigners, whereas in two instances
these are just locals from Greece itself. From an archaeo-
logical point of view, the latter adapted to the Mycenaean
culture developed under the influence of the foreign invad-
ers pretty quickly, so that they may fruitfully be consid-
ered as local allies. In linguistic terms, these local allies
can, of course, not be held responsible for the introduction
of the Greek language in Greece, which, in line with Bests
scenario, must have been the privilige of the foreign invad-
ers. Hence, let us take a closer look at them.
What can be said about the language(s) of the foreign
invaders? One group, which settled in Krisa, is straight-
forwardly identified as Cretans from Knossos. These may
safely be assumed to have spoken one of the languages
current on the island before the introduction of Linear B c.
1450 BC, recorded for documents in Linear A and Cretan
hieroglyphic, respectively. A good case can be made that
Linear A contains a west-Semitic idiom, whereas Cretan
hieroglyphic probably bears testimony of both west-
Semitic and Luwian (see further section 12 below).
155
At
any rate, one thing is clear: our Cretans from Knossos did
not speak a Greek vernacular. Next comes Kadmos with
his Phoenicians. Taking this tradition at face value, the
conquerors of Thebes are likely to have spoken a Semitic
tongue. In fact, the name of Kadmos himself has been co-
gently interpreted as representing the Semitic root qdm
east, whereas that of his sister Europa, whom he was so
desparately looking for, may likewise be based on a Se-
mitic stem, viz. rb west (in Astours explanation, these
names stand for the morning and evening star, respec-
tively, of which the one seems to follow the other end-
lessly). Furthermore, Kadmos is held responsible for the
introduction of the mystery cult of the Kabeiroi, the great
gods whose name recalls Semitic kbr great.
156
Again,
not a trace of the Greek language. Remains the case of
Danaos, after whom the Greeks were named Danaoi. First
of all, it is interesting to note that the royal house he
founded in Mycenae ends with the reign of Eurystheus, af-
ter whom the originally Phrygian, but by now fully Myce-
naeanized, Pelopids take over: a clear instance of a reflux,

154
Symeonoglou 1973: 14-5; fig. 3.
155
Best & Woudhuizen 1988; Best & Woudhuizen 1989; Woud-
huizen 2001b.
156
Astour 1965b; cf. Edwards 1979.
effectuated by intermarriage (the mother of Eurystheus,
Nikippe, is claimed to be a daughter of Pelops). On the ba-
sis of the probable mention of Atreus in an Hittite text
from the reigns of Tudaliyas II (1390-1370 BC) and Ar-
nuwandas I (1370-1355 BC), where he occurs in the form
of Attarissiyas, this takeover by the Pelopids may safely be
assumed to be anterior to the late 15th century BC or be-
ginning of the 14th century BC in fact it may perhaps
even be surmised to have its archaeological reflection in
the shift from shaft graves to tholos tombs, which occurred
in Late Helladic IIA.
157
Because Danaos is reported to
have come from Egypt, it has been plausibly assumed that
he represents a conquest of the Argolid by the Hyksos, the
foreign rulers of lower Egypt who were kicked out at about
the time of the shaft graves in Mycenae.
Our question, therefore, is: who were the Hyksos? For
sure, there was a Semitic component among them, as the
first element of the name of one of their kings, Yakob-Har,
strikingly recalls Biblical Jakob.
158
In addition to this,
there may have been a Hurrian component among them: as
pointed out by Wolfgang Helck, the sister and daughter of
the Hyksos king Apophis bore Hurrian names.
159
It is even
possible that there was an Indo-European component
among them, to be more specific of the Indo-Aryan type:
thus Drews draws our attention to the fact that the Indo-
Aryan term marya is used in Egyptian texts to indicate a
charioteer or chariot fighter
160
(note in this connection that
the distribution of Indo-Aryan names [especially with the
elements asva- and ratha-] and terms over the Near East is
intrinsically linked up with the spread of chariot warfare
the latter being introduced in Egypt by the Hyksos).
161

157
Hope Simpson 1981: 14.
158
Redford 1992: 98-122.
159
Helck 1971: 101; contra van Seters 1966: 182-3, who consi-
ders the names in question west-Semitic. It is interesting to note in
this connection that, as remarked by Stubbings 1973: 637, the
Egyptian name Apophis occurs in Greek mythology in form of
Epaphos (or Epopeus).
160
Drews 1988: 151.
161
Mayrhofer 1974; considering the personal names
Tarundaradus, Piyamaradus, and Rhadamanthys, apparently
based on the onomastic element ratha- chariot, the Indo-Aryan
influence may even be assumed to have radiated to the Aegean,
though, as we have seen, not to the Greek mainland. This latter
suggestion is further enhanced by Schachermeyrs (1984 : 98) and
Lataczs (2003: 312) identification of the Cretan personal name
Meriones as a reflex of Indo-Aryan maryannu. As duly stressed by
65
Evidently, the Hyksos were a highly mixed company. But
of all the things it may be, there is not a shred of evidence
for proto-Greek among them (the comparison of the Uga-
ritic royal name Niqmadu to Greek Nikomedes is an ingen-
ious but futile attempt, not taking into account the fact that,
considering the royal name Niqmepu as attested for
Aleppo, the first element of the name appears to be
Niqm-).
162
And this is exactly the component which ac-
cording to the scenario of Best was so dominant that it
planted its language on the whole population of Greece. If
proto-Greeks were present among the Hyksos at all, and if
they entered Greece, I think their numbers must be as-
sumed to have thinned out to homeopathic proportions!
The third and final model is that of Stubbings, who, in
line with Best, paints the picture of a military conquest of
the Argolid by displaced Hyksos rulers, but, contrary to
Best, does not consider them proto-Greeks but simply for-
eigners who were not numerous enough to cause a lan-
guage shift. The immediate consequence of this view is
that Greek developed from the languages of the population
groups already present in Greece at the time of the take-
over by the foreign military caste, in casu Thraco-Phrygian
and IE Anatolian. As a matter of fact, of these two lan-
guages Thraco-Phrygian is so closely related to Greek that
it must be assumed to have once formed a linguistic con-
tinuum with the latter. The similarity of Greek to Phrygian
was noted already by the ancient Greeks themselves. Thus
Plato makes Socrates remark in a dialogue that the Phry-
gians have the same word slightly changed for pur fire,
hudr water and kunes dogs and many other words.
163
Especially the case of kunes (< PIE *k(u)won-) is interest-
ing, because it demonstrates that Phrygian, like Greek, is a

Drews 1988: 96-7, the temporary military superiority of the Indo-
Aryan invaders, probably originating from the Transcaucasian
steppes, during the late 18th and early 17th centuries BC is based
on their combination of the Near Eastern war-chariot with horse-
control in the form of the bit a steppe innovation , of which the
seal impressions and seal depicted in Littauer & Crouwel 1979:
figs. 33-4 and 36 bear testimony, whereas their Near Eastern op-
ponents up to that time were accustomed to the technical inferior
nose-ring, see, for example, the sealing depicted in Littauer &
Crouwel 1979: fig. 29.
162
Best 1992-3. Note, however, that the ethnonym Danaoi is like-
ly to be based on the PIE root *dnu- river as exemplified by the
Old European and North Pontic steppe river names Danube, Don,
Dnieper, and Dniester (see Sakellariou 1980: 175-7), which would
explain the mythical identification of the daughters of Danaos as
waternymphs.
163
Plato, Cratylus 410.
centum language.
164
The same holds good for Thracian,
which in an early inscription from Kjolmen shows the
form ekoa mare (< PIE *ekwo-).
165
Another outstanding
feature is formed by the relative pronoun, in which respect
Phrygian with the form ios or yos exhibits a particular af-
finity to the Mycenaean forerunner of later Greek hos, i.e.
jo- as represented in the composite jo-qi (the use of these
forms instead of reflexes of PIE *k
w
i- or *k
w
o- is an inno-
vation which Greek and Phrygian share with Indo-Iranian,
which has ya-).
166
This Phrygian affinity to particularly
Mycenaean Greek can be further illustrated by the se-
quence lavagtaei vanaktei (D sg. in -i) from a dating for-
mula, the roots of which strikingly recall the Mycenaean
titulary expressions ra-wa-ke-ta (= Greek lvgets)
leader of the host and wa-na-ka (= Greek (v)anaks)
king, respectively. The preservation of the wau, a typical
archaic feature, also characterizes Phrygian forms like
ev(e)- (cf. Greek eu- good), venavtun (cf. Greek heauton
himself), vetei (cf. Greek etos year), otuvoi (cf. Greek
ogdoos eighth), etc.
167
Of these forms venavtun (with
first element ven- < PIE *swe-) is also interesting in an-
other respect, as it shows the loss of the initial s which in
Greek becomes h (a development which Greek has in
common with Iranian and Armenian).
168
Furthermore, it
may be pointed out that both Phrygian and Thracian share
with Greek the use of the augment in the indicative of the
past tense, cf. Phrygian edaes he dedicated and Thracian
edakat he made (this is again an innovation which Greek
and this time Thraco-Phrygian share with this time San-
skrit).
169
If we realize, finally, that medio-passive forms in
-tor reported for Neo-Phrygian are problematic as Old

164
Note, however, that in New Phrygian satem influences as wit-
nessed by the form seiti < PIE *kei- to lie, to be put to rest may
have slipped in, see Diakonoff & Neroznak 1985: 132-3.
165
Woudhuizen 2000-1. Like it is the case with Phrygian (see the
previous note), in the late period satem influences, as represented
by esbi- horse, may have slipped in, see Detschew 1976: 171.
166
Crossland 1971: 866; cf. Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995: 339;
345.
167
Woudhuizen 1993b. The given examples are based on the Old
Phrygian texts (8th-6th centuries BC) as discussed in Woudhuizen
1993a. I have purposely avoided to make use of parallels from
New Phrygian texts (2nd-3rd centuries AD), because, under the
overwhelming influence of Hellenism, this is actually on the way
of becoming a provincial form of Greek.
168
Crossland 1971: 853.
169
Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995: 312.
66
Phrygian already bears testimony of the innovative middle
forms in -toy or -toi, Phrygian may well be considered to
side with Greek with respect to the loss of the medio-
passive in -r- as well (yet another innovation which Greek
and Phrygian share with Indo-Iranian).
170
Against the
background of this considerable overlap in lexicon, phono-
logical, and grammatical features between Greek and
Thraco-Phrygian, then, I think it is not farfetched to as-
sume that Greek came into being as a split from Thraco-
Phrygian under the impetus of foreign tongue(s) intro-
duced, as we have seen, by conquerors from Egypt, Phoe-
nicia, and Crete in the transition from Middle Helladic to
Late Helladic I (c. 1600 BC) (see Fig. 10).
time
scale:
PIE *b
h
rter- *b
h
rug- *d
h
e- *g
h
lro-
c. 1600 BC
Linear B
Iron Age phrater bratere phruges Briges tithemi edaes khlros glouros
teke
Fig. 10. Reconstruction of the split between Greek and Thraco-
Phrygian on the basis of the development of the mediae aspiratae
(after Haas 1966: 209).
171
In retrospect, it may be concluded that our investiga-
tion into the theories on the ethnogenesis of the Greeks has
led us to a point of view which is very close to the one
held by the majority of scholars and expressed by the con-
tributors to the prestigious Cambridge Ancient History.

170
Note that the supposed medio-passive forms addaketor and
abberetor turn up instead of active addaket in variants of the pro-
tasis of the damnation formula, which usually runs as follows: ios
ni semoun tou knoumanei kakoun addaket whoever will bring any
damage to this grave, see Diakonoff & Neroznak 1985: 31;
contra Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995: 341-3; 345. For the middle
forms in -toy or -toi, see Woudhuizen 1993a: 5-6. It should be
stressed in this connection, however, that passive forms in -r- have
been preserved in Armenian as well, see Haas 1966: 247.
171
I am indebted to Wim van Binsbergen for drawing this dia-
gram.
Thus, it appears that Caskey is essentially right in his as-
sumption that in the transitional periods from Early Hella-
dic II to Early Helladic III (c. 2300 BC) and from Early
Helladic III to Middle Helladic (c. 2000 BC), a new people
arrived in Greece which spoke an Indo-European language
which was later to become Greek. And Stubbings is essen-
tially right in his assumption that in the transitional period
from Middle Helladic to Late Helladic I (c. 1600 BC)
Greece was conquered by foreign invaders from Egypt and
Palestine who, however, were not numerous enough to
plant their language(s) on the at that time indigenous popu-
lation. The only ingredients which we have added is that,
in accordance with Bests view, the bearers of the Minyan
culture were Thracian and Phrygian tribes, and that Greek
is a split from Thraco-Phrygian taking place in southern
and central Greece under the influence of foreign tongue(s)
introduced by the conquering warrior caste of expert
charioteers who take over control of these areas c. 1600
BC. I can only hope that these new ingredients have been
presented in such a manner that they will become as influ-
ential as the old ones.
Additional note: Remaining models
In the above, I have not treated all models, only the his-
torically viable ones. Remaining models for the ethnogene-
sis of the Greeks are:
(1) during the Neolithic, c. 6000 BC (Renfrew);
172
(2) at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age, c. 3200 BC
(Coleman);
173
(3) at the end of the Late Bronze Age, c. 1200 BC (Gru-
mach, Hood).
174
Of these models, the Neolithic option has become en
vogue lately, being further propagated by Robert Drews
in his collection of papers by various scholars entitled
Greater Anatolia.
175
In theory, however, a connection be-
tween the spread of Neolithic agricultural economy with
that of the Indo-European languages as defended by Colin
Renfrew would lead us to assume a gradual diffusion of

172
Renfrew 1987.
173
Coleman 2000.
174
Grumach 1969; Hood 1974.
175
Drews 2001.
67
linguistic features from an hypothetical centre, Anatolia in
Renfrews view, to the outlying districts (= wave of ad-
vance). Hence, it cannot explain the intrusion of a more
developed Indo-European layer as represented by Phrygian
and Greek in between conservative IE Anatolian on the
one hand and an as yet undivided Italo-Celtic in eastern
and central Europe on the other hand:
176
like the presence
of an Hungarian speaking island in a Slavic speaking
sea, this distribution pattern indicates disruption by im-
migrants from elsewhere than the hypothetical centre Ana-
tolia the more so because it is repeated to the east, with
innovative Indo-Iranian in between conservative IE Anato-
lian on the one hand and Tocharian on the other hand.
Moreover, the more developed features of Phrygian and
Greek, which these have in common with Sanskrit, like the
relative *yo-, the augment in the indicative of the past
tense, and the loss of medio-passive -r-, or with Iranian,
like the loss of initial s, are unlikely to have been crystal-
ized already as early as the beginning of the Early Bronze
Age. My reconstruction of the relatively late split between
Phrygian and Greek on the one hand and Indo-Iranian on
the other would be as follows:
progressive use of
the horse
developments in the innovative
group of Indo-European lan-
guages
domesticated horse at-
tested in mainland
Greece
augment
relative *yo-
loss of medio-
passive -r-
loss of initial s
split of Indo-Iranian
from Phrygo-Greek
chariot satem Indo-Iranian only
Table 3. Developments in the innovative group of Indo-European
languages related to the progressive use of the horse
To this comes that the hiatus between the Neolithic

176
For the reflex of PIE *k
w
i- or *k
w
o- in Celtic, cf. the Celtibe-
rian indefinite kuekue- whosoever in kuekuetikui (D sg. in -i) to
whomsoever it may concern as attested for the so-called res
bronze, see Meid 1996: 30-1; Meid 2000: 12; for the reflex of PIE
*swe- in Celtic, cf. the Gallic reflexive pronoun of the 3rd person
sue- self-, see Meid 1996: 31, and the possibly related Celtibe-
rian forms sue and sues, see Meid 1993, Glossar s.v. Note, how-
ever, that the significance of the relative *yo- for the innovative
group of Indo-European languages is somewhat undermined by
the fact that its reflex is also attested for conservative (also medio-
passive -r and centum, see Meid 1993: 59 and 44, respectively)
Celtiberian, see Meid 1993: 96.
and Early Bronze Age in Greece would seriously hamper
the transmission of the pre-Greek place names in -ss- and
-nth-, no inhabitants being left to execute this transmission.
Finally, arrival of the Greeks at the end of the Bronze Age
is definitely ruled out by the decipherment of Linear B as
an old form of Greek.
69
8. THE RISE AND FALL OF THE MYCENAEAN GREEKS
In the history of the Greeks from the time of their forma-
tion to that of the downfall of the Mycenaean palaces, we
can distinguish three major phases: 1. the period of the
Minoan thalassocracy (c. 1550-1450 BC), 2. the Minoan-
Mycenaean transitional period (c. 1450-1350 BC), and 3.
the period of the Mycenaean koine (c. 1350-1185 BC).
In the period of the Minoan thalassocracy, the Greek
mainland appears to have been at least partly subject to
Minoan overlords. This is suggested by the Attic tradition
according to which in the time of king Aigeus, the father of
the Athenian hero Theseus, a yearly tribute of seven young
girls and seven boys was due to the Cretan king Minos.
These girls and boys, so the story goes, were to be sacri-
ficed to the Minotaur of the labyrinth in king Minos pal-
ace at Knossos. That Theseus, with the help of Ariadne,
the daughter of king Minos, slayed the Minotaur and freed
Athens from the ignominious yoke of Minoan domination,
does not, of course, alter the fact that the Athenians were
tributaries beforehand.
177
The period of Minoan thalassocracy ends with the for
the Minoans disastrous eruption of the Santorini volcano.
The discussion on the chronology of this event and hence
its impact has recently received a new impetus by Man-
fred Bietaks sensational find of tephra from the Minoan
eruption of the Santorini volcano in Tel el-Daba/Avaris in
a layer dated to the reign of Tuthmosis III (1479-1425
BC). As the reign of the latter pharaoh synchronizes with
Late Minoan IB, the eruption in question can now safely
be held responsible for the massive destructions at the end
of this particular period (c. 1450 BC).
178
Having lost the
ships of their fleet because of this disaster, the Minoans
were an easy prey to the Mycenaeans of mainland Greece.
Soon after the eruption of the Santorini volcano, the
Mycenaeans, archaeologically traceable by warrior graves
of mainland type and their predilection for so-called Ephy-
raean goblets, took over control of the island of Crete,

177
Woudhuizen 1992a: 55.
178
Bietak 2000: 194; this evidence now supersedes that presented
by Driessen & Macdonald 1997 (end of Late Minoan IA, c. 1500
BC) and Manning 1999 (1628 BC). For an overview of the pro-
blem of the Santorini eruption, see Woudhuizen 1992a: 47-79.
which they ruled from the palace of Knossos.
179
As first
pointed out by Fritz Schachermeyr, this takeover of power
in Crete has its reflection in the wall paintings of Aegean
embassies in the graves of Egyptian dignitaries. Thus, in
the tomb of Rekhmare, which was finished early in the
reign of Tuthmosis IIIs successor Amenhotep II (1427-
1400 BC), the Minoan kilts with codpieces are replaced
by Mycenaean ones without codpieces, whereas in the
slightly later tomb of Menkheperreseneb a prince of the
land of Keftiu (= Crete) is depicted in altogether Mycena-
ean style with a beard.
180
Further proof is afforded by the
Linear B tablets from Knossos, which are accidentally pre-
served by the fire that destroyed the palace at the end of
our Minoan-Mycenaean transitional period (= Late Minoan
IIIA1/2, c. 1350 BC). Owing to the decipherment of Linear
B by Michael Ventris in 1952, we know namely that this
script was used to write Greek.
181
At the same time, how-
ever, a Minoan rest group is allowed to continue their own
traditions in the Mesara plain, of which fact modest Linear
A archives of about 150 tablets in sum at Hagia Triada (=
HT) and two Cretan hieroglyphic inscriptions, the famous
discus of Phaistos and the double-axe of Arkalokhori, bear
testimony (see further section 12 below).
Within the frame of international politics, our Mi-
noan-Mycenaean transitional period can itself be subdi-
vided into three distinct subphases.
182
The first subphase is
characterized by the vicissitudes of the so-called Assuwian
league a short lived coalition of forces from Troy in the
north to Lycia in the south of western Anatolia under the
leadership of the royal house of the later kingdom of Ar-
zawa and named after the Asios leimn Asian field near
the latters capital Apasa (= Ephesos). As indicated by a
retrospective passage in a Hittite text of later date, the in-
fluence of this league radiated to the islands (Luwian gur-
sawara) of the Aegean.
183
Among these islands may well

179
Woudhuizen 1992a: 66-77.
180
Schachermeyr 1960; Schachermeyr 1980: 457-8.
181
Ventris & Chadwick 1973.
182
See on this subdivision Achterberg, Best, Enzler, Rietveld &
Woudhuizen 2004, section 8.
183
Starke 1981.
70
have been Crete, since in the text of the Phaistos disc (if
we are allowed to make use of the reading and interpreta-
tion of the latter document recently put forward by a group
of Dutch scholars, referred to in note 182) this town is
called Assuwian (B 10-11) and in the tablets of Hagia
Triada mention is made of a-si-ja-ka u-mi-na-si of the
Asian town (HT 28a), which likely refers to Phaistos,
again.
184
The radiation of Assuwas influence to Crete
might also account for its occurrence in form of Asiya
(Isy) in the annals of Tuthmoses III for the years just after
the eruption of the Santorini volcano (in casu 1445 and
1441-1440 BC). This subphase ends with the defeat of the
Assuwian league by the Hittite king Tudaliyas I (1430-
1400 BC).
With the elimination of the Assuwian league by the
Hittites again a vacuum of power is created in the Aegean
region thus marking the start of our second subphase.
One of the parties taking advantage of this situation is At-
tarissiyas, the man of Aiy, in whom we may recognize
Atreus, the father of Agamemnon, king of Mycenae and
leader of the Akhaians at the time of the Trojan war. Ac-
cording to the annals of the Hittite kings Tudaliyas II
(1390-1370 BC) and Arnuwandas I (1370-1355 BC), this
Akhaian ruler repeatedly attacked Madduwattas a Hittite
vassal in the region of southwest Anatolia and with the
latter held a raid on the island of Alasiya (= Cyprus), using
as much as 100 chariots.
185
The third and final subphase of the Minoan-
Mycenaean transitional period is characterized by the re-
newed prominence of Arzawa under its king Tarunda-
radus. This king corresponded with the Egyptian pharaoh
Amenhotep III (1390-1352 BC) about the marriage of his
daughter to the latter. In this correspondence, recovered at
Tell El-Amarna, it is stipulated that the land of Hatti is
shattered.
186
The latter situation is plausibly connected
with the historical preamble to a decree of Hattusilis III
(1264-1239 BC) according to which before the reign of
Suppiluliumas I (1344-1322 BC) the realm of Arzawa

184
Meijer 1982: 97. For Luwian umina- town, see Laroche
1960a: *228; Woudhuizen 1994-5: 183; Woudhuizen 2004a: 41.
185
Note the diffusion of Mycenaean ware from the Argolid, rea-
ching Kos in Late Helladic IIB and Ialysos in Rhodes in Late Hel-
ladic IIB-IIIA1, thus providing us with stepping stones for
Attarissiyas actions in southwest Anatolia and Cyprus, see Vans-
choonwinkel 1991: 164-5.
186
Moran 1992: 101 (= EA no. 31); cf. Mercer 1939: EA no. 31
(zersplittert).
reached to Uda and Tuwanuwa, which means to the terri-
tory south of the Halys river deep in the ancestral Hatti
lands. Furthermore, the Egyptian pharaoh requests
Tarundaradus to send Kaskans, a people situated to the
north of the Hittite capital Bogazky/Hattusa, but at the
time even occupying Nenassa south of the Halys bow. The
marriage of Amenhotep III with a daughter of
Tarundaradus was part of a grander scheme, namely to
curb Hittite power both in the east and the west. Another
part of this scheme was formed by the political support
rendered to the Mycenaean Greeks. As argued by Eric
Cline, this support is emanating from the discovery of
scarabs and faence plaques of Amenhotep III and his wife
Tiyi in the Aegean region, a concentration of which was
found in the capital Mycenae itself. Moreover, there is a
remarkable correspondence between the findspots of these
Egyptian imports and the places mentioned in the list of
Aegean place names on a statue base found in Amenhotep
IIIs temple tomb at Kom el-Hetan, Thebes, which, though
starting and ending in Crete, likewise attributes a central
position to the Greek mainland if not actually to Mycenae
itself. Interestingly, the distribution of the Egyptian im-
ports plausibly suggested to reflect political support in-
cludes western Asia Minor, as a scarab of Amenhotep III
has been discovered at Panaztepe in the Hermos valley,
which conceivably belonged to the realm of Tarunda-
radus.
187
The rationale behind lending political support to
both Tarundaradus and the Mycenaean Greeks in a con-
tainment policy of the Hittites may perhaps be provided by
the information from the discus of Phaistos if, at least,
one is allowed to make use of the aforesaid reading and in-
terpretation of this hieroglyphic text as recently offered by
a group of Dutch scholars.
188
Here great king Tarunda-
radus, who, although not mentioned explicitly by name, is
likely to be identified as the sender of the letter, is staged
as the overlord of the Mycenaeans in Crete under leader-
ship of king Nestor of Pylos in mainland Greece
189
the

187
Cline 1987; Cline 2001; note, however, that a scarab of queen
Tiyi has also been found outside the Aegean proper in Cyprus, see
Kenna 1971: 24, no. 47.
188
Achterberg, Best, Enzler, Rietveld & Woudhuizen 2004.
189
On the relation of Pylos with Crete, see Hiller 1996: 81-2 with
reference to tablet fragments in Knossian scribal tradition from the
old palace at Pylos and the mention in the Pylos tablets of the Cre-
tan towns Aminiso Amnisos (PY 943) and Kotuwe Gortys (D)
(PY An 233, etc.).
71
latter no doubt also a vassal of the king of Mycenae.
190
Hence, the political destinies of great king Tarundaradus
of Arzawa and the Mycenaean Greeks are intricately
linked up with each other. An interesting detail in this con-
nection is that with the specification of Phaistos as Assu-
wian Tarundaradus refers back to the Assuwian league of
his predecessor of about a generation ago in order to le-
gitimize his claim on Crete.
This intricate political situation in which Nestor of
Pylos, who, as we have just noted, was a vassal of the king
of Mycenae, ruled over Crete in his capacity as vassal of
great king Tarundaradus of Arzawa, and in which there
was some room for the continuity of Minoan traditions,
was abruptly put to an end by the Mycenaeans from the
Argolid at the beginning of Late Helladic IIIA2 (c. 1350
BC), when these burned down the palace of Knossos and
introduced megaron houses and standardized types of pot-
tery, the so-called Mycenaean koine, all over the island.
191
This expansionism of Mycenaeans from the Argolid coin-
cides with their conquest of Thebes which had strong
Cretan connections as examplified by the inscribed stirrup
jars! and the setting up of Orkhomenos as a Minyan (=
non-Greek) satellite state in central Greece.
192
Further-
more, the Mycenaeanization of Thessaly to the northeast
probably sets in from Late Minoan IIIA2 onwards.
193
Fi-
nally, the Mycenaeans from the Argolid extend their influ-
ence over the Aegean islands and as far east as Miletos a
former Minoan colony named after Milatos in Crete
194

on the west coast of Asia Minor.
195

190
Note in this connection that according to Homeros, Iliad XI,
690-3 Herakles defeated the Pylian king Neleus and killed 11 of
his 12 sons, leaving only Nestor as his successor.
191
Schachermeyr 1980: 446; Woudhuizen 1992a: 75.
192
Woudhuizen 1989: 199-202.
193
Smit 1989, who, unfortunately, does not distinguish between
Late Minoan IIIA1 and 2.
194
Niemeier 1998a: 27 ff. first building phase, Late Minoa IA to
Late Minoan IB; cf. Fick 1905: 29; 117.
195
Niemeier 1998a: 33 second building phase, Late Helladic
IIIA2 to Late Helladic IIIB. Note that the extension of the Myce-
naean sphere of influence in the eastern Aegean is reflected in the
later Pylos tablets by ethnica like Kinidija, Miratija, Raminija,
Kisiwija, and Aswija, bearing reference to what appear to be
female captives from Knidos, Miletos, Lemnos, Chios, and
Asia/Assuwa, respectively, see Parker 1999. Note further that
Miratijo man of Miletos, Milesian figures prominently in the
recently edited Theban tablets, see Aravantinos, Godart & Sacconi
2001: Fq 177, 198, [214], 244, 254+255, 269, and 276.
The history of the Mycenaeans during the period of
the koine can be followed from the sidelines by their role
in the Hittite sources, where they are addressed as
Aiyawa Akhaians.
196
Basic to this role is the fact that
with Millawanda (= Miletos) they have a foothold in west-
ern Asia Minor. This history begins with a major setback,
since, according to his annals, the Hittite great king Mur-
silis II (1321-1295 BC) razed Millawanda down to the
ground in the third year of his reign, which information
agrees with an archaeologically detected destruction layer
for Miletos in the Late Helladic IIIA2 to Late Helladic IIIB
transitional period.
197
The Mycenaeans, however, retained
their hold on the site, as in the next episode, under the Hit-
tite great king Muwatallis II (1295-1271 BC), a certain Pi-
yamaradus, who is the father-in-law of the governor of
Millawanda, Atpas, raided Hittite territory apparently with
the backing of the king of Aiyawa. Muwatallis II, who
was preparing himself for the battle of Kadesh with Egypt
(1274 BC), preferred to settle the matter in diplomatic
terms, and, in doing so, addressed the king of Aiyawa as
his brother, which means recognition as an equal and
hence great king. His Aiyawan colleague was of the
same mood, as with respect to a former conflict about
Wilusa (= Homeric Ilios or Ilion) he is stated to have re-
marked:
LUGAL KUR a-at-ti- ua-an-a-kn -ug 8. ku-e-da-ni
A.NA [INI]M URU ui-l[u]-[]a e-ir ku-ru-ur 9. e-u-u-
en nu- ua-[m]u a-p[]-e-[d]a-ni INIM-ni la-ak-nu-ut
10. nu- ua tk-u-la-u-en X (X) X- ua-an-na-a ku-ru-
ur a-a-ra
In der Angelegenheit von Wilusa, der entwegen der
Knig des Landes Hattusa und ich uns feind waren,
in der hat er mich umgestimmt, und wir haben uns
vertragen. Ein Krieg ist Unrecht fr uns.
198
As it seems, this sidely remarked conflict about
Wilusa became conflated in Greek memory as the Trojan

[214], 244, 254+255, 269, and 276.
196
This identification, already implied in the discussion of Atta-
rissiyas above, is now commonly accepted; note, however, that
Heinhold-Krahmer 2003 is still hesitating about it.
197
Niemeier 1998a: 38; Niemeier 1998b: 150-1 end of second
building period.
198
Sommer 1932: KUB XIV 3 iv 7-10 (cited without the nume-
rous question marks for uncertain signs). For the dating of the Ta-
wagalawas-letter to the reign of Muwatallis II and an overview of
the discussion about this, see Smit 1990-1 and, most recently,
Gurney 2002.
72
war
199
a suggestion further emphasized by the fact that
the name of the king of Wilusa at the time of Muwatallis
II, Alaksandus, corresponds to Greek Alexandros/Paris;
200
at any rate, a date of say c. 1280 BC for this conflict corre-
lates perfectly with the archaeologically established de-
struction of Troy VI, usually assigned to c. 1300 BC.
Fig. 11 (see next page). Sites in southern and central Greece de-
stroyed and/or abandoned at the end of Late Helladic IIIB. Source:
Hope Simpson & Dickinson 1979.
shown are the following sites: Teikhos Dymaion, Pylos, Nikhoria,
Menelaion, Ayios Stephanos, Krisa, Tsoungiza, Mycenae, Zy-

199
So also Bryce 2003: 208, who, however, wrongly dates the
Tawagalawas-letter to the reign of Hattusilis III. It is interesting to
note in this connection that according to Webster 1960: 67 the Hit-
tites are mentioned in Homeros among the Trojan allies as 1. Ha-
lyzones from Alybe a city, like Hattusa, associated with silver
(Iliad II, 856) [but note that Meyer 1968: 12 connects Alybe with
the Khalybians of the Early Iron Age], and 2. Keteians (Odyssey
XI, 521); they may further appear as adversaries of the Phrygians
along the Sangarios in form of Amazones in a retrospective pas-
sage referring to the time that Priamos still fought himself (Iliad
III, 184) the same Amazones upon whom Bellerophon stumbles
during his adventures in the hinterland of Lycia (Iliad VI, 186), cf.
Leonhard 1911: 15-6. See also section 2, notes 52 and 53 above.
200
Note that a reflection of these events is preserved by
Stephanos of Byzantions remark in his Ethnika, s.v. Samylia that
Motylos, after founding this Carian city, received Helena and Paris
there, see Riemschneider 1954: 40.
gouries, Berbati, Prosymna, Midea/Dendra, Tiryns, Orkhomenos,
Iria, Gla, Eutresis, Thebes, Brauron.
After this glorious episode, however, it goes down
with the image of the Mycenaean king in the eyes of the
Hittites. It has been argued that in the reign of the Hittite
great king Tudaliyas IV (1239-1209 BC) the Mycenaeans
had lost their Anatolian bridgehead in the region of Mile-
tos. Thus there is documentary evidence that the ruler of
Milawata (= variant of Millawanda) at the time turned
sides and went over to the Hittite camp.
201
In the archaeo-
logical record this seems to be reflected by Hittite features
in the material culture of Miletos in the second half of the
13th century BC.
202
Whatever the extent of these argu-
ments, fact is that in a treaty with Sausgamuwa of Amurru,
in which Tudaliyas IV ordered a ban on traffic between
Aiyawa and Assyria via the harbors of Amurru, the
name of the king of Aiyawa, initially summed up among
the kings equal in rank with the Hittite great king, has been
erased.
203
Evidently, the king of Aiyawa was down-
graded in the eyes of the Hittites as compared to the situa-
tion at the time of Muwatallis II. To this comes that the
ban on traffic of Aiyawa as referred to in the Sausga-
muwa-treaty may have become more serious in the course
of time. Tudaliyas IV had a program of incorporating all
of southwest Anatolia into his realm: early in his reign he
announced the plan to conquer the territory west of Para
along the Kastaraya (= Perge along the Kestros in Pam-
phylia) and to add the newly won territory to the province
of Taruntassa (= Cilicia Aspera).
204
At a later stage in his
reign, he conquered the region of the lower Xanthos valley
in Lycia a country where no one of his ancestors had
ever marched.
205
The rationale behind this scheme is to
clear the sea from pirates the Lycians were notorious for
this activity already in the time of the El-Amarna archive
in the 14th century BC as a preparation for his ultimate
goal: the conquest of Alasiya (= Cyprus). In the final years
of his reign, then, he ultimately launched a campaign
against the island of Alasiya, but a definite result was
reached only by his son and successor, Suppiluliumas II
(1205-1180? BC), who also set up a memorial for this

201
Bryce 1998: 339-42 (Milawata-letter).
202
Niemeier 1998b: 153.
203
Bryce 1998: 342-4.
204
Otten 1988: VIII, 62-4 and commentary.
205
Poetto 1993; Woudhuizen 1994-5: 168-179; Woudhuizen
2004a: section 3 ; see section 6 above.
73
campaign.
206
Now, most of the inscriptions in Cypro-
Minoan date to the period of Hittite rule, say c. 1210-
1180? BC, if not actually from the last days before the
conquest by the Sea Peoples. The larger texts among the
inscriptions are bills of lading, registering the sea-borne
traffic between western Anatolia and the Near East, espe-
cially Ras Shamra/Ugarit.
207
What really strikes us about
these documents is the absence of Greek names. Of course,
a Greek trader may be hidden behind geographically in-
spired indications like Iasos or the Samian, but the
same absence of Greek names also characterizes the much
more substantial archives at Ras Shamra/ Ugarit.
208
At any
rate, it is clear that the responsible persons specified by
ethnonyms are men like Pias,
209
trader from Lycia,
Sanemas,
210
representative of the Shekelesh, or Akamas,
representative of Ephesos and a place plausibly situated in
the Troad (see section 13) members of Sea Peoples who
later knew their way to the Orient, but decidedly no
Greeks! Accordingly, the evidence amounts to a serious
ban of the Mycenaean Greeks from the waters bordering
the Anatolian peninsula in the west and the south during
the final phase of the Hittite Empire period.
211
Just antedating the coming to power of Suppiuliumas
II, in year 5 of Merneptah (= 1208 BC), the Akhaians in
form of Ekwesh the final -sh is likely to be identified as a
suffix also present in Shekelesh (= Sicels) and Weshesh (=
Ausones or Osci)
212
are recorded to have taken part in
the campaign of the Libyan king Meryey against Egypt. In
this campaign the Akhaians served as foreign allies or

206
Gterbock 1967; Woudhuizen 1994: 524-6; Woudhuizen
1994-5: 175; Woudhuizen 2004a: 32; the memorial in question is
Nisantas in Bogazky/Hattusa, see Woudhuizen 2004a: 72-5.
207
Woudhuizen 1992a: 94-145; Woudhuizen 1994.
208
Astour 1964; Sandars 1980: 35; 46. Note, however, that Ugari-
tic Yman likely refers to Ionia, see Dietrich & Loretz 1998: 337-
46, of which the related ethnonym, contrary to the opinion of Die-
trich & Loretz 1998: 344, is already attested for Linear B in form
of Ijawone Ionians, see Ventris & Chadwick 1973, glossary, s.v.
and cf. Driessen 1998-9.
209
For Luwian hieroglyphic seals bearing testimony of the MN
Pias, see Gterbock 1942: 68, no. 66; Kennedy 1959: 160, no.
39.
210
Note that this name is strikingly paralleled for a Cretan hiero-
glyphic sealing from Gortys (# 196), reading, with the cross at the
start and hence from right to left, 019-061-E74 sa-n-ma.
211
Cf. Cline 1991.
212
Wainwright 1961: 72; Redford 1992: 252, note 54; cf. Hittite
Karkisa alongside Karkiya Caria. On the identification of the
Sea Peoples in question, see section 14 below.
mercenaries alongside the Teresh, Lukka, Sherden, and
Shekelesh. The only one planning to settle in the Egyptian
delta was the Libyan king himself who is reported to have
been accompanied by his family and to have carried with
him all his possessions.
213
As such the Libyan campaign
is clearly distinct from the later attacks by the Sea Peoples
in the reign of Ramesses III (years 1179 and 1176 BC),
when, according to the reliefs at Medinet Habu, the Sea
Peoples themselves carried with them ox-drawn carts with
their wives and children.
214
Interesting to observe in this
connection is that the Greeks are referred to in the Egyp-
tian records of the Libyan campaign by a reflex of their
Hittite name, A iyawa, instead of their usual Egyptian
designation Tanayu, which in variant form Denye(n) is re-
introduced by Ramesses III (see section 9). Another
strange thing is that the fallen of the Ekwesh are explicitly
stated to have been circumcized (hence their hands were
cut off as a trophy instead of their penises) a rite well-
attested for the Egyptians and the Semites, but so far not
for the Mycenaean Greeks.
215
The period of the Mycenaean koine ends in massive
destructions and/or abandonment of sites on the Greek
mainland: in southern and central Greece 10 important
sites show a destruction layer at the end of Late Helladic
IIIB (c. 1185 BC),
216
5 of which are abandoned after-
wards, whereas at least 9 more important sites are just
abandoned at the time (see Fig. 11 on the previous
page).
217
In view of these figures, the transition from Late
Helladic IIIB to Late Helladic IIIC is much more discon-
tinuous than preceding periods of an archaeological break
discussed in the foregoing section (but note that the density
of the Late Helladic IIIB sites is higher than ever before).
Yet, as we know from later records, the language spoken in
Greece remains Greek and the inhabitants of the Early Iron
Age and following periods are Greeks, thus in this sense

213
Sandars 1980: 101.
214
Sandars 1980: 117, afb. 77; 118-20. As we have seen in sec-
tion 4 above, the given distinction was particularly made by Hlbl
1983.
215
Barnett 1969: 11; note that the Philistines from Crete were also
not circumcized, see section 12.
216
Warren & Hankey 1989: 161 association of Late Helladic IIIB
with Tewosret 1188-1186 BC at Deir Alla.
217
Hope Simpson & Dickinson 1979; cf. Shelmerdine 1997: 581.
See also Betancourt 1976: 40 with even larger figures, but without
specification of the names of the sites in question.
74
give and take a few dialectal reshuffles there is no real
break, but only continuity.
218
As an explanation of this
paradox between archaeological evidence and linguistic
data, it has been suggested that the enemy which attacked
the Mycenaeans at the end of Late Helladic IIIB wasted
the country but apart from some minor exceptions indi-
cated by the presence of handmade foreign ware (see also
sections 10 and 14)
219
did not come to settle in it.
220
At
any rate, the Pylos tablets indicate that the enemy came by
sea from the northwest, as ships are sent to cape Pleuron in
Aitolia to cope with the emergency situation.
221
This does
not exclude, however, a simultaneous or slightly posterior
attack from the north over land, to which the large scale
destructions in Thessaly bear testimony (see Fig. 12)
222
and against which the inhabitants of the Peloponnesos tried
to protect themselves by building a wall on the Isthmos.
223
As a result of the breakdown of the Mycenaean civili-
zation, a number of people from the Peloponnesos decided
to join the seaborne attackers and took the boat to the Ori-
ent in order to settle in Cyprus and in the region of Adana
on the adjacent side of the mainland. For the last men-
tioned region this is proved by the recently discovered
Luwian hieroglyphic-Phoenician bilingual inscription of
ineky, dated to the reign of Urikki in the late 8th cen-
tury BC, in which the land of Adana is called Hiwa, the

218
For religious continuity, see Nilsson 1927: 400-14; Schnapp-
Gourbeillon 2002: Chapitre IV.
219
Rutter 1975; Deger-Jalkotzy 1983; Popham 2001; for further
literature, see section 14, note 600.
220
Desborough 1964: 224; cf. Betancourt 1976: 41.
221
Ventris & Chadwick 1973: 185-6: PY An 12 ereta Pereuro-
nade ijote (= Greek eretai Pleurnade iontes) rowers to go to
Pleuron. Further maritime measures are forthcoming from the
oka-tablets, which, notwithstanding the linguistic criticism by
Risch 1958: 354 and Palmer 1998: 154, deal with holkades ships
for transportation, see Pugliese Carratelli 1954: 469; Mhlenstein
1956: 36 ff.; cf. Best 1996-7: 120-7; for the state of emergency
exemplified by these tablets, one of which is headed by the phrase
ouruto opia
2
ra epikowo (= Greek (h)(s) wruntoi opi(h)ala epi-
kouroi) Thus the watchers are guarding the coast (PY An 657),
see Palmer 1956; Palmer 1965: 143-54.
222
Schachermeyr 1980: 393; Popham 2001: 282-3 (figs.). As a
historical parallel one might point to the fact that when Dionysios
of Syracuse raided the Caeretan harbor Pyrgi in 384 BC, the Celts
in the hinterland seized the opportunity to attack the Etruscans
from the rear.
223
Sandars 1980: 173; Vanschoonwinkel 1991: 108-9 (Late Hel-
ladic IIIB/C transitional period).
Luwian hieroglyphic equivalent of Hittite Aiyawa, char-
acterized, just like it is the case for the text of the Phaistos
disc, by aphaeresis.
224
In the archaeological record, this
event is reflected in the destruction of Tarsus at the end of
the Late Bronze Age and the subsequent introduction of
Late Helladic IIIC ware of Argive background.
225
Another
branch of the Mycenaean Greeks, referred to as Denye(n)
by the Egyptians and Dan by the Hebrews, went further
south and settled initially in the region of Tel Qasile a
new foundation in Canaan, perhaps some time after the
settlement of the Philistines (see section 9).
226
Both these
migrations, however, were not massive enough to plant the
Greek language: the Akhaians in the region of Adana went
over to Luwian and the Danaoi of Canaan to Semitic.
Apart from emigration to Cyprus and the Orient,
which may have been an ongoing process from Late Hel-
ladic IIIC to Submycenaean,
227
there can be observed a
clustering together of the population in Greece itself into
refuge areas during this time. These refuge areas, like Ak-
haia, Kephalenia, and Attica, but especially the Aegean is-
lands Naxos, Kos, and Rhodes, could bear testimony to a
considerable degree of recovery.
228
Moreover, the popula-
tion in Crete withdrew to mountain sites like Karphi, Vro-
kastro, and Kastri.
229
From Attica the Ionian emigration to
the region of Miletos in western Asia Minor took place,
probably in the Submycenaean period;
230
the Aiolian mi-

224
Tekoglu & Lemaire 2000; for the Phaistos disc, see Achter-
berg, Best, Enzler, Rietveld & Woudhuizen 2004: 85; 98; 110.
225
Goldman 1956: 63; 350-1; Mee 1978: 150, who stipulates that
the number of Late Helladic IIIC sherds (875 in sum) allows for
the actual presence of Mycenaeans. Cf. Strabo, Geography XIV, 5,
12, according to which Tarsus is colonized from Argos.
226
For the absence of Late Helladic IIIC1b ware here, see Bietak
1993: 257-8.
227
Dikaios 1971: 519 (Late Helladic IIIC1b from the Argolid);
Catling 1973; Vanschoonwinkel 304-5 (Paphos, Late Helladic
IIIC); Schachermeyr 1980: 380 (sub-Mycenaean from the Pelo-
ponnesos). The earliest evidence of the Greek language on Cyprus
is provided by the Opheltas-obelos, dating to the middle of the
11th century BC, which bears testimony of the Arcado-Cyprian
genitive (Opeletau), see Masson 1983: 408.
228
Desborough 1964: 226 ff.; Betancourt 1976: 40; Schacher-
meyr 1980: 51.
229
Vanschoonwinkel 1991: 156-9.
230
Schachermeyr 1980: 375; cf. Herodotos, Histories I, 146, who
stipulates that the Ionians killed the male Carians and married with
their wives.
75
gration from Boeotia and Thessaly to the coastal zone of
Mysia may well have occurred in about the same period or
just a little afterwards.
231
The Dorians, who repopulated an
almost deserted Peloponnesos at the end of the Submyce-
naean or the beginning of the Protogeometric period,
232
followed in the footsteps of their Ionian and Aiolian
tribesmen, colonizing Crete, Rhodes, and the region of
Halikarnassos still later. Not for a long time, however, the
Greeks were to reach a degree of unity as we have experi-
enced for the period of the Mycenaean koine and then
only under foreign pressure!
(a)
(b)
Fig. 12. Sites and cemeteries (a) in Late Helladic IIIB and (b) in
Late Helladic IIIC (from Popham 2001: 282-3).

231
Spencer 1995: 275-7 (repopulation of Mytilene and Pyrrha on
Lesbos during the Protogeometric period).
232
Eder 1998. See also section 2 above.
77
9. FROM DANAOI TO DAN
In Homeros there are three indications of the Mycenaean
Greeks: Akhaioi (= Akhaians in our English transcription),
Argeioi, and Danaoi.
233
As we have seen in the preceding
section, a reflection of the first of these ethnonyms,
A iyawa, is used by the Hittites to refer to the Mycena-
ean Greeks. As opposed to this, the Egyptians rather pre-
ferred reflections of the third ethnonym, Tanayu or
Denye(n). The interesting thing about this Egyptian prefer-
ence is that the ethnonym Danaoi is derived from the heros
eponym Danaos, who according to myth originated from
Egypt. Thus it is reported that Danaos, son of Belos, fled
before his brother Aigyptos from Egypt to Argos in
Greece.
234
Taking this myth at face value, the name
Danaoi may at first have had a bearing on the inhabitants
of the Argolid only, in order to receive a wider connotation
in the course of time. This would tally with the information
provided by Pindaros, according to which Danaoi refers to
the pre-Doric inhabitants of Argos, Mycenae, and Lace-
daimon.
235
Egyptian Tanayu is first attested for the annals of
Tuthmoses III (1479-1425 BC).
236
Next, it occurs on a
base of a column of the royal temple tomb of Amenhotep
III (1390-1352 BC) at Kom el-Hetan (Thebes) in direct as-
sociation with place names from the Greek mainland like
Mycenae, Thebes, Messenia, and Nauplia.
237
After an in-
termezzo in the reign of Merneptah (1213-1203 BC), in
which in line with the Hittites a reflection of Akhaioi (=
Ekwesh) is used, the related form Denye(n) turns up
amongst the attackers of Egypt in year eight of Ramesses
III (1184-1153 BC). This latter ethnonym has been identi-
fied with the Danaoi since the time of Emmanuel de
Roug.
238
As noted by Alan Gardiner, this identification
receives further emphasis from the fact that the name in
question also occurs in shorthand variant Denye without

233
Hall 2002: 53, note 98 (with specification of their frequency).
234
Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopdie, s.v. Danaos.
235
Pindaros, Pythian Odes 4, 85 f.
236
Mgalomatis 1996: 811.
237
Edel 1966; Edel 1988.
238
De Roug 1861: 145.
repetition of the n.
239
In the relevant literature, the Denye(n) are often, to-
gether with the Danaoi, identified with the Danuna of the
El-Amarna texts (in casu the letters by Rib-addi of Byblos
and Abimilki of Tyre).
240
However, the form Danuna cor-
responds to the root of Dnnym people of Adana as re-
corded for the Phoenician version of the bilingual Karatepe
text (late 8th century BC), and has nothing to do with the
Danaoi of mainland Greece.
241
This conclusion is further
substantiated by the fact that, according to the Ugaritic
texts, the line of defence against the Sea Peoples is organ-
ized in the waters of Lycia in southwest Anatolia: there is
no question of a revolt in the Hittite province of Kizzu-
watna to which the town of Adana belongs at the time.
Only after the period of the resurrection of the Sea Peoples
and the fall of the Hittite Empire, the region of Adana is
colonized by a number of Greek settlers an historical fact
of which the recently found Luwian hieroglyphic-
Phoenician bilingual inscription from ineky (late 8th
century BC) bears testimony, in which the land of Adana is
referred to by the name Hiwa, i.e. the Luwian equivalent
of Hittite Aiyawa Akhaian,
242
and which is further-
more reflected in the archaeological record by the intro-
duction of Late Helladic IIIC ware of Argive background
in the region after the destruction of Tarsus (see also sec-
tion 8)!
243
Next to this settlement by a branch of Mycenaean
Greeks under the name of Akhaians in the region of
Adana, another group under the name of Dan (< Danaoi)
went further south and settled initially in the region of Tel
Qasile a new foundation in Canaan, perhaps, for the
lack of Late Helladic IIIC1b ware, some time after the set-
tlement of the Philistines.
244
As suggested by Yigael

239
Gardiner 1947: 126.
240
EA no. 117, 90 ff.; EA no. 151, 52; cf. Hall 1926: 281; Gar-
diner 1947: 125; Laroche 1958: 263-75; Barnett 1969: 9; Strobel
1976: 202; etc.
241
Cf. Schachermeyr 1982 : 193 ff.
242
Tekoglu & Lemaire 2000.
243
Goldman 1956: 63; 350-1; Mee 1978: 150.
244
Bietak 1993: 257-8; cf. Singer 1985: 114-5 who for this ab-
sence altogether doubts the colonization of the site by Dan.
78
Yadin, a line from the song of Deborah, running as fol-
lows: And Dan, why did he remain in ships?, preserves
the memory of the precolonial stage in the history of the
tribe of Dan.
245
At any rate, historical sources locate the
Danites on the coast between Asdod in the south and Dor
in the north,
246
and more specifically situate the region of
their inheritance near Joppa.
247
In the course of time, then,
the Danites expanded their territory to Zora and Eshtaol in
the hinterland of Tel Qasile and Joppa, from where they
are recorded to have conquered Laish in the sphere of in-
fluence of Sidon to the north, of which they changed the
name into Dan.
248
This latter event may well be linked up
with the fact that the foundation layer of Tel Qasile (stra-
tum XII) ends with a destruction of the site.
249

245
Bible, Judges V, 17; Yadin in Best & Yadin 1973: 69.
246
Josephus, Antiquities V, 87.
247
Bible, Joshua XIX, 40-8.
248
Bible, Judges XVIII, 1-31.
249
Yadin in Best & Yadin 1973: 70.
79
10. ETRUSCAN ORIGINS
Models
The problem of Etruscan origins has received scholarly at-
tention already in antiquity. First of all, there is the testi-
mony of Herodotos of Halikarnassos (5th century BC)
according to which the Etruscans were Lydian colonists
from western Asia Minor. Hard pressed by a famine, so the
story goes, half of the Lydian population under the leader-
ship of king Atys son Tyrsenos mustered on ships at
Smyrna and sailed to Italy, where they settled in the terri-
tory of the Umbrians.
250
As opposed to this, we have the
opinion of Dionysios of Halikarnassos (1st century BC),
who, on the basis of a comparison between the customs
and the languages of the Etruscans and the Lydians,
reached the conclusion that these two peoples were unre-
lated. He extrapolated from this conclusion that the Etrus-
cans were no Lydian colonists, but had always lived in
Italy.
251
As divided as opinions were on the subject of Etrus-
can origins in antiquity, so they are in our present era. A
majority among scholars in the field holds that the Etrus-
cans were autochthonous. In accordance with this view, the
Etruscans are considered a remnant population surviving
the onset of Indo-European migrations which brought the
Umbrians, Oscans, Latins, and Faliscans to the Italian pen-
insula. Their language, so this line of appraoch continues,
is not comparable to any other in the world, except for the
one attested for the famous stele from Kaminia on the is-
land of Lemnos in the Aegean. This only linguistic rela-
tionship acknowledged by the adherents of the
autochthonous thesis receives meaningful explanation in
two ways. In the first place, Lemnian is, on the analogy of
Etruscan in Italy, considered a remnant of a once widely
dispersed Mediterranean language surviving the onset of
Indo-European migrations into the Aegean basin.
252
Sec-
ond, Lemnian is seen as the result of a colonization by
Etruscans from Italy into the north-Aegean region.
253
A minority among scholars, but a persistent one, is of
the opinion that the Etruscans were colonists from western

250
Histories I, 94.
251
Roman Antiquities I, 25-30.
252
Pallottino 1988: 98.
253
Gras 1976; Drews 1992; de Simone 1996.
Asia Minor. These so-called orientalists can be subdivided
into two groups: those who situate the colonization of
Etruria at the end of the Late Bronze Age (c. 1200 BC),
254
and those who rather place this event in the Early Iron Age
(c. 750-675 BC).
255
A representative of the first mentioned
group of orientalists is the Indo-Europeanist Robert
Beekes. However, he is exceptional in combining the idea
of an oriental origin with the linguistic analysis of the ad-
herents of the autochthonous thesis. Thus, Beekes likewise
considers Etruscan and Lemnian relics of a language once
spoken in the Aegean before the Indo-European migra-
tions.
256
Much more common among orientalists is it to
consider Etruscan related to the Indo-European languages
of Asia Minor, and in particular to Luwian.
257
The latter
language was spoken in southern and western Anatolia
during the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, and, in its
western extremity, was subject to a dialectal development
which resulted in Lycian and Lydian of the Classical pe-
riod.
258
Now, there is some evidence of non-Indo-European
languages in Asia Minor, originally going back to the time
before the Indo-European migrations. In the first place,
mention should be made of Hattic, the language of the in-
habitants of Hattusa before this city was taken over by the
Hittites, as recorded in Hittite texts dating from the 2nd
millennium BC. Next, there is Hurrian, the language of the
realm of Mitanni, once a formidable rival of the Hittites in
their strive for hegemony in eastern Anatolia and North
Syria. This language developed into Urartian of the Early
Iron Age. Finally, we cannot omit the Semitic language,
which in the form of Akkadian was used as a lingua franca
for international correspondence between the empires of
the 2nd millennium BC a function taken over by Ara-
maic during the Early Iron Age. But, except for some bi-
linguals with Aramaic for Lycian and Lydian, this
evidence has a bearing on eastern Asia Minor only. In

254
Hencken 1968.
255
Schachermeyr 1929.
256
Beekes & van der Meer 1991; Beekes 1993; Beekes 2002:
219-20; cf. Steinbauer 1999: 389.
257
Meriggi 1937; Laroche 1961b.
258
For Lydian as a Luwian dialect, see Woudhuizen 1984-5a;
Woudhuizen 1990 ; Woudhuizen 2005 : appendix IV.
80
western Asia Minor the linguistic situation is much less
complicated. Here we find evidence of two language
groups, both of them Indo-European, namely Luwian,
which, as we have seen, developed into Lycian and Lydian
of the Classical period, and Thraco-Phrygian, presumably
the vernacular of the common people of the Troas already
in the Bronze Age (see section 13, especially note 520, be-
low) and, after the fall of the Hittite Empire c. 1180 BC,
introduced further east into the Anatolian highland. If, for
the sake of argument, we have to allow for remnants of a
non-Indo-European language in western Anatolia, this can
only entail small pockets, uncapable of providing the
amount of people necessary for the colonization of Etruria
as envisaged by the orientalists. As a matter of fact,
Beekes tenet of non-Indo-European survivals in the Ae-
gean is entirely based on the linguistic analysis of the
Lemnos stele as common among the adherents of the
autochthonous thesis.
Autochthonous thesis
The statement by Dionysios of Halikarnassos that the
Etruscans differed in customs and language from the Lydi-
ans is perfectly true for the period in which he lived, the
1st century BC. But, if a colonization of Etruria from
Lydia had taken place, as Herodotos wants us to believe,
then this event happened some 6 to 11 centuries in the past.
During this period, we must believe that the customs and
language had developed independently in Lydia and Etru-
ria, which would explain the differences. It is of much
greater importance, therefore, to know whether the Etrus-
can customs and language were more closely related to
those of the Lydians when these first manifested them-
selves, in the late 8th and early 7th century BC.
At the same time, it is interesting to determine what
exactly is Dionysios drive to disconnect the Tyrrhenians,
as the Etruscans are called by the Greeks, from the Pelas-
gians. In previous sources, like, for instance, Thucydides
(5th century BC), these two population groups are persis-
tently identified.
259
The answer to this question is given by
Dionysios himself in the introduction to his work: he wants
to prove that the founding fathers of Rome were actually
Greeks.
260
Now, the Pelasgians, who played a role in the

259
Peloponnesian War IV, 109, 4.
260
Roman Antiquities I, 5, 1; cf. I, 17, 1; I, 60, 3. This point of
view is common among Hellenistic poets, see Sakellariou 1977:
earliest history of Rome, according to literary tradition
originate from Greece. For Dionysios, this is reason to as-
sume that they are in fact a Greek ethnos. In reality, how-
ever, the Pelasgians are a pre-Greek population group,
already present in Greece before the Greeks came into be-
ing. As they are so different from the Greeks, Dionysios
cannot use the Tyrrhenians to the same effect: to declare
them Greeks would be preposterous. The unprecedented
and rather forced distinction between Tyrrhenians and
Pelasgians leads to absurd consequences, like, for instance,
the assumption that the language of the inhabitants of Cor-
tona, whom Dionysios considers to be Pelasgians, was dis-
tinct from that of the Tyrrhenians.
261
Dozens of
inscriptions disprove this: the language of the inhabitants
of Cortona was straightforwardly Etruscan.
262
Another
question which arises from Dionysios distinction between
Pelasgians and Tyrrhenians is where the latter were living
at the time that the Pelasgians are said to have occupied
their country.
263
Finally, the way in which Dionysios dis-
poses of the Pelasgians in order to make room for the Tyr-
rhenians is extremely suspect: he simply, so to say, lets
them evaporate into thin air!
264
In short, the story on
which the adherents of the autochthonous thesis base
themselves suffers from many flaws.
Also the explanation of the relationship between
Etruscan and Lemnian within the frame of the autochtho-
nous thesis leads up to unsurmountable difficulties. The
first option, according to which the Etruscans and Lem-
nians were both remnants of population groups surviving
the onset of Indo-European immigrations, runs up against
the fact that the two languages were so closely related that
such a long period of independent development is highly
inconceivable (the Indo-European invasions in the Aegean
date back to at least c. 2300 BC, see section 3). The second
option, according to which the north-Aegean region was
colonized by Etruscans from Italy in the late 8th or early

98, note 3.
261
Roman Antiquities I, 29, 3; this view, based on a misreading of
Crotoniats for Crestoniats in the manuscript of Herodotos text, is
followed, amongst others, by Briquel 1984: 101-140 (esp. 126 ff.)
and Beekes 2002: 221, in the latter case without realizing the con-
sequence. For futher literature, see Sakellariou 1977: 88, note 6.
262
Rix 1991: 301-4; Agostiniani & Nicosia 2000; cf. Briquel
1984: 133.
263
Roman Antiquities I, 20, 5.
264
Roman Antiquities I, 24, 4; 26. 1
81
7th century BC, is, considering the slight dialectal differ-
ences, a priori possible, but lacks a proper archaeological
and historical basis.
Colonization at the end of the
Bronze Age
If the autochthonous thesis turns out to be flawed, what
about the thesis of oriental origins? As we have seen, one
group of orientalists situates the colonization of Etruria
from Asia Minor at the end of the Bronze Age. These
scholars base themselves on the chronology of Herodotos,
who places the rulers descending from Atys son Lydos
prior to those of the Heraklids. The reign of the latter,
Herodotos continues, lasted as many as 22 generations or
505 years in sum before the last representative, Kandaules,
was set aside by Gyges, the first ruler of the Mermnades, at
the beginning of the 7th century BC.
265
Accordingly, it
follows that the descendants of Atys son Lydos were in
power before the beginning of the 12th century BC. Hero-
dotos, however, amplifies this information with the remark
that the population of Sardis and its surroundings were
called Lydians after Lydos, whereas prior to his rule they
were known as Maeonians. Now, Maeonians is the form of
address for the Lydians in the epic songs of Homeros,
which, as we have seen in section 2, primarily reflects Late
Bronze Age history. Hence the name Lydians can only be
surmised to have come into currency in the Early Iron Age.
Ergo: Herodotos chronology is flawed.
Fig. 13. Distribution of biconical urns in the Urnfield world (from
Hencken 1968: 441, fig. 452).

265
Histories I, 7.
Also from an archaeological perspective the coloniza-
tion of Etruria at the end of the Bronze Age is highly
unlikely. It is true that at this time Italy is characterized by
the introduction of a new culture, the so-called proto-
Villanovan (= an earlier phase of Villanovan),
266
but, as
demonstrated convincingly by Hugh Hencken, the latter
shows close affinities with the European Urnfields. Thus
the typical biconical urns relate to counterparts primarily
discovered in the region of Oltenia and the Banat, Hungary
(see Fig. 13).
267
Furthermore, the house urns, which are so
well-known a feature of the Latial variant of (proto-)Villa-
novan, find their closests parallels in northern Germany
(see Fig. 14).
268
In line with these observations, it seems
reasonable to assume that new population groups have en-
tered Italy, as Hencken does, only not from the Aegean,
but from Europe. These new population groups can plausi-
bly be identified as the forefathers of the historical Italic
peoples of the Umbrians, Oscans,
269
Latins, and Faliscans,
whose languages show the closest affinity to Celtic and
Germanic. At any rate, the Umbrians have the same name
as the German tribe of the Ambrones (Jutland in Den-
mark),
270
branches of which can, on the basis of related
place and river names, be traced as far afield as France,
Spain, and even northern Italy,
271
whereas that of the
Oscans or Ausones is obviously related to the Celtic eth-
nonyms Ausci (near Auch in southern France) and
Ausetani (in Ausa-Vich, Catalonia).
272
(As demonstrated
by Hans Krahe, both ethnonyms are rooted in his Old
European river names, the first being based on *emb
h
-,
*omb
h
- moist, water and the second on *av-, *au-

266
Note that Hencken 1968 wrongly applies the term pre-
Villanovan instead; cf. Fugazzola Delpino 1979; Ridgway 1988:
628 ff.
267
Hencken 1968: 441, fig. 452.
268
Behn 1924: 90-1; Tafel 6, d-e; note, however, that the north
German house urns postdate the Latial ones.
269
Note in this connection that the introduction of proto-
Villanovan in Lipari and at Milazzo in Sicily is attributed to the
Ausones (= variant form of Osci) who according to Diodoros of
Sicily, Library of History V, 7, invaded Lipari and Sicily from the
Italian peninsula, see Hencken 1955: 31.
270
Altheim 1950: 56-7.
271
Schmoll 1959: 83; 119, note 1.
272
Bosch-Gimpera 1939: 40.
82
source, stream).
273
Fig. 14. Distribution of house urns (from Bouzek 1997: fig. 49).
The distinction between open and closed map symbols is immate-
rial in the present connection
This reconstruction of Italian prehistory at the end of
the Bronze Age, which assumes a relation between Urn-
field culture and the historical peoples of the Umbrians,
Oscans, Latins, and Faliscans, collides with the view of the
foremost representant of the autochthonous thesis, Mas-
simo Pallottino. The latter put much effort in an attempt to
disconnect the Italic Indo-European languages from the
(proto-)Villanovan culture, the bearers of which he consid-
ers to be the forebears of the Etruscans. To this end he pre-
sents a map showing the distribution of archaeological
cultures of Italy in the 9th and 8th centuries BC, which he
compares with the distribution of the various languages as
attested in about the 5th century BC.
274
This is a danger-

273
Krahe1964: 90-1; 43-4.
274
Pallottino 1988: 68; Abb. 1-2.
ous procedure. In the first place, it leaves out the proto-
Villanovan phase, which cannot be dissociated from Villa-
novan and which spread far to the south, reaching Apulia,
the Lipari islands and even northern Sicily regions where
later evidence of Italic languages are found (see Fig.
15).
275
Secondly, the use of the distinction between crema-
tion and inhumation burial rites as an ethnic marker is, as
far as the 8th century BC is concerned, an oversimplifica-
tion. After the introduction of proto-Villanovan at the end
of the Bronze Age, there is a revival of the rite of inhuma-
tion spreading from the south of Italy to the north, reaching
Caere in the 9th and 8th centuries BC. Similarly, the
Etruscans are also acquainted with both rites be it that
their cremation burials are clearly distinct from the Villa-
novan ones (see further below). Hence, the distinction is
rather Villanovan style cremations and inhumations versus
Etruscan style cremations and inhumations a line of ap-
proach actually applied by Ingrid Pohl in her publication of
the Iron Age cemetery of Caere.
276
Finally, the identifica-
tion of the bearers of Villanovan culture in Etruria with the
forebears of the Etruscans disregards the historical evi-
dence according to which the Etruscans colonized the land
of the Umbrians and drove them out of their original habi-
tat.
277
As a matter of fact, there are numerous reminis-
cences of the Umbrians originally inhabiting the region
later called Etruria, like the river name Umbro, the region
called tractus Umbriae, the association of the Umbrian
tribes of the Camartes and Sarsinates with the inland
towns Clusium and Perugia, and the identification of Cor-
tona as an Umbrian town.
278
At any rate, the sites which
have yielded Umbrian inscriptions mostly lie along the
eastern fringe of the Villanovan style cremation area,
279
and there even have been found Umbrian type inscriptions
in Picenum on the other side of the Appenines, whereas
literary sources speak of Umbrians in Ancona, Ariminum,
Ravenna, and Spina to the north
280
regions where

275
For Ausones (= Oscans) on the Lipari islands and in Milazzo,
see Diodoros of Sicily, The Library of History V, 7.
276
Pohl 1972.
277
Plinius, Natural History III, 14, 112.
278
Altheim 1950: 22-3.
279
Poultney 1959: 3.
280
Pseudo-Skylaks, Periplus 16; Strabo, Geography V, 1, 11; V,
2, 1; Justinus, Epitoma historiarum philippicarum Pompei Trogi
XX, 1, 11; cf. Briquel 1984: 33; 51; 88; Salmon 1988: 701.
83
(proto-)Villanovan is attested (cf. Fig. 15).
Fig. 15. Distribution of (a) proto-Villanovan and (b) Villanovan
sites (after Hencken 1968: fig. 466).
The repercussions of the Urnfield migrations into It-
aly are archaeologically traceable to well into the Aegean
region. Thus Urnfield material of Italian or European type
is attested for the islands Crete, Kos, and Euboia as well as
for various locations on the Greek mainland.
281
Appar-
ently, some population groups in Italy were displaced at
the time, or some of the European immigrants, whose
maritime nature has already been extrapolated by
Hencken,
282
went straight on to the Aegean. This is ex-
actly the situation recorded by the Egyptian sources on the
so-called Sea Peoples, which inform us about raids by the
Shekelesh, Sherden, and Weshesh, in which we can recog-
nize the Italic peoples of the Sicilians, Sardinians, and
Oscans (see section 14 below).
283
These western raiders

281
Popham 2001.
282
Hencken 1968: 634.
283
For the identification of the Weshesh as Oscans, see Chabas
made common cause with colleagues from the east-
Mediterranean basin, like the Ekwesh or Akhaians from
the Greek mainland, Peleset or Pelasgians from the Ae-
gean, Tjeker or Teukrians from the Troas, and Lukka or
Lycians from western Asia Minor. The importance of
bearers of the Urnfield culture, like we have suggested for
the Oscans, among these Sea Peoples is stressed by the fact
that their boat(s) as depicted in Ramesses IIIs memorial at
Medinet Habu are characterized by bird-head devices at
both the bow and the stern as convincingly shown by
Shelley Wachsmann a typical Urnfield feature.
284
Fur-
thermore, this element among the Sea Peoples can even be
shown to have settled in the Levant at Hamath, where Urn-
field cemeteries with more than 1000 urns have been dug
up.
285
Within the frame of the autochthonous thesis, the
Teresh or Tyrsenians (= Tyrrhenians) are, on the analogy
of the Sicilians and Sardinians, likewise supposed to have
come from Italy, but considering their Aegean location in
early Greek literary sources this is unlikely (see section
12). At any rate, the direction of the migrations at the end
of the Bronze Age is clearly from west to east, and not the
other way round. Therefore, the colonization by the Etrus-
cans of Italy from Asia Minor as recorded by Herodotos
does not fit into the period of the Sea Peoples.
Colonization in the Early Iron Age
The question which remains to be answered is whether the
colonization by the Etruscans of Italy from Asia Minor as
recorded by Herodotos does fit into the period of the Early
Iron Age. This is the period of exploration and coloniza-
tion of the west-Mediterranean basin by Phoenicians and
Greeks. Was there among these explorers and colonists of
the far west a third party, namely Luwians from western
Anatolia?
First of all, it is important to note that only from c.
700 BC onwards Etruria is characterized by an archaeo-
logical culture that with certainty can be identified as

1872: 299; cf. Reinach 1910: 36, note 3; Macalister 1913: 25; see
further section 14 below.
284
Wachsmann 1998: 178 (with reference to de Boer 1991 who,
with due reference to Hencken 1968 [in turn going back to Kim-
mig 1964: 223-4, Abb. 1], already noted the connection); Wach-
smann 2000: 122.
285
Wachsmann 2000: 123; Drews 1993: 201, note 104 stipulates
that a substantial number of the European Naue type II sword,
mostly of iron, were found in these cremation graves.
84
Etruscan, because from that date onwards inscriptions con-
ducted in the Etruscan language are found.
286
One of the
most outstanding features of this Etruscan culture is
formed by the chamber tomb under tumulus for multiple
burials. The burial rites may consist of inhumation or a
special form of cremation, according to which the remains
of the pyre are collected in a gold or silver container
which, wrapped in a purple linen cloth, is placed in a locu-
lus of the grave. The closest parallels for such elite-
cremations are found in Anatolian style chamber tombs
under tumulus at Salamis on Cyprus.
287
The rite in ques-
tion is meticulously described by Homeros in connection
with the burial of Patroklos, for which reason one often
speaks of an Homeric burial. As far as mainland Greece is
concerned, similar elite-cremations are attested for the hero
of Lefkandi and the burials at the west gate of Eretria. The
element which is missing here, however, is the characteris-
tic chamber tomb under tumulus (the hero of Lefkandi is
discovered in an apsidal building secondarily used as a
grave and covered by a tumulus).
288
Chamber tombs under tumulus for multiple burials are
a typical Mycenaean feature. During the Late Bronze Age
this type of burial is disseminated by Mycenaean colonists
from mainland Greece to western Asia Minor, where it is
subsequently taken over by indigenous population groups
like the Carians, Lycians, Lydians, and ultimately the
Phrygians. The earliest indigenous examples are pseudo-
cupolas in Caria, dated to the period of c. 1000 to 800 BC.
These graves are characterized by a rectangular ground-
plan and a concentrically vaulted roof. The problem of the
dome resting on a square is solved by the so-called
pendentive. This very same construction is typical of
chamber tombs in Populonia during the 7th century BC.
289
Similarly, in Lydia a chamber tomb has been found with a
roof vaulting lenghtwise in the same way as for example
the famous Regolini-Galassi tomb at Caere, dating to the
7th century BC. Furthermore, Mysia has produced a cham-

286
Hencken 1968: 631.
287
DAgostino 1977: 57-8; note that the Etruscan nature of the
elite-cremations at Pontecagnano is deducible from the fact that
the earliest inscriptions from this site are conducted in the Etrus-
can language, see Rix 1991: Cm 2.2, Cm 2.7, and Cm 2.19, all of
6th century BC date.
288
Brard 1970; Popham, Touloupa & Sackett 1982.
289
Schachermeyr 1929: 89-91; 100-1; cf. Demus-Quatember
1958: 63.
ber tomb which is entirely hewn out of the soft tufa with
mock roof beams in place as if it were a wooden construc-
tion. The same technique is so common for Etruria that if
the photos of the Mysian example would have had no cap-
tion one could easily be mistaken to be dealing with an
Etruscan grave.
290
Unfortunately, the Anatolian examples
in the last mentioned two cases were so thoroughly robbed
that they cannot be properly dated. Next, it deserves our
attention that Lycia from the 6th century BC onwards is
typified by faade graves hewn out of the natural rock,
which bring to mind the faade graves hewn out of the
natural rock of Norchia and its immediate surroundings to
which a similar date is assigned as the Lycian counter-
parts.
291
Like the Mysian tomb mentioned above, the fa-
ade graves imitate wooden constructions. Hence, it is
interesting to note that actual wooden constructions have
been dug up in Phrygia. Here large wooden boxes dating to
the late 8th and early 7th centuries BC serve as a replace-
ment of the stone built chamber tomb in like manner as in
Vetulonia during the 7th century BC. Finally, mention
should be made of a Lycian chamber tomb from the 5th
century BC with paintings which bear a strong resem-
blance to the Etruscan ones in Tarquinia be it that the
Lycian paintings, in contrast to their Etruscan counterparts,
show Persian motifs.
292
In summary, on the basis of the preceding survey of
relations in funeral architecture one gains the impression
that Etruria was in close contact with various regions of
western Anatolia during the Early Orientalizing period and
beyond.
293
Possibly, a crucial role was played by Mysia,
the Aiolian coast, and the offshore islands like Lesbos, be-
cause here the typical local pottery, just like in Etruria
from the 7th century BC onwards, consists of bucchero.
294
The inference that colonists from various regions of
western Asia Minor migrated to Etruria may receive fur-
ther emphasis if we take a look at the script. As mentioned
in the above the earliest inscriptions in the Etruscan lan-
guage date from c. 700 BC onwards. In general, it is as-

290
Kaspar 1970: 71-83.
291
Contra kerstrm 1934: 104-7.
292
Mellink 1972: 263 ff.
293
This contact needs to be distinguished from and can at the
same time be underlined by Etruscan post-colonial trade with the
Aegean as attested by the presence of Etruscan bucchero at,
amongst other sites, Smyrna and Pitane, see Briquel 1991: 80.
294
Pfuhl 1923: 153 f.
85
sumed that the Etruscans have borrowed their alphabet
from the Greeks, in particular from the Euboeians at Pith-
ecussae and Cumae. This view, however, runs up against
serious difficulties, since the local Etruscan alphabets are
characterized by signs and sign-forms unparalleled for
Greek inscriptions. In the first place we have to consider in
this connection the sign for the expression of the value [f]
as attested for an early 7th century BC inscription from
Vetulonia (Vn 1.1) in north-Etruria, which consists of a
vertical stroke with a small circle on either top. As time
goes by, this sign develops into the well-known figure-of-
eight [f], which spreads from the north of Etruria to the
south ultimately to replace the digraph of wau and eta (<
heta) for the same sound in the south-Etruscan alphabets.
The origin of this sign can be traced back to the Lydian al-
phabet, where during the same time it knows exactly the
same development! Next, a late 7th century BC inscription
from Caere (Cr 9.1) in south-Etruria bears testimony of a
variant of the tsade which is closer in form to the Phoeni-
cian original than the Greek san. The closest parallel for
this sign can be discovered in the local script of Side in
Pamphylia. On the basis of these observations it lies at
hand to infer that various groups of colonists from various
regions in western Asia Minor, ranging from Lydia in the
north to Side in the south, simply have taken (features of)
their script with them.
295
The colonists not only introduced their own type of
grave and their own type of alphabet, they also settled
themselves, just like the Phoenicians and Greeks, in urban
centres founded according to neatly circumscribed ritu-
als.
296
An often heard argument in favor of the continuity
between the Villanovan and Etruscan Orientalizing periods
is that the Etruscan cities are founded on locations where
in the previous period Villanovan villages are situated.
297
It should be realized, however, that the Greek colony in
Cumae is also preceded by an indigenous Italic settlement
and that there is ample evidence for intermingling between
the original inhabitants and the new arrivals.
298
The same

295
Woudhuizen 1982-3: 97; for the Sidetic tsade, see Woudhui-
zen 1984-5b: 117, fig. 5.
296
Woudhuizen 1998: 178-9.
297
Hencken 1968: 636.
298
Mller-Karpe 1959: 36-9; note that there are also Etruscans
among the new settlers as indicated by the Etruscan nature of an
elite-cremation in the so-called fondo Artiaco dated c. 700 BC, see
Strm 1971: 146 and Strm 1990, and an Etruscan inscription da-
model is applicable to the Etruscan colonization, as sug-
gested by the large number of Italic names in Etruscan in-
scriptions dating from the 7th and 6th centuries BC
onwards. To give some examples, one might point to:
Cventi, Eknate, Venelus, Vete, Vipie, Kavie, Kaisie, Ma-
merce, Numesie, Petrus, Punpu, Pupaia, Puplie, Spurie,
Flavie, and tribal names like Latinie, Sapina, and
Sarsina.
299
As a matter of fact, the colonists from western
Asia Minor constitute an elite, who impose their superior
culture on the by far more numerous indigenous Italic
population. A vital component of the colonial culture is
formed by their language.
A first hint at the nature of the language can be de-
rived from the name of some of the newly founded cities.
Thus Tarquinia (= Etruscan Tarna-) is, on the analogy of
Greek colonial names like Posidonia, Apollonia, and
Herakleia, which are also based on a divine name, named
after the Luwian storm-god Tarunt-.
300
In addition, a
number of Etruscan personal names, like Arn, Mezentie,
Musie, ifarie or efarie, can be traced back to Luwian
counterparts (Arnuwanta-, Mukasa-) or Luwian onomastic
elements (masana- god, Tiwata- or Tiwara- sun-god);
the same applies to family names like Camitlna (< Luwian
anta- in front of) and Velavesna (< Luwian walwa-
lion), be it that the diagnostic element -na- though
originating from Luwian hieroglyphic n- son
301
is an
Etruscan innovation unparalleled for Anatolian onomas-
tics. Furthermore, Etruscan vocabulary shows many corre-
spondences with Luwian, like for instance the very
common verb muluvane- or muluvani- to offer as a vow,
the root of which is related to Luwian maluwa- thank-
offering. Of a more profound nature are similarities in
morphology (adjectival suffixes -s- and -l-), the system of

ted c. 700-675 BC which is not included in the corpus Rix 1991,
see Woudhuizen 1992a: 158-61.
299
Cf. Vetter 1953.
300
Evidence for a Tarunt-cult in western Anatolia is provided
by Lycian Trqqt- or Trqqas (Houwink ten Cate 1961: 126),
whereas the remains of such a cult are indicated by the demos
Tarkundara at Mylasa in Caria (Woudhuizen 1992a: 7, note 28a),
the epiklesis Targuenos of Zeus in Lydia (Woudhuizen 1990:
101), and the heroic name Tarkhn as reported for Mysia by
Lykophron, Aleksandra 1248. The attempts by Briquel 1984: 181
ff. (who does not even refer to the long standing [since Herbig
1914: 20-1] and well-known equation of Etruscan Tarna- to Lu-
wian Tarunt- in a note) to dissociate Mysian Tarkhn from its
proper Anatolian background are altogether futile.
301
Woudhuizen 2005 : 19-20.
86
(pro)nominal declension (genitive-dative singular in -s or
-l, ablative-locative in -(i) or -r(i), nominative plural in -i,
genitive plural in -ai > -e) and verbal conjugation (3rd per-
son singular of the present-future in -(i)), the use of sen-
tence introductory particles (va-, nac, nu-), enclitic
conjunctions (-c or -, -m), negative adverbs (nes or nis),
etc. On the basis of these features, Etruscan can be classi-
fied as most closely related to Luwian hieroglyphic of the
Early Iron Age (adjectival suffixes -asi- and -ali-, sentence
introdutory particle wa-, negative adverb nas), but in cer-
tain aspects already showing developments characteristic
of Lycian (genitive plural in -i > -e
1
) and Lydian (dative
singular in -l
1
, loss of closing vowel in the ablative-
locative ending, sentence introductory particle nak, enclitic
conjunction -k) of the Classical period. Finally, Etruscan
shows a number of deviations from Luwian which it shares
with Lemnian, like the 3rd person singular ending of the
past tense in -ce, -ke or -e, the vocabulary word avi(l)-
year, and the enclitic conjunction -m and. Considering
the fact that the Lemnos stele contains a dating-formula
bearing reference to a certain Holaie from Phokaia, who is
specified as king (vanacasial < Greek (v)anaks) over the
Myrinians and Seronians, the places of which, on the anal-
ogy of Phokaia, are likely to be situated in Aiolia, these
deviations may plausibly be ascribed to the dialect of the
indigenous population of Mysia.
302
If so, the linguistic
evidence coincides remarkably with the results from our
archaeological investigation according to which we were
already able to posit a crucial role for Mysia in the coloni-
zation process. Notwithstanding his mistaken chronology,
Herodotos, while not telling the whole story in all its nu-
ances, has certainly transmitted a tradition which in its nu-
cleus may safely be considered historically correct!
We still have to answer the following question: why
did Luwian population groups from western Asia Minor
take the boat and sail to Italy in order to settle in the coun-
try of the Umbrians? In an attempt to address this question,
it is important to note that the excavations at the island of
Pithecussae, alongside Phoenician (to be more specific
Aramaic)
303
and Greek inscriptions, have produced what
should be called proto-Etruscan ones dating to the period
of c. 750 to 700 BC.
304
Apparently, the Luwians of west-

302
Best & Woudhuizen 1989; Woudhuizen 1992b; Woudhuizen
1998; Woudhuizen 2001a. See further appendix II.
303
Buchner 1982: 293.
304
Woudhuizen 1992b: 154 ff. Contra Johnston 1983: 63, who
ern Asia Minor were involved in trade with the indigenous
population of Italy for the same reasons as the Phoenicians
(to be more specific: Aramaeans)
305
and Greeks: the met-
alliferous (especially iron) nature of the regions of the
Tolfa hills near Tarquinia, Elba, and Populonia. This situa-
tion of precolonial offshore trade in Italy is described by
one of our earliest sources with respect to the Tyrsenians,
namely Hesiodos. In his Theogony, which dates from the
8th century BC, he informs us that the indigenous kings
Agrios and Latinos ruled over the famous Tyrsenians who
live very far off mukhi nesn hieran in a recess of the
holy islands!
306
The motivation to let these trade contacts
culminate into actual colonization comes from domestic
difficulties: at the end of the 8th century BC Anatolia suf-
fered heavily from the Kimmerian invasion, which over-
threw the Phrygian realm of king Midas and terrorized the
Lydian realm of the tyrant Gyges.
307
If you were living
along the coast and were acquainted with the route to more
peaceful regions, this was the time to pick up your belong-
ings, board on a ship and settle in the metalliferous zone of
Italy, where, from a military point of view, the indigenous
population was by far inferior!
Additional note: The Indo-
Europeanization of Tuscany
There is archaeological and linguistic evidence for a still
earlier layer in the process of Indo-Europeanization of
Tuscany than the ones discussed above.
Thus in the early 3rd millennium BC, Tuscany is
characterized by the Rinaldone culture. Typical for this
culture is the Tomb of the Widow at Porte San Pietro,
which consisted of a single chambered stone-cut catacomb

tries to get rid of the un-Greek features by reading the combination
of sigma and san in one inscription as sigma and four stroked uns-
temmed mu and by emending the sequence ]mi maion[ in another
inscription as ei]mi + MN [in the genitive, but the four stroked
unstemmed mu occurs only in inscriptions of later date (as in the
maker-formula ]inos mepoiese from c. 700-675 BC) and the ver-
bal form e(i)mi, in all of its occurrences in Jeffery 1998, turns up
after the personal name it is associated with. Similar criticism also
applies to Bartonk & Buchner 1995.
305
Bernal 1991: 192 (with reference to Homeros, Iliad II, 783).
For the distinction of Phoenicians at Pithecussae by their burial ri-
tes, see now Docter 2000.
306
Theogony 1011-6.
307
Sauter 2000.
87
grave of North Pontic steppe type, in which a man was
buried with his wife. The skeleton of the man was associ-
ated with a stone battle-axe, copper daggers, an arrowhead,
and a pot. Skull injuries attested for the skeleton of the
woman suggest that she was dispatched on the death of her
husband to accompany him in the afterlife according to the
likewise North Pontic rite of suttee. Other Rinaldone
tombs produced horse remains a feature pointing once
again in the direction of the North Pontic steppe where the
animal in question was not only abundantly found but also
suggested to have been already domesticated from the 4th
millennium BC onwards.
308
From a linguistic point of view, it has been observed
by Hans Krahe that Tuscany, with names like Alma, Ar-
menta, Aventia, Albinia, Arnus, Elsa, Auser, Ausenna, and
Visentios, is included in the distribution of his Old Euro-
pean river names.
309
These names, which are based on
well-attested Proto-Indo-European roots, may well be
rooted in the 3rd millennium BC, as their overall distribu-
tion, as rightly stressed by Peter Kitson, coincides re-
markably with that of the Bell Beaker culture.
310
Accordingly, the bearers of the Rinaldone culture are
likely to be held responsible for the given layer of Old
European river names in Tuscany.
All in all, then, there can be distinguished at least
three different layers in the process of Indo-Europeaniza-
tion of Tuscany: (1) the bearers of the Rinaldone culture of
North Pontic steppe affiliations (3rd millennium BC on-
wards), (2) the Osco-Umbrians and Latin-Faliscans, which
we have held responsible for the introduction of the Euro-
pean Urnfield culture in Italy (12th century BC onwards),
and (3) Luwian population groups originating from the

308
Mallory 1989: 93-4; 198-201; in my opinion Drews 2004: 15-
9 goes too far in discrediting the Dereivka bone cheekpieces as
evidence for horse control.
309
Krahe 1962: 304; note that Auser and Ausenna may have been
introduced later by the Ausones or Oscans, just like the Ombrone
is likely to be named by the Umbrians. The Tiber is the Etruscan
and hence latest name of the foremost river in Tuscany (< Luwian
Tiwat/ra- sun-god), which used to be called Albula (< PIE *alb
h
-
white) in an earlier period, see Krahe 1964: 53.
310
Kitson 1997: 204-5; cf. Tovar 1977: maps 1-6 with Harrison
1988: 12, map 1. Note that Tuscany is not included in the distribu-
tion of the Bell Beaker culture, but the inclusion of the region of
Palermo, where a twin catacomb grave from the Aeneolithic
Conca dOro culture has been found (see de Vries 1976: 210-11),
may suggest a connection between the Bell Beaker culture on the
one hand and the catacomb culture on the other.
north-Aegean and southwest Anatolia, introducing the Ori-
entalizing culture (c. 700 BC onwards). And all this in a
region which Massimo Pallottino in a lifelong effort would
have us believe (and succeeded in making his fellow
Etruscologists believe) to be the home of a pre-Indo-
European rest group!
Postscriptum
In an article about Etruscan origins which appeared in
BABesch 79 (2004) 51-7, the Etruscologist Bauke van der
Meer speaks out in favor of the orientalist thesis, but he
does not choose between the two variant models of coloni-
zation as presented here, viz. at the end of the Bronze Age
or during an advanced stage of the Early Iron Age: in fact,
he posits three waves of colonization in sum, namely one
c. 1100 BC, a second c. 900 BC, and the third c. 700 BC
(p. 55).
89
11. THE AENEAS SAGA: ETRUSCAN ORIGINS IN PARVO
If we are right in our conclusion that Luwian population
groups from western Asia Minor colonized Etruria in the
late 8th or early 7th century BC, there may also well be a
kernel of truth in the colonization by Trojans of the coastal
region of Latium as transmitted to us by the famous Ae-
neas saga.
According to Vergilius version of this myth, the Tro-
jans set out with 20 ships from Antandros, which lies at the
northern side of the same bay that also harbors Smyrna
the starting point, as we have seen, of the Lydians in their
colonization of Etruria according to Herodotos. From here,
they first go to the Thracian coast, where they build a city
called Aeneadae after their leader Aeneas (in Hellanikos
version this first stopping place is specified as Pallene in
Khalkidike).
311
Next, the journey proceeds via Delos to
Crete, where again the Trojans build a city, this time called
Pergamea after Pergama an alternative name of their
hometown Troy. After this intermezzo, they move on to
the realm of Hellenus in Chaonia, Epirus, which is inhab-
ited by kinsmen who likewise escaped from Troy after the
fall of the city at the end of the Trojan war.
312
Sailing
along the eastern coast of Italy and Sicily, their next major
stopping place is the realm of Acestes in the region of Eryx
and Segesta, northwest Sicily, where, just like in Chaonia,
the population consists of kinsmen from Troy. As a matter
of fact, in the part of the trip between Crete and Sicily the
main concern of the expedition is to avoid the hostile
Greek settlements along the shores and on the islands of
the Ionian sea. After their stay with Acestes, Aeneas and
his companions are driven by a storm to the coast of Af-
rica, where they visit Carthago, the town newly founded
by Phoenicians from Tyre under the leadership of queen
Dido.
313
From here, they return to the realm of Acestes in
Sicily, where games are held in honor of Aeneas father
Anchises, who had died there during their first stay.
314
Fi-
nally, after a visit of the underworld in the region of the

311
Fragmente der griechischen Historiker 4 F 31; cf. Galinsky
1969: 111-2.
312
Vergilius, Aeneid III.
313
Vergilius, Aeneid I; IV.
314
Vergilius, Aeneid V.
Euboeian colony Cumae,
315
Aeneas and his Trojan colo-
nists reach their final destination, Latium at the mouth of
the Tiber.
316
Having pitched their camp in Latium, there evolves a
war with the local population, who want to get rid of the
intruders. The war entails a truly epic coalition of forces.
On the side of the Latins fight the Caeretan king Mezentius
with his son Lausus, who had been driven out of their
hometown and had taken refuge with the Rutulians,
Aventinus with followers from the Aventine hill, Catillus
and Corus with followers from Tibur, Caeculus with fol-
lowers from Praeneste, Messapus with Faliscan Aequi,
Clausus with Sabins, Halaesus with Osci from the region
of Cales and the Volturnus, Oebalus with Teleboans from
Capri, Ufens with Aequiculi, Umbro from the Marsian
hills, Virbius from Egerias woods, Camilla with Volsci,
Volcens with Latins, and Turnus with his Rutulians.
317
The help of the Greek hero Diomedes (Aeneas foe in the
Trojan war), residing at Arpi, is called upon, but he refuses
to join in. On the side of the Trojans fight Evander with his
Arcadians, declared enemies of the Latins, Tarchon with
an Etruscan army of undetermined origin, Massicus with
followers from Clusium and Cosae, Abas with men from
Populonia and Elba, Asilas with men from Pisae, Astyr
with followers from Caere, Pyrgi and Graviscae, Cinyrus
with Ligurians, and Ocnus and Aulestis with an army from
Mantua. In sum, this basically Etruscan coalition is re-
ported to comprise 30 ships.
318
The war ends with the
death of the leader of the Italic coalition, Turnus, by the
hand of the Trojan leader, Aeneas. (In the version by Dio-
nysios of Halikarnassos, Aeneas who is married with
Latinus daughter Lavinia and rules both the Trojans and
the Latins at the time of the war with the Rutulians and
Mezentius simply disappears, and the Latins subse-
quently build a hero-shrine for him.)
319
In the course of the
following peace, preluded to in Vergilius version of the
myth, the native Latins will not change their name into

315
Vergilius, Aeneid VI.
316
Vergilius, Aeneid VII.
317
Vergilius, Aeneid VII, 647-817; IX, 367-70.
318
Vergilius, Aeneid X, 146-214.
319
Roman Antiquities I, 64.
90
Trojans, nor will they change their language and alter their
attire and customs, but the Trojans will sink down and
merge in the mass, leaving them only the introduction of
some new religious rites.
320
Some of the elements of the Aeneas saga as summa-
rized above can be corroborated by archaeological, epi-
graphical or historical data. Thus, the reported sojourn of
Aeneas with his Trojans on the Thracian coast, according
to Hellanikos in Pallene on the Khalkidike, is reflected in
the archaeological record by tetradrachms from the nearby
city of Aineia, dated to the period before 525 BC, which
depict the flight of Aeneas and his wife Creusa from
Troy.
321
Next, their stay at the court of Dido in the newly
founded city of Carthago can only be dated to the period
after 814/3 or 813/2 BC the historical foundation date of
the city according to Timaios.
322
As the fact that, accord-
ing to Homeros Iliad, Aeneas already fought in the Trojan
war, which may well be assigned to c. 1280 BC, is incom-
patible with a visit by the same person of Carthago in the
late 9th or early 8th century BC, i.e. some 5 centuries later,
Dionysios of Halikarnassos, whose focus is on chronology,
quite consistently rejected the historical validity of this
event.
323
It should be realized, however, that we are deal-
ing with myth and that in this category of evidence epi-
sodes from various periods can be telescoped into a single
lifetime. Furthermore, the historical validity of one of the
adversaries of the Trojans in their war with the Latins is
greatly enhanced by the discovery of an Etruscan inscrip-
tion from Caere, dated to c. 680/675-650/640 BC, reading
mi Laucies Mezenties
I (am) of Lucius Mezentius.
324
Again, this evidence points to a date in the Early Iron Age
of the vicissitudes of Aeneas and his Trojans in the west.
Finally, in Lavinium, 100 metres southeast of the 13 altars
of the Latin League, a heroon has been found dated to the
4th century BC, which has been identified as the hero-
shrine of Aeneas reported by Dionysios of Halikarnassos

320
Vergilius, Aeneid XII, 819-43.
321
Galinsky 1969: 111-2, Fig. 87.
322
Der Neue Pauly, s.v. Karthago; cf. Dionysios of Halikarnas-
sos, Roman Antiquities I, 74,1.
323
Loeb edition, p.160-1, note 1.
324
Heurgon 1992: 24. Note that this name corresponds with Lau-
sus, the son of Mezentius, in the literary tradition.
in his version of the myth. Now, this heroon is connected
with a grave from c. 675-650 BC, containing a few frag-
ments of bone, some 60 vases of impasto and bucchero sot-
tile, and the remnants of a chariot (see Fig. 16).
325
Clearly,
it was believed that the person commemorated by means of
the heroon had been buried in the grave underlying the
monument, which once again points to a date in the Early
Iron Age of Aeneas arrival in Latium.
Fig. 16. The Heroon of Aeneas at Lavinium (from Somella 1974:
Taf. VII).
More in general, the alliance of Aeneas with the
Etruscans finds its expression in the archaeological record
in a scarab
326
and a large number of vases from Etruria
with scenes from the Aeneas legend, dated to the late 6th
and/or early 5th century BC.
327
The Etruscan town of Veii
even produced cult statues depicting Aeneas carrying his
father Anchises, dated to the early or mid 5th century
BC.
328
As it seems, then, the Etruscans considered the Ae-
neas saga as part of their cultural heritage. It comes as no
surprise, therefore, that the poet who fashioned the legend
into its most famous form, Publius Vergilius Maro from
Mantua, ultimately originates from an Etruscan back-
ground, his family name being derived from Etruscan Ver-
cna-.
329
Yet, the aforesaid heroon at Lavinium should
warn us against the oversimplified conclusion of Karl Ga-
linsky, written, it must be admitted, before this sensational
find, that when Aeneas appeared in Italy, () he be-

325
Somella 1974; Ross Holloway 1994: 135-8.
326
Galinsky 1969: 60; 103; Fig. 44.
327
Galinsky 1969: 122-3.
328
Galinsky 1969: 125; 133; Fig. 111.
329
Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopdie, s.v. Vergilius; Schulze
1966: 101; 379; cf. Rix 1991: s.v. (esp. Perugia).
91
longed to the Etruscans.
330
Rather, we are dealing with a
genuinely Latial tradition, which radiated to south Etruria.
The earliest historical source connecting Aeneas with
the west is provided by the work of Stesikhoros (early 6th
century BC) as preserved for the Tabula Iliaca, which
shows Aeneas with his father Anchises (holding the cista
sacra) and son Ascanius bording a ship eis ten Hespe-
rian.
331
Next, Hellanikos of Lesbos holds that Aeneas
came to Italy from the land of the Molossians, either with
Odysseus or after him, and founded the city of Rome,
which he named after a Trojan woman called Rme.
332
When the date of the foundation of Rome became fixed at
753 BC, however, chronographers and historians faced the
problem that one person could not possibly be staged as a
combattant in the Trojan war and at the same time be held
responsible for the foundation of Rome some five centuries
later. Hence, authors from the 4th century BC onwards
prefer to attribute the foundation of Rome to a descendant
of Aeneas (or of a woman from his Trojan followers),
333
culminating into Dionysios of Halikarnassos calculation
that Romulus is the 17th in descent from Aeneas!
334
This
process of filling up the time between the Late Bronze Age
and an advanced stage of the Early Iron Age is of doubtful
historical value: the Italic people had, for instance, no rec-
ollection at all of the arrival of the ancestors of the Umbri-
ans and Oscans in Italy c. 1200 BC. Rather, therefore, we
should face the fact that, as noted above, Aeneas as a hero
and saint became associated in myth with widely separated
historical episodes.
Considering the aforesaid hero-shrine, the association
of Aeneas with Lavinium seems prior to the one with
Rome. According to the inscription reported by Dionysios
of Halikarnassos to belong to this hero-shrine, Aeneas was
worshipped here as a god.
335
Further evidence for an Ae-
neas cult is provided by a cippus from Tor Tignosa, 5
miles inland from Lavinium, dated to the late 4th or early

330
Galinsky 1969: 131.
331
Galinsky 1969: 106-7; Figs. 85-6.
332
Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman Antiquities I, 72, 2; cf.
Galinski 1969: 103.
333
Galinsky 1969: 142-3; cf. Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman
Antiquities I, 72, 5.
334
Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman Antiquities I, 45, 3; see for
the discussion of the intervening kings ibid. I, 71 and cf. Livius,
History of Rome I, 3, 6-11: all very shadowy figures, indeed.
335
Roman Antiquities I, 64, 5.
3rd century BC, which carries the legend
Lare Aineia d(onum)
Dedication to Lar Aineias.
336
One of the outstanding deeds with which Aeneas is cred-
ited concerns his introduction of the cult of the ancestral
Trojan gods, the Penates.
337
According to the imagery, he
is responsible for saving the sacra of the Penates, carried
either by his father Anchises in a cista
338
or by his wife
Creusa in a doliolum,
339
from destruction at the time of the
fall of Troy. Now, Timaios (early 3rd century BC) informs
us that the holy objects of the sanctuary at Lavinium were
kept in a keramos Trikos a Trojan earthen jar.
340
Rightly, Galinsky connected this information with Livius
account that during the Gallic invasion in 390 BC the sa-
cra of the Roman Penates were placed in two doliola,
earthen jars.
341
That the sanctuary of the Latin League at
Lavinium with its 13 altars, which, as we have noted
above, lies at a 100 metre distance of Aeneas heroon, was
indeed dedicated (at least partly) to the cult of the Penates
is confirmed by a 6th century BC inscription associated
with altar no. 8, reading
Castorei Podlouquei-que qurois
to the kouroi Castor and Pollux;
342
the Greek Dioskouroi, namely, were identified in literary
tradition with the Penates.
343
In Etruria, these were also
venerated as testified by an early 5th century BC inscrip-
tion from Tarquinia, reading
itun turuce Venel Atelinas Tinas cliniiaras

336
Galinsky 1969: 158.
337
See Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman Antiquities I, 69, 4 for
their identifcation with the Kabeiroi or Megaloi Theoi of Samo-
thrace.
338
See note 326 above.
339
Galinsky 1969: Fig. 45.
340
Fragmente der griechischen Historiker 566 F 59; cf. Galinsky
1969: 155.
341
History of Rome V, 40, 7-8.
342
Gordon 1983: 76-7; cf. Galinsky 1969: 151; 154.
343
Cassius Hemina frg. 6 = Servius ad Aeneid I, 378; cf. Galinsky
1969: 154; Fig. 119 (Dioscuri) = Fig. 120 (Penates).
92
Venel Atelinas has given this to the sons of Tin.
344
It is therefore no contradiction that the inscription of the
Dioskouroi is Greek inspired, whereas the altars of the
sanctuary are of Etruscan type.
345
On the contrary, this
threefold identification facilitates us to further explain the
popularity of the Aeneas saga in southern Etruria.
In our summary of Vergilius Aeneid, we have seen
that as a corollary to the peace between the Trojan colo-
nists and the native Latins, there will, with the exception of
some new religious rites, be no change of the name of the
inhabitants of Latium, nor in their language, customs, and
dress. Evidently, the Trojan colonists, in contrast to their
Lydian colleagues in Etruria, were not numerous enough to
cause a language shift: at any rate the epigraphical evi-
dence shows decisively that the current language remained
Latin, not to say that there is not a trace of the language of
the Trojan colonists left. What could it have been? To an-
swer this question, it is interesting to note that the name
Trojans is used to indicate a motley crowd from various
regions. Most explicit is the distinction of Lycians, whose
ships are stipulated to be under the command of Oron-
tes.
346
But there are also names of Lydian (Atys, Gyges,
Palmus)
347
and Thracian (Ismarus [of a Maeonian =
Lydian], Tereus, Thamyrus)
348
type. Both latter elements
may be expected in the Troad, as the region was overrun
by Thraco-Phrygians from the Balkans at the end of the
Bronze Age
349
and under the control of the Lydians at the
time of Gyges.
350
The only hard evidence comes from an-
other direction: Elymian. In this language, once spoken by

344
Rix 1991: Ta 3.2 (= TLE 156); note in this connection that ac-
cording to Myrsilos of Lesbos (3rd century BC) F 8 the Kabeiroi
of Samothrace are considered Tyrrhenian gods, see Lochner-
Httenbach 1960: 102.
345
Alfldi 1963: 266; Pl. XVI; cf. Woudhuizen 1992a: 194, note
104.
346
Vergilius, Aeneid, I, 113; VI, 334; cf. X, 751; XII, 516.
347
Vergilius, Aeneid V, 568; IX, 762; X, 697, 699; cf. Gusmani
1964, s.v. (note that q = p).
348
Vergilius, Aeneid X, 139; XI, 675; XII, 341; cf. Detschew
1976, s.v.
349
For the Balkan affinities of the Trojan Buckel ceramic (=
Troy VIIb2), see Rutter 1975.
350
Strabo, Geography XIII, 22, 1; cf. Pedley 1972: 19 (Milesians
asking for permission from Gyges to colonize Abydos on the Hel-
lespont); note also with Briquel 1991: 83 that Daskyleion in the
Troad is called after the father of Gyges, Daskylos.
the, according to literary tradition, related population of
Eryx and Segesta in northwest Sicily, some inscriptions
have been found, among which coin legends. One of these
coin legends consists of a bilingual, according to which
Elymian Erukaziie corresponds to Greek Erukinn of the
Erycinians; the other, Segestazie, shows exactly the same
formation, but then for the town Segesta.
351
Now, these
Elymian legends are characterized by the Lycian ethnic
formation in -z(i)- (Sppartazi Spartans; Atnazi Atheni-
ans) and likewise Lycian ending of the genitive plural -e
1
(Pttaraze
1
of the Patarians)
352
a combination which is
also attested for Etruscan Karazie of the Carthagin-
ians.
353
Apparently, therefore, the language of these par-
ticular Trojans, and hence probably of followers of Aeneas
related to them as well, was closely related to Lycian, i.e.
of Luwian type. This inference coincides with the fact that
the place name Roma is based on the same root as that of
the Lycian heroic name Romos, being likewise derived
from the Luwian name for the stag-god, Rum/nt-.
354
To conclude, the main contribution of the Trojan
colonists is the introduction of the cult of their ancestral
gods, the Penates. Furthermore, there may be a grain of
thruth in the tradition that leading families of Rome traced
their origin back to a Trojan follower of Aeneas, like the
Atii from Atys,
355
Sergii from Sergestus
356
a Phrygian
or Lydian name
357
, and the Cluentii from Cloanthus,
358
though the identification of Aeneas son Ascanius with Iu-
lus, the ancestor of the Iulii, seems, on the basis of the
double naming, a little bit forced.
359

351
Lejeune 1969.
352
Kinch 1888: 193-4; cf. Melchert 1993, s.v.
353
Rix 1991: Carthago Af 3.1 (= TLE 724); Woudhuizen 1992b:
83; 90; 95.
354
Herbig 1914: 28; Houwink ten Cate 1961: 128-31.
355
Vergilius, Aeneid V, 568-9; cf. Briquel 1991: 471-6.
356
Vergilius, Aeneid V, 121.
357
Beekes 2002: 214, with reference to Phrygian Surgastoy, see
Brixhe & Lejeune 1984: Dd-102, and Lydian Srkstu-, see Gusmani
1964, s.v. For the related Thracian Sergesteus, see Detschew 1976,
s.v.
358
Vergilius, Aeneid V, 122-3.
359
Vergilius, Aeneid I, 267, etc.
93
Additional note 1: Aeneas realm in
the Troad
In the preceding section, we have observed that Aeneas
and his Trojan followers boarded their ships in Antandros,
which is situated on the southern coast of the Troad, just
south of mount Ida, looking out over the Aiolian gulf.
Now, Aeneas is particularly linked up with the region of
mount Ida in the southern Troad, as this is the spot where
he is reported to have been conceived by Ankhises and
Aphrodite.
360
However, if we want to be more specific, it
is interesting to observe that according to a passage in
Homeros Iliad Aeneas is said at a time before the Trojan
war to have been driven from the Ida, where he guarded
the cattle herd, by Akhilleus, who next plundered Lyrnes-
sos and Pedasos in the plain of Adramytion an attack
from which Aeneas is saved by the protection of Zeus.
361
This passage, then, seems to suggest an association of Ae-
neas, not only with the region of mount Ida itself, but also
with the river valley to the south of it.
This very same region south of mount Ida with which
Aeneas seems to be associated, is also reported to be in-
habited by Leleges and/or Kilikes. Thus according to one
passage, Altes, the king of the Leleges, is stated to have his
residence in Pedasos along the river Satnioeis,
362
whereas
according to another Etion, king of the Kilikes, once lived
in Thebes at the foot of the wooded Plakos, where he was
killed by Akhilleus during the latters afore-mentioned raid
in the region.
363
Both the ethnonyms Leleges and Kilikes
are indicative of Luwian speaking population groups the
Kilikes for their origin from Cilicia and the Leleges for
their being identified with Carians.
364
The latter inference
receives further confirmation from the fact that the region
south of mount Ida is characterized by place names in -ss-

360
Homeros, Iliad II, 819-21.
361
Homeros, Iliad XX, 89-93; 188-194. This ties in with an ear-
lier section of the Iliad, in which Akhilleus is stated to have captu-
red Brises in Lyrnessos and to have demolished the walls of
Thebes in the same plain, killing the local leaders Mynes and Epis-
trophos, the sons of Euenos, Homeros, Iliad II, 688-93.
362
Homeros, Iliad XXI, 86-7.
363
Homeros, Iliad VI, 396-7; 415-6.
364
Herodotos, Histories I, 171.
(Lyrnessos) and -nth- (Sminthe).
365
Evidently, we are
dealing here with settlers from Luwian speaking areas to
the south and southeast, who moved across the language
border as determined by Dainis (< Luwian tini- oily)
being the indigenous name of later Greek Elaia (= harbor
of Pergamon)
366
into a presumably Thraco-Phrygian mi-
lieu.
367
If our association of Aeneas with a Luwian speaking
region south of mount Ida is correct, the information from
the Homeric hymn to Aphrodite that the Trojan language
as spoken by Aeneas father Ankhises is other than Phry-
gian need not be representative for the entire Troad.
368
Furthermore, his later relationship to the Etruscans in Italy
receives a meaningful explanation as being one of a kin-
ship nature!
Additional note 2: Dardanians: a
form of Etruscan self-designation
Confirmation of our inference that the Etruscans consid-
ered the Aeneas saga as part of their cultural heritage is
provided by a set of eight identical Etruscan inscriptions
on three boundary stones from Smindja in the territory of
Carthago. These inscribed boundary stones were set up by
the followers of the democratic consul Gn. Papirius Car-
bone from the Etruscan city of Chiusi who fled from their
hometown to Africa in 82 BC after having sided with
Marius in the civil war between the latter and the ulti-
mately victorious Sulla.
369
The inscriptions run in retrograde direction and read

365
Woudhuizen 1989: 194, Fig. 2; 197. See also section 7, note
140 above.
366
Starke 1997: 457; Hgemann 2000: 10.
367
For the Thraco-Phrygian nature of the Trojan language, see
Gindin 1999 and section 13, note 520 below. For another Luwian
speaking enclave in the Troas, cf. the Lycians under the leadership
of Pandaros along the Aisepos and in Zeleia, see Homeros, Iliad II,
824-7; IV, 88; 103; 121; for the Lycian nature of Pandaros, see
Homeros, Iliad V, 105 (Lukiethen) and cf. Strabo, Geography
XIV, 3, 5 reporting his temenos at Pinara in the Xanthos valley;
furthermore, his name corresponds to Lycian *Ptra- (Melchert
1993, s.v. Ptrene/i-). Both Luwian speaking areas are already
acknowledged by Gindin 1999: 261.
368
Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite 111-5.
369
Heurgon 1969: 286; Colonna 1980: 4.
94
as follows:
370
1. M(arce)
Vnata
Marcus Unata Zutas
2. Zvtas tvl(ar) (dedicated) the boundaries (of
3. Dardanivm the territory) of the Dardanians
4. Tins to Dionysos,
5. F 1000 (paces).
In this text, then, the Etruscan settlers in question call
themselves Dardanians (Dardanivm, characterized by the
Latin genitive plural -om in Etruscan disguise),
371
after
Dardanos, the mythical ancestor of Aeneas.
372
Now, in
form of Drdny the latter ethnonym is first recorded as an
indication of the allies of the Hittites from the Troad in the
Egyptian memorial of the battle at Kadesh (1274 BC).
373
Furthermore, Dardanians is synonymous with Trojans in
Homeros Iliad,
374
and more in specific used here for the
followers of Aeneas.
375
The ultimate homeland of their
mythical ancestor Dardanos is reported by the literary
sources to be situated in Arkadia in the Greek Peloponne-
sos which coincides with our assumption that the inhabi-
tants of the Troad were kinsmen of the Thraco-Phrygian or
Pelasgian population groups of Middle Helladic Greece.
376
Whatever the extent of this latter deduction, there can be
little doubt that Vergilius location of Dardanos ultimate
homeland in Italy results from a secondary intervention to
stage Aeneas peregrination as a return to his ancestral
lands.
377

370
Rix 1991: Africa 8.1-8.8.
371
Colonna 1980: 3; cf. Leuhmann 1977: 428; note also the ad
hoc device for the distinction of the un-Etruscan sound [d] from
regular [t]. For the identification of Tins as Dionysos, see Woud-
huizen 1998: 26, note 56, but note that a mixing-up between Tins
(= Dionysos) and Tinia (= Zeus) the latter being the protector of
the territorium according to the corpus of gromatici veteres (see
Camporeale 2003: 203) in this late period is altogether possible;
for the interpretation of the symbol F as 1000 passuum, see Heur-
gon 1969: 285 and cf. Bonfante & Bonfante 2002: 184-5.
372
Der Neue Pauly, s.v. Dardanidae.
373
See section 13 below.
374
Iliad III, 456; VII, 348.
375
Iliad II, 819 ff.
376
See section 13 below.
377
Aeneid III, 167-71; VII, 205-11.
95
12. PHILISTINES AND PELASGIANS
One of the most significant groups among the Sea Peoples
who attacked Egypt in the fifth and eighth year of
Ramesses III (= 1179 and 1176 BC) is the Peleset. This
ethnonym, which has no earlier occurrence in the Egyptian
sources, has been identified with the Biblical Philistines by
Jean-Franois Champollion soon after his decipherment of
Egyptian hieroglyphic an identification which goes un-
challenged up to the present day.
378
Now, the Philistines
are generally considered newcomers in the Levant, settling
in their pentapolis consisting of the towns Asdod, Askelon,
Gaza, Ekron, and Gath at the time of the upheavals of the
Sea Peoples. Thus the Bible informs us that they originated
from Kaphtor,
379
which on the basis of its correspondence
to Akkadian Kaptara and Egyptian Keftiu is plausibly
identified as the island Crete; or they are even straightfor-
wardly addressed here as Cretans.
380
Moreover, they are
considered an alien race for the fact that, in contrast to the
local Semites, they do not abide to the rite of circumci-
sion.
381
Finally, the Philistines are reported by the Bible to
have replaced the ancient Canaanite population of the Av-
vim in their original habitat.
382
This information from the literary sources can be
backed up by evidence from archaeology. It occurs,
namely, that the archaeological culture of Philistia shows
signs of discontinuity in the transitional period from the
Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age. Asdod, its harbor
Tel Mor, and Askelon are characterized by destruction lay-
ers,
383
and Ekron by at least some local destruction at the
time.
384
The level after the destruction at these sites (with
the exception of Tel Mor) contains locally produced
Mycenaean IIIC1b pottery the hallmark of the settlement
of Sea Peoples , which subsequently develops without a
break into the so-called Philistine ware.
385
Moreover, the

378
Champollion 1836: 180; cf. Gardiner 1947: 201.
379
Amos 9, 7; Jeremiah 47, 4.
380
Ezekiel 25, 16; Zephaniah 2, 5.
381
Gardiner 1947: 201; Machinist 2000: 63.
382
Deuteronomium 2, 23.
383
Dothan 1982: 36; 43; 35.
384
Bietak 1993: 300.
385
Bietak 1993: 297-8.
Egyptian influence which typifies the Canaanite material
culture from before the break does not recur. As it appears,
then, conquerors from the Aegean region (including Cy-
prus), where Mycenaean IIIC1b is en vogue at the time,
have wasted existing Canaanite sites, driven out most of
the original inhabitants and settled themselves instead.
Considering this close correspondence between literary
and archaeological data, the projection of the Philistines
back in time to the period of the patriarchs probably con-
stitutes an anachronism.
386
In the Papyrus Harris, Ramesses III claims to have
settled the vanquished Sea Peoples, among which our Pe-
leset or Philistines, in strongholds bound in his name. This
has induced scholars like Albrecht Alt and William Fox-
well Albright to assume that the settlement of the Philis-
tines in Canaan took place under Egyptian supervision.
387
Rightly, Manfred Bietak pointed out that the absence of
Egyptian influence in the material culture after the break
indicates otherwise. Nevertheless, the continuity of Egyp-
tian influence in the hinterland of the Philistine pentapolis
might suggest to us that the Egyptian pharaoh maintained a
nominal claim on the land conquered by the Philistines and
considered them as vassals guarding his frontiers in like
manner as the Frankish kings did with the Normans in the
European Middle Ages (see Fig. 17)!
388
As duly stressed by Ed Noort, the break between the
Canaanite Late Bronze Age and Philistine Early Iron Age
in the region under discussion is not an absolute one: the
continuity of Canaanite pottery in the Philistine sites indi-
cates that to a certain extent the newcomers from the Ae-
gean mixed with the local Avvim population.
389
To this
comes that four of the five place names of the Philistine
pentapolis, viz. Gaza, Askelon, Asdod, and Gath, are al-
ready recorded for Egyptian sources from the El-Amarna
period.
390

386
Genesis 21, 22-34; cf. Machinist 2000: 54-5; contra Gordon
1956: 22 and others.
387
Alt 1944; Albright 1975: 509; cf. Singer 1985.
388
Bietak 1993; esp. 295, Fig. 4.
389
Noort 1994.
390
Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopdie, s.v. Philister.
96
Fig. 17. Settlement of the Sea Peoples in the Levant and the re-
mains of the Egyptian sphere of influence (from Bietak 1993: 295,
Fig. 4).
After their settlement in Palestine, the Philistines rose
to a position of power in the region owing to their military
superiority over the local population, as exemplified by the
famous engagement between David and Goliath which
the first mentioned miraculously won against all odds. This
military superiority of the Philistines was based on their
monopoly of iron production in the region as recorded by
the Bible.
391
In the end, however, they were outmatched
by a coalition between the Hebrews and the Phoenicians,
and became subject to a rapid process of assimilation.
There is little information about the Philistine language
we only know that the cities of their pentapolis were

391
I Samuel 13, 19-23. For the distribution of iron objects in the
eastern Mediterranean largely neglecting Anatolia, see Buchholz
1999: 710-11, Abb. 109-10.
headed by a local magistrate called seren and that kba
was their word for helmet, which is usually compared to
Hittite kupai- for the same meaning
392
, whereas the
deities they are reported to have worshipped, Dagon, As-
tarte, and Baal Zebl, appear to be of a local Canaanite
nature.
393
What remains, apart from their characteristic
pottery, are only small hints to their Aegean origin: figu-
rines for house-cults as discovered in Asdod, recalling
Mycenaean counterparts (Fig. 18);
394
hearths as unearthed
in Ekron, reminiscent of Mycenaean and Cyprian exam-
ples;
395
chamber tombs at Tell Fara modelled after
Mycenaean prototypes (Fig. 19);
396
altars with horns of
consecration from Ekron, again, suggestive of the Minoan
type;
397
the headdress with which the Peleset are depicted
in the Egyptian memorial at Medinet Habu, which bears a
striking resemblance to that of glyph D 02 of the discus of
Phaistos, Crete;
398
royal names like Yamani the Ionian
for a king of Asdod
399
and ky, related to either Akhaios
or Ankhises, for a king of Ekron;
400
and, finally, the identi-
fication of Gaza as Minoa, which is substantiated by evi-
dence from coins, and of its local god Marna (= Aramaic
our Lord) as Crete-born.
401
The question remains: is the Cretan origin of the Phil-
istines as related by the Bible historically valid? In order

392
Bonfante 1946: 258; Machinist 2000: 63-4.
393
Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopdie, s.v. Philister; Barnett 1969:
17; Machinist 2000: 59-61; 64.
394
Barnett 1969: 17; Sandars 1980: 165, fig. 116 (with intermedi-
ary form from Cyprus); cf. Noort 1994: 134-7.
395
Noort 1994: 146; for Cyprus, see Karageorghis 1992: 81 (new
element during Late Cypriote IIIC).
396
Waldbaum 1966.
397
Gitin 1993: 249-50; for Cyprus see Loulloupis 1973 and Kara-
georghis 1992: 81 (new element during Late Cypriote IIIC).
398
Reinach 1910; Hall 1926: 278; Gardiner 1947: 202; Brard
1951: 138; Mertens 1960: 83; Redford 1992: 252. A representa-
tion of the feathered headdress has recently been found on sherds
from Askelon, see Stager 1998: 164, ill. A, a reference I owe to
Romey 2003: 68.
399
Gitin, Dothan & Naveh 1997: 11; note with Weidner 1939:
932-3 that the ethnic Iaman Ionian on the basis of the onomastic
evidence may include reference to Lycians.
400
Gitin, Dothan & Naveh 1997: 11; Byrne 2002: 11-2.
401
Stephanos of Byzantion, Ethnica, s.v. Gaza; cf. Macalister
1913: 15; Gardiner 1947: 202; Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopdie,
s.v. Philister; Strobel 1976: 160.
97
t o answer this question it needs to be determined
a b c
Fig. 18. Figurines from (a) Asdod, (b) Cyprus, and (c) Mycenae
(from Sandars 1980: 165, afb. 116).
(a)
(b)
Fig. 19. Comparison of (a) Philistine chamber tombs from Tell
Fara with (b) Mycenaean prototypes (from Waldbaum 1966: 332,
Ill. 1; 336, Ills. 11-14).
whether Philistines can be traced on Crete. The answer to
the latter question is no. The only way in which we can ac-
count for a migration of the Biblical Philistines from
Crete is when the latter are identical to the Pelasgians
from Greek literary sources a view first ventilated by
Etienne Fourmont in 1747 and since then defended by a
substantial number of scholars.
402
The Pelasgians, namely,
are recorded among the population groups on Crete since
the time of Homeros, who, as we have seen in section 2, in
many respects reflects Late Bronze Age history.
403
Now,
the Pelasgians are a population group which inhabited
mainland Greece prior to the first Greeks, and were driven
by them first to Thessaly and later to the Aegean islands
and the western coast of Asia Minor. As far as the evi-
dence goes, the Pelasgians came to Crete under the leader-
ship of Teutamos (corrupted into Tektamos in most
manuscripts), who married the daughter of the Cretan king
Kretheus and with her begat Asterios, the father of the later
kings Minos, Rhadamanthys, and Sarpedon.
404
As king
Minos epitomizes the period of the Cretan thalassocracy,
the Pelasgian colonization of Crete must hence have oc-
curred before c. 1600-1450 BC. This emigration from
Thessaly to Crete can be backed up by toponymic evi-
dence, since the region of Gortyn in the Mesara plain is
characterized by a number of place names, like Lethaios,
Boibe, Magnesia, Phalanna, and Phaistos, which are also
recorded for Thessaly, whereas an alternative name of
Gortyn is Larisa a typical Pelasgian place name.
405
Moreover, Gortyn itself is based on the same root as Thes-

402
Fourmont 1747: 254; Hitzig 1845; Chabas 1872: 296,
Lichtenberger 1911: 28; Macalister 1913: 2; Meyer 1928: 562;
Georgiev 1950-1: 137; Brard 1951; Wainwright 1962: 151;
Kitchen 1973: 56; Albright 1975: 512; Strobel 1976: 159; Singer
1988: 241-2; for further literature, see Sakellariou 1977: 102, note
8.
403
Odyssey XIX, 177; note that, as argued in section 2, the men-
tion of the Dorians in this passage probably constitutes a later in-
terpolation.
404
Andron of Halikarnassos in Strabo, Geography X, 4, 6; Diodo-
ros of Sicily, The Library of History IV, 60, 2; cf. ibid. V, 80, 1.
405
Fick 1905: 13-15; cf. Sakellariou 1977: 212; 137 (addition of
Pylros and Bene); for other instances of the place name Larisa
connected with Pelasgians to which may be added Larision pe-
dion in the territory of Hierapytna on Crete (Fick 1905: 11) , see
Strabo, Geography IX, 5, 6 and XIII, 3, 2 f.; cf. Sakellariou 1977:
133-4.
98
salian Gyrtone.
406
On the basis of this evidence, the Pelas-
gians referred to by Homeros are likely to be considered as
(a component of) the Late Bronze Age population of the
Mesara plain a region, by the way, which like the rest of
Crete is characterized by Mycenaean IIIC1b ware in the
period of the upheavals of the Sea Peoples (Fig. 20).
407
Another advantage of the identification of the Biblical
Philistines with the Pelasgians from Greek literary sources
is that we can account for the alternative tradition as re-
corded for the Lydian historian Xanthos according to
which the Philistines originated from Lydia.
408
This tradi-
tion has come down to us in two forms, both of which fo-
cus on the Philistine town Askelon. First, Athenaios
remarks that according to Xanthos the Lydian Mopsos cap-
tured Atargatis and sunk her with her son Ikhthys in the
lake of Askelon.
409
Secondly, Stephanos of Byzantion
notes with respect to Askelon that according to Xanthos
this town was founded by Askelos, the son of Hymenaios
and brother of Tantalos, in the reign of the Lydian king
Akiamos.
410
Now, these traditions only make sense if we realize
that the Pelasgians which in Homeros Iliad II, 840-3 sided
with the Trojans are plausibly situated by Strabo in the re-
gion of Larisa Phrikonis along the Hermos river far

406
In casu Proto-Indo-European (= PIE) *g
h
ord
h
- town, which
is also present in the Italian TNs, reportedly diffused by the Pe-
lasgians, Croton and Cortona, Phrygian Gordion, Slavonic grad-,
etc., see Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995: 647; Phoenician qrt- as in
Carthago (< qrthdt New Town), see Eisler 1939.
407
Schachermeyr 1979: 122-3 so-called Nobelware with anti-
thetic horns and bird looking backwards motifs attested for
Hagia Triada, Phaistos, and Gortyn; for Mycenaean IIIC1b exam-
ples of antithetic horns from Sinda, Cyprus, and Askelon, Philis-
tia, see Noort 1994: 122, Abb. 36 and 114, Abb. 37; of bird
looking backwards from Geser, Philistia, see Noort 1994: 115,
Abb. 38.
408
Albright 1975: 512.
409
Deipnosophistai VIII, 346e. Note that the personal name Mop-
sos, which on the basis of the related geographical name Mopsopia
originates from *Mopsops, belongs to the same type as Phrygian
Pelops, Phainops, and Merops, all showing as second element a
reflex of PIE *h
3
ek
w
- to see. Hence, the Phrygian place name
Moxoupolis and the ethnonym Moxolanoi, with the breakdown of
the original labiovelar [k
w
] (cf. Linear B Moqoso) into velar [k]
like in Luwian hieroglyphic Muksas instead of into labial [p] like
in Greek Mopsos and Phoenician Mp. For attestations of Mopsos
in the intermediary regions of Pamphylia and Cilicia, see Van-
schoonwinkel 1991: 316-22.
410
Ethnica, s.v. Askeln.
enough from Troy to justify the use of the word tele far
away (from his home town Larisa) in connection with the
death of the Pelasgian leader Hippothoos.
411
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 20. Late Helladic IIIC1b ware with antithetic horns and
bird looking backwards: (a) Crete, (b) Cyprus, and (c) Philistia
(after Schachermeyr 1979: 160, Abb. 41a; Noort 1994: 122, Abb.
36; 115, Abb. 38).
From an archaeological point of view, it is worth
mentioning in this connection that the region of Larisa

411
Strabo, Geography XIII, 3, 2; Homeros, Iliad XVII, 301.
99
Phrikonis (in casu Pitane and Larisa itself) produced some
Mycenaean IIIC1b ware (as we have noted above the
hallmark of the settlement of Sea Peoples in the Levant),
reported to be connected with the foundation of Emborio
on Chios
412
likewise inhabited by Pelasgians at the
time!
413
As such, then, it is certainly possible that the Pe-
lasgians, either from Crete and/or the west coast of Lydia
(especially for Askelon), are responsible for the introduc-
tion of Mycenaean IIIC1b ware in Philistia.
If our identification of the Biblical Philistines with the
Pelasgians from Greek literary sources applies, we enlarge
our basis for linguistic analysis considerably. According to
Herodotos, the Pelasgians of Kreston, who originated from
Thessaly, speak the same language as their tribesmen in
Plakia and Skylake on the Hellespont, who once lived with
the Athenians.
414
Thucydides adds to this information that
the Pelasgians of Akte, who are of origin Tyrrhenians once
living in Lemnos and Attica, are bilingual and speak Greek
next to their own language.
415
Now, as the Pelasgians in
mainland Greece appear to be ancestral to their kinsmen in
the north-Aegean region (and western Anatolia), it seems
advisable to have a look at them first. An interesting tradi-
tion in this respect is formed by the story of the Pelasgian
king of Argos,
416
Akrisios, son of Abas and brother of
Proitos, who in fear of his grandson Perseus flees from his
hometown to Larisa in Thessaly under the rule of the like-
wise Pelasgian king Teutamias.
417
Here we encounter at
least one clearly Indo-European name, Teutamias, which is
based on the PIE stem *teut- society, folk, people.
418

412
Mee 1978: 148; cf. Hope Simpson 1981: 206, who distin-
guishes as many as three building phases in Mycenaean IIIC1b for
Emborio.
413
Strabo, Geography XIII, 3, 3; Dionysios Pieregetes as presen-
ted by Lochner-Httenbach 1960: 59.
414
Histories I, 57.
415
Peloponnesian War IV, 109.
416
Since the expression Pelasgikon Argos is used both for the
Thessalian (Homeros, Iliad II, 682) and Argive (Sakellariou 1977:
205, note 4) town of this name, Argos (< PIE *h
2
erg- bright
white) may well be considered a Pelasgian place name, which
would add further substance to the Indo-European nature of this
people.
417
Lochner-Httenbach 1960: 3 (Pherekydes of Athens, Frag-
mente der griechischen Historiker 3 F 12); 4 (Hellanikos of Les-
bos F 91); 29-30 (Apollodoros of Athens); cf. 23 (Kallimachos);
160 (general discussion).
418
Lochner-Httenbach 1960: 151-3; Sakellariou 1977: 132-3;
The same root is also attested for the name of the leader of
the Thessalian Pelasgians in their journey to Crete, Teuta-
mos, referred to above,
419
and that of the grandfather of
the Pelasgian leaders in the Trojan war, Teutamides,
probably a patronymic.
420
It is particularly relevant to our
purposes to note that this root occurs in the New Phrygian
form teutous and in the Thracian mans name (= MN)
Tautomedes, etc.
421
Furthermore, Abas is the heros epo-
nym of the Abantes, a Thracian tribe.
422
Finally, Akrisios
and Proitos have closely related Phrygian counterparts in
the divine name Akrisias
423
and the root of the magistracy
proitavos,
424
respectively. The impression we gain from
these examples, is that Pelasgian, insofar as onomastics is
significant in this respect, may well be an Indo-European
language of Thraco-Phrygian type. Further instances can
be adduced to emphasize this point, like Adrastos,
425
cor-
responding to the Phrygian MN Adrastos,
426
and Arkas,
427
related to the root of the Phrygian patronymic Arkiae-
vas.
428
The situation is different with the Pelasgians in west-
ern Anatolia. Thus, it is reported by Strabo that at the time

Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995: 33; 652; 835; pace Beekes 1998.
419
See note 404 above.
420
Homeros, Iliad II, 840-3. Note that the Late Bronze Age date
of this onomastic element is emphasized by its presence in Linear
B te-u-ta-ra-ko-ro, see Chantraine 1958: 127.
421
Haas 1966: 95; Detschew 1976, s.v.
422
Homeros, Iliad II, 536-45; Strabo, Geography X, 1, 3; cf.
Woudhuizen 1989: 196.
423
Diakonoff & Neroznak 1985: 91; based on the PIE root *akr-
high, see Lochner-Httenbach 1960: 160-1 and cf. Sakellariou
1980: 207-10, or *aker-, see Haas 1966: 145, 213 and cf. Gamkre-
lidze & Ivanov 1995: 96.
424
Brixhe & Lejeune 1984: M-01b; Woudhuizen 1993b; based on
the PIE roots *pro before and *ei- to go (cf. Sakellariou 1980:
207-10). For other instances of magistracies used as personal na-
mes, cf. Hittite Labarnas < labarna- king, Lydian Kandaules <
Luwian antawat- king, Etruscan Porsenna < purne pryta-
nos, Etruscan Camitlna < camthi (title), Etruscan Macstrna < La-
tin magister magistrate, Latin Lucius < Etruscan lucumo king,
Phoenician Malchus < mlk- king, and, from Homeros, Palmus <
Lydian pal
1
ml
1
u- kingship and Prutanis < prutanos, again.
425
Lochner-Httenbach 1960: 13 (Euripides).
426
Herodotos, Histories I, 34-5; Woudhuizen 1993b. Cf. Lydian
Atrasta-, see Gusmani 1964, s.v.
427
Lochner-Httenbach 1960: 68 (Hesychius Alexandrinus).
428
Brixhe & Lejeune 1984: M-01a; Woudhuizen 1993b.
100
of their foundation of Kume, the Aiolian Greeks have to
cope with the resistence of the local Pelasgians under the
leadership of Piasos.
429
The latter personal name is clearly
based on the root of Luwian piya- to give as present in
Luwian names of the type Piyamaradus and Natrbije
1
mi-
(= the Lycian equivalent of Greek Apollodoros or Apollo-
dotos).
430
An Anatolian background seems also plausible
for the Pelasgians who according to Hellanikos of Lesbos
under the leadership of Nanas, son of Teutamides, are re-
ported to have colonized Cortona in Italy.
431
At any rate,
the personal name Nanas, which is paralleled for Lydian,
Lycian, and Cilician sources, ultimately originates from
the Luwian kinship term nani- brother a typical Lu-
wian reflex of PIE *n-genh
1
-.
432
Finally, it deserves atten-
tion in this connection that the king of the Pelasgians at
Lemnos at the time of the invasion by the Athenian
Miltiades (c. 510 BC) is called Hermn
433
a name paral-
leled for a Lydian king
434
and likely to be based upon the
Luwian onomastic element Arma-.
435
If we confine our-
selves to this latter class of evidence, the Pelasgian lan-
guage might well come into consideration as an Indo-
European vernacular of Luwian type.
Is it feasible to assume that the Pelasgians from
Greece, who at the outset spoke a Thraco-Phrygian lan-
guage, with the change of their habitat to western Anatolia
also went over to speak a Luwian dialect? We can go into
this matter a little further if we realize that the distinction
of the Pelasgians from the Tyrrhenians is a futile one: for
almost every location where Tyrrhenians are attested,
436

429
Geography XIII, 3, 3.
430
Laroche 1966, s.v. Piyamaradu-; Carruba 2002: 76-7; 81-2.
431
As preserved by Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman Antiqui-
ties I, 28, 3.
432
Neumann 1991: 65; Woudhuizen 1998-9; contra Beekes 2002:
222 (Lallname).
433
Lochner-Httenbach 1960: 61 (Zenobius Paroemiographus 3,
85).
434
Strabo, Geography XIII, 1, 65; Beekes 2002: 214.
435
Houwink ten Cate 1961: 131-4.
436
Thucydides, Peloponnesian War IV, 109 (Attica, Lemnos,
Akte), Stephanos of Byzantion, Ethnica, s.v. Metaon = town na-
med after the Tyrrhenian Metas (Lesbos), Philogoros, frg. 5 (Im-
bros), Neanthes, frg. 30: the brother of Pythagoras is called
Turrenos (Samos), Suidas, s.v. Termeria kaka (Termerion on the
coast of Caria), Stephanos of Byzantion, Ethnica, s.v. Elymia
(coast of Macedonia), Lycophron, Alexandra 1245-9 (Mysia), He-
one finds evidence for Pelasgians as well.
437
Apparently,
Thucydides is right in considering the Tyrrhenians a sub-
group of the Pelasgians who after all have a wider distri-
bution over the Aegean. In line with this deduction, the
Lemnos stele (c. 600 BC), which is generally agreed to be
conducted in the Tyrrhenian language, may inform us
about Pelasgian just as well. At any rate, the two versions
of the dating formula inform us that the monument was
erected during the reign of the Phokaian Holaie (= Pelas-
gian Holaias!),
438
who is specified as king over the
Myrinians and Seronians in the Aiolian coastal zone of
Mysia i.e. precisely the region where we situate the Pe-
lasgian allies of the Trojans at the time of the Trojan war
(see above).
439
Now, the language of the Lemnos stele
shows some features, like the titular expression *vanaca-
king and the 3rd person singular of the past tense in -ke,
which are unparalleled for Luwian and rather point to a re-
lationship with Phrygian (dating formula midai lavagtaei
vanaktei during the military leadership and kingship of
Midas)
440
and/or Greek (Mycenaean wa-na-ka, Homeric
anaks king; kappa-perfectum).
441
This relation of the
Tyrrhenian or Pelasgian language with (pre-)Greek can be
further illustrated by pointing to the correspondence of
Etruscan hu 4, netsvis or netsvis haruspex, puia
wife, purne or purtsna prytanis, turan (form of ad-

rodotos, Histories I, 94 (Lydia), and Konon, Fragmente der grie-
chischen Historiker 26 F 1 (Kyzikos), cf. Schachermeyr 1929:
262-76, Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopdie, s.v. Tyrrhener, and
Beekes 2002: 226-7.
437
Herodotos, Histories I, 137-40 (Attica, Lemnos), ibid. I, 57
(Kreston in Akte), Diodoros of Sicily, The Library of History 5, 2,
4 (Lesbos), Herodotos, Histories V, 26, Antikleides of Athens in
Strabo, Geography V, 2, 4 (Imbros), Dionysios Periegetes (Sa-
mos), Menekrates of Elaia (Mykale in Caria), Strabo, Geography
XIII, 3, 2-3 (Larisa Phrikonis), Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem
(Adramyttion), Konon, Fragmente der griechischen Historiker 26
F 1 (Antandros, Kyzikos), cf. Lochner-Httenbach 1960, passim.
438
Fick 1905: 104.
439
Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 139-53; Woudhuizen 1998: 109-
11. For the settlement of Lemnos by Pelasgians from the east, in
casu Tenedos, see Hellanikos of Lesbos Fragmente der griechis-
chen Historiker 4, 71 (not in Lochner-Httenbach 1960). Proba-
bly, this took place in the late 8th or early 7th century BC the
foundation date of Hephaistia, see Beschi 1994; cf. Beekes 2001:
362.
440
Brixhe & Lejeune 1984: M-01; Woudhuizen 1993a: 2.
441
Charsekin 1963: 28; 48; 65 compares Etruscan turuce to Greek
dedreke (< drein to give); for code-mixing in a bilingual envi-
ronment, see Adams, Janse & Swain 2002.
101
dress of Aphrodite), to (pre-)Greek Huttenia Tetrapolis,
nedus entrails, opui to take as wife, prutanis ruler,
and turannos tyrant, respectively.
442
On the basis of this
evidence, then, it may safely be concluded that the Tyrrhe-
nian or Pelasgian ancestors of the later Etruscans, although
basically speaking a Luwian vernacular at least since the
time of their move to western Anatolia,
443
had a long his-
tory of contact with (pre-)Greek, which can only be ac-
counted for if the literary tradition about the original
habitat of the Tyrrheno-Pelasgians in Attica is historically
valid.
444
What remains to be discussed is the language of the
Pelasgians whom we have seen reason to identify as (a
component of) the Late Bronze Age population of the Me-
sara plain in Crete. Now, there are three types of script re-
corded for Crete: hieroglyphic, Linear A, and Linear B. Of
these, Linear B is either introduced from the Greek
mainland or developed at Knossos after the period of the
desastrous Santorini-eruption at the end of Late Minoan IB
(c. 1450 BC), which marks the end of the Minoan thalas-
socracy and presents the Mycenaean Greeks the opportu-
nity to take over control of the weakened island. It is found
mainly in the palace of Knossos, but also at Khania.
445
Since its decipherment by the British architect Michael
Ventris in 1952, we know that it is used to write an early
form of the Greek language, the so-called Mycenaean
Greek.
446
Simultaneously with the Linear B archives at
Knossos, which date to the period of Late Minoan II to
Late Minoan IIIA1/2 ( c. 1450-1350 BC), modest Linear A
archives of about 150 tablets in sum are found in Hagia
Triada the harbor town of the palace of Phaistos in the
Mesara.
447
This latter script is recorded for Phaistos from
the Middle Minoan II period (c. 1800-1700 BC) on-

442
Schachermeyr 1929: 248; van der Meer 1992: 68; see further
appendix II.
443
See section 10 on Etruscan origins above.
444
Note that if the story of the building of the wall on the Athe-
nian acropolis by the Pelasgians (Herodotos, Histories VI, 137-40)
is correct, their presence in Attica can even be dated archaeologi-
cally to the period of the 15th to 13th century BC, see Broneer
1956: 12-3.
445
Hallager 1992.
446
Ventris & Chadwick 1973.
447
Best 1981b: 37-45; Achterberg, Best, Enzler, Rietveld &
Woudhuizen 2004, section 3. For the Hagia Triada tablets, see
Meijer 1982.
wards,
448
but in the course of time spread all over the is-
land and, in the time of the Minoan thalassocracy, even
beyond to the islands in the Aegean, Ayios Stephanos in
mainland Greece, and Miletos and Troy in western Asia
Minor.
449
As first suggested by Cyrus Gordon, Linear A is
used to write a Semitic language. Thus, Gordon pointed
out that the Linear A equivalent in the Hagia Triada (=
HT) corpus of Linear B to-so total, in his reading with
Linear B values ku-ro, corresponds to Hebrew kull all.
Furthermore, he convincingly identified pot names, which
appear in direct association with their image on tablet HT
31, with Semitic counterparts.
450
This work was supple-
mented by Jan Best, who, amongst others, showed that the
Linear A equivalents in the HT corpus of Linear B a-pu-
do-si delivery and o-pe-ro deficit read, with their
original Linear A values, te-l and ki-l, which forms re-
call Akkadian tel Einknfte, Ertrag and kal(m) as in
eqla kal(m) Pachtabgabe schuldig bleiben, respec-
tively.
451
In addition to this, he compared the transaction
term pu-k in HT 31 to Akkadian pu exchange and
the element p-t, which is used in association with ku-l
on the back side of tablet HT 122 in a similar way as Lin-
ear B pa with to-so for to-so-pa grand total, to Akkadian
ptu front side, leading to the interpretation of p-tu-ku-
l as total with the front side included.
452
Definite proof,
however, of the west-Semitic nature of the language of
Linear A came with Bests unravelling of the libation for-
mula frequently attested for wash-hand stone-basins from
peak-sanctuaries destroyed at the end of Middle Minoan III
(c. 1600 BC), which presents a full phrase and reads
(y)a-ta-n-ti wa/u-ya (y)a-di i-t e-te (y)a-sa-sa-ra-
ma/e
I have given (Ugaritic ytn/tn, -t) and (Ugaritic w/u, -
y) my hand (Ugaritic yd/d, -i) has made an expiatory
offering (Ugaritic t , -t), Oh Assara (Hebrew GN

448
Vandenabeele 1985: 18.
449
Vandenabeele 1985: 18 (Kea, Melos, Thera, Kythera); Nie-
meier 1996 (Miletos); Godart 1994 and Faure 1996 (Troy).
450
Gordon 1957; Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 1-7.
451
Best 1973: 54-5.
452
Best 2000: 29, note 8. For the identification of the transaction
on HT 31 as an exchange of tens of vessels for silver and hundreds
and thousands of vessels for gold, respectively, see Best & Woud-
huizen 1989: 1-7.
102
Asherah, Ugaritic y-, -m)!.
453
As a final eample, it deserves our attention that even
the typical Semitic dative by the prefix l is attested for
Linear A in form of a-re as occurring in the phrase
a-ta-nu-ti de-ka a-re ma-re-na ti-ti-ku
I, Titikos, have given this to our guild-master
on a pithos from Epano Zakro, usually assigned to the the
end of Late Minoan IB (c. 1450 BC).
454
However, the fact that Linear A records a west-
Semitic language is not the end of our inquiry into the lan-
guages of Crete. We still need to discuss the hieroglyphic
script. This is found from the beginning of the Old Palace
phase in the Early Minoan III/Middle Minoan IA transi-
tional period (c. 2000 BC) onwards both in the regions of
Knossos and Malia in the north and the Mesara plain in the
south.
455
Hieroglyphic archives are attested for the palaces
of Knossos and Malia in the Middle Minoan II (c. 1800-
1700 BC) period, when the script is even exported to
Samothrace in the north-Aegean.
456
Most of the seals with
an hieroglyphic legend consist of chance finds, and are
therefore not archaeologically datable. But from the fact
that some of the hieroglyphic signs are taken over by the
Cyprians at the time they devised the Cypro-Minoan script
(= c. 1525-1425 BC), it can be deduced that the use of the
script continued into the Late Minoan I period (c. 1550-
1450 BC).
457
Finally, the double-axe of Arkalokhori and
the famous discus of Phaistos, which bear hieroglyphic in-
scriptions of unusual length, can positively be assigned to
the period of Late Minoan II to Late Minoan IIIA1/2 (c.
1450-1350 BC).
458
After this period, the tradition of writ-

453
Best 1981a; Best 1981b: 17-20; Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 26;
Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 25; cf. Hiller 1985: 125-7.
454
Best 1982-3a; for yet another Linear A inscription with a-re,
see the gold ring from Mavro Spelio (= Best 1982-3b: 22-5).
455
Grumach 1968: 9; cf. Poursat in Olivier & Godart 1996: 31
who dates from Middle Minoan IA onwards.
456
Poursat in Olivier & Godart 1996: 29-30.
457
Woudhuizen 2001b: 610.
458
Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 137-8; Woudhuizen 1992c: 201;
Achterberg, Best, Enzler, Rietveld & Woudhuizen 2004, section 3.
As the double-axe from Arkalokhori is dedicated by a ruler of the
hinterland of Phaistos from the time of the father of the sender of
the letter on the Phaistos disc, it antedates the latter by one genera-
ing in hieroglyphs, like that of Linear A, is discontinued
having succumbed to the Mycenaean koine.
Among the earliest hieroglyphic seals, there is a small
group with the so-called libation formula one example
stemming from the Mesara plain , which is connected
with the later Linear A formula discussed above and con-
sists of hieroglyphic forerunners of Linear A signs from its
final section, reading with the Linear A values a-sa-sa-ra-
me Oh Assara!. On the basis of the presence of a corre-
sponding form of the Ugaritic emphatic particle -m, the
language of this text may be identified as Semitic.
459
For
our understanding of the hieroglyphic inscriptions more in
general, however, it is important to realize that the signary
is basically related to that of Luwian hieroglyphic from
primarily southern Asia Minor and North Syria, which is
already attested from the beginning of the Middle Bronze
Age (c. 2000 BC) onwards.
460
On Crete, the signs of Lu-
wian hieroglyphic origin were supplemented by loans from
Egyptian hieroglyphic, like the bee- and trowel-signs,
461
and, from Middle Minoan II (c. 1800-1700) onwards, by
hieroglyphically drawn signs from Linear A.
462
This being
the case, we should rather apply the term Luwianizing
for this class of Cretan documents. At any rate, if we fill in
the Luwian values for their Cretan counterparts, we are
confronted with three categories of evidence on the seals
with what I have called profane formulas: (1) titles, (2)
names of places and countries, and (3) personal names.
Confining ourselves to the evidence with a bearing on the
Mesara, two seals are of importance to our purposes. In the
first place # 271 from Malia, which dates to the earliest
phase of the script (no signs from Linear A!) and reads:
1. SASA UTNA/, 2. /s-ur-wa/ 3. la+PRANA TARKU-
MUWA
seal (with respect to) the land (of) Skheria, king
Tarkumuwas.
As Skheria can be identified as the ancient name of
Hagia Triada, the seal, although found in Malia, nonethe-

tion.
459
Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 25-6; Woudhuizen 2001b: 608-9.
460
Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 30-89; Best & Woudhuizen 1989:
65-137; Woudhuizen 1990-1; Woudhuizen 1992c: pl. 26; Woud-
huizen 2004a : 112-20; 129-43; Woudhuizen forthc. 1.
461
Woudhuizen 1997; Woudhuizen 2002b.
462
Woudhuizen 1992c: pl. 24; Woudhuizen forthc. 1.
103
less informs us about the situation in the Mesara.
463
The
second seal is # 296 of undetermined findspot, which for
the use of three Linear A signs may be assigned to the pe-
riod after c. 1800 BC and reads:
1. SASA UTNA SARU, 2. PRA-t-r, 3. pi-ni, 4. pa
3
-ya-ki
seal (with respect to) the land (and) official(s) (of)
the Phaiakians, representative Bartaras.
Here Hagia Triada is referred to by the ethnonym
Phaiakians (= Homeric Phaiakes), the root of which is also
present in the name of nearby Phaistos.
464
From a linguis-
tic point of view, it is interesting to note that the personal
names are Luwian, the first corresponding to Luwian
Tarkims or Tarkoms,
465
and the second to Lydian Barta-
ras.
466
Furthermore, the title in the first instance is like-
wise Anatolian, being identical to Hittite labarna-,
467
whereas the second seal is characterized by a Semitic title,
recalling Ugaritic bn in expressions like bn lky representa-
tive of the Lycians, etc.
468
The impression we gain from
this evidence is that the region of Hagia Triada and Phais-
tos in the Old Palace phase is inhabited by Luwians, who
adopted the Semitic language in religious and official mat-
ters in order to adapt to the international standards of the
time.
The foregoing conclusion can be further underlined if
we take a look at the evidence from the Late Minoan IIIA1
period. As noted above, the corpus of Hagia Triada texts is
conducted in the Semitic language. From slips of the pen,
however, it is deducible that the primary language of the
scribes happens to be Luwian. Thus, in the sequence te-l
da-ku-se-ne-ti delivery to Taku-enni from HT 104 the
dative singular is expressed by the ending -ti, which recalls
the Luwian hieroglyphic pronominal ending of the dative

463
Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 115-8; Woudhuizen 2004a: 139-
43; Woudhuizen forthc. 1.
464
Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 126; Best 2000: 29; Woudhuizen
forthc. 2; see further appendix I.
465
Houwink ten Cate 1961: 127.
466
Gusmani 1964, s.v. Bartara- (Lyd. no. 40).
467
Laroche 1960a: *277; as a personal name, this title is used for
the first king of the Hittites, Labarnas (1680-1650 BC); in variant
form of labarsa- it is already attested for the Kltepe-Kanesh
phase (c. 1910-1780 BC), see Woudhuizen 1990-1: 146.
468
Gordon 1955: glossary, s.v. bn; Astour 1964: 194. On Cretan
hieroglyphic, see further appendix I.
singular used in the realm of the noun as well in the re-
lated Cyprian dialect (te-lu sa-ne-me-ti delivery to Sane-
mas).
469
Furthermore, in HT 28 and 117 mention is made
of u-mi-na-si, which appears to be an adjectival derivative
of the Luwian hieroglyphic root umina- town.
470
Finally,
the functionary in the heading of HT 31 is designated as
mi-ti-sa an honorific title paralleled for Luwian hiero-
glyphic texts.
471
The Luwian nature of the primary lan-
guage of the inhabitants of the Mesara plain is further
examplified by the hieroglyphic inscriptions of the double-
axe from Arkalokhori and the Phaistos disc, especially the
latter of which bears testimony of a local Luwian dialect
(a-tu instead of -t in, u-pa instead of APA- after, be-
hind).
472
Now the Phaistos disc, which, as we have seen
in section 8, according to the reading and interpretation re-
cently put forward by a Dutch group of scholars (cf. note
472) consists of a letter to the Akhaian king Nestor by an
Anatolian great king likely to be identified as
Tarundaradus of Arzawa, is particularly of interest to our
purposes as it informs us that the king of Phaistos is called
Kunawa. This name, which in the form ku-ne-u is also at-
tested for the Linear B tablets from Knossos,
473
bears a
close resemblance to Gouneus, the leader of the Peraibians
and the people from Dodona and the Peneios region in
Thessaly at the time of the Trojan war.
474
To all probabil-
ity, then, we are dealing here with a Pelasgian personal
name, thus confirming that there are Pelasgians among the

469
Meijer 1982: 60; Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 123; Woudhuizen
1992a: 96. See also section 5, note 90, above.
470
Cf. Laroche 1960a: *228; Woudhuizen 1994-5: 183; Woud-
huizen 2004a: 41.
471
Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 4. For Luwian hieroglyphic, see
Karkamis A6, phrase 7; Kululu I, phrase 1; Sultanhan, phrases 1
and 13; Karatepe, phrase 1; Bulgarmaden, phrase 1, as presented
in Hawkins 2000; in the light of the Luwian hieroglyphic evi-
dence, the final syllable -sa is the communal nominative singular
ending. On the topic of code-switching in a bilingual environment,
see Adams, Janse & Swain 2002.
472
Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 97-104; Woudhuizen 1992a: 11-41.
For an extensive treatment of the Phaistos disc, see Achterberg,
Best, Enzler, Rietveld & Woudhuizen 2004.
473
Ventris & Chadwick 1973: glossary, s.v.
474
Homeros, Iliad II, 748-55; Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 76; 83.
According to Simonides (= Strabo, Geography IX, 5, 20) the Per-
rhaibians (= Homeric Peraibians) are Pelasgiotes. Note that the
Dodona in question must be the one near Skotussa in Pelasgiotis,
see Lochner-Httenbach 1960: 42. For further evidence on Pelas-
gian presence in Crete, see appendix IV.
104
inhabitants of the Mesara plain at the time!
To recapitulate our evidence on the language of the
Pelasgians, we have experienced the following. First, at the
time that the Pelagians formed part of the earliest recorded
inhabitants of Greece, they probably spoke a Thraco-
Phrygian language. Second, when driven out by the
Greeks they migrated to western Anatolia, the Pelasgians
adapted to the local language and went over to speak a
Luwian vernacular, which, however, still bore testimony of
a long history with (pre-)Greek. Third, those Pelasgians
which went to the Mesara plain in Crete likewise adapted
to the local linguistic situation, using Luwian as their pri-
mary language and Semitic in religious and official matters
in order to keep up with the international standards at the
time. Evidently, the migrations of the Pelasgians were not
massive enough to alter the existing linguistic situation in
the new homeland. The latter conclusion ties in with the
fact that the Pelasgians in western Anatolia were not so
important as to enter into the Hittite records as a distinct
population group. As a closing remark to this section, it
may be of interest to note that all three linguistic layers
discussed are demonstrable for the Philistines in their new
home in the Levant: Thraco-Phrygian in the place name
Ekron, which bears witness of the PIE root *akr- or *aker-
high, Luwian in the personal name Goliath, which re-
calls Lydian names of the type Alyattes, Sadyattes, etc.,
475
and Semitic in the divine name rt Asherah (with Phoe-
nician feminine ending -t) as recorded for Ekron.
476
As it
seems, then, the Pelasgian ancestors of the Philistines pre-
served their ethnic identity during the period of the
Mycenaean koine (c. 1350-1200 BC)!
Additional note 1: Pelasgians in It-
aly
Pelasgian population groups are not only recorded for the
Aegean, but also for Italy.
477
Of the latter, it is absolutely
clear that they ultimately originated from the Aegean, and
hence bear testimony of migration from east to west. When
did such a migration take place? In order to answer this

475
Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopdie, s.v. Philister; Dothan 1982:
22; Machinist 2000: 63-4; Indo-European more in general is the
genitive in - as recorded for the patronyms in a Philistine inscrip-
tion from Tell Gemme, dated to the 7th century BC, see Garbini
1997: 244.
476
Gitin 1993: 250-2, with note 37; cf. Merlo 1998.
477
For an overview, see Briquel 1984.
question it is relevant to note that Pelasgians colonizing the
north of Italy were confronted with Umbrians,
478
whereas
their colleagues preferring the south had to drive out
Auronissi (= variant form of Aurunci, a Latin indication of
Oscans).
479
Accordingly, the migration in question can
only be situated after the arrival of the Urnfield ancestors
of the Oscans and Umbrians in Italy at the end of the
Bronze Age (see section 10), which means in the course of
the Early Iron Age. In southern Etruria and Latium, the Pe-
lasgians are reported to have stumbled upon Sicels,
480
which is more problematic to situate in the Early Iron Age,
because the latter were already kicked out of this environ-
ment by the Umbrians and the Opicans (= Greek indication
of the Oscans) apparently at the turn of the Bronze Age to
the Early Iron Age.
481
Their presence in central Italy at the
arrival of the Pelasgians may therefore well be due to an
anachronism of our source, Dionysios of Halikarnassos,
basing himself on antiquarian relics.
482
As we have seen in the above, there is reason to be-
lieve that the Pelasgians in the Aegean region are actually
identical with the Tyrrhenians recorded for the same area.
This identification by and large holds good for their kins-
men in Italy as well, but not in every case. Thus, the Pe-
lasgian presence at Caere is clearly distinct from the
subsequent one of the Tyrrhenians, identified as Lydians.
At the time of the Pelasgians, the site is called Agylla.
When the Lydians attacked the site, so the story goes, one
of them asked how it is called. A Pelasgian, not under-
standing the question, saluted him in Greek: khaire. As a
consequence, the Lydians believed the site to be called like

478
Justinus, Epitoma historiarum philippicarum Pompei Trogi
XX, 1, 11 (Spina); Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman Antiquities
I, 20, 4 (Cortona); II, 49, 1 (ager Reatinus).
479
Dionysios of Halikarnasso, Roman Antiquities I, 21, 3.
480
Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman Antiquities I, 20, 4-5; cf.
Briquel 1984: 175, note 31 (Caere); 298-9 (Pisa, Saturnia, Al-
sium); Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman Antiquities I, 21; cf.
Briquel 1984: 351-2 (ager Faliscus); Briquel 1984: 361, note 14
(various locations in Latium).
481
Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman Antiquities I, 22, 4-5.
482
Cf. Briquel 1984: 300-1. Note in this connection the Sicel na-
ture ascribed to Saturnus at Cutiliae in the text of an oracle once
given to the Pelasgians about their future homeland and recorded
on a tripod from their sanctuary at Dodona (Dionysios of Halikar-
nassos, Roman Antiquities I, 19), whereas, as we have seen in note
478 above, the population of the ager Reatinus, to which Cutiliae
belongs, in effect consisted of Umbrians at the time of its actual
colonization by Pelasgians.
105
this and rebaptized it Caere.
483
Similarly, the Arkadians at
Rome headed by Evander, who are likely to be identified
with the Pelasgians reported for the same site,
484
are
clearly distinct from the Tyrrhenians to the north at the
time of the arrival of Aeneas and his Trojan companions
(see section 11). As a final example of relevance here, it
may be put forward that the Pelasgians at Pisa, called Teu-
tones, Teutoni or Teutae, are considered to be Greek
speaking, whereas at a later time the dominant language
here became Lydian.
485
If we realize that the name of the leader of the Pelas-
gians at Rome, Evander, constitutes a Greek formation, be-
ing a compound of eu good with aner (G andros) man,
the distinctive feature of these Pelasgian groups as opposed
to the Tyrrhenians appears to be their Greek or Greek-like
language. In the present section, however, we have experi-
enced that language is not a defining criterium for Pelas-
gians in the Aegean during the Late Bronze Age, as they
may speak either Greek-like Thraco-Phrygian when in an
European environment or Luwian when in an Anatolian
environment, or even Semitic as a secondary language
when in a Cretan environment to keep up with the interna-
tional standards of the time. As such, the distinction be-
tween Pelasgians and Tyrrhenians in the given Italian
situations results from secondary interference by later his-
torians. Nevertheless, it allows us to assume that the home-
land of some Pelasgians must be sought in those sections
of the Aegean where Greek or Greek-like Thraco-Phrygian
was spoken at the time of departure, whereas that of others
in sections of the Aegean where Luwian or Luwian-like
then predominated. Finally, it deserves our attention that
the Greek-like language of some of the Pelasgians in Italy
for the presence of the roots *h
2
ner- man, strength, *sal-
or *seh
2
l- salt (as in the TN Alsium), and *teut- soci-
ety, folk, people may further underline its overall Indo-
European nature.

483
Strabo, Geography V, 2, 3.
484
Eustathius in his commentary on Dionysios Periegetes 347; cf.
Briquel 1984: 456, esp. note 83. Note that according to Strabo,
Geography V, 2, 4 an Arkadian origin is already attributed to the
Pelasgians by Hesiodos.
485
Briquel 1984: 304-5.
Additional note 2: The inventor of
the trumpet: Tyrrhenian, Pelas-
gian, or Lydian?
In his Geography, Strabo informs us about Regisvilla the
harbor of Vulci that it once used to be the seat of the pal-
ace of Maleos, a Pelasgian king. After having reigned here,
this king is said to have moved with his Pelasgian follow-
ing to Athens.
486
In line with the latter reference, it is in-
teresting to note that a Tyrrhenian Maleos or Maleotes is
actually recorded for Attica in connection with the feast of
Aiora.
487
Now, the Tyrrhenians who once lived with the
Athenians were notorious for their piracy,
488
and it hence
comes as no surprise that an excellent site for piratical
raids like cape Malea is reported to have been named after
their leader Maleos. This very same Maleos, then, is also
credited with the invention of the trumpet a handy in-
strument for the coordination of military and/or piratical
action.
489
(The dedication of a stone in the harbor of Phais-
tos to Poseidon is also ascribed to a certain Maleos, but we
do not know whether this refers to one and the same per-
son.
490
Note in this connection that in form of Marewa or
Marewo (genitive) or Mareu the name in question is al-
ready attested for Linear B inscriptions from Malia and Py-
los, respectively.
491
)
The invention of the trumpet, however, is not only as-
cribed to the Pelasgian or Tyrrhenian Maleos, but also to
the Tyrrhenian Pisaios
492
or Tyrrhenos or his son which
evidently keeps us in the sphere of influence of the Tyr-
rheno-Pelasgians
493
or the Lydian Melas, a son of
Herakles and Omphale.
494
The latter name cannot be dis-

486
Strabo, Geography V, 2, 8.
487
Hesykhios, s.v. Aira; Etymologicum Magnum, s.v. Aletis; cf.
Briquel 1984: 264-5.
488
Hesykhios, s.v. Tyrrhenoi desmoi and desmoi Tyrrhenikoi; cf.
Mller & Deecke 1877, I: 79, note 31.
489
Scholiast ad Statius, Thebaid IV, 224; VII, 16; VI, 382; cf.
Briquel 1984: 266.
490
Soudas, s.v. Maleos; cf. Briquel 1984: 266.
491
Best 1996-7: 123 (who less likely connects Mareus, etc.).
492
Photios, s.v. leistosalpigktas; cf. Briquel 1991: 365, note 92.
493
Hyginus, Fabulae 274; Pausanias, Guide to Greece II, 21, 3;
cf. Briquel 1991: 322.
494
Scholiast ad Homeros, Iliad XVIII, 219; cf. Briquel 1991: 332,
note 53.
106
sociated from that of Meles, a predecessor of the Lydian
king Kandaules (= the one murdered by the first ruler of
the Mermnads, Gyges) who ruled in the second half of the
8th century BC.
495
The Lydian nature of this name is fur-
ther emphasized by the attestation in an epichoric Lydian
inscription of Me
1
l
l
ali-, an adjectival derivative in -li- of
Me
1
l
1
as.
496
Given the relationship of the name Maleos to Lydian
Melas or Meles, the Tyrrheno-Pelasgian and Lydian tradi-
tions about the inventor of the trumpet appear to be not
competitive in nature, but mere variants of one and the
same story. Evidently, this story must be assigned to the
period in which Lydia was not yet a landlocked power, as
in the time of the reign of king Kroisos (559-547 BC),
497
but still actively involved in maritime trade with the Pon-
tic region as indicated by the Lydian supremacy over Aby-
dos and Daskyleion in the northern Troad recorded for the
reign of Gyges (687-649 BC),
498
and with on the one hand
Al Mina in North Syria in the southeast (via Smyrna) and
on the other hand the island of Pithecussae in the south-
west as indicated by archaeological and epigraphical evi-
dence from the late 8th century BC.
499
Anyhow, whatever the merits of the Tyrrheno-
Pelasgian or Lydian claims, one thing seems clear, namely
that the priority of the use of the trompet lies with the
Egyptians, as in the reliefs of Medinet Habu we see an
Egyptian trompeteer coordinating the movements of a con-
tingent of foreign (in casu Sherden and other Sea Peoples)
mercenaries (see Fig. 22b)!

495
Radet 1892: 76-9; Pedley 1972: 14; cf. Briquel 1984: 267;
Briquel 1991: 332-3.
496
Gusmani 1964, s.v.; cf. Briquel 1991: 333, note 58. According
to Gusmani, loc. cit., Lydian Me
1
l
1
as (and hence the related Tyrr-
heno-Pelasgian Maleos or Meleos [Briquel 1984: 268]) derives
from Luwian Mala- as in Malazitis, see Laroche 1966, s.v.
497
Herodotos, Histories I, 27; cf. Briquel 1991: 85.
498
Strabo, Geography 22, 1; Pedley 1972: 19; Briquel 1991: 82-3
and note 285.
499
Woudhuizen 1982-3: 99-100, Fig. 7a-c (distinct type of mean-
der); Woudhuizen 1992a: 155-7, Fig. 2 (inscription mi Maion).
107
13. TEUKROI, AKAMAS, AND TROJAN GREY WARE
The Tjeker of the Egyptian sources, who are mentioned
among the Sea Peoples attacking Egypt in the fifth and
eighth year of Ramesses III (= 1179 and 1176 BC), and are
later recorded in the Wen Amon story (1076-1074 BC) as
inhabitants of the region of Dor in the Levant, have been
identified with the Teukroi of Greek literary tradition by
Lauth in 1867.
500
This identification was subsequently
taken over by Franois Chabas,
501
and after him, the ma-
jority of the authors on the topic.
502
As a minority view,
however, it has been proposed by H.R. Hall to identify the
Tjeker rather with the Sikeloi of Greek literary tradition.
503
The latter view received new impetus by Elmar Edels ar-
gument that Egyptian [t] as a rule corresponds with the
Hebrew samekh.
504
However, a serious disadvantage of
the latter line of approach is that the Shekelesh would re-
main without proper identification. Moreover, the equation
of Tjeker with the Teukroi receives further emphasis from
archaeological as well as historical evidence (see below),
whereas the one with the Sikeloi does not, for which rea-
son in the following we will stick to the majority view.
The Teukroi and their heros eponym Teukros are
definitely at home in the Troad. According to Herodotos,
remnants of the ancient Teukroi are, under the name of
Gergithai, still traceable for the Troad at the beginning of
the 5th century BC.
505
A problem is posed, however, by
the fact that the Teukroi are not straightforwardly associ-
ated with the Troad in our Late Bronze Age sources.
Thus,
506
in the Egyptian list of the Hittite allies at the bat-
tle of Kadesh (1274 BC) troops from the region of the
Troad are referred to as Drdny Dardanians. It is, of

500
Wainwright 1961: 75.
501
Chabas 1872: 296.
502
Hall 1901-2: 184; von Lichtenberg 1911: 18; Wainwright
1961: 75; Barnett 1969: 19; Albright 1975: 508; Strobel 1976: 54;
Mgalomitis 1991: 811; Redford 1992: 252; cf. Gardiner 1947:
199-200 (undecided).
503
Hall 1922: 301; cf. Gardiner 1947: 199-200 (undecided).
504
Edel 1984; cf. Lehmann 1985: 34-5 (critical, but undecided).
Edels view is now backed up by Drews 2000: 178-80, who here-
with withdraws his earlier (1993: 52, note 13) objection.
505
Herodotos, Histories V, 122; VII, 43.
506
Barnett 1969: 4.
course, possible that, like in the case of the Mycenaean
Greeks being called Tanayu Danaoi by the Egyptians but
A iyawa Akhaians by the Hittites, the Egyptians pre-
ferred a different ethnonym from the Hittites, but because
of the silence in the Hittite sources on this point we do not
know for sure. What the Hittite sources do tell us is that in
the reign of the Hittite great king Muwatallis II (1295-1271
BC) the region of Wilusa (= Greek Ilion) is reigned by a
certain Alaksandus, whose name recalls the Homeric Alex-
andros alias Paris.
507
Now, in Herodotos version of the
story of the abduction of Helena, according to which an
unfavorable wind brings Paris and his company to Egypt,
Paris is called of Teukrian birth.
508
In this manner, then, a
direct link between Alaksandus of Wilusa from the Hittite
sources and the Teukroi from the Greek ones can be estab-
lished.
As far as the ultimate origins of the Teukroi are con-
cerned, there are three different versions of myth. In the
first place, we have the autochthonous version according to
which the heros eponym Teukros is the son of the river-
god Skamandros and a nymph of mount Ida; in this version
his daughter Bateia married with Dardanos, the heros epo-
nym of the Dardanians as we have seen the Egyptian de-
nomination of the inhabitants of the Troad.
509
Secondly,
we have the Cretan version which holds that the Teukroi
were colonists from Crete who settled in Hamaxitos
510
and
introduced the cult of the goddess Kybele.
511
In archaeo-
logical terms, this version of the myth might be linked up
with the radiation of Minoan influence to nearby
Samothrace as deducible from the discovery of Cretan hi-
eroglyphic sealings of the libation formula-type, dated to
the end of Middle Minoan II or to Middle Minoan III,
512
and even to Troy itself in form of Linear A inscriptions

507
Gurney 1990: 46.
508
Herodotos, Histories II, 114.
509
Apollodoros, Library III, 12, 1; Diodoros of Sicily, Library of
History IV, 75, 1; cf. Strobel 1976: 50.
510
Strabo, Geography XIII, 1, 48; Strobel 1976: 50-1.
511
Vergilius, Aeneid III, 104 ff.; Vrtheim 1913: 4-8; Strobel
1976: 50.
512
Olivier & Godart 1996: 30 (# 135-7); cf. Matsas 1991: 168.
108
found here.
513
It is interesting to note in this connection
that Phrygian Kybele is attested in Luwian form Kupapa
for a magic spell to conjure the Asiatic pox in the language
of the Keftiu (= Cretans) as preserved in an Egyptian
medical papyrus presumably from the reign of Amenhotep
III (1390-1352 BC) or one of his forerunners.
514
Thirdly,
there is the Athenian version according to which Teukros
ultimately originates from the Attic deme Xytep
515
or is
staged as the son of Telamon, king of Salamis in
Greece.
516
As duly noted by Einar Gjerstad, this last men-
tioned form of the myth may have received emphasis from
the Athenian policy vis--vis Cyprus in the 5th century
BC.
517
At any rate, from an archaeological point of view
the mythical relation between the Troad and southern
Greece might be reflected in the formal resemblance of the
so-called Minyan ware, characteristic of mainland Greece
for the Early Helladic III and Middle Helladic periods,
with Trojan grey ware (from the beginning of Troy VI on-
wards)
518
a relation which in fact is so close that numer-
ous archaeologists used the term Minyan ware for the latter
as well.
519
This would lead us to the assumption that the
inhabitants of the Troad from c. 1800 BC onwards are
kinsmen of the Thraco-Phrygian population groups of
Middle Helladic Greece a thesis materialized to some ex-
tent by Leonid Gindin.
520
Note in this connection that in

513
Godart 1994; Faure 1996.
514
Woudhuizen 1992a: 1-10; see also appendix III below.
515
Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman Antiquities I, 61; Strabo,
Geography XIII, 1, 48; Vrtheim 1913: 8-11; Strobel 1976: 50.
516
Euripides, Helen 87-8.
517
Gjerstad 1944: 119; cf. Strobel 1976: 52.
518
Blegen 1963: 111 who attributes the introduction of grey Mi-
nyan to the arrival of a new population.
519
Heuck Allen 1994: 39 with reference, amongst others, to
Schliemann, Blegen, Caskey.
520
Gindin 1999: 57-8 (Skaiai gates); 62-4 (Kebriones); 263
(Laomedn ho Phrux, and his wife Strum), to which may be ad-
ded the Thracian nature of the personal name Paris, cf. Detschew
1976, s.v., and the Phrygian descent of Priamos wife Hekabe
(Iliad XVI, 718). Note that the analysis of Priamos < Luwian Pa-
riya-muwas by Watkins 1986: 54 is dubious and that the first ele-
ment of this personal name is rather linked up with that of local
place names like Priapos, Priene and Phrygian Prietas as stipula-
ted by Kullmann 1999: 197 and Neumann 1999: 16, note 3, and/or
the root of the New Phrygian vocabulary word prieis carae as
per Haas 1966: 225, the latter from the PIE root *priy-
(be)love(d), cf. Mayrhofer 1974: 18-9.
section 7 above on the ethnogenesis of the Greeks we have
seen reason for Thraco-Phrygian population groups of
Middle Helladic Greece who wanted to stay free to seek
new homes among their kinsmen to the north and northeast
as a result of the arrival of foreign conquerors from the be-
ginning of Late Helladic I (c. 1600 BC) onwards.
521
Which of these three scenarios applies, cannot be deter-
mined in the present state of the evidence. Therefore, it
may suffice for our present purposes to observe that ac-
cording to Greek literary sources Teukroi is the oldest
designation of the population of the Troad, followed by
Dardanians (after Dardanos) and Trojans (after
Tros).
522
The literary tradition on Teukros also contains a num-
ber of what appear to be dim reflections of the Tjekers
partaking in the upheavals of the Sea Peoples. Thus, it is
related that Teukros, after the sack of Troy and the ban-
ishment from Salamis in Greece by his father Telamon,
visited Egypt where he received an oracle about his ulti-
mate destination, Salamis in Cyprus.
523
Next, the story
goes that Teukros visited Sidon on his way to Cyprus and
received help from its king Belos (< Semitic Baal lord)
in the colonization of Salamis.
524
Finally, tradition has it
that Teukros takes Gergines from the Troad and Mysia
with him as prisoners of war during the colonization of Sa-
lamis in Cyprus.
525
Considering the fact that Gergines is
an ancient form of Gergithae,
526
under which name, as we

521
The expansion of the Mycenaean civilization to the north and
northeast coincides with population pressure in the direction of
northwest Anatolia. Thus, according to Homeros, Iliad III, 184-7,
Phrygian forces originating from the European continent had
already mustered along the banks of the Sangarios about a genera-
tion before the Trojan war (c. 1280 BC). Furthermore, the Kas-
kans, who are characterized by a Thracian type of onomastics (see
Woudhuizen 1993b: passim), became a growing threat to the Hitti-
tes from the beginning of the Middle Kingdom period (= early in
the 15th century BC), onwards, see von Schuler 1965: 27. Finally,
Phrygian penetration into the province of Azzi-Hayasa to the
northeast of the Hittite capital Bogazky/Hattusa in the times of
Tudalias II (1390-1370 BC) and Arnuwandas I (1370-1355 BC)
is personified by Mita of Pauwa, see section 7, esp. note 146,
above.
522
Diodorus Siculus, Library of History IV, 75, 1; cf. Apollodo-
ros, Library III, 12, 1.
523
Euripides, Helen 87 ff.
524
Vergilius, Aeneid I, 619 ff.
525
Athenaios, Deipnosophistai VI, 68, 256b.
526
Athenaios, Deipnosophistai VI, 68, 256c.
109
have seen, the Teukroi were living in the Troad at the be-
ginning of the 5th century BC, their being taken as prison-
ers of war probably results from a rationalization which
tries to cope with the situation that Teukros, although be-
ing at home in the Troad, fights on the Greek side in the Il-
iad.
Like the Philistines and Danaoi, a part of the Teukroi
evidently founded themselves new homes in the coastal
zone of the Levant. At least, in the Wen Amon story from
the first half of the 11th century BC, we are confronted
with Tjeker settled at Dor. According to Wen Amons
vivid testimony, they still were a maritime force to reckon
with at that time, since eleven Tjeker ships were blocking
his way from the harbor of Byblos when, having accom-
plished his mission, he wanted to return to Egypt.
527
The maritime adventures of the Teukroi presumably
dating to the period of the upheavals of the Sea Peoples
call to mind the career of the Trojan hero Akamas as re-
corded in Cypro-Minoan texts from Enkomi and Ras
Shamra/Ugarit dated to the final phase of the Late Bronze
Age.
528
Here we encounter Akamas at first in Linear C
texts as a representative of what appears to be the Trojan
town Malos (between Palaescepsis and Achaeium, oppo-
site the island of Tenedos) and of Ephesos engaged in
maritime trade, receiving goods at Enkomi
529
and deliver-
ing goods at Ras Shamra/Ugarit.
530
Next, he turns up in
the more evolved Linear D texts as Akamu Ilu the Ilian
Akamas
531
and Akamu Eleki nukar -ura Akamas of
Ilion, the great enemy, who in the latter instance is re-
corded to have defeated (tupata he smote) the principal

527
Pritchard 1969: 25-9; see section 5 above.
528
Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 108; 116-7; Best & Woudhuizen
1989: 53-4; 59; 62; 64.
529
Cylinder seal Inv no. 19.10, see Woudhuizen 1992a: 110 ff.;
115, lines 15-7; cf. section 5 above. Like that of Alexandros (<
Greek alex to ward off, protect and aner man), the name of
Akamas is of Greek type, being derived from Greek akamas unti-
ring, see LSJ, s.v. This cannot be attributed to poetic license of
Homeros, as these names, next to in the Homeric epics, appear in
contemporary texts. Apparently, therefore, representatives of the
Trojan nobility had intermarried with Greek colleagues as early as
the Late Bronze Age be it on a voluntary basis or involuntarily
as examplified by Alexandros/Paris rape of Helena.
530
Tablet RS 20.25, see Woudhuizen 1994: 519; 530, lines 1-2;
15; cf. section 5 above. For Malos in the Troad, see Cramer 1971:
88. In line with a suggestion by Jan Best, the element ati in atipini
is interpreted as a reflex of PIE *ti and as represented in Greek
eti, Phrygian eti- and Latin et, see Frisk 1973, s.v., as well as Cel-
tic eti, see Delamarre 2003, s.v.
531
Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 104 (Tablet Inv. no. 1193, line 3).
of the text (-mu me) in what from the context appears to
be a naval battle.
532
This last mentioned passage strikingly
correlates to the information from the correspondence be-
tween the king of Ugarit and his superior, the king of Cy-
prus-Alasiya, as unearthed in Ras Shamra/Ugarit,
according to which the Ugaritic fleet is stationed in the
coastal region of Lycia, but enemy ships nonetheless have
broken through the defense line and are now threatening
the coasts of the eastern Mediterranean.
533
Anyhow, it is
clear that Akamas from Ilion in the course of events had
grasped the opportunity and turned his maritime profession
from trader into raider a common change in the history
of Mediterranean shipping.
534
The expansion of the Trojans, first by means of trade
to Cyprus and Ras Shamra/Ugarit, and subsequently by ac-
tual colonization to Cyprus, again, and the Levant, is
archaeologically traceable in the distribution of Trojan
grey ware not a widely desired export product, but evi-
dence of real presence of Trojan traders and/or settlers.
This ware is found in concentrations on Cyprus, especially
at Kition and Hala Sultan Tekke, in Ras Shamra/Ugarit,
and Tell Abu Hawam (= Haifa) in the neighborhood of the
Tjeker town Dor, in a variety dated to the late 13th or early
12th century BC (see Fig. 21).
535
The impetus for the Tro-
jans to find new homes abroad is formed by the invasion of
their territory by new settlers from the European continent,
causing the destruction of Troy VIIa (c. 1180 BC)
536
and
the subsequent (in Troy VIIb1-2) introduction of buckle
ceramic.
537
Unfortunately, the Tjeker town Dor is not well
excavated: at least it seems clear that the site was de-
stroyed in the Late Bronze Age and subsequently charac-
terized by Philistine ware.
538
As opposed to this, the
nearby Tell Abu Hawam has been better explored and
shows, next to a destruction layer at

532
Best & woudhuizen 1988: 105 (Tablet Inv. no. 1687, line 15);
cf. section 5 above.
533
Hoftijzer & van Soldt 1998: 343-4, RS L 1, RS 20.238, and
RS 20.18; cf. section 5 above.
534
Ormerod 1924; cf. Woudhuizen 1992a: 117-8.
535
Buchholz 1973: 179-84; Heuck Allen 1994: 42.
536
For the twofold destruction of Troy, first at the end of VIh (c.
1280 BC) by the Mycenaean Greeks and then in the time of the
upheavals of the Sea Peoples at the end of VIIa (c. 1180 BC), see
Schachermeyr 1980: 460 ; Schachermeyr 1982 : 106.
537
Rutter 1975, who likewise attributes the presence of this ware
in southern Greece at the beginning of Late Helladic IIIC to Bal-
kan invaders.
538
Dothan 1982: 69.
110
Fig. 21. Distribution of Trojan grey ware (from Heuck Allen 1994).
the end of the Late Bronze Age, some, no doubt sub-
sequent, Late Helladic IIIC1b ware the hallmark of the
settlement of Sea Peoples.
539
If I understand Susan Heuck
Allen correctly in that the Trojan grey ware arrived in Tell
Abu Hawam already before the aforesaid destruction
layer,
540
the Trojans

539
Sandars 1980: 161; 165.
540
Heuck Allen 1994: 40; and note 8: Trojan grey ware is not
found in association with Late Helladic IIIC1b.
evidently prospected the site in the period of their
trade connections with the Levant and hence very well
knew where to go to find themselves a better place to stay!
111
14. THE CENTRAL MEDITERRANEAN CONTRIBUTION
Sherden
The Sherden
541
are first mentioned in the correspondence
of the king of Byblos, Rib-addi, with the Egyptian phar-
aoh, presumably Akhenaten (1352-1336 BC), as preserved
for the El-Amarna archive. Thus a Shirdan-man is staged
in the context of a futile assault on Rib-addi, possibly as
the latters body-guard.
542
Furthermore, Rib-addi com-
plains that people of Sutu a contigent of mercenaries of
the Egyptian pharaoh have killed men of Sherdan.
543
The use of Sherden for their fighting skill in the Levant
can be further illustrated by texts from Ras Shamra/Ugarit,
roughly dated to the 14th or 13th century BC, where in al-
phabetic form t rtnm they occur in the context of t nnm
hand-to-hand fighters or skirmishers, mrjnm chariot
fighters and mdrglm guardians.
544
Interesting detail is
that when specified by name, as in case of Amar-Addu, son
of Mutbaal, the Sherden can be shown to be fully accul-
turated to their new Semitic milieu.
545
After the El-Amarna interlude, the Sherden appear as
seaborne raiders of Egyptian territory in the reign of
Ramesses II (1279-1213 BC), who in the Tanis stele
speaks of the rebellious-hearted Sherden in their war-
ships from the midst of the sea, none [being] able to
stand before them.
546
This information coincides with the
text of a stele from Assuwan, dated to the second year of
Ramesses II (= 1277 BC), in which the pharaoh claims to
have destroyed warriors of the Great Green (= the Medi-
terranean sea) so that Lower Egypt spends the night
sleeping (peacefully).
547
As it seems, then, Ramesses II
had to deal with piratical raids by the Sherden early in his
reign. Having defeated them, he next enlisted the survivors

541
Gardiner 1947: 194-7; Strobel 1976: 190-4; Lehmann 1979:
485; 488; 493-4, note 49; Lehmann 1983: 80-5; Drews 1993a:
152-5.
542
Moran 1992: 150 (EA 81: 16); Mercer 1939: EA no. 81.
543
Moran 1992: 201-2 (EA 122: 35; 123: 15); Mercer 1939: EA
nos. 122-3.
544
Loretz 1995: 128-32; cf. Drews 1993a: 155 (RS 15.103).
545
Drews 1993a: 155.
546
Gardiner 1961: 259; Drews 1993a: 153; cf. Breasted 1927:
Vol. IV, no. 491.
547
Gardiner 1947: 195.
as mercenaries in his army, for in the memorial of the bat-
tle of Kadesh, which took place in the fifth year of his
reign (= 1274 BC), Ramesses II reports that a contingent of
Sherden fought on his side (His Majesty had made ready
his infantry and his chariotry, and the Sherden of His Maj-
estys capturing whom he had brought back by victory of
his strong arm).
548
On the basis of close scrutiny of the
Egyptian reliefs from the reigns of Ramesses II to
Ramesses III, Robert Drews attributed the introduction in
the orient of innovations in infantry warfare, like the round
shield, the javelins, and the long slashing sword, which,
when deployed in sufficient numbers, could outmatch the
up to that moment unchallenged chariotry, to the Sherden,
identifiable as such by their characteristic horned helmet
(see Fig. 22).
549
(a)
(b)
Fig. 22. Sherden in the Egyptian reliefs from the reigns of
Ramesses II and Ramesses III with (a) long slashing swords and
round shields, and (b) javelins (from Sandars 1980: 29, afb. 12 and
32, afb. 14).

548
Gardiner 1960: P25-30; Drews 1993a: 131; cf. Breasted 1927:
Vol. III, no. 307.
549
Drews 1993: 178-9; 184 (with reference to Sandars 1980: 32,
afb. 14); 199 (with reference to Sandars 1980: 29, afb. 12).
112
The story continues with the Sherden fighting, like
the Shekelesh, Ekwesh, Lukka, and Teresh, as allies or
mercenaries on the side of the Libyans, who, under the
leadership of their king Meryey, made an attempt to invade
the Egyptian delta in order to settle there in the fifth year
of the reign of Merneptah (= 1208 BC).
550
Subsequently,
in the memorial of the invasion of the Sea Peoples in year
eight of Ramesses III (= 1176 BC) at Medinet Habu, we
encounter the Sherden both as attackers and as mercenaries
on the Egyptian side.
551
The service of Sherden in the
Egyptian army can be shown to continue into the reign of
Ramesses V (1147-1143 BC), when members of this ethnic
group are staged as proprietors of land granted to them by
the pharaoh. As in the case of their kinsmen in the Levant,
the Sherden in Egypt by then had acculturated to the extent
that they all bore Egyptian names.
552
The final mention of Sherden in the Near East is pro-
vided by the Onomasticon of Amenope, which reflects the
political situation in the 11th century BC. Here the Sher-
den occur in an enumeration followed by the Tjeker and
Peleset. From this enumeration one has deduced that there
were Sherden living to the north of the Tjeker at Dor and
the Peleset in their Philistine pentapolis at the time, in a lo-
cation plausibly identified with Akko.
553
In archaeological
terms, their settlement here may well be reflected in Late
Helladic IIIC1b pottery
554
as we have noted before, the
hallmark of settlement of Sea Peoples in the Levant.
Having reviewed the history of Sherden in the Near
East, the question remains to be answered: where did they
come from? As we have seen, the Egyptian sources inform
us that they came overseas. Now, two propositions have
been put forward as to the origin of the Sherden: the island
of Sardinia in the central Mediterranean and the region of
Sardis in western Anatolia. The first option was proposed
by Emmanuel de Roug already in 1867.
555
Some years
later, in 1873, his view was challenged by Gaston Mas-

550
Breasted 1927: Vol. III, no. 574; Drews 1993a: 49.
551
Strobel 1976: 18; Sandars 1980: 106-7, afb. 68. For their pre-
sence on the Egyptian side, see Helck 1971: 226, note 10, and
Drews 1993a: 153 citing from Edgerton & Wilson 1936: plate 29.
552
Gardiner 1947: 195; for a full survey of the references to
Sherden in Egyptian texts, see Kahl 1995.
553
Moshe Dothan 1986; Bikai 1992: 133.
554
Bietak 1993: 297-8.
555
De Roug 1867: 39.
pero. The latter argued that, on the analogy of the fact that
the original homeland of the Tyrsenians is traced back to
Lydia by ancient authors, the Sherden are more likely to
originate from western Anatolia as well, where the name of
the capital of the Lydians, Sardis, and related toponyms
like mount Sardena and the Sardanion plain and an eth-
nonym like Sardonians would be reminiscent of their pres-
ence.
556
Accordingly, the Sherden were considered to be
on their way from their original home in Lydia to their
later home in Sardinia at the time of the upheavals of the
Sea Peoples.
557
The revised view of Maspero has been par-
ticularly influential. Thus a cautious scholar like the Egyp-
tologist Alan Gardiner concluded: Provisionally it seems
plausible to accept the identification of the name Sherden
with that of Sardinia, and the identification of the name
Tursha with that of the Tyrsnoi, but to regard Sardinia
and Etruria as much later homes of the peoples in ques-
tion.
558
Similarly, Margaret Guido in her book on Sar-
dinia, after weighing the pros and cons, is inclined to an
eastern origin of the Sherden.
559
As we have seen in sec-
tion 10 above, there is considerable evidence that Mas-
peros eastern origin of the Tyrsenians is correct. In the
case of the Sherden, however, the literary evidence from
ancient authors to back up their eastern origin is absent:
here Masperos thesis rests upon nothing more than a like-
ness in names, which might be spurious. It comes as no
surprise, therefore, that de Rougs identification of the
Sherden as Sardinians can still count on some supporters
up to the present day, like Richard D. Barnett in his contri-
bution to the third edition of the Cambridge Ancient His-
tory
560
and Drews in his book on the end of the Bronze
Age.
561
As it comes to the actual facts, it must be admitted
that these are meagre, indeed. The often referred to men-
tion of rdn Sardinia in a Phoenician inscription on a
stele from Nora, dated to the 9th century BC, can only
provide us with a terminus a quo for the name of the is-

556
Maspero 1873: 84-6; Maspero 1875: 195; Maspero 1910: 360,
note 2; cf. Burn 1930: 12-3; Gardiner 1947: 197-8; Redford 1992:
243, note 13; 246.
557
Hall 1926: 282.
558
Gardiner 1947: 198.
559
Guido 1963: 187-91.
560
Barnett 1969: 12.
561
Drews 1993a: 53-61; 70-2.
113
land.
562
More revealing is the archaeological evidence pre-
sented by Roger Grosjean. He drew our attention to simi-
larities of the depictions of Sherden at Medinet with statue-
menhirs from southern Corsica,
563
depicting so-called
Torre-builders, who are identical with the Nuraghe-
builders from Sardinia.
564
These entail: (1) the helmet with
horns, the latter element of which can be reconstructed for
some statue-menhirs on the basis of shallow holes once
holding another material;
565
(2) the corselet with five rib-
bons;
566
and (3) the long sword (see Fig. 23).
567
(a)
(b)
Fig. 23. Statue-menhirs from Corsica: (a) Cauria (with horns re-
constructed on the helmets), (b) Scalsa Murta (from Grosjean
1966b, Fig. 5; Sandars 1980: 99, afb. 60).
The statue-menhirs in question are assigned on the

562
Donner & Rllig 1964: 63, nr. 46; cf. Dupont Sommer 1948 &
1974.
563
Grosjean 1966a: 70-1.
564
Grosjean 1966b: 194.
565
Grosjean 1966a: pls. 44-6.
566
Grosjean 1966a: pl. 46.
567
Grosjean 1966a: pls. 35-6; 40-1.
basis of C
14
datings to the period between 1400 and 1000
BC, with a margin of error of 200 years.
568
They give the
impression of a society of which the members are proud of
their martial qualities and hence excellently fit for service
as mercenaries, in which capacity we encountered the
Sherden in the Egyptian and Levantine sources.
Remaining archaeological evidence is of a circum-
stantial nature. As shown by Birgitta Plsson Hallager,
contacts between Sardinia and the eastern Mediterranean,
especially Crete, can be detected for the later Bronze Age
in the form of Mycenaean IIIB and C (including Late Hel-
ladic IIIC1b) material discovered foremostly in the nur-
aghe Antigori in the south of Sardinia,
569
and, as later
distinguished by Joseph Shaw, Italian or Sardinian pottery
from Late Minoan IIIA2-B contexts unearthed in Kommos,
a harbor town in southern Crete.
570
Particularly tantalizing
are the oxhide ingots with Cypro-Minoan signs from the
nuraghi Serra Ilixi and SantAntioco in Sardinia, which are
variously dated between the 15th and 11th century BC.
571
According to Guido, one of such Sardinian type of oxhide
ingot was found in Crete, where, in her words, it may be-
long to the thirteenth-twelfth centuries BC.
572
As it seems,
then, Sardinia was a source of raw materials (copper) for
the international market (the Cypro-Minoan signs have
only meaningful use as markers for the handling of the ox-
hide ingots in the eastern Mediterranean!).
573
Finally, it
deserves our attention that Sardinia constitutes a backward
area note in this connection that a Bronze Age culture
lingered into the Roman period ,
574
comparable to a third
world country in our present era, which is likely to provide
the more developed eastern Mediterranean with mercenar-
ies and raw materials.

568
Grosjean 1966a: 90; cf. Grosjean 1966b: 190 (from c. 1500
BC onwards).
569
Plsson Hallager 1985; Dothan & Dothan 1992: 214.
570
Shaw 1998: 15; cf. Vagnetti 2000: 317; 2001: 88 who is more
outspoken about the Sardinian nature of the dark burnished ware at
Kommos.
571
Guido 1963: 110; cf. Muhly, Maddin & Stech 1988: 283, who
consider the association of oxhide ingots with Mycenaean pottery
likely, even though it is not straightforwardly attested. Note, ho-
wever, that Buchholz 1999 : 222 variously dates the oxhide ingots
to the period of 1200 to 700 BC.
572
Guido 1963: 110-1; cf. Plsson Hallager 1985: 304.
573
So also Buchholz 1999 : 229.
574
Guido 1963: 156.
114
On the basis of the combined evidence from Corsica
and Sardinia, the one presenting the closest parallels for
Sherden as depicted in the Egyptian memorial at Medinet
Habu and the other furnishing evidence for contacts with
the eastern Mediterranean during the later Bronze Age, it
seems viable to conclude that the Sherden originated from
this part of the Central Mediterranean.
Shekelesh
575
The earliest attestation of the Shekelesh concerns their par-
taking as allies or mercenaries in the Lybian campaign
against Egypt as recorded for the fifth year of Merneptah
(= 1208 BC).
576
In the count of the dead bodies after the
battle, the Shekelesh together with the Ekwesh, Teresh,
and Sherden, and in contrast to the Peleset from the time of
Ramesses III , are specified as being circumcised.
577
Next, a representative of the Shekelesh turns up in
maritime trade as recorded by Cypro-Minoan cylinder
seals from Kalavassos (K-AD 389) and Enkomi (Inv. no.
19.10), which we have seen reason in section 8 above to
assign to the period of the Hittite domination of Cy-
prus/Alasiya during the reign of Suppiluliumas II (1205-
1180? BC).
578
The man in question, Sanemas, singles him-
self out as the author of the Kalavassos seal, and hence can
be shown to master the Luwian language.
This peaceful episode is followed by one of maritime
agression. A first indication of this is formed by a letter
from the destruction layer of Ras Shamra/Ugarit (RS
34.129), in which the Hittite great king, who must be iden-
tified as Suppiluliumas II, urgently requests information
about the ikaly who live in boats and about their
homeland ikila from a certain Lunadusu or Ibnadusu who
had been taken prisoner by them.
579
(Note in this connec-
tion that Sikalayu and Sikela are variant forms of Sheke-
lesh without the additional suffix -sh also attested for
Ekwesh and Weshesh,
580
and that we have seen reason not
to follow Elmar Edel in his proposal to identify Sikela with

575
Lehmann 1979: 492-4.
576
See note 551 above.
577
Widmer 1975: 71, note 23.
578
Woudhuizen 1992a: 94-145; Woudhuizen 1994: 524-6.
579
Dietrich & Loretz 1978; Hoftijzer & van Soldt 1998: 343.
580
Wainwright 1961: 72; see section 8, note 212 above.
Tjeker.)
581
Little later, we encounter the Shekelesh among
the Sea Peoples who invaded Egypt in the eighth year of
Ramesses III (= 1176 BC).
582
In the memorial for
Ramesses IIIs victory at Medinet Habu, the Shekelesh are
distinguished by a special headdress, the nach hinten ge-
bogene Mutze.
583
As to the origin of the Shekelesh, two suggestions
have been put forward. In the first place, de Roug pro-
posed to identify them as inhabitants of the island of Sic-
ily.
584
As opposed to this, Maspero rather connected the
name of the Shekelesh with the place name Sagalassos in
Pisidia a region in between the Hittite province
Taruntassa and the Lukka lands in southern Anatolia.
585
Like in the case of the Sherden, the Shekelesh were as-
sumed according to this view to be on their way from their
original home to their later home Sicily at the time of the
Sea Peoples. Masperos Anatolian thesis was enthousiasti-
cally received by H.R. Hall, who wrote: The next tribe,
the Shekelesha, are undoubtedly, as Maspero concluded
twenty years ago, the Sagalassians of Pisidia. () The
identification absolutely hits the nail on the head. () And
the Sagalassians are not too far off, as de Rougs Sicels
were.
586
It echoes on into recent literature, as in, for ex-
ample, Ronald Redfords monograph on Egypts relations
with the Levant.
587
The problem with Masperos Anatolian
thesis, however, is that, as we have seen above, the Hittite
great king Suppiluliumas II happens to be unacquainted
with the Sikalayu or Shekelesh, whereas, as we have seen
earlier (see section 8), he is in full control of western Asia
Minor. In other words: if the Shekelesh were Sagalassians,
the Hittite great king would have known them. Conse-
quently, it seems preferable to opt for de Rougs solution
and identify the Shekelesh with the inhabitants of Sicily in
the central Mediterranean.
Now, Sicily was in contact with the Mycenaean world
during the Late Bronze Age, as Mycenaean pottery has
been found in Sicilian sites. As argued by Plsson Hal-

581
Edel 1984; see section 13 above.
582
Pritchard 1969: 262-3; cf. Breasted 1927: Vol. IV, no. 64; Ed-
gerton & Wilson 1936: 53; Strobel 19 76: 14; Drews 1993: 51.
583
Widmer 1973: 73-4.
584
See note 555 above.
585
Maspero 1873: 84-6; Maspero 1910: 432, note 2.
586
Hall 1901-2: 181.
587
Redford 1992: 246.
115
lager, these contacts may have been especially close with
Crete in view of the amount of Minoan pottery discovered
in Thapsos. Vice versa, Khania, Knossos, and Kommos in
Crete have produced Italian (no distinction is made for Sic-
ily) ware during the later phase of the Late Bronze Age
(Late Minoan IIIA2-B for Kommos and Late Minoan IIIB-
C for Khania).
588
To this comes that the Sicilians are
known to the Homeric world (which, as we have seen in
section 2 above, mainly reflects Late Bronze Age politico-
historical conditions) as sturdy traders, specialized in the
slave trade.
589
In our literary sources, the Sicilians or Sicels are as-
sumed to have once inhabited the mainland of Italy, up to
Latium and southern Etruria, and to have crossed over to
Sicily either some time before the Trojan war
590
or 300
years before the arrival of the first Greeks, which means in
the 11th century BC.
591
They are specified to have been
driven out of their original habitat by either Umbrians (to-
gether with Pelasgians) or Opicans (= Greek indication of
the Oscans), who, as we have seen in section 10 and will
further elaborate below, both make their entrance in the
Italian peninsula from Urnfield Europe at the end of the
Bronze Age. Therefore, Minoan and Mycenaean ware
found in the Italian mainland may also be indicative of
contacts of the Aegean region with the Sicels, or vice
versa.
592
According to inscriptions from the Archaic pe-
riod, the language of the Sicels was closely related to
Oscan at the time.
593
Weshesh
The Weshesh figure only in the attack launched by the Sea

588
Plsson Hallager 1985; Shaw 1998: 15. For Cyprian material
at Thapsos, see van Wijngaarden 1999: 362, note 48; note that
Drews 1993a: 218, basing himself upon Ross Holloway 1981: 87,
identifies Thapsos during the 13th century BC as a Cyprian trading
post.
589
Homeros, Odyssey XX, 382-3.
590
Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman Antiquities I, 9; 16; 20 ff.
591
Thucydides, Peloponnesian War VI, 2, 5; cf. Dionysios of Ha-
likarnassos, Roman Antiquities I, 22, 5.
592
For the distribution of Mycenaean ware in Italy, see Buchholz
1999 : 83, Abb. 23.
593
Vetter 1953: 359-60, no. 514 (Centuripa vase, 5th century
BC): bratome; cf. Oscan brat or bratom (= Latin gratum pleasant,
grateful), see Pulgram 1978: 72-3; 151.
Peoples in the eighth year of Ramesses III (= 1176 BC).
594
According to a proposition by Franois Chabas, they have
been identified as Oscans.
595
In order to fully grasp the va-
lidity of this suggestion, it is important to note that the fi-
nal -sh of Weshesh constitutes a suffix, also present, as we
have seen, in Ekwesh (< Akhaia) and Shekelesh (< Sikela),
and that the root hence consists of Wesh-.
596
Furthermore,
in spite of its general derivation from earlier *Opsci,
597
the
root of the Italic ethnonym Oscans consists of Os- as ex-
amplified by its variant form Aus- or rhotacized Aur- in
Ausones or Aurunci, respectively. This root, then, is used
in combination with the typically Italic suffix for the for-
mation of ethnics, -ci (cf. Aurunci, Etrusci, Falisci, Graeci,
Umbrici, Volsci, etc.). Alternatively, inspired by Mas-
peros pan-Anatolianism with respect to the homeland of
the Sea Peoples, which led him to associate the ethnonym
Weshesh with the place name Wassos in Caria, it has been
suggested by Hall to compare the root of this same eth-
nonym to that of the place name Waksos in Crete.
598
The identification of the Weshesh with the Italic
Oscans can be bolstered by archaelogical evidence. As we
have seen in section 10 above, the Italic peninsula is char-
acterized at the end of the Late Bronze Age by a new ma-
terial culture called proto-Villanovan, which, as convinc-
ingly demonstrated by Hugh Hencken, shows close
affinities with Urnfield Europe and, as we have argued, is
likely to be introduced by the ancestors of the historical
Umbrians, Oscan, Latins, and Faliscans, whose languages
are most intimately related to Celtic and Germanic. Now,
as pointed out most recently by Shelley Wachsmann, the
fact that the boat(s) of the Sea Peoples as depicted in
Ramesses IIIs memorial at Medinet Habu is(/are) charac-
terized by bird-head devices at both the bow and the stern
constitutes a typical Urnfield feature.
599
As it seems, then,
there were bearers of the Urnfield culture among the Sea
Peoples, which conclusion only applies if we are right in

594
See note 582 above.
595
Chabas 1872: 299; cf. Reinach 1910: 36, note 3; Macalister
1913: 25.
596
See note 580 above.
597
As based on Greek Opikoi and Ennius Opscus.
598
Hall 1901-2: 184; cf. Reinach 1910: 36; Albright 1975: 508;
Redford 1992: 246.
599
Wachsmann 1998: 178; Wachsmann 2000: 122; cf. Kimmig
1964: 223-4, Abb. 1; de Boer 1991.
116
our identification of the Weshesh with the Italic Oscans.
The connection thus achieved with the developments
in Urnfield Europe at the time, also go a long way in pro-
viding us with a model to explain the resurrections of the
Sea Peoples. The invasion of Italy by bearers of the Urn-
field culture a true mass migration caused great disrup-
tion of peoples living in the area, as the displacement of
the Sicels living in Latium and southern Etruria mentioned
in the above, who in turn were forced to displace other
population groups in their search for new homes. More-
over, the finds of handmade barbarian ware either linked
up with Italy or Urnfield Europe in various locations of the
Aegean at the end of the Late Bronze Age
600
and the
growing popularity of the rite of cremation from that time
onwards,
601
suggest that some of the invaders, like we pos-
ited for the Oscans, made common cause with population
groups they displaced and went with them straight on to
the eastern Mediterranean, with which the original popula-
tion of Italy and the central Mediterranean islands, as we
have seen, had been in contact. This resulted in a domino-
effect. First, the region of Pylos in Greece was attacked
with devastating results, ultimately causing Akhaians to
join the eastern move and look for new homes in Cyprus
and the Cilician plain. Next, the Hittite fleet stationed
along the coast of Lycia to ward off the entrance of the Sea
Peoples from the Aegean into the eastern Mediterranean
waters was utterly defeated and the island of Cy-
prus/Alasiya, the southern Anatolian coast, and that of the
Levant lay undefended as an easy prey for looting and
plunder, and eventually settlement. Finally, as we know by
now, an attempt was made to invade the richest country in
the Near East, Egypt, with appetizing prospects for plunder
and settlement (see Fig. 24). Only this last stage in the up-
heavals of the Sea Peoples failed.
I am not suggesting that the foregoing model explains
everything. It is highly unlikely that the Sea Peoples are
responsible for, to name but two examples, the devasta-
tions in Thessaly and the fall of the Hittite capital Bogaz-
ky/Hattusa. The upheavals of the Sea Peoples ultimately
caused by the movement of bearers of the Urnfield culture
into Italy works as a catalyst to set in motion other devel-

600
Rutter 1975; Deger-Jalkotzy 1983; Vanschoonwinkel 1991:
233-42, carte 8; Popham 2001; for barbarian ware in Cyprus, see
Karageorghis 1986 and Pilides 1994; for further literature on the
topic, see Eder 1998, 20, esp. note 25.
601
Vanschoonwinkel 1991: 191-6, carte 7.
opments. Thus the devastations in Thessaly are likely to be
ascribed to warlike Balkan tribes bordering to the north of
the Mycenaean realm, always looking for an opportunity to
plunder their much richer neighbor. Furthermore, the sack-
ers of the Hittite capital Bogazky/Hattusa are likely to be
identified as Kaskans and Phrygians, who, when the
smoke-screen had disappeared, turned up in great numbers
along the Assyrian border at the time of Tiglathpileser I
(1115-1070 BC).
602
As an historical parallel for these de-
velopments one could point to the fact that when Diony-
sios I of Syracuse wanted to attack the Etruscans of Caere,
he made a common cause with the Celts in their hinterland,
who, just like the northern neigbors of the Greeks and the
Kaskans and Phrygians in Anatolia, were only waiting for
the opportunity to plunder the lands of their hated oppres-
sor.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 24. Distribution of Urnfield culture and the route of the Sea
Peoples; (a) c. 1180 BC; (b) 12th-10th century BC (after Kimmig
1964: 269-70, Abb. 17-8).

602
Lehmann 1970: 34; Diakonoff 1984: 123; see also section 7,
esp. note 147.
117
15. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Having reached the end of our quest into the vicissitudes of
the Sea Peoples, it seems worthwhile to summarize the re-
sults with respect to their ethnicity.
As far as the Lukka are concerned, there can be little
doubt that they originate from the lower Xanthos valley in
later Lycia. This area looks out onto the Mediterranean sea
in the south, but is otherwise separated from the surround-
ing regions by a spur of the formidable Taurus mountains.
From this geographical situation alone it seems permissible
to assume that the Lukka formed a close knit ethnic com-
munity. At any rate, this is the case with their Early Iron
Age descendants, who call themselves Termilai and write
in a distinct dialect of Luwian, the so-called Lycian A.
From an archaeological point of view, however, our infer-
ence about the ethnic coherence of the Lukka cannot be
backed up by a distinct material culture because archaeo-
logical data from the lower Xanthos valley are thus far
lacking for the Late Bronze Age period.
The Ekwesh and Denye(n) are alternative indications
for the Late Bronze Age Greeks, corresponding to Ho-
meric Akhaians and Danaoi. Of these indications, the one,
in form of Aiyawa, is preferred by the Hittites, while the
other, in form of Tanayu, is most of the time preferred by
the Egyptians. In archaeological terms, the ethnic coher-
ence of the Late Bronze Age Greeks is strongly indicated
by the so-called Mycenaean koine of Late Helladic IIIB a
cultural unity unparalleled for Greece until the Hellenistic
period. The latter archaeological culture cannot be dissoci-
ated from the records in Linear B, which are conducted in
a distinct Greek dialect most closely related to Arcado-
Cyprian of later date. That the Late Bronze Age Greeks in-
deed considered themselves as Akhaians may be further il-
lustrated by an episode in Herodotos Histories (V, 72),
according to which the Spartan king Kleomenes, being re-
fused entrance into the temple on the acropolis of Athens
by the priestess on the ground that he was considered a
Dorian, replied that he was not a Dorian, but an Akhaian
a point of view which tallies with the fact that the Dorians
from central Greece, when taking possession of the Pelo-
ponnesos at the end of the Submycenaean and beginning of
the Protogeometric periods, are led by Heraklid kings with
a legitimate claim on the Mycenaean throne as descendants
of Perseus, who return to their ancestral lands. The cultural
and linguistic unity of Late Bronze Age Greece should not
induce us, however, to exclude a certain amount of ethnic
diversity, as Linear B texts, next to the geographic name
Akawija (KN) Akhaia, already bear testimony of the
ethnonyms Rakedamonijo (TH) Lacedaimonian, Ijawone
(KN) Ionians, and the personal name related to an eth-
nonym Dorijewe (PY) Dorieus (dative).
603
After the fall
of their palatial civilization, some of the Mycenaean
Greeks took the boat and looked for new homes in the
eastern Mediterranean, one group under the name of
Hiwa Akhaians colonizing the Cilician plain in Anato-
lia, and an other group under the name of Dan Danaoi
colonizing various locations in the Levant. These migra-
tions were not numerous enough, however, to plant the
Greek language in the given regions, the Akhaians in the
Cilician plain going over to Luwian and the Danaoi in the
Levant resorting to Semitic. This being the case, the
Greeks in question may safely be assumed to have mixed
to a significant extent with the indigenous population.
If the literary traditions about the Philistines originat-
ing from Crete and/or Lydia in western Asia Minor are
correct, this particular people is likely to be identified with
the Pelasgians of Greek sources. The latter were one of the
various population groups living in mainland Greece be-
fore the Greek ethnos came into being, and hence at least
partly responsible for the Middle Helladic culture with its
characteristic Minyan ware. As far as can be determined
from the evidence of place and personal names, the Pelas-
gians were of Indo-European tongue, to be more specific
of a Thraco-Phrygian type. When southern and central
Greece were conquered by foreign invaders from Egypt
and the Levant, Pelasgian population groups who wanted
to preserve their independence fled to the north into Thes-
saly, which remained predominantly Minyan up till Late
Helladic IIIA, and to the region of Larisa Phrikonis in the
Mysian-Lydian borderland of western Asia Minor. On the
basis of the evidence from personal names, again, the latter
group was not numerous enough to cause a language shift,
but went over to the local Luwian dialect. As opposed to
their kinsmen who had fled, Pelasgian population groups
which stayed in southern and central Greece became thor-
oughly Mycenaeanized and in this process, as Herodotos

603
Ventris & Chadwick 1973: glossary, s.v.; Shelmerdine 1997:
564; cf. Driessen 1998-9 and Vanschoonwinkel 1991: 361.
118
(Histories I, 57) reports, adopted the Greek language
which, considering our view that Greek is a split from
Thraco-Phrygian under foreign influences, is only a small
step. The exact date of the migration of Pelasgians to Crete
as recorded in the literary sources and backed up by place,
divine, and personal names eludes us, but, at any rate it is
clear that these latter became fully Minoanized and, like
their fellow Cretans, used a Luwian dialect as their first
language and a Semitic one for religious and administra-
tive purposes in order to keep up with the current interna-
tional standards. At the time of their migration to the
Levant and settling down in the Philistine pentapolis, the
Pelasgians of Crete were in close contact with their kins-
men of western Anatolia, both producing Late Helladic
IIIC1b pottery as we have seen, the hallmark of the set-
tlement of Sea Peoples in the Levant. This may be a sign
of their ethnic coherence, though it must be admitted that
the same material culture is shared with the Mycenaean
Greeks. It goes without saying that the Pelasgians during
their colonization of the Philistine pentapolis mixed with
the local population and went over to the local Semitic dia-
lect with which the Cretan branch was already familiar
anyway.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Teresh and Peleset
are explicitly distinguished in one Egyptian text, it seems
highly attractive to consider the related ethnonyms of the
Tyrrhenians and Pelasgians from Greek literary sources, on
the analogy of Akhaians and Danaoi being alternative
means to refer to the Mycenaean Greeks, as competing
forms of address of one and the same population group.
604
Under the related name of Etruscans, the Tyrrhenians are
especially known to us as an archaeologically, epigraphi-
cally, and linguistically traceable entity from c. 700 BC in
Italy. In all these aspects, however, their homeland can be
traced back to the Aegean region and western Anatolia. A
crown witness of their early history is formed by their lan-
guage, which, although basically of Luwian nature, shows
clear signs of a long early history with Greek a linguistic
deep layer explicable only if the literary traditions of the
Tyrrhenians once living in Attica are correct. Mutatis mu-
tandis, the evidence of the Etruscan language also goes a

604
As we have stipulated in section 10 above, Herodotos, Histo-
ries I, 57, distinguishes the language of the Pelasgians from that of
the Tyrrhenians, but, as we have seen in section 12, language is
not a defining criterium for Pelasgians, so that Greek-like and
Luwian-like speaking representatives may all belong to one and
the same ethnic entity.
long way in backing up our reconstruction of Pelasgians
originally speaking a Thraco-Phrygian vernacular, but go-
ing over to Luwian with their migration from mainland
Greece to western Anatolia. A distinct branch of migrants
from western Anatolia to Italy is formed by the Trojan fol-
lowers of Aeneas. As these are likely originating from the
region south of mount Ida, where to all probability a Lu-
wian dialect was spoken, we are seemingly dealing here
with kinsmen of the Tyrrhenians. However, contrary to the
situation in Etruria, the Trojan followers of Aeneas, for
mere lack of numbers, did not plant their name, language,
culture, and customs in Latium, but were only held respon-
sible for the introduction of the cult of the Penates here.
Tjeker or Teukroi is an indication of the population of
the Troad, which alternatively can be addressed as Drdny
or Dardanians. To all probability this people spoke a
Thraco-Phrygian language, and hence they likely were
kinsmen of the pre-Greek population groups of Greece like
the Phrygians, Thracians, and Pelasgians. The latter infer-
ence gains weight from the fact that the characteristic Tro-
jan grey ware is closely related to the so-called Minyan
ware of Middle Helladic Greece. At the end of the Late
Bronze Age, this grey ware, attested from the beginning of
Troy VI onwards, is distributed to Cyprus and the Levant,
thus enabling us to trace the epigraphically and historically
recorded trade contacts and migrations of the Teukroi
archaeologically. All in all, the Teukroi form a clear case
of a coherent ethnic entity according to our protohistoric
criteria.
The homeland of the Sherden is likely to be located in
Sardinia in the central Mediterranean, as we find statue-
menhirs in this region (in casu nearby Corsica) depicting
the same type of warriors as the Egyptian reliefs associated
with this ethnonym. The specificity of the outfit of the
Sardinian warriors seems to indicate a strong ethnic bond.
On the analogy of the fact that an Hittite princess betrothed
to Ramesses II is rebaptized with an Egyptian name on the
event of her marriage,
605
the Semitic and Egyptian names
for individual Sherden mentioned in the Akkadian cunei-
form and Egyptian texts bear testimony only of their accul-
turation in their new homelands, and tell us nothing of the
Sardinian language, about which, for the lack of epichoric
texts or even glosses in Greek or Latin, we are totally igno-
rant.

605
Bryce 1998: 312; compare Greeks in Hellenistic Egypt taking
Egyptian names, on which see Goudriaan 1988.
119
About the origin of the Shekelesh we have only cir-
cumstantial evidence that their homeland is unlikely to be
situated in Anatolia, as the last of the Hittite great kings,
Suppiluliumas II, is unfamiliar with them. As opposed to
this negative evidence, an association with Sicily in the
central Mediterranean can be underlined by the fact that
the latter island was in contact with Greece, Crete, and
Cyprus during the Late Bronze Age. A representative of
the Shekelesh involved in trade with Cyprus and the east-
ern Mediterranean singles himself out as mastering the
Cypro-Minoan script and the Luwian language, but this
does not help us very much in determining his native Sicil-
ian language about which we only know that in the archaic
period it was closely related to Oscan. For the question
whether the Sicilians had a pronounced idea about their
ethnicity we can only draw back to the fact that the Egyp-
tians depicted them with a special type of headdress, the
nach hinten gebogene Mutze, which, to say the least, is
meagre evidence.
The identification of the Weshesh with the Oscans is
crucial for our understanding of the catastrophic events at
the end of the Bronze Age. The invasion of Italy by bear-
ers of the European Urnfield culture, which we have seen
reason to identify with the speakers of the Italic dialects or
languages Osco-Umbrian and Latin-Faliscan, entails a true
mass migration which caused serious disruption of peoples
living in the region, whose displacement in turn formed the
prime mover for what we call the upheavals of the Sea
Peoples. Even though the Oscans may have been numeri-
cally a relatively small party among the coalition of the
Sea Peoples, they nonetheless may be considered like the
leaven in the Biblical bread. Thus the ships of the Sea
Peoples with bird-head devices at both the bow and the
stern of a typically Urnfield type, the spread of handmade
barbarian ware of proto-Villanovan Italian or European
Urnfield backgrounds, and the growing popularity of the
rite of cremation during and after the catastrophic events
may be attributed to the influence of our Oscan partici-
pants. Considering their highly specific cultural and lin-
guistic traits, the Oscans are likely to be considered a
coherent ethnic entity according to our protohistoric crite-
ria.
By means of conclusion, we seem to be confronted
with various ethnic groups, each having their own specific
material culture though Late Helladic IIIC1b appears to
be a combining factor, being attested for the homeland of
almost every Sea People, from western Anatolia (Pitane
and Larisa Phrikonis) in the east to Sardinia (nuraghe An-
tigori) in the west and language. That these ethnic groups
were indeed cohesive entities appears from the fact that,
after their abortive attempt to conquer Egypt, they settled
separately in various locations in the Levant: the Peleset or
Philistines in their pentapolis, the Tjeker or Teukroi in
Dor, the Sherden or Sardinians in Akko, Denye(n) or Dan
in Joppa and later in Laish, European Urnfielders likely to
be identified with the Weshesh or Oscans in Hamath, and
Ekwesh or Akhaians in the Cilician plain. Nevertheless,
this conglomerate of cultures and languages was able to
work together very effectively for some time, as the down-
fall of palatial empires caused by them may illustrate. In
order to demonstrate that a multi-lingual coalition is a pri-
ori possible, one may point to the fact that the Trojan side
in Homeros Iliad consisted of a multi-lingual coalition as
well.
606
In his Ethnicity in eastern Mediterranean proto-
history: Reflections on theory and method (forthc.), chap-
ter 6, Wim van Binsbergen formulates three hypotheses
which are of relevance to our subject.
HYPOTHESIS 1. In the Late Bronze Age, by the time of
the appearance of the Sea Peoples, the geographical
space of the eastern Mediterranean was ethnically
structured in this sense, that an overall system of eth-
nic classification was generally known and generally
subscribed to.
The validity of this hypothesis can be underlined by
the fact that some of the groups of the Sea Peoples are re-
ferred to by the same ethnonym in various sources, like the
Ekwesh as A iyawa in Hittite and Shekelesh as ikaly
in Ugaritic and as Sikeri- in Cypro-Minoan: this proves
that we are not dealing with the whim of an individual
Egyptian scribe, but a classificatory system with a wider
geographical range shared by the Egyptians with the Hit-
tites, Ugaritians, and Cyprians. Even the fact that there are
competing indications for the same ethnic group, like in
case of the Egyptian preference of Tanayu or Denye(n)
Danaoi over Ekwesh Akhaians, or their indication of
the Trojans as Drdny alongside Tjeker does not undermine
such a conclusion, as it rather signals the sophistication of
this classificatory system. As to the origin of the different
ethnonyms, it is interesting to note that Sherden and Sheke-

606
Iliad II, 804; IV, 437-8. Note that in this respect the title of my
book The Language of the Sea Peoples is oversimplifying the rea-
lity.
120
lesh are geographically based, being derived from the
names of the islands Sardinia and Sicily, respectively,
whereas for example Weshesh Ausones or Osci and
Tanayu or Denye(n) are ultimately rooted in the hydro-
nymy of Europe and the North Pontic steppe (PIE *av- or
*au- source, stream and *dnu- river) and hence may
safely be assumed to have been introduced by the people
in question themselves from that region into their new
homeland.
607
HYPOTHESIS 2A. The mobilization process that led to
the emergence and exploits of the Sea Peoples was a
process of only partial ethnogenesis; it was not in
origin an ethnically-driven process, in the sense that
no role was played, in this mobilization process, by
any prior ethnic identification between the various
constituent peripheral groups that ultimately coa-
lesced, albeit never completely, into the Sea Peoples.
Given the fact that, as we have noted above, various
groups of the Sea Peoples settled separately in various lo-
cations of the Levant, and that they have distinct names
and features in the Egyptian sources, this negative hy-
pothesis appears to come nearer to the truth than the posi-
tive hypothesis 2B below. As a consequence, we may
conclude that to a certain extent a process of ethnogenesis
took place (= the emergence of the Sea Peoples as a dis-
tinct phenomenon), but was not followed by ethnicization
(i.e. that prospective Sea Peoples, each in their own corner
of the Mediterranean, took ideological consciousness of
the fact that they had so much in common with the other
eight groups that they could adopt a common destiny).
HYPOTHESIS 2B. The mobilization process bringing
the nine groups to ultimately constitute the Sea Peo-
ples, was in part based on some pre-existing basis for
mutual ethnic identification between these nine
groups already prior to the beginning of the Sea Peo-
ples mobilization and exploits.
An argument in favor of hypothesis 2B, which we
consider less likely than hypothesis 2A, might be provided
by the fact that the boats of the Sea Peoples are of a com-
mon type with a bird head at bow and stern, which, as we
have noted, is a typical Urnfield feature. It should be noted
in this context, however, that Shelley Wachsmann sug-
gested that the Egyptian artist who drew the boats of the
Sea Peoples took one example as the norm, so that the ap-
parent unity in type of ship may be illusory. At any rate, an
Urnfield ideology would be secondary to all groups of the

607
Cf. Rosenkranz 1966: 136; Brown 1985: 131-2.
Sea Peoples with the exception of the Weshesh if our iden-
tification of the latter with the Ausones or Oscans applies.
Another unifying element may have been formed by the
fact that all members of the Sea Peoples might ultimately
be of Indo-European stock. But this is by no means sure
for the Sherden and the Shekelesh, and, if these might turn
out to be Indo-Europeans after all, the differences between
the various groups are already too pronounced to allow for
the perception of a common heritage as a binding factor.
Finally, there is the question of how to classify the
post-conflict ethnic situation of the various constituent Sea
Peoples in the various regions of the Levant where they
ended up after their unsuccessful sea- and land battles
against Ramesses III. When we scan the range of possible
models which van Binsbergen derived from general ethnic
theory for specific application to the Sea Peoples case, it is
striking that no one specific model seems to fit the bill
once and for all.
One might be tempted to classify the post-conflict lo-
cal accommodation between Sea People settlers and their
host groups with the melting pot model (no. 6 in our sec-
tion 1), with this proviso that the colonists, contrary to the
situation in the modern Americas, merge with the indige-
nous population to the extent that they ultimately become
extinct as a separate ethnic group (= ethnothanasia).
608
However, even if locally, in the Levant, all sense of a dis-
tinct Sea Peoples identity was ultimately lost, there are in-
dications that yet some knowledge of distant Central
Mediterranean origins lingered on, laying the foundations
for the subsequent Phoenician exploration and colonization
of the Central Mediterranean in the Early Iron Age. Per-
haps their knowledge of the central Mediterranean waters
stimulated the Phoenicians to explore these regions and
beyond in the course of the Early Iron Age.
In the Levant itself, however, total local accommoda-

608
Of the remaining cases of colonization assumed in the preced-
ing sections, the Pelasgian ones from presumably c. 1600 BC on-
wards to western Asia Minor and Crete and the one by the Trojan
followers of Aeneas to Italy in the Early Iron Age seem closest to
the immigrant model (no. 2 in our section 1), with the noted ad-
justment that the former emigrate to higher developed societies,
whereas the latter arrive in a lower developed one. As opposed to
this, the coming of charioteering Hyksos elements to Greece c.
1600 BC and that of the Tyrsenians to Tuscany from c. 700 BC
onwards rather adhere to the conquest model (no. 3 in our section
1), with the noted adjustment that the Hyksos elements, in contrast
to the Tyrsenians, do not plant their own language(s), but adapt to
that of the indigenous Thraco-Phrygian population groups.
121
tion of the immigrant Sea Peoples groups could only have
been the ultimate outcome of a prolonged process that,
typically, would traverse some of the other types in our
range of models:
a. immediately after local settlement, the most
likely model would be that of conquest
(model 3), which, as a result of progressive
subsequent political and social accommoda-
tion, would soon give way to
b. the immigrant model (model 2) to end, in
most cases, with
c. a quasi-melting pot situation (model 6)
where most specific Sea People cultural and
nomenclatural traits would have been shed,
in preparation of the total eclipse of any
reminiscence of a Sea Peoples past, among
the incorporated vestiges of a formerly Sea
People population in the Levant.
123
APPENDIX I: ON THE DECIPHERMENT OF CRETAN
HIEROGLYPHIC
As there are only two other hieroglyphic writing systems
current in the region, from a comparative point of view the
Cretan hieroglyphic (= CH) script may be assumed to be
related to either Egyptian hieroglyphic (= Eg.) to the
southeast of Crete or Luwian hieroglyphic (= LH) from
Anatolia to the northeast of Crete. Both these two possible
lines of approach have been put into practice in the past.
Thus Arthur Evans, the discoverer of the script, started to
compare Cretan hieroglyphic signs to Luwian counter-
parts,
609
whereas at a later stage he rather preferred to look
for correspondences with Egyptian.
610
Next, three of the
pioneers in the deciphering process of Luwian hiero-
glyphic, Ignace Gelb,
611
Helmuth Bossert,
612
and Piero
Meriggi,
613
pointed out numerous relationships of Cretan
hieroglyphic with the script they were engaged with. Since
then, Turkish scholars like Sedat Alp
614
and Nimet zg,
who were involved in the earliest manifestations of the
Luwian hieroglyphic script during the Middle Bronze Age,
showed an awareness of Cretan connections.
The whole matter received renewed attention at the
time that Jan Best definitely succeeded to place the famous
discus of Phaistos in an Anatolian context, first by demon-
strating the relationship of signs D 11 and D 39 to the Lu-
wian symbols of royalty, winged sun-disc (LH *190), and
of lightning (LH *199),
615
and later by embedding the
Luwian connection in a network of internal evidence in the
form of a doublet and triplets and a vowel analysis.
616
Working out this relationship, it turned out that of the total
amount of 47 signs on the discus, 29 can convincingly be

609
Evans 1895: 33 ff.
610
Evans 1909.
611
Gelb 1931: 79 ff.
612
Bossert 1932: 5 ff.
613
Vergessene Stdte am Indus, Frhe Kulturen in Pakistan vom
8. bis 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr., Mainz am Rhein, Verlag Philipp von
Zabern, 1987, p. 204, Abb. 177.
614
Alp 1968: 276.
615
Best 1981b: 49-56; numbering of the Luwian hieroglyphic
signs according to Laroche 1960a.
616
Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 30-53.
linked up with a Luwian hieroglyphic counterpart.
617
However, as soon realized, the script of the discus is not an
isolated phenomenon on Crete, but further attested for a
double-axe from Arkalokhori and an altar-stone from Ma-
lia.
618
As a matter of fact, as indicated by the 14 corre-
spondences in sum listed in table 4 below, it is nothing but
a manifestation be it on the largest extant scale of Cre-
tan hieroglyphic itself.
619
Mutatis mutandis, the possible
relationship of the latter script with Luwian hieroglyphic
comes to the fore again.
This relationship is a viable one, as I hope to show in
my table 4 below. In this table I present a list of corre-
spondences between Cretan hieroglyphic and Luwian hi-
eroglyphic for signs which occur in a reasonably clear
context. This list, which is an elaboration of earlier ef-
forts,
620
includes signs from the discus of Phaistos and the
aforesaid double-axe from Arkalokhori, which texts, for
reasons beyond my comprehension, are omitted from the
recent corpus of Cretan hieroglyphic inscriptions (=
CHIC).
621
In order to overcome this omission, I have as-
signed to these two texts a number adding up to the last
one recorded for CHIC, thus the double-axe of Arkalo-
khori becomes # 332 and the discus of Phaistos # 333. I
further present the numbering of the signs according to
Evans original publication (1909) next to that of CHIC,
because in a number of instances he distinguishes a sign
which is not recognized as such by CHIC. Finally, for
brevitys sake I refer to standard formulas by an abbrevia-
tion, thus the libation formula is referred to as LF and the
profane formulas as PF 1-7.
622

617
Achterberg, Best, Enzler, Rietveld & Woudhuizen 2004, sec-
tion 4.
618
Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 87, fig. 1b; Best & Woudhuizen
1989: 74, fig. 1b; 77, fig. 2c.
619
Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 86-9; Best & Woudhuizen 1989:
73-7; 97-128.
620
Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 87, fig. 3; Woudhuizen 1992c: Pl.
XXVI.
621
Olivier & Godart 1996.
622
Woudhuizen 2001b: 608-12 (= LF & PF 1-6); Woudhuizen
2002a: 124 (= PF 7).
124
Evans CHIC LH value attestation
1. 2 001 1 AMU # 310
2. 10 HARMAHI, [ar] # 332,
623
# 333
3a. 73 018 13 PRA # 255, # 296, # 314, #332
3b. 14 PRANA # 271
4. 15 mi
4
# 333
5. 3 002
624
19 # 332, # 333
6. 16 007
625
29 t # 296, # 314
7. 7 006 31 HISHIA, [i] # 246, # 333
8. 58 040 35 na # 309, # 333
626
9. 10 095 41 t # 332
10. 56-7 KATA, k # 333
11. 9 009 66 PIA, pi # 003, # 139
12. 27 057 80-1 SARU PF 7 (8x), # 333
13. 11 010 82 ta
6
PF 5 (41x), # 258
14. 85 l(a) # 332
15. 90 TIWA, ti # 333
16. 97 WALWA, # 333
17. 65 016 101 TARKU # 193, # 271, # 310
18. 99 028 102-3 KURUNT, r
627
# 255, # 296
19. 63 011 104 s # 271
20. 62 012 107 MUWA, mu # 253, # 271
21. 108 SURNA, s # 333
22. 64 013 109 MALIA, ma
6
# 139, # 312
23. 67 110 ma # 333
24. 111 HAWA, a
4 # 328
25. 77 125 l # 333
26. 82 128 TINTAPU, ti
5
# 314, # 333
27. 80 130-3 ARA, ra LF (7x), # 333
28. 59 138 [wa] # 333
29. 92 031 153 n PF 5 (25x), PF 6 (11x)
30. 160 WIANA, wi # 333
31. 167 [PARNA, pa] # 333
32. 96 175 LALA, la # 271
628
33. 181 TURPI, [tu] # 333
34. 189 WASU, [wa
1
] # 333
35. 190 sol suus # 333

623
Note that the sign is rendered in this text en face instead of en profile as is usually the case.
624
Note that both Evans and CHIC present only the xoanon sign, not the mans head itself.
625
Note that this particular form of the arm sign is represented without the dagger, as it occurs in # 314.
626
Note that the ship sign appears both with and without a mast as well as in form of an hippocamp.
627
Value attested already for seals or sealings from the Late Bronze Age period, see Herbordt 1998: 313; 317, fig. 4, 3-4.
628
Note that the sign is rendered here in a lengthened and extremely slim way so that it is almost not recognizable anymore as a tongue, but
the three knobs on the top side are decisive for its identification.
125
36. 5 005 191 TIWATA, [ti] PF 2 (35x), PF 3 (4x)
37. 199 TARHUNT, # 333
38. 115 061/069 212 HAPA, n # 196, # 333
39. 223 s
6
# 333
40. 114 034 228 UTNA, tu
5
PF 7 (10x), # 333
41. 41 041 267 WANA, [wa
6
] # 246, # 271, # 309
42. 032 268 scalprum # 328
43. 17 278 li # 333
44. 12 043 283-4 custos # 314, # 333
Evans CHIC LH value attestation
45. 300 gens # 277
46. 15 051 312-3 ZITI, zi # 328
47. 24 056 327 SASA, sa
5
PF 7 (10x), # 193, # 255, # 328
48. 369 vita (= Cretan knot), cf. Bossert 1932: 12-3
49. 370 ASU, as, su # 333
50. 14 050 383, 1 (determ. of PN) # 310, # 314, # 333
51. 383, 2 [+ta/i], +ra/i # 332, # 333
52. 122 077 415 sa # 003, # 139
53. 419 m, m LF (1x)
54. 138 438 magistratus # 193
55. 451 ur # 271
56. 19 036 488 ta
5
PF 6 (17x), # 255
Table 4. Correspondences between Cretan hieroglyphic and Luwian hieroglyphic (values in square brackets attested for Cretan hieroglyphic
only).
Evans CHIC Eg. value attestation
1. 2 001 A 1 AMU # 310
12. 27 057 A 21 SARU PF 7 (8x)
13. 11 010 D 56 ta
6
PF 5 (41x)
57. 85-6 020-1 L 2 bity # 003, # 018, # 039, # 139, # 310
58. M 23 nswt # 018, # 039
59. 116 *156 M 43 WAINU, wa # 274, # 314
60. 109 N 5 sol # 310
40. 114 034 N 26 UTNA, tu
5
PF 7 (10x), # 333
41. 41 041 O 11 WANA, wa
6
# 246, # 271, # 309
48. S 34 vita (= Cretan knot)
61. 21 046 U 21 ti PF 4 (7x)
62. 18 044 X 8 pi (< PIA) PF 1 (72x), PF 2 (35x), PF 3 (4x), PF 4 (7x), # 255
63. 31 076 Y 3 TUPA<LA>, du # 312
35. sol suus # 333
Table 5. Correspondences between Cretan hieroglyphic and Egyptian hieroglyphic (values as attested for Cretan hieroglyphic).
126
Notwithstanding the fact that Cretan hieroglyphic is basi-
cally related to Luwian hieroglyphic, there are a number of
cases in which Egyptian hieroglyphic provides the closest
comparative evidence. This concerns first of all the bee-
sign, which apart from a singular occurrence goes un-
represented among the Luwian hieroglyphic repertoire.
Like in Egyptian, the latter sign turns up in combination
with a floral motif, to indicate the king of Lower and Up-
per Egypt. This royal title is also attested for Middle
Bronze Age inscriptions from Byblos, which was subject
to strong Egyptian influences at the time.
629
In Crete, the
bee-sign undergoes a typical local treatment in the sense
that, apart from its regular depiction from the side (CHIC
no. 20), it also tends to be represented from the top (CHIC
no. 21).
630
Besides the bee-sign, the symbol of royalty in
form of a winged sun-disc, mentioned among the Luwian
correspondences, ultimately originates from Egyptian hi-
eroglyphic as well, but its ductus in Crete betrays Anato-
lian influences in the fact that the sun-disc is represented
as a rosette. The same holds good for the ankh-sign, which,
like it is the case in Anatolia, in Crete is characterized by
two side stems (note, however, that in Anatolia the central
stem is lost, whereas in Crete this is preserved). Appar-
ently, these two signs, belonging to the oldest layer of Lu-
wian hieroglyphic during the Middle Bronze Age,
631
reached Crete via an Anatolian intermediary.
The indirect route for signs originating from Egyptian
hieroglyphic may further be illustrated by the trowel-sign
(CHIC no. 040). In ductus this is closest to a Byblian par-
allel; it also receives a value based on the translation of its
Egyptian meaning, di to give, into Luwian, hence pi as
acrophonically derived from piya- to give.
632
A similar
adaptation of the value can be observed for the wine ideo-
gram (CHIC *156), representing Semitic wainu instead of
Egyptian irp, the tablet-sign (Evans no. 31),
633
rendering
the syllabic value du as acrophonically derived from Se-

629
Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 8, fig. 7.
630
Woudhuizen 1997.
631
Woudhuizen, forthc. 2.
632
Woudhuizen 2002b.
633
Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 8, fig. 8; 13, fig. 17; 15-6.
mitic tuppu tablet,
634
and the palace-sign (CHIC no. 41),
of which the acrophonic value wa
6
can only be explained
in terms of a mixing-up with its Luwian hieroglyphic look-
alike wana stele, altar (LH *267). Although direct con-
tact between Egypt and Crete cannot be excluded, the
given evidence is conducive to the conclusion that Egyp-
tian signs reached Crete through the intermediary of the
Levant and/or Anatolia. Or, at the very least, the handling
of this category of signs in Crete is more loose than the
one received by the category of signs originating from
Luwian hieroglyphic.
In table 5 I present a list of correspondences between
Cretan hieroglyphic and Egyptian hieroglyphic for signs
which occur in a reasonably clear context.
635
A third source for signs from Cretan hieroglyphic is
formed by Cretan Linear A (= CL). It is a general miscon-
ception that Cretan hieroglyphic constitutes a forerunner of
Linear A: this is particularly true in case of the libation
formula, which develops in the course of time into its Lin-
ear A descendant as attested for wash-hand stone-basins
from peak-sanctuaries the destruction of which is usually
assigned to the Middle Minoan III/Late Minoan I transi-
tional period (c. 1600 BC).
636
In most other instances,
however, the representation of Linear A signs among Cre-
tan hieroglyphic results from a merger between the two
scripts, which started from the time of the earliest attesta-
tion of Linear A in Middle Minoan II (c. 1800-1700 BC)
onwards, thus providing us with a terminus post quem for
seals showing Linear A influences other than the libation
formula.
637
Table 6 below presents correspondences between Cre-
tan hieroglyphic and Cretan Linear (A) for signs which oc-
cur in a reasonably clear context.
638

634
Friedrich 1946: Wrterverzeichnisse III, s.v.
635
Numbering of the Egyptian hieroglyphic signs according to
Gardiner 1994.
636
Woudhuizen 2001b: 608.
637
Vandenabeele 1985: 18.
638
Cf. Woudhuizen 1992c: Pl. XXIV; numbering of the Linear A
signs according to Meijer 1982: 38-47.
127
Evans CHIC CL value attestation
64. 46 039 L 1 pa
3
# 296
65. 112 070 L 22 l # 310 (note that this seal presents a variant of the sign in ques-
tion catalogued separately by Evans as his no. 91), # 328
20. 62 012 L 27 mu # 253, # 271
66. 101 029 L 30 da # 328
67. 60 019 L 31 sa LF (14x), # 193, # 196, # 277
68. 44 038 L 32 ya PF 5 (41 x), # 258, # 296, # 310, # 328
69. 36 042 L 52 a LF (14x), # 255, # 309, # 310
27. 80 L 53 ra LF (7x), # 333
70. 30 092 L 55 ru PF 6 (17x)
57. 85 021 L 56 pi (< bity) # 310
71. 103 024 L 60 NIKULEON , ni # 122
72. 40 052 [L 61] me LF (6x)
73. L 78 ti # 328
59. 116 *156 L 82 WAINU, wa # 274, # 314 (note that this seal presents a variant of the sign
in question catalogued separately by Evans as his no. 4)
61. 21 046 L 88 ti PF 4 (7x)
74. 97 025 L 92 te # 328
63. 31 076 L 93 du # 312
75. 74 L 95 ma # 196, # 257, # 309
76. 47 053 L 103 ki # 296, # 309
Table 6. Correspondences between Cretan hieroglyphic and Cretan Linear.
The relationship of Cretan hieroglyphic with Cypro-
Minoan (= CM) has no bearing on the origins of Cretan hi-
eroglyphic, but only on the date of its continuation, prov-
ing that it still florished at the time of the earliest
attestations of Cypro-Minoan in the late 16th or early 15th
century BC (Woudhuizen 1992a: 87-90; Woudhuizen
2001b: 610).
The Cretan hieroglyphic contribution to Cypro-
Minoan entails the following signs:
Evans CHIC CM value attestation
77. 13 049 28 ni PF 1 (72x), PF 3 (4x), # 255, # 312
62. 18 044 51 pi PF 1 (72x), PF 2 (35x), PF 3 (4x), PF 4 (7x)
78. 54 047 76 le # 258, # 310, # 312
36. 5 005 116 ti PF 2 (35x), PF 3 (4x)
Table 7. Correspondences between Cretan hieroglyphic with Cypro-Minoan.
In his attempt
639
to present a model for the origins of
the Cretan hieroglyphic script, Wim van Binsbergen took
the analysis of Jan Best as his starting point. Best main-
tains that Egyptian hieroglyphic contributed as many as 35
signs to Cretan hieroglyphic, Luwian hieroglyphic only 30
signs, and the Byblos script 10 signs. He did not back up
this analysis, however, by a further specification. As
shown above, our analysis of the situation is different, with
Luwian hieroglyphic providing the bulk of the material (56
signs), and Egyptian hieroglyphic (14 signs, of which 7 go
without attestation in Luwian hieroglyphic) and Cretan
Linear A (19 signs, of which 13 do not originate from ei-

639
Van Binsbergen 1996-7: 134-42.
ther Luwian hieroglyphic or Egyptian hieroglyphic) ren-
dering supplementary services only. This does not dimin-
ish the usability of van Binsbergens models as an aid to
develop our own slightly adapted version, according to
which a large arrow from Cappadocia and/or North Syria
represents the Luwian hieroglyphic contribution, and small
arrows from Egypt directly to Crete and from Egypt via
Byblos to Crete represent the subsidiary Egyptian contri-
bution (see Fig. 25).
640

640
I am not going into the problem of the origins of Cretan Linear
A, but, as we have seen, this certainly contains signs originating
from Luwian hieroglyphic and from Egyptian hieroglyphic.
128
Fig. 25. Origins of the Cretan hieroglyphic script. (a) Luwian hiero-
glyphic (56 signs); (b) Egyptian hieroglyphic (14 signs).
641
1 Egypt; 2 Byblos; 3 Cyprus; 4 Asia Minor; 5 Crete; 6 mainland
Greece
As to the linguistic context of the signs discussed
above, this has been dealt with elsewhere as far as the dis-
cus of Phaistos (# 333),
642
the double-axe from Arkalok-
hori (# 332), the altar-stone from Malia (# 328), the seals
from Zyro (# 193, # 277), Malia (# 271), Neapolis (#
314),
643
and Sitia (# 310),
644
and the recurrent formulas
are concerned. It therefore may suffice here, as an example
of what the analysis of the signs may lead up to in the field
of linguistics, to present an overview of seals recording the
categories (1) mans name (= MN) and (2) title or (1)
MN, (2) title, and (3) place or country name (see ta-
ble 8 and Fig. 26) categories to be expected on seals in
the light of the parallels: compare, for example, the Lu-
wian hieroglyphic part of the Tarkondemos seal, bearing
the legend TARKU-t+mi HANTAWAT mi+r(a)-
UTNA
Tar-
kondemos, king (of) the land Mira,
645
or that of the seal
of Kuzitesup from Lidarhyk, reading ku-zi
!
-TESUP-pa
HANTAWAT k+r-ka-mi-s TAL-mi-TESUP-pa HANTAWAT
k+r-ka-mi-s () infans Kuzitesup, king of Karkamis,

641
Diagram drawn by Wim van Binsbergen.
642
Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 30-84; Best & Woudhuizen 1989:
65-97; Woudhuizen 1992a: 11-41; Achterberg, Best, Enzler,
Rietveld & Woudhuizen 2004.
643
Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 97-128.
644
Woudhuizen 2002a.
645
Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 108-11; cf. Hawkins 2003: 144,
Fig. 1a and Woudhuizen 2005 : appendix I.
son of Talmitesup, king of Karkamis, ().
646
Most of the MNs are of Luwian type: Muwas (cf. Hit-
tite Muwatallis),
647
Partarus (= Lydian Bartaras),
648
Nu-
was (cf. Cappadocian reduplicated Nuwanuwas),
649
Taparas (= Lycian Daparas),
650
Tarkus, Tarkumuwas (=
Cilician Tarkoms),
651
and possibly Manas (= Lydian
Manes).
652
Next, one is of Kaskan type: Pitaparas (= Kas-
kan Pittaparas),
653
whereas the first element of Ankiwas
seems to recall that of Trojan Ankhises.
654
Furthermore,
under consideration of the fact that Cretan hieroglyphic [l]
may also express [r], Yatale corresponds to Ugaritic Ytr as
in Bnytr (Bin-ia-ta-ri), Ytrhd (Yatar-addu), Ytrp (Ia-tar-
raap), etc.
655
Finally, under consideration of the aforesaid
interchangeability of [l] with [r] and on the analogy of
Luwian hieroglyphic Mur<si>lis and Ha<ttusi>lis,
656
Manile may
657
be analyzed as an abridged form of Egyp-
tian Men<-kheper>-r.
Of the titles, laparnas (= Hittite labarnas)
658
, PRA-
custos viceroy (cf. titles like Latin pro-consul), and
tupa<la>- scribe
659
are of Anatolian type. Next, pini
corresponds to Semitic bn as in Ugaritic bn Lky represen-
tative of the Lycians.
660
Finally, bity or piti or piti is

646
Hawkins 2000: 574-5; cf. Hawkins 2003, 144, Fig. 1c.
647
Hawkins 2003: 144, Fig. 1b.
648
Gusmani, 1964: 264, no. 40, 2; cf. Best & Woudhuizen 1989:
126; Woudhuizen forthc. 2.
649
Laroche 1966, s.v.; cf. Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 126.
650
Friedrich 1932: 55, TL 6, 1; cf. Best & Woudhuizen 1989:
126.
651
Houwink ten Cate 1961: 127.
652
Gusmani 1964: 250, no. 1, 3; 252, no. 4a, 1 and no. 4b, 1; cf.
Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 126. I cannot resist the temptation to
suggest that we may actually be dealing here with the Cretan royal
name Minos; note in this connection that # 257 is the most beauti-
ful seal, used by Evans for the cover of his book on the topic!
653
Von Schuler 1965: Indices, 2. Personennamen, s.v.
654
Homeros, Iliad II, 820, etc.
655
Grndahl 1967, s.v. ytr.
656
Beran 1967: nos. 180 (um+r<-si>-li) and 186 (<-tu-
si>+li).
657
Ranke 1935, s.v. mn-pr-r.
658
Friedrich 1991, s.v.; cf. Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 117-8.
659
Laroche 1960a: *326.
660
Gordon 1955: glossary, s.v.; Astour 1964: 194; Woudhuizen
129
identical to Egyptian bity king of Lower Egypt,
661
so
that pinipiti actually constitutes a Semito-Egyptian calque
of Luwian hieroglyphic infans +HANTAWAT- prince.
662
The geographic name Saurwa is attested in writing
variant Saarwa for other Cretan hieroglyphic inscrip-
tions, and occurs, in adjectival derivative, in Linear B as
Sakarijo or Saqarejo. It has been plausibly identified with
Homeric Skheria, which in turn appears to be the ancient
name of Hagia Triada in the western part of the Mesara.
663
Next, the frequent Tarunu is, considering the fact that Cre-
tan hieroglyphic [r] may also express [l] and, as we have
just seen, vice versa, and on the analogy of Ttarma being
the Luwian hieroglyphic form of Hittite Attarima, likely to
be read Atlunu which resembles Platos mythical Atlantis
too much to be dismissed as accidental. On the basis of the
distribution of the seals with this geographic name, it
probably refers to the northern zone of Crete from Knossos
to Kato Zakro.
664
Furthermore, Ayal, which turns up in
variant form Ayalu in Linear A, is for its association with
Semitic ajalu stag, ingeniously explained by Best as the
Semitic designation of modern Malia, otherwise indicated
in Cretan hieroglyphic by a deer with prominent antlers or,
as a pars pro toto, by the antlers themselves (028). As the
deer or antlers render the value r, an abbreviation of Lin-
ear B Rukito Lyktos lies at hand, which name is men-
tioned in the itinerary of Aegean place names from
Amenhotep IIIs (1390-1352 BC) temple tomb at Kom el-
Hetan (Thebes) in between Amnisos and Sitia i.e. exactly
where we would expect
665
the mention of the ancient name
of Malia. Finally, for its striking resemblance to Homeric
Phaiakes, the form Payaki is likely to be considered an
ethnonym referring to the inhabitants of Skheria the an-
cient name, as we have just suggested, of Hagia Triada.
666
If for the sake of completeness we add that anu in the
legend of seal # 255 is a Cretan dialectal variant of Luwian
hieroglyphic anan under, characterized by a/u-vowel

1994: 512.
661
Gardiner 1957: L 2; cf. Best 1996-7: 118-9; Woudhuizen
1997: 107.
662
Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 123-4; Woudhuizen 1992b: 197-8;
Woudhuizen 1997: 107; Woudhuizen 2001b: 611; cf. Laroche
1960a: *46.
663
Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 118; Woudhuizen 1992a: 32-3.
664
Woudhuizen 1992a: 78-9; Woudhuizen 2001b: 612-3.
665
Best 1996-7: 116; Woudhuizen 2002a: 126-7.
666
Best 2000: 29; see section 12 above.
shift,
667
that Taruni in the same legend bears testimony of
the dative singular in -i of Tarunu Atlunu as paralleled
for Luwian hieroglyphic,
668
that yatanu in the legend of
seals # 257, # 312, and # 314 corresponds to Ugaritic ytn
he as given,
669
and that pititi in the legend of seal # 314
shows the dative singular in -ti as attested for Linear A
(tel Dakuseneti delivery to Taku-enni) and Cypro-
Minoan (telu Sanemeti delivery to Sanemas),
670
we ar-
rive in sum at the following transliteration and interpreta-
tion of the legends of our 10 Minoan seals (cf. Fig. 26).
Remaining seals or sealings used in our discussion of
the signs are # 003 and # 139 from Knossos, which read
bity ma
6
-sa PIA the king has given to the god(s), with
masa representing either D sg. in -a or D pl. in -ai of Lu-
wian hieroglyphic masa(na)- god, # 196, presenting the
personal name sa-n-ma, and # 246 from Kritsa, which
reads pi-ti i-a-wa
6
king (of) Akhaia, thus presenting
671
the earliest recorded reference to the Greek mainland.

667
Laroche 1960a: *57, 2; cf. atu in, corresponding to Luwian
hieroglyphic ata, and upa behind, corresponding to Luwian hi-
eroglyphic apa, from the text of the Phaistos disc, see Best &
Woudhuizen 1989: 79-82.
668
See section 5, note 88 above.
669
Gordon 1955: 70; Segert 1984: 44; 74; cf. Best & Woudhuizen
1989: 127; Woudhuizen 2001b: 612. Note that this element is par-
alleled by the presence of the hand that gives pia (Laroche
1960a: *66) in the legends of Middle Bronze Age Luwian hiero-
glyphic seals, see Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 135-6; Woudhuizen
2001b: 612; Woudhuizen 2004a: 119-20.
670
Woudhuizen 1992a: 96. The ending in -ti originates from the
Luwian hieroglyphic dative singular of the pronoun, see Meriggi
1980: 322-3. For another instance of a Luwian hieroglyphic case
ending in the legend of a Minoan seal, cf. the dative singular in -i
mentioned above and the genitive singular in -sa as attested for #
193 from Zyro, reading SASA magistratus TARKU-sa seal of the
magistrate Tarkus (Best & Woudhuizen 1989: 113-5, esp. note
88). These endings indicate that the legend of the seal in question,
notwithstanding the use of Egyptianisms and Semitisms, is
conducted in the Luwian language.
671
Note that this legend strikingly recalls to the gods of the
Greeks in inscriptions on pottery from the Hellenion at Naukratis
dating from the Archaic period, see Boardman 1994: 142; cf. sec-
tion 2 above.
130
CHIC MN title place/country
1. # 253 muwa pi-ni-pi-ti
2. # 255 pi-ta
5
-PRA pi-ti ta
5
-r-ni
3. # 257 ma-n? (if the snake (Evans no.
84) may be identified with coiling
water (Evans no. 115, CHIC
069))
pi-ti ta
5
-ru-n
4. # 258 'ya-ta
6
-le pi-ni ta
5
-ru-n
5. # 271 TARKU-MUWA la+PRANA s-ur-wa
6
6. # 296 PRA-t-r pi-ni pa
3
-ya-ki
7. # 309 a-na-ki-wa
6
pi-ti ta
5
-ru-n
8. # 310 'TARKU bity/pi-ti a-ya-l
9. # 312 ma
6
-ni-le TUPA<LA> ta
5
-ru-n
10. # 314 't-PRA pi-ni 'n-wa PRA-custos pi-ni<-pi>-ti ta
5
-ru-n
Table 8. Seals with the categories mans name, title, and place or country name.
Seal no. Text (the numbers indicate the various sides of the seal)
# 253
1 2 3
1. MUWA ya-ta
6
<-n> 2. pi-ni- 3. pi-ti prince Muwas has granted
# 255
1 2 3
1. a-n SASA ta
5
-r-ni 2. pi-ta
5
-PRA 3. pi-ti under the seal with respect to Atlunu, king Pittaparas
# 257
1 2 3
1. ma-n ya-ta
6
-n 2. pi-ti 3. ta
5
-ru-n Manes has granted, king (of) Atlunu
131
# 258
1 2 3
1. 'ya-ta
6
-le 2. pi-ni 3. ta
5
-ru-n Yatar, representative (of) Atlunu
# 271
1 2 3
1. SASA UTNA 2. s-ur-wa
6
3. la+PRANA TARKU-MUWA seal (with respect to) the land (of) Skheria (= Hagia
Triada), king Tarkumuwas
# 296
1 2 3 4
1. SASA UTNA SARU 2. PRA-t-r 3. pi-ni 4. pa
3
-ya-ki seal (with respect to) the land (and) official(s) (of) the
Phaiakians, representative Bartaras
# 309
1 2
3 4
1. a-na-ki-wa
6
2. pi-ti ma 3. ta
5
-ru-n 4. ya-ta
6
-n Ankiwas, king (of) Atlunu, has granted
132
# 310
1 2
3 4
1. SASA UTNA le SARU 2. a-ya-l 3. AMU 'TARKU sol (3X) 4. bity/pi-ti seal (with respect to) the sun-blessed land
(and) official(s) (of) Ayalu (= Malia), I (am) king Tarkus, (person) blessed by the sun-god
# 312
1 2
3 4
1. ma
6
-ni-le 2. ma
6
TUPA<LA> 3. ta
5
-ru-n 4. ya-ta
6
-n Men<-kheper>-r, scribe (of) Atlunu, has granted
133
# 314
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. 't-PRA 2. pi-ni 3. 'n-wa 4. PRA-custos <pi>-ti- 5. pi-ni PRA-custos 6. ta
5
-ru-n 7. ya-ta
6
-n 8. pi-ti
5
-ti
Daparas, son of Nuwas, viceroy, prince, viceroy (of) Atlunu, has granted on behalf of the king
Fig. 26. Cretan hieroglyphic seals with the categories mans name, title, and place or country name (drawings from original publica-
tions, except in the case of # 309).
135
APPENDIX II: ON THE POSITION OF THE ETRUSCAN
LANGUAGE
The following list of comparanda for the Etruscan lan-
guage is based on Woudhuizen 1992b and Woudhuizen
1998 (with references to earlier literature), and supple-
mented by Steinbauer 1999 as discussed in Woudhuizen
2001a. For the comparisons with Greek and Latin I have
made use of Charsekin 1963, especially 24-8, amplified, as
far as Greek is concerned, by Schachermeyr 1929: 248, Fi-
esel 1931: 43; 51-2, and van der Meer 1992: 68. The
meaning of the Etruscan words, elements and endings is in
most instances secured by a comprehensive interpretation
of the texts in which these appear.
HITTITE ETRUSCAN
vocabulary
672
1. aku-, eku- to drink acun-, ecun-
2. ati- bones casia-
3. ila- enclosure cleva-
4. Gule (divinities of fate) Culsans-
5. gurta- citadel Curtun-
6. iya- to make ia-
7. -ma but, and -m
8. man (optative particle) man
9. maniya - to handle,
administer
mena-, meni-
10. neku- to diminish, be-
come twilight
nace-, ne,-
11. newa - to renew nuca-
673
12. nu- (introductory particle) nu-
13. parku- high par,i-
14. purullia- new years
feast
ril
15. sannapi sporadic snuia
16. wal- to strike, hit,
smite
Velc-, Vel,-
17. weda-, wete- to build vatie-

672
This category also includes onomastic material relevant to the
subject, except for the subsections on the comparisons with Greek
and Latin/Italic.
673
Note that the treatment of Hittite - - is not consistent in
Etruscan, being omitted in mena-, meni- < Hittite maniya -, but
represented by -c- in nuca- < Hittite newa -.

CUNEIFORMLUWIAN ETRUSCAN
vocabulary
18. nnan under ana, en-
19. nta in inte-
20. ppan behind; re- apa, epn
21. Aiya- Assiya [GN] Asi-
22. awi- to come av-, ev-, hev-
23. -a and; also -c, -,
24. andawat(i)- king cami-, can-
25. a- grandfather ce,a-, ce,i-
26. ui(ya)- to run, march cu(vu)-
27. kattawatnalli- vindictive,
revengeful
qutef-
28. kui- who, what -,va-
29. maani- god(dess) masan-
30. mawa- 4 muva-
31. nani- brother Nana-
32. ni not nes, nes, nis
33. -pa but, and -pa
34. parran, pari before, pre- per-
35. pi(ya)- to give p-
36. sarltta- libation-offering sela- (< *serla-)
37. samnai-, samniya- to
found
hamai-, amei-
38. Tarunt- Tarunt [GN] Tar,na-
39. Tiwat- sun-god [GN] tiur-
40. dp(a)i- to strike, hit tupi
41. twa- to place, put tva-
42. wa- (introductory particle) va-, fa-
43. walli(ya)- to elevate fal(a)-
44. walwa- lion Velavesna-
45. wanatt(i)- woman,
mother
Uni-
46. wini(ya)- vine, wine vina-
word formation
47. adjectival -ai- -s-, -s-
48. adjectival -alli- -l-
49. ethnic -wanni- -ni-
50. factitive -nu(wa)- -nv-, -nu-
51. iterative -()- -s-, -s-, -z-
136
52. -ship -i- -c-, -,-
(pro)nominal declension & verbal conjugation
53. N(m/f) sg. - , -s (gentilicium)
54. A(m/f) sg. -n , -n (pronoun)
55. D sg. -i, -iya -a, -i
56. Abl. sg. -ti -0, -r(i)
57. N-A(n) pl. -a -a
58. 3rd pers. sg. pres./fut. -ti -(i)
59. 3rd pers. pl. pres./fut. -nti -nt

LUWIAN HIEROGLYPHIC ETRUSCAN
vocabulary
18. ANANnana under ana, en-
20. APAna behind; re- apa, epn
60. rma- altar heram(v)-
61. ARAnu(wa)ta- Arnuwandas
[MN]
Arn-
62. ASA(NU)- to settle hesn-
21. s(i)i- to love Asi-
19.
n
t in inte-
22. awa- to come av-, ev-, hev-
24. HANTAWAT- king cami-, can-
23. -a(wa) and; also -c, -,
25. HUHAa- grandfather ce,a-
63. HWA when; because -cve
28. HWA- who, what -,va-
26. HW- to run, march cu(vu)-
64. HWAr when; because cver
65. ila- to (be) favor(ed) ila-
66. KATANA- bowl qutum-, qutun-
67. kutpili- fire offering Cau0a-
7. -ma but, and -m
68. maluwa- thank-offering muluva-
8. man (optative particle) man
29. MASANA- god(dess) masan-
30. MAUWA- 4 muva-
69. *mek- 5 ma,-
70. *mek- numerous me,-
71. mi- my mi-
72. mukasa- Muksas [MN] Mu,sie-
31. nana- brother Nana-
32. na
4
sa not nes, nes, nis
34. PRA before, pre- per-
33. -pa(wa) but, and; or -pa
35. PIA- to give p-
73. sa
5
r- smoke offering seril (adjective)
674
36. SARLAsa
5
rlata
4
- libation
offering
sela- (< *serla-)
74. SURA(R)sura/i- abundance suri-
75. tma- precinct tmia-
76. ta
4
ma- to build amu-
38. TARHUNT- Tarunt [GN] Tar,na-
77. TARHUNT+UMINA-
Taruntassa [TN]
Tar,umenaia-
78. tsa- stele; grave tesi-
39. TIWATA- sun-god tiur-
79. tiwat/ra- (onomastic ele-
ment)
Oefarie-
40. tupi- to strike, hit tupi
41. TUWA- to place, put tva-
80. tuwa- 2 u-, tu-
42. wa- (introductory particle) va-, fa-
43. wli- to elevate fal(a)-
44. WALWA lion Velavesna-
45. WANATInati
4
- mother;
woman
Uni-
81. war- to help ver-
675
82. wasa
5
r(i)ti by the grace
of
user
83. WATA- water utu-
46. WIANAwana- vine vina-
word formation
47. adjectival -sa- -s-, -s-
48. adjectival -ali- -l-
49. ethnic -wana- -ni-
50. factitive -nu(wa)- -nv-, -nu-
51. iterative -s- -s-, -s-, -z-
52. -ship -i- -c-, -,-
(pro)nominal declension & verbal conjugation
53. N(m/f) sg. -sa , -s (gentilicium)
54. A(m/f) sg. -na , -n (pronoun)
55. D sg. -, -i -a, -i
84. G sg. -sa -s (D-G)
56. Abl. sg. -ti, -ri -, -r(i)
85. N(m/f) pl. -i -i
57. N-A(n) pl. -a -a

674
Not yet in Woudhuizen 1998.
675
Agostiniani & Nicosia 2000: 54 (= Tabula Cortonensis, sec-
tion II) .
137
86. D pl. -ai -e (< *-ai [D-G])
58. 3rd pers. sg. pres./fut. -ti -0(i)
59. 3rd pers. pl. pres./fut. -
n
ti -nt
LYCIAN/SIDETIC ETRUSCAN
Vocabulary
20. ep behind; re- apa, epn
18. e
1
ne
1
under ana, en-
87. ese with s-
88. e
1
tri- lower, inferior etera-
37. hm
1
me-, m
1
mai-,
m
1
mei(ye)- to found
hamai-, amei-
60. hrm
1
ma- altar heram(v)-
6. iye- to make ia-
23. -ke and; also -c, -,
68. malvam
1
a- thank-
offering
muluva-
89. me- (introductory particle) me-
71. m
1
i me mi-
31. neni- brother Nana-
32. ni not nes, nes, nis
19. te in inte-
35. piye- to give p-
3. qla- precinct cleva-
28. ti- who, what -,va-
90. tibe(i) or tev<i>
91. tlli- to pay tle-
40. tub(e)i- to strike, hit tupi
word formation
47. adjectival -hi- -s-, -s-
48. adjectival -li- -l-
49. ethnic -(v)ni- -ni-
92. ethnic -zi- -s-, -z-
93. ethnic -de- -e-, -te-
(pro)nominal declension & verbal conjugation
53. N(m/f) sg. , -s , -s (gentilicium)
54. A(m/f) sg. , - , -n (pronoun)
55. D sg. -a, -i -a, -i
84. G sg. -h -s (D-G)
56. Abl. sg. -di, -de - -r(i)
85. N(m/f) pl. -i -i
94. A(m/f) pl. -as, -is -es, -is
57. N-A(n) -, -e
1
-a
86. D pl. -a, -e (< *-ai) -e (< *-ai [D-G])
95. G pl. -i, -e
1
-ai
58. 3rd pers. sg. pres./fut. -ti,
-di
-(i)
59. 3rd pers. pl. pres./fut. -ti -nt

LYDIAN ETRUSCAN
vocabulary
21. Asi
1
i- Asia [GN] Asi-
96. Baki- Bakkhos [GN] Pa,ie-
14. borl-, forl- year ril
35. bi- to give p-
71. emi
1
me mi
42. fa- (introductory particle) va-, fa-
97. isl- first esl-, sal, zal
23. -k and; also -c, -,
24. Kandaules Kandaules
[MN]
cam0i-, can0-
7. -m but, and -m
68. ml
1
ve
1
nd- thank-
offering
muluva-
98. nak (introductory particle) nac
31. Nanna- Nanas [MN] Nana-
32. ni not nes, nes, nis
99. palmu- king (toga) palmata
(Lat.)
28. pe-, pi- who, what -,va-
100. silu- (magistracy) zila-
75. tam- precinct tmia-
78. tase- stele; grave tesi-
79. Tivadali- Tivdalis [MN] efarie-
41. t
1
uv(e)- to place, put tva-
40. ut
1
ba- to strike, hit tupi
17. vit
1
i
1
- to build vatie-
word formation
47. adjectival -si- -s-, -s-
48. adjectival -li- -l-
101. ethnic -k -
52. -ship -k- -c-, --
(pro)nominal declension & verbal conjugation
53. N(m/f) sg. -s , -s (gentilicium)
54. A(m/f) sg. -n , -n (pronoun)
102. D sg. -l
1
-l (D-G)
103. G sg. -l -l (D-G)
56. Abl. sg. -di
1
, -d, -l
1
-, -r(i)
85. N(m/f) pl. -i
1
-i
57. N-A(n) pl. -a -a
86. D pl. -ai
1
-e (< *-ai [D-G])
95. G pl. -ai
1
-ai
58. 3rd pers. sg. pres./fut. -d -(i)
138
59. 3rd pers. pl. pres./fut. -nt -nt
LEMNIAN ETRUSCAN
vocabulary
104. avi- year avil-
23. -c and -c, -,
41. o- to place, put tva-
7. -m but, and -m
69. mara- 5 ma,-
105. nao- grandson neft-
106. sia- 6 sa-, se-
107. tavarsio, toveronarom
(magistracy)
tevera
108. vanaca- king vanec-
word formation
47. adjectival -si-, -si- -s-, -s-
109. -l,vei- (multiples of ten) -l,l-
(pro)nominal declension & verbal conjugation
55. D sg. -i -a, -i
84. (D-)G sg. -s -s
102-
103.
D-G sg. -l -l
110. Loc. sg. - -(i)
85. N(m/f) pl. -i -i
86. D pl. -ai -e (< *-ai [D-G])
111. 3rd pers. sg. past tense -ke -ce, -,e
GREEK ETRUSCAN
vocabulary
104. a(v)elios sun avil- year
676
112. hals, (G halos) salt, sea als-
113. askos wineskin aska (vase name)
114. Aphrios (month name) apiras-
96. Bakkhos Bakkhos Pa,ie-
115. bronte roar, thunder fronta-
677
116 deinos round vessel ina (vase name)
76. dem to built am (u)-
117. dre to give tur(u)-
118. hekatombe sacrifice of
hundred oxen
,imm-
119. elai(v) olive eleiva-

676
Maresch 1957, who further points out that related words for
sun, like Latin sol, are also used for year.
677
Note the preservation of the Greek [o] in the Etruscan form.
120. emmenai to be (Aiolic) am-
121. epiourosguardian,
watcher, ward
epiur-, epru-
678
108. (v)anaks king vanec-
122. themeros holy tameresc- holy gift
123. themis law, custom, right 0emi-
124. kln twig, spray, slip clan son
125. kulikhne small cup culi,na, ,uli,na
(vase name)
66. kthn drinking vessel qutum (vase name)
126. la(v)os host, people lavt- freedman
127. le(v)n lion lev
128. lekuthos oil-flask le,tumuza (vase
name)
129. brotos (< *mrtos) mortal mur- to die
10. nekus corps nace-, ne,- dimin-
ishing
105. nepous, pl. nepodes chil-
dren
neft- grandson
130. nedus stomach, belly,
womb
ne-, net-, niu-
entrails
131. opui to marry, take to
wife
puia- wife
132. polos pole-(star) pulum- star(s)
133. prokhous vessel for pour-
ing out
pru,um (vase name)
134. prutanis ruler, lord pru-, pur-
135. spondeion cup for pouring
a drink- offering
spanti libation
bowl, plate
136. tauros bull 0evru
137. tris thrice trais-
138. turannos tyrant turan (divine form of
address)
679
139. hupnos sleep, slumber hupnina tomb
140. Huttenia (= Tetrapolis) hu0, hut 4
141. kharisterion thank-
offering
,arste[r]iun
142. khoros dance ,urvar month of the
dances
143. pharthenos girl, virgin
(Aiolic)
farna-

678
Correspondence used by Agostiniani & Nicosia 2000: 105
without due reference to the original source Charsekin 1963.
679
Possibly related with Luwian hieroglyphic tarwana- law-
giver.
139
verbal conjugation
111. 3rd pers. sg. perfect (or ao-
rist) -ke
-ce, -,e

LATIN/ITALIC ETRUSCAN
vocabulary
144. capio to take (away) capi-
145. esuna- offering aisna-
146. idus (middle of the month) etul-
147. kletram bier cletram
127. leo lion lev
148. lustrum lustrum lurs-
149. magister (magistracy) macstrev-
150. maro- (magistracy) maru-
151. mundus bothros mun-
129. morior to die mur-
152. munus offering, tribute,
duty
munist-
105. nepos grandson neft-
153. patina plate pana-
154. pro-nepos great-grandson prumt-
155. ritus rite rita-, ri(a)-
135. spondeum cup for pouring
a drink- offering
spanti libation
bowl, plate
156. subulu fluteplayer suplu
157. suus (reflexive pronoun,
3rd pers.)
sva-
158. teneo to hold (a magis-
tracy)
en(u)-, ten(u)-
159. touto-, tuta- people uta-, tu-
46. vinum wine vina-
verbal conjugation
160. 3rd pers. pl. passive pres.
-ntur
-n(a)ur (now also
Agostiniani & Nico-
sia 2000: 54 (=
Tabula Cortonensis,
section III)
161. infinitive passive -ri -ri
PHOENICIAN/HEBREW ETRUSCAN
vocabulary
162. Asherah Aisera (note that this
of old inherited form
of the Phoenician di-
vine name Astarte
needs to be distin-
guished from Astre-
in the inscriptions on
the Pyrgi gold tab-
lets, which is an ad
hoc attempt to render
trt in the Phoeni-
cian version of the
text)
142. krr month of the dances ,urvar, ,urve, ,uru
163. mlh beautiful mla, (G mlakas)
164. slt- power seleita- sultanate
The salient points from this list are the following:
(1) Correspondences of Etruscan with Hittite have a
bearing on vocabulary alone: hence Etruscan is
not to be identified with Hittite, as Vladimir
Georgiev wants to have it.
(2) Considering the fact that the correspondences of
Etruscan with Luwian hieroglyphic outmatch all
other categories, Etruscan shows the closest affin-
ity with Luwian hieroglyphic. Note especially that
the shared use of the endings of the N(m/f) pl. in
-i and D pl. in -ai exclude a particularly close re-
lationship with cuneiform Luwian, which is
characterized by N(m/f) pl. -nzi and D pl. -nza.
Yet another feature which stresses the relationship
of Etruscan with Luwian hieroglyphic is the phe-
Etruscan with Luwian hieroglyphic is the phe-
nomenon of rhotacism of the dental, as attested
for the onomastic element tiwat/ra- and the end-
ing of the Abl. sg. -t/ri.
(3) Nevertheless, Etruscan is not to be identified as a
dialect of Luwian hieroglyphic, as it shares the
loss of the N(m/f) sg. -s and A(m/f) sg. -n in the
realm of the noun with Lycian, which also pro-
vides comparative evidence for the A(m/f) pl. in
-es or -is. To this comes that Etruscan shows some
evidence of the typical Lycian phonetic develop-
ment [s] > [h] in the case of the verb hamai-
/amei- to found < cuneiform Luwian samnai-.
Another deviation from the Luwian hieroglyphic
140
pattern is formed by the G pl. in -ai, which Etrus-
can shares with Lycian and Lydian. Finally,
Etruscan has in common with Lydian the use of
the D-G sg. in -l and the dropping of the final
vowel with respect to the endings of the Abl. sg.
and the 3rd person sg. and pl. of the present/future
tense. Obviously, this leads us to the conclusion
that Etruscan is a Luwian dialect sui generis.
(4) About the time that Etruscan separated from the
related Luwian dialects it is relevant to note that,
considering the form of the relative being -va-, it
has not participated in the labiovelar development
which characterizes Lycian ti- and Lydian pe- or
pi-. On the other hand, we have seen that Etruscan
shows some evidence of the typical Lycian pho-
netic development [s] > [h]. Hence, the separation
likely dates to after the 8th century BC, when
Luwian hieroglyphic dies out, and before the first
evidence of Lycian and Lydian in the late 7th cen-
tury BC.
(5) The large amount of correspondences with Greek,
which cannot be explained in an Italian context,
indicate an Aegean location of Etruscan when still
in the Anatolian motherland. On the basis of the
Aiolisms, this location may perhaps even be fine-
tuned as in the neighborhood of Aiolia. Note that
the influence of Greek on Etruscan, in view of the
origin of the ending of the 3rd person sg. of the
past tense in -ce or -e from the Greek kappa-
perfect (or -aorist), amounted to the level of code-
mixing.
680
(6) The correspondences with Italic and Latin are eas-
ily explained by the Italian context of Etruscan
from the 7th century BC onwards. Note that, in
view of the 3rd person pl. of the passive of the
present tense in -n(a)ur and the passive infini-
tive -ri, the interaction with the Italici also
amounted to the level of code-mixing.
(7) The correspondences with Phoenician indicate a
direct contact of Etruscans with Phoenicians.

680
Adams, Janse & Swain 2002.
141
APPENDIX III: A LUWIAN TRIFUNCTIONAL DIVINE TRIAD
RECORDED FOR CRETE
The Egyptian hieroglyphic text of a medical papyrus,
probably stemming from to the reign of Amenhotep III
(1390-1352 BC), preserves a magical spell against the Asi-
atic pox in the language of the Keftiu. In transliteration,
this text reads:
sntik3pwpyw3yiymntirk3k3r,
or, in the vocalized transliteration as adopted by
Wolfgang Helck:
sa-n-ta-ka-pu-pi-wa-ya-a-ya-ma-n-ta-ra-k-ka-ra.
As argued at length in my contribution on the topic
from 1992 (with references), the formula can be subdi-
vided into six individual entities, four of which render
three divine names in sum, viz. Santas, Kupapa, and Tarku
Kara, and the remaining two of which consist of vocabu-
lary words, viz. waya (w3y) and ayaman (iymn).
681
The
three divine names are all of Luwian background,
682

681
Woudhuizen 1992a: 1-10; according to the expert Egyptologist
J.F. Borghouts, the sign Gardiner 1994: N 31 road does not ren-
der a phonetic value in the present context.
682
For Luwian hieroglyphic, see Savas 1998: 41-2 (Santas); 17-
29 (Kupapa); 47-63 (Tarunt); note that Taru(nt) is represented
as Trqqt- or Trqqas in Lycian inscriptions, see Melchert 1993,
s.v., and as Zeus Targuenos in Lydia, see Woudhuizen 1990: 101;
Santas and Kupapa are recorded in form of Snt
2
as and Kufad in
Lydian no. 4, see Gusmani 1964. Related onomastic elements of
these three divine names together are attested for the archives of
Tell Atchana/Alalakh (Goetze 1954: 74, 78; Laroche 1960b: 116)
and Ras Shamra/Ugarit (Gordon 1965: glossary nos. 1186, 1777,
2607 and 2609) in North Syria (cf. Strange 1980: 132), i.e. preci-
sely the region from where Luwian hieroglyphic disseminates in
the beginning of the second millennium BC (Best & Woudhuizen
1989: 108-20; 128-37). At Karkamis in this very same region also
a divine triad is venerated, this time consisting of Taru(nt) (or its
Hurritic equivalent Teup or its Semitic counterpart Adad), Ku-
papa and the stag-god Karuas, see Laroche 1960b: 120; this lat-
ter divine triad is mentioned together in, amongst others, a Luwian
hieroglyphic inscription on a stone bowl dedicated by the Phrygian
king Midas and hence dating to the late 8th century BC, which was
transported as a spolia from Karkamis to Babylon, see Hawkins
2000: 394-6 and Woudhuizen 2004b: 105-6 (= Babylon 2).
whereas the vocabulary words, in conformity with the
situation in Cretan Linear A, are Semitic, waya corre-
sponding to wy and as recorded for a Phoenician inscrip-
tion from Cyprus and ayaman to immanu with us as in
Biblical immanuel with us god, so that in its entirety
the translation of the formula runs as follows: Santas, Ku-
papa, and with us Carian Taru(nt).
Of the three gods in question, Taru(nt) is the storm-
or weather-god, often depicted with the symbol of light-
ning in his hand. Next, Kupapa, who is likely to be identi-
fied with the Phrygian Magna Mater, Kybele, no doubt
likewise represents agricultural richness and procreation.
Finally, there is some evidence to consider Santas as a
war-god, because (1) he is depicted armed with a bow, (2)
in his capacity as chief god of Tarsus during the Classical
period he is identified with the Greek war-hero par excel-
lence, Herakles, and (3) in a Hittite text he is staged as
dressed in bloodred cloths red being the color of the war-
rior class.
683
At this point, one cannot help to be reminded
of Georges Dumzils epoch-making thesis of a trifunc-
tional ideology of the Indo-Europeans, Taru(nt) repre-
senting royal sovereignty (= F1), Santas standing as a
protagonist for the class of warriors (= F2), and Kupapa
acting as protectress of the class of agricultural producers
(= F3). At any rate, the parallels from the pantheon of
other Indo-European peoples like the Romans, the Indians,
and the Germans for trifunctional divine triads are conspi-
cious:
684

683
Melchert 2002: 241-2; Kammenhuber 1940: 193; cf. Dumzil
1958: 26.
684
Dumzil 1958: 48 f. (Roman); 34 (Indic); 58 (Germanic); ac-
cording to Littleton 1973: 12 the Germanic evidence should rather
be analysed as follows: F1 Othinn, F2 Thrr, and F 3 Freyr.
142
LUWIAN ROMAN INDIC GERMANIC
F1 Tarku Kara Jupiter Mitra-Varuna Thor
F2 Santas Mars Indra Wodan
F3 Kupapa Quirinus Nasatya-Asvin Freyr
Table 9. Trifunctional divine triads among various Indo-European speaking groups.
Now, the present Luwian divine triad is not the only evi-
dence for trifunctionalism in Crete. Recently, Chris Lynn
and Dean Miller argued that the cup with a man with a
staff (= F1), the rhyton with a depiction of boxers and
other sports (= F2), and the vase with a procession of
farmers (= F3) from one and the same Late Minoan IB
context at Hagia Triada present yet another instance of this
typical Indo-European ideology.
685
Contrary to the opin-
ion of the latter authors, however, I would not attribute this
example of trifunctionalism to the Mycenaean Greeks, who
only gained possession of the island of Crete after the dis-
astrous Santorini eruption at the end of Late Minoan IB (c.
1450 BC), but to the Luwian population groups which pre-
sumably arrived with the Indo-European incursions in the
east-Mediterranean region at the end of the Early Bronze
Age II, c. 2300 BC.
686
According to the late Edgar Polom, there is no evi-
dence of trifunctionalism among the Indo-European popu-
lation groups of Anatolia, which would underline their
aberrant position in the field of linguistics as exemplified
by the unique preservation of a reflex of laryngeal [h
2
].
687
As shown in the above, however, this evidence is blatantly
provided by the most southernly fringe of the Luwians, i.e.
those inhabiting the island of Crete. Such a conclusion co-
incides markedly with the straightforwardly Indo-
European nature of the Luwian language as attested for the
hieroglyphic monuments, which, apart from some individ-
ual developments like the loss of the voiced velars, is par-
ticularly related to the conservative group among the Indo-
European languages consisting, next to the other IE Anato-

685
Lynn & Miller 1999.
686
Mellaart 1971; Gimbutas 1973; Best 1981: 8-9; see section 3
above.
687
Polom 1982b: 169 () nothing reminds us of the trifunctio-
nal pattern in the traditions of the Luwians, Hittites, and other In-
do-Europeans of the Old Kingdom, (). An exception to this
statement is be formed by the trifunctional colors (F1 white, F2
red, and F3 blue) enumerated in a Hittite ritual, see Littleton 1973:
95 and cf. note 683 above.
lian languages Hittite and Palaic, of Celtic, Italic, and
Tocharian.
688
Hence, the preservation of a reflex of laryn-
geal [h
2
] in IE Anatolian may safely be ascribed to the in-
fluence of the indigenous Anatolian languages like Hattic
and Hurritic on that of the Indo-European intruders. No
need, therefore, to saddle the Indo-Europeans of Anatolia
up with 1700 years of fictitious history, as Robert Drews,
in the wake of the linguists Thomas Gamkrelidze & Va-
ceslav Ivanov, does in his Greater Anatolia!
689

688
Woudhuizen 2004a: section 9.
689
Drews 2001.
143
APPENDIX IV: PELASGIAN DEMETER AND ZEUS
The earliest attestation of the divine name Demeter is on a
stone laddle inscribed with the Linear A legend da-ma-te
from a peak-sanctuary at Kythera, dated to the transition
from Middle Minoan III to Late Minoan I, c. 1600 BC.
690
According to Herodotos, the cult of Demeter originated
from Egypt, and the rites were taught by the daughters of
Danaos to Pelasgian women.
691
As the arrival in Greece of
Danaos with his daughters from Egypt can be situated in
the period of the shaft-graves at Mycenae c. 1600 BC, this
tallies well with the afore-mentioned date of the earliest
epigraphical evidence for the divine name Demeter. In the
variant of the myth by Pausanias, however, Demeter is
welcomed in his home by Pelasgos, the mythical ancestor
of the Pelasgians who ruled the Argolid before the arrival
of Danaos and his daughters and thus brings us back to
sometime in the Middle Bronze Age.
692
The name Demeter or Damater is variously analyzed
by linguists, but all agree that the second element consists
of a reflex of PIE *mh
2
ter mother.
693
Generally, this is
taken for evidence of the Greek language, but the interpre-
tation of Linear B ma-ka as Ma Ga Mother Earth mili-
tates against a Greek solution along the line of da- in
Damater being a reflex of Greek ga or ge earth.
694
To
this comes that the Phrygian language, which, as we have
seen in section 7 above, was presumably spoken by pre-
Greek population groups of mainland Greece, is likewise
characterized by a reflex of PIE *mh
2
ter as exemplified
by the Old Phrygian expression matar Kubileya or matar
Kubeleya mother Kybele.
695
Hence, the divine name
Demeter may well date back to the time before the Greek
language came into being and be of Pelasgian origin as
Pausanias version of the myth suggests.
696

690
Sakellarakis & Olivier 1994 (= KY Za 2); Duhoux 1994-5:
290-1; Suter 2002: 164.
691
Histories II, 171.
692
Guide to Greece 1, 14, 2.
693
Suter 2002: 160-1.
694
Aravantinos, Godart & Sacconi 2001: 184; 358; cf. Douhoux
1994-5: 290.
695
Brixhe & Lejeune 1984: W-04; B-01.
696
Cf. Pausanias, Guide to Greece 2, 22, 1: Demeter Pelasgis
Another deity attributed with a Pelasgian origin is
Zeus. Thus already in Homeros Iliad, which, as we have
seen in section 2 above, basically reflects Late Bronze Age
history, Zeus of Dodona at that time still the one near
Skotussa in Thessaly is referred to by Akhilleus in a
prayer as Pelasgian (Zeu Ddnaie Pelasgike).
697
Now,
the linguistic analysis of the divine name Zeus is undis-
puted, all specialists tracing it back to the PIE root *Dyews
for the sky-god.
698
If, then, Zeus mythical Pelasgian ori-
gin applies, we are confronted with a second pre-Greek di-
vine name based on a PIE root.
The Pelasgian nature of Demeter and Zeus may well
account for their incorporation in the Lydian pantheon as
Lametru- and Levs or Lefs, respectively.
699
As we have
seen in section 12 above, namely, Pelasgians were living in
the region of Larisa Phrikonis at the time of the Trojan war
and for this reason may be assumed to have been in close
contact with the ancestors of the historical Lydians, in
which process they evidently radiated their cult of Demeter
and Zeus.
The identification of Demeter and Zeus as Pelasgian
gods does not exclude their ultimate Cretan origin as sug-
gested by the Homeric hymn to Demeter
700
and Hesiodos
Theogony,
701
which squares with the earliest attestation of
Demeter in a Linear A inscription from a Minoan peak-
sanctuary at Kythera, and the myth of Zeus being born in
the cave of Dikte:
702
as we have already noted with respect
to Demeter, the cult of these gods may have radiated to the
Greek mainland already in Middle Helladic times! From a

Pelasgian Demeter.
697
Homeros, Iliad XVI, 233; cf. Strabo, Geography V, 2, 4.
698
Sihler 1995: 58; cf. Beekes 1990: 96.
699
Gusmani 1964, s.v.
700
Homeric Hymn to Demeter 123; cf. Nilsson 1927: 506.
701
Theogony 969-74, with Iasin as parhedros; for the Minyan
nature of the root of the latter name, cf. the royal names Iasos as
attested for Orkhomenos and Iason as reported for Iolkos, on
which see Sakellariou 1977: 116-7.
702
Apollonios of Rhodes, Argonautika I, 605-6; for the associa-
tion of his birth with mount Ida, see ibid., II, 1559-61; cf. Nilsson
1927: 393-4. Note in this connection that in Homeros Iliad Zeus
is frequently associated with the Trojan mount Ida.
144
linguistic point of view, however, the names Demeter and
Zeus should be assigned to a Pelasgian layer or group in
Cretan society.
Additional note 1: Linear A I-DA-
MA-TE
Two double-axes, one of gold and the other of silver, from
the cave of Arkalokhori are inscribed with the Linear A
legend L 100a-30-95-92, reading, with the values of their
Linear B counterparts, i-da-ma-te.
703
This legend has re-
ceived various interpretations by the different authors. In
the first place, the excavator of the find, Nikolaos
Boufidis, suggested to consider it as the equivalent of
Greek Ida he mater The Idaian Mother.
704
Secondly, the
editor princeps of the inscription on the gold axe, Maurice
Pope, took it for a variant of the pre-Greek divine name
Demeter characterized by an enigmatic prefix i-.
705
Thirdly, Franco Crevatin explained the second part of the
legend as a reflex of the onomastic element -martis as at-
tested for the pre-Greek Cretan divine name Britomar-
tis.
706
In the fourth place, finally, Paul Faure proposed to
split up the second part of the legend in a theonym Ma and
a reflex of the Greek vocabulary word theos.
707
Of these interpretations, the last two have a bearing
only on the second element -ma-te, which the authors in
question try to disconnect from PIE *mh
2
ter mother. In
my view, these attempts are highly dubious (we would
have expected -ma-ti and -ma-te-o, respectively) and at
any rate unsuccessful in explaining the legend in full. The
latter remark also holds good for Popes interpretation,
which, although recognizing the plausible relation of ma-te
with PIE *mh
2
ter, saddles us up with an enigmatic prefix
i-.
708
This leaves us, by means of deduction, with the only

703
Godart & Olivier 1982: 142-3, AR Zf 1-2; for the numbering
of the Linear A signs, see Meijer 1982: 38-47.
704
Boufidis 1953-4.
705
Pope 1956.
706
Crevatin 1975.
707
Faure 2002: 78. Cf. Duhoux 1994-5: 289-90; Kaczynska 2002:
138.
708
Duhoux 1994-5: 291-2 connects the supposed prefix i- with
Linear y- as in ya-sa-sa-ra-me alongside a-sa-sa-ra-me, but, as we
have noted in section 12 above, this concerns the Semitic vocative
particle y- and, although hybrid formations are not altogether
impossible, would nonetheless collide with the PIE nature of the
comprehensive elucidation by Boufidis as Idaian
Mother. According to Elwira Kaczynska, this runs up
against the fact that the Cretan oronym Ida originates from
*Wida, and hence an initial digamma should be expected
for the Linear A legend
709
an inference which even re-
ceives further support if the related Greek ide timber-tree
(leading to the interpretation of Ida as wooded hill)
710
ultimately derives from PIE *uidhu- tree.
711
However,
the mans name Idaios, which, of course, cannot be dis-
connected from the mountain name Ida, appears in Linear
B as i-da-i-jo, that is to say without an initial digamma.
712
As it seems, then, the initial digamma has been dropped al-
ready in the 14th century BC, which, needless to say, seri-
ously undermines Kaczynskas objection.
The validity of Boufidis interpretation can be further
supported by circumstantial evidence. As indicated in the
above, the legend is inscribed on double-axes. Now, the
double-axe is the symbol par excellence of the foremost
Cretan goddess, which according to her Semitic form of
address is called Assara. This goddess, especially known
from libation inscriptions on wash-hand stone-basins from
peak-sanctuaries, is depicted on a seal with the double-axe
on her head. Furthermore, her name is written with the
double-axe sign for the expression of the initial vowel,
which in one instance is placed between punctuation marks
to stress its symbolic value as a totem for the goddess.
713
According to three Cretan hieroglyphic sealings with the

possible, would nonetheless collide with the PIE nature of the rest
of the legend.
709
Kaczynska 2002: 138.
710
LSJ, s.v. Note in this connection that in Homeros, Iliad XXIII,
110-28 and in Dictys of Cretes work on the Trojan war (III, 12
and IV, 13) the Trojan mount Ida is referred to as a source of wood
for cremation burials.
711
Pokorny 1994: I, 1177; cf. Delamarre 2003: 319 for Celtic ui-
du- tree, wood.
712
Ventris & Chadwick 1973: glossary, s.v.; cf. also i-da-me-na-
ja, the female counterpart of Homeric Idomeneus, which latter is
plausibly interpreted by Kretschmer (Pauly-Wissowa Realency-
clopdie, s.v.) as der Mann vom Ida gebirge and hence likely
bears testimony of the Hittite ethnic suffix -umana-, see Laroche
1960c: 171. Note that this linguistic analysis receives further em-
phasis by the fact that Idomeneus mother is called Ida according
to literary tradition, see Gindin 1999: 90. For the loss of the wau,
cf. Linear A a-si-ja-ka as compared to Linear B a-si-wi-jo, both
forms bearing testimony of the Anatolian geographic name Assu-
wa Asia.
713
Best & Woudhuizen 1988: 19-21, esp. figs. 19 and 20a.
145
first part of the name of the goddess from Samothrace, her
cult was exported to the north-Aegean region in the Middle
Minoan II or III period.
714
If we realize, then, that for the
Luwian population of Crete the form of address for this
foremost Cretan goddess was Kapupi, a local dialectal
variant of Luwian Kupapa,
715
it seems not farfetched to
assume that the Kybela (= Phrygian form of Luwian Ku-
papa) cult at the Trojan mount Ida was introduced from
Crete in this particular period. If so, our connection of the
double-axe with the Idaian Mother is substantially en-
hanced.
The question remains to be answered to which lin-
guistic layer on Crete Linear A i-da-ma-te Idaian Mother
should be ascribed. To this aim, it is important to deter-
mine the date of the inscribed double-axes. This can be
achieved by their association with pottery from the same
cave, which according to Pierce Blegen runs on from Early
Minoan to Late Minoan IA or perhaps even Late Minoan
IB and Late Minoan II.
716
If the latest possible date ap-
plies, the two Linear A legends may well be assumed to
have been produced in consigment of a Greek customer,
because, as we have seen in section 8, the Mycenaean
Greeks have earned themselves a foothold in Crete after
the desastrous Santorini-eruption at the end of Late Mi-
noan IB (c. 1450 BC). If, however, the double-axes belong
to an earlier period, an attribution to the Pelasgian layer or
group in Cretan society, which we have just seen to be re-
sponsible for the divine name Demeter, seems preferable.
At any rate, to suggest that for the presence of the divine
name Idaian Mother in two Linear A inscriptions this
script in its entirety notates an Indo-European language of
the Greek or Thraco-Phrygian type bears testimony of a
grave methodological error and a reductio ad absurdum of
the complexities of Cretan society during the Middle and
Late Bronze Age.
717

714
Olivier & Godart 1996: 192, # 135-7.
715
Woudhuizen 1992a: 4-5; see also appendix III.
716
Vandenabeele 1985: 5 and the decoration of the double axes
belongs to the type which furnished the inspiration for the second
period of the Palace Style pottery ca. 1450-1400 BC.
717
Owens 1996: 174-5; Owens 1999: 34; 49 (claims that Minoan
[in casu Linear A] is the oldest example of Indo-European);
Owens 2000: 249.
Additional note 2: Poseidon con-
sort of Da
In his stimulating monograph on the Greek deity Poseidon,
Fritz Schachermeyr followed the linguistic analysis of this
divine name by Paul Kretschmer as a compound of Greek
potis or posis consort of PIE nature (cf. Latin potis, San-
skrit ptih) with a form of address of mother earth, Da,
hence leading to the interpretation of the entire form as
consort of Da.
718
Now, the second element da-, which is
also present in the divine name Damater or Demeter (< da-
+ PIE *mh
2
ter), may well come into consideration as the
Pelasgian indication of earth, related to Greek ga or ge
and originating from the common proto-form *gda- as at-
tested for the Phrygian place name Gdanmaa,
719
Demeter
being the earth-mother par excellence. If so, the divine
name Poseidon, just like Demeter, is likely to be attributed
with Pelasgian antecedents.
The latter inference gains weight by the fact that ac-
cording to literary tradition Poseidon, together with Deme-
ter, was venerated in Arkadian Thelpusa and some other
locations in horse shape
720
a feature which Schacher-
meyr plausibly explains as ultimately rooted in the time of
the introduction of the horse in Greece,
721
which, as we
have seen in section 7, took place in two distinct phases
during the Early Helladic III (horse-like animal) and Mid-
dle Helladic (true horse) periods. Interesting to note in this
connection is that the prominent position of the horse in
Middle Helladic times clearly appears from the horse bur-
ial associated with a royal tumulus at Marathon.
722
Con-
trary to Schachermeyr, however, and in line with a
suggestion by Joost Crouwel, I think it is unlikely that this
prominent position of the horse in Middle Helladic times is
solely based on its function as food provider (milk and

718
Schachermeyr 1950: 13-4; cf. Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995:
26, etc.
719
Haas 1966: 215 (ascribes this name to Pisidian influence, but
unlikely so as Pisidian belongs to the Luwian language group).
720
Pausanias, Guide to Greece 8, 25, 5 f.
721
Schachermeyr 1950: 64; 143.
722
Marinaotos 1973: Pls. 13-4; Papadimitriou 2001: figs. 44-7.
Doubts have been raised about the Middle Helladic date of this
horse burial, and it is considered by some an intrusive element
from the Turkish period, but it should be noted in this context that
single horse burial is paralleled for the Middle Bronze Age at La-
pithos in Cyprus, see Gjerstad 1926 : 81 (Politiko tomb 3) and cf.
Herscher 1978 : 793.
146
meat) or as a sacred animal per se:
723
it must have had al-
ready military significance in this early period and hence
have been used for riding
724
(note in this connection that
the outcome of the sacred marriage between Poseidon and
Demeter in horse shape at Thelpusa, the divine horse
Areion, is reported to have been mounted by Adrastos, i.e.
a king with a Phrygian name whose antecedents hence may
likewise go back to Middle Helladic times, in the mythical
war of the seven heroes from the Argolid against
Thebes).
725
The ultimately Pelasgian origins of Poseidon can be
further underlined by other literary evidence. First of all, it
is conspicuous that Poseidon is particularly worshipped in
the regions where we have situated the local allies of the
foreign invaders which arrived in Greece c. 1600 BC, viz.
in Pylos (Nestor is sacrificing to Poseidon when Tele-
makhos visits him in the Odyssey),
726
Attica (think of the
contest between Athena and Poseidon, which the former
won because of her gift of the olive tree),
727
and Iolkos (as
mythical father of Pelias and Neleus).
728
Next, Poseidon is
directly associated in myth with Phrygians (Pelops, at
Olympia, and the nymph Mideia),
729
or Thracians (Eu-
molpos, Kykhreus, the Abantes and Aones, the Eteo-
butades),
730
or pre-Greeks more in general (Pelasgos,
Minyas).
731
In the light of the given associations with the horse

723
Schachermeyr 1950: 53-4; 121.
724
Crouwel 1981: 46 It is not impossible that some of the single
horses buried [among which the one at Marathon notwithstan-
ding Crouwels second thoughts still considered Middle Helladic
in Papadimitriou 2001, be it with doubts expressed in a note] were
riding animals. This does not collide with Drews recent thesis
(2004) that riding became military effective in the form of cavalry
units only after the Bronze Age. Note that this single horse burial
from the Middle Helladic period contrasts with double horse buri-
als as discovered at Dendra (Protonotariou-Deilaki 1990), which
cannot be dissociated from the war-chariot and hence must be as-
signed to the period from c. 1600 BC onwards.
725
Pausanias, Guide to Greece 8, 25, 7-9; cf. Wiesner 1968: F.
111.
726
Homeros, Odyssey III, 1 ff.
727
Herodotos, Histories VIII, 55.
728
Schachermeyr 1950: 43.
729
Schachermeyr 1950: 22; 41.
730
Schachermeyr 1950: 36-7; 41; cf. Detschew 1976, s.v. Boutes
and Kukhris, and Woudhuizen 1989: 196.
731
Schachermeyr 1950: 41; 43.
and with pre-Greek population groups in Greece, the con-
nection of Poseidon with the chariot (Pelops at Olympia,
Onkhestos, the two horses of Peleus named Xanthos and
Balios)
732
as we have seen in section 7, the military
weapon newly introduced by the foreign invaders c. 1600
BC and with the ones who are responsible for its intro-
duction in Greece (Kadmos),
733
appears to be of secondary
nature.
Just like Demeter and Zeus, Poseidon is also attested
for Crete. Thus, in the genitive form po-se-da-o-ne he oc-
curs together with other deities on a Linear B tablet from
Knossos (KN V 52).
734
Furthermore, if our location of
Skheria and the Phaiakians in the western part of the Me-
sara valley holds good, it is noteworthy that Poseidon had
a temple here and is considered to be the father of Nau-
sithos, the founding father of the Phaiakians.
735
At any
rate, this latter evidence ties in perfectly with our indica-
tions of Pelasgian presence in the very same region of
Crete as presented in section 12 above!

732
Schachermeyr 1950: 22; 39; 42.
733
Schachermeyr 1950: 170.
734
Ventris & Chadwick 1973: 311-2.
735
Schachermeyr 1950: 172. Note in this connection that striking
evidence for the cult of Poseidon in the region in question is pro-
vided by the remark in the Souda, s.v. Maleos that the latter had
dedicated a stone at the entrance of the harbor of Phaistos to Po-
seidon, cf. Briquel 1984: 266.
147
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Achterberg, Winfried, Best, Jan, Enzler, Kees, Rietveld, Lia, &
Woudhuizen, Fred, 2004, The Phaistos Disc: A Luwian Letter
to Nestor. Publications of the Henri Frankfort Foundation 13.
Amsterdam: Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society.
Adams, J.N., Janse, Mark, & Swain, Simon, 2002, Bilingualism in
Ancient Society, Language Contact and the Written Word.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Agostiniani, Luciano, & Nicosia, Francesco, 2000, Tabula Corto-
nensis. Roma: LErma di Bretschneider.
Agostino, Bruno d, 1977, Tombe Principesche dell orientaliz-
zante antico da Pontecagnano. Monumenti Antichi, Serie
miscellanea Volume II, 1. Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei
Lincei.
kerstrm, ke, 1934, Studien ber die Etruskischen Grber,
Unter besonderer Bercksichtigung der Entwicklung des
Kammergrabes. Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup.
Akurgal, Ekrem, 1992, LArt Hatti. In: Hittite and Other Anato-
lian and Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Sedat Alp, eds.
Heinrich Otten, Hayri Ertem, Ekrem Akurgal & Aygl Sel.
Pp. 1-5. Ankara: Trk Tarih Kurumu Basmevi.
Albright, William Foxwell, 1932, The Excavations of Tell Beit
Mirsim in Palestine, I: The Pottery of the First Three Cam-
paigns. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research
12.
, 1959, Dunands new Byblos Volume: A Lycian at the By-
blian court. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Re-
search 155. Pp. 31-34.
, 1975, Syria, the Philistines, and Phoenicia. In: Cambridge
Ancient History II, 2, Chapter 33. Pp. 507-536. Cambridge: At
the University Press (3rd edition).
Alfldi, Andreas, 1963, Early Rome and the Latins. Leiden: E.J.
Brill.
Alp, Sedat, 1968, Zylinder- und Stempelsiegel aus Karahyk bei
Konya. Ankara: Trk Tarih Kurumu Basmevi.
Alt, Albrecht, 1944, gyptische Tempel in Palstina und die
Landnahme der Philister. Zeitschrift des Deutschen
Palstina-Vereins 67. Pp. 1-20.
Altheim, Franz, 1950, Der Ursprung der Etrusker. Baden-Baden:
Verlag fr Kunst und Wissenschaft.
Aravantinos, Vassilis L., Godart, Louis, & Sacconi, Anna, 2001,
Thbes, Fouilles de la Cadme I, Les tablettes en linaire B de
la odos Pel opi dou, dition et commentaire. Pisa-Roma:
Istituti editoriale e poligrafici internazionali.
Astour, Michael C., 1964, Greek Names in the Semitic World and
Semitic Names in the Greek World. Journal of Near Eastern
Studies 23. Pp. 193-201.
, 1965a, New Evidence on the Last Days of Ugarit. Ameri-
can Journal of Archaeology 69. Pp. 253-258.
, 1965b, Hellenosemitica, An Ethnic and Cultural Study in
West Semitic Impact on Mycenaean Greece. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
, 1972, Some Recent Works on Ancient Syria and the Sea
People. Journal of the American Oriental Society 92. Pp.
447-459.
Balkan, Kemal, 1954, Kassitenstudien I: Die Sprache der Kas-
siten. New Haven, Connecticut: American Oriental Society.
Barako, Tristan J., 2004, [Review of: Eliezer D. Oren, The Sea
Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment]. American Jour-
nal of Archaeology, 108: 453-455.
Barnett, Richard D., 1969, The Sea Peoples. In: Cambridge An-
cient History II, 2, Chapter 28. Pp. 3-21. Cambridge: At the
University Press (3rd edition).
, 1975, The Sea Peoples. In: Cambridge Ancient History II,
2, Chapter 28. Pp. 359-378. Cambridge: At the University
Press (3rd edition).
Barth, Frederik, 1969, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. The Social
Organization of Culture Difference. Bergen-Oslo:
Universitets Forlaget. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Bartonk, Antonn, & Buchner, Georgio, 1995, Die ltesten
griechischen Inschriften von Pithekoussai (2. Hlfte des VIII.
bis 1. Hlfte des VII. Jh.). Die Sprache, Zeitschrift fr
Sprachwissenschaft 37:2. Pp. 129-231.
Bass, George, 1997, Beneath the Wine Dark Sea: Nautical Ar-
chaeology and the Phoenicians of the Odyssey. In: Greeks
and Barbarians, Essays on the Interaction between Greeks
and Non-Greeks in Antiquity and the Consequences of
Eurocentrism, eds. John E. Coleman & Clark A. Walz. Pp. 71-
101. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press.
Beekes, Robert S.P., 1990, Vergelijkende taalwetenschap, Tussen
Sanskrit en Nederlands (= Aula Paperback 176). Utrecht:
Uitgeverij Het Spectrum BV.
, 1993, The Position of Etruscan. In: Indogermanica et
Italica, Festschrift fr Helmut Rix zum 65. Geburtstag, Hrsg.
Gerhard Meisner. Pp. 46-60. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitrge
zur Sprachwissenschaft.
, 1998, The origin of Lat. aqua, and of *teut people.
Journal of Indo-European Studies 26. Pp. 459-466.
, 2001, [Review of C. De Simone, I Tirreni a Lemnos, Evi-
denza linguistica e tradizioni storiche, Firenze, Olschki 1996].
Mnemosyne 54. Pp. 359-364.
, 2002, The Prehistory of the Lydians, the Origin of the Etrus-
cans, Troy and Aeneas. Bibliotheca Orientalis 59, 3/4 mei-
augustus. Pp. 205-239.
Beekes, Robert S.P., & Meer, L. Bauke van der, 1991, De
Etrusken Spreken. Muiderberg: Coutinho.
148
Behn, Friedrich, 1924, Hausurnen. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Beran, Thomas, 1967, Die Hethitische Glyptik von Bogazky I.
Berlin: Verlag Gbr. Mann.
Brard, C., 1970, Eretria, Fouilles et recherches, III LHron
la port de louest. Bern: ditions Francke Berne.
Brard, Jean, 1951, Philistins et Prhllnes. Revue Archologi-
que 37. Pp. 124- 142.
Bernal, Martin, 1991, Black Athena, The Afroasiatic Roots of
Classical Civilization, II: The Archaeological and Documen-
tary Evidence. London: Free Association Books.
Beschi, Luigi, 1994, I Tirreni di Lemno alla luce dei recenti dati
di scavo. Magna Graeca, Etruschi, Fenici. Pp. 23-56. Tar-
anto.
Best, Jan G.P., 1973, Six contributions to the decipherment of
Linear AI. The Semitic equivalents of Mycenaean a-pu-do-
si and o-pe-ro. Ugarit-Forschungen 5. Pp. 53-59.
, 1976, The Foreign Relations of the Apsis-House Culture in
Palestine. In: Pulpudeva, Semaines philippopolitaines de
lhistoire et de la culture thrace, Plovdiv, 4-19 octobre 1976.
Pp. 205-209.
, 1981a, YAARAM!. Ugarit-Forschungen 13. Pp. 291-
293.
, 1981b, Supplementum Epigraphicum Mediterraneum ad Ta-
lanta, Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Histori-
cal Society 13.
, 1982-3a, The Zakro Pithos Inscription, Again. Talanta,
Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical So-
ciety 14-15. Pp. 9- 15.
, 1982-3b, Two Traditions in Spiral Inscriptions with Linear
A Texts. Talanta, Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological
and Historical Society 14-15. Pp. 17-25.
, 1992-3, Racism in Classical Archaeology. Talanta,
Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical
Society 24-25. Pp. 7-10.
, 1996-7, The Ancient Toponyms of Mallia: A post-
Eurocentric reading of Egyptianising Bronze Age documents.
Black Athena: Ten Years After, Talanta, Proceedings of the
Dutch, Archaeological and Historical Society 28-29, ed. Wim
M.J. van Binsbergen. Pp. 99-129.
, 2000, The First Inscription in Punic, Vowel Differences be-
tween Linear A and B. Ugarit-Forschungen 32. Pp. 27-35.
Best, Jan, & Woudhuizen, Fred, 1988, Ancient Scripts from Crete
and Cyprus. Publications of the Henri Frankfort Foundation 9.
Leiden: E.J. Brill.
, 1989, Lost Languages from the Mediterranean. Publications
of the Henri Frankfort Foundation 10. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Best, Jan G.P., & Yadin, Yigael, 1973, The Arrival of the Greeks.
Publications of the Henri Frankfort Foundation 1. Amsterdam:
Adolf M. Hakkert.
Betancourt, Philip P., 1976, The End of the Bronze Age. Antiq-
uity 50. Pp. 40-47.
Bietak, Manfred, 1993, The Sea Peoples and the End of the Egyp-
tian Administration in Canaan. In: Biblical Archaeology To-
day, 1990, Proceedings of the Second International Congress
on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, June-July 1990, eds.
Avraham Biran & Joseph Aviram. Pp. 292-306. Jerusalem: Is-
rael Exploration Society.
, 2000, Rich beyond the dreams of Avaris: Tell el-Daba and
the Aegean WorldA Guide for the Perplexed: a response to
Eric H. Cline. Annual of the British School at Athens 95. Pp.
185-205.
Bikai, Patricia Maynor, 1992, The Phoenicians. In: The Crisis
Years: The 12th century B.C. From Beyond the Danube to the
Tigris, eds. William A. Ward & Martha Sharp Joukowsky. Pp.
132-141. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Binsbergen, Wim M.J. van, 1996-7, Alternative Models of
Intercontinental Interaction Towards the Earliest Cretan
Script. Black Athena: Ten Years After, Talanta, Proceedings
of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 28-29, ed.
Wim M.J. van Binsbergen. Pp. 131-148.
, 1999, Cultures do not exist, Exploding self-evidences in
the investigation of Interculturality. Quest, An African Jour-
nal of Philosophy XIII, no. 1-2, Special Issue: Languge &
Culture. Pp. 37-114.
, forthc., Ethnicity in eastern Mediterranean protohistory: Re-
flections on theory and method, in: Binsbergen, Wim M.J.
van, & Woudhuizen, Fred C., Ethnicity in Mediterranean Pro-
tohistory, Oxford: BAR (British Archaeological Reports) In-
ternational Series.
Blegen, Carl W., 1963, Troy and the Trojans. London: Thames
and Hudson.
Boardman, John, 1994, Settlement for Trade and Land in North
Africa: problems of identity. In: The Archaeology of Greek
Colonisation, Essays dedicated to Sir John Boardman, eds.
Gocha R. Tsetskhladze & Franco De Angelis. Pp. 137-149.
Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology.
, 1999, The Greeks Overseas, their early colonies and trade.
London: Thames and Hudson (Fourth edition).
Boer, Jan de, 1991, A Double Figure-Headed Boat-Type in the
Eastern Mediterranean and Central Europe during the Late
Bronze Ages. Actes de Symposium Thracia Pontica IV, So-
zopol, October 6-12, 1988. Pp. 43-50. Sofia.
Bonfante, Guliano, 1946, Who were the Philistines?. American
Journal of Archaeology 50. Pp. 257-262.
Bonfante, Giuliano, & Bonfante, Larissa, 2002, The Etruscan
Language, An Introduction. Manchester: Manchester Univer-
sity Press (2nd edition).
Bosch-Gimpera, Pedro, 1939, Two Celtic Waves in Spain. The Sir
John Rhys Memorial Lecture, British Academy. London:
Humphrey Milford Amen House, E.C.
Bossert, Helmuth, 1932, anta und Kupapa. Mitteilungen der
Altorientalischen Gesellschaft VI, 3. Leipzig: Verlag von Otto
149
Harrassowitz.
Boufidis, Nikolaos Kr., 1953-4, Kritomikinaikai epigraphai eks
Arkalokhriou, Arkhaiologiki Ephimeris 2. Pp. 61-74.
Bouzek, Jan, 1997, Greece, Anatolia and Europe: Cultural Inter-
relations during the Early Iron Age. Studies in Mediterranean
Archeology CXXII. Jonsered: Paul strms Frlag.
Breasted, James Henry, 1927, Ancient Records of Egypt, Histori-
cal Documents from the earliest times to the Persian Con-
quest, collected, edited, and translated with commentary.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press (3rd impresssion).
Briquel, Dominique, 1984, Les Plasges en Italie, Recherches sur
lhistoire de la lgende. Rome: cole Franaise de Rome.
, 1991, LOrigine Lydienne des trusques, Histoire de la doc-
trine dans lAntiquit. Rome: cole Franaise de Rome.
Brixhe, Claude, & Lejeune, Michel, 1984, Corpus des Inscriptions
Paleo-Phrygiennes I-II. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les
Civilisations.
Broneer, Oscar, 1956, Athens in the Late Bronze Age. Antiquity
30. Pp. 9-18.
Brown, Raymond A., 1985, Evidence for Pre-Greek Speech on
Crete from Greek Alphabetic Sources. Amsterdam: Adolf M.
Hakkert-Publisher.
Bryce, Trevor R., 1974, The Lukka Problemand a possible so-
lution. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 33. Pp. 395-404.
, 1986, The Lycians in Literary and Epigraphic Sources. Co-
penhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.
, 1989, Ahhiyawans and Mycenaeansan Anatolian view-
point. Journal of Oxford Archaeology 8. Pp. 297-310.
, 1992, Lukka Revisited. Journal of Near Eastern Studies
51. Pp. 121-130.
, 1998, The Kingdom of the Hittites. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
, 2003, Letters of the Great Kings of the Ancient Near East,
The Royal Correspondence of the Late Bronze Age. London-
New York: Routledge.
Buchholz, Hans-Gnter, 1973, Grey Trojan Ware in Cyprus and
North Syria. In: Bronze Age Migrations in the Aegean: Ar-
chaeological and linguistic problems in Greek prehistory,
Proceedings of the First International Colloquium on Aegean
Prehistory, Sheffield, eds. R. A. Crossland & Ann Birchall.
Pp. 179-187. London: Duckworth.
, 1999, Ugarit, Zypern und gis, Kulturbeziehungen im
zweiten Jahrtausend v.Chr. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Buchner, Giorgio, 1982, Die Beziehungen zwischen der
eubischen Kolonie Pithekoussai auf der Insel Ischia und dem
nordwest semitischen Mittelmeerraum in der zweiten Hlfte
des 8. Jhs. v. Chr.. In: Phnizier im Westen, Die Beitrge des
Internationalen Symposiums ber Die phnizische
Expansion im westlichem Mittelmeerraum in Kln vom 24.
bis 27. April 1979, ed. Hans Georg Niemeyer. Pp. 277-306.
Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.
Burn, A.R., 1930, Minoans, Philistines and Greeks, B.C. 1400-
900. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd.
Byrne, Ryan, 2002, Philistine Semitics and Dynastic History at
Ekron. Ugarit- Forschungen 34. Pp. 1-23.
Cabrera, Paloma, & Olmos, Ricardo, 1985, Die Griechen in
Huelva, Zum Stand der Diskussion. Madrider Mitteilungen
26. Pp. 63-74.
Camporeale, Giovannangelo, 2003, Die Etrusker, Geschichte und
Kultur. Dsseldorp-Zrich: Artemis & Winkler Verlag.
Carruba, Onofrio, 2002, Cario Natri ed egizio ntr dio. In:
Novalis Indogermanica, Festschrift fr Gnter Neumann zum
80. Geburtstag, Hrsg. Matthias Fritz & Susanna Zeilfelder.
Pp. 75-84. Graz: Leykam.
Caskey, John L., 1971, Greece, Crete, and the Aegean Islands in
the Early Bronze Age. Cambridge Ancient History I, 2. Pp.
771-807. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (3rd edi-
tion).
, 1973, Greece and the Aegean Islands in the Middle Bronze
Age. Cambridge Ancient History II, 1. Pp. 117-140. Cam-
bridge: At the University Press (3rd edition).
Casson, Stanley, 1968, Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria. Groningen:
Boumas Boekhuis N.V. Publishers.
Catling, Hector, 1973, The Achaean Settlement of Cyprus. In:
Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium The
Mycenaeans in the Eastern Mediterranean, Nicosia 27th
March 2nd April 1972. Pp. 34-39. Nicosia: Zavallis Press
Ltd.
Caubet, Annie, 2000, Ras Shamra-Ugarit Before the Sea Peoples.
In: The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment, ed.
Eliezer D. Oren. Pp. 35-51. Philadelphia: The University Mu-
seum.
Chabas, Franois, 1872, tudes sur lAntiquit Historique daprs
les sources gyptiennes et les monuments rputs prhistori-
que. Chalon-s-S.: Dejussien. Paris: Maissonneuve et Cie.
, 1873, Recherches pour servir lHistoire dgypte sous la
XXe Dynastie.
Champollion, Jean-Franois, 1836, Grammaire gyptienne, ou
principes gnraux de lcriture sacre gyptienne applique
la reprsentation de la langue parle. Paris: Didot.
Chantraine, Pierre, 1958, Mycnien Te-u-ta-ra-ko-ro. In:
Minoica, Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von Johannes
Sundwall, Hrsg. Ernst Grumach. Pp. 123-127. Berlin:
Akademie Verlag.
Charsekin, A.I., 1963, Zur Deutung etruskischer
Sprachdenkmler. Untersuchungen zur Rmischen
Geschichte III. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.
Cifola, Barbara, 1991, The Terminology of Ramses IIIs Histori-
cal Records, with a Formal Analyses of the War Scenes. Ori-
entalia 60. Pp. 9- 57.
Cline, Eric H., 1987, Amenhotep III and the Aegean: A Reas-
sessment of Egypto-Aegean Relations in the Fourteenth Cen-
150
tury B.C. Orientalia 56. Pp. 1-36.
, 1991, A Possible Hittite Embargo against the Mycenaeans.
Historia 40. Pp. 1-9.
, 2001, Amenhotep III, the Aegean, and Anatolia. In: Amen-
hotep III, Perspectives on His Reign, eds. David OConnor &
Eric H. Cline. Pp. 236-250. Ann Arbor: The University of
Michigan Press.
Cline, Eric H., & OConnor, David, 2003, The Mystery of the
Sea Peoples. In: Mysterious Lands, eds. David OConnor &
Stephen Quirke. Pp. 107-138. University College London: In-
stitute of Archaeology.
Coleman, J.E., 2000, An Archaeological Scenario for the Com-
ing of the Greeks ca. 3200 B.C.. Journal of Indo-European
Studies 28. Pp. 101- 153.
Coles, J.M., & Harding, A.F., 1979, The Bronze Age in Europe.
London: Methuen & Co.
Colonna, Giovanni, 1980, Virgilio, Cortona e la leggenda etrusca
di Dardano. Archeologia Classica 32. Pp. 1-14.
Cornell, Tim, 1997, Ethnicity as a factor in early Roman history.
In: Gender & Ethnicity in ancient Italy, Accordia Specialist
Studies on Italy Vol. 6, eds. Tim Cornell & Kathryn Lomas.
Pp. 9-21. University of London: Accordia Research Institute.
Cramer, J.A., 1971, A Geographical and Historical Description of
Asia Minor. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert-Publisher (Re-
print).
Crevatin, Franco., 1975, La lingua minoico: metodi dindagine
e problemi. In: Studi Triestini di Antichit in onore di Luigia
Achillea Stella. Pp. 1-63. Trieste: Facolta di Lettere e
Filosofia.
Crossland, Ronald A., 1971, Immigrants from the North. Cam-
bridge Ancient History I, 2. Pp. 824-876. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press (3rd edition).
Crouwel, Joost H., 1981, Chariots and other means of land trans-
port in Bronze Age Greece. Allard Pierson Series 3. Amster-
dam: Allard Pierson Series.
Davies, Benedict G., 1997, Egyptian Historical Inscriptions of the
Nineteenth Dynasty. Jonsered: Paul strms frlag.
Deger-Jalkotzy, Sigrid, 1983, Das Problem der Handmade
Burnished Ware von Myk. IIIC. In: Griechenland, Die
gis und die Levante whrend der Dark Ages vom 12. bis
zum 9. Jh. v. Chr., Akten des Symposions von Stift Zwettl
(N), 11.-14. Oktober 1980, Hrsg. Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy. Pp.
161-178. Wien: Verlag der sterreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften.
Delamarre, Xavier, 2003, Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise, Une
approche linguistique du vieux-celtique continental. Paris:
Editions Errance (2
e
dition revue et augmente).
Demoule, Jean-Paul, 1999, Ethnicity, culture and identity: French
archaeologists and historians. Antiquity 73. Pp. 190-198.
Demus-Quatember, Margarete, 1958, Etruskische
Grabarchitektur, Typologie und Ursprungsfrage. Baden-
Baden: Bruno Grimm Verlag fr Kunst und Wissenschaften.
Desborough, Vincent R. dA., 1964, The Last Mycenaeans and
their Successors. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
, 1972, The Greek Dark Ages. London: Ernst Benn Limited.
Detschew, Dimiter, 1976, Die Thrakischen Sprachreste. 2. Auflage
mit Bibliographie 1955-1974 von Zivka Velkova. Wien:
Verlag der sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Diakonoff, Igor Mikhailovich, 1984, The Prehistory of the
Armenian people. Delmar-New York: Caravan Books.
Diakonoff, Igor Mikhailovich, & Neroznak, Vladimir Petrovich,
1985, Phrygian. Delmar-New York: Caravan Books.
Dickinson, Oliver T.P.K., 1977, The Origins of Mycenaean Civili-
zation. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 49. Gteborg:
Paul strms Frlag.
Dietrich, Manfried & Loretz, Oswald, 1978, Das Seefahrende
Volk von ikila (RS 34.129). Ugarit-Forschungen 10. Pp.
53-56.
, 1998, Amurru, Yaman und die gischen Inseln nach den
ugaritischen Texten. Israel Oriental Studies 18. Pp. 335-363.
Dikaios, Porphyrios, 1971, Enkomi, Excavations 1948-1958, II:
Chronology, Summary and Conclusions, Catalogue,
Appendices. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.
Docter, Roald F., 2000, Pottery, Graves and Ritual I: Phoenicians
of the First Generation in Pithekoussai. In: La ceramica feni-
cia di Sardegna, Dati, problematiche, confronti, Atti del Pri-
mo Congresso Internazionale Sulcitano, SantAntioco, 19-21
Settembre 1997, eds. Piero Bartoloni & Lorenza Campanella.
Pp. 135-149. Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerce.
Donner, H., & Rllig, W., 1964, Kanaanische und Aramische
Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (3. Auflage).
Dossin, G., 1970, La Route de ltain en Msopotamie au temps
de Zimri-Lim. Revue dAssyriologie et dArcheologie Orien-
tale 64. Pp. 97- 106.
Dothan, Moshe, 1986, Sardinia at Akko?. In: Studies in Sardin-
ian Archaeology II, Sardinia in the Mediterranean, ed. M.S.
Balmuth. Pp. 105- 115. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press.
Dothan, Trude, 1982, The Philistines and their Material Culture.
New Haven-London: Yale University Press.
Dothan, Moshe, & Dothan, Trude, 1992, People of the Sea, The
Search for the Philistines. New York: Macmillan Publishing
Company.
Drews, Robert, 1988, The Coming of the Greeks, Indo-European
Conquests in the Aegean and Near East. Princeton, New Jer-
sey: Princeton University Press.
, 1992, Herodotus 1.94, the Drought ca. 1200 BC, and the
Origin of the Etruscans. Historia 41. Pp. 14-39.
, 1993a, The End of the Bronze Age, Changes in warfare and
the catastrophe ca. 1200 B.C. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
151
, 1993b, Myths of Midas and the Phrygian Migration from
Europe. Klio 75. Pp. 9-26.
, 2000, Medinet Habu: Oxcarts, Ships, and Migration Theo-
ries. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 59. Pp. 161-190.
, 2001, Greater Anatolia, Proto-Anatolian, Proto-Indo-Hittite,
and Beyond. In: Greater Anatolia and the Indo-Hittite Lan-
guage Family, Papers Presented at a Colloquium Hosted by
the University of Richmond, March 18-19, 2000, ed. Robert
Drews. Pp. 248-283. Washington D.C.: The Institute for the
Study of Man.
, 2004, Early Riders, The Beginnings of Mounted Warfare in
Asia and Europe. New York-London: Routledge.
Driessen, Jan, 1998-9, Kretes and Iawones, Some Observations
on the Identity of Late Bronze Age Knossians. Minos 33-34.
Pp. 83-105.,
Driessen, Jan, & Macdonald, Colin F., 1997, The Troubled Island,
Minoan Crete before and after the Santorini Eruption. Ae-
geum 17. Universit de Lige.
Duhoux, Yves, 1994-5, LA > B DA-MA-TE = Dmter? Sur la
langue du linaire A. Minos 29-30. Pp. 289-294.
, 2003, Des Minoens en gypte? Keftiou et les les aux mi-
lieu du Grand Vert. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters Press.
Dumzil, Georges, 1958, Lidologie tripartie des Indo-
Europens. Bruxelles: Latomus, Revue dtudes Latines.
Dunbabin, T.J., 1999, The Western Greeks, The History of Sicily
and South Italy from the Foundation of the Greek Colonies to
480 B.C. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press (Sandpiper reprint).
Dupont-Sommer, Andr, 1948, Nouvelle lecture dune inscription
phnicien archaque de Nora en Sardaigne (C.I.S. I, 144).
Comptes Rendu des Sances de lAcadmie des Inscriptions et
Belles Lettres 1948. Pp. 12-22.
, 1974, Les Phniciens Chypre. Report of the Department
of Antiquities, Cyprus. Pp. 75-94.
Edel, Elmar, 1966, Die Ortsnamenliste aus dem Totentempel Ame-
nophis III. Bonn: Hanstein.
, 1984, Die Sikeloi in den gyptischen Seevlkertexten und in
Keilschrifturkunden. Biblische Notizen 23. Pp. 7-8.
, 1988, Der Name di-q!j-j-s in der minoisch-mykenischen
Liste ENli 8 gleich Thbais?. Zeitschrift fr Aegyptische
Sprache und Altertumskunde 115, 1. Pp. 30-35.
Eder, Birgitta, 1998, Argolis, Lakonien, Messenien, Vom Ende der
mykenischen Palastzeit bis zur Einwanderung der Dorier.
Wien: Verlag der sterreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften.
Edgerton, William F., & Wilson, John A., 1936, Historical
Records of Ramses III, The Texts in Medinet Habu, Volumes I
and II, Translated with explanatory notes. Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press.
Edwards, Ruth B., 1979, Kadmos the Phoenician, A Study in
Greek Legends and the Mycenaean Age. Amsterdam: Adolf
M. Hakkert Publisher.
Eisler, Robert, 1939, Loan-words in Semitic Languages meaning
Town. Antiquity 13. Pp. 449-455.
Evans, Sir Arthur J., 1895, Cretan Pictographs and Prae-
Phoenician Script. London: G.P. Putnams Sons.
, 1909, Scripta Minoa I. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press.
Faure, Paul, 1996, Deux inscriptions en criture Linaire A d-
couvertes Troie par Schliemann. Cretan Studies 5. Pp. 137-
146.
, 2002, critures prhellniques dans dix cavernes de Crte.
Cretan Studies 7. Pp. 75-87.
Fernandez, James W., 2000, Peripheral wisdom. In: Signifying
Identities, Anthropological perspectives on boundaries and
contested values, ed. Anthony P. Cohen. Pp. 117-144.
London-New York: Routledge.
Fick, August, 1905, Vorgriechische Ortsnamen als Quelle fr die
Vorgeschichte Griechenlands. Gttingen.
Fiesel, Eva, 1931, Etruskisch. In: Grundriss der indogermanischen
Sprach- und Altertumskunde, Hrsgbs. Albert Debrunner &
Ferdinand Sommer (= Band 5, Lieferung 4). Berlin-Leipzig:
Walter de Gruyter.
Forrer, Emil, 1924, Vorhomerische Griechen in den Keilschriften
von Boghazki. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-
Gesellschaft zu Berlin 63. Pp. 1-22.
Forsdyke, John, 1957, Greece before Homer, Ancient chronology
and mythology. London: Max Parrish (2nd impression).
Fourmont, Etienne, 1747, Rflections critiques sur lorigine,
lhistoire et la succession des ancient peuples chaldens, h-
breux, phniciens, gyptiennes, grecs jusquau temps de
Cyrus. Paris.
Friedrich, Johannes, 1932, Kleinasiatische Sprachdenkmler.
Berlin: Verlag von Walter de Gruyter & Co.
, 1946, Hethitisches Elementarbuch II. Heidelberg: Carl
Winter Universittsverlag.
, 1991, Kurzgefates Hethitisches Wrterbuch. Heidelberg:
Carl Winter Universittsverlag.
Frisk, Hjalmar, 1973, Griechisches Etymologisches Wrterbuch.
Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universittsverlag.
Fugazzola Delpino, M.A., 1979, The Proto-Villanovan: A Sur-
vey. In: Italy Before the Romans, The Iron Age, Orientalizing
and Etruscan periods, eds. David & Francesca Ridgway. Pp.
31-51. London-New York-San Francisco: Academic Press.
Galinsky, G. Karl, 1969, Aeneas, Sicily, and Rome. Princeton,
New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Gamkrelidze, Thomas V., & Ivanov, Vjaceslav V., 1995, Indo-
European and the Indo-Europeans, A Reconstruction and
Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and a Proto- Cul-
ture, Part I: Text, Part II: Bibliography, Indexes. Berlin-New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Garbini, Giovanni, 1997, I Filistei. Milano: Rusconi.
152
Gardiner, Alan H., 1947, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
, 1960, The Inscriptions of Ramesses II. Oxford: Printed for
the Griffith Institute at the University Press by Vivian Ridler.
, 1961, Egypt of the Pharaohs. Oxford: At the Clarendon
Press.
, 1994, Egyptian Grammar. Oxford: Griffith Institute, Ash-
molean Museum (3rd edition).
Garstang, John, 1929, The Hittite Empire, being a survey of the
history, geography and monuments of Hittite Asia Minor and
Syria. London: Constable and Company Ltd.
Garstang, John, & Gurney, O.R., 1959, The Geography of the Hit-
tite Empire. London: The British Institute of Archaeology at
Ankara.
Gehring, Augustus, 1901, Index Homericus. Lipsiae: In Aedibus
B.G. Teubneri.
Gelb, Ignace, 1931, Hittite Hieroglyphs I. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Georgiev, Vladimir, 1950-1, Sur lorigine et la langue des Plas-
ges, des Philistins, des Danaens et des Achens. Jahrbuch fr
Kleinasiatische Forschung 1. Pp. 136-141.
Gimbutas, Marija, 1973, The destruction of Aegean and East
Mediterranean urban civilization around 2300 B.C.. In:
Bronze Age Migrations in the Aegean, Archaeological and
linguistic problems in Greek prehistory, eds. R.A. Crossland
& Ann Birchall. Pp. 129-139. London: Duckworth.
Gindin, Leonid A., 1999, Troja, Thrakien und die Vlker
Altkleinasiens, Versuch einer historisch-philologischen
Untersuchung. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitrge zur
Kulturwissenschaft.
Gitin, Seymour, 1993, Seventh Century B.C.E. Cultic Elements at
Ekron. In: Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990, Proceedings of
the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology,
Jerusalem, June-July 1990, eds. Avraham Biran & Joseph
Aviram. Pp. 248-258. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Gitin, Seymore, Dothan, Trude, & Naveh, Joseph, 1997, A Royal
Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron. Israel Exploration Jour-
nal 47. Pp. 1-16.
Gjerstad, Einar, 1926, Studies on Prehistoric Cyprus, Uppsala: A.-
B. Lundequistska Bokhandeln.
, 1944, The Colonization of Cyprus in Greek Legend. Opus-
cula Archaeologica III. Pp. 107-123.
Godart, Louis, 1994, La scrittura di Troia. Rendiconti
dellAcademia dei Lincei, serie 9, vol. 5. Pp. 457-460.
Godart, Louis, & Olivier, Jean-Pierre, 1982, Recueil des Inscrip-
tions en linaire A, Volume 4: Autres Documents. Paris:
Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.
Goetze, Albrecht, 1954, The Linguistic Continuity of Anatolia as
Shown by its Proper Names. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 8.
Pp. 74-81.
Goldman, Hetty, 1956, Excavations at Gzl Kule, Tarsus II,
From the Neolithic through the Bronze Age. Princeton, New
Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Gordon, Arthur E., 1983, Illustrated Introduction to Latin Epigra-
phy. Berkeley, Los Angeles-London: University of California
Press.
Gordon, Cyrus Herzl, 1955, Ugaritic Handbook, I: Grammar.
Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.
, 1956, The Rle of the Philistines. Antiqity 30. Pp. 22-26.
, 1957, Notes on Minoan Linear A. Antiquity 31. Pp. 124-
130.
, 1965, Ugaritic Textbook. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
Goudriaan, Koen, 1988, Ethnicity in Ptolemaic Egypt. Amsterdam:
J.C. Gieben, Publisher.
Gras, Michel, 1976, La piraterie tyrrhnienne en mer Ege: mythe
ou ralit?. In: Mlanges offerts J. Heurgon I. Pp. 341-370.
Rome.
Grndahl, Frauke, 1967, Die Personennamen der Texte aus
Ugarit. Rom: Ppstliches Bibelinstitut.
Grosjean, Roger, 1966a, La Corse avant lhistoire. Paris: ditions
Klincksieck.
, 1966b, Recent Work in Corsica. Antiquity 40. Pp. 190-198,
Pls. 29- 31.
Grumach, Ernst, 1968, The Minoan Libation FormulaAgain.
Kadmos 7. Pp. 7-26.
, 1969, The Coming of the Greeks. Bulletin of the John Ry-
lands Library 51. Manchester.
Guido, Margaret, 1963, Sardinia. London: Thames and Hudson.
Gurney, Oliver R., 1990, The Hittites. London: Penguin Books.
, 2002, The Authorship of the Tawagalawas Letter. In: Silva
Anatolica, Anatolian Studies Presented to Maciej Popko on
the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. Piotr Taracha. Pp. 133-
141. Warsaw: Agade.
Gusmani, Roberto, 1964, Lydisches Wrterbuch. Heidelberg: Carl
Winter Universittsverlag.
Gterbock, Hans Gustav, 1942, Siegel aus Bogazky II. Die
Knigssiegel von 1939 und die brigen Hieroglyphensiegel.
Berlin: Im Selbstverlage des Herausgebers.
, 1967, The Hittite Conquest of Cyprus Reconsidered. Jour-
nal of Near Eastern Studies 26, 2. Pp. 73-81.
, 1983, The Hittites and the Aegean World: Part 1. The Ahhi-
yawa Problem Reconsidered. American Journal of Archae-
ology 87. Pp. 133-138.
, 1992, A new look at one Aiyawa text. In: Hittite and
Other Anatolian and Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Sedat
Alp, eds. Heinrich Otten, Hayri Ertem, Ekrem Akurgal & Ay-
gl Sel. Pp. 235-243. Ankara: Trk Tarih Kurumu Basmevi.
Haas, Otto, 1966, Die Phrygischen Sprachdenkmler. Linguistique
153
Balkanique X. Sofia: Academie Bulgare des Sciences.
Haas, Volkert, 2000, Hethitische Bestattungsbruche.
Altorientalische Forschungen 27, 1. Pp. 52-67.
Hall, Edith, 1989, Inventing the Barbarian, Greek Self-Definition
through Tragedy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hall, H.R., 1901-2, Keftiu and the Peoples of the Sea. Annual of
the British School at Athens 8. Pp. 157-189.
, 1922, The Peoples of the Sea, A Chapter of the History of
Egyptology. In: Recueil dtudes gyptologiques ddies
la mmoire de Jean-Franois Champollion loccasion du
centenaire de la lettre M. Dacier relative lalphabet des
hiroglyphes phontiques lue laccadmie des inscriptions
et belles lettres le 27 septembre 1822. Pp. 297-329. Paris: Li-
brairie ancienne honor Champion douard Champion.
, 1926, The Keftians, Philistines and other Peoples of the Le-
vant. In: Cambridge Ancient History II, Chapter 12. Pp. 275-
295. Cambridge: At the University Press.
, 1929, The Caucasian Relations of the Peoples of the Sea.
Klio 22. Pp. 335-344.
Hall, Jonathan M., 1997, Ethnic identity in Greek antiquity. Cam-
bridge: University Press.
, 2002, Hellenicity, Between Ethnicity and Culture. Chicago-
London: The University of Chicago Press.
Hallager, Erik, 1992, New Linear B Tablets from Chania. Kad-
mos 31. Pp. 61-87.
Harrisson, Richard J., 1988, The Beaker Folk, Copper Age ar-
chaeology in Western Europe. London: Thames and Hudson.
Hawkins, John David, 1990, The New Inscription from the Sd-
burg of Bogazky-Hattusa. Archologischer Anzeiger 1990.
Pp. 305-314.
, 1995, The Hieroglyphic Inscription of the Sacred Pool Com-
plex at Hattusa (SDBURG), With an Archaeological Intro-
duction by Peter Neve. Studien zu den Bogazky-Texten,
Beiheft 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
, 2000, Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, Vol. I:
Inscriptions of the Iron Age, Parts 1-3. Berlin-New York:
Walter de Gruyter.
, 2003, Scripts and Texts. The Luwians, Handbook of Orien-
tal Studies 68, ed. H. Craig Melchert. Pp. 128-169. Leiden-
Boston: Brill.
Heinhold-Krahmer, Susanne, 1977, Arzawa, Untersuchungen zu
seiner Geschichte nach den hethitischen Quellen. Heidelberg:
Carl Winter Universittsverlag.
, 2003, AiyawaLand der homerischen Acher im Krieg
mit Wilua?. In: Der neue Streit um Troia, Eine Bilanz, Hrsg.
Christoph Ulf . Pp. 193-214. Mnchen: C.H. Beck.
Helck, Wolfgang, 1971, Die Beziehungen gyptens zu
Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Wiesbaden:
Otto Harrassowitz (2., verbesserte Auflage).
, 1986, [Review of G.A. Lehmann, Die mykenisch-
frhgriechische Welt und der stliche Mittelmeerraum in der
Zeit der Seevlker-Invasionen um 1200 v. Chr.]. Gnomon
58. Pp. 626-629.
Helck, Wolfgang, & Otto, Eberhard, 1984, Lexicon der
gyptologie, Band V, s.v. Seevlker. Wiesbaden: Otto
Harrassowitz.
Hellbing, Lennart, 1979, Alasia Problems. Studies in
Mediterranean Archaeology 57. Gteborg: Paul strms
Frlag.
Hencken, Hugh, 1955, Indo-European Languages and
Archaeology. Memoirs of the American Anthropological As-
sociation 57, No. 84.
, 1968, Tarquinia, Villanovans and Early Etruscans. Cam-
bridge Massachusetts: The Peabody Museum.
Henning, W.B., 1978, The First Indo-Europeans in History. In:
Society and History, Essays in Honor of Karl August
Wittfogel, ed. G.L. Ulmen. Pp. 215-230. The Hague-Paris-
New York: Mouton Publishers.
Herbig, Gustav, 1914, Kleinasiatisch-etruskische
Namengleichungen. Sitzungsberichte der bayrischen
Akademie, Phil.-Hist. Klasse. Pp. 3-39.
Herbordt, Suzanne, 1998, Seals and Sealings of Hittite Officials
from the Nisantepe Archive, Bogazky. In: Acts of the IIIrd
International Congress of Hittitology, orum, September 16-
22, 1996, eds. Sedat Alp & Aygl Sel. Pp. 309-318. Ankara.
Herscher, Ellen Carol, 1978, The Bronze Age Cemetery at
Lapithos, Vrysi tou Barba, Cyprus, Parts 1-2. [No place:]
University of Pennsylvania (PH.D.).
Heuck Allen, Susan, 1994, Trojan Grey Ware at Tel Miqne-
Ekron. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Re-
search 293. Pp. 39-51.
Heurgon, Jacques, 1969, Les Dardaniens en Afrique. Revue des
tudes Latines 47. Pp. 284-294.
, 1992, Les trusques et lEurope. Archeologia 284. Pp. 19-
24.
Hiller, Stefan, 1985, [Review of Jan G.P. Best, Supplementum Epi-
graphicum Mediterraneum ad Talanta, Proceedings of the
Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 13 (1981)]. Ar-
chiv fr Orientforschung 32. Pp. 125-127.
, 1996, Knossos and Pylos, A Case of Special Relationship.
Cretan Studies 5. Pp. 73-83.
Hitzig, Ferdinand, 1845, Urgeschichte und Mythologie der
Philister. Leipzig: Weidmann.
Hoftijzer, J., & Soldt, W.H. van, 1998, Texts from Ugarit Pertain-
ing to Seafaring. In: Seagoing Ships & Seamanship in the
Bronze Age Levant, ed. Shelley Wachsmann. Pp. 333-344.
College Station: Texas A & M University Press.
Hgemann, Peter, 2000, Der Iliasdichter, Anatolien und der
griechische Adel. Klio 82. Pp. 7-39.
Hlbl, Gnther, 1983, Die historischen Aussagen der
gyptischen Seevlkerinschriften. In: Griechenland, Die
154
gis und die Levante whrend der Dark Ages vom 12. bis
zum 9. Jh. v. Chr., Akten des Symposions von Stift Zwettl
(N), 11.-14. Oktober 1980, Hrsg. Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy. Pp.
121-143. Wien: Verlag der sterreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften.
Holloway, R. Ross, 1981, Italy and the Aegean 3000-700 B.C.
Louvain-la-Neuve: Collge Erasme.
Hood, Sinclair, 1974, The Home of the Heroes, The Aegean before
the Greeks. London: Thames and Hudson (reprinted version).
Hope Simpson, Richard, 1981, Mycenaean Greece. New Jersey:
Noyes Press.
Hope Simpson, Richard, & Dickinson, Oliver T.K.P., 1979, A
Gazetteer of Aegean Civilisation in the Bronze Age I: The
Mainland and islands. Gteborg: Paul strm Frlag.
Houwink ten Cate, Philo Hendrik Jan, 1961, The Luwian Popula-
tion Groups of Lycia and Cilicia Aspera during the Hellenis-
tic Period. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Isaac, Benjamin, 2004, The Invention of Racism in Classical An-
tiquity. Princeton-Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Jeffery, Lilian H., 1998, The Local Scrips of Archaic Greece, A
study of the origin of the Greek alphabet and its development
from the eighth to the fifth centuries B.C. Oxford: Clarendon
Press (Revised edition with a supplement by Alan W. Johns-
ton).
Johnston, Alan W., 1983, The Extent and Use of Literacy; the Ar-
chaeological Evidence. In: The Greek Renaissance of the
Eighth Century B.C.: Tradition and Innovation, Proceedings
of the Second International Symposium at the Swedish Insti-
tute in Athens, 1-5 June, 1981, ed. Robin Hgg. Pp. 63-68.
Stockholm: Paul strms Frlag.
Jones, Sin, 1997, The Archaeology of Ethnicity, Constructing
Identities in the past and present. London-New York:
Routledge.
Kaczynska, Elwira, 2002, Greek Iou Battle, Fight, Combat: A
Term of Minoan Origin? Kadmos 41. Pp. 137-140.
Kahl, Jochem, 1995, Les tmoignages textuels sur les Shardana,
Annexe Oswald Loretz, Les erdan et la fin dOugarit,
propos des documents dgypte, de Byblos et dOugarit rela-
tifs aux Shardana. In: Le pays dOugarit autour de 1200 av.
J.-C., Ras Shamra-Ougarit XI, Actes du Colloque Internatio-
nal, Paris, 28 juin-1
er
juillet 1993, eds. Marguerite Yon, Mau-
rice Sznycer & Pierre Bordreuil. Pp. 137-140. Paris: ditions
Recherche sur les Civilations.
Kammenhuber, Annelies, 1940, Marduk und Santa in der
hethitischen berlieferung des 2. Jt.s v. Chr.. Orientalia 59.
Pp. 188-195.
Karageorghis, Vassos, 1986, Barbarian Ware in Cyprus. In:
Acts of the International Symposium Cyprus between the
Orient and Occident, Nicosia, 8-14 September 1985, ed. V.
Karageorghis. Pp. 246-258. Nicosia: Zavallis Press Ltd.
, 1992, The Crisis Years: Cyprus. In: The Crisis Years, The
12th Century B.C. From Beyond the Danube to the Tigris,
eds. William A. Ward & Martha Sharp Joukowsky. Pp. 79-86.
Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Kaspar, S., 1970, Eine Nekropole Nordwestlich von Soma.
Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archologischen Instituts,
Archologischer Anzeiger 85. Pp. 71-83.
Katzenstein, H. Jacob, 1973, The History of Tyre, From the Begin-
ning of the Second Millennium B.C.E. until the Fall of the
Neo-Babylonian Empire in 538 B.C.E. Jerusalem: The
Schocken Institute for Jewish Research.
Keen, Antony G., 1998, Dynastic Lycia, A Political History of the
Lycians & Their Relations with Foreign Powers, c. 545-362
BC. Leiden-Boston-Kln: Brill.
Kenna, Victor E.G., 1971, Catalogue of the Cypriote Seals of the
Bronze Age in the British Museum. Studies in Mediterranean
Archaeology XX, 3. Gteborg: Paul strms Frlag.
Kennedy, D.A., 1959, Sceaux hittites conservs Paris. Revue
Hittite et Asianique 65. Pp. 147-172.
Killebrew, A.E., Lehmann, G., & Artzy, M., in preparation, Philis-
tines and other Sea Peoples: In Text and Archaeology, Lei-
den: Brill.
Kimmig, Wolfgang, 1964, Seevlkerbewegung und
Urnenfelderkultur, Ein Archologisch-Historischer Versuch.
In: Studien aus Alteuropa I (= Festschrift K. Tackenberg). Pp.
220-283.
Kinch, K.F., 1888, Die Sprache der sicilischen Elymer.
Zeitschrift fr Numismatik 16. Pp. 187-207.
Kitchen, Kenneth A., 1973, The Philistines. In: Peoples of Old
Testament Times, ed. D.J. Wiseman. Pp. 53-78. Oxford: At the
Clarendon Press.
, 1983, Ramesside Inscriptions V. Oxford: Blackwell.
, 1989, The Basics of Egyptian Chronology in Relation to the
Bronze Age. In: High, Middle or Low, Acts of an Interna-
tional Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the Uni-
versity of Gothenburg, 20th-22nd August 1987. Pp. 37-55.
Gothenburg: Paul strms Frlag.
Kitson, Peter R., 1997, Reconstruction, typology, and the origi-
nal homeland of the Indo-Europeans. In: Linguistic Recon-
struction and Typology, ed. Jacek Fisiak. Pp. 183-239. Berlin-
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Krahe, Hans, 1962, Die Struktur der alteuropischen
Hydronymie. Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur
in Mainz, Abhandlungen der Geistes- und
Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, Jahrgang 1962, Nr. 5. Pp.
287-341.
, 1964, Unsere ltesten Flussnamen. Wiesbaden: Otto
Harrassowitz.
Kullmann, W., 1999, Homer und Kleinasien. In: Euphrosyne,
Studies in Ancient Epic and Its Legacy in Honor of Dimitris
N. Maronitis, Hrsg. J.N. Kazazis & A. Rengakos. Pp. 189-
201. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Laroche, Emmanuel, 1957, Notes de Toponymie Anatolienne. In:
155
Mnemis Charin, Gedenkschrift Paul Kretschmer, 2. Mai 1866
9. Mrz 1956. Pp. 1-7. Wien: Bruder Hollinek; Wiesbaden:
Otto Harrassowitz.
, 1958, tudes sur les hiroglyphes hittites. Syria 35. Pp.
252-283.
, 1960a, Les hiroglyphes hittites. Premire partie: Lcriture.
Paris: ditions du centre national de la recherche scientifique.
, 1960b, Koubaba, desse anatolienne, et le problme des
origines de Cyble. In: lments orienteaux dans la religion
Grecque ancienne, Colloque de Strasbourg, 22-24 mai 1958.
Pp. 113- 128. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
, 1960c, Comparaison du Louvite et du Lycien II. Bulletin de
la Socit de Linguistique 55. Pp. 155-185.
, 1961a, tudes de Toponymie Anatolienne. Revue Hittite et
Asianique 69. Pp. 57-91.
, 1961b, Rflexions sur des problmes de linguistique trus-
que. Revue tudes Latines 38. Pp. 70-72.
, 1966, Les Noms des Hittites. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck.
, 1971, Catalogue des Textes Hittites (= CTH). Paris: ditions
Klincksieck.
Latacz, Joachim, 2003, Troia und Homer, Der Weg zur Lsung
eines alten Rtsels. Mnchen: Piper Verlag GmbH
(Taschenbuchausgabe).
Lehmann, Gustav Adolf, 1970, Der Untergang des hethitischen
Grossreiches und die neuen Texte aus Ugarit. Ugarit-
Forschungen 2. Pp. 29-73.
, 1979, Die ikalyEin neues Zeugnis zu den
Seevlker- heerfahrten im spten 13. Jh. v. Chr. (RS
34.129). Ugarit- Forschungen 11. Pp. 481-494.
, 1983, Zum Auftreten von Seevlker-Gruppen im
stlichen MittelmeerraumEine Zwischenbilanz. In:
Griechenland, Die gis und die Levante whrend der Dark
Ages vom 12. bis zum 9. Jh. v. Chr., Akten des Symposions
von Stift Zwettl (N), 11.-14. Oktober 1980, Hrsg. Sigrid
Deger-Jalkotzy. Pp. 79-97. Wien: sterreichischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften.
, 1985, Die mykenisch-frhgriechische Welt und der stliche
Mittelmeerraum in der Zeit der Seevlker-Invasionen um
1200 v. Chr. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
, 1996, Umbrche und Zsuren im stlichen Mittelmeerraum
und Vorderasien zur Zeit der Seevlker-Invasionen um und
nach 1200 v. Chr.. Historische Zeitschrift 262, 1. Pp. 1-38.
Lejeune, Michel, 1969, Observations sur lpigraphie lyme.
Revue des tudes Latines 47. Pp. 133-183.
Leonhard, Walther, 1911, Hettiter und Amazonen, Die griechische
Tradition ber die Chatti und ein Versuch zu ihrer
historischen Verwertung. Leipzig-Berlin: Druck und Verlag
von B.G. Teubner.
Lepsius, Richard, 1900, Denkmler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien
III. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichssche Buchhandlung.
Leumann, Manu, 1977, Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre.
Mnchen: C.H. Becksche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Lichtenberger, Reinhold Freihernn von, 1911, Einflsse der
gischen Kultur auf gypten und Palstina. Leipzig: J.C.
Hinrichssche Buchhandlung.
Liddell, Henri George, Scott, Robert, & Jones, Henry Stuart (=
LSJ), A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: At the Clarendon
Press.
Littauer, Mary A., & Crouwel, Joost H., 1979, Wheeled Vehicles
and Ridden Animals in the Ancient Near East. Leiden-Kln:
E.J. Brill.
Littleton, C. Scott, 1973, The New Comparative Mythology, An
Anthroplogical Assessment of the Theories of Georges Dum-
zil. Berkeley-Los Angeles: University of California Press (re-
vised edition).
Lochner-Httenbach, Fritz, 1960, Die Pelasger. Wien: Gerold &
Co.
Lomas, Kathryn, 1997, Introduction. In: Gender & Ethnicity in
ancient Italy, Accordia Specialist Studies on Italy, Vol. 6, eds.
Tim Cornell & Kathryn Lomas. Pp. 1-8. University of Lon-
don: Accordia Research Institute.
Loretz, Oswald, 1995, Les erdan et la fin dOugarit, Apropos
des documents dgypte, de Byblos et dOugarit relatifs aux
Shardana. In: Le pays dOugarit autour de 1200 av. J.-C.,
Ras Shamra-Ougarit XI, Actes du Colloque International, Pa-
ris, 28 juin-1
er
juillet 1993, eds. Marguerite Yon, Maurice
Sznycer & Pierre Bordreuil. Pp. 125-136. Paris: ditions Re-
cherche sur les Civilisations.
Lorimer, H.L., 1950, Homer and the Monuments. London: Mac-
millan & Co. Ltd.
Loulloupis, M., 1973, Mycenaean Horns of Consecration in Cy-
prus. In: Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium
The Mycenaeans in the Eastern Mediterranean, Nicosia
27th March2nd April 1972. Pp. 225-244, Pls. XXVIII-
XXIX. Nicosia: Zavallis Press Ltd.
Lynn, Chris, & Miller, Dean , 1999, Three Carved Vases from the
Minoan Villa at Aghia Triada, Crete: a Trifunctional Set?
Journal of Indo-European Studies 27, 3-4. Pp. 335-353.
Macalister, R.A. Stewart, 1913, The Philistines, Their History and
Civilization. London: Oxford University Press.
Machinist, Peter, 2000, Biblical Traditions: The Philistines and
Israelite History. In: The Sea Peoples and Their World: A
Reassessment, ed. Eliezer D. Oren. Pp. 53-83. Philadelphia:
The University Museum.
Malbran-Labat, Florence, 1991, Lettres. In: Une bibliothque au
sud de la ville, Ras Shamra-Ougarit VII, ed. Pierre Bordreuil.
Pp. 27-64. Paris: ditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
Mallory, James P., 1989, In Search of the Indo-Europeans. Lan-
guage, Archaeology and Myth. London: Thames and Hudson.
Manning, Sturt W., 1999, A Test of Time, The Volcano of Thera
and the Chronology and History of the Aegean and east Medi-
156
terranean in the mid second millennium BC. Oxbow Books:
Oxford and Oakville.
Maresch, Gustav, 1957, Etruskisch avil. In: Mnemis Charin,
Gedenkschrift Paul Kretschmer, 2. Mai 18669. Mrz 1956.
Pp. 27-8. Wien: Otto Harrassowitz Wiesbaden-Bruder
Hollinek Wien.
Marinatos, Spyridon, 1973, The first Mycenaeans in Greece.
In: Bronze Age Migrations in the Aegean, Archaeological and
linguistic problems in Greek prehistory, eds. R.A. Crossland
& Ann Birchall. Pp. 107-113. London: Duckworth.
Maspero, Gaston, 1873, [Review of Chabas tudes]. Revue Criti-
que dHistoire et de Littrature. Pp. 81-86.
, 1875, Histoire Ancienne des peuples de lorient classique.
Paris: Librairie Hachette et Cie.
, 1878, [Review of de Rougs Inscriptions hiroglyphique].
Revue Critique dHistoire et de Litterature. Pp. 317-321.
, 1881, Notes sur quelques points de Grammaire et
dHistoire. Zeitschrift fr gyptische Sprache und Alter-
thumskunde 19. Pp. 116-131.
, 1910, The Struggle of the Nations, Egypt, Syria and Assyria.
London: Society for promoting Christian knowledge.
Masson, Olivier, 1983, Les inscriptions Chypriotes syllabiques.
Paris: ditions E. de Boccard.
Matsas, D., 1991, Samothrace and the Northeastern Aegean: the
Minoan Connection. Studia Troica 1. Pp. 159-179.
Mayrhofer, Manfred, 1974, Die Arier im vorderen OrientEin
Mythos?. sterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Philosophisch-historische Sitzungsberichte, Bd. 294,
Abhandlung 3. Wien: Verlag der sterreichischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften.
Mee, Christopher, 1978, Aegean Trade and Settlement in
Anatolia in the Second Millennium BC. Anatolian Studies
28. Pp. 121-156.
Meer, L. Bauke van der, 1992, The Stele of Lemnos and Etruscan
Origins. Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum
van Oudheden te Leiden 72. Pp. 61-71.
Mgalomatis, Cosimo. 1996, Les peuples de la mer et la fin du
monde mycenien, essai de synthese historique. Atti e Memo-
rie del Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia,
Roma-Napoli, 14-20 ottobre. Pp. 805-814. Roma: Gruppo
Editoriale Internazionale.
Meid, Wolfgang, 1993, Die erste Botorrita-Inschrift, Interpreta-
tion eines keltiberischen Sprachdenkmals. Innsbruck:
Innsbrucker Beitrge zur Sprachwissenschaft.
, 1996, Kleinere keltiberische Sprachdenkmler. Innsbruck:
Innsbrucker Beitrge zur Sprachwissenschaft.
, 2000, Forschungsbericht, Altkeltische Sprachen, 3.
Keltiberisch. Kratylos 45. Pp. 1-28.
Melchert, H. Craig, 1993, Lycian Lexicon. Chapel Hill, N.C.
, 2002, The God Sanda in Lycia?. In: Silva Anatolica, Ana-
tolian Studies Presented to Maciej Popko on the Occasion of
His 65th Birthday, ed. Piotr Taracha. Pp. 241-251. Warsaw:
Agade.
Mellaart, James, 1971, Anatolia c. 4000-2300 B.C.. Cambridge
Ancient History I, 2. Pp. 363-416. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press (3rd edition).
Mellink, Machteld J. , 1972, Excavations at Karatas-Semayk and
Elmal, Lycia , 1971. American Journal of Archaeology 76.
Pp. 257-269.
, 1995, Homer, Lycia, and Lukka. In: The Ages of Homer, A
Tribute to Emily Townsend Vermeule, eds. Jane B. Carter &
Sarah P. Morris. Pp. 33-43. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Mercer, S.A.B., 1939, The Tell El-Amarna Tablets I-II. Toronto:
Macmillan.
Meriggi, Piero, 1937, Osservazioni sullEtrusco. Studi Etruschi
11. Pp. 129-201.
, 1967, Manuale di eteo geroglifico. Parte II: Testi-1e serie, I
testi neo-etei pi o meno completi. Roma: Edizioni
dellAteneo.
, 1980, Schizzo grammaticale dellAnatolico. Roma: Accade-
mia Nazionale dei Lincei.
Merlo, Paolo, 1998, La dea Aratum Atiratu Aera. Un contri-
buto allo storia della religione semitica del Nord. Mursia:
Pontificia Universit Lateranense.
Mertens, Paul, 1960, Les Peuples de la Mer. Chronique dgypte
35. Pp. 65-88.
Meijer, Louk C., 1982, Eine strukturelle Analyse der Hagia
Triada-TafelnEin Beitrag zur Linear A-Forschung.
Publications of the Henri Frankfort Foundation 8. Amsterdam:
B.R. Grner Publishing Co.
Meyer, Eduard, 1928, Geschichte des Altertums 2, 1., Stuttgart-
Berlin: J.G. Cottasche Buchhandlung, Nachfolger.
, 1968, Geschichte des Koenigreichs Pontos. Chicago:
Argonaut, Inc., Publishers (Reprint of the Leipzig 1879
Edition).
Monte, Giuseppe F. del, & Tischler, Johann, 1978, Die Orts- und
Gewssernamen der hethitischen Texte. Rpertoire
Gographique des Textes Cuniformes 6. Wiesbaden: Dr.
Ludwig Reichert.
Moran, William L., 1992, The Amarna Letters. Baltimore,
Maryland: John Hopkins University Press.
Mhlestein, H., 1956, Die oka-Tafeln von Pylos. Basel: Selbstver-
lag.
Muhly, J.D., 1979,[Review of: Sanders, N.K., The Sea Peoples].
American Journal of Archaeology, 83: 355-356.
Muhly, J.D., Maddin, R., & Stech, T., 1988, Copper Ox-hide In-
gots and the Bronze Age Metal Trade. Report of the Depart-
ment of Antiquities, Cyprus. Pp. 281- 298.
Mller, Karl Otfried, & Deecke, Wilhelm, 1877, Die Etrusker I-II.
Stuttgart: Verlag von Albert Heitz.
157
Mller-Karpe, Hermann, 1959, Beitrge zur Chronologie der
Urnenfelderzeit Nrdlich und Sdlich der Alpen. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Neumann, Gnter, 1991, Hethitisch negna- Bruder. Historische
Sprachforschung 104. Pp. 63-66.
, 1999, Wie haben die Troer im 13. Jahrhundert
gesprochen?. Wrzburger Jahrbcher fr die
Altertumswissenschaft, Neue Folge 23. Pp. 15-23.
Nibbi, Alexandra, 1975, The Sea Peoples and Egypt. Park Ridge,
New Jersey: Noyes Press.
Niemeier, Wolf-Dietrich, 1996, A Linear A Inscription from Mi-
letos (MIL Zb 1). Kadmos 35. Pp. 87-99.
, 1998a, The Mycenaeans in Western Anatolia and the Prob-
lem of the Origins of the Sea Peoples. Mediterranean Peo-
ples in Transition, Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE,
In honor of Professor Trude Dothan, eds. Seymor Gitin, Ami-
hai Mazar & Ephraim Stern. Pp. 17-65. Jerusalem: Israel Ex-
ploration Society.
, 1998b, Mycenaeans and Hittites in War in Western Asia
Minor. In: Polemos, Le contexte guerrier en ge lge du
Bronze, Actes de la 7e Rencontre genne internationale,
Universit de Lige, 14-17 avril 1998, ed. Robert Laffineur.
Pp. 141- 156. Eupen: Universit de Lige-Program in Aegean
Scripts and Prehistory, The University of Texas Austin.
Nilsson, Martin Persson, 1927, The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion
and its Survival in Greek Religion. Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup.
, 1933, Homer and Mycenae. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.
Noort, Ed, 1994, Die Seevlker in Palstina. Kampen: Kok Pharos
Publishing House.
Nougayrol, Jean, 1968, Ugarit et Alaia. Ugaritica V, ed. Claude
F.A. Schaeffer. Pp. 83-89. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul
Geuthner.
Olivier, Jean-Pierre, & Godart, Louis, 1996, Corpus Hieroglyphi-
carum Inscriptionum Cretae. Paris: De Boccard dition-
Diffusion.
Onyshkevych, Lada, 2002, Interpreting the Berezan Bone Graf-
fito. In: Oikistes, Studies in Constitutions, Colonies, and
Military Power in the Ancient World Offered in Honor of A.J.
Graham, eds. Vanessa B. Gorman & Eric W. Robinson. Pp.
161-179. Leiden-Boston-Kln: Brill.
Oren, Eliezer, 1997, The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeo-
logical Perspectives. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Museum.
Ormerod, H.A., 1924, Piracy in the Ancient World. Liverpool:
University Press of Liverpool.
Otten, Heinrich, 1988, Die Bronzetafel aus Bogazky, Ein
Staatsvertrag Tudalijas IV. Studien zur Bogazky Texte,
Beiheft 1, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
, 1989, Die hieroglyphen-luwische Inschrift, Ausgrabungen
in Bogazky-Hattua 1988. Archologischer Anzeiger 1989.
Pp. 333-337.
, 1993, Das Land Lukka in der hethitischen Topographie. In:
Akten des II. Internationalen Lykien-Symposions, eds. Jrgen
Borchhardt & Gerhard Dobesch. Pp. 117-121. Wien: Verlag
der sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Owens, Gareth Alun, 1996, New Evidence for Minoan Deme-
ter. Kadmos 35. Pp. 172- 175.
, 1999, The Structure of the Minoan Language. Journal of
Indo-European Studies 27: 1&2, Spring/Summer. Pp. 15-49.
, 2000, Pre-Hellenic Language(s) of Crete: Debate and
Discussion, Comments on the Paper by Yves Duhoux in The
Journal of Indo-European Studies Volume 26: 1-2,
Spring/Summer 1998, 1-40. Journal of Indo-European Stud-
ies 28: 1-2, Spring/Summer. Pp. 237-253.
Page, Denys L., 1959, History and the Homeric Iliad. Berkeley,
Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Pallottino, Massimo, 1968, Testimonia Linguae Etruscae (= TLE).
Firenze: La Nuova Italia Editrice (2
a
edizione).
, 1988, Etruskologie, Geschichte und Kultur der Etrusker.
Basel-Boston-Berlin: Birkhuser Verlag.
Palmer, Leonard Robert, 1956, Military Arrangements for the De-
fence of Pylos. Minos 4. Pp. 120-145.
, 1965, Mycenaeans and Minoans. Aegean Prehistory in the
Light of the Linear B Tablets. London: Faber and Faber Ltd
(second edition).
, 1998, The Interpretation of Mycenaean Greek Texts. Oxford:
At the Clarendon Press (Sandpiper reprint).
Papadimitriou, Nikolas, 2001, Built Chamber Tombs of Middle
and Late Bronze Age Date in Mainland Greece and the Is-
lands. BAR International Series 925. Oxford.
Parker, Victor, 1999, Die Aktivitten der Mykener in der
Ostgis im Lichte der Linear B Tafeln. In: Floreant Studia
Mycenaea, Akten des X. Internationalen Mykenologischen
Colloquiums in Salzburg vom 1.-5. Mai 1995, Hrsg. Sigrid
Deger-Jalkotzy, Stefan Hiller & Oswald Panagl. Pp. 495-502.
Wien: Verlag der sterreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften.
Plsson Hallager, Birgitta, 1985, Crete and Italy in the Late
Bronze Age III Period. American Journal of Archaeology 89.
Pp. 293-305.
Peden, A.J., 1994, Egyptian Historical Inscriptions of the Twenti-
eth Dynasty. Jonsered: Paul strms frlag.
Pedley, John Griffiths, 1972, Ancient Literary Sources on Sardis.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Pfuhl, Ernst, 1923, Malerei und Zeichnung der Griechen I.
Mnchen: F. Bruchmann A.-G.
Pilides, D., 1994, Handmade Burnished Wares of the Late Bronze
Age in Cyprus. Studies in Mediterranean Archeaology 105.
Jonsered: Paul strms Frlag.
Poetto, Massimo, 1993, Liscrizione luvio-geroglifica di Yalburt,
Nuove acquisizioni relative alla geografia dellanatolia sud-
158
occidentale. Studia Mediterranea 8. Pavia: Gianni Iuculano
Editore.
Pohl, Ingrid, 1972, The Iron Age Necropolis of Sorbo at Cerveteri.
Skrifter Utgivna Svenska Institutet I Rom, 4, 32. Stockholm:
Svenska Institutet I Rom.
Pokorny, Julius, 1994, Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wrter-
buch. Tbingen-Basel: Francke Verlag (3. Auflage).
Polom, Edgar C., 1982a, Balkan Languages (Illyrian, Thracian
and Daco-Moesian). Cambridge Ancient History III, 1. Pp.
866-888. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (3rd edi-
tion).
, 1982b, Indo-European Culture, With Special Attention to
Religion. In: The Indo-Europeans of the Fourth and Third
Millennia, ed. Edgar C. Polom. Pp. 156-172. Ann Arbor:
Karoma Publishers, Inc.
Pope, Maurice, 1956, Cretan Axe-Heads with Linear A Inscrip-
tions, Annual of the British School at Athens 51. Pp. 132-135.
Popham, Mervyn, 2001, The Collapse of Aegean Civilization at
the End of the Late Bronze Age. In: The Oxford Illustrated
History of Prehistoric Europe, ed. Barry Cunliffe. Pp. 277-
303. Oxford: Oxford University Press (reissued paperback
edition of 1997).
Popham, Mervyn, Touloupa, E., & Sackett, L.H., 1982, The Hero
of Lefkandi. Antiquity 56. Pp. 169-174.
Poultney, James Wilson, 1959, The Bronze Tables of Iguvium. Illi-
nois: American Philological Association.
Pritchard, James B., 1969, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to
the Old Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press (3rd
edition).
Protonotariou-Deilaki, Evangelia, 1990, The Tumuli of Mycenae
and Dendra. In: Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the
Bronze Age Argolid, Proceedings of the Sixth International
Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 11-13 June,
1988, eds. Robin Hgg & Gallg C. Nordquist. Pp. 85-106.
Stockholm: Paul strms Frlag.
Pugliese Carratelli, Giovanni, 1954, [Review of H. Mhlestein,
Olympia in Pylos, Basel 1954]. La Parola del Passato 9. Pp.
468-471.
Pulgram, Ernst, 1978, Italic, Latin, Italian, 600 B.C. to A.D. 1260,
Text and commentaries. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universi-
ttsverlag.
Radet, Georges, 1892, La Lydie et le monde Grec au temps des
Mermnades (687- 546). Paris: Thorin & Fils diteurs.
Ranke, Hermann, 1935, Die gyptischen Personennamen.
Glckstadt: Verlag von J.J. Augustin.
Reden, Sibylle von, 1992, Ugarit und seine Welt, Die Entdeckung
einer der ltesten Handelsmetropolen am Mittelmeer. Ber-
gisch Gladbach: Gustav Lbbe Verlag.
Redford, Donald B., 1992, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient
Times. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Reinach, A.J., 1910, Le disque de Phaistos et les Peuples de la
mer. Revue Archologique 15. Pp. 1-65.
Renfrew, Colin, 1987, Archaeology and Language, The Puzzle of
Indo-European Origins. London: Jonathan Cape.
Ridgway, David, 1988, Italy from the Bronze Age to the Iron
Age. Cambridge Ancient History IV. Pp. 623-633. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press (2nd edition).
Riemschneider, Margarete, 1954, Die Welt der Hethiter. Zrich:
Fretz & Wasmuth Verlag AG.
Risch, Ernst, 1958, Linterprtation de la srie des tablettes
caractrises par le mot o-ka (PY AN 519, 654, 656, 657,
661). Athenaeum 46. Pp. 334-359.
Rix, Helmut, 1991, Etruskische Texte, Editio minor. I: Einleitung,
Konkordanz, Indices, II: Texte. Tbingen: Gunter Narr Ver-
lag.
Romey, Kristin, 2003, The Vogelbarke of Medinet Habu, MA
thesis, archaeology, Texas A&M University.
Rosenkranz, Bernhard, 1966, Flu- und Gewssername in
Anatolien. Beitrge zur Namenforschung, neue Folge 1. Pp.
124-144.
Ross Holloway, R., 1994, The Archaeology of Early Rome and
Latium. London-New York: Routledge.
Roug, Emmanuel de, 1861, Oeuvres Diverses IV.
, 1867, Extraits dun mmoire sur les attaques diriges contre
lgypte par les peuples de la mditerrane. Revue
Archologique 16. Pp. 35-45.
Royen, Ren A. van, & Isaac, Benjamin H., 1979, The Arrival of
the Greeks, The Evidence from the Settlements. Publications
of the Henri Frankfort Foundation 5. Amsterdam: B.R. Grner
Publishing Co.
Rutter, Jeremy, 1975, Ceramic Evidence for Northern Intruders in
Southern Greece at the Beginning of the Late Helladic IIIC
Period. American Journal of Archaeology 79. Pp. 17-32.
Sakellarakis, Iannis, & Olivier, Jean-Pierre, 1994, Un vase en
pierre avec inscription en linaire A du sanctuaire de sommet
minoen de Cythre. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellnique
118. Pp. 343-351.
Sakellariou, Michel B., 1977, Peuples prhellniques dorigine
indo-europenne. Athens: Ekdotik Athenon S.A.
, 1980, Les Proto-Grecs. Athens: Ekdotik Athenon S.A.
Salmon, Edward Togo, 1988, The Iron Age: The Peoples of It-
aly. Cambridge Ancient History IV. Pp. 676-719. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press (2nd edition).
Sandars, Nancy K., 1978, The Sea Peoples, Warriors of the an-
cient Mediterranean 1250-1150 BC. London: Thames and
Hudson Ltd.
, 1980, De Zeevolken, Egypte en Voor-Azi bedreigd, 1250-
1150 v.C. Haarlem: Fibula-Van Dishoeck.
Sauter, Hermann, 2000, Studien zum Kimmerierproblem.
Saarbrcker Beitrge zur Altertumskunde 72. Bonn: Dr.
Rudolf Habelt GmbH.
159
Savas, zkan Savas, 1998, Divine, Personal and Geographical
Names in the Anatolian (Hittite-Luwian) Hieroglyphic In-
scriptions. Istanbul.
Schachermeyr, Fritz, 1929, Etruskische Frhgeschichte. Berlin-
Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
, 1950, Poseidon und die Entstehung des griechischen
Gtterglaubens. Bern: A. Francke AG. Verlag.
, 1960, Das Keftiu-Problem und die Frage des ersten
Auftretens einer griechischen Herrenschicht im minoischen
Kreta. Jahreshefte des sterreichischen Archologischen
Institutes 45. Pp. 44-68.
, 1979, Kreta zur Zeit der Wanderungen, vom Ausgang der
minoischen ra bis zur dorisierung der Insel. Die gische
Frhzeit, 3. Band. Wien: Verlag der sterreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften.
, 1980, Griechenland im Zeitalter der Wanderungen, Vom
Ende der mykenischen ra bis auf die Dorier. Die gische
Frhzeit, 4. Band. Wien: Verlag der sterreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften.
, 1982, Die Levante im Zeitalter der Wanderungen, Vom 13.
bis zum 11. Jahrhundert v.Chr. Die gische Frhzeit, 5.
Band. Wien: Verlag der sterreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften.
, 1984, Griechische Frhgeschichte, Ein Versuch, frhe
Geschichte wenigstens in Umrissen verstndlich zu machen.
Wien: sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Schermerhorn, R.A., 1970, Comparative Ethnic Relations; A
Framework for Theory and Research. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Schmoll, Ulrich, 1959, Die Sprachen der vorkeltischen
Indogermanen Hispaniens und das Keltiberische. Wiesbaden:
Otto Harrassowitz.
Schnapp-Gourbeillon, Annie, 2002, Aux origines de la Grce
(XIII
e
-VIII
e
sicles avant notre re), La gense du politique.
Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Schuler, Einar von, 1965, Die Kaker, Ein Beitrag zur
Ethnographie des Alten Kleinasien. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Schulman, Alan R., 1987, The Great Historical Inscription of
Merneptah at Karnak: A Partial Reappraisal. Journal of the
American Research Center in Egypt 24. Pp. 21-34.
Schulze, W., 1966, Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen.
Berlin-Zrich-Dublin: Weidmann (2. unvernderte Auflage).
Seeger, Ulrich, n.d. [2002], Fonts apt to the transcription of Se-
mitic texts, at: http://semitistik.uni-
hd.de/seeger/english/fonts_e.htm#anfang
Segert, Stanislav, 1984, A Basic Grammar of the Ugaritic Lan-
guage. Berkeley, California.
Seters, John van, 1966, The Hyksos, A New Investigation. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Shaw, Joseph W., 1998, Kommos in Southern Crete: an Aegean
Barometer for East-West Interconnections. In: Eastern Medi-
terranean, Cyprus- Dodecanese-Crete 16
th
-6
th
cent. B.C.,
Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Rethym-
non - Crete in May 1997, eds. V. Karageorghis & N. Chr.
Stampolidis. Pp. 13- 27. Athens: University of Crete-A. G.
Leventis Foundation.
Shefton, B.B., 1994, Massalia and Colonization in the North-
Western Mediterranean. In: The Archaeology of Greek Colo-
nisation, Essays dedicated to Sir John Boardman, ed. Gocha
R. Tsetskhladze & Franco De Angelis. Pp. 61-86. Oxford: Ox-
ford University Committee for Archaeology.
Shelmerdine, Cynthia W., 1997, The Palatial Bronze Age of the
Southern and Central Greek Mainland. American Journal of
Archaeology 101. Pp. 537- 585.
Sihler, Andrew L., 1995, New Comparative Grammar of Greek
and Latin. New York-Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Simone, Carlo de, 1996, I Tirreni a Lemnos, Evidenza linguistica e
tradizioni storiche. Firenze: Leo Olschki Editore.
Singer, Itamar, 1985, The Beginning of Philistine Settlement in
Canaan and the Northern Boundary of Philistia. Tel Aviv 12.
Pp. 109-122.
, 1988, The Origin of the Sea Peoples and their Settlement on
the coast of Canaan. In: Society and Economy in the Eastern
Mediterranean (c. 1500-1000 B.C.), eds. M. Heltzer & E. Lip-
inski. Pp. 239-250. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters.
Smit, Daniel W., 1989, Mycenaean Penetration into Northern
Greece. In: Thracians and Mycenaeans, Proceedings of the
Fourth International Congress of Thracology, Rotterdam, 24-
26 September 1984, eds. Jan Best & Nanny de Vries. Publica-
tions of the Henri Frankfort Foundation 11. Pp. 174-180. Lei-
den: E.J. Brill.
, 1988-9, Achilles, Aeneas and the Hittites, A Hittite model
for Iliad XX 191-194?. Talanta, Proceedings of the Dutch
Archaeological and Historical Society 20-21. Pp. 53-64.
, 1990-1, KUB XIV 3 and Hittite History, A Historical Ap-
proach to the Tawagalawa-letter. Talanta, Proceedings of the
Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 22-23. Pp. 79-
111.
Snodgrass, Anthony M., 1978, [Review of: Sanders, N.K., The Sea
Peoples]. Antiquity, 52: 161.
, 2000, The Dark Age of Greece, An archaeological survey of
the eleventh to eighth centuries BC. Edinburgh: At the Uni-
versity Press (reprint of 1971 edition).
Snowden, Jr., Frank, 1997, Greeks and Ethiopians. In: Greeks
and Barbarians, Essays on the Interaction between Greeks
and Non-Greeks in Antiquity and the Consequences for Euro-
centrism, eds. John E. Coleman & Clark A. Waltz. Pp. 103-
121. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press.
Sollors, Werner, 1996, Theories of Ethnicity, A Classical Reader.
New York: New York University Press.
Somella, Paolo, 1974, Das Heroon des Aeneas und die Topog-
raphie des antiken Lavinium. Gymnasium 81, 4. Pp. 273-297.
160
Sommer, Ferdinand, 1932, Die A ijav-Urkunden. Mnchen:
Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Spencer, Nigel, 1995, Early Lesbos between East and West: A
Grey Area of Aegean Archaeology. Annual of the British
School at Athens 90. Pp. 269-306.
Stadelmann, Rainer, 1969, Die Abwehr der Seevlker unter Ram-
ses III. Saeculum 19. Pp. 156-171.
Stager, Larry, 1998. Forging an Identity: The Emergence of An-
cient Israel. In: The Oxford History of the Biblical World, ed.
M.D. Coogan. Pp. 123-75. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Starke, Frank, 1981, Die Keilschrift-luwischen Wrter fr Insel
und Lampe. Zeitschrift fr Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft
95. Pp. 142-152.
, 1997, Troia im Kontext des historisch-politischen Umfeldes
Kleinasiens im 2. Jahrtausend. Studia Troica 7. Pp. 447-487.
Steinbauer, Dieter H., 1999, Neues Handbuch des Etruskischen.
St. Katharinen: Scripta Mercaturae.
Steiner, Gerd, 1993, Die historische Rolle der Lukk. In: Akten
des II. Internationalen Lykien-Symposions, eds. Jrgen
Borchhardt & Gerhard Dobesch. Pp. 123-137. Wien: Verlag
der sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Strid, Ove, 1999, Die Dryoper, Eine Untersuchung der
berlieferung. Uppsala.
Strange, John, 1980, Kaphtor/Keftiu, A new investigation. Leiden:
E.J. Brill.
Strobel, August, 1976, Der sptbronzezeitliche Seevlkersturm,
Ein Forschungsberblick mit Folgerungen zur biblischen
Exodusthematik. Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Strm, Ingrid, 1971, Problems Concerning the Origin and Early
Development of the Etruscan Orientalizing Style. Odense:
Odense University Press.
, 1990, Relations between Etruria and Campania around 700
BC. In: Greek Colonists and Native Populations, ed. Jean-
Paul Descoeudres. Pp. 87-97. Canberra: Humanities Research
Centre. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Stubbings, Frank H., 1973, The Rise of Mycenaean Civilization.
Cambridge Ancient History II, 1. Pp. 627-658. Cambridge: At
the University Press (3rd edition).
Suter, Ann, 2002, The Narcissus and the Pomegranate, An Ar-
chaeology of the Homeric Hymn to Demeter. Ann Arbor: Uni-
versity of Michigan Press.
Symeonoglou, S., 1973, Kadmeia I, Mycenaean Finds from
Thebes, Greece, excavation at 14 Oedipusstreet. Studies in
Mediterranean Archaeology 35. Gteborg: Paul strms Fr-
lag.
Tekoglu, Recai, & Lemaire, Andr, 2000, La bilingue royale Lou-
vito-Phnicienne de ineky. Comptes Rendus de
lAcadmie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 2000. Pp. 961-
1006.
Tovar, Antonio, 1977, Krahes alteuropische Hydronymie und die
westindogermanischen Sprachen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter
Universittsverlag.
Tsetskhladze, Gocha R., 1994, Greek Penetration of the Black
Sea. In: The Archaeology of Greek Colonisation, Essays
dedicated to Sir John Boardman, ed. Gocha R. Tsetskhladze
& Franco De Angelis. Pp. 111-135. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Committee for Archaeology.
Vagnetti, Lucia, 2000, Western Mediterranean Overview: Penin-
sular Italy, Sicily and Sardinia at the Time of the Sea Peoples.
In: The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment, ed.
Eliezer D. Oren. Pp. 305-326. Philadelphia: The University
Museum.
, 2001, Some Observations on Late Cypriot Pottery from the
Central Mediterranean. In: Italy and Cyprus in Antiquity:
1550-450 BC, Proceedings of an International Symposium
held at the Italian Academy for Advanced Studies in America
at Columbia University, November 16-18, 2000, eds. Larissa
Bonfante & Vassos Karageorghis. Pp. 77-96. Nicosia: The
Costakis and Leto Severis Foundation.
Vandenabeele, Frieda, 1985, La chronologie des documents en
Linaire A. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellnique 109. Pp.
3-20.
Vanschoonwinkel, Jacques, 1991, Lge et la mditerrane
orientale la fin du II
e
millnaire, Tmoignages archologi-
ques et sources crites. Louvain-la-Neuve: Universit Catho-
lique de Louvain. Providence (Rhode Island): Brown
University.
Ventris, Michael, & Chadwick, John, 1973, Documents in
Mycenaean Greek. Cambridge: At the University Press (2nd
edition).
Vetter, Emile, 1953, Handbuch der italischen Dialekte.
Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universittsverlag.
Vries, Nanny M.W. de, 1976, Three Twin Catacomb-graves. In:
Pulpudeva, Semaines philippopolitaines de lhistoire et de la
culture thrace, Plovdiv, 4-18 octobre 1976. Pp. 210-214.
Vrtheim, J.J.G., 1913, Teukros und Teukrer, Untersuchung der
Homerischen und der Nachhomerischen Ueberlieferung.
Rotterdam: Verlag W.L. & J. Brusse.
Wachsmann, Shelley, 1998, Seagoing Ships & Seamanship in the
Bronze Age Levant. College Station: Texas A & M University
Press.
, 2000, To the Sea of the Philistines. In: The Sea Peoples
and Their World: A Reassessment, ed. Eliezer D. Oren. Pp.
103-143. Philadelphia: The University Museum.
Wainwright, G.A., 1959, The Teresh, the Etruscans and Asia Mi-
nor. Anatolian Studies 9. Pp. 197-213.
, 1961, Some Sea-Peoples. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
47. Pp. 71-90.
, 1962, A Teucrian at Salamis in Cyprus. Journal of Hellenic
Studies 83. Pp. 146-151.
161
Waldbaum, Jane C., 1966, Philistine Tombs at Tell Fara and their
Aegean Prototypes. American Journal of Archaeology 70.
Pp. 331-340.
Warren, Peter, 1972, Myrtos, An Early Bronze Age Settlement in
Crete. Oxford: Thames and Hudson, The British School of
Archaeology at Athens.
Warren, Peter, & Hankey, Vronwy, 1989, Aegean Bronge Age
Chronology. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press.
Watkins, Calvert, 1986, The Language of the Trojans. In: Troy
and the Trojan War, A Symposium held at Bryn Mawr Col-
lege, October 1984, ed. Machteld Mellink. Pp. 45-62. Bryn
Mawr, P.A.: Bryn Mawr College.
Webster, Thomas B.L., 1960, From Mycenae to Homer. London:
Methuen & Co. Ltd. (2nd edition).
Wees, Hans van, 1992, Status Warriors, War Violence and Society
in Homer and History. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, Publisher.
Weidner, Ernst F., 1939, Jojachim, Knig von Juda, in
babylonischen Keilschrifttexten. In: Mlanges Syriens offerts
Monsieur Ren Dussaud, Bibliothque Archologique et
Historique XXX. Pp. 923-935. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste
Paul Geuthner.
Whatmough, Joshua, 1968, The Pre-Italic Dialects of Italy.
Hildesheim: Georg-Olm Verlagsbuchhandlung
(Reprograhischer Nachdruck der Ausgabe Cambridge 1933).
Widmer, W., 1975, Zur Darstellung der Seevlker am Groen
Tempel von Medinet Habu. Zeitschrift fr gyptische
Sprache 102. Pp. 67-77.
Wiesner, Joseph, 1968, Fahren und Reiten, Archaeologia
Homerica, Denkmler und das frhgriechische Epos, Band I,
Kapitel F, Hrsg. Friedrich Matz & Hans-Gnter Buchholz.
Gttingen: Van den Hoeck & Ruprecht.
Woudhuizen, Fred C., 1982-3, Etruscan Origins: The Epigraphic
Evidence. Talanta, Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological
and Historical Society 14-15. Pp. 91-117.
, 1984-5a, Lydian: Separated from Luwian by three signs.
Talanta, Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and
Historical Society 16-17. Pp. 91-113.
, 1984-5b, Origins of the Sidetic Script. Talanta, Proceed-
ings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 16-
17. Pp. 115- 127.
, 1989, Thracians, Luwians and Greeks in Bronze Age Cen-
tral Greece. In: Thracians and Mycenaeans, Proceedings of
the Fourth International Congress of Thracology, Rotterdam,
24-26 September 1984, eds. Jan Best & Nanny de Vries. Pub-
lications of the Henri Frankfort Foundation 11. Pp. 191- 204.
Leiden: E.J. Brill.
, 1990, The Sardis Bilingue Reconsidered. Orpheus, Journal
of Indo-European, Palaeo-Balkan and Thracian Studies 0. Pp.
90-106.
, 1990-1, The Dawn of Indo-European Literacy. Talanta,
Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical So-
ciety 22-23. Pp. 139-149.
, 1992a, The Language of the Sea Peoples. Publications of the
Henri Frankfort Foundation 12. Amsterdam: Najade Press bv.
, 1992b, Linguistica Tyrrhenica, A Compendium of Recent Re-
sults in Etruscan Linguistics. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, Pub-
lisher.
, 1992c, Evidence of Bilinguism in Cretan Hieroglyphic.
Cretan Studies 3. Pp. 191-201; Pls. XXIV-XXVII.
, 1992-3, On the Dating of Luwian Great Kings. Talanta,
Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical So-
ciety 24-25. Pp. 167-201.
, 1993a, Old Phrygian: Some Texts and Relations. Journal of
Indo-European Studies 21. Pp. 1-25.
, 1993b, Historical Backgrounds to the Old Phrygian-Greek
Linguistic Relationship. In: Atti del IV Congresso Internazi-
onale di Tracologia, Palma de Mallorca 24-28 March 1992,
ed. Alexander Fol. Pp. 377-394. Roma: Nagard.
, 1994, Tablet RS 20.25 from Ugarit, Evidence of Maritime
Trade in the Final Years of the Bronze Age. Ugarit-
Forschungen 26. Pp. 509-538.
, 1994-5, Luwian Hieroglyphic Monumental Rock and Stone
Inscriptions from the Hittite Empire Period. Talanta, Pro-
ceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society
26-27. Pp. 153-217.
, 1997, The Bee-sign (Evans no. 86): An Instance of Egyptian
Influence on Cretan Hieroglyphic. Kadmos 36. Pp. 97-110.
, 1998, Linguistica Tyrrhenica II, The Etruscan Liturgical
Calendar from Capua, Addenda et Corrigenda ad Volume I.
Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, Publisher.
, 1998-9, Nanas, A Luwian Personal Name in the West. Ta-
lanta, Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Histori-
cal Society 30-31. Pp. 175-179.
, 2000-1, The Earliest Inscription from Thrace. In: The Black
Sea Region in the Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Period, eds.
Gocha R. Tsetskhladze & Jan G. de Boer (= Talanta, Pro-
ceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society
32-33). Pp. 289-305.
, 2001a, [Review of Dieter H. Steinbauer, Neues Handbuch
des Etruskischen, Mercaturae, St. Katharinen 1999]. Journal
of Indo-European Studies 29. Pp. 499-508.
, 2001b, Defining Atlantis in Space and Time. Ugarit-
Forschungen 33. Pp. 605-620.
, 2002a, A Minoan Royal Seal Issued at Malia. Kadmos 41.
Pp. 123- 128.
, 2002b, The Trowel-Sign (Evans no. 18): Another instance
of Egyptian influence on Cretan hieroglyphic. Kadmos 41.
Pp. 129-130.
, 2004a, Luwian Hieroglyphic Monumental Rock and Stone
Inscriptions from the Hittite Empire Period. Innsbruck:
Innsbrucker Beitrge zur Kulturwissenschaft.
162
, 2004b, Woudhuizen, Fred C., Selected Luwian Hieroglyphic
Texts, Innsbruck: Innbrucker Beitrge zur Kulturwissenschaft.
, 2005, Woudhuizen, Fred C., Selected Luwian Hieroglyphic
Texts 2, Innsbruck: Innbrucker Beitrge zur
Kulturwissenschaft.
, forthc. 1, Middle Bronze Age Luwian Hieroglyphic and its
Ramifications to Crete, Acts of the Vth International Con-
gress of Hittitology, orum, September 2-8, 2002, ed. Aygl
Sel.
, forthc. 2, Untying the Cretan Hieroglyphic Knot. Ancient
West & East 5.
Wijngaarden, Gert Jan Maria van, 1999, Use and Appreciation of
Mycenaean Pottery outside Greece, Contexts of LHI-LHIIIB
finds in the Levant, Cyprus and Italy. Amsterdam (disserta-
tion).
Wyatt, William F., 1970, The Indo-Europeanization of Greece.
In: Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans, Papers Presented
at the Third Indo-European Conference at the University of
Pennsylvania, eds. George Cardona, Henry M. Hoenigswald
& Alfred Senn. Pp. 89-111. Philadelphia: University of Penn-
sylvania Press.
Yon, Marguerite, 1992, The End of the Kingdom of Ugarit. In:
The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C. From Beyond the
Danube to the Tigris, eds. William A. Ward & Martha Sharp
Joukowsky. Pp. 111-122. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Pub-
lishing Company.
Zgusta, Ladislav, 1984, Kleinasiatische Ortsnamen. Heidelberg:
Carl Winter Universittsverlag.
163
NEDERLANDSE SAMENVATTING: DE ETNICITEIT VAN DE
ZEEVOLKEN
De episode van de Zeevolken aan het eind van de
Bronstijd leidt tot de val, dan wel de verzwakking, van de
grote rijken in het Nabije Oosten zoals dat van de
Hettieten en de Egyptenaren. Tevens betekent het een
keerpunt in de historie, als gevolg waarvan het econo-
mische en politieke centrum uiteindelijk wordt verlegd
van het Nabije Oosten naar de centraal Mediterrane regio.
De centrale vraag in het onderhavige onderzoek is in
hoeverre de Zeevolken uit coherente etnische groepen
bestaan. Alvorens deze vraag te kunnen beantwoorden,
dienen we ons af te vragen: wat is etniciteit en wie waren
de Zeevolken?
Voor het begrip etniciteit bestaan mooie moderne de-
finities, maar de belangrijkste kenmerken worden in al
hun eenvoud opgesomd in een passage uit Herodotos
Historin. Daarin laat Herodotos de Atheners aan de voo-
ravond van de Perzische inval in Griekenland van 480
voor Christus de Spartaanse gezanten, die bezorgd zijn
voor een Atheens vergelijk met de Perzen, als volgt ant-
woorden:
Dat de Lakedaimonirs bang zijn, dat wij met de
barbaren een overeenkomst sluiten, is volkomen be-
grijpelijk. Maar gij blijkt de gezindheid der Atheners
wel bijzonder slecht te kennen, dat gij u daarover
zorgen maakt, want nergens ter wereld bestaat er
zoveel goud en er bestaat geen land, hoezeer het in
schoonheid en voortreffelijkheid ook alle andere
mag overtreffen, dat wij het zouden willen aanne-
men als prijs voor Perzische gezindheid en onder-
werping van Griekenland. Er zijn immers vele
belangrijke redenen, die ons, zelfs al wilden we het,
daarvan zouden weerhouden: () de bloed- en taal-
verwantschap van het Griekse volk, de gemeens-
chappelijke heiligdommen der goden en
offerplechtigheden en onze gelijksoortige zeden
(). (Herodotos, Historin VIII, 144, vertaling
Onno Damst)
De vier kenmerken van etniciteit die hier worden
opgesomd zijn: verwantschap in bloed of gezamenlijke
herkomst, verwantschap in taal, religie en zeden.
Het bepalen van een etnische identiteit aan de hand
van deze vier indicia kan in de moderne tijd vrij gemakke-
lijk plaatsvinden, omdat er voldoende informatie is en wij
in de meeste gevallen de mensen die het betreft ook zelf
nog kunnen vragen wat ze er van vinden. Als we een te-
ruggaan in de tijd, echter, valt deze laatste mogelijkheid al
snel weg. In het geval van de Zeevolken, wier activiteiten
voornamelijk aan het eind van de Bronstijd gesitueerd zijn
(ca. 1200 voor Christus), wordt het bepalen van etnische
identiteiten nog verder bemoeilijkt omdat we ons niet
meer in de historische periode bevinden, maar in de pro-
tohistorie. Dit betekent dat er geen contemporaine ges-
chiedwerken zijn overgeleverd, zoals dat van de vader
van de geschiedenis, Herodotos, over de Perzische oorlo-
gen of Thucidydes over de Peloponnesische oorlog, maar
dat wij ons moeten behelpen met literaire overleveringen
uit de historische periode die lijken terug te verwijzen
naar de Bronstijd. Voorzover er in deze periode al cultu-
ren bestaan die een vorm van schrift kennen, zoals Egypte
met zijn hierogliefen en het Nabije Oosten met zijn cunei-
form, kunnen we deze informatie aanvullen met die van
de contemporaine inscripties, die echter vaak van propa-
gandistische aard zijn. Tenslotte, beschikken we voor de
protohistorische periode nog over de archeologische res-
ten die door opgravingen aan het licht zijn gekomen en als
het ware een gestold surrogaat voor ons historische begrip
cultuur leveren, namelijk de materile cultuur.
Om kort te gaan: voor de periode van de Late Brons-
tijd zullen we ons onderzoek naar etniciteit moeten ver-
richten met behulp van een aangepaste protohistorische
methode, waarin informatie over gezamenlijke herkomst
en verwantschap in taal, religie en zeden van de Zeevol-
ken voor zover mogelijk wordt ontleend aan latere mythes
en sagen, epigrafische bronnen en de resten van materile
culturen. Bij deze methode wordt aangenomen dat een
ethnische groep kan worden gedentificeerd daar waar
bijvoorbeeld een bepaalde taalgroep en een bepaalde ma-
terile cultuur met elkaar overlappen (zie figuur 1b). Of
dit juist is, kan nooit op waterdichte wijze worden bewe-
zen: wij kunnen de betreffende mensen niet meer vragen
of zij zich inderdaad allemaal als leden van een etnische
identiteit beschouwen. In principe is het mogelijk dat er
mensen zijn die tot dezelfde taalgroep behoren en de-
zelfde materile cultuur hebben, maar zich toch tot een
164
hele andere etnische groep rekenen. Evenzeer is het mo-
gelijk dat mensen met verschillende talen en materile
culturen zich toch tot dezelfde etnische groep rekenen.
Dit in ogenschouw nemend, dienen wij dan ook afs-
tand te nemen van Gustav Kosinnas opvatting, die later
door de Nazis is misbruikt voor hun Blut und Boden
theorie, dat iedere vastomlijnde archeologische cultuur
precies samenvalt met het woongebied van een specifieke
etnische bevolkingsgroep. Zoals we hebben gezien, is de
werkelijkheid veel complexer. Maar om daartegenover te
stellen dat het onderscheid van archeologische culturen in
geen enkele relatie staat met dat van etnische groeperin-
gen die in de betreffende regio gewoond hebben is eve-
neens onhoudbaar: op deze manier gooien we het kind
weg met het badwater. Per geval zal met een open oog
moeten worden bekeken in hoeverre onze protohistorische
methode werkt.
De periode van de woelingen van de Zeevolken kent
twee duidelijk onderscheiden fasen. De eerste fase bestaat
uit een aanval van de Libische koning Meryey op de wes-
telijke Nijl delta in het vijfde jaar van de Egyptische farao
Merneptah, dat wil zeggen in 1208 voor Christus, waarin
de Libische koning zich gesteund weet door huurlingen
van de Zeevolken. Onder deze Zeevolken bevinden zich
volgens Merneptahs verslag van de gebeurtenis te Kar-
nak in Egyptische hoofdstad Thebe de Sherden, Sheke-
lesh, Ekwesh, Lukka en Teresh. Uit de begeleidende tekst
blijkt dat het doel van de Libische koning Meryey was om
zich met zijn gevolg in Egypte te vestigen, maar helaas
voor hem werd de aanval door Merneptah afgeslagen. De
tweede fase wordt gekenmerkt door een aanval op de Nijl
delta over zee en over land door de Zeevolken in het
vijfde en achste jaar van de Egyptische farao Ramesses
III, dat wil zeggen in 1179 en 1176 voor Christus. Uit de
afbeeldingen van deze gecombineerde zee- en landslag
van Ramesses III te Medinet Habu in de Egyptische
hoofdstad Thebe (zie figuren 5 en 6) en de begeleidende
tekst kunnen we afleiden dat de Zeevolken in kwestie, in
navolging van de Libische koning Meryey, nu van plan
waren zich te vestigen in het rijke Egypte. Ook in dit ge-
val, echter, wordt de aanval afgeslagen door Ramesses III,
en vestigen de Zeevolken zich in de regio van waaruit zij
hun gecombineerde land- en zeeslag hadden georgani-
seerd, de Levant. De in deze fase betrokken Zeevolken
waren de Peleset, Tjeker, Shekelesh, Denye(n) en Wes-
hesh. Gegeven het feit dat de Shekelesh bij beide fasen
van de woelingen van de Zeevolken betrokken waren,
kunnen we concluderen dat er in de Egyptische bronnen
dus in totaal negen Zeevolken onderscheiden worden.
Alvorens we ons met de vraag kunnen bezighouden
of de Zeevolken hetzij uit coherente etnische groepen bes-
tonden hetzij uit bijeengeraapte piraten bendes, dienen we
te bepalen waar zij vandaan kwamen. Vanaf het begin van
de literatuur over de Zeevolken, die aanvangt met de ont-
cijfering van het Egyptisch hiroglifisch door Franois
Champollion, is hier verschillend over gedacht. De eerste
onderzoekers, zoals Emmanuel de Roug en Franois
Chabas, dachten aan een coalitie van krachten uit zowel
de centrale als oostelijke Mediterrane regio op basis van
hun associatie van aan de ene kant de Shekelesh, Sherden
en Teresh met Sicili, Sardini en Etruri, en aan de an-
dere kant de Ekwesh en Lukka met de Akhasche Grieken
en de Lycirs. Daartegenover stelde Gaston Maspero, aan
wie we de term Zeevolken te danken hebben een zeer
terechte benaming als we bedenken dat deze tegenstan-
ders volgens de teksten als Vikingen met schepen overzee
van hun eilanden in de Mediterrane regio naar Egypte
kwamen om aanvallen uit te voeren , dat alle Zeevolken
uit het oostelijke Mediterrane gebied afkomstig waren.
Uitgangspunt voor dit idee was dat de Tyrsenoi of Etrus-
ken volgens Herodotos uit westelijk Anatoli (= het hui-
dige Turkije) afkomstig waren. In overeenstemming
hiermee, associeerde Maspero de Sherden met de latere
Lydische hoofdstad Sardis, de Shekelesh met Sagalassos
in Pisidi en de Weshesh met Wassos in Kari. Na hun
mislukte aanval op Egypte, zouden deze Anatolische
Zeevolken naar hun uiteindelijke verblijfplaatsen in Sar-
dini, Sicili en Etruri gemigreerd zijn.
Als we alle beschikbare gegevens met betrekking tot
de oorsprong van de verschillende groepen van de Zee-
volken op een rijtje zetten, dan blijkt dat Masperos pan-
oost-Mediterrane these niet houdbaar is. Het is zeker een
feit dat een aantal van de Zeevolken uit westelijk Anatoli
afkomstig is. Dit geldt voor de Lukka, die niet anders als
als Lycirs gedentificeerd kunnen worden, en voor de
Tjeker, waarin we de Trojaanse Teukriden kunnen her-
kennen. Voorts is het zeer aannemelijk dat Ekwesh en
Denye(n) concurrerende benamingen voor de Myceense
Grieken zijn, corresponderend met de Homerische varia-
tie tussen Akhaioi en Danaoi als aanduiding voor deze
zelfde bevolkingsgroep (vergelijk in dit verband Germa-
nia, Allemagne en Deutschland voor onze oosterburen).
Ten derde valt er veel voor te zeggen dat de Peleset of Fi-
listijnen, die uit Lydi dan wel Kreta afkomstig zouden
zijn, in de Griekse literaire overleveringen als Pelasgen
aangeduid worden, een voor-Griekse bevolkingsgroep die
165
tijdens de verovering van het Griekse vasteland door de
aartsvaders van de Grieken is uitgeweken naar de Eges-
che eilanden en westelijk Anatoli en ook voor Kreta
geattesteerd is. Omdat het ethnonym Pelasgen in de
vroegste Griekse literaire bronnen een concurrerende be-
naming voor de Tyrsenoi is, waarmee de Teresh in het al-
gemeen geassocieerd worden, staat het buiten kijf dat
Maspero de herkomst van laatstgenoemd Zeevolk terecht
in het Egesche gebied traceert en aanneemt dat deze la-
ter, na de Bronstijd, naar Itali zijn verhuist. Maar dit al-
les laat onverlet dat er graviterende redenen zijn om met
Masperos tegenstanders van het eerste uur aan te nemen
dat de Sherden, Shekelesh en Weshesh uit de centraal Me-
diterrane regio afkomstig zijn en gewoon refereren aan
Sardinirs, Sicilirs en Osken of Ausones. In deze zin is
mijn oplossing voor het vraagstuk van de herkomst der
Zeevolken een compromis tussen de these van de Roug
en Chabas en de antithese van Maspero: de laatste had ge-
lijk in zijn idee over de oorsprong der Etrusken, die in de
Eges en Anatoli gesitueerd moet worden, maar gaat te
ver wanneer hij vervolgens de centrale Mediterrane regio
uitsluit als herkomstoord van sommige der Zeevolken en
deze ook uit Anatoli laat komen.
Als ik gelijk heb in deze oplossing van het vraagstuk
naar de herkomst van de verschillende groepen der Zee-
volken, dan zijn wij ook dichter bij het antwoord naar de
oorzaak van de woelingen van de Zeevolken periode. Het
feit wil, namelijk, dat het Italische schiereiland aan het
eind van de Bronstijd wordt gekenmerkt door een massale
immigratie van dragers van de Europese urnenvelden-
cultuur, waartoe de Osken of Ausones behoren. Deze
nieuwkomers verdrijven deels de zittende bevolking, die
op drift raakt, en gaan deels met deze op drift geraakte
bevolkingsgroepen op zoek naar betere oorden, die in het
veel rijkere oostelijke Mediterrane gebied gezocht wor-
den, waar de oorsponkelijke bewoners van Itali, Sardini
en Sicili onder andere door handel mee in contact ston-
den. Op hun drift naar het oosten wordt het paleis van Py-
los in de westelijke Peloponnesos in de as gelegd en de
lokale Myceense bevolking ten dele in de trek naar het
oosten meegezogen. Vervolgens wordt de maritieme ver-
dedigingslijn van het Hettitische rijk, die westelijk van de
kust van Lyci gelegen was, doorbroken en is de vrije
doortocht naar de Levant en uiteindelijk Egypte gegaran-
deerd (zie figuur 24). In het kielzog van dit gebeuren,
worden wederom lokale bevolkingsgroepen in de trek
naar het oosten meegezogen.
Nu komen wij tot de hamvraag: waren de Zeevolken
slechts diffuse piraten bendes of coherente ethnische
groepen. Een eerste aanwijzing voor het antwoord dat wij
wel degelijk met coherente ethnische groepen te maken
hebben is gelegen in het feit dat zij door de Egyptenaren
met onderscheiden ethnonymen worden aangeduid.
Voorts worden zij in de afbeeldingen met fenotypische en
culturele kenmerken afgebeeld. Zo dragen de Sherden een
helm met horens, de Shekelesh een naar achteren gebogen
muts en de Peleset een vederen hoofddeksel. Maar het be-
langrijkste argument is dat de verschillende groepen van
de Zeevolken zich, na de afgeslagen aanval op de Nijl
delta, afzonderlijk vestigen in bepaalde regios van de Le-
vant, te weten van zuid naar noord: de Peleset of Filistij-
nen in hun zogenaamde pentapolis in Palestina (Gaza,
Askelon, Asdod, Ekron en Gath), de Tjeker of Teukriden
in Dor, de Sherden of Sardinirs in Akko, de Denye(n) of
Danaoi in Joppa en later in Lash, de dragers van de Eu-
ropese urnenvelden-cultuur, waaronder mogelijk de Wes-
hes of Osken in Hamath, en de Ekwesh of Akhaioi in de
Cilicische vlakte (cf. figuur 17). Kennelijk wilden de on-
derscheiden groepen zich, ondanks hun gezamelijke op-
treden tijdens de woelingen van de Zeevolken, niet
mengen maar zich alleen temidden van hun eigen
stamgenoten vestigen!
De woelingen van de Zeevolken aan het eind van de
Bronstijd brengen niet alleen maar verwoestingen met
zich mee, maar ook vernieuwingen. Zo introduceren de
Sherden een nieuwe strijdwijze voor de infanterie, met
ronde schilden en lange zwaarden, die, bij voldoende aan-
tallen, opgewassen is tegen de strijdwagens van de oude
Bronstijd rijken de aanzet tot de latere Griekse falanx.
Voorts zijn de Peleset of Filistijnen, volgens de overleve-
ring van de Bijbel, gespecialiseerd in de bewerking van
ijzer het metaal van het nieuwe tijdperk, de IJzertijd.
Tenslotte lijkt het waarschijnlijk dat de kennis van de
Zeevolken uit de centrale Mediterrane regio met betrek-
king tot de wateren in dit gebied de Fenicirs in de vroege
IJzertijd heeft gefaciliteerd bij hun fascinerende explora-
tie en kolonisatie van het west Mediterrane bekken.
167
CURRICULUM VITAE VAN FREDERIK CHRISTIAAN
WOUDHUIZEN
Geboorteplaats Zutphen (provincie Gelderland)
Geboortedag 13 februari 1959
Nationaliteit Nederlandse
Adres Het Hoekstuk 69, NL-1852 KX Heiloo
1977 Gymnasium B
1982 Kandidaatsexamen geschiedenis
1985 Doctoraalexamen oude geschiedenis (cum laude)
1990-1 Stipendium van het Institute for Thracology, in Sofia, Bulgarije
1991-2000 werkzaam in het bedrijfsleven
2000- werkzaam als onafhankelijk onderzoeker op het gebied van de Mediterrane pre- en protohistorie
2002-2003 Promotiebeurs Erasmus Universiteit, Rotterdam
gepubliceerde boeken:
1988 coauteur van Ancient Scripts from Crete and Cyprus, Leiden: Brill
1989 coauteur van Lost Languages of the Mediterranean, Leiden: Brill
1992 Linguistica Tyrrhenica, A Compendium of Recent Results in Etruscan Linguistics, Amsterdam:
Gieben
1992 The Language of the Sea Peoples, Amsterdam: Najade Press.
1998 Linguistica Tyrrhenica II: The Etruscan Liturgical Calendar from Capua, Addenda et Corrigenda
ad Volume I, Amsterdam: Gieben.
2004 coauteur van The Phaistos Disc: A Luwian Letter to Nestor. Publications of the Henri Frankfort
Foundation 13. Amsterdam: Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society.
2004 Luwian Hieroglyphic Monumental Rock and Stone Inscriptions from the Hittite Empire Period,
Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitrge zur Kulturwissenschaft Selected Luwian Hieroglyphic Texts, Inn-
sbruck: Innsbrucker Beitrge zur Kulturwissenschaft.
2004-2005 Selected Luwian Heroglyphic Texts I-II, Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitrge zur Kulturwissenschaft
Selected Luwian Hieroglyphic Texts, Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitrge zur Kulturwissenschaft.
gepubliceerde artikelen:
de bibliografie bij het onderhavige proefschrift geeft een ruime selectie
1
Lat. hister, -tri, histrio, -onis attore:
un prestito dal greco mediato dalletrusco
di Mario Alinei
in Studi linguistici in onore di Roberto Gusmani, a cura di R. Bombi, G. Cifoletti, F. Fusco, L. Innocente, V. Orioles,
Alessandria, Edizioni dellOrso, 2006, pp. 13-18.


La tesi dellorigine etrusca di lat. hister histrio, sostenuta da WALDE-HOFFMANN (LEW s.v.), risale
agli scrittori classici: Tito Livio aveva affermato (7,2,6) hister Tusco verbo ludio vocabatur,
Valerio Massimo (2,4, 4) ludius apud eos [= Tusci] hister appellatur, e in Plutarco (qu. Rom. p.
289) si trovano analoghi accenni. ERNOUT e MEILLET (DELL s.v.) notano lanalogia morfologica di
histrio con ludio, ma sulle origini della parola non prendono posizione, limitandosi a citare, accanto
alla tesi etrusca di Tito Livio, quella di Pomponio Festo (89, 25), che faceva derivare la parola e la
cosa dallIstria (ex Histria venerint).
Ora, se sempre legittimo dubitare del valore di unetimologia proposta da un autore latino,
invece difficile dubitare della sostanziale identit semantica di histrio con ludio, affermata cos
chiaramente sia da Tito Livio che da Valerio Massimo. E di questa identit, a mio avviso, non si
finora tenuto sufficiente conto. Lo sviluppo da ludo e ludus del significato di ludio, in effetti, mi
pare abbia rilevanti implicazioni per letimologia del suo sinonimo histrio.
Se infatti il tipo ludio, e la sua variante pi comune ludius, hanno esattamente lo stesso
significato di histrio, cio attore, commediante, pantomimo, essi ne differiscono, fra laltro (v.
oltre), per lorigine trasparente, che il verbo ludo giocare, scherzare, rappresentare una parte
ecc., da cui anche ludus gioco (di azione, con finalit anche imitativa, opposto a iocus gioco
verbale (cfr. DELL), ma anche gioco pubblico (scenico, circense, gladiatorio, funebre ecc.), e
scuola (per principanti) ecc. Sul complesso semantico di ludo e derivati ci sarebbe molto da dire,
ed peccato che Benveniste, nelle sue Institutions (BENVENISTE 1976), non labbia trattato. Il
passaggio semantico da giocare a rappresentare, mimare una parte, recitare mi sembra
comunque oltremodo significativo, ed anche tipico, per esempio, sia del francese che delle lingue
germaniche: fr. Jouer, ingl. play, ted. spielen, ned. spelen, sved. spela, dan. spillen ecc., tutti
giocare, suonare e recitare. Inoltre, va ricordato che alle origini del concetto del gioco vi
molto spesso la nozione della danza (cfr. BUCK 1949, 16.26), ci che permette di spiegare anche
lo sviluppo di ludio fino a pantomimo. E infine va sottolineato che alla figura del ludio ludius
attore, commediante, pantomimo di professione, narratore, fanno da sfondo sia il ludus pubblico,
nelle sue diverse categorie, soprattutto sceniche, sia il ludus come scuola (cfr. magister ludi o ludi
magister maestro di scuola, ludum habere, ludum exercere, ludum aperire tenere e aprire una
scuola). Sicch lattore, in ultima analisi, va visto come colui che, avendola studiata, conosce la
propria parte ed in grado di ripeterla. Il graduale slittamento di ludius, attraverso la fase
dellattore vagabondo (v. oltre), fino al significato dellimbonitore, rappresenter, naturalmente,
uno sviluppo secondario.
Il nucleo comune alle due nozioni dell histrio e del ludio, insomma, rappresenta il punto di
incontro fra diversi campi semantico-concettuali: (i) il gioco, in generale, inteso come ripetizione
di un rito sui generis sulla base di un complesso di regole; (ii) tutte le diverse forme concrete del
gioco, cio principalmente la recitazione, il mimo, la danza, la musica e ogni forma di
competizione o gara, sia intellettuale che fisica; (iii) la scuola, intesa come luogo in cui si
imparano tutte le regole.
Inutile dire che su questo complesso di significati sarebbe utile istituire un pi ampio
discorso a livello antropologico e storico-culturale, dato che esso non pu essere giustamente
apprezzato senza tenere ben presenti la natura e la funzione del gioco, della danza, del mimo, della
recitazione e della narrazione nelle societ antiche e in quelle tradizionali.
2
In assenza di studi sintetici su questo aspetto particolare del gioco, e per non perderci nel
mare delle ricerche dedicate a singole aree, ci baster tuttavia ricordare i migliori studi sul gioco
in senso assoluto, che hanno tenuto conto anche del gioco in senso antropologico: come il classico
Homo ludens di JOHAN HUIZINGA (1939), che mirando a integrare il concetto di gioco in quello di
cultura, concludeva che cultura vera non pu esistere senza una certa qualit ludica, e che la
cultura vuole essere giocata dopo comune accordo, secondo date regole (e, fra le
argomentazioni, adduceva anche un capitolo dedicato a una vera e propria ricerca onomasiologica
sulla nozione del gioco nelle diverse lingue). O il pi recente libro The ambiguity of play (1997)
di BRIAN SUTTON-SMITH, con vasta bibliografia: in cui il tema dellambiguit del gioco emerge, fra
laltro, dallalternarsi di volta in volta, nel ruolo dei giocatori, di bambini, insegnanti, atleti, attori,
comici, prestigiatori, giocolieri, gente comune e giocatori di azzardo.
A queste considerazioni di ordine generale, che ci illuminano sulla complessit della nozione
del gioco e sulla vastit dello spazio semantico comune ai due termini di ludio e histrio, ne vanno
poi aggiunte altre, pi specifiche, che riguardano questa volta le di fferenze fra i due termini,
anzich la loro somiglianza.
Anzitutto, va tenuto presente che a differenza dei ludii o ludiones gli histriones non erano
ci t t adi ni romani , ma potevano essere schiavi, liberti o stranieri. Soprattutto questultima
categoria mi sembra particolarmente significativa: Plutarco, per esempio, in Marcus Brutus (21) ci
racconta come Bruto, dopo luccisione di Cesare, cerc di riguadagnare la popolarit persa
organizzando spettacoli fastosi, e per trovare gli attori pi bravi, che erano quelli greci, and fino a
Napoli, e cerc anche di far venire il greco Canuzio.
In secondo luogo, accanto allarea semantica comune ai due termini che, come abbiamo
visto, quella di attore/ballerino/mimo - i due termini differiscono per due significati, esclusivi di
ciascuno dei due: ludio mostra quello del dicitore, saltimbanco, giocoliere, prestigiatore ecc., che
ballava e recitava sulle pubbliche strade o nel circo (cfr. e.g. RICH 1869). Ci che rappresenta una
semplice specializzazione del significato di base e, non aggiungendo nulla di rilevante, non richiede
illustrazioni particolari. Histrio, invece, si caratterizza soprattutto come attore drammatico, sia
della t ragedi a (Plinio, HN 35, 46) che della commedi a (Plinio HN 7, 54).
Ora, se ci soffermiamo su queste due caratteristiche dellhistrio, che lo contrappongono
nettamente a ludiu/ ludio, cosa notiamo? Che tutte e due sembrano orientare verso la Grecia: (A) il
suo compito pi rinomato era quello di attore specializzato nella commedia e nella tragedia, cio
in rappresentazioni teatrali di chiara origine greca; (B) i migliori histriones, che non erano
comunque mai cittadini romani, erano quelli greci.
Partendo da questa osservazione, non si pu fare a meno di chiedersi se anche lorigine dei
termini latini hister e histrio non sia per caso greca, piuttosto che etrusca: ipotesi, questultima, che
come vedremo proprio smentita dalla documentazione etrusca.
E la risposta sembra positiva, perch un etimo greco, alla luce delle osservazioni finora
svolte, si lascia individuare facilmente: laggettivo gr. [ che sa, colto, abile, esperto, bravo
(il sostantivo, come noto, si specializza in colui che conosce la legge e il diritto, arbitro, giudice,
testimonio), da cui ricercare, indagare, osservare, esaminare, domandare, chiedere,
interrogare; venire a sapere, scoprire, conoscere, sapere, riferire quanto si appreso, raccontare;
@ ricerca, indagine, osservazione; cosa venuta a sapere, notizia, conoscenza, scienza,
documentazione; rappresentazione, relazione, racconto; @ narrazione, racconto;
@ esatto, preciso, scientifico; storico; versato nella storia.
Inoltre, poich la radice di questa famiglia lessicale, come noto (cfr. DELG s.v.), quella
del gr. &, da PIE *wid- sapere (cfr. sanscr. vda, got. wait, lat. video ecc. ), ed esprime quindi
il sapere basato sull aver visto, sulla testimonianza, [ si lascia definire, in ultima analisi,
come colui che sa (in quanto ha visto), e per questo si concretizza, come aggettivo, in abile,
esperto, sapiente, bravo ecc., e come sostantivo, in arbitro testimone garante (cfr. anche
DELG e BENVENISTE 1976, p. 414).
3
Di questi termini greci, infine, occorre sottolineare che in latino classico si sono affermati
proprio historia e historicus; e che il primo, oltre al tipico arretramento dellaccento, mostra quel
restringimento di significato in senso narrativo, cio di notizia, racconto, narrazione, favola,
mito, poi passato a tutte le lingue occidentali; mentre il significato del secondo ormai quello
moderno di storico.
Mi soffermerei, quindi, sulla congruenza fra il significato di colui che recita di lat. hister
histr(i)o - che implica, sul piano antropologico culturale, il ruolo di chi conosce testi e tradizioni
orali ed deputato a farlo per la comunit o per un pubblico - e quello, squisitamente narrativo, del
lat. historia.
Se la semantica delletimologia proposta non mi pare faccia difficolt, ed anzi sia produttiva
sul piano esplicativo, una conferma formale della nuova etimologia sembra provenire,
inaspettamente, dallarea germanica: dove la forma del ted. antiquato Storger vagabondo,
venditore ambulante (cfr. ted. storgen vagabondare), che viene considerato appunto un prestito
da lat. histrio (cfr. KLUGE-MITZKA 1960, s.v.), implica lesistenza di una variante *historio (cfr.
anche DELL e LEW s.v. histrio), che si avvicina, formalmente, sia al lat. historia, che al nostro
etimo gr. [, con laggiuna del suffisso io.
Si potrebbe quindi concludere che il latino conosceva, accanto a historia e historicus, anche
una formazione *historio, -onis, il cui significato originario doveva essere narratore, e che sar
stata la base per lo sviluppo delle varianti hister histro e histrio.
Come spiegare, a questo punto, lapparizione delletrusco nelle ipotesi degli scrittori latini
sulle origini della parola?
Anche a questo quesito la risposta sembra facile: se infatti assumiamo il greco [ come
lorigine ultima del termine latino hister histro, avremmo comunque bisogno di ipotizzare una
medi azi one etrusca per spiegare il prestito, dato che sia hister che histro, rispetto al gr. [,
mostrano tratti avvicinabili a quelli studiati da de Simone nella sua ricerca fondamentale sui prestiti
greci in etrusco (DE SIMONE 1968-1970): per la metatesi di histro rispetto a [, cfr. per es. gr.
> etr. Kasutru >, gr. > etr. Puluctre; e per il vocalismo finale di hister, cfr. gr.
> etr. Alcsentre, Elsntre, Elcsntre ecc.; ed etr. Amuke, Carpe, Vikare, Kukne, Licantre,
Pilunice, Puce, Sature, Sime, Taitle, Truile ecc., tutti da nomi greci in (idem II 70, 73, 118,
119).
Ed anche per histr-io, a parte la possibilit di un suo accostamento a lat. lud-io (gi ipotizzato
da DELL s.v.), si potrebbe pensare, forse pi semplicemente, a uno spostamento dellaccento di
*historio sulla vocale iniziale, che ben nota norma delletrusco.
In altre parole, historia historicus e *historio sarebbero normali grecismi latini. Mentre hister
histro histrio sarebbero grecismi latini mutuati dalletrusco.
Hister histro histrio andrebbero quindi aggiunti al gi consistente elenco di grecismi
introdotti in latino tramite letrusco, studiati da DEVOTO gi nel 1928, e da DE SIMONE nel 1968-70:
come per esempio groma, nome dello strumento degli antichi gromatici o agrimensori, l'alidada,
che, come noto fin dagli inizi delletruscologia (cfr. THULIN 1904-9, III, p. 26, DEVOTO 1928, p.
331 ss., LAMBRECHTS 1970, p. 90, DE SIMONE cit. 231), deriva dal gr. , e il cui gruppo gr-
dovuto a una tipica tendenza dell'etrusco a trasformare la -n- postconsonantica in r (cfr. gr.
> etr. Memro, gr. > etr. Agamemro (DE SIMONE cit. 231)); norma squadra,
che deriva dallo stesso etimo greco di groma, ma dallaccusativo (DELL s.v.),
con caduta della g- iniziale e della o- atona (*nomna), e successiva metatesi di mn- > mr- in
rm- (diversamente in AEI e DE SIMONE cit. 225); amurca morchia dellolio, da gr. ;
sporta sporta, cesta, da gr. (accus.), che mostrano tutti e due lassordamento della sonora
greca, obbligatorio in etrusco (AEI s.vv., DE SIMONE cit. 226-7); ancora ncora, da gr. #a,
che mostra labbreviamento della vocale interna lunga, tipica delletrusco (AEI s.v., DE SIMONE cit.
226); e forma, dal gr. , che mostra una tendenza alla metatesi di r-, molto frequente in
etrusco (diversamente DE SIMONE cit. 225).
4
Forse pi importante, ai fini della determinazione dellorigine della parola, poi la stessa
evidenza etrusca.
In etrusco, infatti, il termine histro appare nelliscrizione bilingue su tegola A trepi anasa
AR TREBI HISTRO (TLE 541, ET Cl 1.2552). Ma vi appare come t ermi ne l at i no, non
et rusco! Nella parte etrusca (che la prima delliscrizione), infatti, lantroponimo A Trepi viene
seguito da anasa, che ovviamente devessere il termine etrusco per histro; mentre in quella latina
(la seconda), lantroponimo AR TREBI seguito da HISTRO. E quindi del tutto arbitrario pensare
(come sembra fare, senza alcun argomento, LEW s.v.) che il termine etrusco sia histr(i)o.
A questa argomentazione, che mi sembra del tutto sufficiente per avvalorare lorigine greca, e
smentire quella etrusca di lat. histrio, si pu aggiungere ancora sia pure con tutte le riserve del
caso, trattandosi di una tesi nuova - quanto si ricava dalla mia recente ricerca sulle origini ugriche
delletrusco (ALINEI 2003). Nel quadro di questa tesi, infatti, il termine etrusco anasa si lascerebbe
ricondurre a ungh. tan- 'insegnare, imparare, da cui tanit 'insegnare', tanr professore, insegnante,
docente, tanul 'imparare', tancs 'consiglio (anche nel senso di insieme di consiglieri), tan
'testimone' ecc., tutti da turc. orientale tanu conoscere, mturc. tanu comunicare, ammonire,
esortare (EWU, EWT); interpretazione che pare convalidata da unanaloga traduzione della stessa
radice in altre iscrizioni etrusche (ALINEI cit.)
Alla luce di questa corrispondenza, il greco-latino hister histr(i)o colui che sa, si lascerebbe
interpretare come un semplice calco iconimico (motivazionale) dalletrusco anasa colui che
conosce, che sa, testimone, insegnante.
5
BIBLIOGRAFIA

AEI = G. DEVOTO, Avviamento alla etimologia italiana, Dizionario Etimologico, Le Monnier,
Firenze, 1967.
ALINEI 2003 = M. ALINEI, Etrusco: una forma arcaica di ungherese, Il Mulino, Bologna 2003.
BENVENISTE 1976 = E. BENVENISTE , Il Vocabolario delle Istituzioni Indoeuropee, Einaudi Editore,
Torino 1976, III
BUCK 1949 = C.D. BUCK, A dictionary of selected synonyms in the principal Indo-European
languages, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago Illinois 1949.
DELG = P. CHANTRAINE, PIERRE, Dictionnaire tymologique de la langue grecque histoire des
mots, Editions Klincksieck, Paris 1968, II.
DELL = A. ERNOUT, A. MEILLET, Dictionnaire tymologique de la langue latine. Histoire des mots,
Librairie C. Klincksieck, Paris 1959-1960, II.
DE SIMONE 1968-1970 = C. DE SIMONE, Die Griechischen Entlehnungen im Etruskischen,
Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 1968-1970, II.
DEVOTO 1928 = G. DEVOTO, L'etrusco come intermediario di parole greche in latino, in SE 2
(1928), pp. 307-341.
ET = Etruskische Texte, Editio Minor, a cura di H. RIX (ScriptOralia 23, Reihe A, Bd 6), Gunter
Narr Verlag, Tbingen 1991, II.
EWT = M. RSNEN, Versuch eines Etymologisches Wrterbuch der Trksprachen, Helsinki 1969,
II.
EWU = Etymologisches Wrterbuch des Ungarischen, herausgeber L. BENK, Akadmiai Kiad,
Budapest, 1993-1997, III.
HUIZINGA 1946 = J. HUIZINGA, Homo ludens, Einaudi, Torino (trad. delled. olandese del 1939).
KLUGE-MITZKA 1960 = F. KLUGE, Etymologisches Wrterbuch der deutschen sprache, 18. Auflage
bearbeitet von Walther Mitzka, Walter de Gruyterr & Co, Berlin 1960.
LAMBRECHTS 1970 = R. LAMBRECHTS, Les inscriptions avec le mot tular et le bornage trusques,
Olschki, Firenze 1970.
LEW = A. WALDE, J.B. HOFMANN, Lateinisches etymologisches Wrterbuch, Carl Winter's
Universittsbuchhandlung, Heidelberg 1938, III.
RICH 1869 = A. RICH, Dizionario delle antichit greche e romane, Milano.
SUTTON-SMITH 1997 = B. SUTTON-SMITH, The ambiguity of play, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Mass., London 1997.
THULIN 1905-1909 = C. O. THULIN, Die etruskische Disciplin, Gteborgs Hgskolas rsskrift,
1905-1909, III.
TLE = Testimonia Linguae Etruscae selegit recognovit indice verborum instruxit Maximus
Pallottino, La Nuova Italia, Firenze, 1968
2
.


Aggiunta 2007:
La tesi, presentata in modo inadeguato, gi in Alessio, Nuove etimologie latine e romanze, in
Ioanni Dominico Serra ex munere laeto inferiae, Raccolta di studi linguistici in onore di
G.D. Serra, Liguori, Napoli 1959, p. 74-75.
1
ADDENDA ETRUSCO-TURCO-UGRICI
di Mario Alinei
forthcoming in Quaderni di Semantica, 51, 2 (2005)


1 Premessa
In questo articolo discuto i recenti risultati della ricerca genetica sugli Etruschi - che come mi
attendevo corrispondono abbastanza da vicino a quanto la mia tesi etrusco-ungherese predice -, e
ritengo utile illustrare anche quelli delle ricerche linguistiche da me terminate fra il 2003, quando
uscito il mio libro (Alinei 2003), ed oggi. Di questi ultimi risultati solo il primo stato parzialmente
inserito nella traduzione del mio libro in ungherese (Alinei 2005). Gli altri sono inediti, e vanno ad
arricchire la documentazione gi raccolta nel mio volume.
2 La genetica toscana, quella etrusca e quella ungherese
La ricerca sulla genetica dei Toscani di Murlo, condotta da Alberto Piazza negli anni Novanta,
anche se tuttora inedita, era gi nota al pubblico, perch di essa si lungo parlato nella stampa di
quegli anni. Come si ricorder, il principale risultato di questa ricerca, concepita da Piazza con la
consueta originalit, stava nel carattere fondamentalmente isolato dei Toscani di Murlo, e in misura
minore, dei Toscani, rispetto agli altri Italiani.
Sebbene non ancora pubblicata (ma ora vicina alla pubblicazione, come mi ha comunicato
lAutore), la conclusione sullisolamento dei Toscani apriva gi una promettente prospettiva per la
mia tesi etrusco-ungherese, basata sulla Teoria della Continuit dal Paleolitico (PCT), in quanto si
poteva presupporre che i Toscani, per la TCP di ceppo italide, come gruppo autoctono
maggiormente influenzato dalle popolazioni etrusche, per me intrusive ed ungheresi, avessero
conservato almeno alcune caratteristiche genetiche dei loro invasori, e quindi si fossero differenziati
dalle altre popolazioni italidi autoctone.
Ora risulta che la ricerca di Piazza, pressoch terminata e prossima alla pubblicazione
1
, ha
prodotto risultati che per me sono di estremo intereresse. Il risultato principale infatti che esiste
ed consistente una componente turca degli abitanti di Murlo (da Piazza opportunamente
selezionati per escludere la componente longobarda pi recente). E la presenza della stessa
componente turca viene confermata, anche se con intensit minore, in altri campioni toscani.
Questo risultato tanto pi importante in quanto anticipa, ripete e conferma il risultato di
unaltra ricerca, condotta da un altro noto e brillante genetista italiano, Guido Barbujani, assieme ai
suoi collaboratori, ma riguardante il DNA degli Etruschi stessi, studiato sulla base dei loro resti
fossili (Vernesi et al. 2004). Sebbene la ricerca sia stata per alcuni suoi aspetti tecnici criticata da
altri genetisti, e per il suo obiettivo stesso (il DNA antico) sia irta di difficolt, il suo principale
risultato che la maggiore affinit degli Etruschi con i Turchi, almeno per quanto riguarda le
sequenze mitocondriali, cio di linea femminile, sulle quali si necessariamente basata la ricerca.
Questi due risultati, che sia per i Toscani che per gli Etruschi mostrano unaffinit di fondo
con i Turchi, rappresentano per me uninattesa ed importante conferma: sia perch nella mia
visione, cos come in quella tradizionale (cronologia a parte)
2
, gli Ungheresi hanno conquistato
lUngheria guidati da Turchi asiatici (che io chiamo, pi precisamente, Turcici, per distinguerli,
analogamente alluso inglese (Turkish/Turkic), e russo (Turzkiy/Tiurski#)), dai Turchi Ottomani
europei), che li avevano acculturati precedentemente. Sia perch la mia lettura delletrusco in

1
.Comunicazione personale
2
. La mia cronologia molto pi alta di quella tradizionale, e come noto coincide con linvasione dellUngheria da
parte di gruppi kurgan turcofoni, alla guida di quelli che sono ormai proto-Ungheresi, cio Ugri separati dagli altri
popoli ugrici della Siberia occidentale, alla fine del III millennio.
2
chiave ungherese (lingua ricchissima di turchismi preistorici) ha rivelato un notevole numero di
parole turciche, naturalmente condivise dallungherese, per alcune nozioni emblematiche
delletrusco, e gi identificate come tali dalletruscologia ermeneutica: come lo zila il capo della
comunit etrusca, il kamthe , il re, ambedue di origine turcica, il latino balteus (di origine
etrusca), cintura per la balta, lascia da combattimento turcica, la cui variante ciuvascia (lingua
turcica) purt, altro emblema etrusco; Tarun antico titolo magistratuale turcico (da cui
Tarquinia), cep- insegna onorifica, paris possidente, patrizio, puia moglie (turca), e tanti altri.
Anche le altre conclusioni della ricerca di Barbujani, a mio avviso, coincidono con alcuni
assunti della mia teoria sulle origini etrusche: (1) il carattere omogeneo, e non misto, sia nello
spazio che nel tempo, degli Etruschi (Verseri et al. 2005, 699); ci che a mio avviso implica anche,
necessariamente: (2) il loro carattere intrusivo, di invasori, e non di autoctoni; (3) una meno stretta
affinit con i Turchi dei Toscani, rispetto agli Etruschi, e una loro maggiore affinit con le altre
popolazioni italiane; ci che ha condotto Barbujani e la sua quipe alla conclusione che i Toscani
non sono i diretti discendenti degli Etruschi. Conclusione che ha destato grande sorpresa nei media
(e immagino fra gli etruscologi), ma non ha assolutamente sorpreso me: ovviamente, se gli Etruschi
sono gli invasori e i Toscani sono gli autoctoni, questi non discendono direttamente da quelli! (5)
Indirettamente, il carattere elitario degli Etruschi, che nel quadro della mia lettura delletrusco,
tuttavia, non si deduce dal fatto che le tombe etrusche degli scheletri studiati erano ricche, come
ipotizza Barbujani (Verseri et al. 2005, 702; in una comunicazione personale, Barbujani
contrappone Etruschi elitari a Etruschi della strada), ma dal semplice fatto che nellEt del
Bronzo tutti i gruppi invasori Celti o Etruschi o Balti o Sciti che fossero erano per definizione
elitari, come esito di quel processo di formazione delle societ stratificate che caratterizza le Et dei
Metalli. In questa epoca, in altre parole, coloro che disponevano di cavalli e di armi metalliche per
intraprendere campagne di invasione di un territorio straniero erano per definizione i ricchi e i
potenti. Ecco perch, a mio avviso, Etruschi della strada distinti dalle lites non sono realistici.
Come gruppo omogeneo di invasori per definizione elitari - gli Etruschi dovettero semplicemente
sovrapporsi alle popolazioni autoctone toscane, ibridandole senza per assimilarle completamente.
Il maggiore o minore grado di ibridazione fra i gruppi elitari invasori e le masse degli autoctoni
dipende poi, ovviamente, dalle circostanze dellinvasione, dalla durata delloccupazione, dal grado
di commistione e da altre variabili.
Anche se Barbujani, sul rapporto fra Etruschi e Latino-Italici lascia aperte parecchie
possibilit di spiegazione
3
, a me sembra invece del tutto evidente che la ricerca ne ammetta solo
una e confermi cos, in modo irrefutabile, un assunto fondamentale della mia teoria: il carattere
intrusivo degli Etruschi rispetto ai Latini e agli Italici autoctoni, compresi gli attuali Toscani. Nella
TCP, cos come lho illustrata nei miei due volumi sulle origini delle lingue europee (Alinei 1996 e
2000) e successive ricerche, gli Italidi o Italoidi parlano infatti lingue affini al latino e alle lingue
italiche fin da quando si sono differenziati dagli altri gruppi IE, nelle ultime fasi del Paleolitico.
Le soluzioni esplicitamente menzionate da Barbujani sono invece due: o gli Etruschi erano
invasori non IE, che hanno invaso unItalia IE (cio appunto ci che assume la TCP), o gli Etruschi
erano invasori IE, che hanno invaso unItalia non-IE (scenario che nessuno ha mai ipotizzato
finora). In astratto, ovviamente, ambedue le soluzioni sono possibili. Non a caso, anche per le
origini IE esistono esattamente le due stesse ipotesi, e nello stesso rapporto inverso: o gli IE sono
invasori che assimilano le popolazioni non-IE precedenti (come sostengono Gimbutas, Renfrew
Cavalli Sforza), o gli invasori inventori dellagricoltura sono non-IE che sono stati assimilati dagli
invasi IE, da sempre in Eurasia (come sostiene la TCP).
Per quanto riguarda gli Etruschi, tuttavia, il problema molto pi semplice, perch la
documentazione linguistica pi che sufficiente per eliminare una delle due spiegazioni alternative:
lipotesi che gli Etruschi siano invasori IE, assimilati da una maggioranza non IE, urta infatti contro
unenorme ostacolo linguistico, che sfugge ai genetisti per insufficiente competenza, ma che

3
Comunicazione personale
3
certamente salta agli occhi degli etruscologi: non solo la lingua etrusca ma anche la toponomastica
(Felsina, Volsinii, Tarquinia, Fufluna, ecc. ecc.), lantroponimia (Lar, Vel, Arnth, Arri, Sethre ecc.,
ecc.) e la teonimia etrusca (Tinia, Thesan, Cath, Cel, Letham, Turms, Cauta, Laran, Maris, Culsus,
Cilens, Fufluns ecc.), sono chiaramente non IE: mentre non solo le lingue italiche, ma anche la loro
toponomastica, l antroponimia e la teonimia sono IE. Se allora, come pare, la genetica dimostra
una differenza di fondo fra i due gruppi, rovesciare il rapporto, e fare degli Etruschi gli autoctoni IE
e i Latini gli invasori non IE quindi assolutamente impossibile, se non si vuole violare qualunque
tipo di logica in uso nella ricerca scientifica, oltre al senso comune. Lunica spiegazione possibile,
come ho gi detto, che gli Etruschi sono invasori non IE, e i Toscani sono quel particolare gruppo
di Italidi, IE autoctoni, che stato maggiormente influenzato e geneticamente ibridato dagli
invasori.
E a me pare anche difficile conciliare la citata ipotesi di Barbujani con la precisa
affermazione che leggo nel suo articolo (Verseri et al. 2005): If the upper class had indeed
somewhat distinct DNAs, our results could mean that this elite class became largely extinct, while
the rest of the population, whose DNA we do not know, may well have contributed to the modern
gene of Tuscany (702). Non vedo come si possa affermare questo e allo stesso tempo, sapendo ci
che sappiamo sulla lingua etrusca e sul latino, arrivare a unaltra conclusione che non sia quella da
me sostenuta.
Non a caso, del resto, lo stesso Barbujani deduce dalla sua ricerca che gli Etruschi non erano
molto diversi dai Toscani, ma non erano neanche i loro diretti antenati. Di qui i curiosi titoli dei
giornali e delle trasmissioni radiotelevisive: i Toscani non discendono dagli Etruschi! Come se i
Toscani parlassero ancora etrusco, e non parlassero, invece, una loro variante specifica di latino
popolare! La verit non ovviamente quella che i linguisti hanno sempre desiderato (senza mai
poterlo dimostrare) cio che gli Etruschi sono gli autoctoni e gli IE gli invasori - ma proprio
linverso: gli Etruschi, come popolo non IE, hanno anzitutto invaso un Italia del Nord e del Centro
latinofone (o italicofone); successivamente, poich i loro pi importanti e pi stabili insediamenti
sono avvenuti in Toscana e in parte del Lazio, hanno ibridato profondamente solo queste, senza
per assimilarle completamente. Anzi, venendone a loro volta gradualmente assimilate. Torno pi
oltre su questo punto, per elaborarlo ulteriormente.

Che le conclusioni dei genetisti difettino di adeguate conoscenze interdisciplinari (come ha
ammesso Barbujani
4
), non pu stupire. Colpiscono invece, nelle reazioni degli etruscologi che ho
potuto seguire su internet, due cose: (1) da un lato, una notevole confusione didee e almeno fino
ad ora - lincapacit di cogliere quanto di nuovo, e anzi di sconvolgente per la visione tradizionale,
c in questi risultati della ricerce genetica; (2) dallaltro, il silenzio sulla mia recente tesi etrusco-
ungherese (Alinei 2003, Alinei 2005), tanto pi ingiustificato, a mio parere, in quanto i risultati
della ricerca genetica sembrano fatti apposta per avvalorarla, o per lo meno per aprire un dibattito
serio su di essa.
Ma vediamo pi da vicino le reazioni degli etruscologi. Giovannangelo Camporeale, in un
dibattito con Alberto Piazza avvenuto al Museo Civico di Rovereto il 5 ottobre 2004, la insistito
sulla linea ufficiale della formazione mista e della probabile autoctonia degli Etruschi, senza
rendersi conto che uno dei principali risultati della ricerca genetica sta proprio nella dimostrazione
che gli Etruschi non erano misti ma omogenei. Opporre ai dati del DNA, come ha fatto lui - con
una interminabile serie di diapositive -, i vari manufatti di tipo sardo, o greco, o di altra origine,
della civilt etrusca, come opporsi alla comune identit genetica dei membri di una famiglia
invocando la presenza di oggetti di varia provenienza nellarredamento della loro abitazione. Per
quanto riguarda le affinit degli Etruschi con i Turchi, Camporeale ha poi invocato, come ci si
poteva aspettare e come tutti hanno poi regolarmente fatto, il racconto di Erodoto sulla provenienza
degli Etruschi dalla Lidia. In realt, in questo sono stati tutti anticipati dagli stessi genetisti, sia da

4
Comunicazione personale
4
Barbujani che da Piazza, che naturalmente non ignorano le varie teorie antiche sulle origini
etrusche, e hanno quindi citato il racconto erodoteo come spiegazione plausibile (anche se
Barbujani ha invocato relazioni commerciali di pi ampio raggio con il Mediterraneo orientale,
discostandosi cos dal racconto erodoteo (Verseri et al. 2005, 702).
A questo comune richiamo ad Erodoto, e ai termini in cui stato fatto, io vorrei per
avanzare delle riserve: (1) sia da parte dei genetisti che da parte degli etruscologi, si parlato pi
spesso di popolazioni anatoliche che di Turchi. Questo non del tutto corretto, perch i confronti
e i controlli genetici riguardano, per definizione, i popoli viventi, che in questo caso sono i Turchi, e
non gli Anatolici. Con questultimo termine, infatti, linguisti e storici intendono popoli preistorici,
sia IE che non IE, ma certamente non turchi! Anatolico quindi termine piuttosto infelice, se non
del tutto fuorviante, in questo contesto. (2) Inoltre, sembra che nessuno si sia ricordato che i Turchi,
nella visione tradizionale - fino ad ora mai discussa, e tanto meno contestata, n dagli studiosi
tradizionali, n da Renfrew -, sarebbero arrivati in Asia Centrale soltanto nei primi secoli della
nostra era, e in Turchia addirittura nel Medio Evo (una delle tante invasioni immaginarie della
ricerca tradizionale, simile a quella slava e a quella celtica!). Per cui lAnatolia, allinizio del I
millennio e prima, quando gli Etruschi avrebbero dovuto lasciarla per invadere lItalia, non era
certamente abitata da Turchi, bens da Assiri, Ittiti, Cappadoci, Cari, Frigi, Panfili, Lici, Cilici, Lidi,
Misi, Paflagoni e chi pi ne ha pi ne metta, e pi tardi da Sciti e Cimmeri provenienti dalle steppe.
Come si pu quindi invocare il racconto di Erodoto senza allo stesso tempo rivoluzionare la
visione tradizionale, collocando i Turchi in Turchia gi nel II millennio? Personalmente, io sarei
certo favorevole a prendere in considerazione unipotesi simile, ma solo perch, quale sostenitore
della TCP, considero tutte le popolazioni eurasiatiche moderne come le dirette continuatrici delle
prime famiglie (linguistiche) di Homo loquens e sapiens che si sono insediate nel Vecchio Mondo,
gi linguisticamente differenziate. Quindi, nel quadro del generale innalzamento della cronologia
della formazione dellEuropa linguistica, consentito dalla TCP, per me non solo non impossibile
ma anzi necessario anticipare larrivo dei Turchi in Turchia. Tuttavia, anche secondo la TCP, il
focolaio primigenio degli Altaici certamente stato in Asia centrale, dove emergono, dopo decine
di millenni di industrie paleo- e mesolitiche locali e senza soluzioni di continuit, prima le grandi e
fiorenti civilt neolitiche dellAsia centrale, e poi, poco dopo, come loro diretta filiazione, le
altrettanto grandi e note culture di allevatori e guerrieri nomadici delle steppe del Calcolitico
prime fra tutte Serednyi Stog (IV millennio) e Yamnaya (kurgan) (III millennio) che sono anche
le prime culture del mondo che mostrano laddomesticamento e luso del cavallo come montatura.
Ed quindi in queste culture in cui emerge per la prima volta in Eurasia quel modo di vita
nomadico e guerriero-pastorale imperniato sul cavallo, che diventa poi, senza interruzioni di
continuit, la caratteristica di tutte le popolazioni nomadiche altaiche delle steppe eurasiatiche, dalla
Mongolia allUcraina e alla puszta ungherese (kurgan, per chi non lo sapesse, parola altaica che
designa i tumuli funerari tipici delle popolazioni nomadiche delle steppe, dalla preistoria fino ad
epoca storica). Nel quadro della TCP, insomma, in Turchia i Turchi ci sono certamente arrivati,
anche se molto probabile che lo abbiano fatto molto prima di quanto non si pensi tradizionalmente
(e alcuni fra i tanti Sciti della (proto)storia, nonch i Cimmeri, potrebbero essere fra i candidati).
Tuttavia, prima di assumere come seria ipotesi di lavoro che la Lidia potesse gi essere
parzialmente turca nel II e I millennio a.C., occorrerebbe per lo meno disporre di altri elementi di
prova, come potrebbe essere, sul piano linguistico, una lettura in chiave turcica del Minoico: cosa
che finora, a mia conoscenza, non stata neanche tentata. Allo stato attuale delle nostre conoscenze
storiche e linguistiche, quindi, lipotesi che la Turchia della fine del II millennio a.C. fosse gi
parzialmente abitata da Turchi non pu ancora essere considerata unipotesi di lavoro solida.
A parte questo, inoltre, dubito molto che linguisti ed etruscologi tradizionali siano disposti
ad ammettere che la Lidia del II/I millennio fosse gi turca: tanto varrebbe, allora, che accettassero
la TCP. Per cui, se sgombriamo il terreno da questa ipotesi, come possiamo pensare che in Lidia ci
fossero Turchi? Dobbiamo invece ammettere che i Turchi si trovassero altrove, e che la Lidia non
abbia nulla a che fare con la scoperta di Barbujani e di Piazza.
5
I genetisti, naturalmente, ragionano seguendo unaltra linea argomentativa. Alla mia
obiezione, infatti, rivoltagli in una lettera, Barbujani ha ribattuto che si pu pensare che i gruppi di
Turchi invasori fossero eserciti, gruppi relativamente piccoli di maschi, che quindi non avrebbero
alterato la variabilit genetica preesistente, e in particolare quella mitocondriale, che dipende dalle
donne. E ha citato una sua ricerca (Di Benedetto et al. 2001), che ha stimato un contributo di geni
orientali in Anatolia vicino al 30%, e unaltra Cavalli-Sforza (Cinnioglu et al. 2003), che ha
ottenuto un valore molto pi basso (< 9%), anche se ha lavorato solo sul cromosoma Y. Per cui,
conclude Barbujani, verrebbe da pensare che i Turchi moderni parlino una lingua diversa, ma non
siano geneticamente molto diversi dai Turchi del tempo che fu. Per sapere poi come fossero Lidi,
Ittiti, ecc., c ancora molto lavoro da fare.
A me sembra per che questa risposta rappresenti, pi che un argomento contro la mia
obiezione, unammissione che la mia obiezione giusta. Anzitutto, la conclusione dellarticolo
citato di Di Benedetto et al., quanto alle tre opzioni possibili (elite-dominance, invasione istantanea,
immigrazione continua) come spiegazione dei risultati ottenuti, non quella degli eserciti militari,
menzionata da Barbujani, ma, al contrario, quella di una continuous immigration from Central
Asia seems the model which is simplest to reconcile with the available data (155). In secondo
luogo, e pi importante, il problema non se i Turchi siano o meno geneticamente simili ai Turchi
del tempo che fu (ci che mi sembra la ricerca genetica dovrebbe comunque assumere come
sviluppo normale), quanto se i Turchi moderni siano simili alle popolazioni non-turche precedenti,
la cui presenza dobbiamo postulare per il periodo etrusco. E a questo quesito, che tuttaltra cosa,
Barbujani non pu dare risposta per mancanza di dati. Quanto alla ricerca di Cavalli Sforza, essa si
limita a concludere che la Turchia stata both an important source and recipient of gene flow, e
che il contributo genetico paterno dellAsia Centrale inferiore al 9% Non ci fornisce quindi alcun
nuovo elemento che non rientri nel quadro della continuit genetica del ramo turcico degli Altaici,
irrilevante per la mia obiezione.
A me pare, quindi, che allipotesi che gli Anatolici della Lidia del periodo etrusco fossero
gi geneticamente simili ai Turchi Barbujani non abbia fornito alcun argomento concreto. Inoltre, se
la accettassimo, indeboliremmo tutta la ricerca genetica o, per dirla con le parole stesse di Barbujani
a proposito di un altro problema, [it] would force us to reconsider the universally held assumption
that patterns in the DNA of modern individuals reflect the evolutionary processes affecting their
prehistoric ancestors (702). E difficile, insomma, affermare da un lato che la genetica delle
popolazioni has proved to be a powerful tool for reconstructing crucial aspects of human
evolution (694), - ci che assolutamente vero - e dallaltro ammettere una simile differenza di
risultati fra linvasione etrusca in Italia, in cui la differenza fra invasori e invasi emerge senza
ombra di dubbi, e quella dei Turchi in Turchia, che invece si vuole ipotizzare senza per altro
neanche poterla studiare, in mancanza di dati sul DNA degli Anatolici come del tutto priva di
conseguenze genetiche. E le due affermazioni sono tanto pi inconciliabili se si riflette da un lato a
una delle pi straordinarie scoperte di Cavalli Sforza e allievi, cio alla coincidenza della
distribuzione areale delle famiglie linguistiche del mondo con quella dei tratti genetici, dallaltro
allaltrettanto straordinaria potenza dimostrata cos spesso dallo strumentario genetico per
confermare i legami genetici fra popolazioni emigrate e quelle da cui si sono staccate.
Il problema del nesso della Lidia con i Turchi, insomma, a mio avviso non impostato bene,
n tanto meno risolto, dai genetisti o dagli etruscologi. Nella mia teoria etrusco-ungherese, invece, il
nesso c, ed anche importante, ma ha tuttaltra spiegazione.
Qui illustro la mia tesi in termini pi schematici che non nel mio libro, augurandomi che
anche i genetisti la prendano in considerazione: la Lidia, e in particolare Lemno, dove dopo le
ricerche di de Simone sappiamo con certezza che nel VI secolo abitava una comunit etrusca,
rappresentano la prova dellesistenza di DUE correnti etrusche, come gi ventilato, naturalmente in
altri termini, da Hugh Hencken (1968), il principale studioso di Villanova:
(1) la prima corrente etrusca, cio turco-ugrica, sarebbe quella, gi ricordata, formata dalle elite
di guerrieri a cavallo della cultura turcofona dei kurgan, che alla fine del III millennio, dalle
6
steppe eurasiatiche invasero larea carpato-danubiana, durante la cultura di Baden detta
classica, alla guida di popolazioni ugriche ormai stacccate dagli altri Ob-Ugri e divenute
quindi Ungheresi, anche secondo la teoria tradizionale (a parte la cronologia). Per cui, nel
quadro della mia teoria, le influenze carpato-danubiane che nel II millennio sono gi cos
evidenti in Italia settentrionale, per crescere sempre di pi fino a spingere gli archeologi ad
ipotizzare una vera e propria invasione dellalta Italia (Barfield 1971, Cardarelli 1992), (e
sottolineo alta, anche per ricordare che si tratta di infiltrazioni e di uneventuale invasione
avvenute via terra), sarebbero tutte manifestazioni turco-ugriche, destinate a trasformarsi nei
Proto-Villanoviani e Villanoviani della fine del II e principio del I millennio, cio nei Reti
(che da qualche tempo sappiamo essere di lingua etrusca) e negli Etruschi del Nord Italia;
(2) la seconda ondata etrusca o turco-ugrica sarebbe invece costituita da quei gruppi di
metallurghi del Bacino Carpatico - il cuore industriale dellEuropa nellet del Bronzo
(Barfield 1971) -, per me gi Ungheresi, che gli stessi archeologi ungheresi pur non
riconoscendoli ancora come loro antenati - vedono espandersi verso la Grecia e sullEgeo,
per partecipare alle battaglie dei Popoli del Mare (e.g. Kovacs 1977). Questa seconda ondata
etrusca, dunque, dal Bacino Carpatico, attraverso i Balcani, sarebbe scesa direttamente sul
Mediterraneo orientale. E di l, probabilmente dopo aver fondato una o pi colonie come
quella di Lemno, avrebbe raggiunto, via mare, le sponde dellAdriatico e del Tirreno,
riunendosi con quella dellentroterra e dando inizio alla fondazione delle citt etrusche del
centro, come aveva gi ipotizzato, in maniera diversa, Hencken (1968).

Per concludere questo quadro, vorrei infine aggiungere i risultati di unaltra recente ed importante
ricerca genetica, questa volta sugli Ungheresi, condotta da Carmela Rosalba Guglielmino
dellUniversit di Pavia, unaltra genetista italiana della scuola di Cavalli Sforza. In una
comunicazione personale, indirizzatami dopo avere ascoltato una mia conferenza a Budapest, la
studiosa mi ha informato che le affinit genetiche pi strette degli Ungheresi sono con gli Iraniani,
seguiti dai Turchi asiatici. Mentre quelle degli Ungheresi della frontiera occidentale (e quindi, si
pu supporre, pi coinvolte nella difesa del territorio dopo la Conquista) sono con le popolazioni
uraliche (con buona pace dei neo-detrattori dellunit finno-ugrica). I conti tornano, per la terza
volta.
Va per chiarito un punto importante. Perch le affinit iraniane sono cos importanti fra gli
Ungheresi, mentre non lo sono, come sembra, fra gli Etruschi (o fra i Toscani)? Per rispondere,
occorre capire che i Paleo-Ungheresi (per il termine v. oltre) del Bacino Carpatico, una volta
trasferiti in Italia come futuri Etruschi, hanno certamente subito altre influenze, culturali e
genetiche, mescolandosi con gli autoctoni italici e con altre popolazioni mediterranee (primi fra tutti
i Fenici!), mentre quelli rimasti in patria, nel corso del II e del I millennio, durante la fioritura e la
decadenza della civilt etrusca, ebbero tutto il tempo di subire influenze sia dagli IE locali e
confinanti (entrambi Slavi, che nella TCP sono da sempre presenti nel sud-est europeo), sia, in
particolare, dagli Sciti, Alani ed Osseti iraniani. Non a caso, la pi autorevole studiosa vivente dei
prestiti iranici nelle lingue finno-ugriche (Korenchy, 1988) ha concluso che in ungherese tali prestiti
risalgono al I millennio a.C. Nella mia ricostruzione, quindi, le influenze genetiche e linguistiche
iraniche possono solo interessare il Paleo-Ungherese del Bacino Carpatico e non quello dei Paleo-
Ungheresi etruschi, che nel I millennio si trovano ormai in unaltra orbita.
Su tutti questi punti spero di poter tornare in altra sede, anche per discutere pi in dettaglio,
sulla base degli articoli gi pubblicati, i risultati della Guglielmino.
Mi sembra comunque che i risultati della ricerca genetica convergano con quelli della mia
teoria, mentre mettono in gravi difficolt qualunque altro modello etnogenetico etrusco.

Ritornando ora alla mia rassegna sulle reazioni degli etruscologi alla conclusione di
Barbujani e della sua quipe, voglio ancora accennare ad un altro intervento televisivo, che
purtroppo non ho potuto ascoltare nella sua interezza: quello di Mario Torelli, a mio avviso il pi
7
acuto studioso della storia e della societ etrusca. Con la consueta maestria, Torelli ha colto
lessenza della personalit storico-economica degli Etruschi, presentandoli principalmente come
metallurghi. A mia conoscenza, nessuno lo aveva mai fatto prima dora, ed un altro merito di
questo originale studioso. Peccato, per, che nel mettere in rilievo la fondamentale componente
metallurgica nella genesi della civilt etrusca, Torelli non ne abbia menzionato (almeno nella parte
che ho potuto ascoltare) uno degli aspetti pi importanti: i suoi legami con la grande produzione
metallurgica dellUngheria, cuore dellindustria metallurgica europea nel II millennio. Ma forse qui
nuoce, anche a Torelli, lindifferenza che letruscologia ha sempre mostrato per le pur evidenti e
fondamentali relazioni di Villanova con il Bacino Carpatico, scoperte e studiate da Hencken (1968)
e confermate ed elaborate dai successivi archeologi. Relazioni che, fra laltro, si lasciano ancora pi
facilmente utilizzare dopo la recente conferma delle affinit con letrusco del retico: che
ovviamente, se non autoctono, deve prevenire dal nord.

Passando ora alla lingua etrusca, fra le reazioni ai risultati della recente ricerca genetica vi stata
una presa di posizione da parte di Piazza, che nel citato dibattito di Rovereto ha sostenuto lipotesi
presentata dubitativamente dal linguista americano Greenberg in un suo volume uscito un anno
prima della sua morte - secondo la quale letrusco potrebbe essere una lingua IE (Greenberg 2000,
22-23). Da un lato, la proposta mi ha fatto piacere, perch dimostra che un originale genetista come
Piazza non segue necessariamente la dottrina ricevuta, per i campi che non sono la sua
specializzazione ma in cui deve necessariamente entrare, ma anche capace di seguire strade
indipendenti. Dallaltro lipotesi di Greenberg, sostenuta senza alcun approfondimento della lingua
etrusca, del tutto inaccettabile. Camporeale gli ha ricordato che i numeri e il verbo essere in
etrusco non sono quelli IE, ma gli argomenti pi importanti, per escludere tale appartenenza, sono
quelli tipologici: letrusco una lingua agglutinante (come lUralico, lAltaico e molte altre lingue
del mondo, ma non come lIE, che invece una lingua flessiva); letrusco ha laccento sulla prima
sillaba (come lUralico e molte altre lingue, ma non come lIE); letrusco ha larmonia vocalica
(come hanno lUralico, lAltaico ed altre lingue, ma che lIE non ha); e letrusco ha solo consonanti
occlusive sorde (come lUralico e poche altre lingue, ma non come lIE). In breve, tipologicamente
letrusco lontano le mille miglia dallIE. Per cui, fra le due ipotesi di Greenberg, lunica
accettabile semmai quella che letrusco sia parte della famiglia che Greenberg chiama eurasiatica.
Ma questa ipotesi, come quella nostratica, ci porterebbe troppo lontano dal tema di questo articolo.
Se poi, come ho detto, lindipendenza critica di Piazza nei confronti della dottrina ricevuta
mi fa piacere, mi chiedo anche forse a torto - se la sua ipotesi non riveli il desiderio di trovar
conferma alla teoria di Cavalli Sforza e di Renfrew sulla dispersione neolitica dellIE, secondo la
quale, come noto, lIE dovrebbe arrivare in Europa allinizio del Neolitico provenendo
dallAnatolia.
E questa ipotesi mi viene suggerita da unaltra presa di posizione, questa volta da parte dello
stesso Cavalli Sforza, espressa in una prefazione da lui scritta per un libro di un linguista dilettante,
ingegnoso ma temerario, e troppo poco preparato per accorgersi che la sua tesi sullidentit dei
radicali presenti nella toponomastica, nellidronimia e nelloronimia di mezzo globo terrestre con
quelli delle Alpi e dellAppennino
5
assolutamente priva di senso per la linguistica. Anche qui,
certo utile notare il distacco di Cavalli Sforza dalla dottrina ricevuta, distacco che per lo meno
potrebbe servire ai suoi ostinati difensori quanto poco essa conti, ormai, nel quadro della ricerca
mondiale. Purtroppo, per, la teoria elogiata da Cavalli Sforza di scientifico non ha neanche
lombra, dato che in tutte le lingue del mondo i radicali, cio le sillabe, sono obbligatoriamente
composte da un numero esiguo di fonemi, essendo prodotte da tutti gli esseri umani con lo stesso,
limitato apparato fono-articolatorio. Inoltre, dovendo anche soddisfare il comune bisogno di tutti gli
esseri umani di emettere il fiato mentre si parla, sono anche composte, obbligatoriamente, da
identiche sequenze di consonanti e vocali, queste ultime necessarie per la respirazione. Per cui ci si

5
Claudio Beretta, I nomi dei fiumi, dei monti, dei siti. Strutture linguistiche preistoriche, Centro camuno di studi
preistorici, Ulrico Hoepli, Milano 2003.
8
pu facilmente immaginare quale valore statistico abbia la scoperta di somiglianze o identit fra le
sequenze delle stesse consonanti e vocali nelle diverse lingue del mondo! Di scoperta, in realt, si
dovrebbe parlare solo se fossero diverse! E si resta perplessi constatando che Cavalli Sforza,
maestro indiscusso di statistica oltre che di genetica, non si renda conto della assoluta mancanza di
interesse scientifico di una teoria simile, ed arrivi anzi a scriverne: le sue conclusioni [dellautore]
sulla possibilit di una fase antichissima, monosillabica e agglutinante, pre-mongolica, pre-semita e
pre-indoeuropea, fondate su fatti storico-linguistici validi ancora oggi, cio sui nomi delle acque ,
dei monti, delle pianure [sono] interessant[i] e forse la ricerca futura potr dimostrarne
limportanza (p. XV).
Confesso di non capire che cosa possa indurre uno dei pi autorevoli scienziati del mondo
ad appoggiarsi a tesi simili, pur di salvare una teoria che evidentemente non si sta dimostrando
fra le pi forti. E che, oltre alle sue debolezze intrinseche, linguistiche ed archeologiche (non parlo
di quelle genetiche, anche se a me profano sembrano evidenti), ha anche il grosso difetto di essere
trasparentemente eurocentrica. Perch, sebbene sostituisca gli ormai screditati IE guerrieri
supermen stile Gimbutas e compagni con i pi politically correct inventori della agricoltura,
continua a presentare gli IE come superiori agli altri. Privando per di pi, Assiri, Babilonesi, Sumeri
e Semiti, tutti popoli non IE, del loro indiscusso primato mondiale nella formazione delle civilt
urbane, conseguenza di quello che anche senza ombra di dubbio il loro precedente primato
agricolo.
Mi sfuggir certamente qualche aspetto del problema, ma non mi chiaro perch i genetisti
non prendano in pi seria considerazione i vantaggi che sugli altri modelli presenta la TCP, oggi
seguita da numerosi e rispettabili linguisti, italiani e non, oltre che da autorevoli archeologi
stranieri, come appare, per esempio, dal sito www.continuitas.com.
11 Questioni terminologiche: Paleo-Ungherese
Nel mio libro ho quasi sempre usato, anche in riferimento allEtrusco, gli etnonimi ungherese e
magiaro, e solo per le attestazioni lessicali specifiche ho parlato pi esattamente di Antico e Medio
Ungherese, seguendo la convenzione tradizionale che designa con questi due termini,
rispettivamente, lungherese dagli inizi al 1530 circa, e dal 1530 al 1790 ca.. Nella ricostruzione
comparata dellungherese, tuttavia, prima dellAntico Ungherese c solo il Proto-Ungherese, se
non si vuole considerare il cosiddetto Preungherese, nozione alquanto infelice che raggruppa
linsieme dei termini di tradizione ugrica, finno-ugrica o uralica, per definizione di datazione
radicalmente diversa fra loro, preservati nellungherese; inoltre, il termine stesso fuorviante, come
tutti i termini storico-linguistici che adoperano il prefisso pre- in questo senso, perch non tiene
conto del senso normale del prefisso pre-, che quello che appare in termini storici come pre-
cristiano e pre-islamico, ed anche in importanti termini storico-linguistici come come pre-IE, e pre-
romano, che implicano lassenza, e non uno stadio pi antico, dellIE e di Roma. Sicch, anche per
evitare i fraintendimenti che nel frattempo ho notato nelle reazioni al mio libro sia in Italia che in
Ungheria credo sia utile introdurre il nuovo termine di Paleo-Ungherese come termine sincronico
ed equivalente ad Etrusco, per indicare con maggiore precisione quello stadio arcaico
dellungherese che la mia tesi necessariamente riconosce nellEtrusco. Il Paleo-Ungherese o
Etrusco, in questo senso, uno stadio che sta fra il Proto-Ungherese ricostruito e lAntico
Ungherese.
Come ho gi mostrato nelle pagine precedenti, occorre poi distinguere anche fra due
ramificazioni del Paleo-Ungherese:
(A) Paleo-Ungherese BC o del Bacino Carpatico, e quindi precedente la migrazione
verso sud dei Proto-Villanoviani e dei loro predecessori, e pertanto aperto a tutte
le influenze che successivamente interesseranno il Bacino Carpatico (come
quelle iraniane del I millennio), e che porteranno il Paleo-ungherese BC a
svilupparsi in Ungherese Antico, Medio e Moderno; e
9
(B) Paleo-Ungherese E o Etrusco, che prima di estinguersi avr invece subito,
inevitabilmente, le influenze dal Latino, dallItalico, del Greco e di eventuali
altre lingue del Mediterraneo, mentre non avr potuto subire le altre.
3 Una migliore lettura delliscrizione sul kyathos di Vetulonia (TLE
366; ET Vn 0.1)
Liscrizione sul kyathos parlante di Vetulonia (Alinei 2003, 197 sgg.) , a mio avviso, uno dei
documenti pi convincenti dellidentit linguistica etrusco-paleoungherese. Dato che il kyathos un
vaso potorio, la duplice lettura nelliscrizione a scriptio continua della sequenza ial, identica ad
ungh. ital bevanda, gi un primo indizio importante. Il fatto poi che la mia traduzione, anche
cos come stata illustrata nel mio libro, dimostra senza ombra di dubbio che liscrizione del tipo
parlante, e permette quindi un parallelo illuminante con analoghi vasi potori parlanti latini e
greci (p. 198), ha unimportanza che difficilmente pu essere sottovalutata. La modificata lettura
che presento ora (e che in parte stata introdotta nella traduzione del mio libro in ungherese) da un
lato continua e conferma la traduzione gi fatta, dallaltro la migliora e, a mio avviso, la rende
pressoch definitiva.
(1) La novit pi importante sta in una diversa lettura della sequenza IEME, che si trova nella
prima parte del testo, contenente linvito a bere. Letta unitariamente, il pur ovvio
collegamento con il tema ungh. igy- di iszik bere non produceva nulla di convincente,
perch si era costretti a ipotizzare un insolito bevo, riferito al vaso parlante. Mentre
sdoppiata in IE ME - come mi ha suggerito una lettrice ungherese - la sequenza viene ad
equivalere allimperativo 2a sg. idd (< igy) bevi, seguito dal completivo meg (mee: 1585),
e diventa quindi una frase del tutto trasparente come bevi ancora o beviti, bevi tutto.
(2) Poich , daltra parte, la nuova lettura di IE ME limitata alla 2a sg. dellimperativo, cade
anche la traduzione alternativa che avevo proposto nella versione italiana del mio libro, in
cui URU signore, anzich essere un vocativo, poteva essere anche il soggetto (= in me il
Signore beva la bevanda).
(3) La traduzione della sequenza NACEME IAL ILEN con ungh. nekem ital tltsd, cio
versami/versa in me la bevanda non una libera interpretazione dellungherese (a parte
lomissione dellarticolo e della t dellaccusativo in ital), ma una frase ungherese
perfettamente comune, una volta acquisito che IL- (in altri testi etruschi anche TEL/EL-,
con lo stesso valore di riempire, adempiere) equivale allantico ungherese tel riempire
gi attestato nei Sermones Dominicales del 1456-1470 (EWU), da cui il moderno tlt
versare, riempire. Per esempio nel dizionario inglese-ungherese di Orszg Lszl si
trovano gli esempi tlthetek neked is? posso versare (qcosa) anche a te? (con hetek
posso, e neked a te anzich nekem a me), e tlt valakinek valamit versare a qualcuno (-
nek a) qualcosa. Per cui la traduzione utilizzata nella versione ungherese, cio belm
(dentro di me) ntsd versa az italt la bevanda, pu essere, a mio avviso, considerata
inutilmente libera, anche se, naturalmente, con luso di belm dentro di me si mira ad
esplicitare meglio il contesto del vaso parlante.
(4) Quando ho scritto il mio libro mi era sfuggito che il kyathos non solo un vaso potorio ma
anche ununita di misura per liquidi, come risultato da qualunque manuale di riferimento. Si
conferma cos, indirettamente, la mia traduzione di MESNAMER con misura dellidromele,
dato che ungh. mz miele, nella sua anteforma FUg *mete- significava anche idromele, e
MER identico a ungh. mr misurare (cfr. MARU gromatico > ungh. mr).
(5) Poich la seconda parte del testo MESNAMER TANSINA MULU, che anche nella versione
ungherese del libro appare tradotta (io sono) il dono la cui bella forma indica la misura
dellidromele - non mostra elementi morfosintattici tali da permettere una traduzione di
tipo subordinato relativo, la sua traduzione si lascia forse effettuare pi semplicemente in
termini di apposizione: (io sono) il dono, (io sono) la bella forma indicante la misura
10
dellidromele, con la doppia testa della costruzione (dono, bella forma) regolarmente alla
fine. Lascerei quindi cadere la traduzione di tipo relativo;

La traduzione del testo dunque ora solo una, ed molto pi lineare di quelle proposte nelle
due versioni del mio libro:

In me, o Signore, la bevanda versa, la bevanda bevi; (io sono) il dono, (io sono) la bella forma
indicante la misura dellidromele.

Si noti anche la perfetta logica del testo, in cui il vaso parlante prima invita a versare la
bevanda, e poi a berla.
Sfido chiunque a sostenere che la traduzione di questo testo, cos perfettamente adatta al suo
contesto materiale (un kyathos nella tomba di un gran signore etrusco) e storico-culturale (un vaso
potorio parlante), e linguisticamente ineccepibile, possa essere il risultato di una coincidenza
fortuita, soprattutto se vista nel quadro complessivo delle argomentazioni e delle affinit da me
illustrate, sia archeologiche che culturali e linguistiche, e di quelle genetiche ora emerse.
4 Origini ciuvasce del plurale etrusco in r
Nel mio libro partivo dalla constatazione che non esiste plurale comune alle diverse lingue uraliche,
ma che mancano comunque, nel plurale dellungherese e delle altre lingue uraliche, evidenti affinit
con la r del plurale etrusco. Per cui avevo finito con ipotizzare un utilizzo pi esteso,
nellantichit, della formante r, che molto frequente in ungherese con valore iterativo, e che
attestata anche in Uralico come formante nominale e aggettivale (322-3).
Nel prosieguo della mia ricerca, tuttavia, ho scoperto che r la marca del plurale dei
pronomi di 1a e 2a persona in ciuvascio, cio nella lingua turcica che ha pi influenzato
lungherese, sia linguisticamente che culturalmente: ricordo, fra laltro, che la maggioranza della
terminologia agricola e dellallevamento in ungherese ciuvascia. Non solo, ma la marca del
plurale dei nomi (e dei pronomi di 3a), che in ciuvascio sem, rappresenta uninnovazione
recente
6
. Dal che si pu dedurre che r era lantico plurale ciuvascio, e che stato questo che ha
influenzato letrusco. E molto probabile che vi siano altre caratteristiche ciuvasce nella morfologia
etrusca, oltre a quelle cos importanti, gi notate nel lessico etrusco e ungherese, e se ne avr la
possibilit ritorner sul tema.
5 Il passato etrusco in ce
Come ho gi scritto nella mia replica alla recensione di Gheno (v. questo numero a p. ??), anche sul
passato etrusco in ce nel mio libro non ho potuto formulare che unipotesi congetturale, basata
anche qui sulla diversit della formazione del passato nelle diverse lingue uraliche, e sulla
mancanza di affinit specifiche con letrusco. E lunica affinit rilevante riscontrata con lungherese
era quella con l- dellimperfetto o passato narrativo dellantico ungherese (350).
Uno studio pi attento dei testi antico-ungheresi mi permette ora di formulare unipotesi
migliore: proprio il pi antico testo ungherese, detto Halotti Beszd s Knyrgs (Orazione
funebre e preghiera), scritto fra il 1192 e il 1195, attesta pi volte il verbo evec mangi, invece
della forma moderna evett: come per esempio appare nella frase es evec oz tiluvt gimilstwl e
mangi il frutto proibito; nonch il verbo horoguvec si adir, invece di (meg)haragudott. Questa
forma in c (= /k//) della 3a sg del passato della coniugazione soggettiva, anche se nel XII secolo
sembra ristretta ai verbi in ik (la maggioranza dei verbi ungheresi), offre unaltra dimostrazione
della produttivit della lettura delletrusco in chiave ungherese.
Gheno stesso, inoltre, in una risentita comunicazione personale (con la quale ha inteso
chiudere la querelle con me), mi informa e non posso che ringraziarlo - che il passato in k non

6
Comunicazione personale del Prof. A. Rna-Tas
11
estinto, ma sopravvive dialettalmente in Ungheria e in aree minoritarie ungheresi di altri paesi, pi
precisamente tra i Csng (il gruppo ungherese linguisticamente e culturalmente pi arcaico, nella
Moldavia rumena), e sporadicamente nel Szabolcs, nel Baranya e nella Slavonia. Ci che rende
ancora pi significativa laffinit etrusco-ungherese da me rilevata.
6 Unetimologia alternativa di etr. clan nato, figlio
Nel mio libro ho sostenuto una ipotesi semanticamente difficile: quella che etr. clan derivi da una
anteforma di ungh. hal 'morire', confrontabile con Mansi kl-, Khanty kla idem, Ur *kola idem,
nel quadro delle credenze religiose degli antichi Ugri, secondo le quali l'anima dei morti migrava in
cerca di un neonato. Per cui, nel corso del rito per la nascita, la donna pi vicina alla puerpera aveva
il compito di identificare il morto o la morta che erano migrati nel bambino.
Lipotesi continua a sembrarmi sostenibile, ma rilevo, e mi sembra vada presa in
considerazione come alternativa valida, anche la possibilit di unorigine turcica, con una semantica
senza problemi: mtu. uig. ciag. ecc. olan giovane, ragazzo, atu. uig. ecc. oul figlio, ragazzo
(EWT 358).
7 Letimologia di etr. Menerva Menarva, lat. Minerva ecc.
La discussione sulletimologia del teonimo lat. Minerva (forma arcaica Menerva) non mai arrivata
a una soluzione soddisfacente: fra lorigine etrusca, autorevolmente sostenuta da Ernout et Meillet
(DELL), e quella latina da mens memini moneo - sostenuta da studiosi oggi considerati superati
come Curtius e Vaniek, oltre che dalla maggior parte degli antichi (DELL e Wissowa in ALGRM),
oggi gli etruscologi propendono per questultima, ma a mio avviso senza buone ragioni. Il fatto che
il nome di Minerva sia attestato non solo in latino ma anche in osco e falisco (argomento invocato
da Ingrid Krauskopf in DICE s.v.) non basta certo a dimostrarlo: una volta affermatosi in area
latina, il culto di Minerva avrebbe potuto facilmente estendersi anche allarea italica. Inoltre, dal
punto di vista linguistico, anche se lequivalenza di Men- con men- di mens mentis ammissibile,
per lipotesi di unorigini latina resta il problema insormontabile di erva, che in latino appare solo
in caterva (termine che i Latini consideravano celtico), e al maschile in protervus, di etimologia
oscura. E dal punto di vista della logica e del formalismo etimologico, la presenza di un suffisso
assolutamente estraneo alla morfologia latina ha un peso molto pi importante della presunta
difficolt, per un culto etrusco, a diffondersi in area latino-italica.
Dal punto di vista puramente etimologico, dunque, si dovrebbe comunque optare per una
soluzione etrusca, e non latina.
Letto nella chiave di lettura ungherese e ugrica, il nome Minerva si rivela poi tanto
trasparente quanto interessante dal punto di vista storico-culturale.
Anzitutto, partiamo dallunica ipotesi possibile, dal punto di vista etimologico: delle due
forme etr. MENARVA e MENERVA quella originaria devessere la prima, perch la seconda si lascia
allora spiegare con larmonia vocalica che si irradia dalla vocale accentata iniziale. Mentre se
partissimo da MENERVA, sarebbe difficile spiegare MENARVA. Per quanto riguarda le varianti del
tipo MENRVA MERVA e simili, come ho gi sostenuto in termini generali nel mio libro, esse non
sono leffetto di sincope ma semplici grafie abbreviate a vocale parzialmente espunta. La tesi
delloriginariet di MENARVA rafforzata dal fatto che le sue poche attestazioni si concentrano in
iscrizioni arcaiche (ET Ve 3.45), o del V (ET La S.1, Vc S.4, S.4), o IV secolo (ET OA S.1),
mentre quelle, pi frequenti, di MENERVA si distribuiscono in tutto il periodo dal VI fino allepoca
recente, e quelle di MENRVA, ancora pi frequenti, negli ultimi secoli.
MENARVA si lascia allora leggere come un composto, il cui primo elemento MEN- risulta
collegabile ad ungh. men-t salvare, liberare, men-t salvare, liberare, proteggere (gi attestato in
aungh (XII sec.: EWU). Il secondo elemento del composto - ARVA - coincide invece con una
anteforma dellungh. orvos medico (dialettalmente anche mago, stregone), che risale a FU *arpa
strumento magico, oracolo; e ad essa possiamo attribuire il significato di destino, fato, sorte, che
12
appare regolarmente nei suoi continuatori: finl. arpa (gen. arvan) destino, fato, bacchetta magica,
arpamies (mies uomo) divinatore, arpo- estrarre la sorte, arpoja mago, divinatore, arpele-
divinare, tirare la sorte; Est. arp (gen. arbi) destino, fato, magia; arbutama stregare, incantare,
varp magia, stregoneria; liv. arb strega; lapp. vuorbbe fato, fortuna (UEW I s.v. *arpa). Si
noti che questa famiglia lessicale FU ha riscontri anche in turcico: m.turcico arva mormorare
formule magiche; turcico *arvii mago; teleut arba stregare, incantare, incantatore, stregone;
uigur arvi mago, stregone; ciagatai arba stregare, incantare, predire il futuro, raccontare fiabe,
arbai incantatore, mago (UEW, EWT).
Letto, quindi, come fortuna protettrice/salvatrice, il nome etrusco di MENARVA corrisponde
perfettamente a quello della dea greca Fortuna (Bona) Salutaris (cfr. CIL 6, 184,
201, 202; 3, 3315), di cui probabilmente un calco. Si ricordi che salvatrice era lepiteto
di altre dee greche, come Themis, Eunomia, Atena, Artemide, Ecate, Rea, Demetra, Kore (Liddell-
Scott), ma che solo per si usava anche il maschile (ibidem). Ci che mostra lo stretto
nesso fra le due nozioni di destino e di salvezza, protezione. E si noti che nel teonimo etrusco,
differentemente da quello greco e latino, lepiteto positivo parte integrante del nome, quasi a
escludere una mala o adversa o brevis fortuna.
Quanto alle caratteristiche religiose della Minerva etrusca, anche queste sembrano
corrispondere alletimologia qui proposta. Per citare di nuovo la Krauskopf (DICE), gli ex voto
anatomici attesterebbero una funzione non sottovalutabile di M. come divinit risanatrice, mentre
una sors rinvenuta a Santa Marinella indicherebbe anche un carattere oracolare della divinit
(mio corsivo). Aggiungerei che anche la sua importante funzione di nutrice (ibidem), evidente
quando accudisce i piccoli Maris, o fa da levatrice a Fufluns, o riceve in braccio Epiur, entra nel
quadro della divinit positiva, protettrice e salvatrice, che emerge dalletimologia del suo nome.
8 Il cervo sacro in etrusco e in ungherese: letimologia di etr. Uni
In un recente studio sulle offerte sacre nel complesso monumentale di Tarquinia Maria Bonghi
Jovino (2005), elaborando ricerche precedenti, ha richiamato lattenzione sulla consistente, direi
quasi schiacciante, presenza del Cervus elephas fra i resti delle offerte, sempre presenti nei rituali
e [] in tutte le fasi cronologiche (76); e sul fatto che la testimonianza archeologica attesta la
presenza di palchi e resti cervini in tutte le fasi (77); e la lavorazione si mantiene costante nei
secoli, quasi a segnalare un congelamento della tecnica di esecuzione (idem). E sulla base di
Torelli (1997 133-4), la studiosa conclude La documentazione archeologica offerta dai resti cervini
molto rilevante perch fornisce indicazioni sui culti pi remoti dal momento che, fin dalle prime
manifestazioni sacre ritualizzate, se ne osserva la costante presenza: palchi, punte di corna segate e
lavorate, oggetti vari ricavati dai pugnali delle corna. Le corna di cervo tagliate, i dischetti dosso e
ogni altro elemento ricavato dalle corna hanno fatto riflettere sul significato. Se ci trovasse in un
contesto di semplice abitato, tali rinvenimenti avrebbero potuto essere spiegati come residui di
industria di uso quotidiano per approntare manici di utensili, amuleti o altro ancora ma il contesto
generale e la loro presenza in tutti gli spaccati cronologici [dal periodo protoetrusco del bronzo
finale/ferro (X-VIII secolo) al periodo arcaico (VI/V secolo)], ha fatto escludere una simile lettura
accreditando luso sacrale dei reperti. Per concludere, Il cervo dunque lelemento-guida del
culto primigenio praticato nellarea sacra e apporta solidi indizi per gli attributi e larchetipo della
divinit primigenia nel suo pi remoto orizzonte cronologico (78) (mio corsivo).
Inoltre, la divinit a cui erano destinati i resti cervini e che anche lunica il cui nome sia
concretamente attestato nel complesso monumentale di Tarquinia - , Uni, la ben nota divinit
femminile che condivide con il dio del cielo maschile Tinia il posto di maggiore importanza nel
pantheon etrusco.
Senonch, la Uni che emerge dalle importanti considerazioni della Borghi Jovino diversa
da quella nota, cio dalla Uni assimilata alla latina Iuno e alla greca Hera: il suo originario campo
dazione si rivela essere la caccia e la protezione della natura in una sorta di ambiguit tra
cacciatrice e protettrice degli animali. (78). In sostanza la dea, bench con contorni sfumati, si
13
presenta in diverse ipostasi: protettrice del mondo sotterraneo, della caccia, della natura e dei cicli
lunari, degli animali. Siamo al cospetto di una divinit buona e favorevole che, con le sue valenze,
rende palese come la prima organizzazione del sacro sia passata attraverso la presenza numinosa nel
paesaggio. La documentazione archeologica induce a ipotizzare un processo di costruzione del
sacro di lunga durata su uno sfondo ancora pi remoto e molto lontano nel tempo (78).
Ora, sia il rapporto di Uni col cervo, sia la sua ambiguit di cacciatrice e di protettrice degli
animali, cos come la sua palese origine da una concezione sacrale del paesaggio, fanno pensare a
una divinit di origini totemiche: infatti solo lanimale totem che in grado neutralizzare la
contraddizione fra la caccia e la protezione della preda, da un lato proteggendo gli animali suoi
simili, dallaltro concedendo solo alla propria trib il permesso di cacciarli. Ed solo il totem, quale
creatore delluniverso, che si incarna nel paesaggio.
E allora interessante notare che in ungh. n significa cerva, e che Enee, sua variante
grafica arcaica, anche il nome di quella cerva magica che, nella saga delle origini dei Magiari,
unitasi al gigante poligamo Mnrth (probabilmente da mn stallone), d alla luce i due fratelli
cacciatori Magor e Hunor, capostipiti, rispettivamente, dei Magiari e degli Unni (De Ferdinandy
1983, 229). Ed anche interessante notare come anche questo nome sia di origine turcica (da Alt
*inag), e come la variante ciuvascia ne sia, come al solito, la pi vicina al nome ungh. mitico
Enee: ancora una volta, insomma, lungherese ci appare nel suo rapporto simbiotico con il turcico e
pi precisamente con il ciuvascio.
In effetti, unorigine di etr. UNI da lat. Iuno, pur se comunemente accettata, potrebbe
rivelarsi, dal punto di vista filologico, come una lectio facilior da abbandonare. Vediamo perch.
(1) Anzitutto, sul piano storico-religioso, n TINIA n MENERVA sono nomi di origine latina. Di
TINIA siamo certi (e vedremo pi oltre come si possa analizzare questo nome), e di
MENERVA abbiamo appena detto. Di sicuramente latino, fra i teonimi etruschi, non c che
SELVANS, e forse, ad essere di manica larga, anche VEIVE e SATRE, se da Veiovis e
Saturnus. A parte i teonimi di origini greca, che sono pi numerosi di quelli latini, tutti gli
altri, che sono molti, sono etruschi.
(2) Pi importante, perch obiezione linguistica ed ha quindi valore formale, se UNI derivasse
da Iuno, dovremmo ammettere uno sviluppo fonetico basato sulla perdita della semivocale
j-, che contrasterebbe con quelle tendenze fono-articolatorie delletrusco, cos come ci sono
note, nelle loro linee generali, grazie a quella pietra miliare della linguistica etrusca che la
ricerca di de Simone sui prestiti etruschi dal greco (de Simone 1968-1970). Ecco la
documentazione: il teonimo latino Diovem appare su uno specchio etrusco (idem II 103), e
non ha perso la semivocale diventando *Dovem. Un nome greco come Iason Giasone, che
presenta lo stesso tipo di dittongo di Iuno, in etrusco viene reso con Easun, Heiasun,
Heasun, Eiasun, Hiasunu (idem II, 133, 144, 155); e mai con *Ason, senza semivocale. E
semmai, se dovessimo ipotizzare un mutamento fonetico, dovremmo piuttosto aspettarci, per
una parola come Iuno, lo stesso sviluppo mostrato dal gruppo iniziale Fi-/di-, che al
contrario del supposto passaggio di Uni da Iuni mostra la perdita della vocale tonica e la
trasformazione della semivocale j- in i-, per cui abbiamo da F VILAE, da
ZIMITE, ZIMAITE e simili, da TINUSI, da TIANE ecc. (idem 165-66).
Dovremmo insomma aspettarci *INI, non UNI.
A mio avviso, insomma, lipotesi che UNI fosse, in origine, il nome etrusco della cerva,
affine a quello ungherese n di origine turcica, e che per questo a lei, come dea-cerva primigenia,
si sacrificassero resti di cervo, del tutto plausibile. Grazie poi alla fortuita somiglianza fonica con
Iuno questo nome, durante il processo di antropomorfizzazione, sarebbe stato poi assimilato a
quello della dea latina.
14
9 Letimologia altaica del teonimo etr. Tinia: turcico Tng-ri dio del
cielo
Il teonimo TINIA certamente etrusco, ed anche di questo il quadro etnolinguistico e culturale
aperto dalla mia tesi permette unetimologia interessante.
La principale divinit altaica, che ha il ruolo di dio celeste, e il cui nome deriva da quello del
cielo, infatti tri in a.tu., kom., ciag., tu.or., barab. Dio, cielo; in calm. teiri Dio; in
tu.osm, turkm. e azerb. tanri Dio, ecc. Rsnen deriva il suo nome da quello del cielo in Cinese (e
Coreano) tien (da cui poi tien-li, tien-ti, tien-te ecc., rispett. ragione del cielo, imperatore del
cielo, virt del cieloecc. nelle varie articolazioni del principio celeste nella religione cino-coreana)
(v. EWT, 474, con rinvio a Joki 354-6, e a Ramstedt SKE Helsinki 1949, MSFOu 95 ). Per cui tri
deriverebbe da tien-li ragione del cielo. Quindi probabile che TIN in etrusco valesse cielo e
TINIA forse il Celeste.
10 Etr. volta mostro(Plinio), ungh. volta essere
Plinio, nel secondo libro della sua Historia Naturalis, riferisce di un antico racconto etrusco,
secondo cui il re Porsenna impetr ed ottenne un fulmine quando un mostro chiamato Volta si
avvicin alla citt di Bolsena (Orvieto) dopo aver devastato le campagne: Vetus fama Etruriae est,
impetratum Volsinios urbem depopulatis agris subente mostro, quod vocavere Voltam, evocatum a
Porsina suo rege (140). Purtroppo, non sappiamo altro di questo mostro, il cui nome per altro non
figura n fra le Glosse dei TLE di Pallottino, n negli ET di Rix.
In effetti, volta in ungherese il sostantivo che significa essere; ed parola gi attestata in
aungh. (1372), e di chiara origine FU: *ole- essere, divenire (EUW). Ora, in tutte le lingue del
mondo sostantivi come essere o cosa vengono spesso usati come nomi sostitutivi (noa) di un
referente tabuizzato, nella loro qualit di massima generalizzazione ((Alinei 1985, 1986b, 1988,
1993, 1996, 2000 con bibliografia). Nella tipologia tabuistica, molto ben studiata dalla linguistica,
si usano infatti diversi tipi di generalizzazione: fra cui quella del diretto superordinato nella
tassonomia del referente (per esempio bestia per qualunque animale, cfr. it. biscia), o quella della
generalizzazione massima, come lui, esso, lei, cosa o, appunto, essere, per qualunque cosa
vivente tabuizzata (cfr. Havers 1946, 159, Zelenin 1988-89, I, 245).
11 Origine turcico-ciuvascia di etr.-lat LAR LARES
Lorigine etrusca di Lar Laris e Lares Larum data come sicura da Ernout e Meillet (DELL), che
collegano questi nomi ai teonimi etr. Laran Laruns. Tuttavia, il collegamento dei Lari geni tutelari
con un probabile dio della guerra come Lara (DICE) non sembra a prima vista plausibile. Per cui in
questa nota tratto prima letimologia del nome dei Lares intesi come geni tutelari, e poi discuto il
suo possibile collegamento con il teonimo.
Il ciuvascio, come gi detto, la lingua turcica che ha pi influenzato lungherese, ed anche
nel quadro tradizionale dellungarologia viene considerato come il miglior candidato a
rappresentare la lingua parlata dai cavalieri guerrieri turcici che conquistarono e acculturarono gli
Ungheresi, separandoli dai loro affini Ob-Ugri e guidandoli alloccupazione del loro territorio
storico. Nella mia tesi, sono appunto Ciuvasci appartenenti alla cultura dei kurgan che invasero
lUngheria alla fine del III millennio.
Ora in ciuvascio lar significa insediarsi, stabilirsi, sedersi, risedere, accomodarsi, oltre che
covare le uova; crescere, piantare; atterrare, imbarcare, ormeggiare, ancorare ed altro ancora. E
parola altaica, affine a uig. olur olor, soj. olur, jak. olor, a uig., m.tu, ecc. oltur sedere, sedersi,
insediarsi, bar. oltyr, oir. tel. or. tu.or., osm. krm. azerb., kzk. otur sedere, sedersi, abitare ecc.;
sag. olat olyt un luogo in cui ci si pu stabilire, ecc. (EWT 361).
Il nesso con i Lares dunque evidente: essi si lasciano interpretare come gli antenati degli
invasori Proto-Etruschi che si erano insediati in Italia, e sotto la cui protezione si ponevano le
famiglie degli Etruschi.
15
Se poi, partendo da questa etimologia, a mio parere suggestiva, vogliamo spiegare anche il
teonimo Laran - di cui per altro non si certi se designi solo un dio della guerra o anche un
semplice guerriero, il collegamento sar logico, pi che etimologico. E infatti ovvio che i primi
coloni che si erano insediati, come Proto-Etruschi, in Etruria lo avevano fatto come invasori
guerrieri, e non come pacifici immigrati. Di qui, si pu pensare, la loro rappresentazione, sia come
semplici guerrieri, sia in chiave mitica e religiosa come dio della guerra.
16
BIBLIOGRAFIA

ALGRM = Roscher, W. H. (1884-1886), Ausfhrliches Lexikon der Griechischen und Romischen
Mythologie, Druck und Verlag von B. G. Teubner, Leipzig, 10 voll.
Alinei, Mario (1983), L'evoluzione dal totemismo al cristianesimo popolare studiata negli sviluppi
semantici dei dialetti italiani, in Quaderni di Semantica IV, pp. 3-29, 253-270.
Alinei, Mario (1986), Belette, in Atlas Linguarum Europae I, Assen/Maasstricht, pp. 145-224.
Alinei, Mario (1988), La monografia sul tab linguistico dell'etnografo sovietico Zelenin:
Presentazione, in Quaderni di Semantica IX, pp. 183-5.
Alinei, Mario (1993), Due note su "totem" e "tab" nei dialetti, in Quaderni di Semantica, XIV, pp.
3-7.
Alinei, Mario (1996-2000), Origini delle lingue d'Europa, vol. I: La teoria della continuit; Vol. II:
Continuit dal Mesolitico al Ferro nelle principali aree europee. Bologna, Societ editrice
Il Mulino.
Alinei, Mario (2003), Etrusco: una forma arcaica di ungherese, il Mulino, Bologna.
Alinei, Mario (2005), si kapocs. A magyar-etruszk nyelvrokonsg, Allprint, Budapest.
Barfield, Lawrence (1971), Northern Italy before Rome, Thames and Hudson, London..
Bonghi Jovino, Maria (2005), Offerte, uomini e dei nel complesso monumentale di Tarquinia.
Dallo scavo allinterpretazione, in Bonghi Jovino, M. e F. Chiesa (curr.), Offerte dal regno
vegetale e dal regno animale nelle manifestazioni del sacro. Atti dellincontro di studio
(Milano 26-27 giugno 2003), LErma di Bretschneider, Roma, pp. 73-89.
Cardarelli, Andrea (1992), Le et dei metalli nell'Italia settentrionale, in Guidi A., M. Piperno
(cur.), Guidi, Alessandro, Italia preistorica, Editori Laterza, Bari.
Cinnioly, C., R. King, T. Kivisild, E. Kalfolu, S. Atasoy, G.L Cavalleri, A.S. Lillie, C.C.
Roseman, A.A. Lin, K. Prince, P.J. Oefner, P. Shen, O. Semino, L.L. Cavalli Sforza, P.A.
Underhill (2003), Excavating Y-chromosome haplotype strata in Anatolia, in Human
Genetics 114, 127-148.
DELL = Ernout, A. A. Meillet (1959-1960), Dictionnaire tymologique de la langue latine.
Histoire des mots, Librairie C. Klincksieck, Paris, 2 volumi.
De Ferdinandy, Michael (1983), Die Mythologie der Ungarn, in Haussig (ed.), 209-259.
de Simone, Carlo (1968-1970), Die Griechischen Entlehnungen im Etruskischen, 2 voll.
Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden.
Di Benedetto G., A. Ergven, M. Stenico, L. Castri, G. Bertorelle, I. Togan, G. Barbujani, DNA
Diversity and Population Admixture in Anatolia (2001), in American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 115, 144-156.
DICE = Dizionario Illustrato della Civilt Etrusca, a cura di Mauro Cristofani, Giunti, Firenze
1999.
EWT = Martti Rsnen, Versuch eines Etymologisches Wrterbuch der Trksprachen, Helsinki
1969.
EWU = Etymologisches Wrterbuch des Ungarischen, Akadmiai Kiad, Budapest, 1993-1997, 3
voll.
Greenberg, Joseph (2002), Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic language
family. Vol. 1: Grammar, Stanford University Press.
Haussig, Wilhelm Hans (ed.) (1983), Gotter und mythen im alten Europa, Ernst Klett Verlag,
Stuttgart.
Havers, Wilhelm (1946), Neuere Literatur zum Sprachtabu (Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien,
Phil.-hist. Klasse, Sitzungsberichte 223, Band 5), R.M.Roher, Wien.
Hencken, Hugh (1968), Tarquinia, Villanovans and early Etruscans, The Peabody Museum,
Massachusetts, U.S.A., 2 voll.
Korenchy, Eva (1988), Iranische Einfluss in den finnisch-ugrischen Sprachen, in Sinor, Denis (ed.),
The Uralic Languages. Description, history and foreign influences, Leiden, 665-681.
17
Kovcs, Tibor (1977), The Bronze Age in Hungary, Corvina Press, Budapest.
Liddell, H. G. - Scott, Robert - Stuart Jones, H. (1953), Greek - English lexicon, The Clarendon
Press, Oxford.
Torelli, Mario (1997), Appunti per una storia di Tarquinia, in Bonghi Jovino M. e C. Chiaramonte
Trer, Tarquinia: ricerche, scavi e prospettive, Milano, pp. 129-140.
UEW = Kroly Rdei, Uralisches Etymologisches Wrterbuch, 3 voll., Otto Harassowitz,
Wiesbaden, 1988-1991.
Vernesi C, D. Caramelli, I. Dupanloup, G. Bertorelle, M. Lari, E. Cappellini, J. Moggi-Cecchi, B.
Chiarelli, L. Castri, A. Casoli, F. Mallegni, C. Lalueza Foz, G. Barbujani (2004), The
Etruscans : A Population-Genetic Study, in American Journal of Human Genetics, 74, 694-
704.
Zelenin, D.K. (1988-89 = 1928), Tab linguistici nelle popolazioni dellEuropa orientale e dellAsia
settentrionale, in Quaderni di Semantica 9, 187-317 (I); 10, 123-276 (II).

1
Una risposta alla recensione di Danilo Gheno
dedicata agli etruscologi
1


di Mario Alinei

forthcoming in Quaderni di Semantica 51,2 (2005).



Nella sua recensione al mio libro sulletrusco come forma arcaica di ungherese Gheno,
nonostante mi dia, generosamente, del linguista insigne, e nonostante definisca
affascinante e corredata [] di paralleli grammaticali e lessicali individuati con
acribia la mia ricostruzione delletnogenesi ungherese, mi tratta poi come uno
scolaretto al quale il maestro abbia restituito il compito, pieno di righe rosse e blu
Ecco, per cominciare, la mia pagella scolastica: capovolgimento ardito (218):
labilit di moltissimi dei [miei] ragionamenti linguistici dal lato ungherese (220);
soluzioni inaccettabili [nellambito dellarmonia vocalica (221), errori che
concernono la morfologia storica collegata allarmonia vocalica (221), enunciazioni
fonetiche singolari (idem), fraintendimenti semantici di parole ungheresi che gettano
nuova ombra su tutta limpostazione del lavoro (223); qualche equivoco anche in
finnico (per tacer di altre lingue) (224), non comuni soluzioni, accostamenti e []
ricostruzioni azzardate [] errori di natura filologica, grammaticale e linguistico-
storica dovuti penso - a frettolosa interpretazione o a inattualit delle fonti (228);
modo di procedere a passo forse troppo sicuro [che mi] fa cadere in altre
semplificazioni (230).
Certo anche il miglior cavallo ha le sue pulci, ma qui mi vedo ridotto addirittura
a un asino!
Per fortuna, mi sar facile mostrare che la stragrande maggioranza delle
osservazioni di Gheno sono assolutamente irrilevanti per la mia tesi, per cui anche i
giudizi citati si dimostreranno del tutto infondati. Inoltre, molto spesso le osservazioni
di Gheno sono sbagliate. Pi importante, la mia stessa teoria, nellinterpretazione che
Gheno ne d nelle prime pagine della sua recensione, stata addirittura capovolta, con
conseguenze ovviamente disastrose per la sua argomentazione.
Ma decisiva poi questa conclusione: se gli errori che un uralista pu trovare
nel mio libro sono quelli elencati da Gheno, posso tirare un respiro di sollievo, perch
la mia tesi non solo ne esce salva, ma per certi aspetti addirittura rafforzata!
Fatta questa premessa, aggiungo anche se lo considero superfluo - che non ho
alcuna difficolt ad ammettere i limiti oggettivi delle mie conoscenze delle lingue
uraliche. Tanto che alla fine di questa mia replica elencher le (pochissime) critiche di
Gheno che a mio avviso colgono nel segno. Non posso esimermi dal dire, tuttavia, che
nel suo insieme la recensione di Gheno non riguarda il mio libro, ma una mia
invasione di campo, valutata in maniera pedante, sulla sola base dellungherese
moderno, e in modo del tutto avulso dal contenuto del mio libro. Non quindi una
recensione del mio libro, ma un esercizio di ricerca del pelo nelluovo, che serve solo a
quelli che non avrebbero mai voluto che io scrivessi il mio libro.

1
Cfr. D. Gheno, recensione di M. Alinei, Etrusco: una forma arcaica di ungherese, Bologna. Il Mulino,
2003, in Archivio Glottologico Italiano 84,2 (2004), pp.217-232.
2
Prima di inoltrarmi nella confutazione dei suoi argomenti, credo per sia utile
specificare quali sono i due aspetti fondamentali del mio libro, di cui Gheno non ha
tenuto assolutamente conto:

(1) Anzitutto, io non mi sarei sognato di presentare la mia teoria sulla discendenza degli
Ungheresi dagli Etruschi sulla semplice base di un certo numero di confronti lessicali.
La mia profonda convinzione, fondata su principi teorici e di metodo, infatti che sia
sempre possibile, per chiunque lo desideri, trovare parole simili in qualunque coppia di
lingue, scelte anche a caso. Questo per tre ragioni elementari: (A) il sistema
articolatorio lo stesso per tutti gli esseri umani, (B) linventario dei fonemi
estremamente limitato ed necessariamente simile in tutte le parlate del mondo, e (C) il
bisogno fisiologico di respirare mentre si parla pone le stesse rigorose restrizioni alla
struttura sillabica di qualunque lingua del mondo. Sarebbe quindi facile dimostrare, con
una formula statistica e matematica, che le probabilit oggettive di trovare parole simili
in due lingue scelte a caso sono altissime. Sono quindi lultima persona al mondo a
credere che basti elencare qualche somiglianza lessicale per dimostrare laffinit di
due lingue, come hanno fatto tutti coloro che si sono avvicendati a scoprire parentele
pi o meno illustri e assurde per qualsiasi lingua del mondo, compreso letrusco e
lungherese. Oggi, purtroppo, siamo invasi da due categorie di linguisti, non solo
dilettanti ma anche di professione: i primi che vedono (quasi sempre) la loro lingua in
tutti gli angoli della terra, per cui le vecchie manie (pi esattamente ideologie di
origine variamente perversa) del panebraismo, del panillirismo, del panceltismo e del
pangermanesimo, che si speravano cancellate per sempre dalla storia della linguistica,
ricompaiono oggi sotto forma di panuralismo, panslavismo, pansemitismo e chi pi ne
ha pi ne metta; i secondi che, al contrario, negano le affinit stabilite con assoluta
certezza da generazioni di studiosi geniali, creando quindi nuove forme di revisionismo
dilettantistico.

(2) Il mio interesse per lungherese cominciato nel contesto dellAtlas Linguarum
Europae (di cui sono stato co-fondatore nel 1975, e presidente dellALE dal 1982 al
1997), e si via via accresciuto man mano che la mia teoria della continuit, che ho
cominciato ad abbozzare in quegli anni, mi portava a due inevitabili conclusioni: (I) in
Italia gli autoctoni erano gli Italici e gli invasori erano gli Etruschi; (II) in Europa sud-
orientale, gli autoctoni erano gli Slavi, e il famoso popolo dei kurgan (famoso perch la
Gimbutas e la sua scuola lo considerava proto-indoeuropeo), che nel Calcolitico ne
aveva invaso una parte, fra cui lUngheria (durante la cultura di Baden), era di lingua
turcica. Quando la lettura delle fondamentali ricerche di Hugh Hencken sulle origini di
Villanova mi ha confrontato con la certezza confermata da autorit come Pallottino -
che la cultura villanoviana e quindi lEtruria avevano radici carpato-balcaniche, il mio
assioma etrusco-turco-ungherese ha preso la sua forma necessaria e definitiva, ed
cominciata la fase della dimostrazione. Che si poi rivelata molto facile, date le
evidenti coincidenze che si lasciavano riscontrare fra etrusco e ungherese non solo nella
lingua ma anche nella societ. Chi ha letto il mio libro sa quindi che il mio tentativo di
dimostrazione del mio assioma basato su due ordini di argomenti: (A) la straordinaria
coincidenza - nei nomi, nel significato e nella portata storica - fra le principali
magistrature etrusche, magistralmente studiate dagli Etruscologi, sia archeologi che
linguisti, e quelle antico-ungheresi, altrettanto ben studiate dagli specialisti ungheresi;
(B) la possibilit di leggere in chiave ungherese testi etruschi, e in particolare (1) sia
tutti quelli gi tradotti dagli Etruscologi, grazie al loro bilinguismo etrusco-latino, (2)
sia alcuni fino ad ora non tradotti, ma la cui traduzione in chiave ungherese poteva
essere confermata o dal significato delle figure che i testi servivano a descrivere (per
3
es. le didascalie della Tomba Golini) o dalla tipologia delloggetto su cui si trovano
incisi (per es. la coppa di Vetulonia nella tomba del Duce).

Credo dunque di poter dire, senza il minimo dubbio e chiamando a
testimonianza chiunque abbia letto il mio libro senza preconcetto, che se la mia teoria
vale qualcosa questo sta esclusivamente nelle sue premesse archeologiche e nelle
conferme interdisciplinari, confermate e illuminate dal confronto linguistico etrusco-
ungherese. Ovviamente, per quanto riguarda la comparazione etrusco-ungherese, sul
lato ungherese posso aver commesso errori di interpretazione e di terminologia, ci che,
come ho gi detto, non ho alcuna difficolt ad ammettere. Proprio a Gheno, fra laltro,
in vista della versione ungherese del mio libro (che mentre scrivo questa replica gi in
commercio), mandai il mio libro in omaggio, chiedendogli anche, in nome
dellamicizia in comune con una collega scomparsa, mia carissima amica, se volesse
aiutarmi ad eliminare eventuali errori o sviste, in vista della traduzione ungherese.
Purtroppo, Gheno non mi ha mai risposto. Inoltre, sempre per la versione ungherese, io
stesso ho modificato in parte linterpretazione di alcune parole delliscrizione sulla
Coppa di Vetulonia, migliorandone molto il senso e rendendola ancora pi vicina
allungherese di quanto gi non fosse.
Infine, non posso esimermi dal ripetere ci che ho scritto anche nella Prefazione
del mio libro, e cio che lho scritto in et avanzata, con il legittimo desiderio, e
linevitabile fretta, di ultimarlo in tempo per vederne la pubblicazione.
In ogni caso, posso affermare senza esitazione che le correzioni e i
miglioramenti, miei o altrui, non intaccano la sostanza della mia scoperta, che resta
quella illustrata nel mio libro. Del resto, anche il grande Michael Ventris (al quale certo
non mi paragono, se non altro perch non ho decifrato alcunch!), pur non essendo un
grecista, e neanche un linguista, ha scoperto che il Miceneo B era greco arcaico. E
anche sulla sua tesi, prima che essa venisse accolta universalmente, si rivers il dileggio
(poured scorn: Chadwick 1958) delle solite, onnipresenti mediocrit accademiche.
Veniamo ora alla recensione. Per recensire seriamente il mio libro, Gheno
avrebbe dovuto tener conto dei testi da me tradotti, per lo meno di quelli bilingui, la cui
traduzione certa, e di quelli il cui contesto materiale e/o storico-culturale permette di
decidere se le coincidenze da me scoperte siano fortuite o strutturali. Gheno, invece,
non ha trattato neanche un testo etrusco da me tradotto nella sua integrit e, a parte una
sintesi della mia teoria sulla ricostruzione dellarrivo degli Ungheresi nella Pianura
Carpatica (v. oltre), si limitato a un lunghissimo elenco di parole etrusche, da me
avvicinate allungherese per ragioni testuali, e non di mero confronto lessicale, e a
proposito delle quali mi rimprovera errori di terminologia e di interpretazione, sviste,
lapsus calami, errori di stampa e in genere la sia pur minima deviazione dallungherese
moderno.
Vedremo pi oltre un campione sufficientemente rappresentativo del tipo di
osservazioni predilette da Gheno. Ma prima di ogni cosa devo informare il lettore di
quella che la pi sbalorditiva fra le sue affermazioni a proposito della mia teoria, e
tale da inficiare tutta la sua recensione, anche a prescindere dalle ambigue finalit che si
dato e che illustrer pi oltre. Ecco di cosa si tratta.
Dopo aver contrapposto la mia teoria a quella di Pogrnyi-Nagy, che sosteneva
la comune origine dellUngherese e dellEtrusco dal Sumero (nel mio libro
doverosamente ricordata, ma subito accantonata come immeritevole di attenzione),
Gheno la presenta cos: Ora invece stato proposto credo per la prima volta - un
capovolgimento ardito: non sono gli ungheresi a essere eventualmente discendenti
degli etruschi, ma il contrario (218, mio corsivo). Confesso che sono rimasto di stucco
quando ho letto queste righe. Anche se Gheno ammette la propria incompetenza in
4
materia di Etrusco, non pu ignorare che lEtrusco di quasi due millenni pi antico
dellantico Ungherese. Pi importante, la conclusione principale del mio libro,
annunciata nel titolo e ripetuta non so quante volte nel testo, che alla luce della mia
analisi letrusco appare essere una forma arcaica di Ungherese, cio uno stadio
linguistico che si trova a met fra il Proto-Ugrico e lungherese storicamente attestato
(cfr. e.g. pp.27), quindi qualcosa che si avvicina al Proto-Ungherese. Inoltre, dalla mia
stessa ricostruzione (cap.VI) della Honfoglals (la conquista/occupazione della patria,
proprio quella che Gheno, come abbiamo visto, ha trovato affascinante), dovrebbe
essere evidente che gli Ugri destinati a diventare gli Ungheresi, che nel Calcolitico si
sono staccati dal loro ceppo, lo hanno fatto dopo essere stati acculturati da una elite
turca (ci che, a parte la cronologia, i maggiori specialisti comunque ammettono), ed
quindi a partire da questo momento, ancora prima della occupazione dellattuale
Ungheria, che possiamo considerare siano nati i Proto-Ungheresi come popolazione
magiara dominata da unlite turcica, e che potremmo chiamare anche Proto-Etruschi.
Naturalmente, gli Etruschi storici, cio quelli che incontriamo soltanto nei primi secoli
del primo millennio a.C., avevano ormai avuto tutto il tempo di mescolarsi ad altri
popoli non danubiani, italici e non, e quindi di mutare la propria lingua originaria in
misura anche notevole. Ma ci nonostante ovvio che lEtrusco, in questa visione,
rappresenta la fase linguistica pi vicina possibile al Proto-Ungherese, e quindi anche
allUgrico. Non a caso, a p.69, per esempio, ho scritto testualmente letrusco in
quanto antenato dellungherese ; e in tutto il mio IV capitolo, in cui ho presentato
quello che mira ad essere il primo abbozzo di una grammatica storica etrusco-
ungherese, la formula che ho adottato sistematicamente, e usato centinaia di volte,
quella Etrusco .> Ungherese: ci che significa, per chiunque conosca il valore di >
in linguistica storica, che prima viene lEtrusco e poi viene lUngherese! Per cui, se di
capovolgimento ardito lecito parlare solo a proposito di quello che fa Gheno nei
confronti della mia teoria! Non solo, ma anche evidente che partendo dallungherese
moderno anzich da uno stadio intermedio fra Proto-Ugrico e Antico Ungherese, gran
parte delle critiche di Gheno perdono qualunque attinenza col mio libro, e qualunque
interesse per chi si aspetti una seria discussione della mia tesi.
Non sorprender, quindi, che moltissime delle osservazioni di Gheno pecchino
di questo peccato originale. Bastino qui, per illustrare questo punto, tre esempi (altri
seguiranno pi oltre): (1) il mio confronto, abbastanza trasparente, fra etr. tular
confine e ungh. tl al di l, oltre, fra laltro attestato come sostantivo (con suff.
possessivo) nel 1519 (EWU) (e cfr. tutti i composti di tul + sost. per indicare laltra
parte, laltro lato di qualcosa, e fra i verbi per es. tljar attraversare, superare,
sorpassare). Gheno (p.222) commenta cos: vi sono due fraintendimenti nellultima
frase di Alinei: lEWUng. [...] data al 1519 laccezione di jenseitiger Teil di tl come
Subst [haupts mit PossSf], oggi questa parola ignota in qualit di sostantivo (mio
corsivo). Dunque, siccome oggi il sostantivo non esiste, anche se esisteva nel 1519, non
poteva esistere in etrusco! (2) La mia (banale) affermazione che lungherese ha
neutralizzato lopposizione fra consonanti [occlusive] scempie e geminate (p.267)
affermazione che ho ripreso dalla Hungarian Historical Phonology del compianto
Bla Klmn, e che si trova in qualunque manuale di uralistica. Gheno, invece di farmi
notare, semmai, che ho omesso la specificazione occlusive, replica elencando esempi
di coppie minime dellungherese moderno: esempi tipici, fra laltro, di opposizioni di
scarso rendimento funzionale, a livello lessicale, come orom cima e orrom il mio
naso, vrom lo aspetto vrrom rovine di un castello. (3) Il mio (tentativo di)
confronto (Gheno omette di segnalare che la mia formulazione molto cauta) fra etr.
has mun[xx] e ungh. munka tortura (al ventre) (attestato nel 1200) e di evidente
5
derivazione da un termine slavo avente lo stesso significato. Gheno corregge: oggi (gi
dopo il 1372 []) lavoro (p.223).
Come ho gi detto, Gheno non discute nessun testo tradotto integralmente in
chiave ungherese. Per mostrare le conseguenze che questa sua scelta ha sul livello delle
sue osservazioni, comincio da tre parole etrusche molto importanti, la cui lettura in
chiave ungherese Gheno discute separatamente, ma che sono invece parte integrante di
un testo molto significativo, oltre che degli altri testi in cui appaiono. Queste tre parole
sono: (1) ure, che io avvicino a ungh. r signore, (2) nac, che io avvicino a PUngh.
*neki per, su, verso e a ungh. nak / -nek dativo e (3) tansina, che io avvicino a
ungh. tan- i insegnare + szn bella forma. Credo sia utile riassumere le questioni
sollevate dalla mia traduzione del testo, per poter valutare la debolezza e lambigua
finalit - delle critiche di Gheno.
Tutte e tre le parole appaiono nelliscrizione sulla Tazza di Vetulonia, lo
splendido kyathos (vaso potorio ad ansa rialzata) di bucchero ritrovato nella tomba
detta, per la sua ricchezza, 'del Duce', del VII-VI sec. a. C. Liscrizione, importante
anche per la sua antichit, lho letta nella lezione di Pallottino:

naceme uru iqal qilen iqal iceme mesnamer tansina mulu

Va anzitutto ricordato che la mia traduzione in chiave ungherese permette di
interpretare questo vaso etrusco come appartenente alla categoria dei manufatti
parlanti, e quindi come uno di quegli oggetti di prestigio e di propriet individuale che
si rivolgono, parlando in prima persona, al loro proprietario. Numerosi sono i vasi latini
di questo tipo, e nel mio libro ho citato liscrizione latina incisa su un bicchiere
proveniente da Reims, che recita a me, dulcis amica, bibe da me, dolce amica, bevi e
quella sullolla proveniente da Nimega ol(l)a(m) tene bibe tieni, prendi lolla e bevi!
In questo caso, poich sappiamo che il destinatario dellapostrofe iscritta sullo
splendido vaso un Duce, personaggio etrusco cos chiamato per la ricchezza della sua
tomba, ci si pu quindi attendere che liscrizione sia significativa.
Ora, questa interpretazione del vaso come parlante dipende proprio dalla
lettura in chiave ungherese della prima parola del testo, naceme, lettura poi confermata
da quella delle parole successive. Ecco alcune citazioni della mia analisi, cos come le
presento nel mio libro, cui faccio seguire i commenti di Gheno.

naceme: si lascia identificare con lavv. ungh. nekem 'a me, verso di me'. E' lo
stesso avverbio e posposizione che abbiamo incontrato nella lamina di Pyrgi, ma
che qui si trova in posizione avverbiale assoluta. Come sappiamo, corrisponde alla
posposizione ungh. -nak/-nek, segnacaso del dativo, che deriva da un avverbio
protoungh. non attestato nek-i 'auf etw zu, entgegen, in Richtung von' (con suffisso
possessivo sing. 3a -i (variante di -e)). Accanto alla forma neki non attestata si
sviluppata, con i rimanenti suffissi possessivi (-m, -d ecc.), la serie paradigmatica
nekem neked ecc. 'a me, a te' ecc., come normale in ungherese. Quindi la tazza si
rivolge al proprietario con le parole: "verso di me, in me", cos come in latino il
bicchiere dice a me da me. (p.198)

Cosa dice di tutto questo il mio critico? Anzitutto, ci che lui discute e cita non
la mia analisi concreta del testo, in cui cerco di argomentare al meglio la mia
interpretazione, ma solo la definizione riassuntiva che ne do nel Lessico (a p.71-72), e
in cui, per ovvie ragioni di economia, non ho ripetuto i dettagli dellanalisi. Ma poich
non posso dubitare che Gheno abbia letto anche la parte che riguarda i Testi, debbo
arguirne che Gheno scelga dal mio testo solo ci che gli serve per impartirmi una
lezioncina di grammatica ungherese, e per di pi a sproposito: A parte che ungh. neki
6
significa a lui/lei, etr. nac non pu essere (v. oltre). Critica che non merito affatto,
perch nellillustrazione del testo chiarisco molto bene che il mio neki non ungh.
moderno, bens PUngh nek-i, non attestato, ma ricostruito (cfr. EWU) col significato da
me citato di per, su, verso. Sicch sia il [sic] dopo la mia glossa neki per, su, verso
che la sua osservazione che in ungh. neki significa a lui/lei sono del tutto fuori luogo.
Ma non basta: il suo principale argomento critico contro la mia lettura di nac e
di naceme in chiave ungherese questo: siccome la prima attestazione ungherese del
suffisso [nella Orazione Funebre del 1195 ca.] presenta ancora solo la variante palatale
[nec], nellepoca etrusca non poteva ricorrere la variante velare del medesimo.
Pertanto fuori luogo altres la ricostruzione etr. inac = ungh. arcaico igynac []
come altre del genere (221).
Lingenuit teorica di questo commento disarmante: possibile che Gheno, che
certamente sa (cfr. per es. EWU) che ungh. nak/nek deriva da PUr *n 'questo', ed
quindi affine a mansi, -n segnacaso lativo, -nl ablativo e lativo, -nt comitativo;
khanty -na lativo/illativo, -nat comitativo (EWU) (e sto citando dalla stessa p.108
citata da lui), cio proprio alle due lingue ob-ugriche strettamente apparentate
allungherese, non si renda conto che lattestazione scritta della Orazione sia un
argomento assolutamente insussistente (e interpretabile, come tutti gli scripta
medievali, in chiave di variabilit grafica e/o di ambizioni normative), di fronte
allevidenza della documentazione comparativa, che mostra consistentemente una // o
una /a/ originaria?
Quindi resta del tutto valida, e a mio avviso non poco significativa per la
ricostruzione del Proto-Ungherese, la traduzione di etr. naceme a me, verso di me,
come equivalente - e prima attestazione in assoluto, del VII/VI secolo a.C.! - di ungh.
nekem.
Passiamo ora alla seconda parola discussa da Gheno, e che nella mia analisi del
testo io tratto cos

uru: forma arcaica di ungh. r 'signore, padrone, proprietario', gi attestato nell'XI
sec., di etimo controverso ma di prob. origine turcica: aturc. ur 'giovanotto', da
*uru, ur 'discendente, parente', termine che aveva a che fare con l'ereditariet, e
che quindi nell'antica societ turco-magiara si associava solo agli alti strati della
societ (EWU). E' l'appellativo ungherese per eccellenza, lo abbiamo gi visto nel
Lessico, e lo vedremo ancora pi oltre. In ungherese moderno, tuttavia, ci
aspetteremmo la forma possessiva uram. Due sono quindi le possibili ipotesi: in
etrusco non esisteva ancora la forma possessiva enclitica, e in questo caso la
traduzione sarebbe il vocativo o signore, con cui il vaso si rivolgerebbe
direttamente al proprietario (come nellesempio latino); oppure uru rappresenta il
soggetto della frase, al nominativo, quindi corrisponderebbe a il signore.
Vedremo se vi sono altri argomenti in favore delluna o dellaltra traduzione.

Anche in questo caso, come suo solito, Gheno sembra seguire un percorso
intenzionalmente tortuoso, alla ricerca della sola cosa che lo interessi: il pelo nelluovo.
La forma da lui citata, anzitutto, non infatti il chiarissimo uru della Tazza di
Vetulonia - chiarissimo perch la sua forma coincide perfettamente con uru dellantico
ungherese, e quindi non criticabile -, bens ure, che Gheno cita, di nuovo, dal mio
Lessico, e non dai testi in cui attestata. In secondo luogo, utile ricordare che sia ure
che uri, laltra variante di uru, sono esclusivamente attestate in iscrizioni su vasi,
evidentemente appartenenti a un signore, e che in non pochi casi questi vasi recano
anche il segno del pentagramma, ben noto simbolo magico, di potenza e di perfezione,
perfettamente appropriato al signore. Ma anche di questo, ovviamente, non c parola
nella recensione di Gheno
7
Nella mia analisi di questa particolare forma ure (soprattutto nelliscrizione ure
mi che ha tutto laspetto di una semplice dichiarazione di possesso: io sono del
signore), nel mio libro propongo una lettura della e finale come segnacaso del
possessivo o diminutivo. Gheno, anche questa volta, mi bacchetta: alt! in ungh.
moderno dovremmo avere ura! Al che, timidamente, vorrei rispondere: fin qui, signor
maestro, ci arrivavo anchio. Poi, per, mi suggerisce unaltra chiave di lettura,
secondo la quale -e potrebbe essere letto come un segno di possesso, per cui la mia
traduzione resta valida. Questa possibilit mi era sfuggita, e ringrazio vivamente Gheno
del suggerimento. Senonch, a questo punto, mi chiedo, e giro la domanda al mio
critico: ma allora, la mia traduzione in chiave ungherese di etr. uru come signore e di
ure del signore giusta o sbagliata? Perch se giusta, come sembra, e se giusto
anche naceme, come anche sembra, per quali misteriose ragioni allora Gheno si tanto
accanito a cercare errori inesistenti, e allo stesso tempo a nascondere gli aspetti pi
rilevanti della mia tesi, qui come altrove?
Ma vediamo ora, prima di passare alla terza parola di questo testo discussa da
Gheno, anche la traduzione del resto della proposizione, che la pi trasparente per il
confronto con lungherese, e che quindi per ovvie ragioni di congruenza testuale,
semantica e sintattica - getta luce su ciascuna delle parole che la compongono,
comprese quelle discusse da Gheno. Inoltre, come ho gi detto, per la versione
ungherese del mio libro ne ho anche migliorato la traduzione.
La prima parola che segue uru, e che Gheno non discute nella sua recensione
(perch ovviamente non ha niente da opporre alla mia traduzione, e quindi gli conviene
nasconderla), infatti ial. E una parola importantissima per la coerenza del testo e
per la sua traduzione dato che, esssendo liscrizione su un vaso potorio parlante,
chiaro che essa si lascia immediatamente confrontare con ungh. ital bevanda.
Coincidenza fortuita anche questa, dopo le altre coincidenze fortuite delle parole che
precedono (e quelle che, come vedremo, seguono)?
Poi segue ilen, anche questa convenientemente taciuta da Gheno, ma
importantissima per me, perch si lascia confrontare anche qui immediatamente, dato
il contesto libatorio - con ungh. tele 'pieno', tlt versare, riempire, mansi twl 'pieno',
khanti tel 'pieno' ecc. tutti da FU *tbd3 o *tlk3 'pieno'. Considero quindi la parola
come voce dellimperativo di un verbo PUngh. *tel versare, riempire. Per la forma,
tuttavia, mentre nel mio libro italiano ho lasciato aperte diverse traduzioni possibili,
nella versione ungherese ho scelto *teljen, nonostante lungh. moderno abbia teljel. Ho
avanzato questa ipotesi perch nelle lingue obugriche per definizione antecedenti
dellungherese in molti aspetti - luscita dellimperativo di 2a persona sg. n (cfr.
mansi totegyn, khanti tetn), per cui, di conseguenza, verosimile che questa
caratteristica si sia continuata in etrusco, e sia stata innovata in un periodo successivo.
Dopo una ripetizione di ial bevanda, del tutto adatta alla tipologia libatoria
del testo (v. oltre), segue poi ieme, che ovviamente devessere il verbo che regge ial.
Dico ovviamente perch se ial teljen vale la bevanda versa, ial ieme deve
rappresentare un costrutto parallelo, del tutto adatto al contesto libatorio.
Tuttavia, questa la forma che mi ha dato pi filo da torcere e per la quale, nel
mio libro italiano, non sono riuscito a trovare una soluzione soddisfacente. Soluzione
che ho invece trovato per la versione ungherese, e che ora mi sembra valga la pena di
illustrare; e per due ragioni: (1) per mostrare che la mia lettura in chiave ungherese,
proprio perch migliorabile, del tutto fondata, e (2) per ricordare a Gheno che forse
sono proprio questi miglioramenti che gli specialisti di ungherese dovrebbero cercare di
suggerire, anzich concentrarsi nella ricerca delle eventuali imperfezioni nel mio
trattamento dei materiali ungheresi.
8
Anzitutto, di fronte a ieme, dato che lequivalenza grafematica <> = <gy>
documentabile (e rinvio per questo al mio libro), dato il contesto materiale del vaso
potorio, e data la tipologia libatoria del testo, va da s che la prima ipotesi che viene in
mente che si tratti di una voce dellimperativo in igy- del verbo ungherese moderno
iszik bere: igyak -l on; -am idd/igyad igya, risp.1a 2a e 3a sg, indef. e def. Lipotesi
pi facile quindi, naturalmente, che linvito del vaso parlante al suo Signore fosse
duplice, e nella giusta concatenazione: la bevanda versa, la bevanda bevi!. Il
problema, senonch, stava in quella -me finale, per la quale non sembrava vi fossero
altre scelte oltre alla traduzione che io beva: lunica forma dellimperativo definito
con m finale esendo infatti la 1a. Per cui, nella versione italiana del mio libro ho
lasciato aperte diverse ipotesi per questa forma, tutte per contraddittorie rispetto alla
tipologia dei vasi potorii parlanti, in cui ovviamente non mai il vaso che beve bens il
proprietario del vaso (cfr. il lat. a me bibe e simili).
Ed ecco, invece, la nuova e semplicissima - soluzione che ho proposto nella
versione ungherese: poich liscrizione in scriptio continua, la forma ieme si lascia
leggere anche come ie me, ci che permette di vedere in me, anzich il pron. pers. di
1 p.sg., il completivo meg, dialettalmente anche me (EWU s.v.)
2
. Ie me sarebbe
quindi lequivalente etrusco di ungh. idd (< igy-) meg cio beviti, bevi per me, bevi
tutto, con una lettura che quindi rientra perfettamente nella tipologia dei vasi potorii
parlanti. Il fatto, qui riferito in nota, che questa traduzione mi sia stata suggerita da una
intelligente lettrice ungherese, dimostra meglio di qualunque argomento la possibilit di
avvicinarsi al mio libro in modo radicalmente diverso da quello di Gheno.
Si noti che con questa traduzione finisce la prima parte del testo, che come ho
illustrato nel libro si lascia dividere in due proposizioni. La prima,, infatti, recita ora

In me, o signore, la bevanda versa, la bevanda bevi tutta.

Traduzione assolutamente conforme alla tipologia dei vasi potori parlanti e, a
mio avviso, altamente significativa per letruscologia e per la mia tesi della derivazione
dellungherese dalletrusco.
Vediamo ora la seconda parte del testo, che contiene anche la terza parola del
testo discussa da Gheno. La prima parola successiva :
- mesnamer, che nel mio libro ho considerato un composto di mesna- confrontabile, fra
le possibili opzioni, a ungh. mz 'miele, idromele' + suff. na, e di mer, confrontabile a
ungh. mer 'misurare' (cfr. maro- 'gromatico', per il quale v. oltre). Anche di questa
traduzione, tuttavia, posso ora dare una spiegazione e una giustificazione migliore:
dalla letteratura specializzata ho infatti ricavato linformazione - quanto mai rilevante
per la mia traduzione! - che il kyathos greco non era soltanto un vaso potorio, ma anche
una unit di misura per liquidi. Ci che, naturalmente, conferma pienamentela mia
traduzione misura per lidromele.
Lultima parola del testo, che conviene illustrare prima di passare a quella
discussa da Gheno, poi mulu.
Questa parola etrusca - anchessa, inutile dirlo, taciuta da Gheno -, molto
comune nellepigrafia etrusca ed gi stata tradotta, fin dalle origini delletruscologia,
come dono. Nella mia lettura si lascia avvicinare a un termine fondamentale della
religione finnougrica, estinto in ungherese e in altre lingue finnougriche, ma ancora
centrale in khanty, una delle due lingue obugriche strettamente imparentate con
lungherese. Essa sopravvive nel suo pieno significato nei suoi svariati dialetti:
Vasjugan e Obdorsk mul- mut- 'offrire alle divinit, implorare (divinit)', '(nell'offerta al

2
Mi ha messo sulla buona strada unosservazione della Sig.ra Ursulya Demeter.
9
focolare) chiedere l'accettazione divina', 'offrire cibo e bevande alle divinit', Demjanka
superiore 'pregare, ottenere con preghiere (dalle divinit)', Krasnojarsk mut- 'offertorio,
preghiera, supplica rivolta alle divinit pre-cristiane', Kazym m 'bestemmia, formula
di incantesimo, offertorio', ms 'recitare una preghiera appropriata per le offerte,
bestemmiare, distruggere con le parole, incantare con frasi vuote', mansi (< khanty) mul
'formula di incantesimo' (OW 555 sgg, cfr. UEW).
Ed eccoci infine alla terza parola del testo discussa da Gheno, di nuovo senza
alcun rinvio al contesto in cui appare: tansina.
Poich mulu significa certamente dono, logico ipotizzare, dal punto di vista
ermeneutico, che il precedente tansina sia unapposizione di mulu, che chiarisca la
natura del dono, a sua volta specificata dal mesnamer misura per lidromele. Ho
quindi letto tansina come composto di ungh. tan- 'insegnare' (tant 'insegnare', tanul
'imparare', tantsg 'scienza', tanr 'dotto' ecc., famiglia lessicale diffusa anche in altre
lingue uraliche (Ur *tuna- 'imparare'), e che ha numerosi riscontri anche in turcico, e di
szn 'bella forma' (XII sec.), 'forma esterna' (XV sec.). Quindi forma bella con cui
insegnare'.
Ed ecco come Gheno commenta questa mia traduzione: Osservo che ungh. tan-
in s non significa insegnare, ma una radice di ambito semantico attinente
allapprendere, allo studio; unicamente applicandole degli affissi se ne chiarisce
laccezione: cos tan/t insegnare, tan/ul studiare, tan/r insegnate, professore
ecc. (227). Ora in questo commento Gheno dimostra anche poca familiarit con la
semantica storica e comparata. Anzitutto, arcinoto che la maggioranza delle parole
per insegnare sono eguali o collegate a quelle per imparare: per esempio francese
apprendre, neogreco mathano, rumeno nva, gallese dysgu, bretone deski, danese
laere, olandese leeren, serbo-croato uiti ecc. ecc. significano sia insegnare che
apprendere. Anche in tanti dialetti e sub-standard regionali italiani si sente dire
correntemente me lha imparato lui. Per cui, dove sta il problema? E del tutto
plausibile che in uno stadio cos antico dellungherese tan- fosse usato in entrambi i
sensi, e che la sua differenziazione mediante affissi sia avvenuta pi tardi. Inoltre, il
semplice fatto che la stessa radice tan- abbia subito il processo di specializzazione
(diversamente, per esempio, che in italiano e in inglese) avrebbe per lo meno dovuto
invitare Gheno a una maggior cautela, se non al silenzio. La sua obiezione dunque
assolutamente insignificante, sia in s che per la mia tesi.
Ma lasciamo parlare ancora Gheno: Il termine ungh. szin poi, oltre ad aver due
omonimi, dispone ancor oggi di una ricchezza straordinaria di significati: colore, cera,
aspetto, apparenza, superficie e altro; Non si capisce dunque perch mai Alinei
estrapoli proprio quei due: bella forma () del XII, non dellXI sec., e forma
esterna. Eppure, anche qui, la ragione della mia scelta semplicissima, ed sfuggita a
Gheno solo perch ha esaminato la parola al di fuori del suo contesto: la banalissima
ragione della mia scelta che, trattandosi di un vaso parlante, e per di pi di squisita
fattura, il donatore del vaso al Duce, che naturalmente anche la persona che ha
commissionato liscrizione, ne ha voluto anche decantare i pregi estetici: bella forma
quindi lunica traduzione che si adatti perfettamente al resto del testo e al contesto
materiale.
Sicch, a conti fatti, essendosi le obiezioni di Gheno nel frattempo ridotte a
niente, ecco che la mia traduzione delliscrizione sulla Tazza di Vetulonia del VII/VI
secolo a. C. si lascia confermare intieramente, e quindi leggere a un dipresso cos:

"In me o signore la bevanda versa, la bevanda bevimi tutta;
(io sono) l'offerta che con la sua bella forma indica la misura di idromele"

10
Quattro sono ora le domande che vorrei rivolgere a Gheno: (1) o non adatta
questa traduzione a uniscrizione su vaso potorio parlante? (2) Si avvicina o no agli
analoghi testi latini? (3) E o non il testo etrusco vicino, anzi molto vicino
allungherese? (4) Ed o non interessante e significativo, per uno specialista di lingua
ungherese, che una sequenza di dieci parole etrusche, iscritte sul piede di un vaso
potorio/misura di capacit, tutte avvicinabili in modo plausibile e produttivo ad
altrettante parole ungheresi, sia leggibile come una concatenazione - logica e fornita di
senso compiuto - di nozioni tutte appartenenti meno uru Signore e proprietario del
vaso - al campo semantico del bere: cio bevanda bere versare idromele
misura? Sequenza si noti - non solo altamente prevedibile, dato il vaso su cui
iscritta, e non solo tipologicamente confrontabile con iscrizioni latine e greche, ma
anche fornita di una sua logica interna per cui, per esempio, linvito a versare la
bevanda precede, come logico, linvito a berla? Il fortuito, come ho gi detto, si
lascia ipotizzare per qualunque coppia di parole di lingua diversa, considerate in s.
Diventa sempre meno ipotizzabile man mano che le parole si concatenano fra loro in
senso compiuto. E diventa assolutamente impensabile se accanto al senso compiuto e
alla concatenazione logica si aggiunge anche un contesto semantico che coincide
perfettamente con il contesto materiale. A questo punto, cio, lonere delle prove ricade
su chi, nonostante levidenza, faccia finta di niente e banalizzi il tutto.
Vediamo un altro esempio delle conseguenze cui va incontro Gheno discutendo
i miei confronti lessicali senza alcuna attenzione per il contesto testuale e materiale: la
parola etr. nesl e varianti grafiche. Ecco come presento la parola nel capitolo del mio
libro dedicato al lessico:

NESL NEISL NEL guarda, osserva (imperat. 2a sg.)
Si trova in diverse iscrizioni, sul fronte di un sepolcro, o su ceppo o lapide, sempre
seguito da uqi sepolcro (TLE 167, 168, 178, 198, 351), e quasi sempre
preceduto da eca questo, quindi osserva questo/il sepolcro. Solo in TLE 515
preceduto da tular hilar confini e luoghi, e in TLE 359 si trova due volte in un
contesto pi complesso. Corrisponde da vicino, anche nella morfologia, a un
imperativo 2a sg. di ungh. nez vedere, guardare, contemplare, ecc., cio nezzel,
oppure di nesz-, base di neszel osservare (cfr. EWU). Tipologicamente, si lascia
confrontare alluso di aspice, contempla e simili nelle iscrizioni funerarie latine:
per es. hospes resiste et tumulum hunc excelsum aspice quo continentur
ossa (CIL V, 6808), aspice praeteriens monumentum (CIL XII 1981)
hospes resiste et tumulum contempla meum (CIL III, 6416), nostrum
contempla sepulcrum (CIL III 9314).

Si noti che la traduzione di suthi sepolcro e di eca questo degli Etruscologi,
ed avvalorata dalla lettura che ne ho fatto in chiave ungherese. E si noti che nel
capitolo dedicato ai testi ho raccolto una decina di iscrizioni tutte recanti la forma nesl e
varianti contempla, guarda, quasi tutte su fronte di sepolcro, e nel solito contesto di
suthi e/o eca, meno una, su lapide, in cui il verbo preceduto da tular hilar, quindi
osserva i confini dei luoghi.
Ed ecco come tratta Gheno questa parola: en passant, e fra parentesi (p.222), mi
fa notare che non mi sono accorto di aver scritto nezzel anzich nzzl. Cospargendomi
il capo di cenere per questa e per simili sviste tipografiche, oso chiedere al mio critico:
ma cosa cambia questo alla mia tesi? Resta il fatto che lungherese nzzl offre qui una
chiave di lettura altamente significativa per tutta una serie di iscrizioni tipologicamente
affini e legate a un sepolcro, e che il valore dellequivalenza etrusco-ungherese
nesl/nzzl non sta tanto nel fatto che il significato guarda, osserva si adatta
perfettamente al contesto sepolcrale, ma anche in quello, del tutto rilevante per
11
letruscologia, e da me puntualmente rilevato, che esiste un parallelo tipologico nelluso
epigrafico e sepolcrale latino. Su tutto questo, come sempre, Gheno tace.
Ancora un esempio dello stesso tipo: la mia traduzione di etr. trutnvt aruspice,
sciamano. Si tratta, anzitutto, di un termine fondamentale della religione etrusca,
essendo parte di una iscrizione bilingue dove appare come lequivalente di lat. haruspex
fulguriator. Non vi sono quindi dubbi sul suo significato, e il mio confronto con
lungherese dovrebbe essere valutato, da un critico rigoroso, solo in questo contesto.
Ecco invece come Gheno critica la mia traduzione: rad. di ungh. tltos sciamano,
stregone lo scambio fra l- ed r- ben documentato, anche la metatesi di
tult/turt ben documentata (p.82) p.226). Tutto senza commento, quasi a dire che
non ne vale neanche la pena! Ed ecco, invece, cosa ha taciuto: (1) che il mio confronto,
per il vocalismo, non direttamente con ungh. tltos sciamano, stregone, ma ,
ovviamente, col vocalismo molto pi pertinente di PUgr. *tult3 magia, potere magico,
e quindi, semmai, con khanty (una delle due lingue obugriche) toltn tolten dotato di
potere magico; (2) che lo scambio di l- ed r- documentato non solo in etrusco (cfr.
le mie citazioni dalla magistrale ricerca del de Simone), ma anche in ungherese (ungh.
dial. bers, krs, bartara ecc.), mentre la metatesi di tult/turt documentata in
etrusco, come mostrano non solo etr. Prosepnai per gr. Persephn ed altri esempi, ma
lo stesso Etrusci rispetto a umbro Turskom
Ma continuiamo e vediamo come reagisce Gheno ad altre straordinarie
coincidenze: quelle nel nome, nella cosa e nellorigine, fra magistrature etrusche e
magistrature ungheresi: cio prima di tutto allidentit di gyula = zila e di kende =
cane; in secondo luogo di maro = mr e di lucumo l+kum uomo. Ecco come: La
prima sorpresa viene al capitolo iniziale intitolato Origini turciche e ungheresi dei
principali termini magistratuali etruschi. Sembra che etr. zila princeps civitatis sia
lo stesso che ungh. gyula oberster Richter oder Heerfhrer, etr. canthe rex ungh.
kende Grossfrst, e poi etr. maru gromatico = ungh. mr misuratore, etr.
lauxum/luxum, lat. lucumo cavaliere = ungh. lhm maschio di cavallo (pp.27.28
mio corsivo). Sembra che: tutto qui!
Oltre a questa nonchalance, non posso poi fare a meno di notare anche la libert
che Gheno si prende nei riguardi del mio testo: n a p.27, 28, n altrove nel mio libro io
ho mai confrontato etr. lucumo cavaliere o nobile (p.65) con ungh. lhm maschio
di cavallo. Glossa, questultima, con la quale Gheno intende naturalmente ridicolizzare
la mia traduzione (non a caso, nella versione ungherese della sua recensione (pubblicata
in Magyar Nyelv 2004, 490-498), lhm puntualmente seguito da un (!)). Per la
precisione, a p.27 ho molto chiaramente analizzato la forma etrusca come un composto
di l cavallo e di mansi (lingua obugrica, come tale pi vicina alletrusco di quanto
non sia lungherese) kom kum um uomo, da confrontare al nome del popolo uralico
dei Komi, pi che a ungh. hm maschio, ovvia innovazione. La mia traduzione,
dunque, voleva essere uomo del cavallo (cio cavaliere e/o proprietario del
cavallo), con il rectum che precede il regens, e non cavallo-maschio. E per
interessante osservare come Gheno, per una curiosa eterogenesi dei fini, con la sua
intenzionale falsa traduzione abbia finito, senza volerlo, per contribuire alla mia tesi:
perch anche se prendessimo per buono il significato maschio di cavallo potremmo
egualmente arrivare al lucumo nobile cavaliere, se ricordiamo a Gheno che il nome
dei migliori fra i guerrieri siculi (Szkely) magiari (il leggendario popolo della
Transilvania che partecip alla Conquista e venne adibito alla difesa dei confini della
nuova patria, e fra laltro preserv un alfabeto runico di straordinario interesse storico-
linguistico, purtroppo non ancora studiato adeguatamente) era lf privilegierte
Szekler, ma letteralmente testa di cavallo. Ci che si spiega, molto meglio di quanto
non faccia, troppo genericamente, EWU (diese Standesgruppe der Szekler den
12
Heerendients zu Perde kleisten musste: s.v.), con il costume di seppellire una testa di
cavallo nelle tombe dei guerrieri dellepoca della Conquista, e in quella dei tardi-Avari
precedenti, oggi considerati ungheresi anchessi da molti studiosi. Ragion per cui, fra
laltro, ho preferito tradurre il frequentissimo etr. lupu, anzich con morto, come da
sempre ha proposto lermeneutica etruscologica, con nobile, sepolto con gli onori,
considerando questo termine lantenato, in veste fonetica ancora ugrica, del succitato
termine storico ungherese usato per i guerrieri szkely. Ma anche di tutto questo, a mio
avviso non poco significativo sia per la preistoria ungherese che per letruscologia, non
c traccia nella recensione di Gheno, al quale interessa, come dovrebbe essere ormai
chiaro, molto pi la ricerca delle pulci nel cavallo che non il cavallo.
Lunico termine, infatti, su cui Gheno sparge a piene mani il lume della sua
scienza il maro, che io identifico per la prima volta in etruscologia - con il famoso
gromatico agrimensore pubblico etrusco, mediante il confronto con ungh. mr
misuratore. Il termine maro dunque una parola fondamentale per letruscologia e per
la mia teoria, per il posto che questa figura ha nella societ etrusca, per la diffusione del
suo nome anche in area italica (e.g. lat. maro- onis), e perch lermeneutica ben presto
arrivata a identificarla come magistratura, anche se solo il mio confronto ungherese
che ne permette lidentificazione col gromatico della Etrusca Disciplina (per cui rinvio
al mio libro). Ed parola importante anche per Gheno se, a quanto pare, proprio da
questa che ha potuto prender lo spunto [], allo scopo di additare la labilit di
moltissimi ragionamenti linguistici di Alinei dal lato ungherese (220).
Vediamo dunque gli argomenti di Gheno per dimostrare la labilit dei miei
ragionamenti linguistici ungheresi a proposito di questa parola.
Per quanto riguarda la semantica, anzitutto, Gheno mi critica incredibile dictu
- per linverosimiglianza della coincidenza semantica! Ed ecco come: ungh. mr
non altro che il participio presente di mr misurare, attestato la prima volta attorno
al 1372 d.C.[], participio suscettibile anche duso sostantivale, ma fondamentalmente
nellaccezione di apparecchio misuratore (mio corsivo, p.220). Dove il mio
severissimo critico commette non uno ma quattro errori: (1) la prima attestazione di
mr, nel 1412, infatti proprio nellaccezione di misuratore (persona), e lo dice
proprio la fonte citata da Gheno, lEWU, e proprio poche righe sotto la prima
attestazione di mr da lui riferita! (2) Affermare che un participio presente attestato per
uno strumento non pu essere usato per una persona tanto ridicolo quanto affermare
che in italiano operatore, interruttore, misuratore, modificatore, unificatore,
classificatore, duplicatore calcolatore, regolatore, simulatore accumulatore
trasformatore e cos via e in altre lingue lelenco sarebbe ancora pi lungo - sono
semanticamente inverosimili perch si possono usare sia per persone che per cose. (3)
Gheno dimostra di ignorare ci che in etimologia si chiama processo di
specializzazione semantica di un termine in origine generico, processo che appartiene
alla storia semantica di tutte le lingue: come per litaliano per esempio operare, verbo
generico in latino (cfr. opus e opera), mentre in italiano operare tout court potuto
diventare verbo specialistico dei chirurghi, cos come loperazione tout court quella
chirurgica, o quella aritmetica ecc. (4) E poi lapalissiano, per chiunque abbia un po di
dimestichezza con la storia delle parole, che in un contesto antico come quello in cui la
mia teoria si pone, il passaggio da mr misurare a mr misuratore umano abbia
necessariamente preceduto lo sviluppo dellaccezione dello strumento, per la semplice
ragione che nella storia della metrologia e della tecnica agronomica si misurato prima
di tutto a spanne, a piedi, a braccia, passi, a giornate, a biolche e simili, cio
senza strumenti, molto prima che con strumenti come la groma alidada, tipica del
gromatico etrusco del I millennio a.C. Per cui evidente che prima sia venuto il
misuratore umano poi il misuratore strumento! Il problema sollevato da Gheno, quindi,
13
non solo non sussiste, ma di nuovo - dimostra semplicemente che il mio critico,
perfetto conoscitore della lingua e della grammatica ungherese moderna, ha alquanto
trascurato lo studio della semantica, teorica, descrittiva, o storica, e sia dellungherese
che di altre lingue.
Passiamo ora alla fonetica della mia interpretazione di maru. Secondo il mio
critico, la mia proposta di maru = mr misuratore pecca contro le norme
dellarmonia vocalica. E di quale peccato sarei peccatore? Eccolo: la -u di maru pu
esprimere la labiopalatale // ~ ungh. , visto che il sistema ortografico etrusco, come
quello latino, non era in grado di simboleggiare tale tipo di vocali, ma a in ogni caso
non pu corrispondere a una /e/, giacch in etrusco questa era univocamente (!)
rappresentata a un di presso come una nostra E speculare (corsivo mio). E chi ha dato
questa certezza al Nostro, che ha appena ammesso di essere incompetente in etrusco?
Misteri! Prima di tutto, se difficile parlare di univocit per molti alfabeti moderni, di
cui conosciamo perfettamente il valore fonologico e fonetico, figuriamoci per uno
antico! Fra laltro, se non vado errato credo di essere uno dei pochi studiosi italiani che
abbia studiato con qualche attenzione, e basandomi su uno spoglio elettronico non
insignificante (e da me curato) dei testi medievali italiani (i 22 volumi del progetto
SEIOD, pubblicati dal Mulino negli anni Sessanta e Settanta), le incongruenze e le
ambiguit del sistema alfabetico medievale fiorentino e di quello veneziano. Ritengo
quindi di poter parlare con cognizioni di causa. Inoltre, letrusco, diversamente dal
latino, ha solo quattro grafemi per rappresentare le vocali, cio <a e i u>; di
conseguenza, parlare di univocit per letrusco per lo meno imprudente, se non
assurdo. Se poi ammettiamo che il sistema vocalico etrusco conoscesse gi alcune
vocali turbate cosa che anche Gheno si dimostra disposto a fare per <u> - non vedo
cosa impedisca al mio critico di ipotizzare anche per la <a> etrusca che potesse servire
a rappresentarne una variante palatale, in armonia con la <u>. Che questa tesi sia
fondata mi sembra indicato non solo dal fatto che nella documentazione etrusca, come
abbiamo visto, troviamo anche mer, accanto a mar (ci che ci confronta con una tipica
oscillazione grafica di un alfabeto mai normalizzato), ma anche dalla documentazione
che nel mio libro ho raccolto (cap.IV), sotto forma di abbozzo di grammatica storica
etrusco-ungherese, che mostra come la <a> fosse spesso usata dai lapidari etruschi per
rappresentare una // o una /e/: abbiamo infatti per es. etr. ras- ungh. rsz, (< FUg
*rc3), etr. tarils, ungh. tr (da Ug *tr3), etr. ar-ce ungh. r, etr. avil ungh. v, etr.
mani- ungh. meny, etr. masan aungh. mese etr. ma- o mas- ungh. mz, etr. nap ungh.
np, etr. tam- ungh. temet, etr. ati ungh. des (pp.284-285). Come si vede dagli esempi,
alcuni risalgono a una // ricostruita, ci che giustificherebbe comunque ladozione di
<a> per queste // realmente palatali. Adozione che a parte possibili mutamenti
fonetici - potrebbe essersi poi estesa, per analogia e/o per le incertezze tipiche degli
alfabeti non normalizzati, anche ad altre parole. Mentre in seguito, alla definitiva
fissazione della forma mar- per i numerosissimi riferimenti alla magistratura del
gromatico che si succedono nei documenti etruschi di et tarda, avrebbe potuto
contribuire anche linfluenza del latino e/o dellitalico.
Ecco perch la conclusione di Gheno Tutto considerato lequazione etr. maru
= ungh. mr improponibile si dimostra, semmai, assolutamente improponibile
proprio lei, per la semantica, e abbastanza superficiale, mi dispiace dirlo, per la
fonetica.
E abbiamo gi visto, a proposito della mia altra equazione etr. nac = ungh.
nak/nek, secondo Gheno anchessa errata per una simile violazione dellarmonia
vocalica, come anche in questo caso il mio critico abbia trovato un pelo, o una pulce,
inesistente.
14
Ma anche l dove non vi sono testi, ma dove ho proposto affinit con un
carattere strutturale, e quindi esenti, a mio avviso, dal rischio della fortuit, Gheno
sorvola sullaspetto strutturale e si limita a osservazioni che si rivelano del tutto
irrilevanti. Vediamo un esempio. Fra i toponimi etruschi che secondo me hanno una
significativa affinit ungherese (Felsina, Bolsena, Alsium, Vetulonia, Populonia, Imola,
Veii, Tarquinia, Mutina), hanno rilevanza speciale i primi tre, in quanto, tradotti in
proto-ungherese, si lasciano interpretare come, rispettivamente, settentrionale,
centrale, meridionale. Attributi che si adattano perfettamente alla posizione di
Bologna, di Orvieto e dellantico porto di Pyrgi (Alsium) rispetto allarea dellEtruria.
Ecco esattamente come presento la mia tesi nel mio libro:

La triade etrusca FELZNA (lat. FELSINA) settentrionale, VELZNA (lat.
VOLSINII, it. BOLSENA) centrale; e ALS- (lat. ALSIUM) meridionale
Questi tre toponimi etruschi, letti in chiave ungherese, diventano non solo
trasparenti ma anche assai significativi.
Felsina, il nome etrusco di Bologna, era stato gi avvicinato a Velzna 'Bolsena' da
Devoto (cit. in Pellegrii 1978, 118), che per intendeva riunirli, facendone lo stesso
toponimo. Letti in chiave ungherese, invece, Felsina e Velzna risultano nettamente
separati, anche se collegati da un parallelismo semantico e morfologico.
Felsina, anzitutto, si lascia accostare ai numerosissimi toponimi ungh. che iniziano
con Fels settentrionale, superiore (dall'avverbio fel 'sopra', affine all'agg. fl
'superiore', che a sua volta risale al lessico PUr nella forma ricostruita *pide 'alto,
lungo'; cfr. EWU). Fra i toponimi ungh. cito Felsbagod, Felsberecki,
Felsberkifalu, Felscsatr, Felsdobaza, Felsegerszeg, Felsgagy, Felsgall,
Felsjnosfa, Felskelecseny, Felsmarc, Felsmindszent, Felsmocsold,
Felsnna, Felsnyrd, Felsnykr, Felsrs, Felsphok, Felspakony,
Felspaty, Felspetny, Felsrajk, Felsregmec, Felstrkny e molti altri. A
differenza di quelli elencati, tuttavia, dove fels un attributo che aggiunge il
significato di 'settentrionale' al nome successivo, Felsina avrebbe un valore
assoluto, espresso con la formante aggettivale o sostantivale na (ungh. ny).
Quindi la settentrionale.
Analogamente, Velzna Velsu ecc., lat. Volsinii 'Orvieto (ma etimologicamente
collegato a it. Bolsena), si lasciano interpretare come 'centrale', dato l'ungh. bels
'interno, interiore' (da bl 'viscere, anima, intestino, interno', che risale al FU *pl3
'l'interno': cfr. EWU)). Fra i toponimi ungh. cito Belssrd, Belsvt ecc., belfld
(fld 'terra') 'entroterra', belvros (vros 'citt') 'centro della citt'. Si ricordi che
Orvieto, nel cui santuario di Voltumna si riunivano i delegati dei dodici popoli
dEtruria, era considerata il 'centro' -non solo geografico, ma anche politico- della
confederazione etrusca. E si noti anche che il passaggio di vel- a vol- -documentato
da etr. Velsna > lat. Volsinii- (it. Bolsena), etr. Velari > lat. Volaterrae (it.
Volterra) ecc., non riguarda letrusco ma tipico del latino, che muta e- in o-
davanti a l- velare (cfr. velim vellem, ma volo volumus volui volt > vult).
La corrispondenza continua e si completa con lat. Alsium, che conosciamo come
nome di uno dei porti di Caere/Pyrgi (cfr. DICE, e Pellegrini 1978, 113), affine al
gentilizio etrusco Alsina, e che in ungh. si lasciano leggere come collegati ad als '
meridionale, inferiore'. Per cui, cos come in ungh. abbiamo numerose coppie
toponimiche del tipo Alsgalla Felsgalla, Alsjnosfa Felsjnosfa,
Alskekecsny Felskekecsny, Alslendva Felslendva, Alsmarc Felsmarc,
Alsmocsold Felsmocsold, Alsnna Felsnna, Alsnyk Felsnyk,
Alsphok Felsphok, Alspakony Felspakony, Alsptny Felspetny, Alsrajk
Felsrajk, Alsregmec Felsregmec ecc., in etrusco avremmo Felsina per Bologna,
nell'Etruria settentrionale, Velzna Velsu al centro, e Alsium nell'Etruria meridionale.

E cosa fa il mio critico? Anzich discutere e criticare la mia tesi sulla base di
questa presentazione geo-strutturale delle coincidenze, Gheno mi fa notare che sia
15
fels che als non significano settentrionale e meridionale, bens superiore e
inferiore, e sono quindi esempi di fraintendimenti semantici di parole ungheresi, che
gettano nuova ombra su tutta limpostazione del lavoro (p.223)! A parte la totale
irrilevanza - proprio sul piano semantico! - dellosservazione, in quanto nella mia
traduzione italiana avrei potuto benissimo usare, anzich settentrionale e meridionale,
anche nordico e del sud, oppure alto e basso (cfr. alta Italia e bassa Italia), cos come,
naturalmente, superiore e inferiore (cfr. Austria superiore e inferiore), poco sembra
importare a Gheno lammissione, da lui stesso fatta, che in ungherese eventualmente
fel- prefissato [sia] anche settentrionale e che eventualmente al- [sia] anche
meridionale (idem): ci che dimostra che comunque la mia traduzione corretta.
Inoltre, omette di menzionare che fra i miei toponimi c anche bels centrale, per il
quale naturalmente non pu fare neanche linsulsa obiezione che ha fatto per gli altri
due termini. E non si rende conto, infine, che in qualunque lingua alto e basso,
superiore e inferiore, settentrionale e meridionale, del nord e del sud si possono usare
come varianti motivazionali, per esprimere uno stesso significato o, se preferisce, in
determinati contesti sono sinonimi. No: il mio un fraintendimento semantico che getta
unombra sul tutto il mio lavoro! Ma a Gheno non basta: ritorna sulla questione e mi
cita a p.286, dove io nel capitolo dedicato alla grammatica storica dello sviluppo
dalletrusco allungherese (e non il contrario), elenco Felzna (e Velzna) come
documenti della continuazione di <e> tonica etrusca in /e/ tonica ungherese. Ed ecco, di
nuovo, la critica del Nostro: Per Alinei in ungherese troviamo un avverbio fel sopra
e un aggettivo fl superiore (p.286): fel e fl sono due varianti regionali, ambedue
accettate nello standard, dellavverbio-preverbo su; fl sostantivato significa panna
(del latte) mentre fel prefissato a sostantivi vale superiore e, nella lingua parlata,
altres settentrionale.. Come si vede, Gheno non sta recensendo il mio libro
sulletrusco, ma sta correggendo, ed anche male, quello che evidentemente considera
un compitino di scuola, e con limpegno intellettuale adatto a questo lavoro.
Ma vediamo un altro esempio dellinteresse per la pulce e dellindifferenza per
il cavallo che caratterizzano la recensione di Gheno: sempre fra i miei fraintendimenti
semantici che gettano nuova ombra su tutta limpostazione del lavoro il mio critico
pone anche la locuzione verbale ungh. eleget tesz (vmi)nek da me cos tradotta (e
fornita, ahim, di una lunga di troppo in elget): venire incontro a (qualcuno).
Sorvolo sulla citazione del mio testo da parte di Gheno, non del tutto esatta, e passo al
nocciolo della questione: la locuzione da me citata, nel contesto in cui si trova la
lamina doro di Pyrgi detta A fondamentale per la sua traduzione, e lo proprio per
la sua complessa natura sintattica, che coincide perfettamente con quella ungherese,
come dir subito. Gheno invece, oltre ad aver posto linevitabile (sic) dopo la mia <>,
mi bacchetta di nuovo: alt! in ungh. la locuzione non si riferisce a qualcuno ma a
qualcosa! A questo punto, cosa si pu fare, se non sbuffare? Certo, che in ungh.
moderno sia cos, senza dubbio vero, dato che labbreviazione da me citata valami
qualcosa, e non valaki qualcuno. E forse non a caso io ho tradotto soddisfare le
richieste Ma quello che nellambito della mia tesi etrusco-ungherese pensavo
dovesse interessare Gheno, e che invece sembra lasciarlo del tutto indifferente, la
straordinaria coincidenza, in un testo etrusco cos importante come la Lamina A di
Pyrgi, della forma etr. ilave con quella ungh. elgg (< elgv) e poi, nella parte
successiva del testo, la presenza per due volte - del gi discusso nac, anche qui
posposto al sostantivo proprio come segnacaso del dativo, e di tes-, il verbo usato nella
locuzione ungherese citata. Abbiamo quindi la perfetta corrispondenza, sia lessicale che
sintattica e semantica, di tutti e tre i componenti della locuzione verbale ungherese - il
verbo tesz, lavverbio elgg e il segnacaso del dativo nak, posposto al nome - con le
parole etrusche della frase che, letta in questo modo, diventa altamente significativa per
16
un accordo bilingue fra i due popoli punico/fenicio ed etrusco, in quanto ci informa di
come il capo magiaro (= me) Thefarie Velianas intenda soddisfare (le richieste de)i
cittadini di Alsium (porto di Pyrgi) e degli stranieri. Certo, nella locuzione etrusca
abbiamo una persona e non una cosa, ma non ammettere che due mila anni prima
dellungherese storico il verbo di una locuzione verbale potesse avere una valenza pi
ampia del suo continuatore moderno significa, a mio avviso, sfidare il buon senso, oltre
a non avere la pi lontana idea di cosa sia la linguistica storica e comparata.
Un altro esempio tipico del livello a cui Gheno si pone nellaffrontare il mio
testo, esempio questa volta sia semantico che fonetico, sta nel suo commento alla mia
traduzione delletr. puia. Fin dalle origini delletruscologia scientifica, questo termine
stato tradotto moglie. Non sulla base dellungherese, ovviamente, ma sulla base delle
evidenze interne. Io ho semplicemente ravvisato in ungh. bulya (pron. /buia/) donna
turca quella che mi sembra unorigine del tutto plausibile, dal punto di vista fonetico, e
uninteressantissima conferma dellimportanza del ruolo turcico nella societ proto-
ungherese, da me ripetutamente sottolineata, oltre che di fondamentale importanza per
la ricostruzione delletnogenesi ungherese, cos strettamente legata alla sua componente
turcica. Cosa fa Gheno, questa volta? Mi corregge, questa volta, perch ho sbagliato a
tradurre bulya come moglie anzich donna turca. Non ho alcuna difficolt ad
ammetterlo. Ma ho sbagliato non perch non avrei capito (!) il trk n del TESz, come
si affretta a suggerire il mio critico, ma perch nella mia fonte principale - lEWU - la
glossa tedesca Frau poteva valere, oltre che donna anche moglie. Ma, concesso
lerrore, cosa importa tutto questo per la mia tesi, dato che il passaggio da donna a
moglie elementare (lo mostra appunto il ted. Frau), e per di pi in tante lingue -
greco antico e moderno, francese, spagnolo, irlandese antico e mod., gallese, antico
islandese, tedesco, olandese, lituano, lettone, slavo eccl., ceco, sanscrito, avestico, per
limitarmi alle lingue IE, e per non parlare dei dialetti, a cominciare da quelli alto-
italiani - il nome della donna e della moglie sono esattamente eguali? La sola cosa
rilevante, nellambito della mia tesi, che siccome il nome etrusco della moglie, gi
accertato dalletruscologia, coincide con quello che in ungherese significa donna
turca, allora gli Etruschi per definizione avevano, o avevano avuto in epoca pi antica,
una appunto! - moglie di origine turca, ci che darebbe una forma concreta al tipo di
societ mista turco-magiara che dobbiamo comunque postulare per letnogenesi dei
Magiari.
E vi un altro aspetto rilevante a questa mia etimologia, che forse giunger
nuovo al mio critico: la mia traduzione di questa parola etrusca unita a quella delle
altre - importantissime - parole etrusco-ungheresi di origine turcica da me rilevate pu
dare un senso molto preciso e illuminante - a due recenti conclusioni della ricerca
geogenetica: (1) quella, a suo tempo molto reclamizzata e quindi ben nota, di Alberto
Piazza, uno dei pi autorevoli geogenetisti del mondo, sui Toscani di Murlo, secondo
cui le affinit genetiche degli Etruschi sono principalmente con i Turchi. E (2) quella,
recentissima, e a mia conoscenza ancora inedita, della Guglielmino, geogenetista
dellUniversit di Pavia, secondo cui una delle due fondamentali affinit genetiche
degli Ungheresi guarda caso! - con i Turchi (laltra con gli Iraniani). Interessanti
coincidenze non vero?
Per quanto riguarda poi la fonetica della parola puia < /buia/ < bulya, poi, alla
mia osservazione che il passaggio ly- > -y- doveva essere gi in atto in epoca etrusca,
Gheno contrappone una delle solite affermazioni ancora in uso, purtroppo, in linguistica
storica, e cio che sulla base delle attestazioni scritte questo sviluppo databile a dopo
il XIV secolo d.C. In risposta a questa critica, a mia volta, rinvio il mio critico al
capitolo VII delle mie Origini, e ai miei numerosi lavori sul problematica della
datazione in linguistica, in cui dimostro, credo in modo definitivo, lassurdit teorica, e
17
quindi lassoluta inaffidabilit, delle presunte datazioni dei mutamenti fonetici basate
sulla data delle attestazioni scritte. Attestazioni che vanno invece lette in chiave
puramente sociolinguistica, e con cronologie necessariamente molto pi alte. Non mi
aspetto, naturalmente, che Gheno aderisca alle mie conclusioni teoriche e di metodo
sulla problematica delle datazioni in linguistica, ma solo che si renda conto che quello
che ho detto non il risultato di speculazioni improvvisate, bens rigorosamente in
armonia con la mia teoria della continuit, e con la sua solida base teorica, oggi seguita
da un numero crescente di studiosi.
Un altro esempio dei miei fraintendimenti semantici dellungherese Gheno lo
trova nel mio confronto di etr. ati madre con ungh. des madre, in origine dolce.
Secondo Gheno, questo uso di des dolce come appellativo per la madre risale solo
allOttocento. Questa volta Gheno si sbaglia, e proprio nella ricerca del pelo: a parte il
fatto che ezes madre appare gi nel Lamento di Maria del 1300, EWU attesta des
blutsverwandt (parente) per il 1521, e Liebling (amato/-a) per il 1585. C
dunque pi spazio per sostenere la mia tesi di quanto non me ne conceda Gheno.
Inoltre, se dolce appartiene gi allantico ungherese (1138) (anche come antroponimo
(EWU)), non si pu neanche escludere che la sostituzione del pi antico anya madre
con lipocoristico dolce fosse gi avvenuta nellantichit, e in modo del tutto
indipendente da quella storica. Senza contare che, volendo, per etr. ati sarebbe possibile
anche il confronto con finl. iti madre
3
.
Ancora un esempio della leggerezza con cui Gheno mi attribuisce, nonostante
non ce ne sia neanche lombra, fraintendimenti semantici dellungherese, sta nel suo
commento alla mia traduzione delletr. cea sopra. Ho ripreso questa traduzione dalla
migliore ermeneutica etrusca, e la confermo mediante il confronto con ungh. hegy
monte, che per, con suffisso, per es. possessivo e/i o lativo -, diventa avverbio
sopra. Tutto questo lo spiego chiaramente, a pp.52-53 del mio libro. Cosa fa Gheno?
Senza curarsi minimamente della mia spiegazione dettagliata, mi affibbia un altro
rigone rosso a p.269: ungh. hegy sopra monte (223), dove ci che illustro
soltanto la regolarit del passaggio fonetico dalla velare iniziale etrusca di cea alla /h/
dellungh. hegy, in armonia cona la Lautverschiebung ungherese rispetto allugrico e
alluralico, e quindi in un contesto dove non avevo alcuna ragione di tornare sulla
semantica della mia traduzione. Pi che di un mio fraintendimento semantico, mi
sembra dunque un fraintendimento, da parte di Gheno, del compito che si assume un
recensore.
E ancora pi disinvolta la sua critica alla mia interpretazione delletr. krankru
come parola gemella, composta di karom artiglio e krm unghia artiglio. Gheno
anzitutto tace che si tratta della didascalia di una figura di gatto. Ma sorvoliamo su
questo punto, che ho gi sufficientemente sottolineato. Lerrore clamoroso che secondo
lui io avrei commesso qui nellinterpretare questa parola come parola gemella. Qui
Gheno che sbuffa: ma non mi sono accorto, che si tratta di due parole vocalarmoniche,
realizzatesi attraverso una scissione fonetica? (p.226) E che in tal caso entrambi i
membri di tali coppie sono utilizzati autonomamente, mai insieme?
La verit, per, risulta unaltra: laffermazione categorica che queste due parole
siano vocalarmoniche, realizzatesi attraverso una scissione fonetica rappresenta
unopinione del tutto personale di Gheno, perch lEWU (s.v. karmol), al contrario,
recita: Zusammenhang der Wfamilie mit krm ist kaum wahrsch. Quindi Gheno
anzitutto non informa il lettore sulla posizione corrente, che quella che giustifica la
mia tesi, e poi, non contento, mi corregge sulla base di unopinione personale! Inoltre,
anche se lopinione di Gheno fosse quella corrente, a giustificare la mia interpretazione

3
Come mi ha suggerito il Prof. Szab dellUniversit di Budapest.
18
della parola - del tutto adatta, in ungherese, a rappresentare scherzosamente un gatto -
basterebbe una qualunque delle due parole karom o krm, dato che tutte e due
significano artiglio, lasciando laltro elemento della parola gemella alla creativit
lessicale degli Etruschi
Altra tipica obiezione di Gheno quella che fa alla mia traduzione del frequente
etr. mi ma io (sono) il luogo, in iscrizioni sepolcrali: in ungherese la copula omessa
solo alle terze persone dellindicativo presente, non alle prime o alle seconde (p.223).
E con questo? Anzitutto, poich al Proto-Uralico viene attribuita la possibilit di usare
nomi come verbi (come in Nenci: ma sawa-dm io (sono) buono, dove la copula
sostituita dal suffisso personale), la questione dellomissione della copula molto pi
complessa di quanto non la presenti Gheno, che sembra conoscere solo la regoletta
sincronica. Inoltre, lipotesi che una lingua che oggi conosce lomissione della copula
per la 3 p. in uno stadio molto pi antico la conoscesse anche per la prima appartiene,
a mio avviso, al bagaglio congetturale pi elementare di qualunque comparatista.
Volendo, infine, si pu anche ipotizzare un influsso del sostrato slavo (dato che in slavo
lomissione della copula normale), la cui realt e la cui importanza, qualunque sia il
modello etno-genetico ungherese adottato, sono dimostrate dalla toponomastica
ungherese di origine slava.
Tipico anche il lungo discorso che Gheno mi fa a proposito dei sintagmi
etruschi che non seguono lordine sintattico normale per le lingue uraliche: il rectum
prima del regens. Sulla base di questa osservazione, infatti, Gheno non esita a rigettare
la mia traduzione di tular rasnar confini della regione, tular hilar confini dei luoghi,
apa nacna grande padre = nonno, ati nacna grande madre = nonna, che mostrano
lordine inverso. Senonch si noti - questo rifiuto delle mie traduzioni (fra laltro uno
dei pochi, in tutta la recensione, che Gheno osi fare esplicitamente) preceduto da
questa sorprendente premessa etruscologica da parte di Gheno: la massima parte dei
campioni di etrusco rimastici sono costituiti da iscrizioni funerarie e il rimanente
dato da didascalie, registrazioni di accordi, formule ecc. tutti testi redatti si pu
pensare in una lingua fondamentalmente scevra di artifici stilistici inusuali, come ad
es. linversione. (p.224 mio corsivo). Ora io mi domando: possibile che a Gheno non
sia venuto in mente che le iscrizioni funerarie, in etrusco di solito dedicate a magistrati
e funzionari pubblici, siano un contesto ideale per artifici stilistici? E che dire degli
accordi, che in etrusco hanno luogo addirittura fra popoli diversi (lamine di Pyrgi) e
fra grandi famiglie (ceppo di Perugia)? E le formule? Non sono le formule proprio
in quanto tali - quelle che pi spesso fanno uso di artifici stilistici? Come per esempio
in italiano per lo meno (con larticolo lo anzich il), vendonsi e affittasi (con
linversione)?
E altrettanto tipica, e ahim ancora pi lunga e noiosa, poi la critica che Gheno
rivolge (a p.225) alla mia traduzione di etr. semnisi occhi che guardano, sulla base
del raffronto con ungh. szem occhio e nzs -looking eyed (che cito da Orszgh
Lszl, Magyar Angol Sztr, Akadmiai Kiad, Budapest 1977). Qui la filippica di
Gheno, tutta rivolta esclusivamente alla terminologia da me usata, si conclude cos:
Dal che, infine e risolutivamente (?), si conferma che nzs non pu essere tuttora
usato come attributivo dopo un sostantivo, nel senso di che guarda. Anche ammesso
che questo sia vero (non ne sono certo, dato che nella succitata fonte lessicografica il
lessema nzes -looking, -eyed preceduto da trattino e definito come aggettivo),
non questo che importa. Quello che invece mi sembra rivelatore, di tutto il discorso di
Gheno, sono queste sue tre righe (delle ben 33 che ha dedicato alla parola): il
composto ungherese teoricamente possibile ma semanticamente bizzarro
szemnzs alla lettera non potrebbe voler dire che che ha lo sguardo dellocchio,
dotato delle sguardo dellocchio (corsivo mio). Ma non proprio questa la traduzione
19
che io ho attribuito alla parola etrusca! Il problema, per Gheno, il solito: nel suo
discorso pseudo-critico non menziona la sola cosa essenziale, dal punto di vista critico:
il fatto che la parola si trova su un missile di piombo, cio uno di quei proiettili di epoca
etrusco-latina, anchessi appartenenti alla categoria dei manufatti parlanti, e spesso
recanti, anche in latino, iscrizioni di vario tipo rivolte ai nemici (cfr il mio libro a
p.285). Cos come, ancora nellultima guerra, si scrivevano frasi sulle bombe destinate
alla Germania nazista... Cosa c di pi plausibile, allora, che un proiettile destinato al
nemico rechi scritto (sono) dotato dello sguardo dellocchio (e quindi sono
infallibile)? Come si vede, ancora pi chiaramente che in altri casi, Gheno si accanisce
a rinfacciarmi luso improprio di termini grammaticali e/o analisi non del tutto
conformi alla moderna grammatica ungherese, senza rendersi conto che il mio
orizzonte necessariamente un altro, e per giunta senza neanche smentire la mia
traduzione. Anzi, in questo caso come in altri, senza volerlo la conferma
clamorosamente.
Ma il bello deve ancora venire. Una delle sezioni del mio libro che sembra pi
sconvolgere Gheno poi il paragrafo 3.7, intitolato Tendenza alla subordinazione e
allassenza di coordinazione (pp.259-60). In esso sostengo quello che a me sembra del
tutto evidente, e cio che letrusco e lungherese hanno in comune queste due tendenze,
ovviamente complementari luna allaltra. Come afferma in tutte lettere Collinder: The
leading principle of Uralic sentence structure is subordination (1960, 249: v.
bibliografia nel mio libro). Qui il mio critico si inalbera e, nel farlo, prende uno
scivolone tremendo. Secondo Gheno, infatti, queste due tendenze se possono essere
evidenti nelletrusco non lo sono affatto nelle lingue uraliche (p.230). Ecco infatti la
sua critica: qualsiasi studente di ugrofinnistica-uralistica resterebbe disorientato a
veder applicato lenunciato alle lingue uraliche. Ci che sembra implicare che fra il
1960, data in cui linattuale Collinder scriveva la frase citata, e il 2005, luralistica ha
addirittura capovolto la propria posizione in proposito! Gheno infatti ne sembra sicuro
e, per dimostrare la sua tesi, ricorre a un brano del noto manuale di Hajd (da lui
stesso tradotto): Tutti abbiamo appreso quanto Hajd sintetizza cos: In base
allampia diffusione dei costrutti participiali , riteniamo che nella protolingua non
esistessero frasi subordinate con congiunzione. Probabilmente per esistevano frasi
composte subordinate senza congiunzione, ma in luogo di queste pi spesso si
adoperavano certamente dei costrutti participiali (Hajd 1992: 251-2 corsivo [suo]).
Ci che io modestamente - interpreterei come unaltra forma di subordinazione.
Mentre Gheno continua imperterrito: Dunque senza accorgersi che anzich
dunque avrebbe forse dovuto usare ci nonostante, con i costrutti participiali si
evitava la subordinazione! Ora, le cose sono due: o anche Hajd ha preso uno
scivolone (ci che a me sembra improbabile, ma nessuno perfetto ), o lo ha preso
solo Gheno, e Hajd si solo espresso poco chiaramente. Perch a parte Collinder, e a
parte anche Hajd, non vi alcun dubbio che in qualunque modello di sintassi,
tradizionale o generativo, il costrutto participiale uno dei modi classici per realizzare
una subordinata, in quanto da solo non potrebbe fungere da proposizione principale.
Per cui, ignaro di aver fatto un mastodontico errore, e non solo in uralistica, ma anche
in italiano e in grammatica universale, Gheno mi incalza: E quanto ammette
Alinei, quando contraddicendo s stesso scrive Ci nonostante poco dopo
argomenta Che Alinei rincalza in questo modo . Per poi concludere, avendo
ormai visto me (e non s stesso) come lincoerenza personificata: Siamo sempre sul
filo del s e del no, ma indiscutibilmente il titolo del paragrafo andava capovolto.
Spiacente, ma capovolto va solo il pensiero di Gheno. Al quale consiglio di rileggere,
oltre a Hajd, qualche buon manuale di sintassi: come per es. il vecchio Fornaciari del
1881, ristampato a cura di Nencioni nel 1974, che recita: Le proposizioni subordinate
20
si dicono esplicite, quando sono espresse con un modo finito (indicativo, congiuntivo,
condizionale), ed implicite, quando sono espresse con linfinito, il gerundio, il
participio (p.355 della ristampa del Sansoni, corsivo dellAutore). E ancora Dicesi
assoluto quel participio che, contenendo una proposizione subordinata incidente resta,
insieme col proprio soggetto, sciolto grammaticalmente dalla proposizione principale,
in cui si trova (p.213; mio corsivo). Oppure, se considera Fornaciari inattuale, o
troppo legato allitaliano, potrebbe rileggersi un manuale di sintassi generale pi
recente, come quello del generativista Graffi del 1994, forse il migliore pubblicato in
Italia fino ad ora. Il quale, nel trattare le varie dimensioni classificatorie delle frasi,
affronta cos lopposizione fra frasi principali e frasi dipendenti: questa opposizione
presuppone, ovviamente, che esistano delle frasi indipendenti, di solito definite come
proposizioni che bastano a s stesse. Si dice che una proposizione indipendente
principale rispetto ad unaltra che dipendente da essa, o subordinata, oppure
secondaria (termini che, aggiunge, utilizzer indifferentemente) (101). E chiarisce: un
modo molto chiaro per cogliere questa mancanza di autonomia [delle frasi dipendenti]
osservare che esse non possono essere enunciate da sole (122). E, per quanto riguarda
le frasi participiali e gerundive, le definisce costruzioni assolute, cio strutture non
collegat[e] al resto della frase tramite congiunzioni o altre espressioni esplicite di
subordinazione. (57, n. 26, corsivo mio). Come volevasi dimostrare.
Un ultima osservazione, prima di concludere lesame della parte lessicale della
recensione di Gheno, merita di esser fatta a proposito del mio uso di finnougrico,
anzich del tradizionale (in Italia) ugrofinnico. Secondo Gheno questo mio uso sarebbe,
chiss poi perch, superfluo. Nel mio lavoro come co-fondatore e come presidente
dellAtlas Linguarum Europae, nel corso dei 22 anni dal 1975 al 1997, ho sempre
dovuto collaborare strettamente sia con il Dipartimento delle lingue uraliche che con i
numerosi Comitati Nazionali dei paesi di lingua uralica del grande progetto. Per
menzionare soltanto, fra gli autorevoli rappresentanti delle aree europee di lingua
uralica che partecipavano allora al progetto alcuni dei quali purtroppo scomparsi - ,
quelli con i quali ho avuto pi contatti, ricordo i finlandesi Terho Itkonen, Jorma
Koivulehto, Sirkka Saarinen, Leena Sarvas, il russo B. Serebrennikov, ludmurto R. .
Nasibullin, lo svedese L.-G. Larson, gli Ungheresi S. Imre, L. Balogh, L. Deme, B.
Klmn, J. Kiss, I. Posgay, lestone X. J. Neetar ed altri per le lingue minori. Ora, fra le
prime decisioni del Dipartimento uralico delle quali noi organizzatori dellALE
dovemmo prendere atto, vi furono queste due: (I) non era corretto, dal punto di vista
scientifico, usare ugrofinnico, e si doveva adottare uniformemente finnougrico. E
infatti, in tutti i e sei i volumi dellALE finora pubblicati, dal 1982 ad oggi, e in
francese, in inglese, in tedesco e in russo, questo sempre stato luso. (II) Bisognava
usare i nomi locali delle lingue uraliche, e non quelli della tradizione accademica che
non hanno nulla a che fare con la realt linguistica locale, come vogulo, ostiaco,
votiaco, ceremisso ecc. Per cui, se vi qualcosa di superfluo in questa discussione, mi
sembra sia il parere di Gheno in proposito. Ancora pi superfluo poi se Gheno mi
permette unopinione in merito, nonostante io non sia del settore -, mi sembra luso
ancora attuale, da parte degli studiosi italiani, di un termine infelicemente costruito, che
contrasta con quello corretto e preferito dalla maggioranza degli studiosi di area uralica.
Non solo superfluo ma, anzi, provincialmente presuntuoso.
E potrei continuare a lungo, per dimostrare come la stragrande parte delle
osservazioni di Gheno siano del tutto irrilevanti. Per non tediare ulteriormente il lettore,
tuttavia, mi limito ad elencare le due sole osservazioni di Gheno che mi sembrano
giuste, e di cui certo terr conto se avr occasione di migliorare il mio libro:
(1) Etr. munistas monumento. Gheno mi fa notare, e la sua critica questa volta mi
sembra fondata, che la mia traduzione come opera da guardare non possibile, perch
21
contravviene allordine sintattico rectum regens, e perch anche il mio parallelo con
ungh. memlek monumento (letteralmente ricordo/artistico) fondato su una mia
errata lettura della parola. Il senso di monumento, o quello simile, proposto dagli
etruscologi su basi ermeneutiche fin dallOttocento, di loculo, dimora (funebre), o
luogo, probabilmente giusto, ma occorrer leggere la parola in una diversa chiave
ungherese o ugrica, probabilmente sempre su base di m opera, ma con un altro tipo
di formazione.
(2) Pur se del tutto irrilevante per il mio confronto di etr. fulu fuochista (termine che
ritorna anche in Po-pul-onia sede delle principali fornaci) con ungh. fl e fl-ik
scaldare confronto che resta validissimo e quanto mai produttivo per la traduzione
di non pochi testi - losservazione di Gheno (a p.223) sui significati da me
erroneamente attribuiti a dette forme - fuochista e bruciare, accendere, attizzare,
alimentare il fuoco, caricare la caldaia - mi ha permesso di scoprire un errore reale,
anche se da lui non rilevato: detti significati sono invece esattamente quelli dellungh.
ft e del suo derivato ft fuochista, che per, a loro volta, derivano da fl, flik (cfr.
EWU). Per una svista, la menzione di ft e la sua derivazione da fl mi sono rimaste
nella penna.

Passo ora alla parte della recensione che Gheno dedica alla mia valutazione
della Teoria della Continuit Uralica, e alla mia ricostruzione della
Conquista/occupazione della patria da parte degli Ungheresi, fondamentale non solo per
la tesi etrusco-magiara, ma anche e soprattutto per la mia Teoria della Continuit dal
Paleolitico.
Per quanto riguarda la Teoria della Continuit Uralica, Gheno contesta la mia
affermazione che questa sia ormai accettata da tutti gli specialisti dei paesi uralici
(p.231). Ha certo ragione, ma non perch abbia letto solo libri in lingua inglese, che non
vero. Avrei dovuto solo aggiungere a tutti gli specialisti di lingue uraliche che non
siano dogmatici custodi del sapere tradizionale. Oppure, in linguaggio meno
accademico, che abbiano un po di sale in zucca. Ma, come Gheno certo
comprender, questa una specificazione doverosamente sottintesa, quando si parla di
ricerca innovativa fra persone intelligenti.
Per quanto riguarda la mia ricostruzione delletnogenesi ungherese, per fortuna,
almeno questa sintetizzata molto bene da Gheno (pp.218-219). E mi rallegra anche
molto che il mio critico, come gi detto, ne dia perfino un giudizio positivo: La
ricostruzione di Alinei senza dubbio affascinante, ed corredata [] di paralleli
grammaticali e lessicali individuati con acribia (?) (non questa per limpressione
che ne ho avuto!) (p.219). Ma allora, mi sono chiesto e mi chiedo ancora, se non in
questa ricostruzione che Gheno trova una barriera alla mia tesi, perch si prodigato in
uno sforzo di correzione cos superficiale del mio libro, senza per altro discuterne,
neanche in minima parte, la sostanza? Tanto pi che la mia equazione etrusco-magiara
proprio determinata dalla mia ricostruzione del quadro archeologico, confrontato con
quello linguistico e dei prestiti interlinguistici, dellEuropa orientale, della TCP, come
lo stesso Gheno, del resto, ha molto bene riassunto e messo in luce? Di fatto, per
ribadire qui un punto che per me assolutamente fondamentale, la tesi etrusco-magiara
per me non una affatto una tesi ad hoc, o una scoperta serendipitosa (per usare
lutile anglicismo di Umberto Eco), ma unimplicazione imprescindibile della TCP, nel
senso che accettando questa si costretti ad ipotizzare quella. Il mio libro etrusco,
insomma, visto cos, vuol essere sostanzialmente la dimostrazione di un assioma.
Purtroppo, lapertura mentale che Gheno dimostra nei riguardi della mia
ricostruzione del quadro etnogenetico ungherese ha brevissima durata. Subito dopo
averla definita affascinante, infatti, Gheno si pone una domanda che non posso che
22
definire bizzarra: Come possibile che gli storici o geografi o poligrafi antichi non
alludano mai agli ungheresi o un popolo identificabile con essi se dal III mill. a.C.
erano stanziati nel cuore dellEuropa? (219) Domanda bizzarra perch, come tutti
sanno, dei Magiari come tali non c traccia neanche nelle fonti medievali, dove sono
invece chiamati Turchi, o Avari, o Unni, o Baschiri, o Onugor ecc., cio sempre con
nomi turcici e mai con il loro vero nome di Magiari. Perch allora dovremmo aspettarci
qualcosa daltro in fonti pi antiche, come Erodoto, Tacito, Giordane e Paolo Diacono?
Ovviamente, se ancora nel Medio Evo, quando i Magiari si erano certamente gi
affrancati dellegemonia turcica, non erano riusciti a farsi conoscere con il loro vero
nome, come si pu pensare che lo potessero fare allepoca di Erodoto o di Tacito,
quando il dominio turcico su di loro poteva solo essere molto pi forte ed evidente? E
nulla conta, per luralista Gheno, proprio lesempio del nome dei Mansi, Khanti, Mari,
Komi Udmurti e di altri popoli uralici minori, che ancora oggi lui stesso, gli altri
studiosi italiani e di altri paesi si ostinano a chiamare con nomi privi di qualunque
addentellato con la realt etnica di questi popoli, e dovuti esclusivamente ad obsoleti
rapporti di dipendenza coloniale? Quello che fanno accademici italiani e stranieri nel III
millennio della nostra era, per mero rispetto di una tradizione di origine coloniale, non
probabile che lo facessero, e con convinzione maggiore, gli storici greci del I millennio
a.C.?
E ho unultima osservazione a proposito del quesito posto da Gheno, questa
volta sul versante del metodo. A proposito di Erodoto il mio critico non omette di
ricordare che lo storico greco chiama gli Etruschi Turseno. Tuttavia, chiss perch, non
altrettanto memore nei riguardi della mia tesi che pure fa parte del libro da lui
recensito, ed strettamente legata proprio alletnonimia antica dei Magiari: la tesi, cio,
che la radice Turs- dei Tirreni-Etruschi, senza alcun dubbio la stessa dellumbro
Turskom, del latino Tu(r)sci, e del metatetico Etrusci, potrebbe essere la stessa di quella
Turk- dei Turchi. In questo caso, Erodoto avrebbe s menzionato gli Ungheresi, ma li
avrebbe chiamati col loro nome di Etruschi-Tirreni. Evidentemente, questo piccolo
dettaglio non rientra negli interessi del mio recensore.
Cosa posso concludere, insomma, dallesame di questa recensione? Anzitutto,
che le critiche e le correzioni di Gheno nella stragrande maggioranza dei casi nulla
aggiungono e nulla tolgono alla mia tesi. In secondo luogo, se servono a qualcosa,
solo per dimostrare che il compito che Gheno si assunto non stato quello di
recensire il mio libro, bens quello di dimostrare in modo pedantesco, quando non
infondato o scorretto - che non sono un uralista. Come se questo significasse qualcosa
per me, che mi sono sempre considerato un linguista generalista e un convinto
sostenitore della ricerca interdisciplinare e dellidea che la specializzazione accademica
tradizionale, a compartimenti stagni, non risponde pi alle esigenze della ricerca
scientifica del III millennio.
A mio avviso, quello che dovrebbe essere chiaro a tutti, e quindi anche a Gheno,
che leventuale importanza della mia tesi, per letruscologia, per luralistica e per la
scienza, sta esclusivamente nella scoperta delle profonde affinit fra etrusco e
ungherese; e poco importa con quale grado di conoscenza delluralistica io sia giunto a
questa scoperta. Di nuovo, nessuno, fra i migliori grecisti degli anni Cinquanta, ha mai
fatto lesame di greco a Ventris, e a nessuno verrebbe in mente di farlo oggi. (E fra
quelli che lo fecero allora, il prof. Beattie, ordinario di greco delluniversit di
Ediburgo, passato alla storia con linglorioso soprannome di Linear Beattie).
Lunica cosa rilevante, nei riguardi delle mie conoscenze delluralistica, che esse sono
state del tutto adeguate per presentare la mia tesi, per darle un fondamento serio, e per
offrirla agli studiosi nella convinzione che essa possa essere in seguito migliorata ed
23
ampliata dalla collaborazione degli etruscologi con gli specialisti di ungherese e di
lingue uraliche.


POSTILLA

Credo utile aggiungere una breve postilla, per fornire unaltro, pi recente esempio di
come lo specialista di ungherese e di uralistica potrebbe affrontare, in modo costruttivo,
la mia tesi.
Letruscologia ha da tempo concluso che in etrusco esiste unuscita ce per la 3
sg. del passato del verbo. Una conclusione basata sullo studio ermeneutica dei testi, ma
tanto ben argomentato e documentato che anchio, nel mio libro, lho accolta,
nonostante lungherese e i manuali di comparatistica uralica non ne forniscano alcun
indizio. Per cui, per giustificarla, ho presentato unargomentazione del tutto
congetturale, basata sulla grande frequenza della formante k- in ungherese, e su un suo
possibile impiego per il passato, poi abbandonato.
Ed ecco che una lettura pi attenta dei testi antico-ungheresi, che ho intrapreso
da qualche tempo, offre una sorprendente conferma sia allinterpretazione tradizionale
che alla mia tesi: proprio il pi antico testo ungherese (citato anche da Gheno), detto
Halotti Beszd s Knyrgs (Orazione funebre e preghiera), scritto fra il 1192 e il
1195, attesta pi volte il verbo evec mangi, invece della forma moderna evett: come
per esempio appare nella frase es evec oz tiluvt gimilstwl e mangi il frutto proibito.
Questa forma in c (= /k//) del passato 3a sg., evidentemente estinta in ungherese
moderno, ma ancora viva nel XII sec., offre unaltra dimostrazione di come la chiave
etimologica ungherese risolva in modo estremamente chiaro un altro problema cruciale
della morfologia etrusca. Se ci fosse uno sforzo sinceramente costruttivo e coordinato
da parte degli studiosi nei confronti della tesi etrusco-ungherese, sono certo che molti
altri problemi potrebbero essere risolti, sia sul versante delletruscologia (con la
traduzione dei testi pi lunghi), sia su quello delluralistica (per lovvia importanza che
lo stadio etrusco avrebbe nellevoluzione dallUgrico allUngherese, oltre che per la
possibilit di un approccio mirato cio turco-etrusco - nello studio dellalfabeto
runico dei Szekely
4
).

4
Sullaffascinante problema ha attirato la mia attenzione la collega Fbin dellUniversit di Budapest.
1
Etruscan: an archaic form of Hungarian
(book summary)
by Mario Alinei




The Hungarian translation of my book Etrusco: una forma
arcaica di ungherese, il Mulino, Bologna, 2003, has been
published by ALL PRINT Kiad, Budapest, 2005, with the
title: Ancient link: the Magyar-Etruscan linguistic relationship


2

In the two volumes reproduced in the following figure, which came out
respectively in 1996 and 2000, I have illustrated the Palaeolithic
Continuity Theory (PCT) on Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic
languages. This theory has been advanced independently, and/or is at
present followed by such scholars as the Belgian prehistorian Marcel
Otte (Un. of Lige), the German archaeologist Alexander Husler
(Univ. of Halle), the French linguist Jean Le Du (Univ. of Brest), the
Spanish linguist Xaverio Ballester (Univ. of Valencia), the Italian
linguists Gabriele Costa (Univ. of Terni), Francesco Benozzo (Univ. of
Bologna), Franco Cavazza (Univ. of Bologna) and others. The main
point of the PCT is that Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic people
belong to the groups of Homo sapiens who have populated Eurasia
since Palaeolithic times.


3

The PCT has an important predecessor in the URALIC CONTINUITY
THEORY (uralilainen jatkuvuusteoria), currently accepted by the great
majority of Uralic linguists and archaeologists. According to this
theory Uralic populations belonged to the groups of Homo sapiens
sapiens who had settled in Europe in Palaeolithic times. They were
thus already in Eastern Europe during the last Glacial (13.000 b.C.),
and moved to the North at the time of the deglaciation (9.000 b.C.), in
order to continue their culture of specialized hunters and fishermen
(see figure).



Following this scenario the Magyars, together with the other Ugric
groups, must have settled in the area of the Ob river, thus forming the
south-easternmost group of the Finno-Ugrians

4

The present distribution of all Uralic languages (see figure), except
Magyar, perfectly corresponds to the scenario reconstructed by the
Uralic Continuity Theory.
The only problem, as is known, is that of the Honfoglals (homeland
occupation) of the Magyars, who at a time which has not yet been
establish with certainty, must have separated from the other Ugric
people and moved from the Ob river area to their historical territory.
The new PCT offers a new solution for this problem and, at the same
time, the elements for a demonstration of the identity of the
prehistoric Magyars with the ancient Etruscans.



5

The new solution offered by the PCT for the problem of the
Honfoglals is the following:
(A) ALTAIC (TURKIC and MONGOLIAN) populations were in
Central Asia already in Palaeolithic times.
(B) When, in the 4th millennium b.C., the first cultures of
HORSE-RIDING WARLIKE NOMADS emerge in the
steppes of Western Asia, we are already confronted with
Turkic people.
(C) All warlike nomadic groups which in the course of prehistory
and history follow one another along the Eurasiatic steppes
(see figure) are ALTAIC, with the single exception of later and
intrusive Iranians, coming from their homeland in South-
Western Asia.
(D) The HUNGARIAN PUSZTA, western end of the Eurasiatic
steppes, represents the natural outlet of all the warlike
nomadic groups coming from East.



The STEPPE AREA, from Mongolia to Hungary (not on
the map), which was the ecological niche for the
blossoming and the spread of ALTAIC nomadic cultures
in prehistory, proto-history and history.
6

7

Eurasiatic nomadic cultures begin by definition - with
horse-riding. And horse-riding emerges in the steppe area, in
the 4th millennium, within the so called Serednyi Stog (= SS)
culture, which as we have argued must be assumed as
TURKIC. From the SS culture there develops, in the 3rd
millennium, the more famous kurgan or Yamnaia (= Y)
culture, which must also be assumed as TURKIC.


We must now recall that the MAGYAR terminology for
HORSE and HORSE RIDING is TURKIC of origin, and is
shared by the OB-UGRIC languages.
This has fundamental implications for the DATING OF THE
UGRIC UNITY:
(1) MAGYAR AND OB-UGRIC LANGUAGES must
have been still united in their western central Asiatic
territory in the 4th and 3rd millennium, when the
8
first HORSE-RIDING TURKIC CULTURES
developed in the steppe area, to the South of their
settlement.
(2) They must have been very much influenced by them,
also culturally.
9

Most of the POLITICAL, SOCIAL and AGRICOLTURAL
TURKIC (especially CHUVASH) LOANWORDS in MAGYAR,
however, ARE NOT SHARED BY OB-UGRIC LANGUAGES.
In turn, this implies that the Magyars, AFTER their separation
from the other Ob-Ugric languages, must have undergone a
SECOND WAVE OF TURKIC INFLUENCES.
When did the SEPARATION of the Magyars from the Ob-Ugrians
then take place?
As ARCHAEOLOGY informs us, at the end of the 3 millennium
b.C. a KURGAN group invaded Hungary during the classic
period of the BADEN culture. As this is the only archaeologically
well-attested episode of invasion of the Hungarian territory, we
have no alternative as to the conclusion that it was this group,
probably TURKIC CHUVASH, which caused the separation of the
Magyars from the other Ugric people, at the same time
acculturating and guiding them to the Honfoglals, the conquest of
their historical territory.

The Honfoglals at the end of
the 3rd millennium, in the light
of the TCP
10


Moreover, as in the light of the PCT the kurgan culture must
be assumed as TURKIC, and the Baden culture as SLAVIC,
this would explain why Magyar has so many TURKIC
LOANWORDS NOT SHARED BY THE OTHER UGRIC
(AND URALIC) LANGUAGES, as well as so many SLAVIC
PLACE NAMES.
11

WHY WERE ETRUSCANS MAGYAR?
(1) ARCHAEOLOGY, since the years Seventies, has concluded that
the ancestors of the Etruscans, the so called VILLANOVIANS (from
the name of the Central-Italian culture of VILLANOVA, of the
beginning of the 1
st
millennium) came from the Carpato-Danubian
area. The archaeologist who has contributed the most to this
discovery is the American Hugh Hencken.
(2) The Villanovians and their predecessors Proto-Villanovians
were characterized, among other things, by cremation. Cremation
originated in central Europe with the so called Urn Fields.
The earliest Urn Fields in central Europe are the Hungarian ones
(Hencken).
(3) Moreover, Carpato-danubian influences on Italian prehistory
began much earlier:
(A) Starting from the 3
RD
MILLENNIUM, Italian prehistory sees
an almost continuous presence of central-European influences
(Barfield).
(4) In the 2
ND
MILLENNIUM, the so called Bronze Age
Terremare in the Po Valley (Emilia), and the artificial hills of
Bronze Age settlements in the Danube plain (e.g. Tszeg) are
remarkably similar (Barfield).
(5) Archaeological evidence for Carpato-Danubian influences on the
prehistory of Northern Italy is actually such as to make one think of
an ACTUAL INVASION of the Po Valley by people coming
from East(Barfield, cf. Cardarelli).
OBBLIGATORY CONCLUSION:
In the light of the PCT, the Carpato-Danubian people who
exercised so much influence on northern Italy in the course
of the 3rd and 2nd millennium, and who became the
Villanovians of the 1st millennium, can only be the heirs of
the conquerors of Hungary in the 3rd millennium, that is
Magyars who had been accultured by Turkic lites.

12

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TURKIC ROLE IN
THE PREISTORY OF THE MAGYARS AND AS
WILL BE SHOWN - OF THE ETRUSCANS
Hugh Hencken, the main scholar of the Proto-Etruscan
culture of Villanova, has advanced the hypothesis that in the
2nd millennium b.C. the Etruscans who were called
TYRSENOI by the Greeks from the Carpato-Danubian
region might have reached the eastern Mediterranean, and
could thus be identified with the TURSHA, one of the
famous SEA PEOPLE struggling for the control of
Mediterranean Sea and mentioned by ancient Egyptians.
This hypothesis has been recently strengthened by the
discovery that the language of the inscriptions of the island
of Lemnos in the Egean Sea is also Etruscan.
Indipendently from Henckens reasearch on Etruscan, also
HUNGARIAN ARCHAEOLOGISTS (e.g. Tibor Kovcs)
have advanced the hypothesis that 2nd millennium
Magyars might have participated in the ventures of the
SEA PEOPLE.
The LATIN NAMES for the Etruscans, namely TUSCI (<
TU(R)SCI), ETRUSCI (< ETURSCI), ETRURIA (<
ETRUSIA < ETURSIA), as well as the Greek one
TYRSENOI, could thus be connected with the name of the
TURKS, anticipating the long series of TURKIC OR
ALTAIC NAMES that have been given to the Magyars in
history: HUNGARIANS, AVARS, TURKS, BASHKIRS,
HUNS.
The birth of the Etruscans that is of PREHISTORIC
MAGYARS WHO INVADED ITALY AND WERE
CONSIDERED AS TURKS, would then have taken place
in the Bronze Age, when the Carpato-Danubian area
became the industrial heart of Europe (Barfield) and
Hungarian metallurgy, after reaching its zenith, started off
a wave of expansion campaigns of the Magyars.
13
As we shall see, many Etruscan terms, especially those of a
social and political kind, correspond to the Hungarian ones
with a Turkic origin (e.g. gyula, kende).


ETRUSCAN LANGUAGE:
which results have been reached by modern
Etruscology with regards to Etruscan?
Modern Etruscology, with regards to linguistics, has been
called combinatorial or hermeneutic, because it has
concentrated on the study of the INTERNAL characters of
the language, as well as on its relations with the material
and cultural context, without the hazards of the attempts to
connect Etruscan with one or another language. Therefore
its results, when they have been reached on the base of
irrefutabile evidence, can be considered as very important.
The conclusions of
combinatorial Etruscology
on the main linguistic traits
of Etruscan:
Comparison with
Hungarian
It is an agglutinative language = Hungarian and
Uralic
Its accent is on the first vowel = Hungarian and
Uralic
It has vowel harmony = Hungarian and
Uralic
Formants, case endings and
postpositions are added to the word
stem
= Hungarian and
Uralic
The occlusive consonants are
exclusively voiceless
(P T K)
= Uralic
The syllable structure is open (= it
ends in vowel)
= Uralic

14

GRAMMATICAL WORDS AND MORPHEMES
ETRUSCAN ASCERTAINED
TRANSLATION BY
ETRUSCOLOGISTS
HUNGARIAN
AN Relative pronoun
(who, which)
AM-, N
ECA, ICA;
ETA, ITA
Demonstrative (this) PHu. E(Z), I-, Yen.
EKE, EKO; Finn.
ETT
ENIACA so much, so many ENNY, dial.
ENNYIK
ETANAL,
ETNAM,
ITANIM
Conjunction EZENNEL,
EZENNEN (17

c.)
I, INAC Grammatical term GY/ IGYEN + NAK
( ?)
ME MI
MENE MINI
I, me PHu. *ME > N,
Khanty M
UI here Ug *T that,
Manshi TOT, TT
here
-A Formant -A
-AC Formant -AK
-A -AT Formant -AT
-C, - Formant -K
-L Formant -L
-NA Formant -N, NY
-R Formant -R
-S, -AS Formant -S, -AS; -SZ ASZ
-SE, -SI Pertinentive -I, -SI
-U Formant of Nomina
agentis
-U, -, -, -
-I, -TI Locative -T (e.g. itt, ott, Pcsett)
-KE, -CU, -U,
-ZA
Diminutives -KE, K, -U/-, -A
15

GRAMMATICAL WORDS AND MORPHEMES
ETRUSCO UNTRANSLATED
BY
ETRUSCOLOGISTS
HUNGARIAN
URVAR ?? KORBAN (16

c.) (or
KORRAL)
LURI ?? ROLA, dial. LERA,
LERUJJA
NAC
NACEME
?? -NAK/-NEK, NEKEM
-LUM ?? -ALOM
-LE ?? -LET
-TALA/-TALE ?? -DALOM DELEM
-VANI,
-VANA,
-VENE
-VENAS
-VNY, -VNY
-VA, -VE ?? V, -V
-RA, -RE ?? RA, -RE
-VAL, -VEL ?? VAL, -VEL

16

ETRUSCAN NAMES OF POLITICAL LEADERS, OFFICERS
AND PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS
ETRUSCAN TRANSLATION BY
ETRUSCOLOGISTS
ALREADY
ASCERTAINED IN THE
19

CENTURY
HUNGARIAN
ZILA PRINCEPS CIVITATIS
chief of the Etruscan
comunity
GYULA (< TU),
(ancient forms JILA,
DZ-LA)
CANE REX king, highest
institutional authority
KUNDE (< TU),
(ancient form K-ND-)
MARU Lat. MARO, -ONIS,
Umbr. MARON
competent in constructions
and in the acquisition of
lands
(FLD)MR
PUR-/PURT- connected to political
power
Ciuv. PURT battle
axe > Hng. BALTA (>
Lat. BALTEUS
sword belt)
CEP- connected to political
power
KP (< TU)
LAUC, LUC,
LAUUM-,
LUUM-,
LAUME etc.
Latin
LUCUMO/LUCMO/LUCMO
N, -ONIS lucumon (??)
L (< TU) + Mansi
KOM/KUM (cf. Ungh.
HM) horseman =
noble man, knight
THE ETRUSCANS PHRASE TO DEFINE THEIR LEADER
OR HIS FUNCTION
ETRUSCAN TRANSLATION BY
THE EARLIEST
ETRUSCOLOGISTS
HUNGARIAN
ZILA()
MEL
RASNAL/-S
Latin PRAETOR
(PRAETURA?)
ETRURIAE
MAGYAR RSZ
GYULA(T)JA
ZILA() Latin PRAETOR
(PRAETURA?)
*GYULA(T)
MEL ?? MEG- (ancient form of
17
MAGY(AR))
RASNAL ETRURIAE RSZ RSZN (15 c.
region, zone)


NAMES OF FAMILY MEMBERS
ETRUSCAN TRANSLATION BY
ETRUSCOLOGISTS
HUNGARIAN
APA father APA
APA NACNA grand father NAGYAPA
ATI mother DES
ATI NACNA grand mother *NAGYEDES
(NAGYANYA)
CLAN son, child ??
PUIA wife BULYA (< TU)
SEC, SE sister daughter FUg *SE
father or
mothers sister
UNTRANSLATED
BY
ETRUSCOLOGISTS

ARCE ?? ARA, Manshi R
matrilinear kin,
Ug *AR3
MANI(I)M ?? MENY
ZAMAI ?? *GYMDES
(GYMANYA)

18

ETRUSCAN RELIGION
ETRUSCAN TRANSLATION BY
ETRUSCOLOGISTS
HUNGARIAN
EIS AIS god IS/S, ISTEN
CEL goddess of birth,
East
KEL , KELET
NATIS
NETSVIS
Etruscan priest,
haruspex
NZ or NESZEL
+ VISZ
TRUTNVT Etruscan priest,
fulguriator
TLTOS < Ug
*TULT3
TURAN name of a goddess Khanty TUREM
deity,
Manshi TRM
deity

19

PROFESSIONS
ETRUSCAN TRANSLATION BY
ETRUSCOLOGISTS
HUNGARIAN
ZICU writer OHu. GYAK,
Manshi JK
incidere + -U
MARU Umbro MARON
aedilis
(FLD)MR-
UNTRANSLATED
BY
ETRUSCOLOGISTS

FULU FT < FL-
PAZU FZ
PARLIU PRL
SUNU ZENE/ZONG-
/SENG
UPLU dial. SUPL,
SUPRL
ELU TEL

20

PLACE AND RIVER NAMES
Italian ETRUSCAN LATIN HUNGARIAN
(Bologna) FELSINA FELSINA FELS
(Orvieto) VELZNA,
VELSU etc.
VOLSINII
(> Italian
Bolsena)
BELS
--- ---
(the main
Etrusco port,
near
Pyrgi/Caere)
ALSIUM ALS
(Populonia) PUPLUNA
FUFLUNA
POPULONIA
(famous for
its
metallurgical
furnaces)
F + FL-
(FT)
--- VEI(S) VEII
(on the
Tevere river)
VEJSZE (11

sec. VEIESE)
fish weir
(Modena) MUTINA MUTINA MUT-
(Imola) IMOLA IMOLA IMOLA
(Vetulonia) VETLUNA VETULONIA VEZET-
(Arno) ?? ARNUS ARANYOS

21

BILINGUAL TEXT (TLE 472)
Latino: Q. SCRIBONIUS
Etrusco: VL ZICU
LATIN ETRUSCAN HUNGARIAN
SCRIB- to
write
ZIC-U =
writer
MHu GYAK-U
engraver,


BILINGUAL TEXT (TLE 899)
Latin: VEL MAX
Etruscan: VEL PEM or PEPN
LATIN ETRUSCAN HUNGARIAN
VEL(IUS)
MAXIMUS
(the)
greatest,
(the) highest,
maximum
VEL
PEM o
PEPN =
(the)
greatest,
(the) highest,
maximum
--
FEJ, F o
FF

22



CAPTION NEAR PAINTING (TLE 222)
(servant working on a table:
Golini Tomb)
ETRUSCAN TEXT:
RESU F[A]SIRALS
ETRUSCAN HUNGARIAN
RESU Chuv. TARZ
servant (>Mari
TAREZ worker)
F[A]SI[A]RALS FAZK + TROL
TRANSLATION:
servant arranging vases

23



CAPTION NEAR PAINTING (TLE 224)
(Flute player: Golini Tomb)
ETRUSCAN TEXT:
TR UN UNU
ETRUSCAN HUNGARIAN
TR(ESU) Ciuv. TARZ
servant (>Mari
TAREZ worker)
UN Manshi TN musical
instrument, cord, cf.
Ungh. N
UNU ZENE/ZENG/ZONG-
musician
TRANSLATION:
servant playing a musical instrument
24



CAPTION NEAR PAINTING (TLE 225)
(servant preparing food: Golini Tomb)
ETRUSCAN TEXT:
PAZU MULU[V]ANE
ETRUSCAN HUNGARIAN
PAZU FZ (< FZ-,
cf. Manshi PJT to
cook)
MULU[V]ANE Khanty MUL
to offer to the gods
+ -VNY/-VNY
TRANSLATION:
cook (preparing) the offering to the gods

25


CAPTION TEXT NEAR PAINTING (TLE
226)
(servant working before oven:
Golini Tomb)
ETRUSCAN TEXT:
K[U]LUMIE PARLIU
ETRUSCAN HUNGARIAN
K[U]LUMIE Manshi KR,
Khanty KOR
stone oven +
Manshi UMI
opening,
Finl. UUMEN
cavity
PARLIU PRL (PROL to
steam 16 c.)
TRANSLATION:
cook near the opening of the stone oven

26

CAPTION NEAR PAINTING (TLE 230)
(one figure lost, but near servants preparing
the table: Golini Tomb)
ETRUSCAN TEXT:
RESU PENZNAS
ETRUSCAN HUNGARIAN
RESU Ciuv. TARZ
servant (>Mari
TAREZ worker)
PENZNAS FED/FEDEZ,
Manshi PNT
cover, Khanty
PENT cover
TRANSLATION:
servant preparing the table

27

CAPTION OF FIGURE ON ENGRAVING (TLE 399)
(bronze mirror of the 3rd century b.C. with engraving
representing Juno milking Hercules with beard)
ETRUSCAN TEXT:
ECA SREN TVA INAC HERCLE UNIAL CLAN RA SCE
ETRUSCAN HUNGARIAN
ECA Z, Yen. EKE EKO this
[E]SREN SZRE
T[E]VA TVE
INAC GY + NAK (cf. GYEN ?)
HERCLE Hercules
UNIAL Junos
CLAN ?? son, child
[A]RA TEJ + RE
[E]SCE ESZ(IK) (past tense)
TRANSLATION:
this (figure) to show how Hercules, Junos son, fed on milk
28


TEXT ON TALKING VASE( TLE 336)
(The so called VETULONIAS CUP, kyathos (Greek drinking cup, also
used as a measure) found in the Tomba del Duce (The Great
Leaders Tomb) (7

/6

c. a.C.))
ETRUSCAN TEXT:
NACEME URU IAL ILEN IAL IE ME MESNAMER TANINA
MULU
LATIN PARALLELS OF TALKING VASES
A me, dulcis amica, bibe from me, sweet woman friend, drink!
Bibe amice de meo Drink, friend, from me!
Misce Pour!
Reple olla Fill the vase!
Bibe et propina Drink and pour!
ETRUSCAN HUNGARIAN
1) NACEME 1) NEKEM
URU R
IAL ITAL
ILEN TELJEN
2) IAL 2) ITAL
IEME IGY-(IDD) + MEG (dial. ME)
3) MESNAMER 3) MZ-NA + MR-
TANINA TAN- + SZN nice shape (11

c.) + -A
MULU Khanty MUL gift, offering
TRANSLATION:
(1) In me, sir, pour the drink! (2) Drink up the drink! (3) (I am) the
gift showing with its nice shape the measure of hydromel

$ BECTH/K O/Y 11`2004
Hccne(yexax na(nnci nanecena na o6a6o-
+annoe c o(non c+ooni nxxoyioninoe iaxen-
noe nanno, io+ooe nc+annxnoci n nnmy c+eni
nn(oonoio o6enncia. J+a (ooia (no:e
c+anmax Via Aurelia) n +ox xec+e, i(e nan(eno
accxa+nnaexoe nanno, naxo(n+cx xe(y io-
o(axn Hnnn+aneiiix n Can+a-Mannenna, n
17OO x o+ nocne(neio. B nen+e conexennon
Can+a-Mannenni nan(en n acionan i+yc-
cinn xax Mnneni !V n. (o n. i., c no+xen-
non, ne xenee :aia(onnon na(nncim na an+ae
[17]. Co(eanne i+on noc+annon na(nncn
accxa+nnanoci n namnx c+a+ixx n innie [1, 2].
Jicinm:nnnoc+i na(nncn na nn(oonon
iaxennon xe+ie coc+on+ n +ox, n+o n nen nc+e-
nam+cx oneni e(ine cnona n iaxxa+nnecine
qoxi, cyammne (o nynx no:xonoc+n nn-
xenennx iox6nna+onoio xe+o(a c ncnoni:ona-
nnex no:nnnonno-nac+o+nix xaai+enc+ni,
nonynennix anee na xa+enanax (yinx ac-
noc+anennix no any i+yccinx +eic+on.
He+ oco6ix +exa+nnecinx onen+non, no-
:nonnnmnx 6i nn6nn:n+icx i nonnxannm co-
(eannx +eic+a nee: n:nec+nie ennino:nie
+exnni, ianen(anie (a+i n nxena nann-
+enen.
B cnanonnox n:(annn Mano Lyqqa [3]
+ancnn+eannx +eic+a nccne(yexon na(nncn
niinx(n+ +ai:
halusi : cnas : snut(i)
parax : pateri : snuti
aex : aslax : snuti
stvi : lei rmeri : len
faneri : ur ui : u arin
ei : rie : van : mertari :
r. ir. esi
Hn nennnnox accxo+ennn n:ynaexoio
+eic+a 6ocam+cx n ina:a cne(ymmne o6c+ox-
+enic+na:
1. Tn(i n ionne nenix +ex c+oi no-
n+oxe+cx cnono snuti, a (anee n nqxy c nnx
nona(am+ cnona leirmeri, uari, mertari, esi. Tai-
e na6nm(ae+cx iaiax-+o cxicnonax nanoc+i
cnon, nannnammnxcx na o(ny n +y e 6yiny (onn
acnonoeni noonee(no n +eic+e):
Rafmnoa m.P.
STPYCCKAR HADHCb BU 899 HA KAMEHHOM BKRAbmE
DPHOPOXHOFO OBERHCKA: DPHSbB K YBAXEHHK H DOPRKY
Cfafss nocasmena kounnafopno-afnuonornueckouy anannsy afpyccko naqnncn Bu 899 na kauen-
nou fano-aknaqmme npnqopoxnoro oenncka annsn r. Canfa-Mapnnenna. Ocnoamaascs na qonoaaonm-
nonno npafmpkcko rnnofese [14] n yunfmaas ceuanfnueckne cassn pnquymmnxcs kpnnfonap, ocyme-
cfansefcs noafannas nqenfnqnkans nekceu paccuafpnaaeuoro fekcfa. Koncfafnpyefcs ero qnnocoqcko-
afnueckas nanpaanennocfs.
parax pateri,
aex aslax,
leirmeri len,
urui uari.
Bce i+o ionon+ o noi+nneciox, c+nxo+no-
nox xaai+ee accxa+nnaexon na(nncn. Kai
noia:inae+ o6:o neene(ennix i+yccinx +ei-
c+on, i+ycin n yc+nox n nncixennox x:iie xnno
+xio+enn i c+nxo+nonoxy any n:noennx,
oco6enno n xnoionncnennix noionoiax n aqo-
n:xax (cx. [2], ,2.1O in. 2). B ion+eic+e cia:an-
noio, na:nannoe o6c+ox+enic+no yia:inae+ eme
na qnnocoqcio-i+nneciym oiaciy yia:annoio
+eic+a.
Koxe i+oio, +aion acina( inn+ona,
necoxnenno, yia:inae+ eme na +o, n+o conx-
ennie cnonoqoxi cnx:ani xe(y co6on
cii+ixn qyninnonanino-nenenixn (a no:-
xono, n +exnonoinnecinxn) :anncnxoc+xxn n
nea+ n o(non cy6sei+nnno-cxicnonon nnoc-
ioc+n.
2. H: ne(i(ymnx nccne(onannn i+yccinx
+eic+on n accxa+nnaexon na(nncn n:nec+ni-
xn (nx xenx n cexan+nneciox :nanennn xnnxm+-
cx +aine cnona n ionn cnon, iai:
cn no+oi, +enenne ((.+mi. ogn, i(e c>g, o
no+e+nn. :nyi, naocmnn no:e);
sn nncno, acne+ (cx. TLE 2 snuza xa+exa+n-
necioe; CIE 5237 s(n) nocnn+an, TLE 1
sntnam no nox(iy cne+a, no onee(n; sans
no(cne+);
a ioeni cnona nenoio cexan+nnecioio ine:-
(a neicex, cnx:annoio c ycnnnex nnn c e:-
inx, no (ncie+nix neexemennex n no-
c+anc+ne (mai, cianoi, ni6oc, e:ioe o+-
(enenne o+ neio-nn6o, ia+ionexennoe co-
(enc+nne, noxomi);
len noii+ie acmn+ixn ninxnixn cia+e-
+xxn c+oni +ninnnnx (i+o cnono nc+ena-
e+cx n na(nncn na e+nennon +aenie n
cinene ([4], c+.75, NRIE. C. 2OO, Mnnan,
My:en +onoiaqnn);
lei neiio neexemnnaexax +eiynax cxeci, ia-
nn i 6nm(ax, coyc, cxona ( cx. TLE 1: leives
6ani:axnymmax cxona);
$ BECTH/K O/Y 11`2004
Pomauo-remauckae nonore
fani 6ennin (6yni. fni 6ennin, i+o cno-
no nc+enae+cx n +eic+e neneni 3aie6cion
xyxnn TLE 1);
nei n+o (no xno. nncne ), ne, ni-n+o (n e(.
nncne);
es ina: (n e(inx cnynaxx ncnoni:ye+cx n n
ianec+ne cnona cne( (no:xono, +o, n+o
o+cnennae+cx ina:axn).
3. Mnoioia+no non+oxmmnecx aqqnici
cnon -ari, -eri xnnxm+cx xaai+enixn nn:na-
iaxn i+yccinx nnnaia+eninix no xnoec+nen-
nox nncne [5].
anee (nx n(en+nqniannn oc+anmnxcx cnon
+eic+a nocnoni:yexcx i+nxonoinnecinxn nn-
nx:iaxn i xa+enanax (enne+micioio cnona-
x (TC [9]). H:naiaexin :(eci iox6nna+ono-
i+nxonoinnecinn anann: nceneno 6a:nye+cx na
inno+e:e o noianinox na+miciox xaai+ee
i+yccioio x:iia [2]. J+a inno+e:a n 1988 io(y
nonynnna nemec+nennoe no(+ne(enne nn nc-
cne(onannxx +ena i+yccion xyxnn n: Ce(ne-
io Linn+a [14].
Paccxo+nx oc+anmnecx nen(en+nqnnno-
nannie cnona +eic+a noonee(no.
halusi. B xa+enanax TC i i+oxy cnony
necixa 6nn:inxn xnnxm+cx: qalsz 6e:ne6ec-
nin, nonnin, a6conm+nin, qals o+c+ananne,
qalt no(nnxa+icx (i6ox, a +aie hal (cexn+.)
coc+oxnne, nonoenne. Lcnn onen+nona+i-
cx na nenin na6o (enne+micinx cnon, +o,
necoxnenno, (enna+ox i+on ionenon qoxi
qal- xnnxe+cx n conexennoe +micioe qalqu
ninxnnna+icx, n:(i6n+icx, qalu oc+ana+icx.
Ho, neio+oie n: no(o6nix cnon ye 6inn
n(en+nqnnnonani naxn n i+yccinx +eic+ax,
nannxe, cal - oc+ana+icx. Koxe i+oio, na-
naninoxy h n (enne+miciox x:iie name nce-
io coo+ne+c+nye+ nxenno h n i+ycciox x:iie:
c. i+. huviun xe+noe +eno ~ (. +mi.
hLEJ xe+noe +eno [2]. Hoi+oxy, ni6nax
a:nnnnie nanan+i i+nxonoinnecion n(en+n-
qniannn na:nanoio cnona, xi oc+anannnnaex-
cx na n+oox nanan+e cexn+ciox :anxc+no-
nannn n i+ycciox x:iie halu coc+oxnne, no-
noenne. Oionnanne -si, nan6onee neox+no,
ionon+ o noia:a+ene cy6sei+a (iai n c+aona-
+nnciax qoxa anaqonnecioio no:na+noio
xec+onxennx *se). B n+oie oneni xnoioe cnn(e-
+enic+nye+ o +ox, n+o na:nannoe cnono ne(c+an-
nxe+ co6on nanano iocnennon enn co :nanenn-
ex [Hx (ioio-+o)] coc+oxnne (en, nonoenne.
cnas. Taioe oionnanne -s nxem+ i+yccine
ianec+nennie nnnaia+eninie [5]. Hoi+oxy (an-
noe cnono, c yne+ox nimeyia:annoio ionx,
xono noni+a+icx nn+ene+nona+i n cexan-
+nneciox :nanennn +eiynn, n:xennnni, nee-
xennnni.
snuti. 3(eci snut inaion 3-io nnna xnoe-
c+nennoio nncna n nac+oxmex nexenn [2] cnn-
+am+. Oionnanne -i nc+enae+cx nac+o y i+yc-
cinx inaionon n cnx:ano c one(enennixn inac-
caxn xo(aninoc+n cy6sei+nnno-neone(enenno-
io +nna. Hcxo(x n: i+oio, accxa+nnaexoe cno-
no xono noni+a+icx o+o(ec+nn+i c ion+ei-
c+yaninon qa:on iai (noo6me n o6mec+ne)
cnn+am+ nnn cnn+ae+cx o6menn:nannix.
parax pateri. e+exnnannx cexan+nnecinx
nn:naion i+on cnn+ai+nio-cexan+nnecion
nai no+e6onana neecxo+a 6onimoio ionn-
nec+na 6nn:inx no :nynannm cnonoqox n nce-
no:xonix +exnnon no xnoinx +micinx n
ne+micinx x:iiax, a +aie oco6on ai+nnn:a-
nnn nnnxannx i nixnnennm 6nn:inx i nnx no
ionenix ocnonax eqeen+on n (oc+ynnix (nx
n:ynennx i+yccinx +eic+ax.
B xa+enanax no n:ynennm i+yccioio x:i-
ia n cnx:n c accxa+nnaexon inn+onaon
name nnnxanne nnnneinn (na nnxea. B ne-
nox eni n(e+ o no(ncynonnon na(nncn, ni-
nonnennon na i+ycciox 6on:onox :eiane, i(e
xnqnnecinn ieon noxnmae+ (enymiy. Ha(nnci
niinx(n+ +ai: parsura. Lonimnnc+no nccne(o-
na+enen ye o+o(ec+nnnn i+o cnono c i+yccinx
inaionox nac+oxmeio nexenn, o6o:nanammnx
iaion-+o cnoco6 noxnmennx.
Lcnn ynec+i, n+o :anemammax nononnna
cnona -sura n ceneo-:ana(nix +micinx x:iiax
(ncxo(x n: no:xonix nocne(ymmnx qonoino-
nmnnn i+oio cnona) coo+ne+c+nye+ inaiony +a-
mn+i, +o nenax nononnna cnona xoe+ cnnn-
qnnnona+i cnoco6 nee+acinnannx. Taioio
o(a cnonococ+annie cnona (inaionino-ina-
ioninie, inaionino-nxennie n (nonnie nxen-
nie) nee(io nc+enam+cx n i+yccinx +eic+ax,
nannxe: municlet (muni-clet no(sexnix c(e-
nannin, tesimeitn (tesi-meit-n onycianne +yn-
noe :axoonenne) n (. [2].
Kai ye naxn o+xenanoci anee n [2], iax-
xa+nnecine qoxi i+yccioio x:iia iai o(no-
io n: caxix :ana(nix na+micinx x:iion Ce-
(n:exnoxoix (exonc+nym+ xaai+enie
(ennenmne ne+i iinnaicion n 6yniacion
(nanei+nix no(iynn +micinx x:iion. Hoi+o-
xy nan6onee no(yi+nnnix, necoxnenno, xnnx-
e+cx nonci xo(eninix axe+nnon n xa+enanax
i+nx no(iynn x:iion n, n nac+noc+n, n inin:-
ciox n ia:ancio-+miciox x:iiax.
Hnxenn+enino i qeno+nny nananinon nac-
+n cnona n na(nncn na :eiane par- n xa+enanax
inin:cioio x:iia o6naynnam+cx cnona para
$! BECTH/K O/Y 11`2004
nac+i, iycoi [6], parak eme+o, (o6nnia, a
n ia:ancio-+miciox x:iie ec+i o(c+nennoe nx
cnono parga nac+i, o6a:en, neio-nn6o. Cxonn
cninnqnia+ nxee+cx n n x:iie oiy:cion no(iyn-
ni n +yixenciox: park o+(eninin [7].
nx nonimennx nann(noc+n accy(ennn
xono accxo+e+i eme n noc+a+nnecine na-
annenn n nn(oenonencinx x:iiax n neio+oie
axannecine :anxc+nonannx n (enne+miciox
x:iie. B nac+noc+n, (. ien.: pa neci, para -
o+c+oxmnn o+(enino, pa-ra-jo c+ain [8];
na+nnci. part nac+i, (onx; (. +mi.
paramantal no cnnann, i conemenc+ny [9].
Bo:xono, c nocne(nnx i+nxonoinnecinx eqe-
en+ox cnx:an n c+oxmnn necioniio oco6nxiox
iynnnanin +exnn n ia:ancio-+miciox x:i-
ie prmc (iyinon qoxi xxcnon nnooi),
cnnnqnnnymmnn, no-nn(nxoxy, nonx+ne coe-
:anno no tpyey.
H+ai, nn+einyx nce cexan+nnecine :na-
nennx i+yccioio cnona parsura n na(nncn na
:eiane, xi o+(aex ne(non+enne +aioxy nee-
no(y: o+(enxx, o+inax +amn+. Cne(c+nnex e
n: +aioio :ainmnennx, n ianec+ne n+ooio no-
innecioio maia, ye nnxenn+enino i i+yccion
na(nncn na +a6no nn(oonoio o6enncia, c+a-
nonn+cx nino( o +ox, n+o nenoe cnono n nq-
xymmencx inn+onae parax pateri nan6onee
neox+no cnx:ano c cexan+nnecinxn nn:naia-
xn: (o6noc+i, nac+i, iyconei neio-+o, o+-
(eninin nn:nai c iainxn-+o nn(nnn(yanini-
xn oco6ennoc+xxn.
Koeni n+ooio cnona n accxa+nnaexon
inn+onae (-pateri) nc+enae+cx n o(non i+yc-
cion na(nncn na +aenie ([2], c+. 66), ye n ina-
ioninon nxnea+nnnon qoxe patna a:6nnan-
cx n(e6e:in!. Ty+ e nnxo(n+ na naxx+i ana-
noinx n (. +mi. x:iie: pat- :nyi na(ammeio
+xenoio ne(xe+a, a n xa+enanax inin:c-
ioio x:iia nxee+cx inaion pata- a:6nna+icx
n a:ne+a+icx n(e6e:in[6].
Tainx o6a:ox, no(no(x n+oi cexan+nio-
i+nxonoinnecioxy n iox6nna+onoxy anann:y
nenon inn+onai n:ynaexon na(nncn parax
pateri, nan6onee neox+nix neeno(ox i+on
cnx:in xi cnn+aex +aine ioeqeen+nie nenq-
a:i: cnoco6noe i (o6nennm ano nnn no-
:(no accinae+cx, a:nnnnx iai nannno,
xynin, oiyammnn xn xyninn.
aex aslax. Cnon, nannnammnxcx na a, oneni
xnoio n i+ycciox x:iie. J+o n aes (yi
(n(ymnn x(ox), n aumics noxomi, co(en-
c+nne, n ana no(nnenne nnee(. Aqqnic
-x ionon+ o inacce cymec+nn+eninix, io+oie
o6a:onannci nnn o+ inaionon, nnn o+ nnnaia-
+eninix. B nm6ox cnynae, ionenax ocnona i+o-
io cnona 6onee nceio cnx:ana c (enc+nnex, ycn-
nnex.
O+ia:anmnci o+ n(en+nqniannn i+oio cno-
na c no:xonix *aac noia (no ananoinn c (.
+mi. ==G noia), oc+oono ne(nononx,
n+o :(eci eni n(e+ o iaiox-+o (enc+nnn c ycn-
nnex nnn o6sei+e, cnx:annox c (nnennex n
neexemennex.
B+oax neicexa inn+onai aslax nxee+
cxo(c+no c (. +mi. a neexo(n+i, neece-
ia+icx, no:naia(a+icx, nonyna+i no :acny-
iax. Ho(6nax a:nnnnie nanan+i cone+a-
nnx i+on cxicnonon nai n ynn+inax, n+o i+o
na(nnci na nn(oonon iaxennon xe+ie, nan-
6onee y6e(n+eninixn n ion+eic+e qnnocoqc-
io-cen+ennno:noio co(eannx (nyx ne(i(y-
mnx inn+ona, :anemammnxcx n +eic+e y+-
ne(n+eninix cninnqnia+ox cnn+ae+cx
(snuti), nan6onee neox+nixn neeno(axn ac-
cxa+nnaexon nai cnon nax ne(c+annxm+cx
+aine: (nce) ycnnnx (ioi(a-nn6y(i) neceiam+-
cx (c+anonx+cx nanacnixn (6eccxicnennixn)-
),(nce) ny+n (') (ioi(a-nn6y(i) neeceiam+-
cx (').
stvi. J+ycci. st c+ann+i, coc+annx+i,
-vi oionnanne nnnaia+eninoio.
leirmeri. Pa:nonx i+o cnono na coc+annx-
mmne: lei-rm-eri. . +mi. lev xnc+na, e(a,
tri :a+ena+i, co:(ana+i. He(nonon+eni-
nin neeno( i+oio cnona: nnio+onnennie xc-
+na, cennonannie.
urui. . +mi. ur nox(oi, nannno.
Hoc+a+nnecioe coo+ne+c+nne n nn(oenonenc-
inx x:iiax order nnia:, nox(oi.
uari. Ka:an.-+mi. t ncnonnx+i,
(.+mi. ud cne(ona+i, nncoe(nnx+icx.
van. . +mi. pan (ocia (nx nncixa [9].
mertari. Hnneio noxoeio na i+o cnono ne+
nn n +miciox x:iiax, nn n xa+enanax i+yc-
cioio nncixa. O(naio oneni na i+o cnono noxo-
a n+anixnciax axanneciax neicexa meritare
6i+i (oc+onnix, y(oc+on+icx [1O].
r. J+ycc. ut (ea+i. Aqqnic -r
6nn:oi i oionnannm inaionon 6y(ymeio neone-
(enennoio nexenn ur [11] n oionnannm no-
nenn+eninoio nainonennx i+yccinx inaionon.
Ho(no(x n+oi iox6nna+ono-i+nxonoin-
necioxy anann:y na(nncn Bu 899, n ianec+ne ne-
noio nn6nnennx nax ne(c+annxe+cx no:xo-
nix ne(non+i cne(ymmnn nanan+ neeno(a
accxa+nnaexon na(nncn:
(Xo+x) coc+oxnnx ncex (no( ne6ecaxn) ne-
neinno xenxm+cx +ai cnn+am+ (i+o o6me-
nn:nanno),
0armnoa 4.P. 3rycckae uaqncs Bu 899 ua kameuuom aknaqmme nqoomuoro oencka...
$" BECTH/K O/Y 11`2004
(m6oe) xynioe (nnn cinynee) (ano nnn
no:(no, ioi(a-nn6y(i) a:6nnae+cx n accina-
e+cx n i+o o6men:nec+no,
(m6ie) c+aannx nce e ioi(a-nn6o c+ano-
nx+cx nanacnixn (6eccxicnennixn) n i+o
o6men:nec+no,
H, 6onee +oio, nce xc+na, coc+annennie na
+ninnnnn, noii+ie neiacnixn ninxnixn
cia+e+xxn, nc e 6enni,
H +ex ne xenee, nee( +exn, i+o 6y(e+ nn-
(enna+icx :aionon, n:noennix na (oc+on-
nix iaxennix nanno, neinonn (onyc+n) n:o,
(n :nai ynaennx).

1. Co(eanne +eic+a +a6no na nn(oo-

nox o6enncie (Bu 899) ionon+ o eio ic+e+nnec-
io-ncnxonoinnecion nanannennoc+n, xono
cia:a+i qnnocoqcion ii:ani+nonannoc+n.
J+nx n:ynennin +eic+ e:io o+nnnae+cx o+ 6o-
nee no:(nnx nai+nnnix n naionnnnix na+nnc-
inx na(nncen [12]. Kai ye o+xenanoci n namnx
nccne(onannxx, ne nxex nannninix i+anonon
connanino-i+nnnecioio n iocy(ac+nennoio a:-
nn+nx, i+ycin ynanxnnci n co:(annn n qo-
xnonannn xoanino-i+nnecinx cen+ennnn n
o6cy(ennn nnnnnnon noc+oennx n(eanino-
io y+onnnecioio o6mec+na.
2. B na(nncn na +a6no o+aena o(na n:
ocnonnix n(en ienecion an+nnnoc+n taxis na-
nnninoe noc+oenne, none(enne [13]. B i+yc-
cion +exnnonoinn i+o :nynn+ iai urui uari
cne(onanne nannninoxy none(ennm. O(na-
io iai nannnino ce6x nec+n, ia(in n: (en-
nnx nao(on iein, nxnxne, i+ycin ne(-
c+annxnn ce6e no-a:noxy. nx i+ycion i+o
6ino co6nm(enne nannn cnxmennoio 6a+c+na
rasna [2], o:nanammeio nannnne one(enennoio
yonnx iyni+yi n ennino:noc+n (coinacno 12
i+yccinx (ncnnnnnnaxn).
3. Tai iai na iaxennox nn(oonox +a6-
no :nynn+ nn:in i co6nm(ennm i+nnecinx
nannn, n:naiaexix na (yinx no(o6nix i+o-
xy iaxennix nanno, i+o o6c+ox+enic+no yia-
:inae+ na no:xonoe xnoec+no no(o6nix
na(nncen n6nn:n xec+ noneiannx (ennnx i+-
yccinx (ooi, io+oie xoiy+ 6i+i nan(eni n
6y(ymex.
4. B n:ynennon nn(oonon na(nncn nn-
+eecna cnn+aicnneciax qoxa noc+oennx
ne(noennx, i(e nanoe :nanenne nxem+ ion-
+eic+ n ia+eionn cy6sei+nnno-neone(enen-
non xo(aninoc+n. C+nni na(nncn nenanx:nn-
nin, no(neinnae+cx no:n+nn oiann:onanno-
c+n na qone :i6ioc+n n xao+nnnoc+n oiya-
mmeio xna.
Cnucok ucnoutsonauuo uu1epa1ypm:
1. a+inon u.P. Ocnonnie iynni cnon n y:nonie xoxen+i nn anann:e n neeno(e i+yccinx +eic+on TIL 1, TIL 2, C!L 4538
n na(nncn na an+ae n: Can+a-Mannenni // unnonoinnecinn c6onni HH nx. . H6ainxona. Ka:ani: H:(. uan, 1995.
C. 28-35.
2. a+inon u.P. Hccne(onanne (ennnx x:iion Ce(n:exnoxoix na ocnone qono-inonmnnonnon inno+e:i n iox6nna+ono-
nac+o+nix xe+o(on. Vqa: nnex, 2OO3. 164 c.
3. Bulla M. ova iaccolla di isciizioni eliuscle. Iiienze:Rinascimenlo del liLio. 1935. 36O .
4. a+inon u.P. J+ycin: cnn+e: nai+nnn:xa, xnc+nin, qnnocoqcion ii:ani+annn n cen+ennno:noc+n n nonce(nennon n:nn
// (ix, 2OO3. N2. C.72-8O.
5. a+inon u.P. uyninnonanino-cexan+nnecine n cannn+enino-c+enennie qoxi na+micinx nnnaia+eninix // Te:. (oin.
xe(yna. nayn. ionq.: Haynnoe nacne(ne 6amincinx ynenix-ixnian+on n nonoci conexennoc+n (n+oie Bann(oncine
n+ennx). Vqa: H:(. Lam. ioc. ynnne. 1995. C. 39-41.
6. Knin:cio-yccinn cnonai / Coc+. K.K. K(axnn, +. 1,2. uyn:e: PKCJ, 1985. 48O c.
7. Tyixen (nnnnn iiciana (nanei+oini c:nyin. Amia6a+, 1997.
8. Monnanon A.A., Heo:naion B.H., Haininn C.. Haxx+nnin (ennenmen ienecion nncixennoc+n (nne(enne n xnienono-
inm). M.,1988. 192 c.
9. enne+micinn cnonai, ., 1969. 691 c.
1O. H+anixncio-yccinn n yccio-n+anixncinn cnonai / T.3. He(annen, .L. Po:en+ani, C. Pe(o. M.: Pyc. x:., 199O. 697 c.
11. a+inon u.P. Ocnonnie qoxi nainonennx, cnxennx n nennnnie qoxi na+micioio inaiona // Te:. (oin. xe(yna.
ionq., nocnxm. na-xx+n 3ain Bann(n. Vqa: H:(. LV. 1992. C. 11O-111.
12. ue(oona L.B. Bne(enne n na+nnciym inniaqniy. M.: H:(. MV,1982. 256 c.
13. ocen A.u. Hc+onx an+nnnon ic+e+nin: H+oin +icxnnne+neio a:nn+nx. Knnia !!. Xaiion: uonno, M.: OOO H:(.-no
ATC, 2OOO. 688 c.
14. a+inon u.P. 3aie6ciax xyxnx no:xonin cnn(e+eni anoqeo:a i+yccioio o6x(a nenonenecioio e+nonnnomennx
(e:yni+a+i o6cne(onannx +ena xyxnn n aniyc+e 1988 i. n conoc+annennn c na+micinx n+ennex +eic+a neneni n 1981 i.)//
Te:. (oin. Me(yna. ionnoinnyxa: J+ycin n nx cnx:n c nao(axn Ce(n:exnoxoix. Mnq. Penninx. Hciycc+no. M.: MHH
nx. A.C. Hyminna, 199O.
15. a+inon u.P. Moanino-i+nnecine nnnnnni enenoio o6mennx, o+aennie n cne+ciox c+nne i+yccioio nncixa // Ma-
+e. Poccnnci. naynno-nai+nn. ionq.: Hoqeccnonaninoe o6menne. Kexeono: H:(.-no V KTV, 2OO2. C. 188-19O.
16. a+inon u.P. J+ycciax na(nnci TIL 2 n: Kanyn ni(ammnncx ne(aioinnecinn +ai+a+ n naxx+nni x:iia na+micioio
xna an+nnnoio Ce(e:exnoxoix // (ia, 1999. N2. C. 93-12O.
17. Toielli M. Teiza camagna di scavi a unla della Vieia (Sanla-Maiinella)// Sludi Lliuscli, 1969. vol. XXXV-MLMK XV!! (seiie
!!).
18. a+inon u.P. Ha+micine ne+i i+yccioio x:iia n cnx:n c noc+a+nnecion +eonen // Ka+. +e:. (oin. naynn. ionq.:
ennne iyni+yi Lna:nn n an+nnnax nnnnnn:annx. ennnia(: H:(. oc. Jxn+aa, 1983. C. 55-57.
Pomauo-remauckae nonore


















( )























2008

BU 899
:
.. ( , 2004), ,
. .
. ? .
, .

,
, ?
,
,
.
,
,
. , , ,
.
:
,
,
-
,
[1].
? snuti
snute, snute, snuti , parax,
eri, lei, ur[n], ari, meri, esi, [u]r , ,
.
,
.
,
.. 19 .
. :
,
, ,
:
1.
, -
.
2. . (
,
).
3.
[3].
:
1.
, .
, l vipi varna / / au vipi
varna l / .
2.
, .
3. , ,
. ,
,
.
.
4. ,
.
,
, . ,
leirmeri lei - r m - eri
.
5. /
2 .
. ,
, ,

.
6. -

, , .
C , ...
BU 899 :
() ( ) (
),
() ( )( , -)
- ,
() - ()
,
, , , ,
, - ,
, , ,
, () ( [1].
.
, , .
, , ,
! ,
, .
, , :
, !
BU 899 .
[2].
, , , ,
.

:

halus : ecnas : snut
.
para : pateri : snuti
- .
ae : ala : snuti
- .
stvi : lei rmeri : len
,
fan eri : urri : uari nu
, ,
ei : rie : van : mer tari :
. ,
r ir esi
, .

:

, . ?
. , -.

BU 899, [2]:

haltu
ana haltu nei ,
ania : varnei : halusnal : ec : umrana , , ,

slepa ris haltus
cnia
calusc
calusc ecnai
ecnati
[ra]ma :len : ecnati () , ...
velia sescat nei stultnei a paterel ,

snute
pumpu snute etera - ,
platia pumpu snute
lai : petruni snute ,
snut e
ar pupu snute
aule pumpu snute arn ial - , ,
snuti
snuti huzet na ,
nutu
nutu anc leic nutu[]i reucec ,
parax
zila paris
zilc paris amce
vipi zerturi parfnal ,
nu :
suca lautnia nu
lari :nu()ni ,
nui :
velia nui latina
nuis :
velia alf nuis latin[ia]l ,
nui :
l : cae : nui
rama : nui l nei: - , ...
nui l nei : anvil ,
rie :
merta :
ei : rie : vam : merta () () ,
eri es :
mi vele li as eries ,
erial

BU 899 :

halus
ecnas
snut
parax
pateri
ae -
ala
stvi ()
lei r m eri ()
len
fan eri
urri
u[r] ari
nu ei
rie
van
mer tari
[a]r
esi

.



:
hutitevesi vel cnce ip IIII
:
huti-te-vesi vel cn-ce ip IIII

:
, , , IIII




, -
. , . :
.
, .
,
. , ,
.
. ,
Larth Larthal
Larthals
[4].
(lar) ,
, . larth, larthal, larthals
.
: lar th, lar thal, lar thals. ,
() : l, lth l, lial, lal, larial.

: larial arnial. ial
. -
- .
, ial
. . , ,
(mi lar), , my god.
, lar ial . ,
arn, /) , ial
. larial ,
, arnial .
, ,

.
, avil () lari (),
, .
, -, .
, .



:
lar : cumere : arl ;
atnei : arial , ;
lari matuna aralisa , , ;
lari marc nei aral , , ;
larziu mutu aral , ;
arn e lazu aral , , ;
lar ezna aral , , ,
;
au rafi ar titia ;
ar : tum ltni : ;
vel velu arna alisa , , ;
arnza : petru ..;
arnza : secu , ...;
arnza : trepu , ..;
arnza : anie , ..;
arnza : cae , ..;
arnza : vetu , ..;
arnza : suplunia , ;
mi laris san es na , ;
lari : cup rna ;
lari tite ;
au cai veti lari , ;
lari cat eri ..;
lari papani ;
mi lari sa plaisi nas ;
arn : veti : larisa , , ;
mi lari sa a s ;
mi mulu lari sale vel ai nasi , , ;
l lar ui canis , ;
mi zi na ku lar izale ku lenu ei , , , :
!;
puia larl culnies , , , ;
scarpini lari () , ...;
mi laria use l es , , ;
mi laria nuv() , ..;
mi laria st ra menas , ;
mi laria hul enas , ;
mi laria ama nas , ;
mi laria srupi nas , ;
mi laria su nas , ;
mi laria ar ni e , ;
la : aneie : laria , ;
mi malena laria pu ru henas , ;
lariali[m] clan , ;
mi lariala melaci nasi mulu , ;
veltur[u]s clan lariali la , , , ;
velturu a se larialila , , ,
;
anavil : uplini : larialisa ,
...;
vel tut na lariali sa , ;
vel puc na larialisa , ;
a patl nis laria[li]sa , ;
mi mulu lari se zi li mla , , ;
laris sec serv veluru , ;
vel : secnes ;
mi ma[]sui ;
umranal e ec , ;
fa[s]ti : lecuti nei : umria , ;
mi mulu lari sale ;
tites : velus aralila , ;
aralila puia , , ;
larza : avle : araliza , ;
lar ve te aralisa , , ;
strumesa : arn ali sa , ;
vel hele arnalisa , ;
lar : tetina : aralisa , , ;
vel : umrana : arali sa ;
vipi nal : arali sa , ;
vl : senti na ti : arali sa , ;
tut nal : mara lias : aralisa , , ;
lar : cupslna : aralisa , ,
;
laria caia huzet nas aralisa , ,
;
ui ces arnl puia , , ;
. ,
, : a, an,
ana, anal, ana, anas, anasa, ans, anse, anses, ansesc, ansi, ansial, ania,
anias, ania, ansinal, ansinas, ansinei, ansis, ansisa, ansur, anu.
:
Ramatha, Rametha, Ramutha,
Ramtha [4].
, ,
(rama, rames, ramu, ramturnas,
ramnunas, ramta, ramue, ramuta, ramutas, ramutasi [2]),
, , ram a , ram es , , ram
u , ram tur nas , ram nu nas
, ram ta , ramue , ramu ta ,
, ramu tas , ramu tasi , clet ram
.
[2]:
ramu : alinei ;
mi lara ramurnas , ;
ramua es u nas , , .

clan , avils , lupu , sech
, neft , .

lupuce - . , ,
avils(). ,
,
, Partunus Vel Velthurus Satlnal-c Ramthas clan avils lupu XXIIX,
, , 28
(Corpus inscriptionum etruscarum, 5425) [4].
, .
, : velthurus, velthurua, velthuru,
velthurui, velthure ., Satlnal-c.
.
. , .
laria : sanai , .
clan .
: cl, cla, clanti, clantial, clanti. [2]:
mar ce tar nas lar cl , , ;
alf nal : cla , ;
mi laral claite , , , ;
mi mal clan ti , ;
ana ma ni clan te , , , .
lar : latini : clanti ,
. ?
. ,
alf nal : cla , //
//.
avils , .
[2]:
avils XXIIX lupu .. XXIIX ( .)
lupu avils XXV .. XXV ( .)
avils LXXV - LXXV ( .)
avils cis zarmi sc - .. ,
avils : u nem : muval ls - .. , ,
avils cis muval ls - , ,
avils ceal ls lupu - , ,
avils : hus : lu[p]u -
lupu avils L - L ( .)
avils :XXXIX - .. XXXIX ( .)
[a]vils : XXX lupu - .. XXX ( .)
avils hus ceal ls - , ,
lupum avils mas eal lsc - , , ,
lupu avi[l]s XXIII - XXIII ( .)
avils I II - I II ( .)
[s]val ce avils LII - , , LII ( .)
avils LXXVI - LXXVI ( .)
avils LIIX - LIIX ( .)
avils LVIII : ril - LVIII ()
avils : XXXXIII - XXXXIII ( .)
lupu avils xXII - , XII ( .)
[a]vils ciem xxx(x)alls- , , ..
a[v]ils XIX - .. XIX ( .)
avils XXX - .. XX ( .)
avils XXIIIX - .. XXIIIX ( .)
avils XXXIX - .. XXIX ( .)
avils XXXXV - .. XXXXV ( .)
avils : lupu XXII - .. XXII ( .)
[a]vils : ciemzarums -
avils XVI - .. XVI (- .)
avils : XXXVIII lupu - .. XXXVIII ( .)
avils XXXVI lupu - .. XXXVI (- .)
avils XV - .. XV ( .)
avils ril LIIX - , LIIX ( .)
.
avils , ril (avils
ril LIIX), avils
[2]:
ril XXXIV - .. XXXIV ( .)
ril XXX - .. XXX ( .)
ril XXXII - .. XXXII ( .)
ril XXV - .. XXV ( .)
ril XLII leine - .. XLII ( .)
.
, ril leine:
ril XLII leine - .. XLII ( .)
ril () leine - .....
ril leine L - .. L ( - .)
ril LIII leine - .. LIII ( - .)
ril IIIIX lein[e] - .. IIIIX( - .)
, , : avils,
ril, leine.
, avils
, ril , leine ,
.
leine : lein, lein, leinies. [2]:
()va lar lein , , ;
ril LIII leine 53 ;
vel : leinies , ;
lar leinies , ,
,
, (XXIIX , XXV ),
,
.
muval muluvanice,
[4].
:
- (.). , (.)
.
lupu, lupum, lupuce ,
, , ,
.

.

ritnai, pena, tul, , ,
[2]:
zusle ritnai tul tei , ;
scuvse ritnai tul tei ci zu sie acun siri cima , .
: ;
zune elfa ritnai tul traisanec calus ,
;
lar : pena ;
pena : pena , .
:
(.) , [11].



.
nefts :
velturus nefts
velusum nef
:
vel tur us nefts , ;
velus um nef .
,
, .
nefts ?
.
, ati,
, , ,
, ,
[4].
, , , .
. , ati, mama, papa, titi, sin, sere,
prute , , , ,
, , .
[2]:
ate vi() , ..;
fasti : tetia : atesa , ;
fasti : atvli - , ;
laria : atei nei : - , ;
ana petrui atei , ;
vel : ate - ;
l : papa ;
c nei : ile papa - , ;
laris : papa nas ;
sere papa ;
mi : ma : veli : rutlni : avlesla , ;
mi ma lar is uplu - , ;
vel sereni - , ;
ana : celia : sernasa - , ;
calu sin lupu - , ;
velsi : prute ;
aule titie papa .

:
Partun us vel vel thur us sa tl nal-c ram thas clan avils lupu XXIIX
, . , ,
, , , XXIIX .
vel (, )
,
. :
, , ,
.
partunus , ,
. Parentis (.)/Parent- (.).
, .
, . [10]:
laris pule nas lar ces clan lar ial papa cs vel tur us nefts prumts pules lari sal crei ces
:
, , , , ,
.
:
. , , , :
, . - , ,
.
[10]:
lar arn al plecus clan ram a scap atrual
:

:
, , , , , ,
.
.
, ()
. ,
.
(larial),
, .



zilc, zila, marunuch.
, .
, , .
zilc, zila (.), .
[2]:
() rasnas maru nu [cepe]n zilc paris maru nu paa na ti
, . , ..
maru nu va cepen tenu zila nu , ,
;
avils ciemxxx(x)alls zil(x)[ma]ru nu va cepen te[] - ,
, , , , ...
.
( . , , ,
.). ()
.
,
( )
(, ).
. ,
. ,
,
. ,
( ), ( ), (,
).



. :
: 1 thu, 2 zal (esal), 3 ci, 4 a, 5 max (mach), 6 huth, 7 semph, 8
cezp, 9 nurph, 10 sar (-zathrum, - zar, alx, cashra).
[8].
. 1 .

CI MAX S'A
THU
HUTH
ZAL
3 5 4
1
6
2



THU -
. 1
MAX -
HUTH -
ZAL -
CI -
SA -



, , ,
.
avils (),
.
:
avils huzars 6 -10;
avils : ma semalls lupu 5 7 .
. , 5 - 7, 6 - 10.
.
, .
, , .
,
,
--
.
:
avils hu zars ;
avils : ma sem al ls lupu , , , ;
racvanies hu zusie rinai , ;
avle nurtines , ;
i hui zarum i fler ue .
.
avils hus muvalls lupu , , .
sar ls : lesuni lan ce , , ;
ma cez pal avil svalce , , , ;
huur mas acna nas arce maniim ;
vel falau hu[] hu si li tule , .
, ,
.
, , , :
avils : ma semalls lupu
, :
vils ma- sem al- ls lupu
: , , .
, ,
:
thu ma huth zal ci sa

:

,

, ,
, , , ( ).
I unus (.)/un (.)/one/ (.)/ (.).
II duo (.)/deux (.)/two (.)/ (.).
III - tres (.)/trios (.)/ three (.)/ (.).
IV - quatruor (.)/quatre (.)/four (.)/ (.)
V - qnique /cinq (.)/five (.)/ (.). qnique - quinque
(.), , , , q ni .
VI - sex (.)/six/six/ (.).
.





,
.
, , , -
. .
[3], , , .

1. laris vel kas nas mini muluvani ce menervas :
,
2. penei umranasa : ,
3. ritnei umra nasa :
4. mine muluvani ce lari ce : (): ,

5. turu ce munistas u vas : ,
6. zelv mur et nam a cac : , .
7. husine vinum ei : ,
8. lup venas zili uzarale : ,
9. zilat lupu :
10. zila lupu ce umu : ,
11. zila x nu ce lupu ce muni sul calu : , ,
, , ,
12. cleni mule svala si zilax nuce lupuce : , , ,
,
13. mi veie veuras :
14. mi ara iale zixuxe :
15. zvta dardanium :
16. vl culni trisna :
17. cilni vera :
18. lar murini claniu : ,
19. mi klani n l - : ,
20. ta suti muceti cneu na lautu ni :
,
.




, ,
.
1 ,
, .



1










TINA
-

(L)UNI-

,

TUR
()
NEP-
VELXANS
PEP/ PUMPU-

- -
()
MARIS-


MNRVA -

- ()

ARITMAI -

-
VENE - -
APLU -
/
SELVA -
ANE - -
HERCL - - -
TESENA - - - -
SATRE - ,
RALNA - - -
TURAN - - -
LASA - - -
Ptrusc-

- - -

ATIIERIA
IAPUS
TALENA - - - ?
8ELI - - - -
KARNVS - - -
TITA - - - -
TAGES - - - - -
TESENA -

- - - -
APH - - -
/
SETU - - -
RIE - - -
AMEM - - -
AMPRE8V -

- - -
LVNA -

ABELLANO


NEP- -
ALLO- - - -
AMPERT - - -
BAN - - -
HEREKLUI-

- -
KERRI- -
TIN-
NUC- - - -



,
.
.
2
.

2

/

[9]


1 ac ,
2 acazr


3 acale
4 ais/as
5 aisiu ,
6 aisar
7 aisna ,
8 al ,
9 alpan, alpnu , ?
10 alaze ?
11 alumnae ?
12 am /
13 apa
14 apcar ?
15 ar , ,
16 er , ,
17 arac
18 arim
19 ars
20 aska
21 are
22 ati
23 ati nacna
24 vil, vils
25 araiale ?
26 ca
27 cami ?
28 cape ,
29 capr ?
30 capra , /
31 capu
32 cea , ,


33 cela
34 celi ,
35 celu
36 cehen
37 cepen ()
38 ces
39 cetur ?
40 ezp/ ezpal / ,
41 cease ,
42 ci /
43 cial/ ceal 30 (.)
44 ciz
45 cisra
46 clan
47 cletram ,
48 cleva
49 clevsin
50 creal
51 creice ,
52 culina (,
)
53 cupe
54 cver , /,
55 osfer ?
56 eca
57 eleivana ()
58 aska eleivana
59 -em . (. iem -
)
60 enac, ena ,
61 epl , , ()
62 pi , ,
63 pul , , /
64 eslz
65 etera, eteri , ,
66 etnam ,
67 vacal
68 vacil ()
69 vacl
70 vel ? ()
71 velcitna () -/
72 velcli
73 velsnali
74 velsna
75 vers-
76 vinum, vinm
77 ic , ?
78 i , ,
79 inac ,
80 ica ?
81 ika ?
82 ilu


()/,
83 in ()
84 inc ()
85 ipe, ipa ,
(. )
?
86 ita, itu ()
87 itu-, ituare ?
88 itna, itan ? (.)
89 afna
90 am ,
91 apna (
?)

92 aur
93 aure, aura ;
94 ez ,
95 ezl, ezi ?
96 i
97 ial ?
98 ina , , () ()
99 u (.)
100 ucte
101 ui , ,
102 uni
103 unz
104 ve ?
105 rie ? /
106 ucer ?
107 zal /
108 zanena
109 zilat ?
110 zarum ( )
111 zil ceaneri , ,
,
112 zilc, zila ()/
113 hanin - ?
114 hec ,
-
?
115 herma ,
116 heramasva ,
117 herm, hermu
,

118 he ,
-

119 hinial , ,
120 hina, hinu , ()
121 hinin , ()
122 hus ,
123 husiur ,
124 husnatre
125 huth, hu
126 lar ( )
127 lauum ()
128 lauumna ,


129 lautni ,
130 lautnia, lautnita
131 lautun, lautn , /
132 letum
133 letumuza
134 leine ?
135 les
136 leu /
137 lucair
138 lu /
139 lupu /
140 -m, -um
141 ma ? //
142 macstrev ?
143 mal , //
144 malena
145 malstria
146 man
147 mani /
148 manin
149 maru nuch
150 marcni, marcni,
marcnisa, marna,
marnei
? / ,

151 masan, masn
152 matam ,
153 ma ,
154 ma
155 men
156 melum
157 me ,
158 mi / /
159 mul , /
160 mula, mla , , /
161 mun, muni
162 mur /
163 murs ,
164 mutana
165 nac ,
166 nefts /
167 nene
168 neri /
169 nesna


170 nesra
171 nesvis
172 nuna ?
173 nurph
174 paaur , ,
175 paie ()
176 paana ()
177 pacusnasie ,
178 papa, papacs /
179 papals
180 parni
181 patna /
182 pata ?
183 penei ? /
184 penuna, penna , ,
185 pi , ,
186 prut ?
187 pru, pruum , / /

188 prumai, prumats
189 puia
190 pul , , /
191 pulumva ?
192 pupluna (
)
193 pur, purne ,
?

194 put-, pu , , ?
195 qutun, qutum
196 racvanies ?
197 ramuta, ramutas,
ramutasi, ramturnas,
ramnunas, ramta,
ramue, ramutasi
( ) /
/ /
/
198 rasenna, rasna ,
199 ra
200 ratum ()
201 ra
202 ril
203 ritnai ?
204 ruma ,
205 ruva
206 sa (.) /
207 sac


208 sacni /

209 sacnisa onsecrate ? /

210 sal , /
211 sar /
212 sa, sat ,
213 se
214 seal (.)
215 setre ?
216 se
217 semph (.)
218 semphal (.) ,
219 sval
220 sin ?
221 slicaes ? ,
222 snena , ,


223 spur
224 spurana, spureni -

, (spura na)
225 sran, sren , ( )
226 srenve ,
227 suc
228 suplu
229 su-, sut- , /
230 sui , , /
231 suina ,

/
232 sval ,
233 sve ,
234 svema
235 ta
236 tamera
237 tarnali
238 ten
239 tes-, tesam-
240 tesin
241 teta /
242 tev ,
243 tetina ? /
244 tevara , ,

,
245 tin
246 titi ?
247 tiu, tiv, tiur ,
248 thu 1 (.)
249 tmia ,


250 trin , /
251 tru, trut /
252 trutnu, trutnut
253 tul , /
254 tular, tularu , ,
255 tunur
256 tur ()/
257 tura
258 turza
259 tus /
260 tusurir ()

261 tui, tuti /
262 tuin, tutina ,
263 tutina
264 ulpaia ?
265 une
266 umra ?
267 usil
268 uslane
269 ut ,
270 falatu
271 fan
272 fanu
273 favi ,
274 fler ,


275 flerhva ,
276 flere ,
277 fleres ,
278 fronta ,


279 trutnu bronte . ? ()
280 fufluna
281 fasti ? ,


[6].




. . -

.
,
.
: ati, ma, papa; titi, sin, ucer,
setre, prut, tetina; : lupu, lupum, lupuce, ritnai, penei,
umra nasa; : avils; : l, lial, lal,
larial, zilc, zila, marunuch, marcni, marcni, marcnisa, marna, marnei;
: rama, rames, ramu, ramturnas, ramnunas, ramta, ramue,
ramuta, ramutas, ramutasi, ,
: thu, zal, ci, max, huth, semph, cezp, nurph, sar, zathrum.

, ,
.
?
, , .
,
. ( )
. .
.
(), .
, .



, , .
, :
.



1. .. BU 899
: , , 2004 .
2. THESAURUS LINGUAE ETRUSCAE. COSIGLIO NAZIONALE DELLE
RICERCHE. CENTRO DI STUDIO PER LARCHEOLOGIA ETRUSCO-ITALICA
ROMA 1978
3. , , : http://www.beltofpeace.com
4. . - , , , 2004 .
5. . , - , www.tezan.ru
6. . , , www.tezan.ru
7. , .
8. . , : http://www.garshin.ru
9. Patrick C. Ryan, :
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/EtruscanGlossary
10. . , , , , ,
2006 .
11. .


Ver 1.1
Etruscans genealogical linguistic relationship with Nakh-Daghestanian:
a preliminary evaluation
by Ed Robertson
Abstract
The Etruscan numerals are widely regarded as demonstrating that a relationship probably does not exist between
Etruscan and Indo-European or Afroasiatic. It is argued here that a genealogical [1 linguistic relationship exists!
howe"er! between Etruscan and the #a$h-%aghestanian languages [&! and that this relationship can be seen in o"er
half of the basic numerals and in other core "ocabulary in Etruscan! supported by regular phonological
correspondences. 'owe"er! it is the system of numerical morphology which is shared by Etruscan and #a$h-
%aghestanian which points to a genealogical relationship between them. In addition! the almost complete o"erlaps in
grammatical paradigms generally! and the existence of inherited irregularities such as shared ablaut patterns and
non-standard plural themes for the same $ey cognate items of "ocabulary are all diagnostic of descent from a
common ancestor.
(ecogni)ing the relationship between Etruscan and the #a$h-%aghestanian languages may be of benefit in future
studies of Etruscan as it confirms or clarifies the meanings of a number of items of "ocabulary which ha"e been
obtained by the combinatorial method *such as the "alue of huth + ,four-.! or from bilinguals or ancient glosses!
although it is far from being any sort of a general ,$ey- to Etruscan because of the time depths in"ol"ed. As regards
the Etruscan numerals! recognition of this relationship pro"ides! amongst other things! an explanation of the
e/ui"alence of the names Vilina = Sextus in the bilingual ET 0l 1.122 *T3E 1&4.! and illuminates the ancient gloss
T3E 546 vorsum = centenum pedes. 7n the basis of re-e"aluating this existing material! it is proposed here that the
original indigenous Etruscan word for ,six-! before its replacement by the borrowed word Sa! was *vili! and that the
Etruscan for ,188- was *vers or similar. As further such long-standing difficulties are resol"ed! this may in turn
pro"ide further "alidation of the relationship proposed here.
Introduction
The ma9ority "iew amongst scholars is that the Etruscan language is not closely related to any of the better-$nown
language phyla such as Indo-European or Afroasiatic and that this is ob"ious to see if one compares the Etruscan
numerals with their e/ui"alents in these language families [:. There ha"e been many attempts to demonstrate the
contrary! but none has yet succeeded in doing this con"incingly because of lac$ of credible e"idence! whether
relating to comparisons of the Etruscan numerals or of its general core "ocabulary! with those of practically any
other language [;. The comparati"e-historical method in linguistics can only operate when it is applied to languages
that are actually related to one another. It is therefore not surprising that the repeated attempts to create proof of a
relationship between Etruscan and Indo-European! for example! ha"e yielded unsatisfactory results.
<ethodologically! too! many such proposals rely on superficial resemblances as their e"idence and fail to recogni)e
the neogrammarian principle which dictates that phonological change! at least in most cases! ta$es place by
exceptionless laws. As is $nown! cognate words often do not resemble one another *Armenian erku ,two-! for
example! is regularly deri"ed from =IE *du:wo.! and words that resemble one another are not necessarily cognate
*cf. English much! >panish mucho.. >ome proposals of relatedness e"en breach the "ery combinatorial principles
upon which modern Etruscological scholarship has to be based [4.
?hile it is correct to insist that the Etruscans as a people! and their ci"ilisation! are historically attested as ha"ing
occurred in Italy! this should not pre"ent academically rigorous discussion of Etruscan origins. @ee$es *&88:. has
pro"ided more than :8 reasons for considering the Etruscan ci"ilisation to be at least partially the product of
Anatolian settlers whose original homeland was 7ld <eionia! east of Troy! and bordering on the present >ea of
<armara! to the north of ancient 3ydia. These arguments are supported by a recent biological genetic study by
Vernesi et al. *&88;.! using the mitochondrial %#A of authentic ancient Etruscan human remains for the first time!
and showing affinities with the eastern <editerranean! i.e. present day Tur$ey! at least through the maternal line! and
at least for the presumably high-status indi"iduals the samples were from. The historical possibilities implicit in the
findings of Vernesi et al. are further discussed in @elle et al. *&882.. 'owe"er! biological genetic information cannot
in itself pro"ide proof of linguistic relationship and inheritance! because it cannot tell us which languages people
spo$e. It can only support models de"eloped by other disciplines! such as historical linguistics.
1
Van der <eer *&88;.! as well as adding se"eral more historical and archaeological arguments to those of @ee$es!
explores the linguistic relationship of Etruscan! (aetic and 3emnian. In particular! he establishes the chronology of
their brea$-up! and concludes that this is consistent with an east to west migration! from the region near where
3emnian was located! i.e. in the "icinity of western Anatolia! to Italy. 'a"ing arri"ed there the common (aeto-
Etruscan language di"erged into two during the period immediately prior to which these two languages were attested
in writing! the spea$ers of the two languages becoming physically separated by the 0eltic in"asion of the =o "alley.
?hat will be explored here is e"idence which will allow conclusions to be drawn on the affinities of their Anatolian
proto-language! =roto-Tyrrhenian! namely that it constitutes part of a common phylum with #a$h-%aghestanian! of
which perhaps 'urro-Arartian is also a part.
The relationship between Etruscan and the modern #a$h-%aghestanian languages is! while relati"ely distant! not a
,remote- or ,long-range- one! and might be compared in degree to the relationship between 3atin and the modern
0eltic languages. Bust as 3atin and 0eltic had a common ancestor at a time depth of the order of ;888-4888 years
before present *or rather! were at least ad9acent! closely-related dialects of their earlier common ancestor.! Etruscan
and #a$h-%aghestanian became separated at about the same sort of time depth! or slightly more than &888 years
before Etruscan is first attested. The closeness of this latter relationship would be consistent with =roto-Tyrrhenian
ha"ing separated from the rest of East 0aucasian during the east to west wa"e of settlement across Anatolia which
occurred as a conse/uence of a period of economic prosperity between the ;th and :rd millennia @0E. >ubse/uently
Anatolia was occupied by 'ittites and 3u"ians! spea$ers of Indo-European languages! further separating the
spea$ers of =re-Etruscan from those of other East 0aucasian languages! gradually eroding these languages and
e"entually! in Anatolia! replacing them or lea"ing them to be replaced by later arri"als =hrygian and Cree$! while in
the west some =re-Etruscan spea$ers left for Italy and possibly also elsewhere! most li$ely during the period of
famine and political turmoil in Anatolia around 1&88 @0E! and contributing on their arri"al in Italy to the
de"elopment of the =roto-Villano"an culture! which represented a sharp brea$ from the Apennine culture which
preceded it.
This is not the first time that a relationship between Etruscan and #a$h-%aghestanian has been seriously proposed.
7rDl and >tarostin *1118. proposed a relationship between Etruscan and #a$h-%aghestanian [2. 7rDl and
>tarostinEs proposal was designed to complement the wor$ by %ia$onoff and >tarostin *1152. relating 'urro-
Arartian and #a$h-%aghestanian! both of these being based on a reconstruction of =roto-#a$h-%aghestanian [=#%
e"entually published as #i$olaye" and >tarostin *111;.. Their reconstruction of East 0aucasian has not been
recei"ed with wholehearted acceptance [6! although parts of their publication ne"ertheless represent a "aluable
resource. >ome of the sound correspondences adduced by 7rDl and >tarostin for the relationship with Etruscan are
incorrect! as will be shown here! as are some of their isoglosses in"ol"ing the Etruscan numerals. ?hile a number of
isoglosses were found which might support a relationship between Etruscan and 'urro-Arartian during the present
study! these ha"e been listed in passing and are not central to demonstrating the relationship between Etruscan and
#a$h-%aghestanian! for which the e"idence is more abundant. #e"ertheless! in section IV here a paradigmatic
correspondence between Etruscan and 'urro-Arartian is shown which indicates that the suspected relationship
between Etruscan and 'urro-Arartian is probable. Facchetti *&88&. also lists a small number of isoglosses between
Etruscan and 'urrian! which he regards as ,curious-. 'urro-Arartian is poorly attested and not much better
understood than Etruscan. #a$h-%aghestanian! by contrast! is a moderately well-studied family with many and
di"erse li"ing members. =lie" *111&! &888. proposes his own set of isoglosses shared by Etruscan and #a$h! mostly
toponyms and theonyms! which he argues indicate a hypothetical #a$h substrate for Etruscan. 'e does not discuss
the epigraphic and linguistic e"idence in any great detail. As will be shown below! the e"idence in the present study!
which largely does not coincide with the items in =lie"Es wor$s! is more indicati"e of a common ancestor than of
substrate influence. This issue will be discussed further in section VI.
In order that the arguments for cognation are not excessi"ely complicated and can easily be followed! this study
concentrates on the relationship between #a$h! a relati"ely compact and undifferentiated grouping! and Etruscan
itself! despite the fact that it is clear that Etruscan is not related to #a$h alone! but to #a$h-%aghestanian as a whole.
The relationship between Etruscan and #a$h is not a direct one! but in"ol"es descent from a hypothetical common
ancestor which was ne"er attested in writing. The "alidity of a significant proportion of reconstructed lexical items
proposed for =roto-#a$h-%aghestanian by some scholars! and the "ocabulary sets they are based on! ha"e been
/uestioned by other scholars! and the amount of borrowing that has gone on between the daughter subgroups of
#a$h-%aghestanian because of their lac$ of geographical separation after di"ergence ma$es the reconstruction of
=#% particularly demanding [5. (econstructed =#% forms are therefore not generally used in the present study!
and where they are mentioned! this is purely for critical e"aluation! but the numerals and other $ey data in the main
%aghestanian languages are always re"iewed for comparison where appropriate. The relationship between #a$h and
&
%aghestanian! howe"er! is beyond reasonable doubt! and the arguments for this will not be repeated here! as the aim
of this paper is not the reconstruction of =#%. In contrast to #a$h-%aghestanian as a whole! lexical items in the
#a$h languages are in most cases so similar to one another that there is often little need e"en to reconstruct a =roto-
#a$h form! so in the section on sound correspondences the data is based largely on 0hechen! the best documented
#a$h language. @ecause of the closely-related nature of the three Tyrrhenian languages Etruscan! (aetic and
3emnian! and the paucity of attested forms other than for Etruscan itself! reconstructed =roto-Tyrrhenian forms are
only shown where there is data to 9ustify them and then only if it is particularly rele"ant to do so. It is felt that the
comparison of real data is always preferable to a plethora of starred reconstructions whose 9ustification or "alidity
*or not. is ob"ious only to the author. @eing able to compare the original forms is particularly important in the case
of Etruscan! where often meanings are still open to debate and the /uantity and context of attestations are extremely
important.
>ound correspondences! while indispensable! are not in themsel"es enough to demonstrate a genealogical
relationship. This is not necessarily an issue of the /uantity of the isoglosses! as large numbers of apparent isoglosses
could be produced for certain pairs of languages together with apparently regular sound correspondences! but where
the ,isoglosses- are $nown to be the result of borrowing. For example! Arabic final /b/ regularly corresponds to
Tur$ish final /p/ *in words Tur$ish has borrowed from Arabic. but they are not disco"erably related languages.
'owe"er! in parts III and IV! sets of inherited paradigms and irregularities are shown for Etruscan and the East
0aucasian languages! which when ta$en together with the other e"idence constitute indi"idual-identifying data
diagnostic of relatedness between Etruscan and #a$h-%aghestanian.
The sound correspondences shown here are by no means a comprehensi"e reconstruction. In demonstrations of
relatedness between modern and well-documented languages! one would expect hundreds of examples of cognate
forms for each sound correspondence. For Etruscan! howe"er! the total number of root words whose meaning is
generally agreed upon by specialists is not much more than &88. 'ere! therefore! one should not expect to see more
than a handful of examples to support the a"erage sound correspondence! and some of the exact conditioning rules
are not yet entirely clear. In addition! the present study concentrates on those sound correspondences which are
e"ident in the cognate numerals! in"ol"ing only such other lexical parallels as are needed to demonstrate the "alidity
of those sound correspondences and the inherited paradigms and irregularities! and therefore does not include all of
the sound correspondences for the Etruscan lexicon as a whole. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that
relatedness is the only possible explanation for the indi"idual-identifying data which will be shown here! this being
the necessary preparatory step before the main comparati"e wor$ of reconstruction can be done.
For easier comparison with Etruscan transliterated forms! the comparanda are represented here in a form based on
>A<=A [1 rather than I=A. EtruscanEs notional phonology closely follows its orthography! which was not
originally designed for it. As its real phonology may ha"e been more complex than the orthography might imply! the
transcription of certain phonemes may be sometimes be wider than was genuinely the case. ?e do not! alas! ha"e the
benefit of Etruscan nati"e-spea$er informants to guide us! although occasional "ariations in the spelling of certain
words pro"ide clues. This should not affect the "alidity of the comparison process! but it may sometimes account for
the mapping of what are apparently single phonemes in Etruscan to more than one phoneme in #a$h. 3ac$ of
information relating to irregularities in stress might also be responsible for certain "owel de"elopments not being
able to be unexplained. >imilar problems affect the 'urrian and Arartian data. It is also possible in the case of some
items of EtruscanEs relati"ely small phonemic in"entory that simplification has genuinely ta$en place! which would
not be surprising gi"en the intense language contact that Etruscan had been sub9ect to! in particular its imposition by
elite dominance on a pre"iously >abellic- or Ambrian-spea$ing indigenous population! or rather its ,"oluntary-
adoption by the indigenous population because of the settlersE economic! political and cultural hegemony. The
phonemic representation of the Etruscan data here has made some concessions to the need to a"oid excessi"e
differences from the common transliteration schemes to retain recognisability of the data. ?here entire Etruscan
texts are cited! rather than indi"idual words! these ha"e usually also been con"erted to the phonemic transcription
used here! although often there is little difference from the common transliteration schemes.
The phonological system used here for Etruscan is as follows. Etruscan had the sonorants /l/! /m/! /n/! and /r/!
corresponding to the letters transcribed as >l<! >m<! >n<! and >r< from the orthography. (ix *115;G &82-&86! &88;G
1;5. proposes in addition the palatals /l/! /n/ and /r/ which he hypothesises also occur infre/uently. ?hether these
three latter phonemes existed or not is not central to discussion of the phonology! but see section IV below where the
cause of the ablaut in Etruscan klan/klanti is discussed. The cluster >tl< sometimes appears in Etruscan. This may
ha"e been a lateral affricate rather than a cluster! but continues to be transcribed here as /tl/. The "owel system of
Etruscan consisted! as a minimum! of /a/! /e/! /i/ and /u/. #asal "ersions of these "owels are li$ely also to ha"e been
:
present! as is shown by the existence of alternate spellings of certain words with and without an >n< following the
"owel in the words concerned. The diphthong /au/! written >av< in early Etruscan was also present! along with >ai<
*[aj.. The diphthong >ei<! possibly pronounced [ej! was also present in early Etruscan. There may ha"e been more
than one phoneme represented by >e<! perhaps a distinction between /e/ and //! as is suggested by the existence of
an additional letter representing one of the two sounds in the 0ortona tablet! but this possibility is ignored in the
scheme here. There is also a case for a schwa type sound! as argued in =fiffig *1121G 44-21.! but again this is not
reflected here. It is also /uite possible that Etruscan had phonemic "owel length and also phonemic consonant
length! as argued in =fiffig *1121G :2! ;1-48.. As this is only occasionally e"ident in the written language! it is also
not reflected here. ?atmough *1116G 1&; ff.. re9ects =fiffigEs arguments on consonant length but bases her position
largely on e"idence relating to the non-existence of /l:/.
The two sibilants transcribed here as /s/ and /S/ correspond in southern Etruscan inscriptions to the letters based on
Cree$ !si"ma# and 0orinthian !san# *the latter also coinciding with =hoenician !s$ade#. respecti"ely! while in the
northern inscriptions the in"erse applies. In the present wor$ sibilants are transcribed phonemically rather than based
on their written form. The distinction between these two sibilants may not ha"e been precisely the distinction /s/
"ersus /S/! but they are presented as such here for con"enience. Very occasionally four other letters indicating
un"oiced sibilants are used in the Etruscan writing system! but are ignored here. Etruscan >%< may ha"e been
pronounced as an affricate or as a fricati"e! but is represented by /%/ here.
The Etruscan letters >p<! >t< and >c< / >k< / >&< are clearly the stops /p/! /t/ and /k/! and >'< *>vh< or >hv< in
archaic Etruscan. is /'/. Etruscan >v< was probably pronounced [w or [( but continues to be represented here by
/v/ for familiarity. The other Etruscan obstruents are slightly more problematic and the scheme used here for
representing Etruscan words in phonemic transcription is a compromise between the traditional "iew and the one put
forward by (ix *115;! &88;.. The traditional "iew of Etruscan !phi#! !theta# and !chi# is that they represent aspirated
stops! and the first two of these are represented here by /ph/ and /th/ in accordance with the traditional "iew. The
phoneme /ph/ is not common in Etruscan. Ci"en that it is used in Etruscan to represent /b/ in loanwords from Cree$
and 3atin! it is possible that !phi# represents /b/ and not /ph/ in Etruscan! but this possibility is ignored here. (ix
suggests that "oicing of stops in word-medial positions did perhaps happen in Etruscan! but that this was not
phonemic. (ix proposes that !phi# and !theta# instead represent palatalised consonants /p/ and /t/! and that the
occasional alternate use of !theta# and !chi# in some words is e"idence of a fricati"e /)/. ?hile (ix correctly
suggests that !theta# represents at least two phonemes! these are not necessarily the ones that (ix proposes. !)heta#
continues to be transcribed as /th/ here! and indi"idual words suspected of containing some "alue other than /th/ are
indicated in the section on sound correspondences. (ix also proposes that !chi# represents not an aspirated "elar stop
/kh/ but a fricati"e /x/! because of the occasional interchangeability of >h< and !chi#! and his "iew on this is
followed here. (ix also belie"es that initial >h< was also pronounced x!! but it continues to be transcribed as /h/
here.
The >A<=A transcription of the 0hechen data generally follows the pronunciation presented in the phonemic 3atin
orthography section of #ichols and Vagapo" *&88;.! rather than the traditional 0yrillic spelling of 0hechen which
less accurately represents the spo$en language. The >A<=A transcription used here "aries from the 3atin
orthography used in #ichols and Vagapo". Crammatical data for #a$h is ta$en principally from %esherie" *&882.!
#ichols *111;a! 111;b. and 'olis$y and Cagua *111;.. %ata for the other #a$h-%aghestanian languages is from a
number of sources! but principally @o$arD" *1151.! #i$olaye" and >tarostin *111;.! Bartse"a et al. *&881.! Hlimo"
and Hhalilo" *&88:. and #ichols *&88:.. The 'urrian and Arartian data is ta$en mostly from ?egner *&888. and
<eli$iI"ili *1161. respecti"ely! but %ia$onoff *1161. and %ia$onoff and >tarostin *1152. are also used.
;
I" #asic numerals
There are two further complications which relate to the comparison of numbers in some of the languages in"ol"ed!
and it is necessary to understand how both of these concepts operate in order to compare the forms. The first of these
is the sheep-counting suffix. A sheep-counting suffix is used for at least some numbers in most #a$h and
%aghestanian languages! and there is also e"idence of a possible sheep-counting suffix in at least two of the numbers
in 'urrian. This suffix is added when the number is used for counting! e.g. sheep *hence the name.! but is dropped
when the number is used with a noun. Thus! in 0hechen! the number ,:- is &o* when used for counting! but &o when
used together with a noun. There is no sheep-counting affix in @atsbi and some of the %aghestanian languages! or! as
far as we $now! in Etruscan.
The second concept is that of the class mar$er. The #a$h languages and most of the %aghestanian languages ha"e a
category of noun class. In these languages! certain "erbs! ad9ecti"es! and numerals agree with their heads in class by
using a prefixed! postfixed or infixed class mar$er. 0lass mar$ing is not present in three of the %aghestanian
languages *3e)gi! Agul and Adi.! nor in some dialects of a fourth *Tabasaran.! nor in the 'urro-Arartian languages!
nor in Etruscan. The citation form for the number ,four- in 0hechen is di*! but when the number is used with a noun
the class prefix at the beginning of the word changesG vi* vaSa ,four brothers-! ji* jiSa ,four sisters-! di* be:r ,four
children- and bi* ko" ,four legs-. ?ords where a class mar$er is normally inserted ha"e this place indicated by the
morpheme brea$ symbol = when listed below. Although the category of class is regarded as ancient in those
languages which ha"e it and there is e"idence of fossilised class mar$ers in lexical items in the 3e)gian languages
which do not acti"ely use class mar$ing [18! it will become clear from one of the correspondences here that! in a
number of instances! the use of a class mar$er started as a compensation for a laryngeal which became deleted
during the history of that language. The number ,four- and the related numerals ,1;- and ,58- *; x &8. are the only
numerals which ha"e class mar$ers in #a$h! because only those numerals pre"iously began with a now deleted
laryngeal.
It will be noted that /*/ was not dropped in the abo"e examples. This is because here! in the #a$h forms for the
numeral ,four-! but not in other numerals! the glottal stop /*/ is not a sheep-counting affix! but an organic part of the
word! as can also be seen from the @atsbi form =*+iw*. >omething similar occurs in 3e)gi! where the final ,d is
obligatory for all numbers up to ;! but not thereafter! possibly being retained in 1 to : by analogy.
>ound correspondences to support these Etruscan and #a$h isoglosses are shown in part II.
a. Etruscan thu ,one-! 0hechenJ@atsbi ts*+a ! Ingush ts*+a or tsa-
The correspondences of Etruscan initial /th/ G #a$h initial /ts/! and Etruscan final /u/ G #a$h final /a/! are both regular
as shown in II a and II b below. The role of the pharyngeals /*+/ and /-/ is problematic. For some words in #a$h!
"ersions with and without a pharyngeal are interchangeable! e.g. &a:p:a or &a*+pa ,sunflower-! while in other cases
minimal pairs are formed! e.g. da: ,father-K d-a ,there- *both sets of examples from 0hechen.. Internally to #a$h!
pharyngeals can be distinct segments diachronically! but their %aghestanian cognates show no e"idence of this in
this instance. It has been suggested by #i$olaye" and >tarostin *111;. that the pharyngeal in the #a$h form is a
conse/uence of the sheep-counting glottal stop.
All of the %aghestanian languages also ha"e forms apparently cognate with the Etruscan and the #a$h! e.g. A"ar tso!
3a$ tsa! 3e)gi sa,d. Their sound correspondences with #a$h are regular! other than accounting for the loss or non-
creation of the pharyngeal. The final ,d in this 3e)gi form is a sheep-counting affix in origin.
The 'urrian for ,one- is Suk:o or Su",. If this is compared with the 'urrian for ,three-! ki".e/! a similar ending is
also present. ?hile there are no instances of this ending in the other attested 'urrian numbers! both 'urrian Su, and
ki, appear to be regularly related to their #a$h counterparts once this ending is remo"ed. The ,k:o and ," in 'urrian
are reminiscent of the sheep-counting affixes used in some of the %aghestanian languages! such as A"ar ,"o and
Andi ,"u. In Arartian! the form Su, is attested in the dati"e and locati"e cases *Susini and Susina respecti"ely..
(egular sound correspondences exist between Etruscan /th/ G #a$h /ts/ G 'urro-Arartian */S/! and Etruscan final /u/ G
#a$h final /a/ G 'urro-Arartian final /u/! also shown in II a and II b below.
b. Etruscan ki or ke ,three-! 0hechenJIngushJ@atsbi &o
4
The consonant correspondence Etruscan /k/ G #a$h /&/ is regular and shown in II c below. There is a tendency in
historically attested Etruscan for /i/ L /e/! which does not usually operate word-finally. There is also an instance of
kialx and kealx in the same document *the 3iber 3inteus! &nd century @0E! but probably a copy of earlier texts..
The Etruscan ke,%,p ,eight- *M *ke,%,p.i/. is an internal deri"ation ,three-times-on *fi"e.-! which is consistent with a
pre-Etruscan *ke! and therefore a de"elopment of *e > i > e can reasonably be assumed. (ix *1115G :2-:5. also
discusses the possibility of a common (aeto-Etruscan form *eluku! based on (aetic eluku! for the attested early
Etruscan iluku. Etruscan /e/ has a regular correspondence with #a$h /o/! shown in II d below.
@o$arD" *1151G &;-&4. suggests that there are regular correspondences between the %aghestanian forms for ,three-
and the #a$h ones! for example A"ar /0ab/ and Archi *a 3e)gian language. /0ib/! lin$ing what he reconstructs as
=roto-#a$h-%aghestanian */0/ with #a$h /&/! and =#% final */b/ with #a$h J*)ero.J. The #a$h and %aghestanian
words for ,three- are the only examples @o$arD" uses to support a relationship between =#% */0/ and #a$h /&/! but
there are more examples to support =#% */0:/ G #a$h /x/. It is perhaps therefore not totally secure to regard the
#a$h and %aghestanian forms for ,three- as cognate with one another. #ichols *&88:. lists the #a$h reflex of =#%
*/0/ as /x/! not /&/.
The 'urrian form ki, is identical with Etruscan. As mentioned abo"e! the final ," or ,"e here may be a sheep-
counting affix. 'urrian /e/ and /i/ are often confused orthographically! so this may account for the "ocalism. The
Arartian for ,three- is not attested.
c. Etruscan huth ,four-! 0hechenJIngush =i* ! @atsbi =*+iw*
?hile the meaning of this Etruscan word is not unanimously agreed! it is already supported by three separate pieces
of e"idenceG i. the renaming of the Attic placename 'yttenia as TetrapolisK ii. ET Ta 6.51 *T3E 554. xarun huths
*,fourthly! 0harun-. on the last of four painted figures in a tomb! and iii. uni"ersal relati"e corpus fre/uency
statistics of numerals as suggested by <aNcha$ *115:.. (ecognition of EtruscanEs true affinities adds a fourth
argument supporting the meaning ,four- *not ,six-.. As explained abo"e! the = in the #a$h forms represents a class
mar$er inserted in compensation for an earlier deleted laryngeal and sound correspondences lin$ing Etruscan words
with an initial /h/ and #a$h words with an initial class mar$er [0< are shown in part II e below. The #a$h
"ocalism is problematic! but the /w/ in the @atsbi is an indication that it is possible here to reconstruct a bac$
rounded "owel for =roto-#a$h. A /u/ also occurs in many of the %aghestanian languages. The correspondence of
Etruscan u G 0hechen i can also be seen in the context of the compensatory insertion of a 0< in #a$h in the
comparison of Etruscan huS.u/ G 0hechen j,iSa *@atsbi jaSa..
The loss of a laryngeal e"ident in the sound correspondence Etruscan /h/ G #a$h 0< can also be seen in the
%aghestanian forms! although understanding why the #a$h forms ha"e come about is the $ey to explaining the
%aghestanian forms. The forms for ,;- in most of the Andian languages! other than Andi itself! are similar to one
another! e.g. =o*oda *Harata.! =u*uda *@agwalal! Codoberi.! and =o*uda *0hamalal.. 'ere the /*/ is cognate with
the )ero in #a$h and /h/ in Etruscan. The initial 0< *usually b, in the citation form in the Andian languages. has
been inserted in compensation for a lenited initial laryngeal! 9ust li$e the 0< in #a$h. The /o/ or /u/ inserted
between the 0< and /*/ is either to facilitate the 1* cluster! or was originally used to retain the initial /*/ which
might otherwise ha"e been deleted completely! and then a 0< was used. Alternati"ely! the first "owel is ancient!
and was lost in Etruscan! #a$h! 3e)gi etc. The initial laryngeal can still be seen in the A$hwa$h =o&$oda and
@otli$h =u2uda. In A"ar *un&$,"o. and Andi *=o&$o,"u or =o3o,"u. the possibly ancient sheep-counting affix *,"o
or ,"u respecti"ely. was used instead of ,da! and in A"ar no compensatory 0< is used. The Tse)ian languages are
similar to the A"ar form. In 3e)gi the word for ,;- is &$ud which may more closely resemble the ancient form. The
other 3e)gian languages ha"e an initial cluster consisting of what is perhaps a fossilised 0< /j/ together with a
"owel preceding the laryngeal! e.g. Agul ja&$ud. This initial syllable may also be moti"ated by the need to
distinguish the form for ,;- from the otherwise similar form for ,&- in the 3e)gian languages! e.g. 3e)gi &$wed!
Agul &$ud etc. 3a$-%argwa! the remaining subgrouping of %aghestanian languages! has the forms mu&$,wa *3a$.
and aw,al *%argwa. respecti"ely *the ,wa and ,al are sheep-counting or similar morphemes..
The =roto-#a$h-%aghestanian form *jem&$i reconstructed by #i$olaye" and >tarostin *111;. for ,;- has little
9ustification. It is by no means certain that the initial jV, prefix typical of a number of 3e)gian languages is more
than a local inno"ation. The /m/ proposed by #i$olaye" and >tarostin occurs only in the 3a$ form. An /m/ in 3a$
normally corresponds to an /m/ in 3e)gian! but there is no /m/ in any of the 3e)gian forms. It is therefore difficult to
see how an /m/ can be reconstructed as part of the =#% form. ?e $now from #a$h that its final glottal stop is an
original part of the root! corresponding to a dental in a number of %aghestanian languages. This has to be reflected in
2
the reconstructed form for =#% which it is not in *jem&$i. E"en if #i$olaye" and >tarostinEs reconstructed form
were correct! it should not be related to Etruscan max as is attempted in 7O> &1. 'ardly any serious Etruscologists
associate max with the meaning ,;- [11! and those who do base their reasoning purely on the fact that the Indo-
European Anatolian languages had mawa or meiwa for ,;-.
There is also support for the loss or se"ere lenition of a final dental in #a$h *@o$arD" 1151G 11-&8.. =erhaps in some
contexts this was only se"ere lenition. The #a$h sheep counting affix /*/ would then be cognate with the sheep-
counting affixes used in a number of %aghestanian languages! ,d *some 3e)gian languages. and ,da *some Andian
languages.! although the final former dental in #a$h ,four- is not a sheep-counting affix and is an organic part of the
root as already shown. It has been suggested that these particular sheep-counting affixes are originally class mar$ers
and in some languages actually function as such or are replaced by a different now fossilised class mar$er. This
cannot apply to the ,"o and ,"u suffixes in A"ar and Andi! as these probably represent the ancient form! which in
turn is perhaps related to the enclitic ,and- in origin. It is uncertain whether the Tse)ian ,nV sheep-counting affix is
originally a 0<! a nasalised de"elopment of an earlier dental! or a reflex of the A"ar and Andi form.
The 'urrian for ,;-! tumni is unrelated and the Arartian is unattested.
d. Etruscan max ,fi"e-! 0hechen mor ! Ingush morh ! @atsbi mor0 ,armful-
There is little consistency in the #a$h-%aghestanian forms for ,4-G #a$h pxi! some Andian languages iStuda! 3e)gi
vad! and 3a$ xu,wa. It is difficult to see how a single form for ,4- can be reconstructed for =#%! such as the *xw
or *' in #i$olaye" and >tarostin *111;.! let alone be related to Etruscan huth *,;-P. as is proposed in 7O> 15.
#%0 &5 reconstructs the form of the =#% for ,4- with an initial masculine 0< followed by a long lateral fricati"e.
Etruscan max may instead be related to a #a$h-%aghestanian root for ,handful-. The relation between ,4- and
,hand- is common one in the languages of the world. The semantic extension ,hand- L ,arm- is also common.
In %aghestanian! this root for ,handful- appears in a number of subgroupsG in Tse)ian there is Tse) meru! 'inu$h
meu and 'un)ib mo2uK in 3e)gian! there are forms such as 3e)gi mekw! Agul mex! (utul mx! @udu$h mek etc.!
while in Adi there is ma2 and in a dialect of Agul mer0 is to be foundK in %argwa there is me*+.
In #a$h the word mor *0hechen.! morh *Ingush. and mor0 *@atsbi. can be found with the meaning shifted slightly
to ,armful-. The existence of related #a$h roots such as 0hechen mara and @atsbi majr0a ,in oneEs arms- may cast
doubt on */o/ as the original =roto-#a$h "ocalism.
The final consonant is difficult to reconstruct for =#%. The 0hechen and Ingush phoneme /rh/ is rare! occurring
only in a handful of words! and yet is used for this word only in one of these two languages. =ronunciation of #a$h
/rh/ is "ariously "oiceless [r! [rh as a cluster! or [rx! depending on dialect. In Tse)ian the correspondence between
Tse) /r/! 'inu$h /*)ero./ and 'un)ib /2/ is unusualK and in the 3e)gian languages there is a strange alternation
between /r/! /2/! /k/ and /x/. This is probably the result of borrowing between different sister languages at an earlier
stage.
?egner *&888G 68. lists nari.,ja/ as the 'urrian for ,4-. 7ccasionally in #a$h an /n/ will correspond to an /m/ in
%aghestanian! and occasionally "ice "ersa! for no apparent reason *@o$arD" 1151G 16! 15.. It may be that this
phenomenon also applies to the 'urrian data! thus potentially lin$ing nari.,ja/ with its #a$h! %aghestanian and
Etruscan e/ui"alents. The relationship of m/n in #a$h-%aghestanian is also discussed in #ichols *&88:G &&2-&&5.!
where she suggests that a fossilised 0< plays a role.
(econstruction on the Etruscan side needs to ta$e into account the mav attested in 3emnian! plus the fact that ,48-
in Etruscan is muvalx and not *maxalx. >teinbauer *1111G :2;. proposes that the final */w/ in what he reconstructs
as =re-Etruscan *maw became /x/ in Etruscan and *mawalx became muvalx. 7n the East 0aucasian e"idence we
cannot rule out the possibility that some sort of final consonant was still present in the =re-Etruscan! but! 9ust li$e its
counterpart in #a$h-%aghestanian! was prone to lenition. The "ocalism is also compatible. As shown below in
section II b! medial #a$h /a/ sometimes corresponds to medial /au/ in Etruscan.
e. Early or =re- Etruscan *vili ,six-! 0hechenJIngush jalx ! @atsbi jatx ! jetx
?hile! as is $nown! the standard Etruscan for ,six- was Sa! the early or =re- Etruscan *vili ,six- is proposed here on
the basis of the bilingual ET 0l 1.122 *T3E 1&4. Senti $ vilina/l : S4)56 $ S78)59 $ :850569! ,>henti *daughter.
6
of Vilina J >entia daughter of >extus- on an urn from the northern Etruscan city of Hle"sin *3atin 1lusium! modern
Italian 1hiusi.. The semantic e/ui"alence of Etruscan vilina + 3atin Sextus was not pre"iously understood! the
Etruscan name usually being dismissed as merely an unrelated Etruscan name. @enelli *111;G 45. argues that the the
gi"en name is missing in the one part of the inscription here due to (oman influence. (ix *112:G ;1. states! howe"er!
that female gi"en names were generally retained in the northern cities right up until Etruscan had been replaced by
3atin. It is clear from the East 0aucasian parallels that the Etruscan vilina really did mean ,sixth-! 9ust li$e the 3atin
Sextus. For the ordinal or ad9ecti"e form vilina the corresponding cardinal form would be *vili. As the 3atin was a
direct translation of the Etruscan forename plus patronymic! the e/ui"alence of Etruscan *vili and 3atin sex was
e"idently still recognised e"en at the date of this inscription! categorised as ,recent- in ET! despite the fact that the
use of Sa must go bac$ perhaps to before the =re-EtruscansE arri"al in Italy! as it is attested in the compound
sealxveis in 3emnian on the Haminia stele.
The =roto-#a$h form for ,2- is normally reconstructed as *jatx or *jetx! based on the @atsbi form. In other contexts!
the @atsbi form of a #a$h root is! of the three #a$h languages! often phonologically the archaic one! retaining
dentals that ha"e been lost in 0hechen and Ingush! e.g. @atsbi bader ,child-! as compared to the 0hechen be:r and
Ingush bier *also ,child-. where the /d/ has been lost [1&. It may be that the @atsbi /tx/ cluster represents a =roto-
#a$h lateral affricate */t0/ which became first */0/ and the /lx/ in the Veina$h languages. Alternati"ely! the @atsbi
may be a hypercorrection of a =# lateral fricati"e by analogy with the dental retentions. Either way! some sort of
ancient lateral is indicated. This is borne out by the %aghestanian e"idence.
In many of the Andian languages other than Andi itself! the form is it0i.,da/ or similar. In A"ar and Andi there are
ant0.,"o/ and ont0i.,"u/ respecti"ely! which ha"e a different sheep-counting affix! together with a nasal also seen
in @otli$h and Codoberi. In the Tse)ian languages there is i0.,nV/ or similar. In the 3e)gian and 3a$-%argwa
reflexes the relationship is less ob"ious! the /0/ being regularly replaced by /rx/! or /x/! or /r/ plus some "elar!
sometimes separated by a "owel.
As shown below! #a$h /a/ corresponds to /a/! /au/ or /u/ in Etruscan! depending on the context! although the exact
conditioning rules for which of these is used are not always clear. If =roto-#a$h *a: as in pa:l corresponds to the /u/
in pul, in Etruscan *see #o. :5 in section II b below.! then we can also 9ustify a =roto-#a$h *ja0 corresponding to a
=re-Etruscan *ju0.,i/! if the 0 in the Etruscan is some sort of lateral! not necessarily a fricati"e. This earlier =re-
Etruscan *ju0.,i/ then became *vili in late =re-Etruscan by a tri"ial metathesis. The final ,i can be 9ustified by
reference to the Andian forms! and also some of the 3e)gian forms. This final ,i must ha"e been dropped at some
point in #a$h! and would also ha"e been in Etruscan! had the word remained in ordinary use as a numeral! but is
preser"ed in its older form because it was only being used as a name.
f. Etruscan *verS or *vers ,hundred-! 0hechen b*+e ! Ingush b*+!
The Etruscan for ,188- has been proposed here by re-e"aluating the ancient gloss T3E 546G a"ri modum ;
plerum&ue centenum pedum in utra&ue parte< &uod 3raeci plethron appellant< )usci et =mbri vorsum. Varro also
states [1:G 5n 1ampania ; versum dicunt 1 pedes &uo&ue versum &uadratum. 7f the two alternati"es! it is
probable that something closer to versum was the real form! the 3atin <o> being used to transcribe the sound of the
Etruscan >e<! because another ancient gloss! T3E 545! refers to the Etruscan for ,7ctober- being 7os'er! which
must actually ha"e been something li$e *>e%per or *>e%pre $M ke%p ,5-.. This measure of surface area could be
analysed as vers,um or ,abstraction associated with 188- because of the /uantity of 188 s/uare feet associated with
it *compare English ,hundred-! also an area of measurement.. The affix ,um can be seen in a number of Etruscan
words such as %a,th,r,um ,&8- * M %al ,&-.! meth,l,um ,thing of the people! i.e. republic- * M meth< mex ,people!
nation-! later becoming the 3atin loan translation res publica.! vin,um ,wine- [1;! pul,um ,star- *see #o. :5. etc.
The auslaut has been deleted in the 0hechen and Ingush! which is a regular de"elopment for inherited final */rs/.
The relationship of the Etruscan *vers to #a$h-%aghestanian is best seen by loo$ing at the %aghestanian cognates
where the final segments ha"e not been deleted. <any of the A"ar-Andi and Tse)ian languages ha"e beS, or similar!
while in some of the 3e)gian languages the resemblance to the Etruscan is closer! e.g. 3e)gi wiS! Tabasaran war?!
Agul wrS! (utul weS etc. >ome %aghestanian languages ha"e a final nasal! which appears to be organic in "arious
Tse)ian languages! e.g. Tse) bison etc.! so there is a possibility that the Etruscan for ,188- is *versum after all! and
the ,um is not necessarily the abstraction affix being used for the semantic extension to agricultural measurement. It
is also possible that the anlaut in the Etruscan was not /v/ but /ph/ *cf. Etruscan /ph/ G #a$h /b/ in phersu ,mas$ of an
animal- G bor% ,wolf-! #o. ;1 in section II d below.. The fact that the Etruscan numerical symbols for 188! 488 and
1888 all resemble the letter !phi# would tend to support this theory. The remaining #a$h language! @atsbi! uses an
5
unrelated form pxau%t$&$a based on the "igesimal system! literally ,4 times &8-. The 'urrian and Arartian words for
,188- are not attested.
g. The remaining Etruscan basic numbers ha"e not been included in this study because their etymology is uncertain
or merely probable! or because they are thought to ha"e been borrowedG
Etruscan esl/%al ,two- is not ob"iously related to the East 0aucasian forms. The #a$h and 'urrian forms! Si *from
an earlier *Sin.! and Sin! respecti"ely! ha"e probably been borrowed from A$$adian! an ancient Afroasiatic
language with which they were in intense contact at one point. It is possible that the Etruscan form is deri"ed from
an ancient East 0aucasian deictic *cf. @atsbi o%a ,that-! which would ha"e a regular correspondence with Etruscan
*e%al.! 9ust as the %aghestanian forms for ,two- are deri"ed from an East 0aucasian root meaning ,other-! but in the
absence of additional information about the lost forms for ,two- in #a$h and 'urro-Arartian! this is pure
speculation. The Etruscan %athrum ,&8- *M *%a.l/,th,.u/r,um! ,two-Mlocati"eL-MpluralL-MabstractionL-. is deri"ed
from %al. ?al can also be found in (aetic. 0uriously! %uhoux *115&. gi"es the Eteocretan for ,twenty- or ,twenty
men- as isalawr or isalur.ia/. Eteocretan! an ancient Aegean language! is "ery fragmentary and of un$nown
affiliation.

The attested Etruscan Sa ,six- and Etruscan semph ,se"en-! li$e their 'urrian counterparts SeSe ,six- and Sit:a or
Sinda ,se"en- respecti"ely! ha"e been borrowed! either from Indo-European or >emitic. According to %O> 12! the
original 'urro-Arartian form for ,se"en- which was a reflex of the common East 0aucasian form prior to the
borrowing of Sit:a/Sinda was wa:i:r or pa:i:r! and this could be seen in the 'urrian name for the constellation of the
=leiades or >e"en >isters.
>e%p ,5- is nati"e to Etruscan and deri"ed from ki/*ke ,three- and is dealt with abo"e.
The form for ,nine- in 'urrian as proposed by %ia$onoff *1161. and Hammenhuber *apud 3aroche 1158. is ni?i or
niS. The n of the Etruscan nurph would appear to correspond regularly with the 'urrian *cf.! for example! Etruscan
nun ,bring- with 'urrian nun ,come-. as would the r *cf. the Etruscan plural r with the 'urro-Arartian plural *S.!
but the "ocalism is not /uite right. The final ,ph in the Etruscan nurph ,nine- could perhaps ha"e been added by
analogy with the preceding semph and ke%p. ?egner *&888G 68. proposes a different word tamri as the 'urrian for
,nine-. The Arartian for ,nine- is not attested. The numeral has not been included abo"e principally because there is
no regular correspondence to account for the loss of the initial n in the #a$h and %aghestanian forms! for example
#a$h is:! 3a$ urtS$! %argwa urtS$e.,ma/. Final /n/ in #a$h does show a de"elopment L /*)ero./! and this
de"elopment is not un$nown in #a$h in other phonological contexts. In #a$h we also ha"e the pair nax ,plough
*noun.- "ersus a:xan ,to plough *"erb.-. There are also examples where /n/ is present in #a$h but not in
%aghestanian! and "ice "ersa. #ichols *&88:G &;2. lists 3a$ nuts ,bull! ox- as being cognate with #a$h stu! A"ar
ots! Tse) is etc.! and *&88:G &&5. #a$h nia& ,road- with 3e)gi! Archi and Adi words which ta$e the form ,V&
preceded by what may be fossilised 0<s! but neither of these de"elopments can be described as regular. It is also
possible that the intrusi"e n, in the Etruscan can be accounted for by influence from neighbouring Italic languages
which sometimes show the insertion of initial n,. An explanation that nurph is a borrowing of Indo-European origin
is possible! but crucially this would fail to account for the existence of the ,r,.
Etruscan Sar ,ten- was probably a relati"ely late borrowing from =unic **asr.. The numerical morphology including
that used for forming the decades in Etruscan is nati"e and will be dealt with in part III.
1
II" %ound correspondences
The glosses for Etruscan comparanda can in almost all cases be found with the same meanings as gi"en here in the
"ocabulary lists proposed in standard mainstream handboo$s such as =fiffig *1121.! =allottino *115;.! 0ristofani
*1111.! %EA"ersa *111;.! andJor >teinbauer *1111.. Indi"idual items proposed within the texts of other mainstream
authors Facchetti *&888! &88&. and (ix *&88;. ha"e also been included in some cases.
a. Etruscan /th/ G 0hechen /ts/ ! /ts:/ ! /ts$/ ! /t$/ ! *and /d/ Q.
Etruscan 0hechen
@$ eith! eth ,thus- ots:.,al/ ,so much- *the ,al is a common ad"erbial morpheme.
A$ the% ,sacrifice- tsostu ,chop! slash! ta$e a bite out of-
-$ thn ,together- ts*+an ,together- *see discussion of pharyngeals abo"e.
B$ thu ,one- ts*+a ,one-
C$ thuva ,place- * L thui ,here-. ts$a ,house-
In #o. & note that although the infiniti"e form of the #a$h "erb is considered to be the more ancient root *see 'andel
&88:G 1&4.! the forms that we find in the Etruscan inscriptions are usually present tense! or the wea$ past tense
ending in ,ke which does not differ from the present tense in stem "owel. The present tense "owel corresponds well
between Etruscan and #a$h. The wea$ past tense is an inno"ation in the (aeto-Etruscan branch! the strong paradigm
sur"i"ing only in 3emnian. In cases where an Etruscan "erbal noun is cognate with a 0hechen "erb! the infiniti"e of
the 0hechen "erb is cited! as this is more appropriate! and corresponds better.
The spelling of the Etruscan reflex in #o. 4 may be an attempt to represent the pronunciation of a glottalised
affricate which may still ha"e existed then. Etruscan /th/ also corresponds to 0hechen /t$/. The relationship between
#a$h /ts/ and /t$/ is uncertain! but as can be seen by #o. 2! the de"elopment of a distinction between the two is
probably on the #a$h side. There is also the issue of the Etruscan reflex of the "oiced dental in #a$h! because! as is
$nown! the symbol for /d/ inherited by the Etruscan writing system was "ery rarely used other than in abecedaria.
This is discussed further below in item #o. ;1. Item #o. ;5 below! which also relates to #a$h /d/! may show a
correspondence between Etruscan /th/ or /t/ and #a$h /d/ *the spelling of this item is inconsistent in Etruscan..
Etruscan 0hechen
D$ tham ,build- ts*+a:m.,%a/ ,handle- *,%a is ,without-! here ,unattached-.! and
t$am ,wing-! ,hand- *extension to ,wing- may be a result of ?est
0aucasian influence..
E$ neth ,entrails- not$ ,pus- *also not&$a - see discussion of ,k/t&$a below.
F$ thap.,na/ ,*flat. dish! bowl- *,na + ad9.. t$a:p ,flat! wide- *of a hat.
G$ thra ,breast- t$ara ,nipple-
For the semantic shift in #o. 2! see also #o. &6 where a similar shift has occurred.
There is also a case for the relationship Etruscan /th/ G 0hechen /x/ or /x:/ in the followingG
Etruscan 0hechen
@H$ thi ,water- xi ,water-
@@$ ,thi locati"e case ending ,xi locati"e case ending
@A$ meth! mex ,people! nation- moxk ,people! land-
The /th/ in these Etruscan reflexes may illustrate an alternate palatalised or fricati"e sound discussed abo"e. The /xk/
in the 0hechen reflex in #o. 1& is a de"elopment from a former long "elar reconstructed for =roto-#a$h. #%0 4;
proposes a reconstruction of the =#% for ,water- with a lateral fricati"e.
In a $nown de"elopment during the history of #a$h! non-initial dentals are lost or lenited in 0hechen! Ingush! and
sometimes @atsbi. This can be seen in a couple of examples.
Etruscan 0hechen
@-$ huth ,four- =i* ,four-
@B$ kautha! katha ,marigold- &a:.,pa/! &a*+.,pa/ ,sunflower-
18
0autha is the Etruscan sun god. According to =fiffig *1115G &;1. the flower in the ancient gloss T3E 5&: is the
golden-yellow 6nthemis tinctoria 0$! still referred to in Tuscany as cota. @oth the Etruscan and the 0hechen words
deri"e from 1autes and 1autopates respecti"ely! the <ithraic solar helper gods! hence the additional ,pa in the
#a$h reflex! both instances of ,t being regularly deleted at some point in the history of #a$h.
There is also a case for a correspondence between Etruscan /th/ and 'urro-Arartian */S/G
Etruscan 'urro-Arartian
-a$ thn ,together- Suine ,all! completely- *A..
Ba$ thu ,one- Su.,k/"V/ ,one- *'.! A.. *,k/"V is a sheep-counting affix.
Da$ tham ,build- Sumu.,ni/ ,hand- *'.. *,ni is the definite article.
@Ha$ thi ,water- Sije ,water- *'..
The 'urro-Arartian */S/ thus appears to correspond with both main possible phonemic realisations of Etruscan /th/!
if there is indeed a distinction.
b. Etruscan /a/ ! /au/ or /u/ G 0hechen /a/
Final Etruscan /u/ often corresponds to /a/ in 0hechenG
Etruscan 0hechen
B$ thu ,one- ts*+a ,one-
@C$ alx *M*alxu. decade suffix in numerals al3a ordinal suffix
@D$ *'alatu ,hea"en- h*+alata ,up abo"e-
@E$ huS! huSu ,child! boy- vaSa ,brother- *v, + masc. 0<K cf. j,iSa ,sister- with fem. 0<.
@F$ ,inu past masdar of "erb ,na past perfecti"e tense
@G$ krankru ,panther! cat- k$ark$ar ,9aws- *cf. Arartian &ar&ara.,ni/ ,panther-.
AH$ %aru ,ritual- sardan ,to swear- *present tense serda.
Final /a/ in modern 0hechen is often pronounced /I/. In other positions Etruscan /a/ usually corresponds to /a/ and
/a:/ in 0hechen! and in final position also to /a3a/. Final ,n in 0hechen is lenited to nasalise the preceding "owel!
and in Ingush is deleted completely.
Etruscan 0hechen
D$ tham ,build- ts*+a:m.,%a/ ,handle-! and t$am ,wing-! ,hand-
F$ thap.,na/ ,*flat. dish! bowl- t$a:p ,flat! wide- *of a hat.
G$ thra ,breast- t$ara ,nipple-
@C$ alx *M*alxu. decade suffix in numerals al3a ordinal suffix
@D$ *'alatu ,hea"en- h*+alata ,up abo"e-
@G$ krankru ,panther! cat- k$ark$ar ,9aws-
AH$ %aru ,ritual- sardan ,to swear-
A@$ ara ,field- a:re ,field-
AA$ ,as, present participle! "erbal noun ,aS progressi"e participle
A-$ ase ,breath! wind- a:% ,"oice-
AB$ 'ar.,th,na/ ,pregnant- pxar.=ala/ ,to concei"e- *cf. pxo:ra ,pregnant-.
AC$ kalu ,0alu *di"inity of hell.- k$alke ,bottom- *IngushK 0hechen cognates deri"ed from this root
all use the umlauted form k$el,.
AD$ kalu.,s,na/ ,best- *,s gen.K ,na ad9.. kaja:lan ,to manage! to succeed-
AE$ kar, ,to ma$e- kara ,in the hands! in hand- *cf. kar,ietsaJ ,to ta$e o"er-!
kar,=ala ,to hand o"er-.
AF$ klan! klante/i ,son! adopti"e son- k$ant ,boy-
AG$ male, ,reflect! shine- *male,na ,mirror-. ma:l,x ,sun- *,x agent suffix.
-H$ maru ,magistrate! official! priest- ma:r ,husband-
-@$ nak ,since! as! because- na"a*+ ,if-! na":a*+ ,sometimes-
-A$ nap measure of surface area nap:a3a ,ration! allowance! plan$ of wood-
--$ parx ,economy! economic administration- ba:x.,am/ ,household! possessions-
-B$ sal ,offer! carry out! set up- sa:3a ,offering-
11
-C$ %a.,na/ ,gift- %a3a ,gift-
The final ,l in #o. :; is a regular de"elopment in Etruscan. The /p/ in clusters such as the /px/ in the #a$h reflex of
#o. &; is explained by #ichols *&88:G &:8-&:&. as a possible fossilised 0<. #ote a similar analogy in #o. &6
*,ma$e- G ,hand-. as is used in #o. 2 *tham : t$am/ts*+a:m,..
In some cases Etruscan medial /au/! /u/ or /va/ appears to correspond with 0hechen /a/.
Etruscan 0hechen
C$ thuva ,place- * L thui ,here-. ts$a ,house-
@E$ huS! huSu ,child! boy- vaSa ,brother-
-D$ lauk,! laux,! luk,! lux, ,rule! $ing- la& ,upwards! upstairs-
-E$ laut,! lut, ,family- 0adi *A"ar. ,woman-
-F$ pul.,um/ ,star- pa:l ,fortune telling! di"ination! magic-
-G$ sval ,li"e- sa ,soul! spirit! person! life! breathK light! sight-
The conditioning factor in #o. :6 laut,/lut, may be some sort of ablaut processK cf. A"ar 0adi ,woman-! 0udbi
,women-K also Arartian lutu ,women- *as a collecti"e.. In #o. :1 we should note also the Etruscan Si ,light!
bright-. 7bli/ue and plural forms of 0hechen sa change the stem "owel to /i/. It may be that two historic roots ha"e
become conflated in 0hechen. The final ,l in Etruscan may be a later regular de"elopment! or there may be a
historical connection to the ='A root *sawl ,health! prosperity- which %O> 5: lin$ to the 3a$ ts$ul:u ,healthy- and
the final ,l got lost in #a$h. The ablaut in Etruscan sval is discussed further below.
In lexemes where /u/ is inherited! this is retained in Etruscan.
Etruscan 0hechen
BH$ tul ,stone- t$ul.,"/ ,stone- *," is a diminuti"e.
The /t$/ is not irregular here insofar as both >t< and >th< are used indiscriminately in some words where they
correspond to #a$h /t$/.
Etruscan /u/ may also correspond to /i/ under certain circumstances in #a$h! or! at least! 0hechen *and the other
#a$h reflexes are regular..
Etruscan 0hechen
@-$ huth ,four- =i* ,four-
@E$ huS! huSu ,child! boy- j,iSa ,sister- as opposed to vaSa ,brother- from same root
As may Etruscan /au/G
Etruscan 0hechen
B@$ *thaun ,horse- din ,horse- *cf. Ingush dan! @atsbi don.
This item of "ocabulary is reconstructed here from the ancient gloss damnos *T3E 5&6.! ta$ing into account what
would be a regular correspondence between a possible Etruscan /au/ here and /a/ in Ingush at least. The /i/ in the
0hechen word may be a de"elopment which is purely internal to #a$h. The >m< in the gloss may be a
mistranscription of an expected /u/ in the Etruscan *and the >,os<! a more or less compulsory desinence in Cree$! is
unli$ely to be part of the real Etruscan word.. 'owe"er! another issue here is what reflex should be expected in
Etruscan for #a$h /d/. As is $nown! the Cree$ >d< borrowed into the Etruscan writing system is only rarely to be
found other than in abecedaria! so it is reasonable to conclude that Etruscan did not ha"e a phonemic "oiced dental
*although it is possible that "oicing of stop phonemes with un"oiced prototypes occurred in word-internal contexts..
It is difficult therefore to decide how to reconstruct >d< appearing in Cree$ glosses of Etruscan "ocabulary in the
absence of a significant number of correspondences with #a$h lexemes containing /d/ *although see #o. ;5.. This
/uestion remains to be resol"ed. A similar problem exists for the name of one of the central mythological figures in
Etruscan religion! the wise old man J child hybrid! who has come down to us under the name )a"es! despite the fact
that no >"< is used in Etruscan. It may correspond as a concept to the phrase pava tarxies ,the Tar/uinian boy- *Q.
which does exist in attested Etruscan. 0learly )a"es does not correspond to tarxies! but it is immediately
reminiscent of the 0hechen word .s/ta" ,man! person- *Ingush sa"! @atsbi st$ak$..
1&
c. Etruscan /k/ G 0hechen /&/
Etruscan 0hechen
@B$ kautha! katha ,marigold- &a:.,pa/! &a*+.,pa/ ,sunflower-
-D$ lauk,! laux,! luk,! lux, ,rule! $ing- la& ,upwards! upstairs-
BA$ ,k ,and- t&$a ,and-
B-$ ki *M *ke. ,three- &o ,three-
BB$ kes! kesu ,lie- &o:%u ,hang! drape! be suspended-
BC$ kexa! kexe ,law! right- &oi&u ,proclaim-
BD$ lek.,in/ ,high- *,in + old geniti"e. lo&.,alla/ ,height- *,alla forms abstractions.
Isoglosses #os. :2 lauk, etc. and ;2 lek.,in/ are related to one another by regular "owel changes.
?hat may be an inherited cluster in the 0hechen reflex for #o. ;& ,k has been simplified in the Etruscan. A similar
thing has happened in #o. 6! but with the deletion of the other segment! and in that case the simplified cluster can
also be found in 0hechen! but it is possible that fortition has occurred in #a$h instead.
Etruscan /k/ also corresponds to #a$h /k/. The historical de"elopment of the phonemes /&/ and /k/ in #a$h is
confused and sometimes dependent on consonant length in the proto-language.
Etruscan 0hechen
AD$ kalu.,s,na/ ,best- *,s gen.K ,na ad9.. kaja:lan ,to manage! to succeed-
AE$ kar, ,to ma$e- kar ,hand-
BE$ hek ,lay! put! place- =oxka ,put-
The Etruscan cluster /kl/ is either an attempt to represent! or is deri"ed from! initial glottalic /k$/G
Etruscan 0hechen
AF$ klan! klante/i ,son! adopti"e son- k$ant ,boy-
BF$ kluthi! kluti ,drin$ing "essel- k$ud.,al/ ,water 9ug-
>ometimes! because of dissimilation! this does not happenG
Etruscan 0hechen
@G$ krankru ,panther! cat- k$ark$ar ,9aws-
AC$ kalu ,Halu *di"inity of hell.- k$alke ,bottom- *Ingush.
The existence of homographs in Etruscan such as #os. &4 and &2 may be another indication that /k/ in Etruscan may
ha"e more than one phonemic realisation.
It is possible that a final de"oicing has ta$en place in Etruscan of an inherited /"/ or /":/G
Etruscan 0hechen
-@$ nak ,since! as! because- na"a*+ ,if-! na":a*+ ,sometimes-
The correspondence between 'urrian and Arartian /k/ and /&/ and #a$h /k/! /k$/ and /&/ is confusedG
'urro-Arartian 0hechen
@Ga$ &ar&ara*,ni. *A.. ,panther- k$ark$ar ,9aws-
B-a$ ki*,". *'.. ,three- &o ,three-
ak:i ,other- *'..! akuki dem. pron. *A.. &in ,other-
nek *'.. ,to swim-! nik, *A.. ,to water- ne:kan! ne:&an ,to swim-
The last two of these four sets of 'AJ0hechen isoglosses do not appear to ha"e any attested Etruscan reflexes.
1:
d. Etruscan /e/ G 0hechen /o/
Etruscan 0hechen
@$ eith! eth ,thus- ots:.,al/ ,so much-
A$ the% ,sacrifice- tsostu ,chop! slash! ta$e a bite out of-
E$ neth ,entrails- not$ ,pus-
@A$ meth! mex ,people! nation- moxk ,people! land-
B-$ ki *M *ke. ,three- &o ,three-
BB$ kes! kesu ,lie- &o:%u ,hang! drape! be suspended-
BC$ kexa! kexe ,law! right- &oi&u ,proclaim-
BD$ lek.,in/ ,high- *,in + old geniti"e. lo&.,alla/ ,height- *,alla forms abstractions.
BE$ hek ,lay! put! place- =oxka ,put-
BF$ elu ,celebrate! pray- o:lu ,spea$! sing-
BG$ neS ,deceased- noS ,o"erripe-
CH$ phersu ,mas$ *of an animal.- bor% ,wolf-
As is $nown! #a$h /o/ is often a regular de"elopment from earlier /e/! and this can be seen for example in item #os.
1& and 48 where the original "owel is retained in the plural of the 0hechen nouns *moxk G mexkaS! bor% G ber%aloj..
e. Etruscan /h/ G 0hechen 0<
Etruscan 0hechen
@-$ huth ,four- =i* ,four-
@E$ huS! huSu ,child! boy- vaSa ,brother- *v, + masc. 0<K cf. j,iSa ,sister- with fem. 0<.
BE$ hek ,lay! put! place- =oxka ,put-
%espite regular correspondences! sets of isoglosses cannot in themsel"es pro"e a genealogical relationship! although
they are obligatory supporting e"idence for the shared paradigms and irregularities which follow. 7n the other hand!
the existence of pairs of similar words sharing similar pairs of cognates! as in nos. ; and 4! nos. 18 and 11! nos. &&
and &:! nos. &4 and &2! and nos. :2 and ;2! is a good indication that we are dealing with something other than
chance resemblances! and thus sufficient 9ustification to explore shared paradigms and irregularities.
1;
III" Inherited paradigms
a. #umerical morphology
The most stri$ing e"idence of the cognation of a complete paradigm between Etruscan and #a$h-%aghestanian
relates to numerical morphology. 3et us ta$e ,:- and its deri"ati"es in Etruscan and #a$h respecti"ely.
Etruscan 0hechen
B-$ ki *M *ke. ,three- &o ,three-
C@$ kialx *M *kealxu. ,thirty- &oal3a ,third-
CA$ ki%/ki%i ,three times- &u%/&u:%a ,three times-
The Ingush and @atsbi forms are similar to the 0hechen. There e"en appears to be a parallel relating to the two
forms for the iterati"e ad"erb! a distinction which in 0hechen corresponds to the absence or presence of focus
gemination respecti"ely.
(eflexes of the Etruscan decade affix ,alx are used throughout the East 0aucasian languages to form either decades
or ordinals! or! in one case! multiples. @oth #a$h and %aghestanian tend to suggest a proto-form something li$e
*,alxa, whereas internal reconstruction in Etruscan itself and 3emnian e"idence both suggest an early Etruscan form
of *,alxu. This "ocalic difference is in line with other sound correspondences between Etruscan and #a$h-
%aghestanian. A reflex of this is also to be found in 'urrian! although there the "ocalism is problematic because of
metathesis! as is also the case between the metathesised Agul form and the more conser"ati"e 3e)gi form.
The #a$h reflexes of this common form areG 0hechen ,al3a! Ingush ,ala3aK and @atsbi ,al3eJ. All of these are
used as ordinals. In %aghestanian! we ha"eG A"ar ,ali <decade> *"igesimals are also used in A"ar! but with a
different affix.K Andi ,ol, <decade>K Codoberi ,ali <decade>K 0hamalal ,0, <ordinal>K Tinda -lKi0, <ordinal>K
@otli$h ,ali, <decade>K A$hwa$h ,olo, <decade> *only present in 0a,m,olo,dabe ,:8-! ,dabe being composed of
two fossilised class mar$ers present in most numbers in A$hwa$h.K @e)hta ,a0$e, <ordinal>K 'inu$h ,e0a
<ordinal>K 3a$ ,al=a <decade>K Agul ,"elaj <multiple>K 3e)gi ,la3aj <ordinal>K Tsa$hur ,al:e<decade>.
In some %aghestanian languages the lateral approximant plus "elar fricati"e se/uence we see in Etruscan! #a$h and
'urrian is represented by a single phonemeG sometimes a simple lateral approximant as in A"ar and some Andian
languages! sometimes a lateral fricati"e or affricate as in 0hamalal. This suggests that the /lx/ cluster *or /xVl/ as it is
in 'urrian. could also be thought of as a single component! as does the metathesis in Agul as compared to its close
relati"e 3e)gi *,"elaj "ersus ,la3aj..
The 3a$ decade ending contains an inserted noun class mar$er! indicated here by an e/uals sign = to show a
morpheme brea$! and this class mar$er agrees with the class of the headword in the phrase. This means that the
forms used in modern 3a$ are ,ala *0lass I.! ,al:a *0lasses II and IV. and ,alva *0lass III.. The insertion of class
mar$ers! as in the East 0aucasian reflexes of Etruscan huth! often constitutes a compensatory change in response to
decreased distincti"eness after the lenition to )ero of some segment! often a former laryngeal. Thus! the earlier 3a$
form could plausibly be reconstructed as *,al7a! where 7 denotes an un$nown and later lenited laryngeal. There is
e"idence supporting this in general sound correspondences between 3a$ and other %aghestanian languages! with
some of them preser"ing a "elar or u"ular in this position and others not! and thus the reconstruction of the =roto-
%aghestanian form as *,alxa or similar is reasonable.
@ecause of the similarity in some other East 0aucasian languages of *,alxa to the past participle of a "erb meaning
,to say-! this has led to a fol$ etymology whereby some %aghestanian languages ha"e adopted an analogue of
*,alxa! but using a different! unrelated! "erb meaning ,to say- as their ordinal affix.
The 'urro-Arartian reflex is to be found in the 'urrian ,.a/hila<ordinal>. There is e"idence of metathesis of /h/ and
/l/ elsewhere in 'urrian and Arartian. Although %ia$onoff *1161. and <eli$iI"ili *1161. ha"e both suggested that
,hila is deri"ed from a compound of the affixes ,hi <agent> and ,li <plural>! <ir9o >al"ini in an appendix to
<eli$iI"ili *1161. points out that place names ending in ,hila are always declined as singular. ?egner *&888. gi"es
,.a/mha as the ordinal ending in 'urrian.
(eflexes of the Etruscan numerical iterati"e or multiplicatory affix ,%/,%i are used throughout the East 0aucasian
languages to form iterati"es! multiples or decades! or! in one case! teens. In some %aghestanian languages reflexes of
14
both the Etruscan ,%/,%i and ,alx are used together for the decade form. A reflex of Etruscan ,%/,%i also exists in
'urro-Arartian.
These reflexes in the #a$h languages are 0hechenJIngush ,%/,%a <iterati"e or multiple>, and @atsbi ,ts$ <iterati"e
or multiple>. The #a$h pair &u:%/&u:%a *0hechen. &o%/&o%:a *Ingush. ,three times- is distinguished by the absence
or presence of focus gemination *so-called whether or not there is doubling of the consonant.. A similar feature
might be behind the alternation in the Etruscan forms! there being no e"idence of a distinction between the use of ki%
and ki%i ,three times- on diachronic or geographical grounds. In #a$h! ,%, is also used in the formation of "igesimals
*decimal numbers are not used in #a$h..
The %aghestanian forms areG A"ar ,ts$, <decade> *R ,ali.! ,ts$i, <iterati"eJmultiple> *R ,ul.K Andi ,ts$, <decade> *R
,ol.K @otli$h ,ts$, <decade> *R ,ali,.! ,ts$i <iterati"eJmultiple>K Codoberi ,ts$, <decade> *R,ali.K Harata ,ts$e
<iterati"eJmultiple>! ,ts$a,<decade>K @agwalal ,ts$a <decade>! ,ats$is <iterati"eJmultiple>K Tinda ,ts$aja
<decade>K 0hamalal ,ts$a, <decade>! ,ts$u <iterati"eJmultiple>K Hh"arshi ,ts$a <decade>K 3a$ ,ts$, <decade> *+
,al=a.K 3e)gi ,tsu/ts$i <teens>K Tsa$hur ,ts$, <decade> *R ,al:e.. 'urro-Arartian is represented by the 'urrian ,%i
<decade>.
The pattern in this numerical paradigm is in itself unusual enough to count *9ust. as being of an indi"idual-
identifying nature as defined by #ichols *1112.! and thus is a strong indicator of a genealogical relationship! but on
its own is perhaps not enough e"idence to constitute definiti"e proof of this relationship [14.
b. 0ase morphology
There are a number of other parallels relating to numerical morphology! such as ,na! the Etruscan ordinal from the
standard ad9ecti"al affix! in turn deri"ed from the old geniti"e ,n! and also the ,s numerical ad"erb! the same as the
,s geniti"e in historically attested Etruscan. These are applications of the general noun case system! which also
constitutes a shared paradigm. ?hile one might expect e"idence of Etruscan sharing grammatical features with a
particular language family to be decisi"e! caution must be exercised. There can be no doubt about the meanings of
the numerical morphology abo"e *other than about what the function is of the focus-gemination-style feature in
Etruscan.! but the same certainty is not appropriate for some other grammatical features. A number of authors!
particularly Ceorgie" *114;! 116&.! Adrados *1151.! ?oudhui)en *1111.! and Sa"aroni *1112.! ha"e proposed their
own peculiar interpretations of Etruscan grammar! upon which they in turn base their e"idence for a proposed
genealogical relationship! or! more often! imagine a relationship with IE and then seem to in"ent grammatical
features which support this relationship [12. %iscussion of Etruscan grammatical features in this study is based on
the analysis of unbiased mainstream commentators such as =fiffig *1121. and (ix *115;! &88;. who ha"e not
proposed specific genealogical relationships for Etruscan *other than (aetic and 3emnian! in the case of (ix..
>tarostin *&881G 65. listed a number of $ey grammatical features which he reconstructed for =#%. >ome details of
>tarostinEs reconstructions of these features can be /uestioned! but if the set of forms he gi"es are not entirely
beyond reproach as regards reconstructing a complete paradigm! they are all indi"idually at least more or less typical
of those to be found in the #a$h-%aghestanian languages. In a number of these we can see a similarity between
Etruscan and his "ersion of =#% *or =roto-East-0aucasian! as he preferred to call it.G
i. */*)ero./ nominati"e and ergati"e cases
It is unremar$able that the nominati"e should be unmar$ed! so this fact has no diagnostic "alue. In contemporary #%
languages the ergati"e is usually mar$ed! sometimes by a reflex of *s! which >tarostin reconstructs as ha"ing been
an ablati"e or instrumental originally. This will be discussed below.
ii. *,n geniti"e case
There are two forms of the geniti"e used during EtruscanEs attested history! ,s and -l! discussed below. As shown in
=fiffig *1121G 58-51.! there are traces of an earlier geniti"e ending in -Vn! e.g. thesnin vakl ,morning ritual- or
,ser"ice to Thesan-! also in laut.u/n and pui.i/an! geniti"e forms of laut.u/ ,family- and puia ,wife-. The ancient
Etruscan geniti"e is related to the standard ad9ecti"e ending -na in attested Etruscan and in the use of ,na! ,ne and
-ni in gentilicia in Etruscan and -nu and -na in (aetic.
12
The =# geniti"e can be reconstructed as *n! or *an if the root does not end in a "owel. %esherie" *&882G 4&8. and
Ale$see" *&88:G 186. reconstruct the =# geniti"e as *in. In modern 0hechen and @atsbi the *.V/n is lenited to a
nasal "owel! and in Ingush it is deleted completely. In the 3e)gian languages *n is uni"ersally used as a geniti"e
ending! e"en in the more di"ergent members of this group.
In A"ar and 3a$ there is ,l! in %argwa ,la! and in =roto-Andian ,0: for the geniti"e. In some Tse)ian languages there
is a more complete agreement with attested Etruscan in the use of two possible allomorphic case endings in the
geniti"e! one ending in ,s and the second in ,la! whose use in Tse)ian relates to the definitenessJindefiniteness of the
attribute.
iii. *,0 dati"e case! and
i". *,se ablati"eJinstrumental case
Alternati"e forms with a sibilant or a lateral are yet again to be found in the Antsu$h dialect of A"ar! where forms in
,s:, or ,0:, are used in the dati"e. In another echo of Etruscan! here ,s:, appears to be used for masculine forms! and
,0:, for feminine! according to the example in Ale$see" *&88:G 11&.G vats:as:e/vats:as:ije ,to the brother-!
jats:a0:e/jats:a0:ije ,to the sister-. These two forms are therefore perhaps best considered together.
In Etruscan! the two different forms ,s, and ,l, were used "ariously depending on the natural gender *particularly in
proper names.! ,s for masculine and ,l for feminine! andJor according to the phonological form of the noun
concerned. It These two forms are "ery li$ely to correspond to a pre"ious functional difference between them
*gender features are a late de"elopment in Etruscan! probably due to Italic influence.. In (ixTs analysis *e.g. in &88;G
14&-:. there is the ,geniti"e I- in ,s and the ,geniti"e II- in ,ls! but also an ,ablati"e I- in ,is and ,pertinenti"e I- in ,
.V/si and ,pertinenti"e II- in ,.a/le. There are occasional pairs in Etruscan where both ,s and ,l are used with the
same noun in the geniti"e and (ix *&88;G 141. suggests that a merging of the geniti"e and the ablati"e may
ultimately be responsible. In his "iew the allomorphy cannot ha"e a phonological cause and also does not argue
against a basis of general agglutinati"e morphology in Etruscan. 7thers see ,si/,ale as a dati"e *@onfante and
@onfante &88:G5&-54! 0ristofani 1111G 2:.. 0learly ,s and ,l are intertwined not only in purely geniti"e contexts.
=fiffig *1121G 64-1&. sees the ,i in ,si and other endings as an indication of definiteness! and >teinbauer *1111G 68.
sees ,si as a locati"e.
=allottino *115;G ;6&. sees ,si as ha"ing multiple functions! perhaps ,geniti"e- or ,dati"e-! but also ergati"e or
agenti"e in archaic inscriptions li$e mi mulu kaviiesi *ET AT :.1! from the 6
th
century @0E.! ,I am an offering by
Ha"iie-! or ,Ha"iie offered me-. There are a number of other 6
th
and 2
th
century @0E inscriptions which similarly
appear to ha"e an ergati"ely aligned syntax! e.g. the 2
th
century @0E inscription ET 0r :.&8 J T3E 525 mi aranth
ramuthasi vestirikinala muluvanike *(ix ,corrects- the mi to read mini here.! and ET 0r :.1: J T3E 522 mi mulu
likineSi velxainaSi! and so on. >uch constructions are also to be found in (aetic! e.g. (I @S-; paniun vaSanuale
upiku perunies sxaispala and (I #7-: pheluriesi phelvinuale uphiku. 3emnian also has ,s, and ,l, forms in
ad9acent nouns.
The ,s ,nominati"e of respect- is sometimes used for deities in Etruscan in later inscriptions when they are clearly
the sub9ect of the sentence. @oth of these phenomena may be related to the usage for the ,s ergati"e ending in #a$h
which tends to be used for personal names and $inship terms for example in da:! da:s ,father-! ba:ba! ba:bas
,grandmother- etc. 7ther types of nouns in #a$h ha"e other endings for the ergati"e. Another echo of the #a$h-
%aghestanian languages to be found in Etruscan is the occasional syntactic use of the geniti"e to express the
complement of a copula e.g. ET Vs &.;8 *T3E &1:. turis mi une ame ,I am a gift to you- *pace (ix &88;G 142..
An unusual feature of Etruscan is morphological redetermination! the use of multiple case endings where the first
ending redetermines the part of speech! e.g. =ni,al,s! literally ,of of Buno-! i.e. ,of *the temple. of Buno-! =ni,al,thi
,toJin *the temple. of Buno- etc. In Etruscan too there is deri"ati"e and "erbal morphology which is based on or
similar to case morphology! e.g. than,asa ,act-or-. This is all reminiscent of some #a$h-%aghestanian languages
where rich systems of spatial cases are built up from multiple affixes! e.g. as in 3e)giG
hLl ,sea- *absoluti"e case.
hLl,i ,sea- *ergati"e case.
hLl,i,k ,under the sea- *subessi"e case.
hLl,i,k,aj ,from under the sea- *subelati"e case.
hLl,i,k,di ,*to. under the sea- *subdirecti"e case. etc. *after 'aspelmath 111:G ;.
16

The last affix here is also used in 3e)gi as a substanti"iser! e.g. ts$iji ,new-! ts$iji,di ,new one-.
The use of embedded affixes in certain phraseological contexts may be the origin of noun extension themes! which
#a$h-%aghestanian is "ery rich in and which perhaps also exist in Etruscan *see the discussion on s.e/v,er- below..
A feature resembling EtruscanTs morphological redetermination in"ol"ing /l/ and /s/ can also be found in the IE
Anatolian language 3ydian where ad9ecti"es are deri"ed from nouns by the suffix ,li,! e.g. maneS ,<anes
*anthroponym.-! manelis ,pertaining to <anes- *see Cusmani 112;G :2.. This is the common gender formK the
neuter ends in ,d! not ,s. This may be one of a number of potential >prachbund features which are shared by 3ydian
and Etruscan! but it does not in"ol"e s/l allomorphy *the ,s is nominati"e in 3ydian.! and clearly does not ha"e the
same origin as the s/l allomorphy shared by Etruscan and #a$h-%aghestanian.
The endings ,S and ,Se can also be found in 'urrian and Arartian respecti"ely for the ergati"e case.
". *,di locati"e case
'ere again there appears to be agreement between Etruscan and #a$h-%aghestanian. Etruscan has ,th.i/ or ,ti. The
/i/ in ,th.i/ is predominantly archaic! with apocope in later Etruscan gi"ing ,th. Facchetti *&88&G :5. suggests that ,ti
may be related to the postposition ,te ,in- rather than to ,thi. #a$h may ha"e an exact parallel to this! with the
locati"e case in ,xi *see item #o. 11. and a postposition t$e ,on-. >imilar endings can be found throughout the #a$h-
%aghestanian languages! for example ,di in the 3e)gian languages. 'urrian has ,ta/,da for its directi"e and Arartian
has ,di. 'owe"er! it has to be said that! as with the use of a nasal for the geniti"e abo"e! the use of a dental as the
indicator for locati"e and related cases is so common among the languages of the world that this fact has little
diagnostic "alue on its own.
"i. *,r plural number
The Etruscan animate plural is ,r. There are a number of endings associated with the plural in #%! but *,r and its
reflexes is one of the commonest and most regular endings. #a$h and 'A ha"e ,S instead! but an inter"ocalic shift
from a sibilant to /r/ is extremely common! although there is no regular correspondence between #a$h /S/ and
%aghestanian /r/ in other contexts. The ,ar plural theme to be found in #a$h ve?,ar,i:/ji?,ar,i: *see IVc below. may
be deri"ed from the standard plural ,aS. Uet again! an ,r plural is hardly unusual! howe"er.
"ii. *ma prohibition
The use of a prohibiti"e particle similar to *ma is widespread throughout the #a$h-%aghestanian languages and
also occurs in 'urro-Arartian! but the prohibiti"e in Etruscan is ei or ein! cognate with the negati"e ,u.w/,/,wa, in
'urrian and ui/ue in Arartian. 'owe"er! the subtracti"e suffix ,em in Etruscan may be related to *ma.
"iii. *w< *j :rd person sub9ectJob9ect mar$ers
The 0<s used in most #% languages include in many cases a masculine 0< in *w or similar and a feminine 0< in
*j. 'ere >tarostin is trying to associate this feature with the polypersonal "erb-mar$ing feature of the ?est
0aucasian languages *which has no analogue in #%. by referring to them as sub9ectJob9ect mar$ers rather than as
class mar$ers. @ut whate"er their original nature! nothing li$e class mar$ing *let alone polypersonalism. appears to
exist in Etruscan! and this important omission might militate against the idea that there is a shared grammatical
paradigm between Etruscan and =#%. This problem will be discussed further in part VI.
ix. *,r< *,n participle and gerund suffixes
The 0hechen present participle attributi"e form adds ,n, to the present tense ending *,u/,a.! and the substanti"ised
form adds ,r" *possibly ,r," from the "erbal noun ,r followed by a substanti"ising diminuti"eQ.. The Ingush endings
are the same except that the ,n, has become deleted in a regular phonological de"elopment. @atsbi participles use
,ni in the present and future! and ,no in the past. @atsbi has no e/ui"alent of the Veina$h substanti"ised participles
in common use! but it does ha"e a "erbal noun in ,r. %esherie" suggests *&882G 4&&. that @atsbi pre"iously also had
these ,r" forms and that this can be seen in some fossilised expressions. The past participle endings in 0hechen are
,na and ,na,r," for the attributi"e and substanti"ised respecti"ely. Apart from the endings for the present tense in
15
#a$h ,u *mostly for transiti"es.! and ,a *mostly intransiti"es.! both reconstructed for =# as *,i by #ichols and *,o
by %esherie"! most of the rest of #a$h "erbal morphology *represented in the examples here by 0hechen.! and not
9ust that for participles! also in"ol"es ,n, and ,r-G
(ecent past tenseG ,in
?itnessed past tenseG ,ira
Inferential past tenseG ,.i/na
(emote past tenseG ,.i/niera
Imperfect tenseG ,ura! ,ara
Future tenseG ,ur! ,ar
<asdarG ,ar
Infiniti"eG ,an
>imilar morphology is to be found in many %aghestanian languages. 7ften participles and gerunds also play a role
in the formation of the finite tense forms as for example in A"arG
=atS$:,ine ,arri"al- *masdar.
=atS$:,in ,to arri"e- *infiniti"e.
=atS$:,una ,arri"e- *present.
=atS$:,ana ,arri"ed- *past.
=atS$:,ina ,will arri"e- *future.
=atS$:,un ,ha"ing arri"ed- *past gerund.
=atS$:,une= ,arri"ing- *present gerund.
=atS$:,ara= ,arri"ed- *past participle. *after Ale$see" and Atae"! 1116G 2&-2:.
The + symbol denotes an added 0<. In some "erbs in A"ar the ,n, becomes ,l, or ,%, in some phonological
contexts. For both 'urrian and Arartian also! ,r and ,n are among the most significant of the stem modifiers in
"erbal morphology.
The "erb endings in Etruscan which are almost uni"ersally ac$nowledged are ,ke for the acti"e past tense and ,xe for
the passi"e past tense. 'owe"er! this morphology is extremely recent and applies only to Etruscan. 7nly ,ke *usually
in the form of ,ku. and not ,xe is to be found in (aetic! and in 3emnian neither are to be found. Instead! 3emnian
appears to ha"e a strong past tense ,ai *strong in the sense that it might ha"e contributed to a "erbal "owel change!
arguably present in attested Etruscan as argued below.. If the =re-Etruscan "erb used to be li$e the #a$h "erb! then it
had many "owel change patterns. @ecause the ,ke/,xe morphology is a late inno"ation in Etruscan! it may be a
simplification due to language contact. The ending ,ke may ha"e been a postposition meaning ,before-! as found in
Arartian. 'owe"er! such a de"elopment could ha"e been made easier by a possible feature in =re-Etruscan of the use
of con"erbs! li$e the anterior con"erb ,.i/tSa in #a$h.

Etruscan "erbal morphology is less well understood than noun morphology! and conclusions less unanimously
agreed. The main "erbal morphology generally agreed upon by all mainstream commentators is that of the past
acti"e ,ke and past passi"e ,xe. <any instances of Etruscan "erbal morphology using ,n, and ,r, do exist! but the
problem is exactly how to interpret these affixes. =fiffig *1121G 1:4-1:2. lists a number of examples in ,n, with his
own interpretationG an essi"e "erb ,nu, as in %ilax,nu, ,to be praetor-! %ilax,nu,ke ,was praetor-K a thematic ,n,
indicating a mediopassi"e as in the%, ,to sacrifice-! the%,i,n ,is sacrificed-! the%,i,ne ,for sacrificing-! the%,i,n,ke
,was sacrificed-K a factiti"e! or what (ix calls the ,denominati"e- in his description of the Etruscan "erb *&88;G
146.! ker,i,xu ,to cause to be made-! keri,xu,n,ke ,he caused to be made-. =fiffig also suggests a durati"e present
participle in ,an and sometimes ,en! e.g. mulu,an/mulu,en ,dedicating-! and a bound ,n, apparent in the deri"ation
ac, ,to ma$e-! ac,n, ,to beget- *1121G 1:5! 1:2.. There also exists an ending ,un which =fiffig interprets as a first
person wea$ preterite! but there is no e"idence that mar$ing for person is used in the Etruscan "erb at all! so there
must be a /uestion mar$ o"er this interpretation. 7ther Etruscan cognates for >tarostinTs reconstructed =#% "erbal
morphology might include the past masdar ,inu! and what is clearly another factiti"e akil,une ,gets done-.
Among "erbal morphology in ,r,< the Etruscan necessitati"e ,eri *M archaic Etruscan ,iri. is also generally accepted
by most scholars. =fiffig also argues for an ,ar, of indeterminate function which can be seen in the archaic past form
ak,ar,ai ,did! made-! and a durati"e ,.a/ir to be found in words li$e luk,a,ir,ke ,ruled-. 7ne might also add ,ar! a
possible "erbal noun suffix to be found in nun,ar ,offering-.
11
It can be seen that in most cases! the =#% forms proposed by >tarostin show fairly regular correspondences between
Etruscan and #a$h-%aghestanian! and in some cases also with 'urro-Arartian. @ecause of the shortness of the
comparanda! and the fact that they are one-dimensional comparisons because of the agglutinati"e structure of both
Etruscan and the #a$h-%aghestanian languages! and the difficulty of securing a definiti"e and uni"ersally agreed
interpretation of Etruscan grammar! these grammatical correspondences do not in themsel"es constitute a definiti"e
proof of genealogical relationship! unli$e the congruence of numerical morphology. Uet they do demonstrate that
most of EtruscanEs basic grammar is compatible with that of #a$h-%aghestanian! and they are at least as similar as
might be found if comparing any two different branches of any other phylum! and the shared allomorphy of s/l in the
Etruscan and #a$h-%aghestanian declensional paradigms is also distinctly interesting. @ut to find further e"idence
of an indi"idual-identifying nature we ha"e to loo$ to shared irregularities between Etruscan and #a$h.
&8
I&" Inherited irregularities
a. The ,n, theme in obli/ue cases of thu
7bli/ue forms of Etruscan thu! unli$e the other numerals in Etruscan! use an inserted ,n, in some deri"ed forms and
with obli/ue cases! e.g. thu,n,s ,one *gen..-! thu,n,em ,less one- *as in thunem %athrum ,nineteen-! literally
,twenty less one-.. Ase of an inserted ,n, with forms of ,one- is also common in the #a$h-%aghestanian languages!
although in some languages ,one- is not the only numeral to exhibit this phenomenon. In 0hechen ts*+ana is the
obli/ue form for all cases of ts*+a ,one-. The Etruscan and many #a$h-%aghestanian words for ,together- are also
deri"ed from ,one- by adding an ,nG
Etruscan 0hechen
-$ thn ,together- ts*+an ,together-
B$ thu ,one- ts*+a ,one-
'owe"er! an association between the meanings of ,one- and ,together- is not un$nown in other languages of the
world *cf. 'indiJArdu ek sath ,together-! literally ,one with-.! and the use of ,n, in deri"ational or grammatical
morphology is not on its own strongly diagnostic.
b. /a/ L /e/ ablaut in specific cognate nouns
The Etruscan noun klan ,son- demonstrates an unusual "owel change in the geniti"eJdati"e klens/klensi and in the
plural klenar,. This anomaly is paralleled by a stri$ingly similar phenomenon in the Veina$h languages 0hechen
and Ingush. The noun k$ant ,son! boy- beha"es in exactly the same wayG geniti"e singular k$entan and in the plural!
k$ent, plus case ending. The endingless ablauted form klen is also to be found in the set phrase klen kexa where it is
followed by a postposition which means ,on behalf of- or ,because of-.
In @atsbi! the reflex of the 0hechenJIngush k$ant is k$nat! but the declension of @atsbi k$nat does not show ablaut!
e.g. geniti"e k$naten! and the lac$ of this may be a recent inno"ation due to partial simplification of @atsbiTs formal
grammar because of intense language contact. >imilar language contact may be responsible for the restriction in the
examples of ablaut in nouns in historically attested Etruscan to a "ery few common words such as klan.
Alternati"ely! we may be dealing with a =# *k$anat and the loss of different segments in the different #a$h
daughters.
A deri"ed word klanti/klante exists in Etruscan with the related meaning ,adopti"e son-! as originally argued in (ix
*1145.. The deri"ation of this word illustrates how pre-Etruscan probably had a final ,t on klan! rather than loo$ing
li$e *klania! the reconstruction proposed by (ix. An affix ,ni can be seen amongst others in e.g. lautni *M *lautV,
ni. ,freed sla"e- *M V,person of a family-.! and in prumath ,grandson- *or similar. J prumathni ,adopti"e
grandson- *Q.. Thus pre-Etruscan *klant,ni *,person in the role of a son-. de"eloped into klanti while the root form
*klant underwent simplification of the final cluster to become klan. The final ,t is also dropped in Ingush in the
alloform k$ank which is deri"ed from a diminuti"e *k$ant,i". The Etruscan affix ,ni may be related to the 'urro-
Arartian definite articleJgeniti"e ending *,ni. >lante/klante does not exhibit ablaut in the geniti"e in Etruscan! which
is an indication that the deri"ed formation meaning ,adopti"e son- is not a particularly ancient form.
There are also what appear to be reflexes of k$ant in some ?estern %aghestanian languagesG kwint$a in 0hamalal
and Tinda! meaning ,male-! and kunt$a in the other Andian languages meaning ,male- or ,husband-! where the
glottalisation has been shifted to the second syllable! probably because it is more difficult to glottalise two
consonants in the same word.
(ix *1151G 156-11&. argues that palatalisation lies behind the "owel change in klan and in two other words he
mentions in Etruscan which may show ablautG sval > sveleri and tham > themiasa. In the absence of any other
e"idence that hypothetical palatalised consonants exist! the argument seems rather circular. 0ertainly tham! li$e
klan! has an East 0aucasian etymology which may explain its beha"iour better. Although t$a:m has the standard
plural ,aS! it has e in the geniti"e singular *t$eman. and in all cases in the pluralG *t$emaS,.. 7ther examples of /a/ L
/e/ ablaut can be seen in Etruscan kar and %aru. Again! these ha"e cognates in #a$hG kara ,in the hands-! but
probably from a no longer used noun *kar ,hand-! is related to ke:raju& ,palm of the hand- *ju& + ,middle-.! which
allows us to conclude that when *kar was in use! it showed ablautK and the #a$h cognate of Etruscan %aru! 0hechen
"erb infiniti"e sardan! has a present tense of serda. The present participle of Etruscan sval is gi"en by some
&1
authorities as svalasi when one would expect *svelasi by analogy with tham L themiasa! but this is not attested
anywhere! unli$e sveleri! or rather sveleri,c *: attestations! all in the 3iber 3inteus.. %EA"ersa *111;G ;6! ;5. lists
sveleri in two separate entries! meaning both ,to be ali"e- *p. ;6. and as ,hearths- *p. ;5.. ?hate"er the explanation
for "arious words beginning sval, and svel,! it is clear that ablaut occurs in Etruscan in contexts similar to those in
#a$h! and often in cognates of those words which demonstrate the phenomenon in #a$h. Another instance of ablaut
in the Etruscan "erb ar,/er, ,to ma$e! to erect- has long been recognised! although not mentioned by (ix! and is not
able to be explained by (ixTs theory of palatalisation. This too has a possible #a$h cognate in 0hechen a:rdan ,to
ma$e! to produce- *witnessed past tense rdira.. This has probably become confused with dan or =an ,to do- in
modern #a$h.
c. The non-standard ,ii plural
0hechenJIngush ablaut of /a/ L /e/ both in the geniti"e and in the plural is more widespread than its congener in
Etruscan. #e"ertheless it is restricted to a small closed set of monosyllabic nouns with /,a,/ in the stem and ha"ing
the non-standard nominati"e plural ending ,i: *as opposed to the usual ,aS.. Another set of nouns in the Veina$h
languages has ablaut a > e only in the plural. Anusually! an ,ii, can be seen inserted into klan before the standard
animate plural ending in the archaic Etruscan kliniiar,. It seems that the ,ii, in kliniiar, may be ancient and not
disco"erably phonologically conditioned *i.e. ablaut! not umlaut.! and the additional ,ar an inno"ation which
occurred as a le"elling analogy in pre-Etruscan. A "ery similar de"elopment probably happened in #a$h! where in
0hechen the standard plural ending ,aS is used as a theme for some of the case endings in the plural of k$ant! while
retaining the ablaut in the root part.
The unusual #a$h plural ,i: can also be seen in 0hechen vaSa! plural ve?ari: and its feminine e/ui"alent jiSa! plural
ji?ari: *cf. the Etruscan alternati"e attested plural of its cognate huSu! huSiur! with the non-standard ,i,< as opposed
to the more normal late Etruscan huSur.. According to @onfante and @onfante *&88&G 1&2.! the form huSiur is
li$ely to be older as the inscriptions containing it *ET =e 4.1JT3E 422 and ET =e 8.;. are from =erugia! in a
peripheral and therefore more conser"ati"e area. The inserted ,i, in the plural is only to be found in Etruscan in
kliniiar and huSiur G no other nouns are found with this feature in Etruscan. In this case! because these two nouns
constitute a closed class in Etruscan! and their cognates belong to a closed class in #a$h! the li$elihood of this
e"idence of occurring by chance can be calculated and the congruence of the irregularities listed here again
constitutes e"idence of an indi"idual-identifying nature [16.
&&
&" 'ther core vocabulary
There are se"eral $ey core "ocabulary items for Etruscan which ha"e not been included in the lexical data abo"e.
Their absence does not in"alidate the proof of relatedness! as genealogical inheritance is not determined by lexical
correspondences. In extreme cases the lexical material can be largely or wholly replaced from one or a number of
sources and yet the structure of the language still can be inherited from some other source. In less extreme cases!
such as English! large proportions of the lexicon are borrowed from 3atin and French! but without this affecting
EnglishEs status as a Cermanic language. Although there are a large number of cultural and other borrowings in
Etruscan from Cree$ *e.g. *'runtak ,*thunder and lightning. augurer- from Cree$ bronte: ,thunder-.! the Italic
languages *e.g kletram ,trolley *for offerings.- from Ambrian kletra.! the Indo-European Anatolian languages *e.g.
spanti ,dish- from 'ittite ispantu%%i.! 'attic *e.g. %ilath ,praetor- from 'attic %ilat ,throne-.! and =unic *e.g. Sar
,ten- from =unic *asr.! a large proportion of the $nown and understood "ocabulary of Etruscan is of nati"e
etymology! and a reasonable percentage of this does appear in the correspondences abo"e! bearing in mind the
relati"e distance of the relationship.
'owe"er! it has been suggested that certain items of "ocabulary are more resistant to borrowing than others! and thus
are more indicati"e of genealogical affinity. This assumption is mista$en! particularly as regards personal pronouns!
as shown in #ichols *1112G 4;-42.. #e"ertheless! it is worth loo$ing at the ma9or omissions among the clear
correspondences between Etruscan and #a$h-%aghestanian as shown so far.
a. The personal pronoun mi/mini ,IJme-.
The pronouns mi and mini are often proposed as e"idence of a relationship between Etruscan and Indo-European.
'owe"er! the Etruscan forms mipi and minpi or minipi! which are part of the same paradigm are rarely mentioned or
explained in such proposals! because no such paradigm exists in Indo-European. An explanation for them is
a"ailable by loo$ing at a similar postposition to the Etruscan -pi! meaning ,under- in Arartian! and which comes in
two forms! -pei/,pe *indefinite. and -nepei/,nepe *definite.. Although the meaning has become more general in
Etruscan! the form of the correspondence is suspiciously paradigmatic.
The ,ne, in Arartian is the 'urrian and Arartian ,ni used as a definite article and as a geniti"e. The Arartian ,pei may
be reflex of the 'urrian pahi meaning ,head-. In situations of language contact! the use of nouns as sources for
adpositions is common! and it is also easy to see how a root meaning ,head- could ac/uire the meaning ,under-
rather than ,on top-. A further parallel is to be found in the Etruscan postposition pen! which retained the meaning
,under-! which can be compared with the Arartian ,peine/,pene! used as a sublati"e-ablati"e ending in the
indeterminate declension *determinate ,nepeine/,nepene..
The ending ,ni in mini which is claimed by some to be associated with the accusati"e *,m in =IE! is better
understood in Etruscan as a definite accusati"e! or as a definite which happens to be used mostly with syntactic
accusati"es! rather than simply an accusati"e in the IE model! as explained by =fiffig *1145.! who also points to
Arartian as a parallel.
The Etruscan mipi/minpi/minipi is mostly to be found in inscriptions containing ; ei mi.n.i//pi kapi ;! or similar!
meaning ,W donTt touch me W-! as in e.g. ET 0m &.;2JT3E 1:G kupes 'ulusla thevruknas mi ei minpi kapi mi
nunar! ,I am of the "essel of Fulu The"rucnaK do not touch meK I am an offering-. 'ere kapi re/uires the ,pi form of
the pronoun. This is reminiscent of 3e)gi! where the "erb k3un ,to touch- similarly re/uires the subessi"e case for
its ob9ect. #ote also the correspondence here between Etruscan ei ,donTt- *M*ai Q. and Arartian ui ,donTt- *Etruscan
a or au + ='A *u medially.. Again we see in Etruscan the geniti"e being used with complements of copulati"e
sentences as in #%.
The ending ,pi can also be found in Etruscan in the word spurepi! in the tomb inscriptions ET Vs 1.&11 and ET Vs
5.1 eknate vipies thui M spurepi ,E$nate Vipies hereK up to J towards J under J for the city-. The two inscriptions are
from the same tomb and belong together as shown in Tamburini *1152.. The reading spurepi is ta$en from (ix and
<eiser *1118.. Tamburini reads this word as spurepu. As an independent word! pi is also found in the inscription ET
Ve :.:;JT3E ;4G mi th8;;;$9niies: aritimi pi turan pi nuna8r9 ,I am ThWWTsG offering for Artemis *and. for
Turan *Venus.-.
Although Etruscan mi ,I- and the obli/ue form mini are often used as a ma9or piece of supposed e"idence alleging
a relationship with Indo-European! they could e/ually ha"e been used try to suggest a relationship with Aralic! or
&:
Hart"elian! or Altaic instead! because there are forms which resemble them in all three of these other language
families too. =redictably! mi/mini has also recently been used to allege a relationship between Etruscan and the
#iger-0ongo languages! which also ha"e similar first person forms *0ampbell-%unn! no date.. The Indo-European
nominati"e form has been reconstructed as *e"hom! and the Indo-Anatolian languages ha"e something li$e the
'ittite ammuk! so any ,=eri-Indo-European- theory would ha"e account for Etruscan not resembling these.
=ronouns can be borrowed too! of course! despite what is often claimed by the proponents of macro-comparison! and
it would be foolish to deny that the effects of contact with IE could be a possible factor in the adoption of mi in
Etruscan. 7f the East 0aucasian languages only Arartian has a first person pronoun li$e the Etruscan mi! in its
obli/ue enclitic -me. ?hile some may see this particular form as e"idence of Arartian borrowing from! or e"en
ha"ing a relationship with IE *as proposed by %)hau$9an 112:G 185.! the beha"iour of personal and demonstrati"e
pronouns in the %aghestanian language Adi might support the idea that both Arartian ,me and Etruscan mi are nati"e
to East 0aucasian.
As explained by >chul)e*-FXrhoff. *111;.! we can see in the history of Adi that it has a set of demonstrati"e
pronouns which originally mirrored the perspecti"e of the personal pronouns! including me ,this *near me.-! which
has reflexes in most other #a$h-%aghestanian languages. This is further discussed in >chul)e *&88:.. <odern usage
of me in Adi has become confused with the third person pronouns or attributes or demonstrati"es t$e and Se. This
system may ha"e been more complex in the past! and the decision about which pronoun to use is and was
idiosyncratic. It is easy to see how such a system! which according to Ale$see" *&881. and >chul)e represents the
historical arrangement within #a$h-%aghestanian! could lead to a reflex of me being used as a personal pronoun! or
perhaps e"en pro"ide an explanation for the ,spea$ing "essel- phenomenon where ,this- and ,I- appear to be
confused. A further interesting feature in the conser"ati"e ?artashen dialect of Adi is that the absoluti"e case of me
and the other demonstrati"es use a deictic particle ,n, *li$e the ,ni in 'urro-Arartian. as their theme! as in me,n,o!
which parallels the ,ni, in mini and minipi. >he"orosh$in and <anaster (amer *1111.! discussing proposals by V.V.
I"ano" relating Etruscan to both the #a$h-%aghestanian and the #orth ?est 0aucasian languages! mention that in
one of his papers I"ano" glosses Etruscan mi as ,this-. This is wishful thin$ing. Virtual bilinguals in Venetic and
Faliscan with almost identical contexts to many Etruscan inscriptions in"ol"ing mi clearly show that Etruscan mi
means ,IJme-.
'owe"er! the other $nown Etruscan personal pronouns! un ,you-! an ,he! she-! and in ,it-! do not support a
relationship with Indo-European! but with 'urro-Arartian and #a$h-%aghestanian.
b. Family relationship and related wordsG sex< puia< ruva< ne't< ati< apa< *axalethur
There is no immediately ob"ious #a$h cognate for Etruscan sex ,daughter-. 'owe"er! often an initial consonant in
an inherited =#% word is substituted in the daughter languages by a 0< whate"er the nature of the initial consonant
was *see #ichols &88:G &18.! and not 9ust if it was /h/ as suggested by item 1:! Etruscan huS.u/ ,child! boy- G #a$h
v,aSa/j,iSa ,brother! sister-! and also by items 16 and ;6 in the phonological correspondences abo"e. In the same
way Etruscan sex may also be related to 0hechen v,o-< j,o- ,boy-! ,girl-. The =# for this word can be reconstructed
as *=oh and this might be regularly cognate with a putati"e Etruscan *1ex. 'owe"er! such a lexical correspondence
must be considered speculati"e! because if the initial consonant for this root was not originally /h/! we cannot $now
what it was. The correspondences between laterals in #% and Etruscan are not /uite clear! and this probably applies
to 'A too. This might bring 'urrian Sala and Arartian sIla: into the e/uation as possible cognates. Alternati"ely!
there may be a connection with 0hechen stie *Ingush sie. ,female-.
Etruscan puia ,wife- has long been lin$ed with the Cree$ opuio ,to marry *of a man.-. There are no ob"ious IE
cognates for the Cree$ word! but opuio may in turn be from a corruption of Cree$ potnia ,mistress-! which does
ha"e an IE pedigree! and thus if the two are lin$ed! then puia is a borrowing from the Cree$. 7n the other hand! the
Etruscan word may ha"e nothing to do with one or other or both of the Cree$ words. Interestingly! one of the
leading Arartian goddesses was )ush,puea! wife of the sun-god Shivini! and there are a number of proper names
beginning with tush, in Arartian culture! e.g. the $ing )ush,ratta! and the capital city )ush,pa! and the word tush is
still used in an ethnic sense in the 0aucasus today! so segmenting the word as )ush,puea is legitimate. It is possible
that the Etruscan puia may be related to the Arartian puea! although the latter word is not attested outside of an
onomastic context. It is possible that there is also a lin$ to a #% root for wife! e.g. the 3e)gi pab *obli/ue stem
papa.! which might relate regularly to something li$e *puwu in #a$h or 'A. 'owe"er! this root is not to be found in
the other #% languages.
&;
Etruscan ruva ,brother- does not appear to ha"e any ob"ious cognates in the #% languages because of the
widespread use of reflexes of Etruscan huS.u/ with a masculine 0< for this meaning. 'owe"er! the pre"ious root
may sur"i"e in the 3e)gi word ruxwa,jar ,sons-. This is a suppleti"e plural for the singular xwa.
The inscription mi ruas on the (occia delle >pade at =iancogno! near @rescia in northern Italy! has been suggested
as e"idence of a relationship between the language of the 0amunic inscriptions *which include those at =iancogno.
and the Etruscan language because of the similarity of rua, to the Etruscan word ruva. Another inscription at nearby
@edolina has pueia *see Sa"aroni &881.. It is not clear whether the word or words in the (occia delle >pade
inscription should be di"ided as shown! or whether a nearby >h< is not part of the word. The 0amunic inscriptions
*those that appear to be in a writing system at all. are all extremely short! and it is by no means certain that these
inscriptions are all e"en in the same language or from the same period. ?e ha"e no idea what any of the inscriptions
mean! and therefore any suggestion that 0amunic is related to Etruscan is highly premature.
Etruscan ne't and 3emnian naphoth ha"e long been lin$ed by Etruscologists to the =IE root *nepo:t and its reflexes
in its daughter languages meaning ,nephew- or ,grandson-. It is not certain which of these two meanings the
Etruscan word has! but it certainly refers to some sort of family relationship. ?ith the 3emnian word we can be less
sure of the meaning. 3in$ing these Etruscan and 3emnian words with the =IE word is an almost compulsory part of
any proposal suggesting a remote relationship between Etruscan and IE. This is perhaps inspired by macro-
comparatist <erritt (uhlenTs 9ustification for expecting cognates to loo$ similar in supposedly related languages
belonging to hypothetical deep macro-families *111;G &68.! where he points to modern (omanian nepot ha"ing
managed to sur"i"e around 2888 years from =IE almost unchanged. 'owe"er! here they are clearly borrowings *if
the 3emnian word has anything to do with ne't at all.. Etruscan ati ,mother- and apa ,father- ha"e also been
suggested as possibly related to IE words! as in =errotin *1111G 48-4:.! and arguably one could do the same with
#a$h-%aghestanian. 'owe"er! ,mother- and ,father- are particularly unsuitable for use as e"idence of a
genealogical relationship because their uni"ersal tendency for sound symbolism.
There is! howe"er! a plausible #a$h-%aghestanian etymology for the Etruscan word *axalethur or *akalethur
,children-. This word is reconstructed from the ancient Cree$ gloss T3E 58& a"ale:tora = paida! which should be
considered a plural rather than the singular that it is glossed as! and it should be segmented as *ax/kale,th,ur with
*ax/kale meaning ,youth-! and *ax/kale,th,ur ,those who are in their youth-. This needs to be considered together
with the 3atin gloss T3E 581 6clus )uscorum lin"ua 5unius mensis dicitur! which corresponds to the attested
Etruscan word akale ,Bune-. A metaphorical *or accidental. relationship of youth and summer is not uni/ue to
Etruscan and *henceQ. its neighbour 3atin. It is also present in #a$h-%aghestanian! where we ha"e the Ingush axka
,summer- and similar words in 0hechen and @atsbi! and words for ,child- or ,youth- in a number of %aghestanian
languages such as 3e)gi ajal! @udu$h ajel! Hhinalug h*+jl etc.
c. %emonstrati"e pronounsG eka< eta ,this! that-
It has been suggested that the Etruscan deictics li$e eka! eta *also ka! ta in later Etruscan! ika/ita in archaic Etruscan.
are related to similar deictics with "elars and dentals which ha"e been reconstructed for =IE. Anli$e almost all
indi"idual languages descended from =IE! a number of #% languages ha"e deictics with "elars and deictics with
dentals in the same language! and could ha"e been listed as part of the correspondences abo"e without much
difficulty. =roponents of a relationship with IE also point to the definite accusati"e forms ek.a/n! et.a/n! kn! tn but
the existence of forms such as etanal and knl in other cases shows ,n, being used as a theme extension and that
forms that appear to be simple accusati"es are not so simple at all.
In any e"ent! forms in"ol"ing ,k, and ,t, are so common as deictics in the languages of the world that to list these as
part of a claim of genealogical relationship would ha"e little or no diagnostic "alue.
d. 7ther core "ocabularyG lupu ,die-! avil ,year-! ais ,god-
?hile some of these are not particularly $ey items of "ocabulary in any uni"ersal sense! all of these are "ery much
$ey as far as Etruscan is concerned! being among their most attested words! and among those whose meaning is most
unassailable. The absence of lupu may be that it is an inno"ation due to taboo 9ust li$e manim arke! a $nown
a"oidance expression for ,died-! literally ,made manim- *became a spiritQ..
&4
6vil may be related to the 'urrian Sawala and Arartian Sa:lI. 'ere we see the loss of a mobile sibilant that may
also be the case in Etruscan )a"es G 0hechen .s/ta". The #a$h and %aghestanian words for ,year-! such as 0hechen
So! may be cognate with the 'A but ha"e perhaps deleted a different segment.
It is possible that a mobile /s/ has been deleted in the Etruscan word for ,fire-. This word is to be found in the only
Etruscan phrase *as opposed to single word. which is glossed by an ancient author! T3E 51&G 6rseverse averte
i"nem si"ni'icat$ )uscorum enim lin"ua arse averte< verse i"nem constat appelari. This would imply *arse
,a"oid- and *verse ,fire-. There is no guarantee that the phrase has been segmented correctly by the ancient author.
In ET 0r ;.; aknasverS is to be found! meaning ,offering fire-. This might suggest that T3E 51& should be
segmented as something li$e *ar severeS. 7n the other hand! =fiffig argues for ,se as one of the imperati"e endings
for the Etruscan "erb. Sveleri ,hearths-! mentioned abo"e! may be the plural of the word for ,fire- but with a
thematic extension of ,r, in the singular being changed to ,l, in the plural because of dissimilation. It may be that this
extension ,er,! or similar! which is a feature of the #% words for ,fire-! for example 0hechen ts$e *,fire- *absoluti"e
case.-.! ts$eruo *ergati"e.! ts$erS *plural.! is also present in Etruscan. The 'urrian tari ,fire- may be related to the
#% words! or alternati"ely! it may be an ancient borrowing from IE *I"ano" 1111G 145 ff...
Etruscan ais ,god- and aisna ,di"ine- ha"e often been associated with the Ambrian esono, ,di"ine-! but if it is
borrowed! then the direction of the borrowing is uncertain. I"ano" *1111G 141-14:. suggests a relationship of the
Etruscan aisar ,gods- with 'urrian en?ari *,gods- *collecti"e..! also attested as einSari! and ultimately a lin$ with
sur"i"ing forms in modern ?est 0aucasian languages.
#one of these lexical gaps or borrowings are sufficient to cast doubt on the nature of the genealogical relationship
between Etruscan and #a$h-%aghestanian which has been suggested by the indi"idual-identifying nature of some of
the paradigms and irregularities presented in earlier sections.
&2
&I" A genealogical relationship( borrowing or substrate)
Finally! the possibility that the features that Etruscan has in common with the #a$h-%aghestanian languages are due
to borrowing! or substrate or similar influence! or indeed the possibility of Etruscan not being a language transmitted
,in the normal way- *and thus not ha"ing a genealogical parent at all. both need to be examined. The re/uirements
of the comparati"e method are clear. Thomason and Haufman *1155G 5. express these as followsG ,[Ci"en the
possibility of diffused linguistic features of all sorts *and! by implication! to all degrees.! no single subsystem is
criterial for establishing genetic relationship. In fact! genetic relationship in the traditional sense of one parent per
language can only be posited when systematic correspondences can be found in all linguistic subsystems Y
"ocabulary! phonology! morphology! and *we would add. syntax as well.-

There are two fundamental areas where Etruscan differs from #a$h-%aghestanian languagesG
i. =honology
E"en if the writing system of Etruscan does not re"eal its true "ariety! the phonology of Etruscan still appears to be
simpler than that of the #a$h languages and especially of the %aghestanian languages. The #a$h languages ha"e
around ;8 consonant phonemes and around &8 "owels including diphthongs. The %aghestanian languages are e"en
richer in consonants Y A"ar has ;2! 3e)gi 4;! and Archi 68! but they ha"e a simpler "owel in"entory than #a$h.
Thus! either EtruscanTs historical de"elopment has led to simplification of its phonemic in"entory! or some process
has led #a$h! and especially %aghestanian! to ac/uire additional consonant phonemes! perhaps as a result of contact
with the ?est 0aucasian languages! or perhaps a combination of both processes has occurred. If 'urro-Arartian is
related to both Etruscan and #a$h-%aghestanian! it is noteworthy that both 'urrian and Arartian! li$e Etruscan! ha"e
a relati"ely modest phonemic in"entory! although this may again be mas$ed to some extent by the writing systems!
which may not ha"e properly recorded the distinctions of manner of articulation! such as the use of a glottalic
airstream mechanism andJor tensenessJlaxness contrasts! or secondary articulations! such as pharyngealisation!
labialisation or palatalisation! which feature in the #a$h-%aghestanian systems.
It is clearly reasonable to suppose that at least some phonological changes of a simplifying nature ha"e ta$en place
in EtruscanTs prehistory! and that these changes! at least partially! ha"e an external causation! i.e. language contact!
but this need not necessarily /uestion EtruscanEs status as a language largely transmitted in the normal way! despite
the significant role of language shift of sections of the Etruscan population from an Italic language to Etruscan. It is
possible that this language shift may not ha"e been "ery abrupt or comprehensi"e! particularly among the rural poor!
and the extent of the sur"i"al of Italic among *illiterate. sections of the population for some time after the
establishment of ethnic Etruscan hegemony in the area may ha"e remained undocumented rather than non-existent.
A more gradual language shift from Italic to Etruscan would ma$e normal genealogical transmission within Etruscan
less in doubt. ?hate"er the extent and nature of this significant language shift! Etruscan did not adopt an Italic
phonology! but instead retained its own phonological peculiarities! albeit in simplified form! and this would point to
normal transmission largely continuing uninterrupted. @y contrast! the later terminal language shift from Etruscan to
3atin was complete! and relati"ely rapid.
ii. Absence of class mar$ing
The most important $ey feature of #a$h-%aghestanian grammar which is not shared by Etruscan is class mar$ing!
and specialists in #% ha"e traditionally regarded items of "ocabulary which show class mar$ing to be among the
more ancient members of the #% lexicon. 'owe"er! we ha"e seen abo"e that at least some instances of class
mar$ing show signs of ha"ing occurred as inno"ations. This fact does not necessarily call into /uestion the analysis
of class mar$ing in #a$h-%aghestanian in general as being a relati"ely ancient phenomenon. 'owe"er! it does
underline the fact that class mar$ing! li$e all grammatical features! can be introduced into languages that did not
pre"iously ha"e it. It is completely lac$ing in Etruscan and its closest relati"es and in 'urro-Arartian! and! unli$e
those 3e)gian languages which do not now ha"e class mar$ing! neither Etruscan nor 'urrianJArartian show signs of
e"er ha"ing had it. It is reasonable! on the basis of the balance of e"idence so far! to suppose that Etruscan is more
closely related to #a$h-%aghestanian than either of them are to 'urro-Arartian! and that hence the ancestor of
'urro-Arartian was the first to split from the common ancestor of Etruscan! 'urro-Arartian and #a$h-%aghestanian
*which we could refer to as =roto-Alarodian for want of a better suggestion.! followed by =roto-Tyrrhenian at some
point thereafter. =roto-Tyrrhenian and =roto-'urro-Arartian thus ne"er formed a separate clade of their own. =roto-
Alarodian also did not ha"e class mar$ing! and =roto-#a$h-%aghestanian! or all of its daughters! ac/uired it as an
&6
inno"ation at some later date! perhaps due to the influence of ?est 0aucasian ob9ect mar$ers or A$$adian personal
pronouns.
7ther typological differences! such as the existence of a wea$ past tense! discussed abo"e! and the existence of a
relati"e pronoun in Etruscan *Etruscan has a relati"e pronoun ipa! while #a$h-%aghestanian languages implement
relati"e clauses in other ways. are inno"ations! unli$e the absence of class mar$ing which may be an archaism.
Those features which are not shared by EtruscanTs proposed relati"es are not sufficient to cast doubt on the shared
features which are diagnostic of a genealogical linguistic relationship between Etruscan and #a$h-%aghestanian. In
ascending order of importance! these areG
i. 0ognate $ey items of "ocabulary supported by regular sound correspondences.
ii. Agreement of the ma9ority of $ey grammatical morphological items! abo"e all the identity of the morphology
relating to decade and iterati"e numerals! and shared allomorphy of sibilants and laterals in the case system! some of
which constitute indi"idual-identifying e"idence.
iii. E"idence of a number of shared irregularitiesG shared ablaut patterns! and shared theme extensions in the same
specific cognate words! which in some cases also constitutes indi"idual-identifying information.
It is this third type of e"idence which is crucial. As 0urnow *&881G ;&&. points out! e"ery language-contact situation
comes with a particular social context! and thus with different constraints on borrowing. The borrowing of such
features as *iii. is inconcei"able except in the context of /uite per"asi"e influence from a prestige language and
widespread literacy. Thus! while it is understandable that in modern Cerman the plural of )empus is )empora *for
those who use the word.! and in modern English! at least for a *sadly! declining. proportion of educated spea$ers!
phenomenon is singular and phenomena plural! hardly anyone except specialists in Inuit $nows that the plural of
anorak ,should really be- anorat. Thus Etruscan huSiur and kliniiar can only be explained by ha"ing been
inherited ,in the normal way- from a common ancestor. EtruscanEs affinities with #a$h-%aghestanian are therefore
not the result of language contact! or of substrates! adstrates! superstrates or creolisation! but of a genealogical
relationship. Furthermore the degree of the relationship is fully consistent with the widely supported historical model
*such as proposed in @ee$es &88:. which proposes an Anatolian origin for the Etruscans! and its associated
chronology! and although there is relati"ely limited e"idence of an indi"idual-identifying nature! we can now regard
the genealogical relationship between Etruscan *and its closest relati"es 3emnian and (aetic.! and the #a$h-
%aghestanian language family as ha"ing been pro"ed.
#ichols *1112G ;5 ff.. sets out the stages of the wor$ of the comparati"e method which follow the achie"ement of
,*1. Assume genetic relatedness on the strength of diagnostic e"idence-. These areG ,*&. wor$ out sound
correspondences and cognate sets! thereby establishing an internal classification for the familyK *:. unco"er and
reconstruct more diagnostic e"idenceK *;. bring more languages into the family as daughters-. 7b"iously! in the case
of Etruscan! there are many tas$s which remain to be done in addition to these! including re"ising and extending our
understanding of the grammar and lexicon of the language! and our interpretations of Etruscan texts. ?e can expect
more ad"ances! piece by piece! as we ha"e seen in Etruscology for much of the past 28 years! as new research builds
on the findings of pre"ious generations of scholars. This is not so much a brea$through as a signpost.
The author welcomes comments and criticisms. These should be sent to 2obertCA .at/ aol .dot/ com. This version
is a draft of a work in progress. The author asserts copyright over this work, but permits its circulation in full for
non-commercial purposes provided this notice is included.
&5
Notes
[1. Following 'aspelmath *&88;G &&&.! the term ,genealogical- has been used here to refer to linguistic inheritance!
as opposed to ,genetic-! the hitherto more usual term in English! in order to a"oid confusion with biological
genetics.
[&. The #a$h-%aghestanian languages are a phylum of about :8 languages spo$en by more than &.4 million people
mostly in the #orth 0aucasus and ad9acent areas. The best-$nown members of this family are 0hechen! A"ar! 3e)gi
and Ingush. <any of the others are spo$en in only a few "illages! and some of these may be expected to become
extinct this century. The ma9or sub-groupings of #a$h-%aghestanian are #a$h and %aghestanian. #a$h! formerly
referred to as #orth 0entral 0aucasian! consists of 0hechen! Ingush and @atsbi! the last of these spo$en by only
about 488 people! a proportion of the inhabitants of a single "illage in eastern Ceorgia. 0hechen and Ingush are /uite
closely related to one another and are together $nown as the Veina$h languages. %aghestanian is a more di"ersified
grouping comprising the remainder of the languages in the phylum. 7ne extinct %aghestanian language! Aghwan!
possibly an ancestor of modern Adi! is $nown from inscriptions dating from the 4th to the 5th centuries of the 0E.
The term #orth East 0aucasian! or East 0aucasian! was formerly used to refer to the %aghestanian branch! but now
is more often used to refer to the phylum as a whole. The existence of a genealogical relationship between these two
sub groupings is no longer seriously doubted by specialists. A relationship between #a$h-%aghestanian and the
ancient 'urro-Arartian languages of Anatolia has been proposed by %ia$onoff *1161.! and more fully in %ia$onoff
and >tarostin *1152.. This has not met with general acceptance as a proof! although there is widespread sympathy for
the hypothesis! and the possibility is discussed in a number of earlier wor$s! e.g. %esherie" *&882 [112:..
>pecialists are di"ided on whether there is a disco"erable remoter relationship between #a$h-%aghestanian and the
*#orth-.?est 0aucasian languages such as Ab$ha)ian and Habardian! and some ha"e proposed that these two phyla
are in turn ultimately related to >ino-Tibetan and #a-%enZ. #either of these possibilities has been explored here! and
the latter suggestion is highly speculati"e. 'owe"er! 'attic! which may be related to ?est 0aucasian *according to!
for example! 0hiri$ba 1112G ;82 ff..! was arguably in contact with the ancestor of Etruscan. The Hart"elian
languages such as Ceorgian are not disco"erably related to the #a$h-%aghestanian languages! but ha"e been in close
contact with them for o"er 4888 years. The idea of a remote relationship between all three indigenous 0aucasian
language phyla was at one time a widespread act of faith among >o"iet linguists! and has hence been echoed in some
amateur proposals of relatedness with Etruscan! but is no longer seriously supported outside Ceorgia. There ha"e
also been claims of a lin$ between Etruscan and Hart"elian by some commentators! including some professional
linguists such as FurnZe *111:.! who also includes @urushas$i in his grouping. FurnZe proposes a number of
isoglosses! which are probably mostly coincidences! but it is possible that his list contains some examples of "ery
ancient Hart"elian loans which could ha"e been adopted into the ancestor of Etruscan *or "ice "ersa. due to
prehistoric contacts in eastern Anatolia! e.g. Etruscan tiu! tiur ,moon-! ,month- *cf. <odern Ceorgian tov ,month-..
[:. @onfante and @onfante *&88&G &&2.! and <allory *1151G 51.! for example! list the Etruscan numerals side by side
with their e/ui"alents from se"eral ancient IE languages to demonstrate precisely this point. It is now generally
accepted that Etruscan is not an isolate and is! as a minimum! closely related to the marginally attested 3emnian and
(aetic languages. >ee! for example! >teinbauer *1111G :2: ff..! and (ix *1115. respecti"ely for proof of the
relationship of these languages to Etruscan. These three languages are together referred to in the literature as
constituting a genealogical group descended from a hypothetical earlier =roto-Tyrrhenian or =roto-Tyrsenic
language. It is possible! or e"en li$ely! that there are further members of this group which ha"e not been identified!
or are not attested. The stage ancestral to EtruscanEs historical attestation! but common to the three $nown
TyrrhenianJTyrsenic languages! is referred to in the present study as =re-Etruscan in the absence of a comprehensi"e
reconstruction of =roto-TyrrhenianJTyrsenic.
[;. This has not pre"ented "ague and unsystematic proposals of relationships which include claims in"ol"ing
Etruscan numerals. >ee Sa"aroni *1112G 4: ff.. and =ittau *1116G 1: ff.. asserting a relationship with Indo-European!
>emerano *&88:G :6 ff.. with Afroasiatic! throwing in >umerian for good measure! Cluha$ *&88&G 15: ff.. with the
hypothetical #ostratic macrofamily! and so on. <any proposals claiming a relationship with Indo-European simply
ignore the /uestion of the numerals altogether! such as those of Ceorgie" *114;! 116&.! Adrados *1151.!
?oudhui)en *1111.! =errotin *1111K his &888 paper presents a much more balanced "iew.! Creenberg *&888J&88&.!
@omhard *&88&. and many others. <ost of these base their claims on a small recurring group of lexical items and
short morphological segments which accidentally resemble their counterparts in Indo-European! or which are clearly
borrowed. There is no space to examine them in detail here! but they do not attempt to show regular sound
correspondences! and often contain misrepresentations of Etruscan grammar and historical de"elopments. >ome
older theories that Etruscan is associated with Indo-European in some sort of ,Indo-Tyrrhenian- or ,=eri-Indo-
&1
European- macro-family *e.g. Hretschmer 11;1 et se/.! and %e"oto 11;; et se/.. seem to be based on practically no
linguistic e"idence at all.
[4. A relati"ely minor example of this can be found in Sa"aroni *1112G 4;-44.! for example! who argues that ET Ta
1.185 *T3E 511. supports the existence of an Etruscan numeral *enva ,1- supposedly related to the Cree$ ennea.
This reading cannot be supported on epigraphical grounds! and there are good combinatorial reasons for re9ecting
this. Sa"aroni claims that the inscription should be interpreted as meaning ,=ala)ui Thana! ha"ing borne nine sons in
the course of time! died-. The word *avilsth! glossed by Sa"aroni as ,in the course of time-! is unattested elsewhere!
and if it did exist! would be more li$ely to mean ,at the age of-. A nine-year-old girl gi"ing birth to multiple children
and then dying would be highly tragic! but also highly unli$ely. Transcribing the "ersion proposed in ET! the
inscription reads pala%ui thana / avils $ then%a $ huSur / aknanas $ manim : arke in the orthography used here. The
reading avils $ then%a is clearly implied by the interpuncts and interpreting this as an abbre"iation for avils thunem
%athrum ,aged 11- is considerably more plausible. Sa"aroniEs transgressions against the combinatorial method are
mild! howe"er! compared with "arious offerings on the internet! where Etruscan! and sometimes in the same breath
e"ery $ind of ,mysterious- document from the =haistos %is$ to the Voynich <anuscript! is "ariously described and
,deciphered- as a form of Tur$ish anagrams! 3atin written bac$wards! modern A$rainianJ3ithuanianJAlbanian! or
e"en ,archaic 'ungarian- *the 'ungarians only arri"ed in Europe at the end of the 1th century 0E.. Then there are
those whose trade is not fantasy but conscious deception! and whose ,scientific- method consists in fa$ing
illustrations of well-$nown inscriptions to read differently and thus fit their fa"oured hypotheses! as in Foscarini
*1112G &1&..
[2. There are a number of unscientific or "ague proposals in"ol"ing a relation between #a$h-%aghestanian and
Etruscan! often together with unrelated languages! going bac$ at least to Ellis *1552.. Among serious linguists! V. V.
I"ano" *1155 and a number of other papers before and after this. has also proposed a small number of
EtruscanJ#orth 0aucasian *i.e. #orth ?est 0aucasian and #a$h-%aghestanian. isoglosses! which o"erlap with those
in 7rDl and >tarostin *1118..
[6. >ee! for example! the criti/ues by >ha$hbie"a *1115. and #ichols *&88:..
[5. Horya$o" *&88&. expresses doubts about whether #a$h and %aghestanian are "alid clades and prefers to group
#a$h together with the ?est %aghestanian A"ar-Andi-Tse)ian languages! the rest of %aghestanian constituting a
separate grouping within #a$h-%aghestanian. This arrangement is not followed in the present study. In the "iew of
#ichols *&88:.! #a$h separated from %aghestanian only shortly before the brea$-up of %aghestanian itself.
Horya$o" also treats Calancho)h! an unwritten dialect transitional between 0hechen and Ingush! as a separate
language! but this classification is not generally made and is not followed here. ?ithin %aghestanian! >tarostin and
others ha"e proposed that %argwa should be classified with 3e)gian rather than with 3a$! and that Hhinalug should
not be included within 3e)gian. The traditional classification is followed here! but should not be ta$en as re9ection of
any alternati"e arrangement within %aghestanian.
[1. >A<=A [>peech Assessment <ethods =honetic Alphabet is a mapping of the symbols of the I=A onto the 6-bit
A>0II character set for ease of use in email and other computer contexts. For further information on >A<=A see
httpGJJwww.phon.ucl.ac.u$JhomeJsampaJhome.htm. There is not as yet a publicly agreed standard for transcribing the
#a$h-%aghestanian languages into >A<=A! and the symbols used here for representing glottalic consonants differs
from the extension proposed in ?ells *1114. to the basic >A<=A system! the un"oiced dental glottalic stop being
shown in the present study as Jt.J and not Jt[LJ! for example.
[18. >ee Ale$see" *&88:G &8;.! for example.
[11. Exceptions are 'amp *1145. and >teinbauer *1111..
[1&. ?hile this archaism is often true of @atsbi phonologically! it does not mean that we should necessarily expect
@atsbi grammatical forms to be more ancient! or its phonology to be more ancient in all cases. @atsbi is moribund!
with children no longer learning the language! and it is in the process of being replaced by Ceorgian! with the
attendant simplification of @atsbiEs formal grammar. There are also instances of historical ablaut which sur"i"e in
0hechen and Ingush! but ha"e been lost in @atsbi.
[1:. 0ited in %EA"ersa *&88:G 42..
:8
[1;. Vinum is usually assumed to ha"e been borrowed from 3atin into Etruscan. 'owe"er! the Etruscans and the
Cree$s introduced systematic "iticulture to Italy. ?hy should a language of Anatolian origin! of all places! need to
borrow its word for wine from a language whose spea$ers were not yet great wine producersQ The Etruscan word
'anu is also assumed to be borrowed! from 3atin 'anum! yet here the ,m has not been preser"ed in the Etruscan! and
in the more numerous Etruscan borrowings of Cree$ neuter nouns! the final Cree$ ,n is also not preser"ed.
[14. This paradigm agreement far exceeds that demanded to fit into #icholsE category of ,interesting-. Ta$ing her
"alues of 1 in &8 for a consonant correspondence! 1 in 4 for a "owel correspondence! and 1 in & for any "owel "ersus
no "owel. ?e can calculate a probability of 1 in 4 x &8 x &8 x 4 + 1 in 18888 for ,alx.u/! and 1 in &8 x & x & + 1 in
;88 for ,%/,%V! gi"ing a total probability for these two chief items of numerical morphology of 1 in ;888888. ?e
cannot multiply the probability of ,%/,%V by a further &8 because the two iterati"e forms are related! not independent.
This probability has to be di"ided by & for counting a correspondence between the un"oiced "elar fricati"e and the
"oiced one in #a$h! and by & again for counting a decade as matching with an ordinal *e"en though it is cognate
with decade endings in %aghestanian.. This lea"es us with a maximum "alue of 1 in 1888888! but only if the
distinction between the two Etruscan iterati"es is genuinely [RJ- emphasis. If not! then the chances are less! which
ma$es the correspondence borderline indi"idual-identifying.
[12. Sa"aroni in fact does not e"en go through the motions of proposing a relationship between Etruscan and Indo-
European! but simply assumes it and beha"es as if it is self-e"ident. 'e has e"en admitted that he would not $now
how to propose such a relationship anyway *personal communication..
[16. 7ut of many thousands of nati"e nouns in #a$h! about 1;8 ha"e an ,i plural! perhaps roughly a 1J48 chance.
The chances of two Etruscan nouns at random both ha"ing cognates in the ,i plural class is therefore roughly 1J&488.
'owe"er! if these two nouns are $nown to be the only nouns in Etruscan that ha"e an ,i, plural! we are tal$ing about
a closed class of perhaps 1J188 of the $nown and generally agreed Etruscan lexicon! gi"ing a chance of about 1 in
&48888 languages ha"ing this feature by chance. If we adopt a margin of two orders of magnitude! the absolute
maximum number of languages we could e"er expect to ha"e this feature by chance is about &. >o again! this
inherited feature is borderline indi"idual-identifying.
:1
Abbreviations
<x> + grapheme x
>x< + transliterated grapheme x
/x/ + phoneme x
[x + narrower phonetic transcription of x
!chi# + letter name in a non-(oman alphabet
0< + class mar$er
='A + =roto-'urro-Arartian
=IE + =roto-Indo-European
=# + =roto-#a$h
=#% + =roto-#a$h-%aghestanian
%O> + %ia$onoff and >tarostin *1152.
ET + (ix and <eiser *1111.
#%0 + #ichols *&88:.
7O> + 7rel and >tarostin *1118.
(I + >chumacher *111&.
T3E + =allottino *1125.
Appendi*
>A<=A symbols
?here the symbols 1 and V are used in this paper! these should be read as ,some un$nown consonant- and ,some
un$nown "owel- respecti"ely! and not as their usual "alues in >A<=A.
\ mid central unrounded "owel
] near-open front unrounded "owel
Q glottal stop
Q^ un"oiced pharyngeal
: "oiced pharyngeal
@ "oiced bilabial fricati"e
E open-mid front unrounded "owel
C "oiced "elar fricati"e
$. glottalic un"oiced "elar plosi"e
$T palatalised un"oiced "elar plosi"e
lT palatalised lateral approximant
3 lateral fricati"e or affricate
nT palatalised nasal
ph aspirated un"oiced labial plosi"e
/. glottalic un"oiced u"ular plosi"e or affricate
rT palatalised coronal approximant
( "oiced u"ular fricati"e
> un"oiced postal"eolar fricati"e
t. glottalic un"oiced dental or al"eolar plosi"e
tT palatalised un"oiced dental or al"eolar plosi"e
th aspirated un"oiced dental or al"eolar plosi"e
ts un"oiced palatal affricate
ts. glottalic un"oiced palatal affricate
S "oiced postal"eolar fricati"e
3ower case letters and other symbols not listed here ha"e the same "alues in >A<=A as in I=A.
:&
Re+erences
Adrados! Francisco (.G truscan as an 5 6natolian .but not Nittite/ lan"ua"e! in Oournal o' 5ndo,uropean
studies! Vol. 16! ?ashington! 1151
Ale$see"! <. E. and @. <. Atae"G 6varskij ja%Pk! <os$"aG Academia! 1116
Ale$see"! <. E.G 4akhsko,da"estanskie ja%Pki in V. #. Bartse"a et al. *eds.. Oa%Pki mira: >avka%skie ja%Pki!
<os$"aG Academia! &881
Ale$see"! <. E.G Sravnitelno,istoricheskaja mor'olo"ija nakhsko,da"estanskikh ja%Pkov: >ate"orii imeni!
<os$"aG Academia! &88:
@ee$es! (obert >. =.G )he ori"in o' the truscans! AmsterdamG Honing$li9$e #ederlandse A$ademie "an
?etenschapen! &88:
@elle! Elise <. >. et al.G Serial coalescent simulations su""est a weak "enealo"ical relationship between
truscans and modern )uscans! in Qroceedin"s o' the 4ational 6cademP o' Sciences! Vol. 18:! #o. &1!
&882
@enelli! EnricoG 0e iscri%ioni bilin"ui etrusco,latine! Firen)eG 3eo >. 7lsch$i! 111;
@o$arD"! E .A.G Sravnitelno,istoricheskaja 'onetika vostochnokavka%skikh ja%Pkov! <os$"aG #au$a! 1151
@omhard! Allan (.G truscan< 5ndo,uropean and 4ostratic! in Fabrice 0a"oto *ed..G )he lin"uists lin"uist: 6
collection o' papers in honour o' 6lexis Ranaster 2amer *Vol. 1.! <XnchenG 3incom Europa! &88&
@onfante! Ciuliano and 3arissa @onfanteG )he truscan lan"ua"e: 6n introduction *&nd edition.! <anchesterG
<anchester Ani"ersity =ress! &88&
0ampbell-%unn! C. B. 0.G )he truscan decipherment! Internet! no date
*httpGJJhome.clear.netJpagesJgc[dunnJEtruscans.html.
0hiri$ba! Viachesla" A.G 1ommon Sest 1aucasian! 3eidenG 0#?>! 1112
0ristofani! <auroG 5ntrodu%ione allo studio dell etrusco *new edn..! Firen)eG 3eo >. 7lsch$i! 1111
0urnow! Timothy BowanG Shat lan"ua"e 'eatures can be KborrowedK*! in Alexandra U. Ai$hen"ald and (. <. ?.
%ixon *eds.. 6real di''usion and "enetic inheritance! 7xfordG 7xford Ani"ersity =ress! &881
%EA"ersa! ArnaldoG Ti%ionario della lin"ua etrusca! @resciaG =aideia! 111;
%EA"ersa! ArnaldoG 0ereditU della lin"ua etrusca! @resciaG =aideia! &88:
%esherie"! Bu. %.G SravnitelKno,istoricheskaja "rammatika nakhskikh ja%Pkov i problemP proiskho%hdenija i
istorichesko"o ra%vitija "orskikh kavka%skikh narodov *&
nd
edition.! <os$"aG A(>>! &882 [112:
%e"oto! CiacomoG trusco e Qeri,5ndoeuropeo! in Scritti minori *Vol. &.! Firen)eG Felice 3e <onnier! 1126
[11;;J112:
%ia$onoff! I. <.G Nurrisch und =rartVisch! <XnchenG Hit)inger! 1161
%ia$onoff! I. <. and >. A. >tarostinG Nurro,=rartian as an astern 1aucasian lan"ua"e! <XnchenG Hit)inger!
1152 [Abbre"iated as %O>
%uhoux! U"esG 0WtXocrXtois: 0es textes , la lan"ue! AmsterdamG B. 0. Cieben! 115&
%)hau$9an! C. @.G =rartskij i indo,evropejskie ja%Pki! Ere"anG A# Arm9ans$o9 >>(! 112:
Ellis! (obertG Sources o' the truscan and (as&ue 0an"ua"es! 3ondonG TrXbner! 1552
Facchetti! Ciulio <.G 0Keni"ma della lin"ua etrusca! (omaG #ewton O 0ompton! &888
Facchetti! Ciulio <.G 6ppunti di mor'olo"ia etrusca! Firen)eG 3eo >. 7lsch$i! &88&
Foscarini! CiuseppeG 0a lin"ua de"li etruschi! Firen)eG 3oggia deE 3an)i! 1112
FurneZ! E. B.G truskisch en (urushaski: Vij' opstellen! 3eidenG 'a$uchi =ress! 111:
Ceorgie"! V. I.G VoprosP rodstva sredi%emnomorskikh ja%Pkov! in VoprosP ja%Pko%nanija #o. ;! 114;
Ceorgie"! V. I.G Sovremennoe sostojanie Ydeshi'rovki Ztrussko"o ja%Pka! in VoprosP ja%Pko%nanija #o. &! 116&
Cluha$! Alem$oG [n the ori"in o' truscan numbers! in Fabrice 0a"oto *ed..G )he lin"uists lin"uist: 6 collection
o' papers in honour o' 6lexis Ranaster 2amer *Vol. 1.! <XnchenG 3incom Europa! &88&
Cusmani! (obertoG 0Pdisches S\rterbuch! 'eidelbergG 0arl ?inter! 112;
Creenberg! Boseph '.G 5ndo,uropean and its closest relatives: )he urasiatic lan"ua"e 'amilP *& "ols..! >tanfordG
>tanford Ani"ersity =ress! &888J&88&
'amp! EricG truscan ma* ]B^*! in 3lotta! Vol. ___VII! C`ttingenG Vandenbroec$ u. (uprecht! 1145
'andel! Se"G 5n"ush in'lectional verb morpholo"P! in %ee Ann 'olis$y and He"in TuiteG 1urrent trends in
1aucasian< ast uropean and 5nner 6sian lin"uistics: Qapers in honor o' Noward 5$ 6ronson!
AmsterdamG Bohn @en9amins! &88:
'aspelmath! <artinG 6 "rammar o' 0e%"ian! @erlinJ#ew Uor$G <outon de Cruyter! 111:
'aspelmath! <artinG Now hopeless is "enealo"ical lin"uistics< and how advanced is areal lin"uistics*! in Studies
in 0an"ua"e! Vol. &5 #o. 1! AmsterdamG Bohn @en9amins! &88;
'olis$y! %ee Ann with (usudan CaguaG )sova,)ush .(atsbi/! in (ie$s >meets *ed..G )he indi"enous lan"ua"es o'
the 1aucasus! *Vol. ;.! %elmarG 0ara"an! 111;
::
I"ano"! V. V.G TrevnevostochnPe svja%i Ztrussko"o ja%Pka! in C. <. @ongard-3e"in and V. C. Ard)inba *eds..
Trevnij vostok: _tnokulturnPe svja%i! <os$"aG #au$a! 1155
I"ano"! V. V.G 1omparative notes on Nurro,=rartian< 4orthern 1aucasian and 5ndo,uropean! in =106 5ndo,
uropean Studies! Vol. 1! 3os Angeles! 1111
Bartse"a! V. #. et al. *eds..G Oa%Pki mira: >avka%skie ja%Pki! <os$"aG Academia! &881
Hlimo"! C. A. and <. >h. Hhalilo"G Slovar kavka%skikh ja%Pkov: Sopostavlenie osnovnoj leksiki! <os$"aG
Vostochna9a 3iteratura! &88:
Horya$o"! Uuri @.G 6tlas o' 1aucasian lan"ua"es! <os$"aG (ussian Academy of >ciences! &88&
Hretschmer! =aulG Tie vor"riechischen Sprach, und Volksschichten! in 3lotta! Vols. __VIII and ___! C`ttingenG
Vandenbroec$ u. (uprecht! 11;1J11;:
3aroche! EmmanuelG 3lossaire de la lan"ue hourrite! =arisG Hlinc$siec$! 1158
<allory! B. =.G 5n search o' the 5ndo,uropeans: 0an"ua"e< archaeolo"P and mPth! 3ondonG Thames and 'udson!
1151
<aNcha$! ?itoldG Tas etruskische 4umerale sa! in 3lotta! Vol. 3_I! C`ttingenG Vandenbroec$ u. (uprecht! 115:
<eli$iI"ili! C. A.G Tie urartVische Sprache! (omaG @iblical Institute =ress! 1161
#ichols! BohannaG *a. 1hechen and *b. 5n"ush! in (ie$s >meets *ed..G )he indi"enous lan"ua"es o' the 1aucasus!
*Vol. ;.! %elmarG 0ara"an! 111;
#ichols! BohannaG )he comparative method as heuristic! in <ar$ %urie and <alcolm (oss *eds..G )he comparative
method reviewed: 2e"ularitP and irre"ularitP in lan"ua"e chan"e! #ew Uor$J7xfordG 7xford Ani"ersity
=ress! 1112
#ichols! BohannaG )he 4akh,Ta"hestanian consonant correspondences! in %ee Ann 'olis$y and He"in TuiteG
1urrent trends in 1aucasian< ast uropean and 5nner 6sian lin"uistics: Qapers in honor o' Noward 5$
6ronson! AmsterdamG Bohn @en9amins! &88: [Abbre"iated as #%0
#ichols! Bohanna and Arbi Vagapo"G 1hechen,n"lish and n"lish,1hechen dictionarP! 3ondonJ#ew Uor$G
(outledge0ur)on! &88;
#i$olaye"! >. 3. and >. A. >tarostinG 6 4orth 1aucasian etPmolo"ical dictionarP! <os$"aG Asteris$! 111; *a
searchable database "ersion of this is a"ailable at httpGJJstarling.rinet.ruJ! which following >tarostinEs recent
death is now being maintained by his son Ceorge.
7rDl! Vladimir and >ergei >tarostinG truscan as an ast 1aucasian lan"ua"e! in Vitaly >he"orosh$in *ed..G Qroto,
lan"ua"es and proto,cultures! @ochumG @roc$meyer! 1118 [Abbre"iated as 7O>
=allottino! <assimo *ed..G )estimonia lin"uae etruscae *&nd edition.! Firen)eG #uo"a Italia! 1125 [Abbre"iated as
T3E
=allottino! <assimoG truscolo"ia *6th edn..! <ilanoG 'oepli! 115;
=errotin! %amien ErwanG Qaroles trus&ues: 0iens entre trus&ue et 5ndo,uropXen ancien! =arisG 3E'armattan!
1111
=errotin! %amien ErwanG )he position o' truscan in the western Rediterranean ancient lin"uistic landscape! in
0an"ua"e and historP Vol. 2 #o. &! &888
=fiffig! Ambros BosefG Ter 6kkusativ im truskischen! in 3lotta! Vol. ___VII! C`ttingenG Vandenbroec$ u.
(uprecht! 1145
=fiffig! Ambros BosefG Tie etruskische Sprache: Versuch einer 3esamtdarstellun"! Cra)G A$ademische %ruc$- u.
Verlagsanstalt! 1121
=fiffig! Ambros BosefG Tie etruskische 2eli"ion: Sakrale StVtten , 3\tter , >ulte , 2ituale! ?iesbadenG Albus! 1115
[1164
=ittau! <assimoG 0a lin"ua etrusca: 3rammatica e lessico! #aoroG Insula! 1116
=lie"! (. >.G 4akhskie ja%Pki: >ljuch k Ztrusskim tajnam! Cro)ny9G Hniga! 111&
=lie"! (. >.G 4akhsko,Ztrusskie leksicheskie vstrechi *Hand. Filol. #au$ dissertation.! #alEchi$G Habardino-
@al$ars$i9 Cosudarst"enny9 Ani"ersitet! &888
(ix! 'elmutG ?wei bisher mi`deutete etruskische Verwandscha'tsbe%iehun"en! in ?ilhelm @randenstein et al.
SPbaris: :estschri't Nans >rahe! ?iesbadenG 7tto 'arrassowit)! 1145
(ix! 'elmutG Tas etruskische 1o"nomen! ?iesbadenG 7tto 'arrassowit)! 112:
(ix! 'elmutG 0a scrittura e la lin"ua! in <auro 0ristofani *ed..G 3li etruschi: una nuova imma"ine! Firen)eG Ciunti
<artello! 115;
(ix! 'elmutG ?ur Rorphostruktur des etruskischen s,3enetivs! in Studi truschi! Vol. 3V! Firen)e! 1151
(ix! 'elmut and Cerhard <eiser *eds..G truskische )exte *& "ols..! TXbingenG Cunter #arr! 1111 [Abbre"iated as
ET
(ix! 'elmutG 2Vtisch und truskisch! Innsbruc$G Institut fXr >prachwissenschaft! 1115
(ix! 'elmutG truscan! in (oger %. ?oodard *ed..G 1ambrid"e encPclopedia o' the worlds ancient lan"ua"es!
0ambridgeG 0ambridge Ani"ersity =ress! &88;
(uhlen! <errittG [n the ori"in o' lan"ua"es: Studies in lin"uistic taxonomP! >tanfordG >tanford Ani"ersity =ress!
111;
:;
>chul)e*-FXrhoff.! ?olfgangG =di in (ie$s >meets *ed..G )he indi"enous lan"ua"es o' the 1aucasus! *Vol. ;.!
%elmarG 0ara"an! 111;
>chul)e! ?olfgangG )he diachronP o' demonstrative pronouns in ast 1aucasian! in %ee Ann 'olis$y and He"in
TuiteG 1urrent trends in 1aucasian< ast uropean and 5nner 6sian lin"uistics: Qapers in honor o'
Noward 5$ 6ronson! AmsterdamG Bohn @en9amins! &88:
>chumacher! >tefanG Tie rVtischen 5nschri'ten! @udapestG Archaeolingua! 111& [Abbre"iated as (I
>emerano! Cio"anniG 5l popolo che scon'isse la morte: 3li etruschi e la loro lin"ua! <ilanoG @runo <ondadori!
&88:
>ha$hbie"a! <. Hh.G QroblemP nakhskoj Ztimolo"ii! in Vestnik Roskovsko"o =niversiteta: Serija G: :ilolo"ija!
#o. ;! <os$"a! 1115
>he"orosh$in! Vitaly and Alexis <anaster (amerG Some recent work on the remote relations o' lan"ua"es! in
>ydney <. 3amb and E. %ouglas <itchell *eds..G Sprun" 'rom some common source: 5nvesti"ations into
the prehistorP o' lan"ua"es! >tanfordG >tanford Ani"ersity =ress! 1111
>tarostin! >. A.G Severokavka%skie ja%Pki! in V. #. Bartse"a et al. *eds.. Oa%Pki mira: >avka%skie ja%Pki! <os$"aG
Academia! &881
>teinbauer! %ieter '.G 4eues Nandbuch des truskischen! >t. HatharinenG >cripta <ercaturae! 1111
Tamburini! =ietroG 2ivista di epi"ra'ia etrusca 4o$ D! in Studi etruschi! 1152 [Volume 3II! ,115;-.
Thomason! >arah Cray and Terrence HaufmanG 0an"ua"e contact< creoli%ation and "enetic lin"uistics! @er$eleyG
Ani"ersity of 0alifornia =ress! 1155
Van der <eer! 3. @.G truscan ori"ins: 0an"ua"e and archaeolo"P! in (ulletin antieke beschavin": Qapers on
Rediterranean archaeolo"P! Vol. 61! 3eu"enG =eeters! &88;
Vernesi! 0ristiano et al.G )he truscans: 6 population,"enetic studP! in 6merican journal o' human "enetics! Vol.
6;! &88;
?atmough! <argaret <. T.G Studies in the truscan loanwords in 0atin! Firen)eG 3eo >. 7lsch$i! 1116
?egner! IlseG Nurritisch: ine in'Lhrun"! ?iesbadenG 'arrassowit)! &888
?ells! B. 0.G 1omputer codin" the 5Q6: 6 proposed extension o' S6RQ6! 3ondon! 1114
*httpGJJwww.phon.ucl.ac.u$JhomeJsampaJipasam-x.pdf.
?oudhui)en! Fred 0.G truscan and 0uwian! in Oournal o' 5ndo,uropean studies! Vol. 11! ?ashington! 1111
Sa"aroni! AdolfoG 5 documenti etruschi! =ado"aG >herpa! 1112
Sa"aroni! AdolfoG 5scri%ioni camune .Val 1amonica inscriptions/! Internet! &881
*httpGJJmembers.tripod.comJadolfo)a"aroniJcamune.htm.
:4
New Studies on Etruscan Personal Names:
Gentium Mobilitas

Simona Marchesini

I am pleased to announce to the readers of ENews Online the imminent
publication of a book that I am writing for l'Erma di Bretschneider (to be
published in 2007). The title is Prosopographia Etrusca, II, 1, Studia. Gentium
Mobilitas. The aim of this work is to sketch a picture of ethnic movements and
the consequent admixture of people (gentes) in archaic Etruria, especially in
the southern part of this territory. Geographical limits are imposed by
editorial considerations: My study is based on the names collected in the first
volume of Prosopografia Etrusca I, 1, Corpus, edited by Massimo Morandi
Tarabella in 2004. The chronological limits are a matter of historical interest. I
distinguish the mobility of individuals during the archaic period from the
mobility of individuals during the Neo-Etruscan period because of the
different social and political implications. The mobility of Neo-Etruscan
period, which took place both vertically (socially) and horizontally (among
similar groups), has been thoroughly investigated. Our knowledge comes not
only from hundreds of inscriptions, but also from parallel situations in the
Roman and Italic world. The mobility of people in archaic Etruscan society is
more difficult to assess. Research of the last 40 years has stressed the fact that
it is a feature of the aristocratic class, but only horizontally, that is to say, in
terms of movement from one group (gens) to another. I argue that beneath
the conventions of hospitality among principes, which we have come to detect
by means of archaeological documents such as groups of bowls with the
same inscriptions and by means of tesserae hospitales bearing the name of the
host/guest, it is possible to reconstruct a situation of multiform ethnic
interchange.
The archaic system of Etruscan name system reveals evidence of this
mobility through changes and adaptations of personal names. We know that
when different peoples are in contact, they borrow aspects of culture,
traditions, and religion from one another; they also borrow elements of
language, such as words, personal names, and suffixes. As in other parts of
the lexicon, when personal names are borrowed from one language into
another they may be altered in different ways depending on the intensity of
the contacts and on the chronological period at which they were borrowed.
The longer a word is in the borrowing language, the more difficult it is for
speakers to ascertain whether that word is a native item or a borrowing.
Over time borrowed words undergo nativization, that is to say, they are
New Studies on Etruscan Personal Names 2
made to conform to the phonological and morphological rules of the
borrowing language. This is the case for many Etruscan names that we
consider loanwords from other Italic populations but whose ultimate origin
we cannot identify without reference to the borrowing language (names such
as the Etruscan praenomina Aciie, !n"#, Ate, Caisie/Kaisie).
The name of an Etruscan aristocrat had two constituents during the
archaic period: an individual or personal name (praenomen) and a second or
family name ( gentilicium/gentile name). One of the most interesting indicators
of the mobility of Etruscan gentes is the Individualnamengentilicium. This term
refers to a nomen gentile that is derived from an individual name. For
example, if an aristocrat, who came from territory outside of Etruria and had
only a individual name, wished to be fully integrated into Etruscan aristocratic
society, then that person needed to have a praenomen and most importantly a
nomen gentile. In such cases, the foreigner converted his personal name into a
nomen and took another first name, one adopted from Etruscan or from the
inventory of his own language.
The situation in the Neo-Etruscan period (from the 4th century B.C.) is not
analogous. The term Vornamengentilicium, which was coined in 1948 by Emil
Vetter and then appropriated by Helmut Rix in 1963 for the archaic period,
identifies the bearer of the nomen as originally a member of the lower class
who was elevated to a higher social standing. In such situations individuals
changed their names to conform to the more prestigious onomastic formula
by using their first name as a nomen. Scholars from different disciplines have
investigated both archaic and recent name change , e.g., the linguists Carlo de
Simone (de Simone 1989a; 1989b; 1990) and Helmut Rix (Rix 1963:342; 1972),
the archaeologists Giovanni Colonna (Colonna 1970; 1977) and Mauro
Cristofani (Cristofani 1974), and the historian Carmine Ampolo (Ampolo
1975; 19761977).
Gentium Mobilitas begins with a summary of the literature on the mobility
of peoples and on the name exchange in ancient Italy. The mobility of the
aristocracy is investigated via the Etruscan onomastic system, particularly
through the phenomenon of the Individualnamengentilicia. I gather together
the data on names that function syntactically as gentile, but which are not
formed with the typical gentilicial suffixes such as -na and -ra and -$e/-te and -
ane. These names are arranged by geography and chronology (from the 7th
c. B.C. the end of the 5th c. B.C.). An initial examination of the data suggests
that social vertical mobility exists also for the archaic period. Some
Individualnamengentilicia, in particular those that are etymologically Etruscan
and appear together with a native Etruscan praenomen, support this
conclusion. It is possible then that these individuals do not come from
New Studies on Etruscan Personal Names 3
territories outside of Etruria, from other Italic peoples, but from other layers
of Etruscan social strata. This idea will be examined in detail in the next stage
of my research.
Another chapter examines the suffixes found in nomina. Following the
most recent theory of word-formation (for ex. like in Booij 2004), I create a
synoptic table of the suffixes in the archaic Etruscan name system . The table
displays the different degrees of integration in the adaptation of borrowed
names. For example the suffix -na-ie, which is composed of a native Etruscan
suffix -na plus an Italic-based suffix -ie, must represent a deeper level of
linguistic integration of a foreign name when compared, for example, to a
nomen ending in the Italic-based suffix -ie, which shows only phonological
adaptation.
An interdisciplinary aspect of my work is a discussion of the social,
anthropological, and ethnic considerations emerging from the study of the
system of Etruscan names. I hope that my remarks will lead to a debate in
other disciplines about these issues within the history of Ancient Italy. In a
recent book entitled The Invention of Races (Linvenzione delle razze),
Guido Barbujani (Barbujani 2006), a geneticist of populations, pointed out that
the isolation and mobility of population groups are two factors responsible
for the creation of different races among the same species, though with
opposite effects. Population groups may be isolated by geographical, climatic,
or historical constraints, while mobility may depend upon the inherent
characteristics of the species and upon the lack of barriers in the territory
where they live. Isolation leads to different species, while mobility and genetic
exchange among populations lead to the the leveling of diversity among human
species and therefore to a more undifferentiated population. These
observations from the biological and genetic perspective (probably banal for
a geneticist) appear to be relevant when considering the movements of
people in Ancient Italy. Barriers, both political and ethnic (Etruscans were
non-Indo-Europeans living among Indo-European peoples), must have been
very subtle in archaic Italy. Being a member of the aristocracy must have
been more important than belonging to a specific ethnic group (Marchesini
2007 (in press)). Ethnic identity, as American anthropologists have been
teaching us (see, for example, Brown 2004), can be negotiated around a table;
it is not so deeply embedded in ancestry, language or religion. The Etruscan
world seems to present us with a similar situation.

Authors address:

Dr. Simona Marchesini
New Studies on Etruscan Personal Names 4
Dip.to di Linguistica, Letteratura e
Scienze della Comunicazione
Viale dell'Universit, 4
37129 VERONA
simona.marchesini@lettere.univr.it

References

Ampolo, Carmine. 1975. Gli Aquilii del V secolo a.C. e il problema dei Fasti
Consolari pi antichi. La Parola del Passato 155:410416.
. 1976/1977. Osservazioni sulla mobilit sociale arcaica. Dialoghi di
Archeologia 9/10:333345.
Barbujani, Guido. 2006. L'invenzione delle razze. Milano: Bompiani.
Booij, Gert. 2004. The Grammar of Words. An introduction to linguistic
Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brown, Melissa J. Is Taiwan Chinese? The Impact of Culture, Power, and Migration
on Changing Identities. Berkeley: University of California Press.
de Simone, Carlo. 1989a. Etrusco Acvilna latino Aquilius. Un problema di
intercambio onomastico. La Parola del Passato 44:263280.
. 1989b. Etrusco Tulumne(s) lat. Tolonio(s) e le formazioni etrusche in -me-
na. Annali dell Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli. Sezione linguistica.
11:197206.
. 1990. I rapporti linguistici tra gli Etruschi e gli Italici. In Rapporti linguistici e
culturali tra i popoli dellItalia antica, Atti del Convegno della SIG (Pisa, 67
ott. 1989). 129147. Pisa.
Colonna, Giovanni. 1970. Una nuova iscrizione etrusca del VII secolo e
appunti sullepigrafia ceretana dellepoca. Mlanges dArchologie et
d'Histoire 82:637672.
. 1977. Nome gentilizio e societ. Studi Etruschi 45:175192.
Marchesini, Simona. To appear 2007. Intercambio onomastico nellItalia
Antica. In I Nomi nel tempo e nello spazio, Atti del XXII Congresso
Internazionale di Scienze Onomastiche (Pisa 28.84.9.2005). Pisa.
Morandi Tarabella, Massimo. 2004. Prosopographia Etrusca I. Corpus 1 Etruria
Meridionale. Roma: LErma di Bretschneider.
Rix, Helmut. 1963. Das etruskische Cognomen. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
. 1972. Zum Ursprung des italischen Namensystem. Aufstieg und Niedergang
der rmischen Welt; Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren
Forschung: Von den Anfngen Roms bis zum Ausgang der Republik, hrsg. von
Hildagard Temporini, I,2:702-758. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.
New Studies on Etruscan Personal Names 5
Vetter, Emil. 1948. Die etruskische Personennamen le$e, le$i, le$ia und die
Namen umfreier oder halbfreier Personen bei den Etrusker. Jahreshefte des
sterreichischen Archologischen Institutes in Wien 37:57112.
Etruscan Glossary
Glen Gordon
Draft 010 (15 Jul 2008)
http://paleoglot.logspot.co!
glengordon01"yahoo.co!
#re$%at%ons
abl. ablative case (noun)
acc. accusative case (noun)
adess. adessive case (noun)
adj. adjective
adv. adverb
aor. aorist aspect (verb)
conj. conjunctive mood (verb)
dat. dative case (noun)
dir. directive case (noun)
gen. genitive case (noun)
inf. infinitive (verb)
loc. locative case (noun)
midd. middle voice, mediopassive voice (verb)
na. nomino-accusative case (noun)
na.(I) animate noun, type 1 (plural -ar, genitive in -as)
na.(II) animate noun, type 2 (plural -ar, genitive in -al)
ni.(I) inanimate noun, type 1 (plural -va, genitive in -as)
ni.(II) inanimate noun, type 2 (plural -va, genitive in -al)
num. numeral
part. participle (verb)
pass. passive voice (verb)
perf. perfective aspect (verb)
pl. plural
pres. present-future tense (verb)
pret. preterite tense (verb)
pron. pronoun
pron.1ps. first person pronoun
pron.3ps.an. third person singular animate pronoun
pron.3ps.in. third person singular inanimate pronoun
pron.3pp. third person plural pronoun
pron.dist. distal demonstrative pronoun
pron.loc. locative pronoun
pron.prox. proximal demonstrative pronoun
pron.rel. relative pronoun
sg. singular
v.d. ditransitive verb
v.i. intransitive verb
v.tr. transitive verb
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) &
#cale ni.(I) Acale [month
#cale (na!sg!) "" #cal%a (adess!sg!)
#car%e na.(I/II) Acarie [gentilicium
#cr%es (gen!)
#carna%e na.(I/II) Acarnaie [gentilicium
#crn%' (gen!)
acas v.tr. to craft (out of stone or clay)
acas (inf!) "" acasce (perf!pret!) "" acasr%, aca(r
(nec!)
acas) ni.(II) clay vessel
a)es) (na!sg!)
ac%l v.i. to be made, to be completed
ac%l (inf!) "" ac%lune (midd!pret!) "" ac%l* (part!)
ac%l) ni.(I) product, creation
a+l)%s (dir!sg!) "" acl)a (adess!sg!)
#c%lu na.(I/II) Acilu [gentilicium, cognomen
#c%lu (na!)
acna v.tr. to raise, to bring up
acna%ce (perf!pret!) "" acnase, acnese,!
(aor!pret!) "" acna'$ (aor!part!)
acnana na.(I) children
acnana (na!)
acnana v.tr. to raise children
acnanas (aor!) "" acnanasa (aor!pres!)
#cnatru na.(I/II) Acnatru [gentilicium
#cnatrual,c (gen!)
acuns% v.tr. to slay
acuns%r% (nec!)
#c$%lna na.(I/II) Acvilna [gentilicium
#c$%lna' (gen!)
a%su na.(II) deity of the over#orld, deus superior
a%s, e%s (na!sg) "" a%s$ale (dat!sg!) "" a%ser (na!pl!)
"" a%seras, e%seras (gen!pl!)
a%suna ni.(II) sacrifice, offering
a%sna, e%sna (na!sg!) "" a%sunal (gen!sg!)
a%suna adj. divine, of the $ii %uperiores
a%sna
a%suna%u ni.(II) small sacrifices, small offerings
e%sne$,c (na!sg!)
#%ta na.(I) &ades [deity
#%ta, E%ta (na!) "" #%*as (gen!)
#%tule na.(I) Aitolos [mythos
Etule (na!)
a%u ni.(I) oil
a%u, a%u,! (na!sg!) "" a%us (gen!sg!)
#%$as na.(I) Ajax [mythos
#%$as, #e$as (na!)
#)a!e!run na.(I) Agamemnon [mythos
#)!e!run (na!)
a)apr% ni.(II) oinochoe
a)apr% (na!sg!)
#)eru! na.(I) Acheron, the under#orld [deity
#)ru! (na!)
#)%le na.(I) Achile [mythos
#)ale, #)le, #)le% (na!)
#)rat%na na.(I/II) Achratina [gentilicium
#)rat%nal%'a (gen!'abl!)
#)u na.(I/II) Achu [gentilicium
#)u (na!) "" #)u%a', #)us (gen!) "" #)u% (loc!)
#)un%a na.(I/II) Achunia [gentilicium
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) -
#)un%a (na!)
al v.tr. to set do#n
al,c (inf!) "" ale (pret!) "" al%+e, al%ce, alce
(perf!pret!) "" al%.u (perf!part!)
#lcest% na.(II) Alcestis [mythos
#lcst% (na!)
alcu!ena na.(I) Alcmene
#lcu!ena, #l)u!ena (na!)
#le)santre na.(I) Alexander [mythos
#l%)santre, #lcsentre, El)sntre (na!)
#le*%na na.(I/II) Alethina [gentilicium
#le*nas, #l*rnas, #l*nas (gen!) "" #le*nal
(gen!)
alfa na.(I) ox
elfa (na!sg!)
#lf%%e na.(I/II) Alfiie [gentilicium
#lf%s (gen!) "" #lf% (loc!)
#lf%na na.(I/II) Alfina [gentilicium
#lfnal (gen!) "" #lfn% (loc!) "" #lfn%sa (adess!) ""
#lfnal%sle (abl!'loc!)
#lf%na%e na.(I/II) Alfinaie [gentilicium
#lfn%s (gen!) "" #lfn%sa (adess!)
al%l ni.(I) offertorium, offering room
al%le (loc!sg!)
#l)a na.(I/II) Alcha [gentilicium
#l)as (gen!)
alpan ni.(II) gift
alpan (na!sg!)
#lpan na.(II) Alpan [deity
#lpan (na!)
#lpana na.(I/II) Alpana [gentilicium
#lpnas (gen!)
#lpan%u na.(II) Alpaniu [deity
#lpnu (na!)
alpan%u ni.(II) little gift
alpnu (na!sg!)
alpa(a ni.(II) little gift
al/a(e% (loc!sg!)
alsa v.tr. to bury, to inter
alsase (aor!pret!)
#ls%na na.(I/II) Alsina [gentilicium
#ls%n%s (gen!) "" #l'%na% (loc!) "" #lsa%anas%
(dat!)
alu!na* na.(I) [a type of animate being
alu!na* (na!sg!) "" alu!na*e (loc!sg!) ""
alu!na*uras (gen!pl!)
a! v.i. to be
a!a, !a (pres!) "" a!e (pret!) "" a!uce, a!ce
(perf!pret!)
#!%c%e na.(I/II) Amicie [gentilicium
#!c%e (na!)
#!%n* na.(I) Aminth [deity
#!%n* (na!)
#!/are na.(I) Amphiaraos [male praenomen
#!/are, #n/are (na!)
#!uce na.(I) Amy(os [mythos
#!u+e, #!u)e (na!)
an pron.3ps.an. he, she
an, an,c (na!) "" ana (obl!)
#na%e na.(I/II) Anaie [gentilicium
#ne%e (na!)
#na%ena na.(I/II) Anaiena [gentilicium
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 5
#n%nas (gen!) "" #ne%nal, #n%nal (gen!) ""
#n%na%,c (loc!)
#na%ena%e na.(I/II) Anaienaie [gentilicium
#n%n%e' (gen!)
anan ni.(II) [vessel containing a votive offering
enan, anan,c (na!sg!) "" ananc$e' (dir!pl!)
#ne na.(I) Ane [male praenomen
#nes (gen!)
#n% na.(I) Ani [deity
#n% (na!)
an%a) ni.(II) [type of offering
an%a) (na!sg!) "" an%a)e' (dir!sg!)
#nt%%uce na.(I) Antioch [male praenomen
#t%uce (na!)
#nt%pater na.(I) Antipater [gentilicium
#nt%pater (na!)
#ntur!aca na.(I) Andromaca [mythos
#tur!ucas (gen!)
apa na.(I) father
apa, apa,c (na!sg!) "" apas, apa' (gen!sg!)
apacar ni.(II) calculator, tallier
apcar (na!sg!)
apana na.(II) clan
apana (na!sg!) "" apanal (gen!sg!) "" apanes
(abl!sg!)
#p%ana na.(I/II) Apiana [gentilicium
#p%ana', #pnas (gen!)
#p%atru na.(I/II) Apiatru [gentilicium
#pa%atrus, #p%atrus, #patrual (gen!) ""
#patru% (loc!) "" #patru%s (dir!)
ap%r v.tr. to sanctify
aper (inf!) "" ap%re (pret!) "" ap%rase (aor!pret!) ""
aperu (part!)
#p%r%e na.(I) Apirie [gentilicium
#pr%es (gen!)
ap%r%n'a ni.(II) divine #ill
apren'a%' (dat!sg!)
ap%r%n* ni.(II) sanctified offering
apr%n*u (na!pl!) "" apr%n*$ale (dat!pl!)
#p%r*%na na.(II) Apirthina [female praenomen
#pr*nal, #pr*nal,c (gen!)
ap%r*%na%u ni.(II) small libations
epr*ne$,c (na!sg!)
#p%us na.(I) Apius [male praenomen
#pp%us (na!)
#pula na.(I) Apula [male praenomen
#pulas (gen!)
#pul%e na.(I/II) Apulie [gentilicium
#fl% (na!) "" #fles (gen!)
#pulun na.(I) Apollo [deity
#plun, #plu (na!)
#puna na.(I/II) Apuna [gentilicium
#funa (na!) "" #punas, #funas (gen!) ""
#punal, #punal,c, #pnal (gen!) "" #fun%' (dir!)
#puna%e na.(I/II) Apunie [gentilicium
#pun%%e (na!) "" #pun%%es (gen!)
#puna*u na.(I) Apuna family member
#funa*ur (na!pl!)
#/e na.(I) Apis [deity
#/es (gen!)
ar v.i. to rise up
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 0
ar (inf!) "" ara (pres!) "" ara', er' (aor!pres!) ""
ersce (aor!pret!) "" arce (perf!pret!) "" ar* (part!)
aracuna adj. of the ha#(, ha#(-related
aracune,ta (na!sg!)
#ran* na.(I/II) Aranth [male praenomen
#ra*, #rn*, #rnt (na!) "" #rant%a' (gen!) ""
#ran*%al, #rn*eal, #rn*al (gen!) "" #ra*%ale
(dat!) "" #ran*%a, #ra*%a (adess!) "" #rn*%al%'a,
#rn*al%'a, #rn*eals, #rn*als (abl!)
#ran*%a na.(II) Aranthia [female praenomen
#rn*% (na!) "" #run*%a (adess!)
#ran*%na na.(I/II) Aranthina [gentilicium
#rn*nas, #ra*enas, #ra*nas (gen!)
#ran*ur na.(I) Aranthur [male praenomen
#ran*ur (na!)
#ran(a na.(II) )ittle Aranth [male praenomen
#rn(a (na!) "" #rn(al
#ra(na na.(II) Ara*na [female praenomen
#r(neal, #r(nal (gen!) "" #ra(%%a (for +#ra(na)
(adess!)
#rcu!%sna na.(I/II) Arcumisna [gentilicium
#rc!snas (gen!) "" #rc!sne% (loc!)
#r%a*a na.(II) Ariadne [mythos
#ra*a (na!)
#r%l na.(I) Aril [deity
#r%l (na!)
#r%t%! na.(I) Arretium [city
#r%t%!%, #r%t%!%,p% (loc!)
#rtu!e na.(I) Artemis [deity
#rtu!e (na!) "" #rtu!es (gen!)
asca ni.(II) askos, jug
as+a (na!sg!)
#scula%e na.(I/II) Asculaie [gentilicium
#s+la%e (na!)
a'u na.(I) sphinx
a'u (na!sg!)
#talanta na.(II) Atalanta [mythos
#talanta, #tlenta (na!)
#tale na.(I) Atale [male praenomen
#tale (na!)
at% na.(II) mother
at%, at%,c (na!sg!) "" at%al (gen!sg!) "" at%%a
(adess!sg!)
at%,nacnu$a na.(II) grandmother
at%,nacnu$a, at%,nacn$a, at%,nacna (na!)
#t%%e na.(I/II) Atiie [gentilicium
#t%%es, #t%es (gen!)
at%%u na.(II) little mother, nanny
at%$u
#t%na na.(I/II) Atina [gentilicium
#t%nal (gen!)
#t!%te na.(I) Admetus [mythos
#t!%te (na!)
atran ni.(II) reign, authority, rule
atranes (dat!sg!)
#tranna na.(I/II) Atranna [gentilicium
#trnas (gen!)
#tranna%e na.(I/II) Atrannaie [gentilicium
#trane (na!) "" #trane' (gen!)
#tun%s na.(I) Adonis [deity
#tun%s (na!)
atur'a v.tr. to lay do#n, to place
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 1
atur', atr' (inf!) "" atr'rce (perf!pret!)
a* v.tr. to clean, to cleanse
a*ene (midd!pret!)
#*ena na.(I) Athena [deity
#*ene% (loc!)
a*%l ni.(I) [type of inanimate offering
a*el%' (gen!sg!)
#*rupa na.(II) Atropos [deity
#*rpa (na!)
a*u!% ni.(I) s(y
a*u!%,ca (nom!sg!) "" a*u!%,tn (acc!sg!) ""
a*u!%,c', a*!%,c' (gen!sg!)
#ucl%na na.(I/II) Auclina [gentilicium
#ucl%na (na!sg!)
au*%l ni.(I) cella, room of a temple
a$*le,* (loc!sg!)
a$%l ni.(I) year, age
a$%l (na!) "" a$%l', a$%ls (gen!sg!) "" a$%l)$a
(na!pl!) "" a$%l)$al (gen!pl!)
#$%le na.(I) Avile [male praenomen
#$%le, #$le, #ule (na!) "" #$%le' , #$%les,
#$eles, #$le', #$les, #ules, #ule', (gen!) ""
#ules% (dat!) "" #$lesla (adess!)
#$%lna%e na.(I/II) Avilnaie [gentilicium
#uln%' (gen!)
#$%na na.(I/II) Avina [gentilicium
#$%nes (dir!)
ca pron.prox. this, the
%ca, %ca,c, eca, ca, )a, ,ca (nom!) "" %+an, ecn,
cen, cn, ,cn (acc!) "" ces ce', eca', ec', ,c' (gen!)
"" cal, ,cla (gen!) "" %ca%, ce%, ,cle, cl,*, ecl,*%
(loc!) "" ce%a (adess!) "" cn,tra,! (acc!'loc!) ""
canl, cnl (acc!'gen!) "" clel (loc!'gen!)
2acu na.(I) ,acu [mythos
2acu (na!)
2afat% na.(I/II) ,afati [gentilicium
2afat%s (gen!)
2a% na.(I) ,ai [male praenomen
2ae, 2a% (na!sg!) "" 2aes (gen!)
ca%,han pron. here, here before
cehen
ca%,pen pron. here belo#
cepen, c%pen
2a%c%na na.(I/II) ,aicina [gentilicium
2e%s%na (typo for 2e%c%na-), 2e%cna (na!) ""
2e%cne% (loc!)
2a%%a na.(II) ,aiia [female praenomen
2a%a (na!) "" 2a%al (gen!)
2a%%e na.(I/II) ,aiie [gentilicium
3a%', 2ae' (gen!)
2a%le na.(I) ,aile [male praenomen
2a%le (na!) "" 2a%les (gen!)
2a%na na.(I/II) ,aina [gentilicium
2a%nal (gen!) "" 2a%ne%, 3a%ne%, 2a%n% (loc!)
2a%satru na.(I/II) ,aisatru [gentilicium
2e%satrual (gen!) "" 2e%satru% (loc!)
2a%su na.(I/II) ,aisu [gentilicium
2e%su, 2e%'u, 2e'u (na!) "" 2%su% (loc!)
2a%su%e na.(I/II) ,aisuie [gentilicium
2a%s%es, 2e%ses (gen!) "" 2a%s%e'a (adess!)
2a%su*ara na.(I/II) ,aisuthara [gentilicium
2a%s*ares (gen!)
2a%$e na.(I/II) ,aive [gentilicium
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 8
2a%$es (gen!)
2a%(ra ni.(II) ,aere [city
2e%(ra (na!)
2ale na.(I/II) ,ale [gentilicium
2ale (na!)
2al%sna na.(I/II) ,alisna [gentilicium
2al%snas (gen!)
cap ni.(II) sarcophagus
capl (gen!sg!) "" cap%, cape, +ape (loc!sg!)
2apane na.(I) ,apaneus [mythos
2apne (na!)
caper ni.(II) bo#l #ith handles
caper,c (na!sg!) "" caper% (loc!sg!) "" caper)$a
(na!pl!)
capra ni.(II) urn, vase
capra (na!sg!)
2apu$a ni.(II) ,apua [city
2apue (loc!)
2apu$ana na.(I), adj. ,apuan. of ,apua
2apu$ane (loc!)
2apu$ana%e na.(I/II) ,apuvanie [gentilicium
2ap$anes(gen!)
cara*as na.(II) loved one
cara*sle(dat!sg!)
2arcu na.(I/II) ,arcu [gentilicium
2arcu (na!) "" 2arcus (gen!)
2arc$ana na.(I/II) ,arcvana [gentilicium
3arcuna (na!) "" 3ar+anas (gen!)
2arc$ana%e na.(I/II) ,arcvanie [gentilicium
2ar)$an%es (gen!)
2ar!u na.(I) ,armius [male praenomen
3ar!u (na!)
2arpe na.(I) /arpos [male praenomen
2arpe (na!)
2arpun%e na.(I/II) ,arpunie [gentilicium
2arpun%es (gen!)
2arsu na.(I/II) ,arsu [gentilicium
2arsu% (loc!sg!)
2arsuna na.(I/II) ,arsuna [gentilicium
2arsna (na!)
2arta na.(I/II) ,arta [gentilicium
2arta (na!)
2ar*a(a%e na.(I/II) ,artha*aie [gentilicium
3ar*a(%e (na!)
2asantra na.(II) ,assandra [mythos
2asntra
2astur na.(I) ,astor [deity
2astur (na!)
2at%la na.(I) ,atila [male praenomen
3at%las (gen!)
2atu!%te na.(II) 0anymede [mythos
2at!%te (na!)
2a*a na.(I) ,atha [deity
2a*as, 2a*s,c (gen!sg!)
ca*ar adj. abundance
ca*re (loc!) "" ca*ra (adess!)
2a*arna na.(I/II) ,atharna [gentilicium
2a*arna%al (gen!)
2aul%a na.(I/II) ,aulia [gentilicium
2aul%as (gen!)
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 4
2auna na.(I/II) ,auna [gentilicium
2aunal (gen!)
2a$a*a na.(I) ,avatha [male praenomen
3a$*a (na!) "" 3a$u*as, 2a$a*as, 2a$*as,
2au*as, 3a$*a', 3a$tas (gen!)
2a$%e na.(I) ,avie [male praenomen
2a$%e (na!) "" 2a$%es, 2a$%s (gen!) "" 3a$%%es%
(dat!)
2a$%ena na.(I/II) ,aviena [gentilicium
2a$enas (gen!)
ce) v.tr. to give rites
ce)ase (aor!pres!)
ce)a ni.(II) rite, ritual, service
ce)a, ce)a,! (na!sg!) "" ce)e (loc!sg!) "" ce)ana
(na!pl!) "" ce)ane (loc!pl!) "" ce)aner% (dat!pl!)
cela na.(II) cella
cela,t% (loc!sg!)
2el% na.(I) ,eli [month
2el%
celu ni.(I) earth, ground
celu,c,u! (nom!sg!) "" celu,cn (acc!sg!) "" calus,
cels (gen!sg!) "" cel,*%, cel,*%,!, cel,t% (loc!sg!) ""
calus%,! (dat!sg!)
celusna adj. of the under#orld, infernal
calusna (na!)
2e!%na na.(I/II) ,emina [gentilicium
2a!nas (gen!)
2e!%na%e na.(I/II) ,eminaie [gentilicium
2a!na% (na!) "" 2e!n%l (gen!)
2e!%na) na.(I) 1anus 0eminus, 2ifrons [deity
2e!na), 2e!nac
cen v.tr. to bear, to hold, to carry, to bring
can%a (pres!) "" canu, cenu (part!) "" cencu
(perf!part!)
cenna ni.(II) gift, offering
cana (na!sg!) "" +ane (loc!sg!) "" can$a (na!pl!)
cenula na.(I) gift
canlas (gen!)
cen(a na.(II) small gift
can(a,te (loc!sg!)
2en(ana na.(I/II) ,en*ana [gentilicium
2an(na (na!)
cer v.tr. to ma(e, to fashion
+ara (pres!) "" caresr% (aor!nec!) "" ceren
(midd!pres!) "" cer%ne, cerene (midd!pret!) ""
caru (part!)
cera)ra ni.(II) creation
carucra (na!sg!)
cera)un v.tr. to ma(e, to build
cer%)unce (perf!pret!)
2ertu na.(I) ,ertu [male praenomen
2ertu (na!)
2est%na na.(I/II) ,estina [male praenomen
2estna (na!) "" 2estnas, 2estna' (gen!) ""
2estnal (gen!) "" 2estne% (loc!) "" 2estna'a
(adess!) "" 2est%nala (adess!)
ce' v.tr. to deposit, to lay do#n
ce',u! (inf!) "" ce'u, cesu (part!) "" ce'as%,
cesas%n (aor!midd!)
ce'a ni.(II) burial
cesal (gen!sg!)
ce*u ni.(II) kyatos, dipper
ce*u (na!sg!)
ce(p num. eight
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 10
3nattested but implied by the existence of a
gloss and its derivatives!
ce(pal) num. eighty
ce(pal) (na!) "" ce(pal)als (abl!)
ce(p%(% adv. eight times
ce(p(
c% num. three
c%, c%,! (na!) "" c%', c%s, c%s,u! (gen!)
c%,'ar num. thirteen
c%' 'ar%' (gen!)
c%al) num. thirty
cealc (na!) "" ceal)us, c%al)u', ceal)u', ceal)us,
ceal)u( (gen!)
2%%ar*%a na.(II) ,iiarthia [male praenomen
2%ar*la (adess!) "" 2%ar*%al%'a (gen!'adess!)
2%lens na.(II) ,ilens [deity
Cilens (na!)
c%l* ni.(II) funerary niche
c%l* (na!sg!) "" c%l*', c%l*l (gen!sg!) "" c%l*c$al
(gen!pl) "" c%l*c$e,t% (loc!pl!)
c%(% adv. thrice, three times
c%(%, c%(, c%t(
2la%te na.(I/II) ,laite [gentilicium
2la%te' (gen!)
clan na.(I) son
clan, clan,c, clen (na!sg!) "" clenase, clens%,
cl%ns% (dat!sg!) "" cl%n%%aras (gen!pl!) ""
celen%aras%, clenara'% (dat!pl!)
clant% na.(I/II) stepson, adoptive son, son-in-la#
clant%, clante (na!sg!) "" clant%s (gen!sg!) ""
clant%al (gen!sg!)
2laru)%e na.(I/II) ,laruchie [gentilicium
2laru)%es (gen!)
2laun%u na.(I) ,launiu [gentilicium
2laun%u (na!)
2laut%e na.(I) ,laudius [male praenomen
2la$t%e, 3lut% (na!)
2laut%e*u na.(I) member of the ,lautie family
2la$t%e*uras% (dat!pl!)
cletra! ni.(II) litter
cletra! (na!sg!)
2leupatra na.(I) ,leopatra [female praenomen
2lepatra (na!) "" 2lepatras (gen!)
2leus%na na.(I/II) ,leusina [gentilicium
2leus%nas (gen!)
2leus%nas ni.(II) ,lusium [city
2le$s%nsl, 2le$'%n'l (gen!)
cle$a ni.(II) idol
cle$a (na!sg!) "" cle$ana (na!pl!) "" clu$en%as
(gen!pl!) "" cle$an,* (loc!pl!)
clut% ni.(II) (ylix
+lut% (na!sg!) "" clut%$a (na!pl!)
2lut%a na.(I) ,lutia [male praenomen
3lut%as (gen!)
2lu*a!as*a na.(II) ,lytemnestra [mythos
2lu*u!us*a, 2lut!sta (na!)
2na%$%e na.(I/II) ,naivie [gentilicium
2nae$e (na!)
2na%$%e na.(I) ,naivie [male praenomen
2na%$e, 2ne$e, 5ae (na!) "" 2na%$es, 2na$%%es
(gen!)
2na%$%ena na.(I/II) ,naivena [gentilicium
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 11
2neunas (gen!)
2rac%a na.(I) ,racia [male praenomen
2rac%a (na!) "" 2rac%as (gen!)
2ra%ce na.(I) 0ree( (person)
2rece (na!sg!) "" 2re%ces (gen!sg!)
2ra%c%na na.(I/II) ,raicina [gentilicium
2re%cnal (gen!)
crap% ni.(I) vessel, container
crap%s,ces (gen!sg!) "" crap',t% (dir!sg!)
2raupan%a na.(I/II) ,raupania [gentilicium
2raupan%a (na!)
2rau(a*u na.(I) of the ,rau*ae (gens)
2ra$(a*uras (gen!pl!)
cre%al na.(I) priest of ,eres
creals (gen!sg!)
2respe na.(I) ,respe [cognomen
2respe (na!)
2uclu na.(I) ,yclops [deity
2uclu (na!)
2ucluna%e na.(I/II) ,uclunaie [gentilicium
2ucln%es (gen!) "" 2ucln%al (gen!)
2ucr%na na.(I/II) ,ucrina [gentilicium
2ucr%na (na!)
2ucr%na*u na.(I) member of the !ucrina family
2ucr%na*ur (na!pl!)
cul ni.(I) entrance
c$l (na!sg!)
cul%)na ni.(II) (ylix, cup
cul%)na, )ul%)na (na!sg!)
cul' ni.(II) small entrance
culsl (gen!sg!) "" cul'c$a (na!pl!)
2ul'an' na.(II) ,ulsans [deity
2ul'an'l (gen!)
2u!n% na.(I) ,umni [male praenomen
2u!n%' (gen!)
2una na.(I) ,una [male praenomen
3una' (gen!)
2upana na.(I) ,upana [gentilicium
2upana, 2upna (na!)
2upar%ena na.(I/II) ,upariena [gentilicium
2uprna (na!)
2upe na.(I) ,upe [male praenomen
2upe, 6upe (na!) "" 2upes (gen!)
2urte na.(I) ,urte [male praenomen
3urtes (gen!)
2urtun ni.(II) ,ortona [city
2urtun (na!)
2ur$ana na.(I/II) ,urvana [gentilicium
3ur$ena', 2urunas (gen!)
2us%na na.(I/II) ,usina [gentilicium
2us%nas (gen!)
2usu na.(I/II) ,usu [gentilicium
2usu, 2u'u (na!) "" 2usu', 2usual, 2usul, 2us.
(for +2usul) (gen!)
2usu*u na.(I) member of the !usu family
2usu*ur (na!pl!) "" 2usu*ura' (gen!pl!)
2utu na.(I/II) ,utu [gentilicium
2utus (gen!)
cutu! ni.(II) pitcher
.utu!, .utun (na!sg!)
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 12
cutu!u(a ni.(II) small (othon (type of vase)
.utu!u(a, .utu!u*a (na!sg!)
2utuna na.(I/II) ,utuna [gentilicium
2utnas (gen!)
2$enale na.(I/II) ,venile [gentilicium
2$en%le, 2$enale, 2$enle, 2$elne (for 2$enle)
(na!) "" 2$enle' (gen!) "" 2$elne% (for +2$enle%)
(loc!) "" 2$elne'a (adess!)
c$er ni.(II) votive
c$er (na!sg!) "" c$era (adess!sg!)
c$%l ni.(I) eye
+$%l (na!)
2$%nt%a na.(I/II) 4uintia [gentilicium
2$%nt% (na!)
2al%a*e na.(I/II) ,aliathe [gentilicium
2al%a*e (na!)
Ectur na.(I) &ector [male praenomen
Ectur (na!)
e% pron.loc. here, there
e%, e%,! (loc!) "" e%n, en, e%*, e* (loc!)
E%asun na.(I) 1ason [mythos
E%asun (na!)
ela%un* na.(I) olive farmer
el%unt' (gen!)
ela%$ana adj. of oil, pertaining to oil
ele%$ana
Elena% na.(II) &elen [mythos
El%na%, El%ne% (na!)
Elna na.(I/II) 5lna [gentilicium
Elne% (loc!)
e! v.tr. to remove
e!e (pret!)
en v.tr. to endure, to last, to remain
ena,c (pres!) "" ena' (aor!) "" en%aca (perf!pres!)
En%(pa ni.(II) 5ni*pa [city
En%(pe,tla (loc!sg!)
ep ni.(II) blood
ep,c (na!sg!)
epanna ni.(II) blood offering
epana (na!sg!)
Eparu' na.(I) 5pirus [city
Eparu'%' (dir!)
Ep%%ur na.(I) 5piiur [deity
Ep%ur, Epeur (na!) "" Epr%s (gen!)
ep%l ni.(II) blood
epl,c (na!)
epn% ni.(II) bloodletting cup
epn% (na!sg!)
Er%s na.(II) 5ris [deity
Er%s (na!)
es)a* v.tr. to provide
es)a* (inf!) "" es)a*ce (perf!pret!)
esle! (a*ru! num. eighteen
esle! (a*ru! (na!) "" esle! (a*ru!%' (gen!)
Esplace na.(I) As(lepios [mythos
Esplace (na!)
Estara na.(II) Ashtarte [deity
Estre% (loc!)
e'% ni.(I) [type of offering
e'%, e'%,c (na!sg!) "" e'%s (gen!)
e'ta na.(II) family
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 1&
e'ta,c, esta,+ (na!sg!) "" e'tla (adess!sg!)
eter na.(I) [type of place or structure
eter%as (gen!sg!) "" eter%, etr%, etert%,c (loc!sg!) ""
etera (adess!sg!) "" eter%a%s, etera%s (dir!sg!)
Etera na.(I/II) 5tera [gentilicium
Etera' (gen!)
et%as ni.(I) ides
et%asas (gen!sg!)
etna adv. then, so
%tuna, %tna, etna,!, ,tna,!
Etule na.(I) Aitolos [mythos
Etule (na!)
e* ni.(II) fruit
e* (na!sg!) "" e*e (loc!sg!) "" e*l (gen!sg!)
e*ar v.tr. to receive
a*re (pret!) "" e*r% (nec!) "" etras (aor!) "" etra'a
(aor!pres!) "" e*rse (aor!pret!)
Eutarpa na.(II) 5utarpa [deity
Euturpa (na!)
E$an na.(I) 5van [deity
E$an (na!)
e( ni.(II) age, lifetime
e( (na!sg!) "" es%,c (loc!sg!)
E(pu na.(I/II) 5*pu [gentilicium
E(pus (gen!)
E(pu%a na.(II) 5*puia [female praenomen
Esp%al (gen!)
fac v.tr. [verb operating on votive offerings
faca (pres!) "" face (pret!) "" fac% (inf!)
fal ni.(I) mountain. hypogeal tomb
falas (gen!)
fal%' ni.(II) mound, hill. hypogeal tomb
fals,t% (loc!sg!)
fal(a ni.(II) mound, hill. hypogeal tomb
fal(a,*% (loc!sg!)
fan v.tr. to consecrate
fan%r%, faner% (nec!) "" fanu'e (aor!pret!) "" fanu
(part!)
7anacna na.(I/II) 6anacna [gentilicium
7anacnal (gen!)
far v.tr. to go
far%ce, farce (perf!pret!)
far*an v.tr. to bear children
far*ne "" far*na)e (pass!pret!)
far*anna adj. born, ne#born
far*ana (na!sg!)
7ast% na.(I) 6austus [male praenomen
7ast (na!) "" 7ast%' (gen!)
7ast%%a na.(II) 6astiia [female praenomen
7ast%a, 7ast% "" 7ast%al (gen!)
fa'a ni.(II) exta, intestines
fa'e%' (gen!sg!) "" fa'e%, fa'e%,c, fa'e, fa'%
(loc!sg!) "" fasle (dat!sg!)
fau v.tr. to receive
fa$%n (midd!pres!)
fa$% ni.(II) offertorium, offering room
fa$%,t%,c (loc!sg!)
fel v.tr. to devote
$hele.u (perf!part!)
7elc%e na.(I/II) 6elcie [gentilicium
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 1-
7elces (gen!) "" 7elc%al (gen!)
fel% ni.(II) devotion, dedication
fel%,c (na!sg!)
7el!u%e na.(I) 6elmuie [male praenomen
7el!u%al (gen!)
7els%na na.(I/II) 6elsina [gentilicium
7elsnas (gen!) "" 7el'nal (gen!)
7elusce na.(I/II) 6elusce [gentilicium
7elus+e' (gen!)
f%r v.i. to burn
f%ra (pres!) "" f%r%n (midd!pres!)
7lacuna%e na.(I/II) 6lacunaie [gentilicium
8hla+una%e (na!)
flana) ni.(II) [type of offering
flana), flanac (na!sg!)
7lana)r%na na.(I/II) 6lanachrina [gentilicium
7len)r%nas (gen!)
flan(ana ni.(II) [type of offering
flen(na (na!sg!)
7la$%e na.(I/II) 6lavie [gentilicium
7la$%%es (gen!)
7n%sca%e na.(II) 6niscaie [praenomen, gentilicium
7n%'c%al, 7nesc%al (gen!) "" 7nesc% (loc!)
7raucna na.(I/II) 6raucna [gentilicium
7raucnal (gen!)
7raun% na.(I/II) 6rauni [gentilicium
7raun%'a (adess!)
7ul)ena%e na.(I/II) 6ulchenaie [gentilicium
8hul)enas, 9ul)enas (gen!) "" 9ul)un%es%,
9ul)n%es% (dat!)
7ulu$e na.(I/II) 6uluve [gentilicium
9$ulu$e', 7ulus (gen!) "" 7ulu'la (gen!'adess!)
7ulu$ena na.(I/II) 6uluvena [gentilicium
7uluna, 8hul$ena, 7ul$enas (na!) "" 9ulun%as
(gen!)
ha!a ni.(II) [place #here offerings are placed
ha!a%,*% (loc!sg!)
9a!le na.(I) &amle [male praenomen
9a!les (gen!)
han adv. before, in front of
hen
9an%pal na.(I) &annibal [praenomen
9an%palus (gen!sg!)
9an%p%na na.(I/II) &anipina [gentilicium
9anpnas (gen!)
han* ni.(II) front
hante,c, ha*e, hate,c, ha*e,c (loc!sg!), han*%n,
ha*r,*% (loc!sg!)
9ap%rna na.(I/II) &apirna [gentilicium
9ap%rnal (gen!) "" 9aprn% (loc!)
9ap%sna na.(I/II) &apisna [gentilicium
9ap%sne% (loc!)
har v.tr. to fill
hare (pret!)
9as!un na.(I/II) &asmun [gentilicium
9as!un (na!)
9ast% na.(II) &asti [female praenomen
9ast%
9ast%a na.(II) &astia [female praenomen
9ast% (na!)
hatrencu na.(II) unmarried
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 15
hatrencu (na!sg!)
9a*%asna na.(I/II) &athiasna [gentilicium
9a*%asnas (gen!)
9a*l%a na.(II) &athlia [male praenomen
9a*l%als (abl!)
9a*na na.(I) &athna [deity
9a*na (na!)
9aurana na.(I/II) &aurana [gentilicium
9a$rnas (gen!)
9aurana%e na.(I/II) &auranaie [gentilicium
9a$ren%es (gen!)
hec v.i. to lay do#n
hec%a (pres!) "" hece (pret!) "" hecece (perf!pret!)
"" hec(r% (aor!nec!) "" he)'* (aor!part)
9e%r% na.(I/II) &eiri [gentilicium
9e%r% (na!)
9e%r%na na.(I/II) &eirina [gentilicium
9er%na (na!)
9e%r%na%e na.(I/II) &eirinaie [gentilicium
9er%ne, 9er%n% (na!) "" 9er%n%al (gen!) ""
9erne'a (adess!)
9e%ule na.(I) &eiule [male praenomen
9eul, 9e$l (na!)
hel v.tr. to sacrifice, to (ill
helu (part!)
hel%' ni.(II) small sacrifice
hels, hels,c (na!sg!)
hel) ni.(II) sacrificial animal
hal) (na!)
hel)(a ni.(II) small sacrificial animal
hal)(a (na!sg!) "" hal)(e (loc!sg!)
helna ni.(II) sacrifice
halna (na!)
9eracle na.(I) &era(les [mythos
9ercle, 9erecele, 9er)le (na!) "" 9ercles (gen!)
9eracl%te na.(I/II) &era(leides [gentilicium
9ercl%te, 7ercl%te (na!)
hera! v.tr. to collect
her!a (pres!) "" hera!$e (pret!) "" her!u
(part!)
hera!a' ni.(II) pillar, phallus, &ermes idol
hera!a'$a (na!pl!)
9era!e na.(I) &ermes [deity
9er!e (na!)
het v.tr. to pour
het,u! (inf!)
hetran ni.(II) [type of li7uid religious offering
hetrn (na!sg!)
9eu)le na.(I/II) &euchle [gentilicium
9e$)le (na!)
he$a adj. every, each
he$a (nom!) "" he$n (acc!)
h% v.tr. to call out
h%a (pres!)
h%l ni.(I) enclosed land
h%l (na!sg!) "" h%ls,c (gen!sg!) "" h%l)$e,tra
(dat!pl!)
h%lar v.i. to enclose
h%lar (inf!) "" h%lare (pret!) "" h%lar* (part!)
9%!ara%e na.(I) &imaraie [mythos
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 10
9%!rae (na!)
h%n* adj. belo#, beneath, underneath
h%n*%e, h%n**%n (loc!) "" h%n*a (adess!)
h%n*%al na.(I) spirit, ghost, shade
h%n*%al (na!)
h%n*%u adv. belo#, beneath, underneath
h%n*%u, h%n*u
9%pucrate na.(I) &ipucrate [gentilicium
9%pucrates (gen!)
9%ru!e na.(I) &irume [male praenomen
9%ru!es% (dat!)
9%ru!%na na.(I/II) &irumina [gentilicium
9%ru!%na (na!) "" 9er!enas (gen!)
h%$%l na.(I) o#l
h%uls (gen!sg!)
h%$u ni.(I) [type of libation offering
h%$us (gen!sg!)
hupn% ni.(II) ossuary chamber
hupn% (na!sg!)
hupn%na ni.(II) ossuary
hupn%na (na!sg!) "" hupn%ne,*% (loc!sg!)
hurs% ni.(II) [li7uid or material poured in religious
rite
hurs%, hurs%,c (na!sg!)
9urt%na na.(I/II) &urtina [gentilicium
9urt%nas (gen!)
hus na.(II) child
husl (gen!sg!)
hus%u na.(I) child
hus%ur, hu'ur (na!pl!)
hus%urna ni.(II) group of youths
hu(rna,tre (inst!sg!)
hus%urnana adj. youthful, young
husrnana (na!)
9ust%na na.(II) &ustina [female praenomen
9ustnal (gen!)
hu* num. four
hu*, hut (na!) "" hu*%s, hu*s, huts (gen!) ""
huter% (dat!)
hu*,'ar num. fourteen
hu*(ars (gen!)
hu*%la num. fourth
hut%la
9u(c%na na.(I/II) &u*cina [gentilicium
9u(cna% (loc!) "" 9u(cnes,c (dir!)
%) adv. thus, then, so, therefore
%)
:)'%un na.(I) 8xion [mythos
:)'%un (na!)
%l v.tr. to declare
%la)e (pass!pret!) "" %luu (part!)
%lacu ni.(II) altar
%lucu (na!sg!) "" %lac$e, %luc$e (loc!sg!)
%!a' v.tr. to doom
%!'ce (pref!pret!)
%n pron.3ps.in., pron.3pp. it, they
%n (na!)
%'u ni.(II) tray
%'u,! (na!sg!) "" %'$e% (loc!sg!) "" es$%',c (dat!sg!)
:*a$%'$a na.(II) 8thavisva [deity
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 11
E*au'$a, :*a$u'$a
;a%re na.(I/II) ,haire [gentilicium
;a%reals (gen!'gen!)
;al)as na.(I) ,halchas [mythos
;al)as (na!)
;arun na.(I) ,harun [deity
;arun, ;aru (na!)
;este na.(I) ,estius [male praenomen
;estes (gen!)
)% ni.(I), adv. today
)%,e! (na!sg!) "" )%' (gen!sg!) "" )%,!,* (loc!sg!)
;%%ala na.(I/II) ,hiiala [gentilicium
;%elas (gen!)
;ur$ar na.(I) ,hurvar [month
;ur$ar (na!)
la%$a ni.(II) [type of offering
lae,t%, lae,t%,!, la%$e,ts,! (for +la%$e,t%,!),
lae%,tre,c' (loc!sg!)
la%$%' ni.(II) [type of offering
lae', la%$%s,ca (na!sg!) "" la%s,cla (loc!sg!)
<a)u na.(I) )achu [male praenomen
<a)u' (gen!)
<an%e na.(I) )anie [male praenomen
<an%es, <en%es (gen!)
<apana na.(I/II) )apana [gentilicium
<apanas, =>?@A>B (gen!)
<apse na.(I) )apse [male praenomen
<apse (na!)
<aran na.(I) )aran [deity
<aran (na!) "" <aruns (gen!)
<aran%e na.(I/II) )aranie [gentilicium
<arnal (gen!) "" <arne% (loc!) "" <aran%%a
(adess!)
<aran* na.(I) )aranth [male praenomen
<arn* (na!)
<ar%ce na.(I) )arice [male praenomen
<ar%ce, <arc%, <arce (na!) "" <ar%ces, <areces,
<arces (gen!)
<ar%s na.(II) )aris [male praenomen
<ar%s (na!) "" <ar%sal (gen!) "" <ar%se (loc!) ""
<ar%sale (dat!) "" <ar%sa, <r%'a (adess!) ""
<ar%sal%'a (abl!) "" <ar%sal%'la (abl!'adess!)
<ar%st% na.(II) )aristi [male praenomen
<arst% (na!) "" <arst%al (gen!)
<ar%u na.(I) )ariu [male praenomen
<arus% (dat!) "" <aru'ula (adess!)
<ar%(a na.(I) )ari*a [male praenomen
<ar(as (gen!)
<ar%(a%u na.(II) )ari*aiu [male praenomen
<are(u, <ar(%u (na!) "" <are(ul (gen!)
<ar* na.(I/II) )arth [male praenomen
<ar*, <art (na!) "" <ar*s (gen!) "" <ar*%al,
<ar*al, <ar*l, <r*al,c, <a*al (for +<ar*al)
(gen!) "" <ar*%a, <ar*a (adess!) "" <ar*als
(gen!'gen!) "" <ar*%al%'a,! (gen!'adess!)
<ar*%%a na.(II) )arthia [female praenomen
<ar*%a, <ar*%%a, <ar*% (na!) "" <ar*%ale (dat!)
lasa na.(II) nymph
lasa (na!sg!)
<at%%u na.(I/II) )atiiu [gentilicium
<at%u (na!)
<at%n% na.(I/II) )atini [gentilicium
<at%n% (na!) "" <a*%n%al (gen!)
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 18
la* v.tr. to #atch, to guard
la* (inf!)
<a*erna na.(I/II) )atherna [gentilicium
<a*erna (na!)
<aucane na.(I/II) )aucane [gentilicium
<aucane (na!)
<auc%e na.(I) )aucie [male praenomen
<u$ce (na!) "" <auc%es, <auc%' (gen!) ""
<auc%e%a (adess!)
<auc%ena%e na.(I/II) )aucienaie [gentilicium
<auc%n%, <uc%n% (na!)
lau)u! ni.(II) curia, municipal district, head of a
curia
lu$)! (na!) "" lau)u!n%al (gen!pl!) ""
lau)u!ne,t% (loc!pl!)
<au)u!%e na.(I/II) )auchumie [gentilicium
<au)u!e'a (gen!'gen!)
<au)us%e na.(I/II) )auchusie [gentilicium
<au)us%es (gen!)
<au)us%ena na.(I/II) )auchusiena [gentilicium
<au)us%enas (gen!)
<aus%e na.(I) )ausie [male praenomen
<a$s%e' (gen!)
<auter%e na.(I) )autrie [gentilicium
<auter% (na!)
<aut%e na.(I) )autie [gentilicium
<aut% (loc!)
lautun adj., na.(I) liberated, free
la$tun, la$utn, lautn (na!sg!) "" la$tunu%s
(gen!sg!)
lautunn% na.(I) freeman
lautn%, lautn%,c, la$tn%, lau. (na!) "" lautun%s,
lautnes, lautne' (gen!sg!)
lautunn%*a na.(I) free#oman
lautn%*a, lautn%ta, lutn%*a, lutn%ta (na!sg!)
<a$e na.(I) )ave [male praenomen
<a$es (gen!)
<a(%e na.(II) )a*ie [male praenomen
<a(% (na!) "" <a(%a (adess!)
<a(%%u na.(I) )a*iiu [male praenomen
<a(%u (na!)
le% v.i. to lie do#n
le%ne (midd!pret!) "" le%n* (midd!part!)
<e%na%e na.(I/II) )einaie [gentilicium
<e%n%es (gen!)
le%tar ni.(I) [type of vessel
le%tr,u!, le%*r (na!sg!)
le)utu!u(a ni.(II) small le(ythos (type of vase)
le)tu!u(a (na!sg!)
<e!au'na na.(I/II) )emausna [gentilicium
<e!au'na' (gen!)
<e!ne na.(I) )emnos [island
<e!n%'a (adess!)
len v.tr. to pour
len (inf!) "" len%ace (perf!pret!)
<e*a%e na.(I) )ethaie [male praenomen
<e*aes, <e*es (gen!)
<e*a!s na.(I) )ethams [deity
<e*a! (for +<e*a!s) (na!) "" <e*a!sul (gen!)
<e*ana na.(I/II) )ethana [gentilicium
<e*ane% (loc!)
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 14
leu na.(I) lion, lioness
leu (na!)
<e$%a na.(I/II) )evia [gentilicium
<e$%al (gen!) "" <e$e% (loc!)
<%cantre na.(I/II) )y(andros [gentilicium
<%cantre (na!)
<%!ur%ce na.(I/II) )imurice [gentilicium
<%!urces (gen!) "" <%!rce'la (adess!)
l%n v.tr. to slay
l%ne (pret!)
l%s ni.(II) field
le'%a%, l%'%a%,*%, le'%e*%,c (loc!pl!)
<ucer na.(I) )ucer [male praenomen
<ucer (na!)
lup ni.(II) crossing, crossroads
lufe (na!sg!)
lup v.tr. to cross over, to pass on
lupuce (perf!pret!) "" lupu (part!)
lur% ni.(II) beverage
lur%, lur,ca,c (na!sg!)
lurs v.i. to shine, to be bright
lurs* (part!)
lus na.(I/II) ancestor, guardian spirit
lusa', lusl, l$sl (gen!sg!) "" lustra' (dat!sg!) ""
lu'$er (na!pl!)
<usce na.(I) )usce [cognomen
<usce (na!)
<usc%na na.(I/II) )uscina [gentilicium
<us)ne%, <uscn% (loc!)
lu* ni.(II) egg
lu*, lut (na!sg!) "" lu*,t% (loc!sg!) "" lu*c$a,
ru*c$a (na!pl!) "" lu*c$al (gen!pl!)
<u*u!a na.(I) )uthuma [male praenomen
<u*u!as (gen!)
!ac%stra%u ni.(II) [small religious offerings
!acstre$c (na!sg!)
Cac%strana na.(I) 9astarna (%ervius :ullus)
[mythos
Cacstrna (na!)
Ca%fulana na.(I/II) 9aifulana [gentilicium
Ca%flnas (gen!)
!a) num. five
!a), !ac (na!) "" !a)s (gen!)
Ca)ert%e na.(I) 9achertie [mythos
Ca)ert%e (na!)
!al v.tr. to bless, to sanctify
!ale, !ele (pret!) "" !ulu (part!)
!alana ni.(II) mirror
!alana, !alena (na!sg!)
!alstr%a ni.(II) mirror
!alstr%a (na!sg!)
Ca!arce na.(I/II) 9amarce [gentilicium
Ca!arce, Ca!erce, Caerce (for Ca!erce),
Ca!ur+e (na!) "" Ca!arces, Ca!urces (gen!)
!an v.i. to remain
!an (inf!) "" !an%nce (midd!perf!pret!)
Can%a na.(I/II) 9ania [gentilicium
Can%al (gen!)
!an%! ni.(II) spirit, deceased
!an%!, !an%%! (na!sg!) "" !an%!er% (dat!sg!)
!ar v.tr. to harvest
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 20
!aru (part!)
!aranu) ni.(II) bounty, harvest
!arunu), !arnu) (na!sg!) "" !arunu)$a
Carce na.(I) 9arcus [male praenomen
Carce (na!) "" Carces (gen!) "" Carces (dir!) ""
Carces%,c (dat!) "" Carcesla (abl!)
Carc%na na.(I/II) 9arcina [gentilicium
Carcena, Cacena (for Carcena), Carcna
(na!)
Car%' na.(II) 9aris [deity
Car%' (na!) "" Car%'l, Car%sl (gen!)
Car)ar%e na.(I) 9arcarius [male praenomen
Car)ars (gen!)
!ar(a ni.(II) small harvest
!ar(a, !ar(a,c (na!sg!)
!as v.tr. to entomb, to bury
!es (inf!) "" !a'u (part!)
Casan na.(I) 9onth of 2urial [calendar
Casan, Casn (na!sg!)
!at v.tr. to pic( (fruit)
!atu, !a*u (part!)
!ata! ni.(II) pic(ings, gathered fruit
!ata!, !atan (na!sg!) "" !atan% (loc!sg!)
Catulna na.(I/II) 9atulna [gentilicium
Catulnas, Catulnas,c, Catunas (gen!) ""
Catulna% (loc!)
!a* ni.(II) pic(ing, fruit harvest
!a*c$a, !a*c$a,c (na!pl!) "" !a*c$e (loc!pl!)
Cefanate na.(I/II) 9efanate [gentilicium
Cefanate' (gen!)
Ce%an na.(II) 9eian [deity
Cean (na!)
!e%an ni.(II) youth
!e%an% (loc!sg!)
!e) na.(II) person, people
!e) (na!sg!"pl!) "" !e)l, !e)l,u! (gen!sg!"pl!)
!en v.tr. to place, to set do#n
!ena (pres!) "" !ene (pret!) "" !enece
(perf!pret!) "" !ena)e (pass!pret!) "" !ena.u
(perf!part!)
Cenar$a na.(I) 9enarva [deity
Cenera$as, Cenr$a (na!)
Cenele na.(I) 9enelaos [mythos
Cenle (na!)
Cetel%e na.(I/II) 9etelie [gentilicium
Cetel%' (gen!) "" Cetl% (loc!)
Cet%e na.(I/II) 9etie [gentilicium
Cet%es (gen!)
Cet%ena na.(I/II) 9etiena [gentilicium
Cet%enas (gen!)
Cetru na.(I) 9etru [male praenomen
Cetru (na!)
!e*lu! ni.(II) people, populus, state
!e*lu! (na!sg!) "" !e*lu!,*, !e*lu!,t,
!e*l!,*, !e*lu!e,r%,c (loc!sg!) "" !e*lu!e',c
(dir!sg!)
!% pron.1ps. 8
!%, n% (nom!) "" !%n%, !%ne, !%n (obl!) "" !%n%p%,
!enpe, !%np%, !%p% (gen!, loc!)
!la) adj. blessed, sanctified
!ala), !ula), !la) (na!) "" !la)as, !la+a',
!la+as (gen!) "" !ala+as% (dat!)
Cla)u) na.(II) 9lachuch [mythos
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 21
Clacu) (na!)
!ler ni.(I) gift
!ler, fler (na!sg!) "" fler' (gen!sg!) "" flere
(loc!sg!) "" flerer% (dat!sg!) "" fler)$a (na!pl!) ""
fler)$e (loc!pl!)
!ler,e*ar v.i. to receive gifts
fler*rce (perf!pret!)
!ler%' ni.(II) small gift
flere', fleres (na!sg!)
!u) ni.(II) [type of vessel for li7uids
!u) (na!sg!)
!ul$a v.i. to be blessed
!ula (pres!) "" !ule (pret!) "" !ulu$ace, !lace
(perf!pret!) "" !la)e (pass!pret!) "" !ulu$ana
(midd!pres!) "" !uluane !ulune, !ulene
(midd!pret!) "" !ul$en% (midd!conj!) ""
!ulu$an%ce, !ulu$anece, !ulu$en%ce,
!ulu$un%+e, !ulu$unece, !ul$an%ce,
!ulen%ce (midd!perf!pret!) "" !ule* (part!)
!un% na.(I/II) plot, area
!un%s, !un%s,tas (gen!sg!) "" !un%,cle,*,
!un%,cle,t (loc!sg!) "" !uns,*e,c (dir!sg!) ""
!un'al (gen!'gen!sg!)
!un%sule na.(II) underground tomb
!un%sle (na!sg!) "" !un%sule*, !un%s$le*
(gen!sg!)
!un* ni.(II) pillar
!u* (na!sg!) "" !n*c$a (na!pl!)
!ur v.tr. to (ill (tr!). to die (intr!)
!urce (perf!pret!) "" !ur%n (midd!pres!)
Cura na.(I/II) 9ura [gentilicium
Cura% (loc!)
Cur%la na.(I/II) 9urila [gentilicium
Cur%la (na!)
!ur%na'a ni.(II) funerary offering
!ur%na'%e (loc!pl!)
!ur%' ni.(II) container for the dead (ossuary, urn,
sarcophagus)
!urs (na!sg!) "" !ur'l (gen!sg!) "" !ur''
(dir!sg!) "" !ur($a (na!pl!)
Cusclena na.(I/II) 9usclena [gentilicium
Cusclena (na!)
Cuse na.(I/II) 9use [gentilicium
Cuses (gen!)
Cus%na na.(I/II) 9usina [gentilicium
Cusen%al (gen!) "" Cu'n% (loc!)
!ut v.tr. to die
!ut%n (midd!) "" !ut%nce (midd!perf!pret!)
!utana ni.(II) sarcophagus, coffin
!utana, !utna (na!sg!) "" !utn%a,*% (loc!sg!)
Cutu na.(I/II) 9utu [cognomen, gentilicium
Cutu (na!) "" Cutus (gen!)
Cu*%cu na.(I/II) 9uthicu [gentilicium
Cu*%+us (na!)
!u$al) num. fifty
!u$al)ls (abl!)
nac pron. #hen, during
nac, nac,u!!
nacnu$a adj. big, great
nacn$a%as% (dat!pl!)
na%t%' ni.(II) la(e
ne%t%s' (dir!sg!)
na) ni.(II) [li7uid-bearing vessel
na)$a (na!pl!) "" na)$e (loc!pl!)
na!er ni.(II) cup
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 22
na!er (na!sg!)
5ane na.(I) ;ane [male praenomen
5anes (gen!)
5an%s%a na.(I/II) ;anisia [gentilicium
5an%s%e% (loc!)
nap ni.(II) [a place for offerings
nap,t% (loc!sg!)
naper ni.(II) cup
naper (na!sg!)
naplan ni.(II) #ines(in
naplan (na!)
nat%' na.(II) haruspex
nat%s (na!sg!) "" nat%sal (gen!sg!)
nat%'ra) adj. haruspical, pertaining to haruspicy
ne*'rac (na!)
nat%'$%' ni.(II) haruspical priesthood
net'$%s (na!sg!)
neput' na.(I) grandson
neft' (na!sg!)
ner% na.(I) [type of offering
ner% (na!) "" ner%' (gen!)
5er%na na.(I/II) ;erina [gentilicium
5er%na% (loc!)
5estur na.(I) ;estor [mythos
5estur (na!)
ne' ni.(I/II) dead person
ne's, ne'l, nesl (gen!)
ne'%* ni.(I) dead person
nes%*$as (gen!pl!)
ne'na ni.(II) sepulcher
nesna (na!)
5e*un' na.(II) ;eptune [deity
5e*una' (na!) "" 5e*un'l (gen!)
5%c%pur na.(I) ;i(ephoros [male praenomen
5%c%pur (na!)
5%pe na.(I) ;ipe [male praenomen
5%pe (na!)
n%*u ni.(I) [type of libation offering
n%*us,c (gen!sg!)
nuc na.(I) #restler
nucr (na!pl!)
5u%)%lna na.(I) [gentilicium
5u%)lne% (loc!)
5u!a na.(I) ;uma [male praenomen
nu!a (na!sg!)
5u!aclan%e na.(I/II) ;umaclanie [gentilicium
5u!clan%es (gen!)
5u!ana na.(I/II) ;umana [gentilicium
5u!na' (gen!) "" 5u!nal (gen!)
5u!%s%e na.(I/II) ;umisie [gentilicium
5u!%s%%es, 5u!us%e' (gen!)
nun* v.i. to come (tr!). to bring (intr!)
nun* (inf!) "" nun*er% (nec!) "" nun*)
(pass!pres!) "" nun*en (midd!) "" nun*ene
(midd!pret!) "" nun*en* (midd!part!) "" nun*cu
(perf!part!)
5upar(%na na.(I/II) ;upar*ina [gentilicium
5ufr(nal (gen!)
nur/ num. nine
nur/%(% adv. nine times
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 2&
nur/(%
nu(a ni.(II) feast
nu(a (na!sg!)
nu(ana ni.(II) feasting, feast
nu(%na%a (na!pl!)
nu(%la)un v.tr. to feast on, to eat
nu(l)ne, nu(l)ne,c (pret!)
pa pron.rel. #ho, #hich, that
%pa, epa, pa (nom!) "" %pn (acc!) "" pul (gen!) ""
%pe% (loc!) "" psl (gen!'gen!)
Da%*%na na.(I/II) <aithina [gentilicium
Da%*unas, Da%*nas (gen!)
Da%*%na%e na.(I/II) <aithinaie [gentilicium
Da%*%na%e (na!)
Da)a na.(I) <acha [deity
Da)a (na!) "" Da)%es (gen!)
Da)a%e na.(I) <achaie [male praenomen
Da)%es (na!)
pa)ana adj., ni.(II) bacchanal, pertaining to <acha.
2acchic temple
pa)ana,t% (loc!sg!)
pa)asna'%e na.(I) baccantes
pacusna'%e (na!sg!)
pa)a*u na.(I) baccante
pa)a*ura (adess!pl!)
Dalpe na.(I) <alpe [cognomen
Dalpe (na!)
papa na.(I) uncle
papa (na!sg!)
papals na.(II) nephe# (patrilineal)
papals (na!sg!) "" papalser (na!pl!)
Dapana na.(I/II) <apana [gentilicium
Dapnas (gen!) "" Dapana% (loc!)
Dapas na.(II) <apas [male praenomen
Dapas (na!) "" Dapasla (adess!) "" Dapa'l%'
(gen!'gen!)
Dapas%na na.(I/II) <apasina [gentilicium
Daps%na' (gen!)
Dapa*na na.(I/II) <apathna [gentilicium
Dapa*nas (gen!)
par ni.(II) house, temple
parn%) adj. temple-related, religious
parn%) (na!)
Dartunu na.(I/II) <artunu [gentilicium
Dartunus (gen!)
patara ni.(II) patera, shallo# cup
patara (na!sg!) "" pater% (loc!sg!)
Datrucle na.(I) <atroclus [mythos
Datrucles (gen!)
pa$a na.(I) sacrificial offering
pa$a, pa$a,c (na!sg!)
pa( v.tr. to drain li7uid
pa(u (na!)
Da(%e*e na.(I/II) <a*iethe [gentilicium
Da(%e*es (gen!)
Decase na.(I) <egasus [mythos
Decse (na!)
pen adv. belo#, beneath, underneath
pen
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 2-
pene*a adv. belo#, beneath, underneath
pen*a (na!) "" pene(' (gen!)
pene*ana adv., adj. belo#, beneath, underneath
pen*na "" pen(nas (gen!)
Depuna na.(I/II) <epuna [gentilicium
Depunas (gen!) "" Depnes,c (dir!)
per v.tr. to pour
pera'ce (perf!pret!)
Derna na.(I/II) <erna [gentilicium
Dernal (gen!)
perp v.tr. [action involving altar #orship
perpr% (nec!)
pes ni.(II) sustenance
pes, pes,c (na!sg!) "" pes' (dir!sg!)
pes%l ni.(II) sustenance
pe'l%al (gen!sg!)
Desna na.(I) <esna [male praenomen
Desna (na!) "" Desnas, Desna' (gen!)
pesna ni.(II) [vessel containing food offerings
pe%sna (for +pesna(-)) (na!sg!)
pesna%u ni.(II) [small vessel containing food
offerings
pesnu (na!)
Detce na.(I/II) <etce [gentilicium
Detce (na!)
Detru na.(II) <etru [female praenomen
Detrual (gen!) "" Detru% (loc!)
Detruna na.(I/II) <etruna [gentilicium
Detrn%al,c (gen!) "" Detruna%, Detrun% (loc!)
Detu% na.(I) <etui [female praenomen
Detu%, Det$% (na!) "" Det$%al (gen!)
pe*as v.tr. to fill
pe*s%n (midd!pres!)
pe*eren% adv. above
pe*eren%
De*una na.(I/II) <ethuna [gentilicium
De*una (na!) "" De*ne% (loc!)
p%c v.tr. to sho#
p%cas (aor!) "" p%casr% (aor!nec!)
D%lun%ce na.(I) <hiloni(os [male praenomen
D%lun%ce (na!)
D%n%e na.(I/II) <inie [gentilicium
D%n%es (gen!)
D%sce na.(I) <isce [male praenomen
D%s%ce (na!)
D%t%lna na.(I/II) <itilna [gentilicium
D%tlnal (gen!) "" D%t%ln%a (adess!)
D%*e na.(I) <ithe [male praenomen
D%*es (gen!)
D%$% na.(I) <ivi [male praenomen
D%$% (na!)
Dlatunalu na.(I/II) <latunalu [gentilicium
Dlatunalus (gen!)
Dlaute na.(I/II) <laute [gentilicium
Dlaute (na!)
Dlecu na.(I/II) <lecu [gentilicium
Dlecus (gen!)
Dlecu*u na.(I) <lecu family member
Drecu*uras% (dat!pl!)
plut% ni.(II) [libation offering
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 25
plut%,! (na!sg!)
Drast%na na.(I/II) <rastina [gentilicium
Drastnas (gen!)
pru)u ni.(I) procous, pitcher
pru)' (gen!sg!)
pru)u! ni.(II) procous, pitcher
pru)u! (na!)
pru)una adj. of or relating to a procous
prucuna (na!)
pru!a*' na.(I) great-grandson
pru!a*', pru!ts (na!sg!)
prunta na.(I) augur of lightning, fulguriator
fronta,c (na!sg!)
Dru'%lna na.(I/II) <rusilna [gentilicium
Dru'lnas (gen!) "" Dru'lna% (loc!)
pu%a na.(II) #ife
pu%a (na!sg!) "" pu%al (gen!)
Du%ana na.(I/II) <uiana [gentilicium
Du%unal (gen!)
Dul%a na.(I/II) <ulia [gentilicium
Dul%a, Dul%a,c, Dul% (na!) "" Dul%as, Dul%u', Dules
(gen!) "" Dul%al%sa (gen!'adess!)
Dul%ana na.(I/II) <uliana [gentilicium
Dulenas (gen!)
pulu! ni.(II) nail. star. soul
pulu!)$a, fulu!)$a (na!pl!)
pulu!(a ni.(II) nail. star
pulun(a (na!)
Dulutuce na.(I) <ollux [deity
Dultuce (na!) "" Dultuce' (gen!)
Du!p%a na.(I) <umpia [male praenomen
Dup%as (gen!)
Du!p%l%e na.(I/II) <umpilie [gentilicium
Du!pl%al,) (for +Du!pl%al,c) (gen!)
Du!pu na.(I/II) <umpu [gentilicium
Du!pu (na!) "" Du!pus, Dupu' (gen!)
Du!puna na.(I/II) <umpuna [gentilicium
Dunpunas (gen!) "" Du!panal, Du!pnal (gen!)
"" Du!pnal%'a, Du!pnal%sa (abl!)
Dupuluna ni.(II) <opulonia [city
Dupluna, 7ufluna (na!)
Dupuluns na.(I) <upuluns [deity
7ufluns, 7uflus (na!) "" 7uflnsul (gen!)
puratu! adj. private
puratu! (na!)
Dure na.(I) <ure [male praenomen
Dures (gen!)
Dur%%a na.(I) <uriia [male praenomen
Dur%%a' (gen!)
Durn% na.(I/II) <urni [gentilicium
Durn% (na!)
pur*%'$ana ni.(II) [abstract religious noun
purt'$ana (na!sg!)
pur*%'$au) ni.(II) dedicatory object
purt'$a$c,t% (loc!sg!)
Dustu!%na na.(I/II) <ostumius [gentilicium
Dust!%nas (gen!)
pu'%l ni.(II) [type of offering
fu'le (loc!) "" fu'ler% (dat!)
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 20
put v.d. to leave behind
pute (pret!) "" puts, pu*s (aor!) "" pu*ce
(perf!pret!)
put%na ni.(II) cup for libations
put%na (na!)
put%(a ni.(II) small cup for libations
put%(a (na!sg!)
/e) v.tr. [un(no#n transitive verb
/e)ucu (perf!part!)
Eerse na.(I) <erseus [male praenomen
Eerse (na!)
Eers%pana% <ersephone [deity
Eers%pna%, Eers%pne%, (na!)
Eersu na.(I) <ersian
Eersu (na!)
Eerusna) na.(I) <erugian
Eersna)s (gen!)
E%s%e na.(I) <hisie [male praenomen
Dh%s%us (na!) "" E%s%s (gen!)
Eu%pa na.(I) <hoibe [mythos
Eu%pa (na!)
Facalu na.(I) =acalu [male praenomen
Fa+alus (gen!)
Facu na.(I) =acu [male praenomen
Facus (gen!)
ra) ni.(I) [place
ra) (loc!sg!-) "" ra)' (gen!sg!) "" ra),t%, ra)u,*,
ra),* (loc!sg!)
ra!$a v.i. [action regarding sacrificial animals
ra!ue (pret!) "" ra!ue* (part!)
Fa!$a*a na.(I) =amvatha [female praenomen
Fa!e*a, Fa!a*a, Fa!u*a, Fa!*a (na!) ""
Fa!a*as, Fa!*a', Fa!*as, Fa!*as,c (gen!)
"" Fa!*es,c (dir!) "" Fa!u*as% (dat!)
ran v.tr [un(no#n transitive verb
rane,! (pret!)
Fana(u na.(I) =ana*u [male praenomen
Fana(u (na!)
Fapaln% na.(I/II) =apalni [gentilicium
Fapln% (na!)
Fasena na.(I/II) 5truria
Fasna, Fa'na "" Fasnas (gen!) "" Fasnal,
Fa'nal (gen!) "" Fasne (loc!) "" Fasnes (dir!)
Fa*%l* na.(I) [deity
Fa*l* (na!)
Faufe na.(I/II) =aufe [gentilicium
Faufe, Fufe (na!) "" Fu$fes (gen!) "" Fu$f%al,
Fu$f%al,c (gen!)
Fa$an*u na.(I) =avanthu [female praenomen
Fa$en*u, Fa$n*u (na!) "" Fa$n*us!
Fe!%(a na.(II) =emi*a [female praenomen
Fa!(a (na!)
Fe!%(ana na.(I/II) =emi*ana [gentilicium
Fe!(na (na!) "" Fe!(nal (gen!) "" Fe!(ane%
(loc!) "" Fe!(anasa (adess!)
ren ni.(I) [physical object
rens (gen!sg!) "" rene,*% (loc!sg!)
Fepesuna na.(I/II) =epesuna [gentilicium
Fepesunas (gen!)
rep%n adv. behind. north
rep%ne,c, rep%n,*%,c (loc!)
Fest%a na.(I/II) =estia [gentilicium
Fest%a' (gen!)
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 21
r%l ni.(II) age, lifetime
r%l (na!sg!)
r%*na ni.(II) table (for sacrifice or libations)
r%*na% (loc!)
Fufr%%e na.(I/II) =ufrius [gentilicium
Fu$r%es, Fu%fr%' (gen!sg!)
Fu!a) na.(I) =oman
Fu!a) (na!sg!)
Fus%na na.(I/II) =usina [gentilicium
Fus%nal (gen!)
Fut%le na.(I) =utile [male praenomen
Fut%le (na!)
Fut%l%na%e na.(I/II) =utilinaie [gentilicium
Futln%s (gen!)
ru$a na.(I) brother
ru$a (na!)
ru( v.tr. to be divided up, to be apportioned
ru(e (pret!)
sac v.tr. to sanctify, to ma(e holy, to bless
saca (pres!) "" scune (midd!pret!)
sac%u ni.(II) small sacerdotal
sa+%u (na!sg!)
sacn% ni.(I) soul
sacn% (na!sg!) "" 'acn%,cn (acc!sg!) "" 'acn%,cle,r%,
sacn%,cle,r% (dat!sg!) "" 'acn%,c',tre' (dat!sg!) ""
sacn%'a, sacn%sa (adess!sg!)
sacn%%u ni.(I) soul, dear soul
sacn%u (na!)
sal adj. noble, great
sal (na!) "" 'al,*n (acc!) "" salal (gen!)
Gale na.(I) %ale [male praenomen
Gales (gen!)
san%'$a adj. old
san%s$a
san)una ni.(II) pertaining to oaths
san)une,ta (na!sg!)
sant% na.(I) priest
'ant%, sant%,c (na!sg!) "" 'ant%',t' (gen!sg!)
Gatna na.(I) %atna [female praenomen
Hatnal,c, Gadnal (gen!)
Gaupun%a na.(I/II) %aupunia [gentilicium
Ga$pun%as (gen!)
sa$%cnes na.(I) plate
sa$cnes (na!sg!)
scan v.tr. to sanctify
'can%n (midd!pres!) "" 'can%nce (midd!perf!pret!)
Gcarpe na.(I/II) %carpe [gentilicium
Gcarpe (na!sg!)
scunna adj. holy, sanctified, blessed
scuna
Ge%ante na.(I/II) %eiante [gentilicium
Ge%ante, Ge%ant%, Geate (na!) "" Ge%ante' (gen!)
Ge%c%a na.(I/II) %eicia [gentilicium
Ge%c%a (na!)
Ge%t%*% na.(I/II) %eitithi [gentilicium
Ge%t%*% (na!) "" Ge%t%*%al%'a (abl!)
se) na.(II) daughter
se), 'e), 'ec, sec (na!sg!)
Ge)%e na.(I/II) %echie [gentilicium
Ge)%s (gen!)
sel v.tr. to give, to hand over
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 28
sela (pres!) "" 'elace (perf!)
sela ni.(II) hand
sele,%tala (loc!sg!)
Gel$an' na.(II) %elvans [deity
Gel$ans (na!) "" Gel$ansl, Gel$an(l (gen!)
Ge!ala na.(I) %emele [deity
Ge!la (na!)
se!/ num. seven
se!/' (gen!)
se!/al) num. seventy
se!/al)ls (abl!)
Gent%%e na.(I/II) %entiie [gentilicium
Gent%es (gen!)
Gent%na na.(I/II) %entina [gentilicium
Gent%nal (gen!)
Gepun%e na.(I/II) %epunie [gentilicium
Gepunes (gen!)
Gepur%e na.(I/II) %epurie [gentilicium
Gepres (gen!)
ser v.tr. to remain
ser (inf!)
Gertur% na.(I/II) %erturi [gentilicium
Gertur, Ger*ur, Iertur% (na!)
ses v.tr. [action to#ards sacrificial animals
sese (pret!)
se* v.tr. to hammer, to stri(e
se*asr% (aor!nec!)
Ge*are na.(I) %ethare [male praenomen
He*re (na!) "" He*res (gen!) "" He*re'a (adess!) ""
He*re'la (abl!)
Ge*ar%%a na.(II) %ethariia [female praenomen
Getr%a, Getr%, He*ra (na!) "" Getr%a (adess!)
Ge*ar%na na.(I/II) %etharina [gentilicium
He*rna (na!) "" Ge*rna'a (adess!)
Ge*%lan' na.(II) %ethilans [deity
He*lans (na!)
se*u! ni.(II) hammer
se*u! (na!sg!)
Ge*u!na na.(I/II) %ethumna [gentilicium
Get!nal (gen!)
s%%an' na.(II) ancestor, deceased
san'l (gen!sg!) "" s%%ane (loc!sg!) "" s%an' (dir!sg!)
G%!e na.(I) %imos [deity
G%!e (na!) "" G%!l,)a (gen!)
G%supe na.(I) %isyphus [mythos
G%spe' (gen!)
slap%na na.(I) oinochoe
slap%na', 'lap%na' (gen!sg!)
slela ni.(II) 7uarry
slele,* (loc!sg!)
s!%n*%an ni.(I) sanctuary of Apollo, sminteion
%s!%n*%ans (gen!sg!)
G!%n*%anna na.(I/II) %minthianna [gentilicium
H!%n*%nal (gen!)
G!uc%n*%una ni.(II) %mucinthiuna [city
G!uc%n*%una%,tula (loc!sg!)
snena adv. on top, over
snena
snu%a adj. many, numerous
snua
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) 24
snu%ap adj. more numerous, greater
snu%a/, snu%u/
Gnut% na.(I) %nuti [male praenomen
Gnut%, Gnute (na!)
snu* v.tr. to count, to tally
snutr% (nec!)
snu(a ni.(II) a fe#, some
snu(a (na!sg!)
span ni.(II) plains, flatlands
span,*%,! (loc!sg!)
spant% ni.(II) platter, plate, dish
spant%, spat% (na!)
Gpantu na.(I/II) %pantu [gentilicium
Gpantus (gen!) "" Gpantu% (loc!)
spel ni.(II) tomb, hole, opening
'pel (na!sg) "" 'pel,*% (loc!sg!) "" 'pelane (loc!pl!)
spet v.tr. to open
spetr% (nec!)
Gp%tu na.(I/II) %pedo [gentilicium
Gp%tus (gen!)
Gpulara na.(I/II) %pulara [gentilicium
Gpulare (loc!)
spur ni.(II) city
spur (na!sg!) "" spural (gen!sg) "" spure,*%,
'pure,r% (loc!sg!) "" spure',tre' (dir!sg)
spurana na.(I) civic, municipal
spurana, 'purana (na!) "" spuren% (loc!)
Gpur%ana na.(I/II) %puriana [gentilicium
Gpur%ana (na!) "" Gpur%nal (gen!)
Gpur%e(a na.(I/II) %puria*a [male praenomen,
gentilicium
Gpur%a(a (na!) "" Gpur%%a(as (gen!)
Gpur%%e na.(I) %puriie [male praenomen
Gpur%%es (gen!) "" Gpur%es% (dat!)
sran ni.(II) image
sren, 'ran,c (na!sg!) "" 'ren)$e, 'renc$e (loc!pl!)
stas%nu ni.(II) [type of bo#l
'tas%nu (na!sg!)
staslar ni.(II) #horl
staslar (na!pl!)
Gtat%lane na.(I/II) %tatilane [gentilicium
Gtatlane (na!) "" Gtatlanes, Gtalanes (gen!)
sul ni.(I/II) [type of offering
sulal (gen!sg!) "" sulu'% (dat!sg!) "" sul)$a (na!pl!)
sul%' ni.(II) [type of offering
suls (na!sg!) "" sulsle (dat!sg!)
sun v.tr. to perform, to do
sun,tna! (pres!)
sun*eru(a ni.(II) pyxis, cosmetic box
sun*eru(a (na!sg!)
Gupan%e na.(I/II) %upanie [gentilicium
Gupn% (na!)
Gupar%e na.(I/II) %uparie [gentilicium
Gupr%, Iupre (na!sg!)
Gurate na.(I) %urate [cognomen
Gurate (na!)
Gutar%na na.(I/II) %utarina [gentilicium
Gutr%na' (gen!)
G$e%a na.(I) %veia [male praenomen
G$ea, G$eas, G$ea' (na!) "" G$easla (abl!)
G$e%a!a) na.(I) %ovanian
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) &0
G$ea!a) (na!sg!)
G$e%tu na.(I/II) %veitu [gentilicium
G$e%tus (gen!)
s$el v.tr. to live
s$al (inf!) "" s$alce (perf!) "" s$alas (aor!) ""
s$alas% (aor!conj!)
s$el na.(I) living person
s$elere',c (gen!pl!)
s$el* v.i. to be lived
s$al*as (aor!)
G$%nc%na na.(I/II) %vincina [gentilicium
G$%nc%nas (gen!)
'a num. six
'a, sa, sa,! (na!) "" 'eas, 'as (gen!)
'ar num. ten
'ar, 'ar,c (nom!) "" 'ar%' (gen!)
Har'%na%a na.(I/II) %arsinaia [gentilicium
Har'%na%a (na!)
'ar$ana ni.(II) tithe
'ar$enas (gen!pl!)
Hat%lna na.(I/II) %atilna [gentilicium
Hatlnal,c (gen!) "" Ha*na% (loc!)
Hatna na.(I) %atna [female praenomen
Hatnal,c (gen!)
'a*a ni.(I) [li7uid used in libation offerings
'a*a' (gen!sg!)
He!u na.(I) %emu [male praenomen
He!u (na!)
He!una na.(I/II) %emuna [gentilicium
Ie!nal (gen!)
'et%l v.tr. to approve, to accept
'et%lune,c (midd!pret!)
'eu na.(I) morning
'eu,c (na!sg!) "" 'eu' (gen!sg!)
'% v.tr. to set do#n to, to lo#er to
'%n (midd!pres!)
'% ni.(II) evening
'%,c (na!sg!)
'%al) num. sixty
'eal)ls,c (abl!)
H%*ur%na na.(I/II) %ithurina [gentilicium
H%*urnas, H%tr%nas (gen!)
'uc% ni.(II) incense
'uc%, 'uc%,c, (uc%, (uc (na!sg!) "" 'uc%$a (na!pl!)
Hup%lna na.(I/II) %upilna [gentilicium
Hupelnas (gen!)
Hup%lu na.(I/II) %upilu [gentilicium
Huplu, Guplu (na!)
'ur% ni.(II)" adj. bron*e
'ur%, sure (na!) "" 'uur%s, 'ur%s (gen!)
Hurnu na.(I/II) %urnu [gentilicium
Hurnus (gen!)
'u*% ni.(II) grave
'u*%, 'u*%,c, su*%, sut%, su* (na!sg!) "" 'u*%l,
su*%l (gen!sg!) "" 'u*%,*%, 'u*%,t%, 'u*%,*, su*%,*
(loc!sg!)
'u*%%u ni.(II) small grave
su*%u, 'u*u (na!sg!)
'u*%na ni.(II) grave object
'u*%na, (u*%na (na!sg!) "" sutana' (gen!sg!)
ta pron.dist. that, the
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) &1
%ta, ta, ,ta (nom!) "" %tane, %tan%,!, %tan, %tun,
etan, etun, ,tn (acc!) "" te%' (gen!) "" te% (loc!)
Ja%tale na.(I) $aidalos [mythos
Ja%tle (na!)
Ja!a na.(I) :ama [male praenomen
Ja!a (na!)
ta!era ni.(II) urn
ta!era (na!sg!)
ta!era%' ni.(II) little urn
ta!eres,ca (na!sg!)
Janna na.(I/II) :anna [gentilicium
Janna
Jantale na.(I/II) :antalos [gentilicium
Jantle (na!) "" Jantle' (gen!)
Jantal%na na.(I/II) :antalina [gentilicium
Jantlna' (gen!)
tar ni.(II) [small animal offering
tar, tar,c (na!sg!)
Jarcste na.(I/II) :arcste [gentilicium
Jarcste (na!)
tar%l ni.(I) [abstract inanimate noun
tar%ls (gen!)
Jar)%%e na.(I/II) :archiie [deity
Jar)%es (gen!)
Jar)un na.(I) :archun [mythos
Jar)unus (gen!)
Jar)unal ni.(II) :ar7uinia [city
Jar)nal,*%, Jar)nal,* (loc!)
Jar)un%e na.(I/II) :archunie [gentilicium
Jar)un%es (gen!)
Jarna na.(I/II) :arna [gentilicium
Jarna% (loc!) "" Jarnes (dir!)
Jarsal na.(I/II) :arsal [gentilicium
Jarsalus (gen!)
Jars%!%na na.(I) )a(e :arsimenna
Jars!%na'' (gen!'dir!)
Jartan%u! adj. $ardanian
Dardan%u! (na!)
ta' ni.(II) [funerary object
ta'r% (dat!sg!)
tatanu na.(I) bird
tatanu' (gen!sg!)
tau v.tr. to see, to behold, to #atch. to sho#, to
demonstrate
te$ (inf!) "" t$a, et$a (pres!) "" et$e (pret!)
taura* na.(I) seer, augur
te$era* (na!sg!)
tec v.tr. to erect
*ec, tec,u! (pres!) "" tece (pret!)
Jecu! na.(II) :ecum [deity
Jec$! (na!)
Je%*urna na.(I/II) :eithurna [gentilicium
Je%*urnas (gen!) "" Je%*urnas% (dat!)
tel v.tr. to fight, to battle
tele (pret!)
te!a! na.(I) priest
te!a!er (na!pl)
ten v.d. to present
tena (pres!) "" tence (perf!pret!) "" ten%ne
(midd!pret!) "" tenu (part!)
Jen%e na.(I/II) :enie [gentilicium
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) &2
Jen%es (gen!)
ten* v.i. to be presented
ten* (inf!) "" ten*as (aor!)
Jer%as%a na.(I) :eriasia [mythos
Jeras%a' (gen!) "" Jer%asals (gen!'gen!)
Jer!una na.(I/II) :ermuna [gentilicium
Jer!unas (gen!)
tes%a! na.(I) sacrificial animal, sacrifice
tes%! (na!sg!) "" te'a!%,tn (acc!sg!) "" te'ns
(gen!sg!) "" te'ne, tes%a!e,%tale (loc!sg!) ""
te'a!sa (adess!sg!)
tes%an* na.(I) sacrificer, butcher
tes%n* (na!sg!)
teta na.(II) aunt
teta (na!sg!)
Jeta%e na.(I/II) :etaie [gentilicium
J%ta%e (na!) "" Jeta (adess!)
tetals na.(II) nephe#, niece (matrilineal)
tetals (na!sg!)
tetana adj. materteral, pertaining to the aunt
tetana (na!) "" tatanu' (gen!)
Jet%na na.(I/II) :etina [gentilicium
Jet%na' (gen!)
Jet%na%e na.(I/II) :etinaie [gentilicium
Jetn%e (na!) "" Jetn%es, Jetn%s (gen!)
te( v.i. to stand
te( (inf!)
te(an ni.(II) cippus
te(an (na!sg!)
t%%u na.(I) little one, child
t%us (gen!sg!) "" t%u'a(adess!sg!)
t%%u adj. small, little
t%u (na!)
t%%ur na.(I) month, moon
t%ur (na!sg!) "" t%%ur', t%$rs (gen!sg!) "" t%ur%,!
(loc!sg!)
t%%u(a na.(I) small child
t%u(a (na!)
t%n ni.(I) sun. day
t%n (na!sg!) "" t%nas, t%n' (gen!sg!) "" t%n'%
(dat!sg!) "" t%na (adess!sg!)
t%na',c$%l ni.(I) sundisc
t%n'c$%l, t%nsc$%l (na!sg!)
J%n%a na.(I) :inia [deity
J%n%a (na!) "" J%n%as (gen!)
J%nus% na.(I) $ionysios [male praenomen
J%nus% (na!)
J%/%le na.(I/II) $iphilos [gentilicium
J%/%le (na!) "" J%ples (gen!)
t%r%a ni.(I) metal
t%r%as (gen!sg!)
t%r%a adj. metallic
t%r%a (na!)
J%te na.(I/II) :ite [male praenomen
J%te, J%t% (na!) "" J%t%as (gen!) "" J%t%al,c (gen!)
J%tena na.(I/II) :itena [gentilicium
J%tenas (gen!)
J%tula na.(I/II) :itula [gentilicium
Jetula (na!)
Jla!un%us na.(I/II) :elamonios [mythos
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) &&
Jla!nus (na!)
Jlapu na.(I/II) :lapu [gentilicium
Jlapu (na!) "" Jlapu' (gen!) "" Jlapusa (adess!)
Jlapuna na.(I/II) :lapuna [gentilicium
Jlapnal (gen!) "" Jlapun% (loc!)
tle)a ni.(II) #ar
tle)e (loc!sg!)
Jlena)a na.(I) :lenacha [district name
Jlena)e%', Jlenaces (gen!sg!)
Jles%na na.(I/II) :lesina [gentilicium
Jlesna' (gen!) "" Jlesnal (gen!)
tlu' ni.(II) depth
tlusc$, tlusc (na!pl!)
t!%%a ni.(II) temple
t!%a (na!sg!) "" t!%al (gen!sg!)
t!%%a*u na.(I) temple attendant
ta!%a*uras (gen!pl!)
tra v.tr. to pour, to sprin(le
tr%n (midd!pres!) "" trau (part!) "" tr%n*
(midd!part!)
traula ni.(I) libation
traula,c (na!sg!)
Jrep% na.(I/II) :repi [gentilicium
Jrep% (na!)
Jrepu na.(I/II) :repu [gentilicium
Jrepu (na!)
Jresele na.(I/II) :resele [gentilicium
Jreseles (gen!)
tr%n* v.i. to pour
tr%n*a'a (aor!pres!)
Jru%a ni.(II) :roy [city
Jru%a (na!) "" Jru%es (dir!) "" Jru%als (abl!)
trut v.i. to be given drin(. to be poured
tru*, trut,u! (inf!) "" trutana'a
(midd!aor!pres!) "" tru*t (part!)
trutun na.(I) [type of person, possibly a position
tru*un (na!sg!)
trutunu* ni.(II) augur, oracle
trutn$t (na!sg!)
Ju)ul)a na.(I) :uchulcha [deity
Ju)ul)a, Ju)lac (for +Ju)l)ac) (na!)
tul ni.(I) boundary stone, milestone, terminus
tul (na!sg!) "" tul,tra%s (dat!sg!) "" tule'a
(adess!sg!)
Jula na.(I) :ula [male praenomen
Jula (na!)
tular v.tr. to bound, to demarcate
tulerase (aor!pret!) "" tularu (part!)
tular ni.(I) boundary stone, terminus
tular (na!sg!) "" tular%as (gen!pl!)
Julu!na%e na.(I/II) :ulumnaie [gentilicium
Julu!ne' (gen!)
Juntale na.(I) :yndareos [mythos
Juntle (na!)
tup% ni.(II) stone
tup% (na!sg!)
tur v.d. to give, to offer
tur (inf!) "" tura (pres!) "" ture (pret!) "" turuce,
turu+e, tur%ce, turce, tur+e (perf!pret!) "" tur%
(nec!) "" turune (midd!pret!) "" turun+e
(midd!perf!pret!) "" turu (part!)
Juran na.(II) :uran [deity
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) &-
Juran (na!) "" Juran,p% (loc!)
Juran%u na.(I) :uraniu [deity
Jurnu
Jur!%na na.(I/II) :urmina [gentilicium
Jur!na (na!)
Jur!%' na.(II) :urmis [deity
Jur!s (na!) "" Jur!sal (gen!)
tur(a ni.(II) little gift
tur(a (na!sg!) "" tur(a%s (gen!sg!) "" tur(a%
(loc!sg!)
tusna na.(I) s#an
tusna (na!sg!) "" tusnas (gen!sg!)
tu' ni.(II) funerary niche
tu',*%, tu',t% (loc!sg!)
Ju'nu na.(I/II) :usnu [gentilicium
Jusnus (gen!) "" Ju'nu% (loc!)
Ju'nut%na%e na.(I/II) :usnutinaie [gentilicium
Jusnutn%e (na!)
tu'ur*% na.(I) consort
tu'ur*% (na!sg!) "" tu'ur*%% (loc!sg!) "" tusur*%r
(na!pl!)
Ju'u$a na.(I) :usuva [male praenomen
Ju'u$a' (gen!)
Jute na.(I/II) :ute [gentilicium
Jute (na!) "" Jutes (gen!) "" Jute%s (abl!)
Jut%na na.(I/II) :utina [gentilicium
Jutnal (gen!) "" Jutna'a (adess!) "" Jutnal%'a
(gen!'adess!)
tu*% na.(I) community
tu*% (na!sg!)
tu*%na ni.(II) district
tu*%na (na!sg!) "" tu*%ne' (dir!sg!)
*aca ni.(II) [a place of offering
*aca,c (na!sg!) "" *acl*%, *acl*
*a)' v.tr. to #orship
*a)'%n (midd!) "" *a)'er% (nec!)
*a! v.tr. to establish, to found
*a!uce, *a!ce (perf!pret!) "" *e!%asa (aor!) ""
*a!e.u (perf!part!)
Ka!r%e na.(I) :hamrie [male praenomen
Ka!r%es (gen!)
*an v.tr. to be mindful of, to remember, to mourn
*anasa (aor!pres!) "" *anu (part!)
Kanac$%l na.(I) :hanacvil [female praenomen
Kan+$%l, Kanc$%l, Kan)$%l (na!) "" Kana+$%lu',
Kana)$%ls, Kan)$%lus (gen!) "" Kan)$%lu%s,c
(dir!)
*anas na.(I) mourner
*ans (na!sg!) "" tanasar, *ansur (na!pl!)
*ana*u na.(I) mourner
*anatur (na!pl!)
Kan%a na.(II) :hania [female praenomen
Kan%a, Kana (na!)
Kan%cu na.(II) :hanicu [female praenomen
Kan%cu (na!)
Kan%r'%e na.(I) :hanirsie [male praenomen
Kan%r'%%e (na!)
Kanse na.(I) :hanse [male praenomen
Kanse (na!) "" Kanses,ca (gen!)
Kans%na na.(I) :hansina
Kans%nas (gen!)
Kanura na.(I) :hanura [deity
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) &5
Kanra, Kanr (na!) "" Kanru', Kanr' (gen!) ""
Kanurar% (loc!)
*ap%c v.tr. to curse, to doom
*ap%cun (midd!)
*apuna ni.(II) shallo# bo#l
*apna, *afna, taf%na (na!sg!) "" *apne',t'
(dir!sg!)
*apuna(a ni.(II) small shallo# bo#l
*apn(a,c (na!sg!)
*ar*%e ni.(II) [animal offering-
*ar*%e (na!)
*aura na.(I) bull
*aura (na!sg!) "" *auru' (gen!sg!) "" *aure
(loc!sg!)
Kaura,C%ne' na.(I) 9inotaur [deity
Ke$ru!%ne' (na!)
*aurac%lna na.(I) priest performing a bull sacrifice,
flamen
*e$ruclnas (gen!)
*aur) ni.(II) bull sacrifice
*aur) (na!)
Kefar%e na.(I) :hefarie [male praenomen
Kefar%e (na!) "" Kefr%es (gen!) "" Kefar%e% (loc!)
"" Kefr%'a (adess!)
*e%$% ni.(II) [a place or space
*e%$%,t% (loc!sg!)
*el v.tr. to bring about, to produce, to give birth
*elu'a (aor!pres!) "" *elu (part!)
Kelna na.(II) :helna [deity
Kalna, Jalna (na!)
*es v.i. to da#n
*esan na.(I) da#n, ascension
*esan (na!sg!) "" *esns (gen!sg!) "" *esn%n,
*esane,c (loc!sg!)
Kese na.(I) :heseus [mythos
Kese (na!)
Kest%%a na.(II) :hestia [female praenomen
Kest%a (adess!)
*es*%u adv. east#ard
*es*u
Kesu na.(I) :hesu [male praenomen
Kesus (gen!)
Ke*%s na.(II) :hethis [deity
Ke*%s (na!)
*e( v.tr. to dedicate
te(, *e(% (inf!) "" *e(er%, *e(er%,c (nec!) "" *e(%n
(midd!) "" *e(%nce (midd!perf!pret!)
*e( v.tr. to dedicate
te(, *e(% (inf!) "" *e(er%, *e(er%,c (nec!) "" *e(%n
(midd!) "" *e(%nce (midd!perf!pret!) "" te(an
(act!part!)
*% ni.(II) #ater
*% (na!) "" *%l (gen!) "" *%% (loc!)
*%na ni.(II) #ater cup
*%na (na!sg!)
*u num. one, #hole, entire, all
*u (na!) "" *u$as (gen!) "" *u$e', *ue' (dir!) ""
*u%, *u%,u! (loc!)
*uc v.tr. to empty
*ucu (part!)
Kucer na.(I) :hucer [male praenomen
Kucer (na!)
Kucerna na.(I/II) :hucerna [gentilicium
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) &0
Kucernas (gen!)
*u) ni.(II) chamber
*u) (na!sg!) "" *u),t%, *u),t (loc!sg!)
*ulu* na.(I) t#in
*uluter (na!pl!)
*u! ni.(I) tomb
*u!%,tle, *u!%,(le (loc!sg!) "" *u!sa (adess!sg!)
*un num. one
*un (na!) "" *un%s, *un' (gen!) "" *un%, *un,t
(loc!)
*un,e! (a*ru! num. nineteen
*une! (a*ru!' (gen!)
*una'na adj. first
*un'na
*un)ul ni.(II) cave
*un)ule,!, *un)ul,*e (loc!sg!) "" *un)ul*l
(loc!'gen!sg!)
*unur adv. one each
tunur
*un(% adv. once, one time
*un(
*up ni.(II) oath, promise, vo#
*uf (na!) "" *ufl (gen!sg!) "" *uf% (loc!sg!)
Kupal*a na.(I) :hupaltha [deity
Kupl*as, Kufl*a' (gen!) "" Kufl*%,cla (loc!)
Kupe na.(I) :hupe [male praenomen
Kupes (gen!)
*uta adj. every, each
*uta (na!)
ucan* ni.(II) [inanimate object
ucnt,! (na!sg!)
Lcerna na.(I/II) 3cerna [gentilicium
Lcerne% (loc!)
Lhta$e na.(I) 3htave [male praenomen
Lhta$e (na!)
L)ulna%e na.(I) 3chulnaie [male praenomen
L)uln% (na!)
Llt%!na na.(I/II) 3ltimna [gentilicium
Lltnas (gen!) "" Llt%!ne (loc!)
u! v.tr. to devote, to dedicate
u!ene (midd!pret!) "" u!u (part!)
un ni.(II) libation
un, un,u! (na!sg!) "" un%, une (loc!sg!) "" una
(adess!sg!) "" un)$a (na!pl!)
Lna na.(I/II) 3na [gentilicium
Lnas (gen!)
Ln% na.(II) 3ni [deity
Ln% (na!) "" Ln%al (gen!) "" Ln%a' (dir!)
Ln%al ni.(I) temple of 3ni
Ln%al,*%, Ln%al,*, Ln%%a,*% (loc!) "" Ln%alas,
tres (dir!)
Lpal%%e na.(I/II) 3paliie [male praenomen,
gentilicium
Lple, L/le (na!) "" L/al%as, Lfle' (gen!) ""
L/al%as% (dat!)
Lper%u! na.(I) &yperion
Lpr%u! (na!)
up%l ni.(II) dirt, mire, soil
ufl% (loc!sg!) "" uples (dat!sg!)
Lp%ls%%e na.(I/II) 3pilsiie [gentilicium
Lpels% (na!) "" Lpels%' (gen!)
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) &1
Lps%e na.(I/II) 3psie [gentilicium
Lps%%e (na!)
ur v.tr. to fill
uru (part!)
Lra na.(I) 3ra [male praenomen
Lras (gen!)
Lr%nate na.(I/II) 3rinate [gentilicium
Lr%nates (gen!) "" 8r%nat% (loc!)
ur) ni.(II) vessel
ur) (na!sg!) "" ur)e%' (dir!sg!)
Lr)usna na.(I/II) 3rchusna [gentilicium
Lr)osnas (gen!)
ur* v.tr. to fill
ur*r% (nec!) "" ur*an%+e (midd!perf!pret!)
us v.i. to set (as of the sun)
us% (conj!)
us ni.(II) setting (of sun, moon, stars), dus(
use,t% (loc!sg!)
us%l na.(I) setting (of sun, moon, stars), dus(
us%l (na!sg!) "" us%ls (gen!sg!) "" usl% (loc!sg!)
us%lan ni.(II) setting (of sun, moon, stars), dus(
us%lane (loc!sg!)
ut v.tr. to serve
u* (inf!) "" u*ar% (nec!) "" utu'e, utuse (aor!pret!)
"" ut%nce (midd!perf!pret!)
Ltan%e na.(I/II) 3tanie [gentilicium
Ltane (na!) "" Ltan%,ces (gen!) "" Ltan%sa
(adess!)
L*u(e na.(I) >dysseus [mythos
L*u(e (na!)
L$% na.(II) 3vi [female praenomen
L$%al (gen!)
$ac%l ni.(II) votive offering
$ac%l, $acal, $acl (na!sg!) "" $ac%l% (loc!sg!)
8a%tuluna ni.(II) ?etulonia [city
8a%tluna, 8atlna (na!)
$a)ar na.(I) servant
$a)r (na!sg!)
$an v.i. to reach, to extend, to stretch out
$ane,c
8an* na.(II) ?anth [deity
$at v.tr. to dedicate
$at%e)e (pass!pret!)
$ecsa ni.(II) [type of vessel
$ecsa,*, $ecsa,t (loc!sg!)
8e%$e na.(I) ?eiove [deity
8e%$e' (gen!)
8el na.(I) ?el [male praenomen
8el (na!) "" 8elus (gen!) "" 8elu%s (dir!) "" 8elus%
(dat!) "" 8elu'a (adess!) "" 8elu'la (abl!)
8elar%a na.(II) ?elaria [female praenomen
8elaral (gen!)
8ela'na na.(I/II) ?elasna [gentilicium
8elasna' (gen!) "" 8ela'ne% (loc!)
8ela*era ni.(II) ?olterra [city
8ela*r% (loc!)
8ela$e'na na.(I/II) ?elavesna [gentilicium
8ela$e'na' (gen!)
8elel%a na.(I) ?elelia [male praenomen
8elel%as (gen!) "" 8elel%%as% (dat!)
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) &8
8el%a na.(II) ?elia [female praenomen
8ela, 8el%a,+ (na!) "" 8el%a', 8elas (gen!)
8el%ana na.(I/II) ?eliana [gentilicium
8el%anas, 8el%%unas, 8%l%anas, 8elanas (gen!)
8el%e na.(I/II) ?elie [gentilicium
8el%%es (gen!) "" 8el%e'a (adess!)
8el%!na na.(I/II) ?elimna [gentilicium
8el%!na (na!) "" 8el%!nas, 8el%!na' (gen!) ""
8el%!ne% (loc!)
8el) ni.(II) ?ulci [city
8el) (na!) "" 8el)l (gen!) "" 8el)%, 8el)e, 8elcl,
*% (loc!)
8el)a na.(I/II) ?elcha [gentilicium
8el)as (gen!)
8el)a%e na.(I/II) ?elchaie [gentilicium
8el)a%e (na!) "" 8el)%e' (gen!)
8el)an na.(I) ?elchan (?elchans) [deity
8el)asna na.(I/II) ?elchasna [gentilicium
8el)asnas (gen!) "" 8el)a%na'% (for +8el)asna'%)
(dat!)
8el)e na.(I) ?elche [male praenomen
8el)e (na!) "" 8el)e', 8el)es (gen!)
8el)%na na.(I/II) ?elchina [gentilicium
8el)%ne% (loc!)
8el)%t%e na.(I/II) ?elchitie [gentilicium
8el)%te (na!) "" 8elc%t%al (gen!)
8el'u na.(I/II) ?elsu [gentilicium
8el'u (na!) "" 8el'u% (loc!)
$el*a na.(I) deity of the under#orld, deus inferior
$el*a (na!sg!) "" $el*e (loc!sg!) "" $el*ur (na!pl!)
"" $el*re (loc!pl!)
8el*a%ena na.(I/II) ?elthaiena [gentilicium
8el*%na (na!) "" 8el*%enas, 8el*%nas (gen!)
8el*a%ena*u na.(I) ?elthaiena family member
8elt%na*uras (gen!pl!)
$el*%na na.(I) offerings to the velta
$el*%ne' (gen!sg!)
8el*una ni.(II) ?oltumna [city
8eltune (loc!)
8el*ur na.(I) ?elthur [praenomen
8el*ur (na!) "" 8el*urus, 8el*urs (gen!) ""
8el*urus% (dat!) "" 8el*urusla (gen!'adess!)
8el*ur%a na.(I/II) ?elthuria [gentilicium
8el*ura (na!)
8el*urna na.(I/II) ?elthurna [gentilicium
8el*urnas (gen!)
8el(%na ni.(II) ?olsini [city
8el(nals,c (abl!)
8el(%na) na.(I) ?olsinian
8el(na) (na!)
8enel na.(I) ?enel [male praenomen
8enel, 8ener (na!) "" 8enelus, 8enerus (gen!) ""
8enel%s%, 8enelas% (dat!) "" 8enl%s (dir!) ""
8enala (adess!)
8enete na.(I/II) ?enete [gentilicium
8enetes (gen!)
8enu na.(I) ?enu [male praenomen
8enu', 8enus (gen!)
$eras v.tr. to burn
$ersu,! (na!sg!)
$eras%e ni.(II) firepot
$ers%e (na!sg!)
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) &4
8eras%na na.(I) ?erasina [male praenomen
8er'enas (gen!)
8erat% na.(I/II) ?erati [gentilicium
8erat% (na!)
8eratru na.(I/II) ?eratru [gentilicium
8eratru (na!)
8eru na.(I) [cognomen
8eru (na!)
8es%a na.(II) ?esia [female praenomen
8es%al (gen!)
8est%na na.(I/II) ?estina [gentilicium
8estnal (gen!)
8est%ra%e na.(I/II) ?estiraie [gentilicium
8estraes (gen!)
8est%r%c%na na.(I/II) ?estiricina [gentilicium
8estrcn%al (gen!) "" 8estrcn%e (loc!) ""
8est%r%c%nala (adess!)
8et%e na.(I/II) ?etie [male praenomen, gentilicium
8ete', 8etes, 8et%s (gen!) "" 8et%e'% (dat!)
8et%ena na.(I/II) ?etiena [gentilicium
8et%nal, 8etanal, 8etnal (gen!) "" 8etnal%sa
8et%ena%e na.(I/II) ?etienaie [gentilicium
8etene%, 8et%ne%, 8etane%, 8etne%
8et%%a na.(II) ?etiia [female praenomen
8et%al (gen!)
8etru na.(I/II) ?etru [gentilicium
8etru (na!) "" 8etru%s (gen!)
8%care na.(I) 8(aros [mythos
8%+are (na!)
8%c%na na.(I/II) ?icina [gentilicium
L%c%na (na!)
$%l v.tr. to cleanse
$%le (pret!) "" $%lu (part!)
8%latas na.(I/II) >iliades [gentilicium
8%latas (na!)
$%na ni.(II) #ine
$%na, $%na,c (na!sg!) "" $ena' (gen!sg!) "" $%na%,*
(loc!sg!)
8%nacena na.(I/II) ?inacena [gentilicium
8%nacna (na!) "" 8%nucenas (gen!) "" 8%ncna%
(loc!)
$%nu! ni.(II) #ine
$%nu! (na!sg!) "" $%nu!a%a, $%n%!%a (adess!sg!)
8%p%e na.(I/II) ?ipie [gentilicium
8%pe, 8%p% (na!) "" 8%pes (gen!) "" 8%p%al (gen!)
8%p%ena na.(I/II) ?ipiena [gentilicium
8%p%na (na!) "" 8p%nas (for +8%p%nas) (gen!) ""
8%p%nal,tra (dir!) "" 8%p%ne% (loc!)
8%p%enana na.(I/II) ?ipienana [gentilicium
8%p%nanas, 8%p%%ennas (gen!)
8%p%e*u na.(I) member of the #ipie family
8%p%*ur (na!pl!)
8%p%%a na.(II) ?ipia [female praenomen
8%p%a (na!)
8%rc%na na.(I/II) ?ircina [gentilicium
8%rcenas (gen!)
8%sal ni.(II) 6aesulae [city
8%'l, 8%'. (na!)
8%sce na.(I/II) ?isce [gentilicium, cognomen
8%sce (genticilum), (cognomen)
8%scena na.(II) ?iscena [female praenomen
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) -0
8%scnal (gen!)
8%scena%a na.(II) ?iscenaia [cognomen
8%scene%
8%'na na.(I/II) ?isna [gentilicium
8%'na% (loc!)
8%'na%a na.(I/II) ?isnaia [gentilicium
8%sna%als (gen!'gen!)
8uc%na na.(I/II) ?ucina [gentilicium
8uc%nas (gen!)
(al num. t#o
(al, (l, esl (na!) "" esals (gen!)
Ial*u na.(I/II) @althu [gentilicium
Ial*u (na!)
(alur adv. t#o each
(elur
(al$a v.i. to be half
(el$* (part!)
(al(% adv. t#ice, t#o times
esl(, els'% (for +esl'%)
(a!a*% ni.(II) gold
(a!a*% (loc!sg!)
(a!a*%) adj. golden
(a!*%c, (a!t%c (na!)
(ar v.i. to be high, to be large
(ar (inf!)
Iarap%%un na.(I) %arapion [male praenomen
Iarap%u, Ierap%u (na!)
(arfan v.i. [action regarding sacrificial animals
(arfne* (part!)
(ar$a ni.(II) [type of offering
(ar$a, (arua (na!sg!) "" (ar$e (loc!sg!) ""
'ar$enas (gen!pl)!
(at% ni.(II) entrance, gate
(at% (loc!sg!)
(at%la* na.(I) gate(eeper
(atla* (na!)
(at%la*un v.tr. to guard the gates
(atltne (mid!pret!)
(a*ru! num. t#enty
(a*ru!%', (a*ru!', (a*ru!s, (a*r!s,
(a*r!%s,c (gen!)
(a*ru!sna num. t#entieth
(a*ru!sne (loc!)
(a$ena ni.(II) kantaros, vase
(a$ena (na!sg!)
(er% ni.(II) dedication
(er% (na!sg!) "" (er%' (gen!)
Iert%na na.(I/II) @ertina [gentilicium
Iertne% (loc!)
Ietun na.(I) @etun [mythos
Ietun (na!)
(% v.tr. to burn
(%a, (ea (pres!)
(%) v.tr. to #rite do#n, to record
(%)u)e (pass!pret!) "" (%)r% (nec!) "" (%)ne
(midd!pret!) "" (%)unce (midd!perf!pret!) "" (%)u
(part!)
(%) ni.(II) text
(%) (na!sg!)
(%l ni.(II) supervision, reign
(%l% (loc!sg!)
Etruscan Glossary (Draft 010 : Jul 15 / 2008) -1
(%l v.i. to be in command
(%l (inf!) "" (%lace (perf!pret!) "" (%la*, (%lat (part!)
(%la)un v.tr. to command
(%la)nu+e, (%la)nuce, (%la)nce, (%l)nce
(perf!pret!) "" (%la)nu, (%l)nu (part!) "" (%la)n*as
(part!'aor!)
(%l) na.(II) overseer, leader, head
(%l), (%lc (na!sg!) "" (%lacal (gen!sg!) "" (%lc%, (%lc,
*%, (%lc,t%, (%lc,te (loc!sg!)
I%lt%na na.(I/II) @iltina
I%ltnal (gen!)
I%!aru na.(I/II) @imaru [gentilicium
I%!arus (gen!) "" I%!aru% (loc!)
(%n v.tr. to mould, to fashion (#ith clay or metal)
(%n%a (pres!) "" (%nace, (%nece (perf!) "" (%nu
(part!)
I%pna na.(II) @ipna [deity
I%pna (na!)
I%pna%u na.(II) @ipnaiu [deity
I%pnu (na!)
(%u v.tr. to die
(%$as (aor!)
(%ula ni.(II) burnt offering
(%ulas (gen!sg!)
I%u!%te na.(I) $iomedes [mythos
I%u!%te, I%u!%*e, I%!%te (na!)
(u) v.tr. to bleed, to let blood from
(u)ne (midd!pret!) "" (u.u (part!)
(u)%ana ni.(II) bloodletting cup
(u)una (na!sg!) "" (uc%enes, (uc%ene' (dat!sg!)
Iu)u na.(I) [male praenomen
Iu)u (na!) "" Iu)us (gen!)
Iu)una%e na.(I/II) @uchunaie [gentilicium
Iu)n% (na!)
(u'le na.(I) pig
(u'le (na!sg!) "" (u'le$e' (gen!pl!)
(u*e$a ni.(II) [type of offering
(u*e$a (na!sg!)