Change, Continuity, and Connectivity North-Eastern Mediterranean at the turn of the Bronze Age and in the early Iron Age Edited by Łukasz Niesiołowski-Spanò and Marek Węcowski 2018 Harrassowitz Verlag . Wiesbaden Bis Band 60: Philippika. Marburger altertumskundliche Abhandlungen. Published with the financial support of the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education, within the frame of National Program for Development of Humanities and the University of Warsaw. Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. For further information about our publishing program consult our website http://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de © Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden 2018 This work, including all of its parts, is protected by copyright. Any use beyond the limits of copyright law without the permission of the publisher is forbidden and subject to penalty. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. Printed on permanent/durable paper. Printing and binding: Hubert & Co., Göttingen Printed in Germany ISSN 1613-5628 ISBN 978-3-447-10969-7 Table of Contents Łukasz Niesiołowski-Spanò, Marek Węcowski Change, Continuity, and Connectivity ............................................................................ 1 PART I: Change, Continuity, and Connectivity - Regional Reassessments .............. 7 Piotr Taracha Approaches to Mycenaean-Hittite Interconnections in the Late Bronze Age ................... 8 Rostislav Oreshko Ahhiyawa - Danu(na). Aegean ethnic groups in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Light of Old and New Hieroglyphic-Luwian Evidence.......................................... 23 Emanuel Pfoh Socio-Political Changes and Continuities in the Levant (1300-900 BCE)........................ 57 Jeffrey P. Emanuel Differentiating Naval Warfare and Piracy in the Late Bronze–Early Iron Age Mediterranean: Possibility or Pipe Dream? ............... 68 Ann E. Killebrew From “Global” to “Glocal”: Cultural Connectivity and Interactions between Cyprus and the Southern Levant during the Transitional Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages ........ 81 Guy D. Middleton ‘I would walk 500 miles and I would walk 500 more’: The Sea Peoples and Aegean migration at the end of the Late Bronze Age ................................................ 95 Francisco J. Núñez The impact of the Sea Peoples in Central Levant. A Revision. ......................................... 116 David Ben-Shlomo Pottery and Terracottas in Philistia during the Early Iron Age: Aspects of Change and Continuity .................................................................................. 141 Aren M. Maeir The Philistines be upon thee, Samson (Jud. 16:20): Reassessing the Martial Nature of the Philistines – Archaeological Evidence vs. Ideological Image? ................................. 158 Teresa Bürge and Peter M. Fischer The Early Iron Age at Tell Abu al-Kharaz, Jordan Valley, and its Relations to the Eastern Mediterranean: Trade, Migration, Hybridization, and Other Phenomena 169 VI Table of Contents PART II: Cross-Cultural Approaches........................................................................ 195 Jan Paul Crielaard Hybrid go-betweens: the role of individuals with multiple identities in cross-cultural contacts in the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age central and eastern Mediterranean............................................................................................... 196 Sarah Murray Imported Objects in the Aegean beyond Élite Interaction: A Contextual Approach to Eastern Exotica on the Greek Mainland ................................ 221 Giorgos Bourogiannis The Transmission of the Alphabet to the Aegean ............................................................. 235 Vicky Vlachou New Images, Old Practices? An Imagery of Funerary Rituals and Cult in the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean ................................................................. 258 S. Rebecca Martin Eastern Mediterranean Feasts: What Do We Really Know About the Marzeah? ............. 294 Gunnel Ekroth Holocaustic sacrifices in ancient Greek religion and the ritual relations to the Levant ..... 308 PART III: Linguistic Approaches ............................................................................... 327 Dariusz R. Piwowarczyk Chronology and dating of linguistic corpora ................................................................... 328 Rafał Rosół Early Semitic Loanwords in Greek................................................................................... 334 Paola Dardano Semitic influences in Anatolian languages ....................................................................... 345 Zsolt Simon Anatolian influences on Greek ......................................................................................... 376 Wilfred G. E. Watson Anatolian Influences in Semitic Languages...................................................................... 419 Table of Contents VII PART IV: Scientific Perspectives ................................................................................ 443 Maciej Chyleński, Marcin Grynberg, Anna Juras Late Bronze Age migrations in the Mediterranean. Prospects for approaching the problem of Sea Peoples using ancient DNA ...................... 444 Argyro Nafplioti Isotope ratio analysis as a tool for reconstructing past life-histories ................................. 451 List of Contributors ......................................................................................................... 466 Change, Continuity, and Connectivity Łukasz Niesiołowski-Spanò, Marek Węcowski The present collective volume stems from an interdisciplinary project funded by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education, within the frame of the National Programme for the Development of the Humanities (research grant no. 12H 12 0193 81). It incorporates the main results of three international workshops held in Warsaw between 2014 and 2016 with several papers specifically written for this book. The broadly defined aim of this volume – combining the import of archaeological, historical, linguistic, and scientific studies in the field – is to offer a multidisciplinary reassessment of the relationships between the Aegean and the Levant ca. 1300-900 BCE (and slightly beyond), i.e. in the period when a series of decisive historical transformations in the North-Eastern Mediterranean took place reshaping the historical and cultural fates of this region. Traditionally, this period of cultural contacts has been conceived of teleologically, in which an ex Oriente lux interpretive pattern was the key to understanding archaic and classical Greek culture – a mono-directional or at best diffusionist view of intercultural relations. More recently, the pendulum of scholarly interest seems to have swung in the opposite direction, focusing, on the one hand, on modes of adoption and adaptation, and less on sheer transmission, of diverse cultural phenomena. On the other hand, hypothetical Aegean “influences” on Levantine cultures seem to have come to the fore, going far beyond the simple study of the geography, or “ethnography” of migrations, including the most famous case of the so-called Sea Peoples of the Late Bronze Age. The title of this volume shows its intention to study the North-Eastern Mediterranean at the turn of the Bronze Age and in the Early Iron Age as a hub of supra-local connectivity by tracing – on a general historical level and in almost each particular essay – textual and archaeological evidence of both change and continuity. To some extent at least, it may be much easier to observe discontinuities and novelties in the broadly defined field of cultural history. However, for a historical period of unquestionable crisis marked by political, social, and no doubt economic upheavals on an unprecedented scale in the North-Eastern Mediterranean, continuities and connectivities may be no less striking to a contemporary student. To find the balance between the two perspectives may perhaps be seen as the main challenge of the historical studies of this period. It is not our intention to present an authoritative and fully up-to-date version of the historical phenomena and processes involved, but rather to contribute to a fresh scholarly debate by juxtaposing informed but nonetheless often opposed points of view. As will be clear to every reader of this volume, the authors’ methods and general approaches differ considerably. Most importantly, whereas the historical implications of some of the essays are presented in a refreshingly optimistic manner, striving for a new understanding of some general cultural phenomena or of regional histories, other essays are soberly minimalistic regarding the feasibility of drawing firm conclusions with the current state of research. It is good to keep in mind that both maximalist and minimalist approaches may be equally valid. 2 Łukasz Niesiołowski-Spanò, Marek Węcowski * The first and central part of the book (“Change, Continuity, and Connectivity – Regional Reassessments”) contains a series of essays arranged in a broadly geographical and chronological order, from Hittite–Mycenaean relations in the north, through Asia Minor, Cyprus, Cilicia, Syria, and the Levant, up to the Jordan Valley. This section has a double nature as it includes both general essays and case-studies. The case-studies are drawn from specific archaeological sites and their implications and focus on several particularly important problems of regional history. In this section, Piotr Taracha offers an introduction to the study of a fundamental historical problem of Hittite–Mycenaean interconnections in the Late Bronze Age, a starting point of the story to be followed in this book, dealing both with archaeological evidence for cultural links between the Mycenaean world and western Anatolia, and with the “Ahhiyawa problem” in a number of Hittite texts. This is a sensible reassessment of local political interactions in a liminal zone of western Anatolia – one of the crucial peripheral regions within the geographical scope of this book – having recourse to diverse archaeological, historical, and anthropological analyses. Later in the same section, Rostislav Oreshko tackles the crucial but debatable issue of the (conceivable) Aegean ethnic names in the eastern Mediterranean in his study of Ahhiyawa, Danu(na), combining his primarily linguistic approach with archaeological and historical considerations. This essay offers a meticulous study of old and new Hieroglyphic-Luwian evidence on the issue and may be conveniently compared to the general linguistic essays assembled in Part Three of this volume. Next, in his methodologically rich essay, Emanuel Pfoh studies socio-political changes and continuities in the Levant between 1300 and 900 BCE, addressing, first, particular factors in the twelfth century BCE transition relevant to socio-politics, but ultimately advocating for a longue durée view of the historical phenomena involved. Pfoh’s main intention is to challenge the scholarly consensus that “a key change in socio-political structures occurred [in this period], marking a transition from territorial polities to ‘national’ or ethnic polities” (p. 64). Instead, he observes “the fundamental permanence, after the twelfth century crisis, of hierarchical territorial structures based on kinship and patronage in the Levant” (p. 64). In a refreshingly provocative paper that invites further discussion, Jeffrey P. Emanuel tackles the difficulty of differentiating between regular naval warfare and piracy in the Late Bronze and the Early Iron Age Mediterranean. On a more general level, this issue is an example of the larger historical and methodological problem of studying non-state, asymmetrical, or guerrilla warfare typical of the periods of deep transition and change. As such, this paper discusses one of the crucial historical factors influencing the fates of the North-Eastern Mediterranean in the period under scrutiny in this volume. Ann E. Killebrew deals with the interactions and interconnections between Cyprus and the southern Levant during the Early Iron Age. Challenging the traditional view of the the last two centuries of the second millennium BCE as “a period of societal breakdown following the disintegration of the great Late Bronze Age empires”, Killebrew has recourse to the results of recent excavations in the southern Levant and on Cyprus as well as to extensive provenience studies of ceramics and metals. The emerging picture is one of decentralized but regionally-connected polities Change, Continuity, and Connectivity 3 on Cyprus and the coastal Levant that survived and even flourished after the collapse of established socio-economic structures. Guy D. Middleton discusses the “Sea Peoples” and Aegean migrations at the end of the Late Bronze Age, arguing against “the ‘migrationist’ characterisation of the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age eastern Mediterranean – specifically the idea of a Mycenaean or Aegean migration to the southern Levant which saw the introduction of novel locally-produced Aegean cultural features” (p. 95). In yet another revisionist paper, Francisco J. Núñez offers an overview of the impact of the “Sea Peoples” in the central Levant and the socio-political and cultural repercussions for urban environments and explains the reasons for this particular situation, which are to be found, as he argues, in the fact that the gravitation point of the entire issue of the Sea Peoples in the Levant should be sought in events and circumstances that occurred in its northern part. Namely, “the issue in its entirety seems to have been a north to south phenomenon in which the battle [somewhere north of the Chekka cape, in north Lebanon] between Ramesses III and those foreign peoples changed the course of events and led to a new situation” (p. 128). In an archaeological case-study, David Ben-Shlomo presents various aspects of change and continuity when studying pottery and terracottas in Philistia during the Early Iron Age. He observes a peculiar duality in the material culture of this region. Southern Levantine pottery and terracottas show clear signs of Aegean and Cypriote imigration as well as continuity of Canaanite traditions. He concludes that: [T]he traditional view seeing the Philistine phenomenon as representing a group of people arriving from the west [...] to Philistia during the beginning of the 12th century BCE, and bringing various aspects of their material culture with them, can be maintained. Yet, the effect of this phenomenon on the local political scene of the southern Levant may have been more gradual and complex“ (p. 150) In the same section, Aren M. Maeir presents a reassessment of “Philistine” material culture by reconsidering the extant archaeological evidence from sites thought to be Philistine, and relevant Egyptian iconography, and compares both to Biblical accounts of Philistines. He argues for a strongly ideological import of “early Israelite/Judahite foundation stories”. Teresa Bürge and Peter M. Fischer deal with regional and interregional contacts (trade, migration, hybridization etc.) between the Jordan valley and the eastern Mediterranean in the light of the Early Iron Age strata of the site of Tell Abu al-Kharaz. To round-off Part One of our volume, it may be instructive to quote some of the conclusions of this well-balanced paper (p. 179): […] it is clear that the settlers of early Iron Age Tell Abu al-Kharaz were influenced by the transformations in the 12th century BCE. Limited migration of individuals or families, which arrived from the Eastern Mediterranean through the Jezreel Valley, is suggested. These migrants mingled with the local population most likely by intermarriage, which explains the amalgamation of local and foreign traits in the material culture of many Phase IX contexts at Tell Abu al-Kharaz. This migration process might have lasted years, decades or even generations. Therefore, it is problematic to refer to these migrants as ‘Sea Peoples’, as the immigrants to Tell Abu al-Kharaz had already experienced cultural changes on their way to Transjordan due to the time lapse from their arrival at the Mediterranean littoral until they finally settled at Tell Abu al-Kharaz. However, these descendants, who represent one of the outcomes of the ‘Sea Peoples Phenomenon’, contributed to a rich, flourishing, well-organized and multi-cultural society at early Iron Age Tell Abu al-Kharaz. 4 Łukasz Niesiołowski-Spanò, Marek Węcowski Moving from the regionally-oriented and chronologically more focused studies of our Part One, the second part (“Cross-Cultural Approaches”) offers some broader cultural perspectives on the historical period studied in this book. Not inappropriately, it is hoped, some of the essays included in this section go well beyond the chronological scope of the volume to study far-reaching historical and cultural consequences of some of the phenomena involved. Some others study notoriously debatable and methodologically demanding historical issues originating from historical comparisons between the two geographical extremes of the North-Eastern Mediterranean, the Aegean and the Levant. Jan Paul Crielaard studies the role of individuals with multiple identities dependent on cross-cultural contacts in the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age central and eastern Mediterranean, comparing them “to other individuals attested in the archaeological and textual records who seem to have possessed comparable positions in intercultural or transcultural situations of increasing interconnectivity” and thus highlighting “the possible role of [such] individuals in culture contacts” (p. 196) and exploring the phenomenon of cultural hybrids. Sarah Murray deals with eastern exotica on the Greek mainland in their immediate context with a view to go beyond their traditional, and elite-oriented archaeological interpretations. She argues that the largely ritual contexts and functions of many 13th through 10th century exotica may instead be indicative of “a variety of mechanisms, not only [… of] economic or political exchange systems associated with the élite, but also […] of the movements of humbler individuals, or in conjunction with non-local supernatural beliefs”. Thus, “imported exotica in the early Greek world may in some cases have served to provide individuals with an unseen superstitious or supernatural advantage rather than a socio-political one” (p. 228). In the same section, Giorgos Bourogiannis – by offering a lucid overview of the relevant material – deals with the problem of the transmission of the alphabet to the Aegean with a view to answer fundamental questions of “how, when and where the adoption of the alphabet by the Greeks took place” (p. 236). Vicky Vlachou discusses the imagery of funerary rituals and cult practices in the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean, arguing that “despite the strong influence of Egyptian and Near Eastern beliefs, Aegean funerary iconography embodies regional traditions and beliefs”. At the same time, the author stresses the workings of “the varying symbolic meanings that these images seem to adopt during each period, and the importance that is placed on the different parts of the rituals in order to better serve the needs and aspirations of the communities that are undergoing significant shifts and transformations of their own” (p. 272). In her essay, S. Rebecca Martin asks what we really know about the Levantine institution of the marzeah, a type of feast often associated with, or even studied as a model of, the Greek aristocratic banquet, or symposion. As far as the similarities, and hence conceivable historical links, between the Levantine and the Aegean commensal practices go, she argues that “the symposion and marzeah were only as much alike as any elite occasion that involved wine drinking” and therefore scholars “must seek the symposion’s origin stories elsewhere” and not, simplistically, in Levantine social practice (p. 303). This section of the book concludes with Gunnel Ekroth’s essay on holocaustic sacrifices, rituals where an entire animal was put into the fire, in ancient Greek religion and on their conceivable links to Levantine rituals. The author combines here archaeological, zooarchaeological, and written evidence for holocaustic sacrifices in the Greek Early Iron Age and historical periods (ca. 900-100 BC). After an exhaustive overview of the relevant Greek material and a sober discussion of possible contact between the Aegean and the Change, Continuity, and Connectivity 5 Levantine practitioners of holocaustic rituals, Ekroth’s concluding remarks, as in the case of the previous Part One, may be quoted to conclude this section of the volume as well (p. 322): The similarities between the Greek burnt animal sacrifice, holocausts as well as thysiai, and the practices in the Levant are fascinating, but also pose methodological challenges. Are we to focus on the likenesses or the differences? We are clearly facing ritual actions, which in many ways are similar but which also diverge as to the execution and to the purposes and meanings. A holocaust of a bull in the temple at Jerusalem was undoubtedly something different from the holocaust of a piglet to a local Greek hero. And could there be a greater distinction in the perceptions of the divine, between the Greek gods, anthropomorphic in the full sense of the word, the almighty God of the Hebrew Bible? Even so, they were both really fond of sweet-smelling fatty smoke. Part Three (“Linguistic Approaches”), much more systematic in its presentation of relevant material than the two previous ones, covers the field of interactions between the Levantine, Anatolian, and Aegean languages. The evidence of the interaction of Aegean and Levantine languages recognizable in the linguistic material of historical periods should in principle be one way of assessing the interaction of populations in the northeastern and eastern part of the Mediterranean. Such an approach is naturally not free of methodological pitfalls that must be taken into consideration when the results of linguistic analyses are used by nonspecialists to support or disprove historical and archaeological generalisations regarding the Late Bronze and the Early Iron Age history of the North-Eastern Mediterranean. In this section, Dariusz R. Piwowarczyk discusses the methods of dating the linguistic developments pertaining to the languages involved in the cultural transfers studied in this volume. In general, when studying such linguistic phenomena, one can a priori speak of a “triangle” of mutual linguistic relationships whose “angles” would be formed by Greek, Anatolian, and Semitic languages. Within this framework, Rafał Rosłół deals with Semitic influences in Greek, Paola Dardano with Semitic influences in Anatolian languages, Zsolt Simon with Anatolian influences in Greek, and Wilfred G.E. Watson with Anatolian influences in Semitic languages. Besides presenting a polyphonic, and not smoothed or artificially consistent, version of Aegean-Levantine interconnectivity, the main novelty of this book is a fourth and final set of essays discussing new scientific approaches that transcend traditional multidisciplinary debates concerning the conflicting attitudes and, at times, conflicting methodologies of archaeology, history, and linguistic studies. Scientific studies can be groundbreaking, but their conclusions are sometimes ambiguous or difficult for non-specialists to understand. Scholars lacking the requisite methodological skills and field experience are sometimes prone to misunderstanding and misapplying technical studies. Therefore, in the final Part Four of the volume (“Scientific Perspectives”), Maciej Chyleński, Marcin Grynberg, and Anna Juras present some prospects for approaching the problem of Late Bronze Age migrations in the Mediterranean, using ancient DNA. In the same section, Argyro Nafplioti tackles the hotly debated issue of using isotope ratio analysis as a tool for reconstructing past life histories. * 6 Łukasz Niesiołowski-Spanò, Marek Węcowski The Editors of the volume can only hope that this book will find its way not only to the specialists interested in the historical period between ca. 1300 and 900 BCE, but also to the scholars grappling with methodological and theoretical problems involved in studying various aspects of pre-modern archaeology and cultural history. Anatolian influences on Greek* Zsolt Simon Part A. Discussion 1. State of the research The research of Anatolian influences on Greek has already started in the antiquity when ancient authors pointed out the Anatolian origin of some words and since then it always remained popular to assume Anatolian origin in the case of words with unknown etymology. Since the discovery of the Anatolian languages many papers were devoted to the Anatolian lexical elements in Greek, however, being focused on the etymology of some words only none of them intended to provide a complete and critical overview of all of the alleged Anatolian words. One expects such an overview from the numerous recent handbooks of Greek linguistics and from the most recent etymological dictionary of Greek (Beekes 2010), which, unlike their predecessors, were published late enough to build upon the recent advances in Anatolian linguistics. This is not the case, however. The relevant chapters in Christidis 2007 (Adiego 2007b; 2007c; 2007d) and the papers García Ramón 2011, Sh. Hawkins 2010, Hajnal 2014 and in press are of high quality, but by far not exhaustive (similarly Woodard 1997). The quality of the entries in EAGLL is uneven: some of them do not even discuss the topic indicated in their title (Rose 2014; van den Hout 2014), while others are of high quality, but again not exhaustive (Melchert 2014a; 2014b). Even more disappointing is the etymological dictionary of Beekes 2010 for the following reasons: Beekes (1) does not quote all existing etymologies, i.e. those that have not been rightly refused yet; (2) he does not evaluate many of the quoted etymologies; (3) he frequently uses only negative labelling (type “unconvincing”) instead of arguments; (4) he is biased towards Pre-Greek / Anatolian etymologies based on superficial kling-klangs; (5) he uses “Anatolian” in a geographical and not in a linguistic sense (i.e. one specific branch of the Indo-European languages), although this term is normally used in its linguistic sense in the relevant papers. Thus it is not surprising that there is no scholarly consensus regarding the Anatolian lexical loans in Greek, as perfectly illustrated by the rather different lists of loanwords of the recents summaries of Yakubovich, Sh. Hawkins, Gasbarra and Pozza, and Hajnal (for the detailed discussion of these words see Part B s.vv.): 1) Yakubovich 2010: 113-114, 146-147, 2013: 118-120: βύρσα, δέπας, θύρσος (?), ἴχώρ, κύανος, κύμβαλον, κύμβαχος, μόλυβδος, τολύπη, τύραννος (?); 2) Sh. Hawkins 2010: 224-225: γυγαί, δέπας, ἐλέφᾱς, κύανος, σίλβη, στλεγγίς, σῶρυ/ι, τύβαρις (and perhaps βάκκαρις, ϰαρῡ́ ϰη, ϰαύης, μίνδις, μόλυβδος, οὐδών, πάλμυς); * I am very grateful to Adam Hyllested, David Sasseville and Ilya Yakubovich for providing me with their manuscripts as well as to Gabriella Juhász for correcting my English. Anatolian influences on Greek 377 3) Gasbarra, Pozza 2012: 189-196: ἄρριχος, ἄφενος, ἀχỸνη, δέπας, ἐλέφᾱς, κύανος, κύμβαλον, κύμβαχος, κύπελλον (?), τολύπη; 4) Hajnal 2014: 110-111 and in press: δέπας, κύμβαλον, κύμβαχος, κύπελλον, μόλυβδος, τολύπη; In other words, a handbook of the Anatolian loanwords in Greek, equivalent to the handbooks of the alleged Semitic or Iranian and Indic loans in Greek (Rosół 2013; Brust 2005, resp.), is still missing. This paper presents a first attempt to fill this gap collecting and critically evaluating all suggestions proposed until now. Needless to say, although all efforts have been made to be exhaustive, due to the largeness of the topic and the dispersed nature of the scholarly papers it is inevitable that some suggestions or references have been unintentionally omitted. Nevertheless, it is the contention of the author that the collected evidence fairly represents the current state of research. The paper is organized as follows: since two types of influences can be assumed theoretically, structural and lexical ones, §2 discusses the alleged Anatolian structural influences and §3 discusses the identified lexical loans with their historical context. The discussion in §3 is based on Part B, the etymology part, where the critical discussion of all proposed loanwords can be found in Greek alphabetical order.1 2. Structural influences on Greek Unlike the case of lexical loans, structural influences have been critically evaluated recently, thus it is sufficient to summarize the results. Although previous scholarship suggested many structural interferences, recent research demonstrated that none of them can stand up to close scrutiny: (1) The use of the possessive adjectives in -ιο- as patronyms and adjectives of appurtenance in Mycenaean and Aeolic (including Lesbian) allegedly resulting from the areal diffusion of Luwian genitival adjectives in -ašša/i- and/or -iya- (Watkins 1998: 203; 2000a: 1143-114; 2001: 58) – for a detailed refusal see Yakubovich 2010: 148-149; García Ramón 2011: 38-39; Hajnal 2014: 111-112 and in press. (2) The alleged formal and functional similarities of the particles Hom. -ταρ and Cuneiform Luwian -tar /-dar/ (Watkins 1995: 150-151; also 1997: 618; followed by Katz 2007: 69-72; Teffeteller 2011: 457; 2015: 722-723) – neither the formal nor the functional similarities exist, see already Yakubovich 2010: 141-145 (cf. also 2013: 118-119); Hajnal 2014: 112-113 and in press (cf. also Dunkel 2014: 791 n. 64). (3) The East Ionic and Homeric Greek use of the inherited -σκ- suffix in iterative imperfects as a diffusion of Hittite -ške- and Luwian -za- (!) (Puhvel 1991b: 13-20 and Watkins 2000a: 1143-1144; 2001: 58; followed by Högemann 2003: 8, treated positively in Yakubovich 2010: 148 and García Ramón 2011: 37-38), is refuted by Hajnal in press. (4) The East Ionic and Aeolic (Lesbian) psilosis as a convergence with Lydian (Oettinger 2002, followed by Högemann 2003: 8; Yakubovich 2010: 148 [cautiously]; Melchert 2014b: 70) that Dale 2015: 433 n. 28 would extend into a West Anatolian (i.e. here Lydian, Carian, Lycian B) – East Greek areal feature. For a detailed refusal see Hajnal in press. 1 The effect of the Anatolian languages on the Greek dialects intrusive in Anatolia will not be discussed here, since it is a different topic. 378 Zsolt Simon (5) The so-called “accusativus Graecus”, i.e. the accusative to express inalienable possession by Anatolian influence (Högemann 2003: 8-9). For a detailed refusal see Hajnal in press. (6) The so-called “schema Pindaricum” (animate subject in plural with a verb in singular) attributed to Anatolian influence by Watkins 2000a: 1144-1145; 2000b: 14 refuted by García Ramón 2011: 40.2 This means that the assumption of a Sprachbund between Greek and Anatolian languages based on these proposals cannot be maintained.3 More recently, Dale 2015: 420-433 argued that the Greek ethnic suffix -ηνος <*-wenos restricted in its usage to Asia Minor and Syria (with a clearly higher frequency in Western Anatolia) is an adaptation of the Luwian ethnic suffix -wann(i)- (followed by Teffeteller 2013: 581-582).4 Although this is possible, the Proto-Luwic and hence the Proto-Carian as well as the Proto-Lycian form of the suffix was *-wén(i)-. In other words, Greek could have borrowed it from any Luwic dialect and thus its precise origin cannot be determined yet (cf. also Yakubovich 2013: 120). Since, as it will be shown below, Luwian loans are very rare in Greek in comparison to those from Carian and an unidentified Luwic dialect, it is more probable to attribute its origins to any of these dialects.5 2 3 4 5 Note that Dale 2015: 433 uncritically accepts all these proposals (except Nos. 5-6, which he does not mention) and rejects the criticism formulated by Yakubovich without arguments (“Yakubovich […] goes to great lengths to explain all of these away”, n. 27). Hajnal 2014 has probably been published too late to be taken into account, but he does not quote García Ramón 2011 either. Hajnal 2014 contra Puhvel 1991b: 20; Watkins 2000a: 1143-114; 2007a: 308; and García Ramón 2011: 43 (“nicht ausgeschlossen”). The alleged phraseological borrowings of the Kunstsprache of Homer will not be treated here as they are not relevant for the contacts between real, spoken languages (cf. also the scepticism in Hajnal in press). It is worth noting, however, that these assumed borrowings are still in need of a critical evaluation. The -i- of the so-called i-mutation will be transcribed with short <i> following Rieken 2017. Dale 2015: 432 also admits the possibility of a Proto-Carian borrowing, but he argues that “we have no way of knowing when or if the proto-Carian form would have been of an appropriate morphophonological shape to result” in the Greek suffix and only if one “imagines proto-Carians to have been the dominant dialectal / linguistic group in LBA western Anatolia”. In fact, we do know that the Proto-Carian form was of appropriate shape (see above) and the borrowing must have happened quite early (cf. the loss of *w), thus the chances of a Proto-Carian form are quite high, even if we indeed cannot date yet the change Proto-Luwic *-wén(i) > Carian -yn / -ýn. Furthermore, Carian does not need to be a dominant linguistic group for borrowings and in view of the relatively vivid Greek-Carian loan contacts (as per below and Simon forthcoming-a), the linguistic circumstances were favourable. Note also that his dismissal of Yakubovich’s assumption (2010: 86-92, cf. already Schürr 2002) of Proto-Carian as one of the languages of Arzawa (Dale 2015: 432-433 with n. 24-25) is based on his negligance of the onomastic evidence provided by Yakubovich and Schürr on the one hand and on the reviews of Yakubovich’s book (Teffeteller 2011 and Hawkins 2013) on the other hand. Although in Dale’s views these reviews represent a “judicious assessment”, Teffeteller 2011 does not argue against the Proto-Carian hypothesis and J.D. Hawkins 2013: 8-9 rejects it ex cathedra (“entirely speculative”). Note finally that the unidentified Luwic dialect that may be located in Northwest Anatolia (cf. below) can also provide an alternative for the borrowing. Anatolian influences on Greek 379 3. Lexical loans in Greek 3.1. The scope of the discussion The present discussion of the alleged Anatolian loans in Greek does not include the following categories: (1) Onomastic material, including the (in)famous Luwic-looking toponyms (with suffixes -σσ-, -νθ-, etc.) as well as the theonyms and mythical names, since these require a (pre)historic and a religion-oriented discussion, respectively and are not immediately relevant to the language contacts as their incorporation follows different paths. (2) In accordance with n. 1, loanwords attested only in Anatolian Greek dialects, since these belong to the local substrate, despite that these are frequently included in the Greek etymological dictionaries.6 (3) The transcription of local words and still transparent foreign words since these are not Greek, even if these are included in the Greek etymological dictionaries and even in the discussion of Anatolian loanwords in Greek. These include the Lycian word μίνδις ‘association for the maintenance of tombs’ (miñti [cf. Melchert 2004: 39-40; Neumann 2007: 216] contra Adiego 2007c: 765; Sh. Hawkins 2010: 225);7 the Cappadocian (and thus presumably Luwian) word μῶλυ ‘unidentified plant’8 and the Lydian words ϰάνδαυλος / ϰάνδῡλος ‘a Lydian meal or sauce’ (contra DELG 491; Beekes 2010: 634; cf. Gusmani 1964: 274); ϰαρὲϰη ‘a Lydian soup of blood and spices’;9 ϰαύης ‘name of a priest(ess) in Sardes’ (kaveś, Gusmani 1964: 150);10 and μῶλαξ ‘the Lydian name for wine’.11 Similar is the case of μάγαδις ‘a Lydian / Thracian string instrument; a Lydian flute’ (cf. Gusmani 1964: 275): although everyone agrees that it is presumably a Lydian foreign word, it is still included in the dictionaries (GEW II/154; DELG 655; Beekes 2010: 887), just like οὐδών ‘kind of felt-shoe made of goathair’, a Fremdwort from Cilicia (GEW II/442; DELG 836; Beekes 2010: 1124; Sh. Hawkins 2010: 225).12 6 E.g. ναῦσσον ‘name of a tax’ (Cos, Cyzicus) and πέλτον ‘base of an altar, tomb’ (Lycaonia) in GEW, DELG and Beekes 2010; δόλπαι / δολβαί ‘little flat cake (Cos)’ in DELG and Beekes 2010; and γουτάριον ‘tomb’ (Phrygia and perhaps Lydia) and κορκόρας ‘bird’ (Perge) in Beekes 2010. 7 Partly acknowledged by Beekes 2010: 955 (similarly DELG 704) claiming “a local word, perhaps from Lycian miñti”. However, the connection was recognized as early as Hirschfeld 1889: col. 1427. 8 Cf. Neumann 1961: 28; contra GEW II/282; DELG 730; Beekes 2010: 990. 9 With GEW II/794 (“wohl”, cf. also DELG 501: “pourrait être”) contra Sh. Hawkins 2010: 225; cf. Gusmani 1964: 274. There is no reason to assume Pre-Greek origin (contra Beekes 2010: 650-651) based on the variant with -ύϰϰη, since this variation could have been caused by a recent borrowing too, which is expected due to its meaning. 10 Contra Sh. Hawkins 2010: 225 (see, however 2013: 183-187), with GEW I/802: DELG 505-506; Beekes 2010: 658 (all with refs.), see already Buckler, Robinson 1913: 363 n. 1. 11 With Tischler 1990: 89 and Kloekhorst 2008: 539, contra Beekes 2010: 991; cf. Gusmani 1964: 276; 1986: 163. There is no reason to assume a Pre-Greek origin, contra Beekes 2010: 991, whose proposal is based on the kling-klang comparison with βωληνή a ‘kind of vine in Bithynia’. 12 See also the problematic case of ϰόλαβρος ‘name of a song which accompanied the dance ϰολαβρισμός’, which was known in the antiquity as the Thracian (but once also as the Carian) name of this dance, for the texts see Detschew 1957: 251, followed by GEW I/896 and DELG 554 (Beekes 2010: 734 assumes a Pre-Greek origin due to the vowel variation in the spelling, which, however, could have been caused by a recent borrowing too). The single reference to Carian may mean that they also have borrowed it from Thracian. – However, νικύρτας ‘born slave’ does not belong here (contra Lambertz 1914: 5 n. 3; 380 Zsolt Simon (4) Despite the sometimes ill-defined usage of the term “Anatolian” in this context (see also below), “Anatolian” is a linguistic term with a specific meaning (i.e. the Anatolian branch of the Indo-European languages), thus linguistically non-Anatolian languages are not included. In other words, alleged Phrygian, Hattian, Hurrian and Urartian loanwords are not discussed. The problem of the Phrygian loanwords require a separate discussion, proposals for Hattian,13 Hurrian14 and Urartian15 loanwords are very few and untenable anyway. (5) Loanwords based on Anatolian toponyms (γαγάτης ‘lignite’; ἰδάρνας ‘eunuch, barbarian, diviner’). For the critical treatment of all other proposals see Part B. s.vv. 3.2. Summary and geographical-chronological evaluation Based on the critical analysis of the alleged loanwords presented in Part B, the current state of the Anatolian loanwords in Greek can be summarized as follows. Until now almost 160 Greek words were suggested to be of Anatolian origin, a rather high number, but only a fragment of these, less than 30, i.e. less than one-fifth of these proved to be Anatolian. 1. False comparisons: There is a huge number of Greek words of alleged Anatolian origin whose Anatolian etymology is unfounded, either because no Anatolian connection exists at all or because the proposed Anatolian connection is false.16 These represent the overwhelming majority of the Greek words with alleged Anatolian origin. Members of this category, if they are not shown to be inherited or to be a loanword from another language, may of course turn out to be Anatolian in the future if new evidence is revealed, but currently this is not the case. 2. Hittite loanwords: They are very few and represent typical culture words and Wanderwörter: only κύανος ‘enamel, lapis lazuli, blue copper carbonate’ seems to be as- 13 14 15 16 Sayce apud Buckler 1924: 88; Brandenstein 1929: 265; Whatmough 1956: 74 [with a question mark]); cf. O. Masson 1962: 121 n. 1), since it obviously cannot reflect a Lydian *ni-kud-τa- ‘belonging to nowhere’ for phonological reasons (contra Watkins 2007b: 119-120 and Melchert 2014b: 70). Kroonen 2012: 293-297 derives γελγῑς, -ῑθος/-ῑδος ‘garlic’ from Akkadian gidlu ‘dto’ (as well as ἄγλῑς, -ῑθος ‘garlic’ via Pre-Greek *a-gdl- with an alleged prefix *a- of the substrate language) and suggests that these would have been transmitted by Hattian speakers. No evidence exists for this transmission (furthermore, Hattian does not have such a prefix) and Semitic words notably could have reached Greek in a number of ways. See also s.vv. γέφῡρα, ϰέραμος, and πρύτανις. Hurrian ḫuruppi ‘sword’ was used as an etymon both by Furnée 1972: 148 (cautiously, for κρώπιον ‘sickle, scythe’ of unknown origin [GEW II/31; DELG 590; Beekes 2010: 788], assuming, however, also a common substrate, 97 with n. 259) and by Szemerényi 1981: 114 (for ῥομφαία ‘a large broad sword used by the Thracians’ of perhaps Thracian origin [GEW II/662; DELG 978; Beekes 2010: 1291]), but the Hurrian word means ‘Tiergefäß, Rhyton’ (Richter 2012: 172-173 with refs.). See also s.vv. ἀχỸνη; κύμβαχος; λάγιον / λάγῡνος. Furnée 1972: 130 derived κάρχαρος ‘biting, sharp, raw’ of disputed origin (GEW I/796; DELG 502; Beekes 2010: 652, all with refs.) from Urartian ḥarḥar [sic] ‘heap of stones’, without explaining the semantic, phonological, geographical and historical difficulties (furthermore, the Urartian word, recte ḫarḫar-, means ‘verfallen, schadhaft werden’, Salvini, Wegner 2014: 109). See also s.v. πύργος. It may seem superfluous to emphasize, but in view of the seriousness of this longstanding problem, it must be underlined that by assuming a loan contact from an Anatolian language, at least one allegedly related word must be presented. Furthermore, in absence of such a connection, the usage of the term “Anatolian” in geographical sense must be abandoned, because it is misleading: in this case it means simply that the etymology of the word is unknown and despite the labelling, usually no evidence points to Anatolia (not to mention its hidden but false implication that hardly anything is known about the Anatolian languages and thus everything can be attributed to them). Anatolian influences on Greek 381 sured and the situation does not change even if the dubious cases of ἄρσεα ‘meadows’, ἀχỸνη ‘name of a measure; chest, box’, σῑγαλóεις ‘brilliant, gleaming vel sim.’ (where a common, third source cannot be excluded), and σόλος ‘iron mass, used as a discus’ (formally problematic) are too taken into account. This fits the the geographical and historical circumstances that Greek speakers and Hittite speakers were not neighbours and maintained only diplomatic contacts (cf. Genz 2011: 303-309). 3. Loanwords from an unidentified Luwic dialect: This is a specific subgroup of loanwords from an unidentified Luwic dialect (identified in Simon 2017) characterised by the retained initial voiced stop (βορβύλα ‘round pastry made of poppy and sesame, of the size of a loaf of bread’; βύρσα ‘skin, hide’; γάγγαμον ‘small round net for catching oysters’; δέπας ‘cup’). These are relatively numerous (but not as many as the Carian and the Lydian loans, cf. below) and represent typical cultural terms. If this dialect is to be located in Northwestern Anatolia (as Simon 2017 argues), it, again, fits the historical evidence well (on the Greek presence in Western Anatolia since Mycenaean times see e.g. the overviews of Mountjoy 1998 and Niemeier 2007). 4. Luwian loanwords: These are very few and all problematic: τολύπη ‘a clew of wool or yarn’ (if not inherited), κάμηλος ‘camel’ (if the Luwian word is indeed attested); θύρσος ‘a wand wreathed in ivy and vine-leaves with a pine-cone at the top’ (but see the problem of the initial consonant); and κυσέρη ‘πυθμήν, χάσμα’ (if not a local word). The rarity of Luwian loanwords in Greek is paralleled by the recent researches regarding the extension of Luwian territories, according to which Luwian was not spoken in Western Anatolia (Yakubovich 2010: 75-160), thus direct contacts between Greek and Luwian speakers were lacking until the arrival of Greeks in Pamphylia and Cilicia.17 5. Carian loanwords: One of the most substantial groups, consisting of γεῖσον ‘projecting part of the roof, cornice’; ἑρμηνεύς ‘interpreter, translator’; καμάρα ‘vault, vaulted room, wagon and bark with vaulted roof’, κάμαρος ‘ἀσφαλής’; κῶας ‘soft, hairy animal skin; fleece’; μνῴα ‘name of the serfs in Crete’; γυγαί ‘πάπποι’. Considering the continuous presence of Greeks in the region later called Caria since the Late Bronze Age (for refs. see above, cf. also Niemeier 2009), the relatively high number of these loanwords is not surprising. 6. Lydian loanwords: This is the other relatively sizeable group consisting of βάκκαρις ‘unguent from asarum’; βάσανος ‘touchstone, examination, inquiry (by torture), agony’; πάλμυς ‘king’; πλαίσιον ‘long quadrangle, rectangle, rectangular frame’ (and perhaps ϰόθορνος ‘high boot, footwear with high base for actors, tragic cothurn’ and ϰύπασσις ‘a (short) frock, also worn by women’, if latter is not Persian). The relatively high number of these borrowings is again not surprising considering the strong Greek presence in this region (for refs. see above). One may also add σμίνθος ‘mouse’ from Mysian, since it is an Anatolian language, probably closely related to Lydian (Yakubovich 2010: 115-117, 157, contra e.g. Schwertheim 2000: 608). 7. Further loanwords: Finally, there is an isolated loanword from Pre-Lycian (γὲπη ‘cavity in the earth, den, corner’) as well as one or two words whose source cannot be identified conclusively beyond the observation that they are not Hittite (σϰύβαλον ‘waste, offal, re17 The analysis of Yakubovich was harshly rejected by Teffeteller 2011 and Hawkins 2013, nevertheless none of them could provide solid evidence for Luwian in strict sense as a spoken, vernacular language in Western Anatolia, cf. also Yakubovich 2013: 109-121. 382 Zsolt Simon fuse, muck’ [probably Luwic] and perhaps σίλβη ‘a kind of cake made of barley, sesame and poppy’, if it is not the transcription of a local word), one may also add the dubious ἀστράβη ‘comfortable saddle for an ass or a mule’ and σίδη ‘pomegranate (tree)’. The isolated PreLycian loanword also fits the historical circumstances very well. As for the chronological distribution of these loanwords, in the Late Bronze Age next to the Hittite words one can find only isolated loanwords (δέπας [attested already in Mycenaean] from the unidentified Luwic dialect; γὲπη from Pre-Lycian; κῶας [attested already in Mycenaean] from Pre-Carian and probably πάλμυς from Lydian [it must have been borrowed before the Greek *k w > p change]) and as the connections become more intensive in the Iron Age, their number also increases, even if on a smaller scale. All in all, one can summarize that the number, the chronology and the geography of the Anatolian loanwords faithfully reflect the known historical, geographical and sociolinguistic conditions.18 Part B. The alleged Anatolian loanwords in Greek The general structure of the entries is as follows: the Greek word is followed by its meaning and its current etymological status with references to the standard etymological dictionaries as well as to the handbooks of Brust 2005 and Rosół 2013, where further references can be found, thus the phrase “with refs.” will be omitted in these cases. The next part is the discussion, note that these entries are not full etymological treatments, but focus only on the question if the proposed Anatolian derivation can be upheld. Note furthermore that only those cases have been included where a borrowing from Anatolian was explicitly assumed, thus no Wanderwörter with undetermined routes or sheer comparisons (as in e.g. Gusmani 1968b; 1969; Lazzeroni 1969; Furnée 1972). Finally, instead of the label “of Pre-Greek origin” the phrase “of unknown origin” will be used, since “Pre-Greek” practically means ‘unknown’.19 18 These observations confirm the preliminary classification of Luwic loanwords given by Yakubovich 2013: 118-120, even if his examples turned out to be partly problematic. His classification was as follows: 1) There is a handful of loanwords from local Luwic dialects, transmitted both in the second and the first millennium BC. 2) There are loanwords from Luwian proper in the Eastern Mediterranean contact zone; 3) But there is still no evidence, i.e. loanwords from an alleged Luwian proper in Western Anatolia. 19 It has to be mentioned that the scholarly literature include some false references too: e.g. Beekes 2010: 30 falsely claims that Bănățeanu 1943: 149 calls the word ἄθρας ‘chariot (in Rhodian)’ Anatolian. Similarly he falsely attributes the view to Nehring 1925: 183 and Krause 1942: 214 n. 4 that αἴσακος ‘the branch of the sweet bay’ and /or ‘a bird’ is Pre-Greek or Anatolian (Beekes 2010: 43). DELG 154 mistakenly attributes a Lydian etymology of βαβάκτης ‘epithet of Pan and Dionysus’ to Latte 1953: 501502. 37. GEW I/629; DELG 409; and Beekes 2010: 514 wrongly attribute to von Wilamowitz 1931: 255 a Carian etymology of ἠλέκτωρ ‘name of the sun and adjunct of Hyperion’. Beekes 2010: 684 claims that Neumann 1960-1961: 175-177 suggests, ϰηθίς, -ίδος ‘ballot box, dicebox’ was borrowed from Luwian. In fact Neumann suggested an independent, Greek and Luwian borrowing from a common, Anatolian Pre-Luwian susbtrate. According to GEW II/140; DELG 648; and Beekes 2010: 874 Schulze 1892: 257 n. 4. assumed a Carian origin of λόφος ‘neck of draught animals and men, crest of a helmet, crest of a hill, ridge’, which is not the case. GEW I/143 and DELG 649 attribute a Lydian etymology of λυϰάβας ‘time-indication of uncertain meaning’ to Fraser 1924, but this is a misunderstanding. Finally, according to Beekes 2010: 1635; Furnée 1972: 136 treats χιτών ‘chiton’ as an Anatolian culture word, but this is not the case. Cf. also Grimme 1925: 17, 19 analyzing “καικυλη” (presumably ‘skull’) and “κισις” Anatolian influences on Greek 383 1. Ỽήρ ‘mist, haze, clouds’: Of Indo-European origin (GEW I/27; DELG 27; Beekes 2010: 27). Sayce’s proposal, a derivation from Hittite “wera- ‘heaven’” (1922: 19, not mentioned by the Greek etymological dictionaries), is based on a mistranslation of the Hittite passage (KBo 4.14 ii 4-6), see CHD P 13 and Fuscagni 2012 (both with refs.) on the problems of this sentence. 2. αἴξ, αιγός ‘goat’: Although this word is generally held to be inherited (GEW I/42; DELG 37), Beekes 2010: 40-41 cautiously suggests that Greek together with Armenian (ayc ‘goat’) and Avestan (ĭzaēna- ‘of leather’) borrowed the word from a common, “perhaps” Anatolian source. Put aside that Avestan loans are not possible from Anatolian due to obvious geographical reasons, the word is in fact inherited at least from the Balkan Indo-European level (*h2aiĝ-, Clackson 1994: 88-90; Matzinger 2005: 383, 385, 2006: 25) as shown by its cognates, the Armenian word mentioned above and Albanian dhi ‘(she-)goat’ (Demiraj 1997: 160; Orel 1998: 83; Martirosyan 2010: 58) and edh ‘kid’20 not mentioned by Beekes. Although a Balkan Indo-European borrowing from Anatolian is possible in theory, currently there is no hint for any similar word in the Anatolian languages. Furthermore, if the Avestan word is indeed related21 (although Beekes 2010: 41 rightly points out that it is unknown, which animal’s hide it is), it is a Proto-Indo-European inheritance. 3. αἰρóπινον ‘sieve’: Of unknown origin (GEW I/43: DELG 38; Beekes 2010: 42). A Hittite transmission (suggested by Grimme 1925: 17) is not necessary and there is no evidence for that (rejected also by DELG). 4. ἀμάμαξυς, -υ(δ)ος ‘vine trained on two poles’: Of unknown origin (GEW I/85; DELG 70). Beekes 2010: 81 treats it as a loanword and cautiously (“better, though still doubtful”) compares it with Hitt. māḫla- ‘branch of a grapevine’, which is formally impossible (although Hittite māḫ- could be reflected as *-mak-, the “prefix(es)” and the “suffix(es)” remain unexplained). 5. ἄμαξα (Att. ἅμαξα) ‘framework, chassis of a four-wheeled wagon, wagon’: Of disputed origin (GEW I/86; DELG 68-69; Beekes 2010: 81-82). Bănățeanu 1943: 136-137 suggested that it is an Anatolian loanword (GEW I/86: “ohne Not”), although no similar word is known from Anatolia (he could cite settlement names only). Note that this suggestion cannot be refused pointing to an Indo-European origin, since the widespread Indo-European etymologies are not valid (GEW I/86 and Beekes 2010: 81-82 with refs.). 6. ἀμάρα ‘trench, channel’: Its similarity to Hitt. amiyar(a)- ‘ditch, canal, channel’ has been noticed long ago (Laroche 1955: xxxiii, 1973: xix; Neumann 1961: 91-92, 100 followed by Silvestri 1975: 402-405) and represents an unsolved problem.22 Beekes 2010: 82 argues against this relationship for these words would have only the initial am- in common, although it is more precise to say that only the middle syllable is different. While he entertains the possibility of the “Greek – Anatolian substrate” he finds the comparison with Alb. ãmë ‘river-bed, source’ and some European river names (Amantia, Amana, Amara, etc.; Tischler (presumably ‘purse’) as Hittite loanwords (without refs.), but these Greek forms are not included in LSJ or in the etymological dictionaries. 20 Demiraj 1997: 160; Orel 1998: 85; Matzinger 2006: 55, 71; EIEC 229; Mallory, Adams 2006: 141. 21 Accepted by DELG 37; EIEC 229; Mallory, Adams 2006: 141 (falsely translating it as ‘goathide’); and Martirosyan 2010: 58. 22 See GEW I/86: “orientalisches Kulturlehnwort?”; DELG 70: “un terme technique oriental? (...) semble vraisembamble”; Tischler 1977-1983: 22: “wohl Kultur- und Wanderwort”; Puhvel 1984: 48: “Non-IE Anatolian term?”; but common subtrate according to Kammenhuber 1961: 53 and HW2 s.v. 384 Zsolt Simon 1977-1983: 22: “abzulehnen”, without arguments) formally more convincing than the Hittite connection. Although the similarity of the Hittite and Greek words is indeed remarkable, the different vocalism of the middle syllable (-iya- vs. -a-) cannot be explained and no similar examples have been adduced.23 Thus we deal either with incidental similarity of three (Hittite, Greek, Albanian) different words (especially if the Albanian word indeed originates in the metaphoric usage of the word ‘mother’, then a calque from neighbouring Slavic languages [Orel 1998: 4 with refs., cf. also Demiraj 1997: 75-76]) or with a Balkan Indo-European word *ama- ‘river-bed, channel’ (again with incidental similarity to the Hittite lexeme) that might have even been Proto-Indo-European: although this word would not lead to a regularly suffixed Hittite form, formally speaking amiyara- could represent a Luwian loanword in Hittite (Hittite abounds with them, for preliminary lists see Melchert 2005 and van den Hout 2007), regularly suffixed by -iya- and -ra-, for the latter see Melchert 2003: 196).24 7. ἀξῑ́νη ‘axe’: Probably of Semitic origin.25 Beekes 2010: 111 proposes that this is a loanword from an Anatolian language together with Akkadian ḫaṣṣinu and Aramaic ḥaṣṣīnā ‘dto’. However, no similar Anatolian word is known.26 8. ἀπήνη ‘four-wheeled wagon’: Of unknown origin (GEW I/121; DELG 97; Beekes 2010: 116) Bănățeanu 1943: 141-142 suggested that it is an Anatolian loanword (DELG 97: “n’est pas invraisemblable”), although still no similar word is known from Anatolia. Instead, it is probably a loan from Semitic, cf. Ugaritc ảpn, Hebrew ’ōfān ‘wheel’ (Szemerényi 1974: 149-150, but rejected by Rosół 2013: 161). 9. ἄρκυς, -υος ‘net’: Of unknown origin (GEW I/142; DELG 110; Beekes 2010: 133). A Hittite transmission (suggested by Grimme 1925: 17) does not solve the problem and there is no evidence for that (rejected also by GEW). 10. ἅρπη ‘sickle’: Probably of Indo-European origin (GEW I/150; DELG 114; Beekes 2010: 139). A Hittite transmission (suggested by Grimme 1925: 17) is not necessary and there is no evidence for that. 11. ἄρριχος < ἄρσιχος ‘basket’: Of unknown origin (GEW I/152; DELG 115; Beekes 2010: 140). Van Windekens 1989: 142-143 derives it from Hittite ḫarši- ‘storage jar’ with a Greek suffix (accepted by Gasbarra – Pozza 2012: 195; not mentioned by Beekes). Set aside the semantic distance (which may not be decisive, as per Gasbarra – Pozza 2012: 195), this suggestion is excluded by the lack of the reflex of the Hittite laryngeal. 12. ἄρσεα ‘meadows’ (n. pl.): Of unknown origin (GEW I/152; DELG 115; Beekes 2010: 140-141). Szemerényi 1974: 153 derived it from Hittite arši- ‘plantation’ (Tischler 1977-1983: 68: “vielleicht”), which fits formally. The Hittite word is, however, of unknown etymology, 23 The cases with -iya- ~ -a- changes cited by Laroche 1955: xxxiii; Neumann 1961: 92; and Puhvel 1984: 48 as explanations are false since they represent regularly suffixed forms of a-stems with -iya-. 24 The suggestion of Gamkrelidze, Ivanov 1995: 782 (cf. already Silvestri 1975: 402-405), an independent loanword from Egyptian mr ‘canal, irrigation reservoir’ is not possible phonologically (cf. the unexplained initial vowel). The alternative comparison of the Albanian word with Lat. amnis ‘river’ (for refs. see Demiraj 1997: 75-76; Orel 1998: 4) is phonologically not possible since the Lat. word continues *abh-n- (De Vaan 2008: 39). 25 GEW I/115-116; DELG 94; Beekes 2010: 111; Rosół 2013: 21-23. 26 The early attestation of the Akkadian word (since Old Akkadian, CAD s.v.) cannot be used as a counter-argument since Hittite speakers must have been present already at that time in Anatolia, demonstrated by a Hittite and a Luwian loanword in Eblaite (cf. Watson 2008: 96 and Simon 2015a: 105). Anatolian influences on Greek 385 the frequently suggested connection with ārš-/arš- ‘to flow’27 does not convince semantically (HW2 s.v.; Kloekhorst 2008 does not consider it as of Indo-European origin either). Thus it is worth considering a common, third source (which, contra HW2 s.v., cannot of course be Hattian alone). 13. ἀσκέρα ‘winter shoe with fur lining’: Lydian origin is cautiously assumed based on its appearance and the fact that it is used by Hipponax too.28 Beekes 2010: 150, however, is rightly hesitant since it is attested in an Attic inscription too and also used by other authors (cf. DELG 124; GEW I/163), not to mention that there is nothing inherently Anatolian in its form. Nevertheless, currently there is neither any evidence for any similar Anatolian word, nor any hint for Lydian origin (thus rightly rejected by Sh. Hawkins 2013: 151-153). 14. ἀστράβη ‘comfortable saddle for an ass or a mule’: Of unknown origin (DELG 129; Beekes 2010: 157; not included in GEW). Neumann 1974 connects it with Hittite ašatar ‘seat’ and explains ἀστράβη enlarged with the suffix -ba- seen in Hittite wašpa- ‘clothing’ (← Hittite wešš-/wašše/a- ‘to clothe’) from a more precisely not identifiable Anatolian language (he mentions Lydian, with question mark). However, the difference in the phonetic shape (Hittite /asādar/, obl. stem /asann-/) excludes this derivation. Nevertheless, the similarity to the Hittite verbal root eš-/aš- ‘to sit’ (also attested in Luwian) is remarkable, especially if one takes into account that there is one Anatolian language, Luwian, where the cluster *-sr- may receive an epenthetic /t/, thus -str- (Melchert 1994: 272, 2003: 183) and where also the stem with a-vocalism appears in derivatives (Hieroglyphic Luwian ása- ‘seat’, Kloekhorst 2008: 254). One may assume either *as-ra- (a[n substantivized] adjective) or *as-sra/i- (an abstract noun, for both suffixes in Luwian see Melchert 2003: 196), both regularly leading to *astra‘seat’. Alternatively, one may think about an instrumental noun in *-tro-. The problem is the suffix *-ba-, which is rare in Anatolian, as rightly pointed out already by Beekes 2010: 157: it is securely attested only in one single Hittite word (cf. the overview in Hyllested 2014: 30-32), although it must have been transparent, cf. the above mentioned Hittite case (contra Hyllested 2014: 31, Hittite /b/ and thus the presence of this suffix is assured due to its spelling, see Kloekhorst 2008: 985). Thus the productivity of this suffix and its sheer existence in Luwian or in any Anatolian language is doubtful (one can point only to Carian toponyms of unknown meaning and origin, Neumann 1988: 186-187 with n. 4). In other words, ἀστράβη may represent a Luwian (or an Anatolian) loanword, but it cannot be proven yet. 15. ἄττανα ‘frying-pan, flat cake which is prepared on it’ (n. pl.): Of unknown origin (GEW I/182; DELG 136; Beekes 2010: 166). Kretschmer 1921: 282-283 assumes an Anatolian origin since the word was used by Hipponax (cf. also Lambertz 1914: 5 n. 3). In itself, however, it is not conclusive and there is no Anatolian word attested yet to corroborate this hypothesis. 16. ἀτύζομαι ‘to be frightened, amazed, terrified’: Of Indo-European origin (GEW I/183; DELG 137; Beekes 2010: 167). Sapir 1936: 175-176 and (cautiously) Krahe 1939: 184, 1954: 156 treat it as a borrowing from Hittite ḫatuki- ‘terrible, fearsome’ (followed by Brandenstein 1954b: 17; rejected by Pedersen 1938: 189 [with wrong arguments] and Tischler 1977-1983: 228 [without arguments]; not mentioned by the Greek etymological dictionaries), 27 Tischler 1977-1983: 68: “vielleicht” with refs., see also HW2 s.v. and add Szemerényi 1974: 153; Puhvel 1984: 74: “possibly”. 28 Lambertz 1914: 5 n. 3; Sayce apud Buckler 1924: 88 (“possibly”); Jongkees 1935: 80; DELG 124; GEW I/163; Degani 1991: 65; cautiously O. Masson 1962: 125 (“peut-être”). 386 Zsolt Simon but both can be neatly explained as a common Indo-European heritage (as per Beekes, cf. also Kloekhorst 2008: 336-337). 17. ἄφενος ‘wealth’: Of unknown origin (GEW I/195; DELG 146; Beekes 2010: 177). Laroche 1963: 73 (followed by Szemerényi 1964: 146-147 and Gasbarra – Pozza 2012: 194195, who admit the formal difficulties) suggested to derive it from Hitt. ḫappina- ‘rich’ via a “Luwianising” (“louvisant”) language. This was rightly rejected by Beekes 2010: 177 (without mentioning Laroche) pointing out the lack of the reflex of the Hittite laryngeal, the unexplained φ, the s-stem and the different grammatical category. 18. ἀχỸνη ‘name of a measure; chest, box’: Of unknown origin (GEW I/199; DELG 149; Beekes 2010: 181). Furnée 1972: 138 derived it from Hittite aganni-, accepted by Gasbarra – Pozza 2012: 181 (cf. also Tischler 1977-1983: 10: “möglicherweise”), but rejected by Beekes 2010: 181, because the Hittite word means ‘bowl’, and by HW2 s.v. (without arguments). A measuring device, here a bowl, however, is conducive to become the name of a unit. Since it obviously represents a Wanderwort (the Hittite word is a loanword from Hurrian, cf. also Akkadian agannu ‘bowl’ and Egyptian ỉkn ‘pot’), the question is if it could have been transmitted by Hittite. The phonological differences can be explained (Anatolian voiced stops could have been substituted by their aspirated equivalent in Greek, see the Paradebeispiel Apaša / Ephesos via *-bh - and the simplification of geminates with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel [here -annV- > -ānV-] is a cross-linguistically trivial phenomenon), but these explanations may be valid in the case of an Akkadian or Egyptian borrowing too. In other words, currently the exact source of this word cannot be determined. 19. βαβάκινον, -ος ‘kind of earthen pot’: Of unknown origin (GEW I/206: DELG 154; Beekes 2010: 189). According to Latte 1952: 41 it is perhaps of Anatolian origin (cautiously followed by DELG 154), but no similar Anatolian word is attested until now. 20. βάκκαρις ‘unguent from asarum’: It is of Lydian origin according to classical authors, generally followed by the modern ones as well.29 21. βάκται ‘strong men’: Furnée 1972: 311 explained it from Hittite wakturi- ‘firm, steady’, considered “very uncertain” by Beekes 2010: 194, without arguments (not included in GEW and DELG). The connection is mistaken, since the formation of the Hittite word is unclear (Kloekhorst 2008: 913 with discussion and refs.) and thus the diverging morphologies cannot be explained. Moreover, the correct Hittite form is uktūri-: while it is frequently attested, waktūri- appears only once in a NS text (KUB 33.120 i 6) and thus it is probably a mistake (Kloekhorst 2008: 912-913), or more precisely, a hypercorrect form (contra Furnée 1972: 311, who sees the primary form in wakturi-). 22. βάσανος ‘touchstone, examination, inquiry (by torture), agony’: A loanword from Lydian (known as such already in the antiquity, see the texts compiled in Rosół 2013: 165), assumed to be Egyptian originally.30 23. βασσάρα ‘fox; dress of a Bacchante; bacchante, impudent woman’: Of unclear origin (GEW I/224; DELG 168; Beekes 2010: 204-205). Szemerényi 1971: 660 suggests distinguishing two or three homonyms based on the attested meanings, especially the ‘fox’ (a Libyan word, confirmed by the similarity with Coptic bašor ‘fox’) and ‘the type of a dress’, where he followed the comparison with Hitt. waššuwar ‘clothing’ by Kretschmer 1950: 54829 Cf. Gusmani 1964: 272, 1986: 160; É. Masson 1967: 101; Sh. Hawkins 2010: 225 (perhaps), 2013: 156-157; DELG 158: “vraisemblable”; O. Masson 1962: 155 and Beekes 2010: 194 are sceptical; GEW I/211 has no opinion. 30 GEW I/222; DELG 166; Beekes 2010: 203, see already Sethe 1933: 908-909. Anatolian influences on Greek 387 550. This latter proposal was rejected by Neumann 1961: 19 (and by Heubeck 1961: 81 with n. 10), followed by Beekes 2010: 205 (“rightly rejected”). However, Neumann’s only reason was that the word is rather Thracian or Libyan, referring to Bertoldi 1937: 144, who quoted Hesychius, who said that the Cyreneans and Libyans use this word for ‘fox’ (which is called by DELG 168 as “n’est guère probable”) and compared it with the quoted Coptic word. The Coptic word and the fact that Herodot 4, 192 used this word in a Libyan context prove that Hesychius was right and this is the word for ‘fox’ in Libyan. In other words, the separation of ‘fox’ and ‘dress (of a Bacchante)’ is still possible, and even probable if we consider, as did Szemerényi, the lack of any contact between the Bacchants and Libya. Thus the question is if the comparison of βασσάρα ‘dress of a Bacchante’ with Hittite waššuwar ‘clothing’ is formally possible. This is not the case, however: it is implausible that the /w/ of the Hittite word /was(s)war/ was partly preserved, partly lost and to assume an assimilation /sw/ > /ss/ (as Kretschmer 1950: 550 did) is petitio principii. Note also the improbability of the sound substitution of /w/ by /b/ (the reason of the rejection by Heubeck 1961: 81 with n. 10). This is in accordance with the scholia who explicitly claim that this word is Thracian (for the details see Detschew 1957: 44, cf. already DELG 168).31 24. βόμβυξ ‘silk-worm’: It is is generally agreed to be an Oriental Wanderwort (GEW I/251; DELG 185; for the latest critical discussion see Brust 2005: 151-156 suggesting a Greek derivation) but according to Beekes 2010: 226 (who does not quote Brust), the word “must be of Anatolian origin” due to its structure and since silk was also produced on Kos and in Asia Minor before being introduced from the east. However, there is nothing specifically Anatolian in its structure, and currently there is no hint for any related Anatolian word. 25. βόρβορος ‘mire, filth’: Of unknown origin (GEW I/252; DELG 185; Beekes 2010: 227). Sayce 1929: 273 saw a Hittite loanword in it from pūrpura-, pūrpuri- ‘ball, lump; ballshaped breads or cakes’, which however does not fit either semantically or phonologically (initial voiced consonant, vocalism of the second syllable, see also the next entry). Tischler 2001: 663 rather sees only an “Elementarparallele” instead, available in many languages. 26. βορβύλα ‘round pastry made of poppy and sesame, of the size of a loaf of bread’: Szemerényi 1971: 661 compared it with Hittite pūrpura-, pūrpuri- ‘ball, lump; ball-shaped breads or cakes’ (accepted by Beekes 2010: 227; DELG 185 leaves it unexplained, GEW does not even include it). Note that although in case of plene writing the grapheme is consistently <u> (CHD s.v.), thus phonologically speaking we are dealing with /porbura/i-/ (cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 35-60), an immediate borrowing from Hittite is excluded by the initial voiced phoneme and the unexplained l/r-change (a dissimilation, according to Szemerényi 1971: 661). Simon (2017) argues that this change can be explained by Luwian transmission and the initial voiced stop is paralleled by other words too (see s.vv. βύρσα, γάγγαμον, δέπας), pointing to a separate Luwic dialect. 27. βύρσα ‘skin, hide’: Of unknown origin (GEW I/278; DELG 202; Beekes 2010: 249). It has been compared with Hittite kurša- ‘skin bag’ (Tischler 1977-1983: 655-656; Puhvel 1997: 274, both with refs., add also Yakubovich 2010: 147; not mentioned by DELG and Beekes) explaining the phonological difference by the case of Byblos from Gubla. However, as Simon (2017: 247) points out, *gursa- could not have been borrowed from Hittite due to chronological reasons, since initial devoicing of *gu happened well before any Greek – Hittite contact, 31 There is no reason to see a Lydian word in it contra Georgiev 1981: 208 (followed by Gusmani 1986 s.v., but with a question mark). 388 Zsolt Simon in pre-Hittite times (Kloekhorst 2010: 224, 227, 231). Thus, it is proposed to subsume βύρσα to the specific subgroup of Luwic loanwords in Greek characterized by the preserved initial voiced stop. For a full discussion see Simon 2017. 28. γάγγαμον ‘small round net for catching oysters’: Neumann 1961: 100 connected it with Hitt. kānk-/kank- ‘to hang’ as a Luwian participle ‘das (ins Wasser) gehängte’, which is considered as “most uncertain” by Beekes 2010: 254 (of unknown origin according to GEW I/281 and DELG 205). However, Simon (2017: 248) argues that Neumann’s suggestion makes perfect sense both semantically and morphologically (for the semantics see other objects derived from this root in Hittite: gangala- ‘hanger, curtain vel sim.’, gangala- ‘scale?’, kangur ‘(hanging) vessel’). The only problem is the unexpected initial voiced consonant: the same problem appears, however, in other Luwic loanwords in Greek as well (see also βορβύλα, βύρσα, δέπας) and thus Simon (2017) assumes a (perhaps Northwestern Anatolian) Luwic dialect without initial devoicing. 29. γεῖσ(σ)ον ‘projecting part of the roof, cornice’: A Carian word according to Stephen of Byzantium, cf. Furnée 1972: 117 n. 10. (cautiously followed by GEW I/293; DELG 213; Beekes 2010: 264). 30. γέφῡρα (Boeot. βέφυρα, Cret. δέφυρα) ‘bridge’: A highly problematic word as far as its etymology is concerned cf. DELG 218; GEW I/302-303; Beekes 2002, 2010: 269 and also Arm. kamurǰ ‘dto’ (Martirosyan 2010: 351-353), all with detailed discussion and refs. Nevertheless, the suggestion of Beekes 2002: 12, 20, a derivation from Hattian ḫāmuruwaa - ‘beam’ (and not “ḫamuru(wa)” contra Beekes 2002: 12, 20 or “ḫammuruwa” contra Beekes 2010: 269, cf. Simon 2012: 34-41, 214) cannot be upheld due to obvious formal and geographical reasons. It is important to note that the transcription does not mean /uwa/, but /uXa/, where X is a real consonant, not a simple hiatus filler (see the detailed discussion in Simon 2012: 34-41, where a phonetic value [β] is argued). Beekes 2002: 20 suggests a Luwian transmission to explain the /e/ (which would also solve the geographical problem), but it still does not explain the consonantism. 31. γρύψ, -πος ‘griffin’: Of Semitic origin.32 Grimme 1925: 17 with n. 3 suggested a loan from Akkadian karūbu ‘griffin, cherub’ via Hittite (“ohne Grund”, GEW I/330). Although the current etymology explains the Greek word from Semitic words of the same meaning, the Akkadian word given by Grimme means ‘honoured person’ (CAD s.v.), the assumption of the Hittite transmission does not explain the phonological differences and there is no trace of any Hittite transmission. 32. γυγαί ‘πάμποι’: This is a Hesychian gloss, usually corrected to πάπποι ‘grandfathers’ and thus connected to Hitt. ḫuḫḫa-, CLuwian ḫūḫa-, Lycian xuge- ‘grandfather’,33 to which add now Carian quq- ‘dto’ (Adiego 2007: 334, 408). Simon (forthcoming-a) points out that the consonants are identical only in Hittite and Carian, but since they are voiceless in Hittite, the gloss can reflect only the Carian word with regular sound substitution or transcription: since it is a gloss only, its Greek and loanword status is not assured, it may simply be a rendering of the Carian word. 33. γὲπη ‘cavity in the earth, den, corner’: Its traditional connection with Old Nordic kofi ‘convent-cell, hut, shed’, Old English cofa ‘chamber, cave, den’, Middle High German 32 GEW I/329-330; DELG 239; Beekes 2010: 289; Rosół 2013: 32-34. 33 Grošelj 1951: 256 (Anatolian, perhaps Lycian), followed by Brandenstein 1954a: 65; GEW I/331; DELG 239; Beekes 2010: 290; Sh. Hawkins 2010: 225 – Neumann 1961: 71 is, however, cautious (“mag”). Anatolian influences on Greek 389 Koben, etc.34 is phonologically not possible due to the long vowel in the Greek word (cf. Proto-Germanic *kuban- ‘shed’, Kroonen 2013: 308). Melchert 1994: 303 notes that the resemblance to Lycian xupa- ‘tomb’ is very striking and an earlier borrowing before initial devoicing in Lycian cannot be excluded (Beekes 2010: 292 does not quote this). However, this phonological explanation is false: Melchert needed to assume an early borrowing because he (cautiously) explained xupa ‘tomb’ from PA *gúpā- ‘cave, hole’ (“perhaps”). This explanation was later tacitly withdrawn in favour of a derivation from *kupeh2 - comparing it with Proto-Germanic *xufa- ‘house; hill’ (Melchert 2012: 208), which, however, phonologically, would not be very conducive to a Greek borrowing. Nevertheless, both etymologies are excluded by the fact that Lycian <x> continues a laryngeal (see the detailed discussion by Zinko 2002; Kloekhorst 2006b: 96-105 – none of these papers were taken into account by Melchert 2012: 208, who, however, also assumed this earlier, 1994: 286, 307). This means that the borrowing from Lycian has no phonological obstacles, since an initial laryngeal could theoretically have been substituted as /g/ in Greek. Since, however, Lycian <x> was regularly substituted with /k/ (cf. the list of transcriptions of Lycian names in Zinko 2002: 232), the borrowing must have happened before the <ḫ> > <x> change, the date of which is unknown, but may point to the Late Bronze Age. Nevertheless, since the Lycian word has no etymology, a borrowing from a common, third source is also possible. 34. δᾰΐ ‘in battle’: Of unknown origin (GEW I/339; DELG 246; Beekes 2010: 296). Gusmani 1968a: 14-17 explained it from Hittite lāḫḫ- ‘military campaign’, with sound substitution (-ḫḫ- > *s) and with the Aegean-Anatolian “oscillation” of /d/ and /l/ (rejected by Durante 1970: 44 n. 3 [with wrong arguments] and by Heubeck 1970: 299 [without arguments]; not mentioned by the Greek etymological dictionaries). This type of sound substitution is, however, not supported by the Greek evidence (cf. Simon 2014: 885-886) and /d/ is the starting point and not the result of the assumed “oscillation” (for a more precise analysis of the Greek cases involved see Valério 2017). 35. δέλτος ‘writing tablet’: Of Semitic origin.35 A Hittite transmission (suggested by Grimme 1925: 19) is not necessary and there is no evidence for that. 36. δέπας, -αος (Myc. di-pa-) ‘goblet’: This word is generally assumed to be a loan from Hieroglyphic Luwian tipas- ‘sky, heaven’.36 Yakubovich 2010: 146, 2013: 119 however, pointed out that, first, the Luwian word does not mean ‘goblet’, but is assumed to mean ‘bowl’ (which may not be a grave problem), second, the Luwian word is in fact not attested in the meaning ‘bowl’, and, third, the Greek word has an initial voiced and not voiceless consonant (see already Katz 2001: 219). While Yakubovich is right that this Luwian word does not mean ‘bowl’, Simon 2016 demonstrated the existence of a homonymous Luwian word meaning ‘bowl’ and argued in Simon (2017: 248-250) that this word belongs to a specific subgroup of Anatolian loanwords in Greek which preserved their initial voiced consonants (see there for a full discussion of this word). 34 Beekes 2010: 292, cf. also DELG 243 and GEW I/335; for further putative European connections based on sheer kling-klang and semantic similarities see Beekes 1996: 223-227. 35 GEW I/362; DELG 260; Beekes 2010: 313; Rosół 2013: 37-38. 36 See e.g. Neumann 1961: 20; Pisani 1966: 46; Jucquois 1972: 107; Neu 1999: 620; Katz 2001: 219-220; Melchert 2002: 299 n. 9. (cautiously), 2003: 184; Watkins 2007a: 319-321; Sh. Hawkins 2010: 224-225; García Ramón 2011: 29 n. 12, 31; Teffeteller 2011: 457, 2015: 721-722; Gasbarra, Pozza 2012: 190; Hajnal 2014: 110 and in press; but cf. DELG 264; Beekes 2010: 317: “perhaps”, without arguments; for a full list of references see Simon 2017: 248, n. 8. 390 Zsolt Simon 37. δοῦλος ‘slave, servant’: Of unknown origin (DELG 295; GEW I/412; Beekes 2010: 350). According to Risch 1984: 97-97 and Beekes 2010: 350, a borrowing from Carian or Lydian as suggested by Lambertz 1914 (followed by Benveniste 1932: 438, cf. also Maaß 1925: 469 [Anatolian]) is chronologically not possible, since the word is attested already in Mycenaean times. Nevertheless, such an early borrowing (from Pre-Carian/Pre-Lydian) is possible in theory and such early borrowings are even attested (see s.vv. κῶας and πάλμυς). The real problem is that there is no attested similar Anatolian word. 38. ἐλέφᾱς, -αντος ‘ivory, elephant tusk’: Of unknown origin (DELG 338; GEW I/493494; Beekes 2010: 410). Laroche 1965: 57-58, 1973: xix derived it from Hittite :lahpa- ‘ivory?’, followed by many scholars (but not even mentioned by Beekes 2010: 410).37 Nevertheless, set aside the suffix -ant- that can have an inner-Hittite explanation and the substitution of /a/ by /e/ that may be paralleled by some toponyms (see first of all Apaša / Ephesos), Laroche’s suggestions to explain the phonetic differences are either unsubstantiated (the Hittite spelling interpreted as lāb/pa- or la’b/pa-: the Hittite consonant sequence is in fact /γb/ vel sim., for the phonetic value of the Hittite laryngeals see most recently Hoffner – Melchert 2008: 38) or ad hoc (Greek would have added a “banal” prothetic /e/ – we know now that the prothetic /e/ of Greek is in fact the regular reflex of Proto-Indo-European *h1) and thus the formal discrepancies exclude the connection of these words.38 39. ἕρμα ‘prop, support of the stones or beams put under the ships when drawn ashore; underwater cliff on which a ship gets stuck; stone (or any weight) that can serve as ballast’: Of uncertain origin (GEW I/562-563; DELG 373; Beekes 2010: 461-462). Kretschmer 1927: 4 proposed an Anatolian origin, however, his reasons are mistaken: it is unclear how Hermos, a river in Lydia could have been the source of this word and the Lycian PN “Erm-/Arm-” reflects the name of the pan-Anatolian Moon God, Arma (rightly rejected for this reason also by DELG). 40. ἑρμηνεύς ‘interpreter, translator’: “Probably/wahrscheinlich” of Anatolian origin according to GEW I/563; Beekes 2010: 462 (but without an etymology in DELG 373), following Boßhardt 1942: 37. As Yakubovich 2012: 133, 2013: 119 rightly pointed out, the discovery of Carian armon ‘interpreter’ (Adiego 2007: 355 with refs.) now can provide sufficient support for this view as it continues *armān. Yakubovich explains the Anlaut either with folk etymology (Hermes) or with a third, common source (Szemerényi’s suggestion [1971: 668], the Ancient Near Eastern word targumānu via Hittite transmission is obviously impossible from a phonological point of view). 41. ἐσθλóς ‘good, brave, stout, noble’: Of unknown origin (GEW I/574; DELG 378; Beekes 2010: 470). Szemerényi 1974: 153-154 explains it from Hittite ḫaštili(ya)- ‘stout, brave, heroic; hero’ (not quoted by Beeekes). Nevertheless, the lack of the reflex of the Hittite laryngeal and the unexplained syncope of the second vowel exclude this derivation (rejected also by Tischler 1977-1983: 203-204 and Puhvel 1991a: 237, albeit both without arguments). 42. ἐσσήν, -ῆνος ‘name of the priests of Artemis in Ephesus; prince, king; king-bee’: Of unknown origin, but generally assumed to be Anatolian (GEW I/575; DELG 378 [perhaps Phrygian or Lydian with a question mark]; Beekes 2010: 471: “probably”). Due to its 37 É. Masson 1967: 83; Friedrich 1966: 22; Morpurgo Davies 1986: 106; Woodard 1997: 38; Sh. Hawkins 2010: 225; Gasbarra, Pozza 2012: 200-201; possible according to García Ramón 2011: 31 n. 16. 38 Cf. already Kronasser 1969: 312; Sacconi 1972: 174 (independent borrowings); Hajnal in press (migrant cultural words); cf. also Houwink ten Cate 1974: 143. Anatolian influences on Greek 391 Ephesian context it might originally be a Lydian word, but nothing similar has been attested yet in the admittedly very restricted Lydian corpus. 43. ἠλακάτη ‘(wool on the) distaff’: Of unknown origin (GEW I/628; DELG 409; Beekes 2010: 514). Solmsen 1909: 121 cautiously (“vielleicht”) assumed an Anatolian origin, rejected by DELG 409 (“indémontrable”) and Beekes 2010: 514 (without arguments). There is no Anatolian word attested yet that could support this idea. 44. ἦρα ‘service, favour’ (acc. sg. [or n. pl.?]): Inherited (GEW I/642; DELG 415; Beekes 2010: 524). Gusmani 1968a: 17-22 suggested a derivation from Hittite warri-/warrai- ‘helpful; help’ (not mentioned by Beekes). This hypothesis was rightly rejected by García Ramón 2006, 2011: 40-42, who pointed out the semantic difference of the terms (‘jemandem Gnade erweisen’ vs. ‘(militärisch) helfen’). 45. θεράπων, -οντος / θέραψ, -απος ‘attendant, servant; companion’: Of unknown origin (GEW I/664; DELG 431; Beekes 2010: 541). Van Brock 1959: 125-126, 143 n. 27 derives θεράπων from Hittite *tarpan- ‘(ritual) substitute’ from tarpašša-, which, in turn, would be reflected as θέραψ (accepted by Householder – Nagy 1972: 774-775; Joseph 1982: 231). However, the differences in the vocalism and the stem of θεράπων remain unexplained (not accepted by GEW III/104 and doubts in Tischler 1981: 22 due to the semantics). 46. θίασος ‘Bacchic revel, religious guild’: Of unknown origin (GEW I/674; DELG 437), Beekes 2010: 548 claims it is “probably” of Anatolian origin, but there is no similar Anatolian word attested yet to prove his statement. 47. θύρσος ‘a wand wreathed in ivy and vine-leaves with a pine-cone at the top’: According to the communis opinio it is a loanword from Hieroglyphic Luwian tuwarsa‘vine(yard)’.39 The -uwa- > -u- contraction is regular in Luwian (cf. e.g. Melchert 2003: 183, pointed out already by Bossert 1952-1953a: 180-181 and Laroche 1955: xxxiii-xxxiv) and the initial <t> might have been rendered by Greek theta, which is, however, contradicted by τολύπη (the unexpected rendering was noted already by Laroche 1955: xxxiii-xxxiv). A solution could be if these were borrowed at different periods (or transmitted by another language, Laroche 1955: xxxiii-xxxiv entertains the possibility of Phrygian or Lydian transmission, with question mark), but in the absence of any further evidence this must remain speculative. There is no problem, however, if τολύπη is inherited, see s.v. 48. θύσθλα ‘the sacred implements of Bacchic orgies’ (n. pl.): Of unknown origin (GEW I/697; DELG 448; Beekes 2010: 567). Beekes 2010: 567 suggests an Anatolian or PreGreek origin, but no similar Anatolian word is attested so far to corroborate this proposal. 49. ἰβύ ‘interjection or adverb’: According to Hesychius, it is either Lydian or Ionian, but it is an onomatopoeic word in either case (GEW I/707; DELG 454; Beekes 2010: 576). 50. ἴλη ‘band, troop’: Of unknown origin (GEW I/722; DELG 462-463; Beekes 2010: 588). Van Windekens 1989: 143-144 suggests a derivation from Hittite ḫila- ‘(court)yard; halo’ (alternatively, both originate in the same substrate; not mentioned by Beekes), which obviously does not fit semantically (note also the lack of the Greek reflex of the laryngeal). 51. ἴξαλος ‘(castrated) he-goat’: Of unknown origin. Solmsen 1909: 141 and Bechtel 1914: 177-178 assumed an Anatolian origin due to spelling variants (-σ(σ)-, -ττ/θ-, -σθ-, -σκ/χ-), accepted by Heubeck 1961: 80; GEW I/728; and also (cautiously) by DELG 465 (“semblent”). 39 Since Hofmann 1949: 120; Bossert 1952-1953a: 180-181; and Laroche 1955: xxxiii-xxxiv (see also 1965: 58), followed by Forbes 1958: 271-272; Heubeck 1961: 80; DELG 447; Beekes 2010: 566; Yakubovich 2010: 147 (or rather borrowing from a common source due to the problem of the initial consonant, see above); but “unbekannt” in GEW I/697. 392 Zsolt Simon Nevertheless, no similar Anatolian word is attested and the spelling variants themselves do not necessarily point to Anatolia. 52. ἴτριον ‘name of a cake made from sesame and honey’. Of unknown origin (GEW I/743; DELG 473; Beekes 2010: 605). Neumann 1961: 84-85 derived it from Hittite iduri- ‘a type of bread or cake’ with syncope (followed by Jucquois 1972: 107; GEW III/113; not mentioned by DELG or Beekes 2010). Set aside the semantic problems (Tischler 1977-1983:447 with ref. points out that iduri- is made with the fat and blood of a sheep) and the ad hoc syncope (Neumann’s analogy, Luwian iššari- > Lycian izre- ‘hand’, was false, since the vowel in the Luwian word is not real, cf. e.g. nom. sg. ˹i-iš-ri-iš˺ [KBo 29.7, 3’] and iš-ri-˹iš˺ [KBo 9.141 iv 3’]), as Gasbarra – Pozza 2012: 192 rightly pointed out, the non-geminated spelling of the Hittite word points to a voiced and not to a voiceless consonant. 53. ἴχώρ, -ῶρος ‘juicy, watery part of blood; blood of the gods, of the giants; blood’: Of unknown origin (GEW I/747; DELG 475; Beekes 2010: 608). A loan from Hitt. ešḫar ‘blood’ was independently suggested by Sayce 1922: 19, 1929: 273 and Kretschmer 1930: 10-11, 1947: 19-20, 1950: 548.40 The phonological differences were explained by Kretschmer first with an inner-Hittite cluster-simplification šḫ > *ḫ (1930: 10-11), which is ad hoc (see already Friedrich 1928: 317; Neumann 1961: 18),41 later by inner-Greek assimilation šḫ > *ḫḫ (1947: 19-20), which is again ad hoc. Heubeck 1949-1950: 213 proposed sound substitution in Greek (šḫ → χ, which is implausible, since the loss of the /s/ is unmotivated), who entertains the possibility of a transmitting language, e.g. Lycian (also Kretschmer 1930: 10-11 allowed the possibility of another Anatolian language). While the difference in vocalism could be explained (/i/ may come from the oblique cases of the Hittite word; /ō/ may be analogical [Kretschmer 1947: 19-20 suggested the analogy of ἀχώρ] or just the cross-linguistically frequent substitution of /a/ [note that Kretschmer’s original phonetic interpretation of the Hittite word as [īsḫōr] (1930: 10-11) is unfounded], he later assumed an Anatolian e > i change, 1947: 19-20), the differences in the consonantism exclude this derivation (with Neumann 1961: 18).42 54. καβάλλης, -ου ‘workhorse, nag’: Of unknown origin (DELG 477; GEW I/749-750), most recently Simon 2005 argued for an Iranian loanword (followed by Hyllested 2014: 9197 with improvements). Beekes 2010: 611 considers the connection with the Anatolian ethnonym Καβαλεῖς / Καβηλέες (suggested by Maaß 1925: 469, followed by Kretschmer 1928: 190, 1932: 248; Beekes does not quote his sources) uncertain. In fact, it was pointed out already by Simon 2005: 407 (not quoted by Beekes 2010: 611; but see already Puhvel 1965: 84; Forlanini 1998: 246) that this ethnonym is the regular transcription of the local toponym Ḫaballa and thus it has nothing to do with this word. 55. κακκάβη (1) ‘three-legged pot’: Of unknown origin (GEW I/757-758; DELG 481; Beekes 2010: 619). A Hittite transmission (suggested by Grimme 1925: 19) is not necessary and there is no evidence for that. 40 Followed by Heubeck 1949-1950: 213 (who later rejected it on phonological grounds, 1961: 81 with n. 10); Brandenstein 1954b: 17; Krahe 1939: 184 (“mag”), 1954: 156 (“unsicher”); Yakubovich 2010: 147. 41 Kretschmer’s analogy, the theonym Za(š)ḫapuna does not help, since this is the name of a Hattian god and the reason of its spelling variants is fully obscure. 42 Also rejected by Sturtevant 1928: 121 (due to the semantics, vocalism, and consonantism); Puhvel 1965: 85 (“untenable by any reasonable standards of etymological rigor”); DELG 475 (referring to Heubeck 1961); HW2 s.v. (based on the allegedly missing Hittite – Greek language contacts, which was and is, however, a false argument); Beekes 2010: 608 (without arguments); Gasbarra, Pozza 2012: 195. Anatolian influences on Greek 393 56. κακκάβη (2) ‘partridge’: It is treated either as a Hittite (cf. kakkapa- ‘a small animal, object of hunting’, Cardona 1967 [Hittite or Kartvelian]; Szemerényi 1968: 194; Melchert 1998: 48) or as a Lydian loanword (Neumann 1961: 60-61; Jucquois 1972: 107; since it was used by Alkman from Sardeis; cf. also Dardano 1997: 100: Hittite via Lydian); Beekes 2010: 619 mentions both possibilities and assumes an Anatolian origin. No similar word is attested in Lydian (and its use by Alkman is not conclusive), thus Neumann’s assumption cannot be proven. Although the Hittite derivation is formally impeccable, we are clearly dealing with an onomatopoeic word (GEW I/758; DELG 481, although the latter dictionary finds the Anatolian connection “frappé”; Gasbarra – Pozza 2012: 193-194) and note also that the exact meaning of the Hittite word cannot be given. 57. κάλανδρος ‘kind of lark’: Of unknown origin (GEW I/761;DELG 484; Beekes 2010: 622), Beekes suggests an Anatolian origin, presumably due to its “suffix” (also noted by DELG), which, however, does not necessarily mean an Anatolian origin, and there is no evidence for a similar Anatolian word yet. 58. καμάρα ‘vault, vaulted room, wagon and bark with vaulted roof’; κάμαρος ‘ἀσφαλής’: Of unknown origin (GEW I/770-771; DELG 489; Beekes 2010: 630), but of Carian origin according to the scholia (DELG 489 with a question mark; Beekes 2010: 630: “perhaps”) – however, it is not attested in the admittedly very small Carian corpus. 59. κάμηλος ‘camel’: Undoubtedly of Semitic origin, but the initial consonant remained unexplained.43 Grimme 1925: 17 suggested a Hittite transmission, which would solve the problem, as well as the Luwian transmission suggested by Yakubovich (2016: 87, n. 30). If Yakubovich’s plausible proposal that Hieroglyphic Luwian kamar(a/i)-, a commodity (ASSUR letter f+g §28, §31) means ‘camel’, turns out to be correct, the Luwian solution is to be preferred. 60. ϰάννα ‘reed, reed-fence, -mat’: The word is clearly of Semitic origin.44 Beekes’s cautious suggestion of an Anatolian origin (2010: 636) and Neumann’s assumption of an Anatolian transmission (1961: 19 n. 2) are not needed and no local word supports these ideas (the homonymous Lycaonian settlement name quoted by Neumann does not prove anything). 61. ϰαρβάν ‘outlandish, foreign’: Of unknown origin.45 Neumann 1961: 92-94 explained it from Hittite kurewana- / kuerwana- ‘dependent foreign state/person without formal submission’ (or from an alleged Luwian cognate), but the unexplained formal differences exclude this suggestion. 62. ϰάρδαμον / ϰαρδάνη ‘nose-smart’: Of unknown origin (GEW I/787; DELG 497; Beekes 2010: 643). Furnée 1972: 252 explained it from Hittite kar(a)šani- ‘soapwort’ (followed by Neumann 1974b: 436 and cautiously by Tischler 1977-1983: 521 [“vielleicht”]), but the obvious formal discrepancies exclude this suggestion (and the semantics is also doubtful). 63. ϰάρδοπος ‘kneading-trough’: Of unknown origin (GEW I/788; DELG 498; Beekes 2010: 644). The suggestion of Furnée 1972: 257 n. 38 from Hittite ḫarduppi- ‘furniture’ turned out to be wrong as the correct Hittite form and meaning are ḫa/urduppi- ‘Pflanze, Gras, Kraut’ (HW2 s.v.). 64. ϰάροινον ‘name of a sweet wine’: Of unknown origin (GEW I/790; DELG 499; Beekes 2010: 647). Grimme 1925: 19 suggested a derivation from Akkadian “khurunnu” [sic, 43 GEW I/771-772; DELG 489; Beekes 2010: 630; Rosół 2013: 43-44. 44 GEW I/779; DELG 493; Beekes 2010: 636; Rosół 2013: 44-45. 45 GEW I/786; DELG 497; Beekes 2010: 643; Rosół 2013: 177. 394 Zsolt Simon repeated by GEW and Beekes] ‘sesam wine’, recte kurunnu ‘a choice kind of beer or wine’ (CAD s.v.) via Hittite (considered “doubtful” by Beekes 2010: 647 and “mehr als zweifelhaft” by GEW I/790, both without arguments). However, there is no evidence for Hittite transmission and the formal discrepancies exclude this suggestion. 65. ϰάρπασος ‘a kind of fine flax’: Generally assumed to be a loan from Indic.46 Porzig 1927: 272-274 assumed an Anatolian origin based on the “suffix” aso-, but there is no evidence for that and no similar Anatolian word has been recognized yet. 66. ϰάστανα ‘sweet chestnuts’ (n. pl.): It is generally assumed to be a loanword from Anatolia based on Καστανὶς αἶα ‘land in Anatolia’ and Armenian kask ‘chestnut’, kaskeni ‘chestnut-tree’ (GEW I/799; DELG 504; Beekes 2010: 655). Set aside the toponym, whose connection cannot be verified, the Armenian form can also reflect *kast- (for different solutions see Martirosyan 2010: 353 [regularly suffixed *kast-uk-eni > *kas(t)keni] and Beekes 2010: 655 [assimilation]), and then there is a common Greek – Armenian isogloss, the origin of which as a loanword thus can be sought on the Balkans as well. In other words, there is no compelling argument for an Anatolian loanword. 67. κασύτας ‘a Syriac plant’: Of Semitic origin.47 A Hittite transmission (suggested by Grimme 1925: 19) is not necessary and there is no evidence for that. 68. ϰέραμος ‘potter’s earth, tile, earthen vessel, jar, wine-jar, pottery’: Of uncertain origin (GEW I/823-824; DELG 516; Beekes 2010: 674-675). According to GEW and Beekes the theory of Kretschmer 1921: 284 (followed by Bertoldi 1952: 74), who connected it with the Carian settlement name Κέραμος, deserves attention. Needless to say, the etymological connection cannot be verified (cf. already DELG 516). The cautious proposal of Laroche 1955: xxxiv, a derivation from Hattian karam, if its meaning as ‘pottery’ can be verified (GEW I/824: “ganz unsicher”), turned out to be false, since the Hattian word means ‘wine’ (Soysal 2004: 285). 69. ϰέρασος ‘bird cherry’: Of unknown origin (GEW I/828; DELG 518; Beekes 2010: 677). GEW and Beekes suggest that the word is “probably” of Anatolian origin since the “improved cherry” comes from the Pontos area (DELG is more cautious, “peut”, cf. also Neumann 1961: 101: “unentscheidbar”). However, no attested Anatolian word supports this idea as of yet (cf. also Gasbarra – Pozza 2012: 199). 70. κῆβος ‘monkey with a long tail’: Of unknown origin (GEW I/836; DELG 522; Beekes 2010: 684). The assumption of a Hittite transmission (suggested by Grimme 1925: 16) does not help and there is no evidence for that. 71. ϰίδαρις / ϰίτ(τ)αρις ‘name of a turban-like headgear, worn by the Persian kings only; turban of the Jewish high-priest; name of an Arcadian dance’: Probably of Semitic or Iranian origin.48 Grimme 1925: 16 attributes the variation in the consonantism to the Hittite transmission of a Semitic word. However, whatever the exact synchronic value of the Hittite stops is (for the most recent discussion see Kloekhorst 2016), there is no evidence that precisely the Hittite transmission would lead to variation in consonantism. 72. ϰίϰιννος ‘curly hair, lock of hair’: Of unknown origin (GEW I/851; DELG 530; Beekes 2010: 695). Schrader – Nehring 1917: 420 assume a foreign cultural word (Aegean or 46 GEW I/792; DELG 500; Beekes 2010: 649; Brust 2005: 310-316. 47 GEW I/800; DELG 504; Beekes 2010: 656; Rosół 2013: 42-43. 48 Cf. GEW I/850; DELG 529; Beekes 2010: 694; for the most recent discussions see Brust 2005: 339-345 and Rosół 2013: 50-52. Anatolian influences on Greek 395 Anatolian), but no Anatolian word supports this idea yet (cf. already DELG 530; a question mark in GEW I/851). 73. ϰίνδυνος ‘danger, risk’: Of unknown origin (GEW I/854-855; DELG 532-533; Beekes 2010: 699-700). Kretschmer 1928: 90-91 suggests an Anatolian origin (on the basis of the Carian city name Kindye). Since a toponym of unknown meaning does not prove anything, no Anatolian word supports this idea as yet. 74. κινύρα ‘name of a stringed instrument’: Of Semitic origin (GEW I/856; DELG 533; Beekes 2010: 701). A Hittite transmission (suggested by Grimme 1925: 19) is not necessary and there is no evidence for that. 75. ϰιξάλλης, -ου ‘highway robber, pirate, thief’: Of unknown origin. Hoffmann 1898: 612 saw a Carian / Lycian word in it due to the spelling variants (followed by Solmsen 1909: 141; GEW I/857; DELG 534 [Anatolian]), but Beekes 2010: 701 prefers instead a PreGreek solution for the same reason (and for which see the discussion in Neumann 1961: 64). Neumann 1961: 63-64 argued for a nomina actoris in -alla- from the Hittite verb kešk- ‘harrow, despoil’, i.e. Hittite *ke/iškalla- or Luwian / Lydian *kiššalla-, with the equivalent of the -šk-suffix (GEW III/128: “ganz hypothetisch”). This meaning of the Hittite word, however, turned out to be based on a false reading (Puhvel 1997: 159 with ref.). No similar Anatolian (including Carian and Lycian) word has been recognised up to now. 76. κίουρος (Myc. ki-u-ro-?) ‘basket’: Of unknown origin (DELG 534; not included in GEW and Beekes 2010). A Hittite transmission (suggested by Grimme 1925: 19) is not necessary and there is no evidence for that. 77. κιττώ ‘kind of cassia’: Of unknown origin (DELG 536; not included in GEW and Beekes 2010). A Hittite transmission (suggested by Grimme 1925: 17) is not necessary and there is no evidence for that. 78. κλωβóς ‘bird-cage’: Of Semitic origin (GEW I/878; DELG 545; Beekes 2010: 719). A Hittite transmission (suggested by Grimme 1925: 19) is not necessary and there is no evidence for that. 79. ϰόθορνος ‘high boot, footware with high base for actors, tragic cothurn’: Of unknown origin (DELG 551). Jongkees 1935: 80 using literary evidence argues that originally this is a Lydian footwear and word (GEW I/891: “vielleicht”), but this conclusion does not follow from the texts, as Sh. Hawkins 2013: 152 n. 499 rightly pointed out. Beekes 2010: 729 prefers instead a Pre-Greek origin, although, without arguments (“more probably”). 80. κοίης / κοής ‘priest of the Kabeiroi’, ϰοῖον / ϰώϊον ‘pledge’: Of uncertain origin (GEW I/894; DELG 553; Beekes 2010: 732). Grimme 1925: 19 assumed a Hittite transmission for the former word, which is not necessary and practically excluded by its meaning, since the Kabeiroi have nothing to do with Anatolia (see most recently Simon 2015b: 12-13 with refs.). The same applies to the views of Beekes (“this group could well be Anatolian or PreGreek”, citing Lydian kaveś ‘priest’). 81. κομμóς ‘lament’: Of unkown origin (not included in the Greek etymological dictionaries). Ramsay 1917: 270 cautiously suggested an Anatolian origin and Sayce 1922: 19 saw the etymon in the Hittite verb išḫamai- ‘to sing’, but the loss of the initial /s/ of a non-Hittite form required to connect these words cannot be explained (also rejected by Neumann 1961: 19, albeit without arguments). 396 Zsolt Simon 82. ϰόνδυ, -υος ‘name of a drinking vessel’: Of unknown origin.49 Neumann 1961: 29-31 derives it from Hittite kankur- ‘tankard vel sim.’ with a possible loss of the final /r/ and a dissimilation (*kandu). The latter assumption is, however, entirely ad hoc (similarly Szemerényi 1971: 674 [“rather unlikely”] contra Puhvel 1997: 55 [“plausibly”]). 83. κρóκος ‘safran’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/23; DELG 586; Beekes 2010: 782). Grimmed 1925: 19 proposed Hittite transmission and É. Masson 1967: 50-51 suggested Anatolian origin (followed by LfGrE s.v., with a question mark), but there is no evidence for any of that. 84. ϰρωβύλος ‘roll or knot of hair on the crown of the head’: Of unknown origin.50 Rabin 1963: 123-124 suggested a derivation from Hittite kariulli- ‘hood(ed) gown’, admitting the unexplained problem of the /b/, to which add also that of the Hittite /i/. 85. κύανος ‘enamel, lapis lazuli, blue copper carbonate’ (Myc. ku-wa-no- ‘smalt’): The traditional and widespread assumption of a borrowing from Hittite ku(wa)nnan- ‘copper, ornamental stone’51 is both formally and semantically convincing: the Hittite forms with -u- are regular secondary contractions (cf. Rieken 2001) and a misinterpreted nom.-acc. sg. n. kuwannan could have led to the thematic stem in Greek. Kammenhuber 1961: 53 attributes these words to a common substrate (also mentioned as an alternative by Neumann 1961: 19; the origin is an open question according to Halleux 1969: 47-66; cf. also Houwink ten Cate 1974: 143), which is not necessary. The derivation of Danka – Witczak 1997 from Proto-Indo-European *ḱwn̥ Ho- fails to explain the different stems (Beekes 2010: 793 calls their proposal “unlikely”, but without arguments). 86. ϰυδώνια ‘quinces’ (n. pl.) ← κοδυ-μαλον: Although it is generally assumed to be a loanword from Anatolia (GEW II/42; DELG 596; Beekes 2010: 797), there is no evidence for that, Κυτώνιον ‘town on the Lydian border’ of unknown meaning cited by GEW and Beekes following Nehring 1923: 12-13 obviously does not prove anything and it does not even fit phonologically. 87. κύμβαλον ‘cymbal’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/48; DELG 599; Beekes 2010: 801-802). A derivation from Hittite GIŠḫuḫupal- was suggested by Yakubovich 2010: 147; Gasbarra – Pozza 2012: 190-191; and Hajnal 2014: 110 and in press. There are three problems that all exclude this derivation: first, the unexplained dereduplication. Second, the /mb/ instead of the /b/, where Hajnal’s explanation, “(pre)Mycenaean /mb/ for /b/”, is not supported by any other example and it is problematic from the chronological point of view as well: any Greek – Hittite contacts in pre-Mycenaean times are implausible. Third, the meaning of the Hittite word has not been determined clearly yet, there are arguments both for ‘Laute?’ (Schuol 2004: 108-110) and for ‘Klapper?, Trommel?’ (HW2 s.v.), none of them fitting the meaning of the Greek word. 88. κύμβαχος ‘crest of a helmet; falling head-first’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/48; DELG 599; Beekes 2010: 801). The semantics and the formation point to an inner-Greek derivation in case of the meaning ‘falling head-first’, cf. οὐρίαχος ‘end of a spear’, στόμαχος 49 GEW I/911; DELG 561-562; Beekes 2010: 745; Rosół 2013: 183. 50 GEW II/30; DELG 589; Beekes 2010: 788; Rosół 2013: 184. 51 Since Goetze 1947: 307-311; including DELG 594; GEW II/37 (but see Beekes 2010: 793 “perhaps”, although without arguments; also rejected by Hajnal in press [migrant cultural words]), also followed e.g. by Szemerényi 1958: 61, 1974: 153; Mayer 1960: 82 (implicitly); Heubeck 1961: 80; Joseph 1982: 231; Morpurgo Davies 1986: 106; Woodard 1997: 38; Sh. Hawkins 2010: 225; Yakubovich 2010: 147; Gasbarra, Pozza 2012: 197-198; possible according to García Ramón 2011: 31 n. 16. Anatolian influences on Greek 397 ‘throat <*end of the mouth’ from κύμβη ‘head’ (Beekes 2010: 801, 802; cf. also GEW II/49). While this could be applied for the meaning ‘crest of a helmet’ as well, a derivation from Hittite kupaḫi- ‘headgear, headcloth’ (or a closely related form) was suggested by Szemerényi 1965: 1-6, 1970: 425 n. 44, 1974: 153 (as well as Brown 1965: 213 n. 7), who distinguishes between two homonymous roots, and accepted by many scholars,52 although not quoted by the Greek etymological dictionaries. Set aside that the semantic connection is not immediately obvious, the /mb/ instead of the /b/ is irregular, and no proposal could explain it until now: Szemerényi’s suggestion, a Greek “dissimilatorische Geminatenauflösung” into a nasal and a stop (followed by Gasbarra – Pozza 2012: 191-192, 2013: 187) does not work, since the consonant is not written geminated (Szemerényi’s “kūbaḫi- or kubbaḫi-” is highly misleading, since the spelling “kubbaḫi-” is fictional, cf. Puhvel 1997: 257). Hajnal’s “(pre)Mycenaean /mb/ for /b/” (similarly Meissner 2013: 23) is neither supported by any other example nor viable chronologically (at least as a pre-Mycenaean sound substitution as Greek – Hittite contacts can be safely excluded at that time). Puhvel’s phonological suggestion, an “intrusive nasal” on the analogy of Anatolian Greek καμβειν ‘grandchild’ from Hittite kappi- ‘small’ (1997: 258, quoted also by Szemerényi as per above) does not work either, since the derivation in this form is false (cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 439). 89. ϰύμινδις, -ιος, -ιδος ‘great spotted cuckoo (Clamator glandarius)’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/49; DELG 599; Beekes 2010: 802), on the meaning see Herzhoff 2000. The consonant cluster -nd- does not necessarily point to an Anatolian (not to mention Lydian or Carian) word53 and also Beekes’s cautious guess (“perhaps” Anatolian) cannot be supported by any Anatolian evidence as of yet. Starke apud Herzhoff 2000: 290 n. 63 provided an impeccable formal analysis (Luwian *kummiyant(i)-), but rightly pointed out that the implied meaning (‘Heiliges habend’) is not conducive to a bird name. Nevertheless, Sh. Hawkins 2013: 153-154 takes this possibility seriously.54 90. ϰύμῑνον ‘cumin’: Probably a Semitic loanword.55 Grimme 1925: 19 suggests a Hittite transmission, but it is not necessary and there is no evidence for that. 91. κυπάρισσος ‘cypress’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/50; DELG 600; Beekes 2010: 804). A Hittite transmission (suggested by Grimme 1925: 18) is not necessary and there is no evidence for that. 92. ϰύπασσις, -εως ‘a (short) frock, also worn by women’: Since in the sources it is connected both with Lydians and Persians (Gow 1955: 238-239), its origin is ambiguous, contra GEW II/50; DELG 600; Beekes 2010: 804, each of which consider it Anatolian (as well as Lambertz 1914: 5 n. 3; Sayce apud Buckler 1924: 88). As all dictionaries rightly point out, the “schlagende Ähnlichkeit” / “striking agreement” with Hittite kupaḫi- (proposed as etymon with sound substitution by von Blumenthal 1930: 27-30, followed by Brandenstein 1954b: 17) is contradicted by the completely different meaning, which is ‘headgear, headcloth’, (cf. 52 Furnée 1972: 273, 284; Yakubovich 2010: 147; Gasbarra, Pozza 2012: 191-192, 2013: 186-189; cautiously Cardona 1968 (leaves the question open); Tischler 1977-1983: 640 (“fraglich” but “ansprechend”) and Hajnal 2014: 111 and in press; cf. also Meissner 2013: 23 (“unklar”). 53 Contra Kretschmer 1924: 266, 1930: 10-11, 1947: 14-15; Heubeck 1949-1950: 210; GEW; DELG; Sh. Hawkins 2013: 153-154; cf. also Lambertz 1914: 5 n. 3. 54 On the Anatolian origin of No. 89 see now also Oreshko 2013, with ad hoc sound changes. 55 GEW II/49; DELG 599; Beekes 2010: 802; Rosół 2013: 55-56. 398 Zsolt Simon also s.v. κύμβαχος). Due to this and to the phonological obstacles this proposal was rightly rejected by many scholars.56 93. κύπελλον ‘bulbous drinking vessel, beaker, goblet’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/51; DELG 600; Beekes 2010: 804). A derivation from Hittite kukupalla- ‘a vessel’ was entertained by Gasbarra – Pozza 2012: 191; Hajnal 2014 and in press, which is not possible due to the unexplained dereduplication as well as the unexplained -π- instead of the /b/. Another derivation from Cuneiform Luwian and Hittite ḫupalla/i- ‘skull, scalp’ was proposed by Hajnal 2014: 111 and in press, although the Greek word should be †κύμβελλον according to his own rule, see s.vv. κύμβαχος and κύμβαλον.57 While the change in the vocalism might be explained (see the frequently quoted case of Apaša / Ephesos), the problem of the consonantism remains as well as that of the semantics: while making drinking cups from the skull of the defeated enemy is not unknown in history, this hardly could be extended to support the assumed semantic change. Although one may assume that the Anatolian words first meant a kind of a vessel (cf. Latin testa > French tête), this does not solve the phonological problem. 94. ϰυρβασία ‘name of a Persian hat with a pointed crown’: Of unknown or of Persian origin.58 Grošelj 1954: 172 derived it from Hittite kurpiši- ‘(part of a) helmet’ (the possibility of Anatolian transmission from Iranian was acknowledged by Puhvel 1997: 289 too), but the correct form and meaning of the Hittite word is gurz/šip(p)-ant- ‘gorgeted, wearing a hauberk’ (Speiser 1950: 48-49; Puhvel 1997: 287), thus, as Brust 2005: 372 rightly points out, the comparison does not fit either semantically or formally. 95. ϰυρήβια, -ίων ‘husks, bran’ (n. pl.): Of unknown origin (GEW II/53; DELG 601; Beekes 2010: 806). A derivation from Hittite kurimpa- ‘dregs, sediment’ was assumed by Neumann 1974b: 436 (following Furnée 1972: 271, who, however, proposed a common substrate in this case), cautiously followed by Tischler 1977-1983: 647 [“vielleicht”] and Puhvel 1997: 265 [“possible”]), but rejected by Beekes without arguments (“there seems little reaon [sic] for it”). Nevertheless, the connection does not work either semantically or phonologically (note the <η> and the unexplained loss of the /m/). 96. ϰύρτος ‘weel, lobster-pot; bird-cage’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/55-56; DELG 603; Beekes 2010: 808). Furnée 1972: 258 derived this word from Hittite kurtal(li)- ‘container of wood or wicker-work’, which, however, does not fit semantically (“unwahrscheinlich”, according to Tischler 1977-1983: 663, but without arguments). 97. κυσέρη ‘πυθμήν, χάσμα’: Of unknown origin (not included in the Greek etymological dictionaries). Furnée 1972: 252, 257 derived it from Hittite ḫuššelli- ‘pit, dump’. This is possible, but the change /l/ > /r/ requires a Luwian transmission, where this change (the so-called rhotacism) is regular (Melchert 2003: 179-182). However, since this is a Hesychian gloss only, it cannot be excluded that we are dealing with the transcription of a local word and not with borrowing. 98. κῶας ‘soft, hairy animal skin; fleece’ (Myc. ko-wo-): Of unknown origin (GEW II/59; DELG 604; Beekes 2010: 811-812). Sayce 1893: 118 suggested that this is a loanword 56 Heubeck 1961: 81 with n. 10; Neumann 1961: 19 (without arguments, but followed by Szemerényi 1965: 4 n. 15); O. Masson 1962: 125 n. 3 (who still maintains an unidentifiable Anatolian origin); Gasbarra, Pozza 2012: 192, 2013: 186 n. 7; cf. also Tischler 1977-1983: “fraglich”. 57 Also Gasbarra, Pozza 2012: 191 reject this etymology since in their views, a kappa cannot reflect the initial laryngeal, which is, however, not the case, see Simon 2014: 885-886 and here s.v. καβάλλης. 58 GEW II/53 and DELG 601, but Beekes 2010: 806, resp.; for the most recent critical discussion see Brust 2005: 369-373. Anatolian influences on Greek 399 from Carian, which has a similar word preserved in the gloss κοῖον / κόον ‘sheep, (small) cattle’ and the same hypothesis was put forward by Bossert 1952-1953b: 316 (with a question mark, followed by Tischler 1977-1983: 230) as well, not referring to Sayce (the Greek etymological dictionaries do not mention this proposal). This is definitely possible, see the detailed discussion in Simon (forthcoming-a) with refs. 99. ϰώρυϰος ‘leather sack’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/64; DELG 607; Beekes 2010: 816). GEW and DELG entertain the possibility of a loan from Cilicia (with a question mark) based on a homonymous Cilician toponym of unknown meaning (see already Wharton 1882: 77; followed by LEW I/274 [“wohl”]; Bertoldi 1952: 74-75; Tischler 1977-1983: 650: “ansprechend”), which of course does not prove anything. Neumann 1974b: 436 assumed a loanword from Hittite kurk- ‘retain’ (following Furnée 1972: 328 n. 21, who, however, only compared the two words without explaining their relation), but this proposal leaves the formal differences unexplained (especially -ρυϰ- vs. -rk-). 100. λαβύρινθος (Myc. da-pu2-ri-to-) ‘labyrinth’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/67; DELG 610-611; Beekes 2010: 819). As Yakubovich 2002: 107 and Beekes rightly point out that the traditional connection with λάβρυς (Lydian for ‘axe’, see e.g. Kretschmer 1940: 244; Heubeck 1961: 25) is speculative – so is Beekes’s cautious suggestion to connect this word to the Carian god “Δαβραυνδος” (sic, similarly GEW, recte Λάβραυνδος). This Lydian connection is excluded by the /d/ of the Mycenaean form as well. 101. λάγιον ‘kind of cup or vessel’, λάγῡνος ‘flask with a small neck’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/69; DELG 611; Beekes 2010: 820). Mayer 1960: 81; Pisani 1960: 249-250; and Puhvel 2001: 7 derive it from Hittite lāḫanni- ‘a bottle or pitcher’ (“p[eut]-ê[tre]”, according to DELG; Tischler 1990: 7 cautiously [“dürfte”, with question mark] entertains the possibility of a Hittite transmission; Gusmani 1968b: 83-84 treats it both as a Hittite loanword in Greek and as a loanword from a common subtrate). However, the Greek words cannot originate from the Hittite word as their Auslauts are incompatible (thus with Gasbarra – Pozza 2013: 182-185). 102. λέσχη ‘lounge’: Probably of Semitic origin.59 However, it was explained as an Anatolian loanword by Schrader 1911: 469 (also assumed by Furnée 1972: 257 n. 36; Beekes 2010: 850), but no similar Anatolian word is attested yet. The l/n change observed in the cognate Hebrew word liškāh / niškāh (isolated in the Semitic languages) does not necessarily point to an Anatolian word (contra Beekes 2010: 850), because it may represent Hurrian transmission as well since Hurrian had no liquids in initial position (Giorgieri 2000: 185 n. 42; Wilhelm 2004: 99; Hazenbos 2005: 138) and seems to substitute /l/ regularly with /n/ (Simon forthcoming-b). 103. μαῦλις ‘large knife; procuress’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/186; DELG 672; Beekes 2010: 914-915). Jongkees 1938 derived it from a reconstructed Lydian word *mav-lis ‘belonging to *Mavś [the Lydian mother goddess]’, accepted by GEW and Beekes (cf. also Lambertz 1914: 5 n. 3). Nevertheless, Beekes adds a question mark following the rejection of O. Masson 1962: 179 based on the semantics and because the Lydian word and the theonym (at least in the supposed form) do not exist (followed also by DELG 672 and Sh. Hawkins 2013: 187-188, who still entertain the possibility that this is a Lydian loanword, for which, however, there is no evidence). 59 Rosół 2013: 60-62 contra the Indo-European etymology of GEW II/108 and DELG 632, see also Beekes 2010: 859. 400 Zsolt Simon 104. μίμαρϰυς, -υος ‘hare-soup, jugged hare’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/238; DELG 702; Beekes 2010: 953). Neumann 1961: 85-86 suggests a derivation from Hittite mārk-/ mark- ‘to divide, cut up, butcher’ with regular reduplication with the meaning “wiederholt zerschneiden, in kleine Stücke schneiden” (accepted by Tischler 1990: 137 [“könnte”, but also “wahrscheinlich”]). There are both phonological and morphological problems with this suggestion: the Hittite word seems to have a voiced stop (Kloekhorst 2008: 558-559) and the reduplication with -i- requires the zero-grade of the root, whereby it is unclear, what the Greek sound substitution would have been (note also that the exact meaning of this type of reduplication is unclear, although the “iterative” or “intensive” value is indeed attested, for all this see Hoffner – Melchert 2008: 174 with refs.). 105. μίσυ, -υος, -έως ‘copper ore; ruffle’: Of unknown origin (DELG 706; Beekes 2010: 958; not included in GEW). Neumann 1989: 94-95 (who distinguishes two homonyms) derives the word for ‘copper ore’ from a reconstructed Hittite-Luwian (most probably Cilician) *mis-u- ‘glänzend’ from *mis- ‘flimmern, glänzen’ attested in Hittite as miš-ri-want- ‘hell, glänzend’ (accepted by Egetmeyer 2010: 264). Although this is a traditional translation, the Hittite word probably does not mean ‘brilliant, splendid’, but ‘complete, full, perfect’ (CHD M 297-299; see also Kloekhorst 2008: 582) and the Proto-Indo-European root does not mean ‘to shimmer’ – but ‘die Augen aufschlagen’ (LIV2 429), thus this etymology cannot be supported. Note also that this is a Cypriote word and thus a local substrate cannot be excluded. 106. μνῴα (var. μνωΐα, μνοΐα) ‘name of the serfs in Crete’: Of unknown origin (GEW I/403, II/247; DELG 289-290, 707; Beekes 2010: 960). The new definition of the meaning of the Carian word mno- as ‘a person in personal dependency’ by Schürr 2013 allows the possibility of a Carian loanword, see the detailed discussion in Simon (forthcoming-a). 107. μόλυβδος (Myc. mo-ri-wo-do- /moliwdo-/) ‘lead’: Held to be of unknown origin (GEW II/251-252; DELG 710), but nowadays the cautious suggestion of Melchert 2008 (cf. 2014b: 70: “far more speculative”), a derivation from Lydian mariwda- ‘*dark’, is generally accepted.60 However, Schürr apud Gander 2015: 484 n. 191 rightly pointed out that Mariwdais a theonym and thus it could not have been borrowed in the meaning ‘lead’. 108. νάρδος ‘spikenard’: Of Semitic origin.61 A Hittite transmission (suggested by Grimme 1925: 16) is not necessary and there is no evidence for that. 109. νίτρον ‘sodium carbonate, soda, natron’: Obviously an Oriental loanword, but its exact source is undetermined.62 The stem vowel is paralleled only in Akkadian nit(i)ru (which is, however, too late, Standard Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian only, cf. CAD s.v.) and in Hittite nitri- ‘natron’ (derived from this by Grimme 1925: 19: Laroche 1955: xxxii-xxxiii), which, however, shows a different stem. Furthermore, since the vocalism of the Egyptian word ntr( j), from which all these words originate, is unknown, it cannot be excluded either.63 110. ὄβρυζα / βρύζα ‘assaying of gold’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/346; DELG 772; Beekes 2010: 1043-1044). Benveniste 1953: 125-126, 1962: 130-131; Laroche 1973: xix explained 60 E.g. Beekes 2010: 964-965; Sh. Hawkins 2010: 225; Yakubovich 2010: 113-114; García Ramón 2011: 29 n. 11; Hajnal 2014: 111 and in press. 61 GEW II/289; DELG 735; Beekes 2010: 996; Rosół 2013: 75-76. 62 GEW II/321; DELG 755; Beekes 2010: 1022; Rosół 2013: 133-134. 63 Laroche 1955: xxxiii attributes the Attic form νίτρον to the n > l change observed in “Hittite, Hurrian, etc.”. Although the traditional assumption of dissimilation (Rosół 2013: 134 with refs.) is indeed not plausible phonetically, Hittite and Hurrian influences can also be safely excluded, since there is no synchronic n > l in Hittite and Hurrian does not have initial liquids (see s.v. λέσχη). Anatolian influences on Greek 401 it from Hittite ḫuprušḫi- ‘name of a pot’ (accepted by Householder – Nagy 1972: 774 and positively quoted by Neumann 1961: 20 [“erwägenswert”] and DELG 772 [“plausible”]; Gusmani 1968b: 83-84 treats it both as a Hittite loanword in Greek and as a loanword from a common substrate), but it was rightly rejected by GEW II/346 and Puhvel 1991a: 395-396 on semantic grounds (see the definition by HW2 s.v.: ‘ein Kultgerät (Wohl Räuchergefäß/schale/-pfanne oder Räucherständer/-altar’), to which one should also add the unsolved phonological problems (the unexplained loss of the initial laryngeal and the unparalleled sound substitution of -šḫ-: Benveniste’s solution, a sound substitution ’ubrus’i is clearly ad hoc and does not even solve the problems).64 111. οἶνος ‘wine’: Inherited (Beekes 2010: 1059 contra GEW II/365; DELG 785). Sayce The Anatolian assumption of Sayce 1922: 19 and Heubeck 1961: 80 (cautiously) is not supported by the formally different Anatolian words (Hittite wiyan- ‘wine, Cuneiform Luwian winiya- ‘of wine’, Hieroglyphic Luwian wi(ya)n(i)- ‘wine’, Kloekhorst 2008: 1012). 112. ὀπήδος ‘attendant, companion’: Greek derivation (GEW I/402; DELG 807; Beekes 2010: 1090). The early derivation from Hittite ḫapati- ‘servant’65 is false, since the Hittite word means ‘river land’ (HW2 s.v., cf. already Tischler 1977-1983: 164, Puhvel 1991a: 120; followed by Beekes 2010: 1090).66 113. παλάθη ‘cake made of preserved fruits’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/464; DELG 851; Beekes 2010: 1144). A Hittite transmission (suggested by Grimme 1925: 17) is not necessary and there is no evidence for that (rejected also by DELG). 114. παλλακή ‘concubine’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/468-469; DELG 853-854; Beekes 2010: 1147). A Hittite transmission (suggested by Grimme 1925: 18) is not necessary and there is no evidence for that. 115. πάλμυς, -υδος, -υν ‘king’: A well-known loanword from Lydian qaλmλu- since Danielsson 1917: 22-23.67 116. πάρδαλις, -ιος, -εως ‘panther, leopard’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/473; DELG 857; Beekes 2010: 1152). Furnée 1972: 252 suggests Anatolian origin based on Hittite paršana ‘dto’, which, however, does not fit phonologically (Hoffmann 1949: 253 assumes a non-Indo-European Anatolian source, without any details). 117. πέλεκυς ‘axe, double-axe, hatchet’: Inherited (GEW II/497; DELG 875; Beekes 2010: 1167). A Hittite transmission (suggested by Grimme 1925: 18) is not necessary and there is no evidence for that. 118. πεσσóς ‘the oval stone in board games’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/519; DELG 890; Beekes 2010: 1180). A Hittite transmission (suggested by Grimme 1925: 18) is not necessary and there is no evidence for that. 64 Also rejected by Hajnal in press as migrant cultural words. In an earlier article, where Puhvel complained about the lack of “reasonable standards of etymological rigor” (see s.v. ἴχώρ), he accepted this proposal (1965: 86). 65 Sapir 1934 (or from another “Asianic” language); followed by Brandenstein 1954b: 17; cautiously Krahe 1939: 184 (“mag”); rejected by Pedersen 1938: 189 (with wrong arguments). 66 Earlier rejections were based on the assumption that the word can be explained as an internal Greek derivation (for references see Tischler 1977-1983: 183). Cf. also Neumann 1961: 19 (phonologically and semantically problematic). 67 GEW II/470; DELG 854; Beekes 2010: 1148, add now e.g. Sh. Hawkins 2010: 225, 2013: 188-190; Melchert 2014b: 70. 402 Zsolt Simon 119. πήρα ‘leather bag, knapsack’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/530; DELG 898; Beekes 2010: 1187). Bertoldi 1952: 75 assumes Anatolian origin based on a homonymous Pisidian toponym (not mentioned by the Greek dictionaries), which, of course, does not prove anything. 120. πλαίσιον ‘long quadrangle, rectangle, rectangular frame’: A loan from Lydian bλaso ‘ein Teil der Grabanlage’ (Gusmani 1964: 83), see Beekes 2010: 1201 for a phonological explanation (of unknown origin according to GEW II/549 and DELG 909). 121. πρατήνιον ‘designation of goats of certain age’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/591; DELG 935; Beekes 2010: 1230). Solmsen 1909: 140-141 assumes an Anatolian origin due to the variant spelling, but there is no evidence for that (DELG adds a question mark). 122. πρῖνος ‘holm-oak, kermes oak’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/595; DELG 938; Beekes 2010: 1234). According to GEW and Beekes the Carian toponym Πρινασσός points to an Anatolian origin (which would fit both semantically and morphologically), but the meaning of the toponym is unknown. 123. πρύτανις ‘title of a leading official’: Of unknown origin (GEW I/607; DELG 944; Beekes 2010: 1243). Heubeck’s comparison with the Lydian personal name Brdun- (1961: 6768, 80) does not prove anything. Linderski 1962: 158-159 explained it from Hattian puri ‘lord’, admittedly without being able to explain the formal differences (as well as the geographical-historical distances). Moreover, such a Hattian word is not attested until now (Linderski did not provide references, thus one can only guess that he meant wuur ‘land’, the only similar word, cf. Soysal 2004: 304, 324-325). Szemerényi 1974: 154 derived it from Hittite ḫuburtan-uri- ‘an official’, whose stem, *ḫuburtan- “seems to have been taken over as οπορταν- / οπροταν- or οπυρταν- / οπρυταν-, and by deglutination the ‘article’ gave” this word (not mentioned by Beekes). The ad hoc nature of this proposal is self-evident. 124. πύργος ‘tower, wall-tower’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/630; DELG 958; Beekes 2012: 1262). The suggested connection with Hittite parku- ‘high, tall, lofty, elevated’ (Heubeck 1961: 63-65) does not fit phonologically (the first vowel), morphologically (stem) and semantically. According to Beekes 2010: 1262, Urartian burgana- ‘palace’ may point to an Anatolian origin, but the different morphology and meanings remain unexplained. 125. σάκκος ‘bag (made of goat hair)’: Of Semitic origin (GEW II/672; DELG 985; Beekes 2010: 1302). Bertoldi 1952 proposes Cilician origin based on its phonetic shape and the alleged origin of ϰώρυϰος ‘leather sack’ and πήρα ‘leather bag, knapsack’, but all of these arguments are mistaken (for these words see s.vv.). 126. σάνδαλον ‘sandal’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/675; DELG 987; Beekes 2010: 1305). Many scholars assume an Anatolian, perhaps Lydian origin,68 but as Sh. Hawkins 2013: 154-155 rightly points out, no attested Anatolian word supports this idea. Eisler and Kretschmer explain the word as a reference to the shoes of an important local god called Sanda, which is ingenious and formally fitting, but cannot be verified. 127. σαπέρδης, -ου ‘name of a fish from the Nile and the Black Sea (among others)’: Probably a loanword from Egyptian (Beekes 2010: 1307; of unknown origin according to GEW II/677; DELG 987). Grošelj 1957: 43 connected it with the Lydian personal name Sapa-ar-da-a-a, but Beekes 2010: 1307 rightly pointed out that there is no indication for any connection (note that the name is probably to be read as /Spardaya-/, i.e. ‘Sardean’ and thus it has nothing to do with this fish name either semantically or formally). 68 Lambertz 1914: 5 n. 3; Eisler 1910: 166 n. 3; Kretschmer 1927: 270; Broger 1996: 113. Anatolian influences on Greek 403 128. σάφα ‘surely, certainly, definitely’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/684; DELG 991; Beekes 2010: 1314). Szemerényi 1974: 154 derives it from Hittite šuppi- ‘(ritually) clean’ explaining the vocalism with Neo-Hittite Sapalulme instead of Šuppiluliuma and Panyassis from *punV- (Beekes does not quote him). There is, however, in general no evidence for an u > a change in the Anatolian languages. As for Szemerényi’s examples, Sapalulme is the Neo-Assyrian rendering of the Luwian name, where a distortion cannot be excluded and Panyassis shows a stem *panV-, which is not identical with punV- (cf. Adiego 2007: 337-338). 129. σῑγαλóεις ‘brilliant, gleaming vel sim.’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/701-702; DELG 1001; Beekes 2010: 1327-1328). Szemerényi 1969: 243-245, 1974: 153 explains it from Hittite šeḫelli- ‘(ritually) clean’ (DELG: “compliquée”, with question mark; Beekes does not mention it). The idea is definitely possible as far as semantics and the consonants are concerned (for the substitution of the laryngeal see Simon 2014: 885-886), but the inconsequent rendering of the vowels is problematic. Note that the Hittite word is of Hurrian origin (Tischler 2006: 970), which provides another possibility for the origin of the Greek word. 130. σίγλος ‘weight and coin’: Of Semitic origin.69 A Hittite transmission (suggested by Grimme 1925: 16) is not necessary and there is no evidence for that. 131. σίδη ‘pomegranate (tree)’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/703; DELG 1002; Beekes 2010: 1329). Prellwitz 1892: 284 suggested that this word is of Carian origin, but nothing supports this idea. An Anatolian origin was proposed by Hofmann 1949: 312 (followed by Brandenstein 1958: 86) and Carnoy 1959: 226. Witczak – Zadka 2014a: 118-119 suggest that the Greek word is a borrowing from a non-Hittite Anatolian language: Hittite GIŠšaddu(wa)would be a loanword from Luwian *sadwa- reflecting Anatolian *sedg wa-, whose other reflex, *sedwa- would have been borrowed as *σίδβᾱ or *σίδϝᾱ leading to σίβδᾱ, σίδᾱ (with the well-known /i/ ~ /e/ change in Greek). However, this reconstruction is basically wrong, since the geminate spelling in Hittite points to a voiceless consonant. Nevertheless, their suggestion can be improved: a Proto-Anatolian *sédwa- leads regulary to Luwian *saddu(wa)- by Čop’s Law (see most recently Kloekhorst 2006a, 2014: 567-585), which, then could be the source of the Hittite word and a non-Luwian Anatolian language that preserved *sedwa- or changed to *sidwa- that could indeed lead to σίδη.70 At this juncture attention must be paid to the Sidetic name of the city of Side preserved on her coins (S 10), i.e. Sidua(cf. Pérez Orozco 2003: 105-106), that shows a perfect formal identity. Thus we have a formally fitting solution, but one must point out that the meaning of the Hittite word cannot be precisely determined (‘a type of tree/woody plant’, CHD s.v.), thus this etymology is only a possibility. 132. σίλβη ‘a kind of cake made of barley, sesame and poppy’: Neumann 1961: 98 cautiously compared it as an “Anklang” to Hittite šiluḫa- ‘a kind of cake’ (“auffallend” according to GEW II/705, but of unknown origin in DELG 1003; accepted by Sh. Hawkins 2010: 225), which is obviously not possible phonologically, thus he (apud Tischler 2006: 1039) later identified the immediate source in šiluwa- / šiliwa- ‘a kind of cake’ (also Beekes 2010: 1330, without quoting this late addition).71 Nevertheless, Beekes 2010: 1330 comments that the -β- is difficult to reconcile with the Hittite forms. Witczak – Zadka 2014a: 117, however, 69 GEW II/702; DELG 1002; Beekes 2010: 1328; Rosół 2013: 94-95. 70 It remains open if this reconstruction can explain σίβδᾱ. Based on the analogy of /moliwdo-/ > μόλυβδος (see s.v.) one expects *siwda-, but one can only speculate how to explain *siwdo- from *sidwa-. 71 Neumann apud Tischler 2006: 1037, 1039 also suggests that šiluwa- / šiliwa- is the Luwian cognate of Hittite šiluḫa- (and thus the Greek form would reflect a Luwian word), since it shows the loss of the la- 404 Zsolt Simon duly note that it renders the Hittite phoneme /w/, since we are dealing with a late gloss of Hesychius (for the same prolem see s.v. σϰύβαλον). Exactly for the same reason, however, we cannot be sure that we are dealing with a loanword and not with the transcription of a local word. 133. σινδών, -όνος ‘fine woven cloth, fine linen, garment; blanket, etc. made thereof’: Generally held to be of Semitic or of Egyptian origin.72 There is no evidence for the suggestion of an Anatolian origin by Beekes 2010: 1333-1334 (with question mark). 134. σκελετóς ‘dried up body, mummy, skeleton’: Internally derived (GEW II/722; DELG 1012; Beekes 2010: 1345). A Hittite transmission (suggested by Grimme 1925: 17) is not necessary and there is no evidence for that. 135. σϰύβαλον ‘waste, offal, refuse, muck’: Of uncertain origin (GEW II/740; DELG 1022; Beekes 2010: 1360). Neumann 1961: 90-91 compared it to Hittite išḫuwai- ‘to throw, scatter, pour’ (Tichler 1977-1983: 394: “denkbar”), but Beekes 2010: 1360 prefers a Pre-Greek solution comparing it with ϰύπελλα ‘whatever dough and bread is left over on the table’. While ϰύπελλα provides only superficial similarities (note the differences in the consonants), a non-Hittite Anatolian form *šḫuwai- provides a perfect match considering that Anatolian /w/ could have been rendered with beta from the Hellenistic period onwards and this word is attested exactly only from this period onwards (cf. Neumann 1961: 90 n. 1, for the same problem see s.v. σίλβη). The immediate Anatolian source cannot be identified more precisely, since neither the phonology nor the morphology is specific enough: even if Lydian also had a prothetic /i/ in case of *#sC-, which is not clear (see the discussion in Melchert 1994: 371), the Luwic languages (here without Sidetic) and Palaic still remain as candidates. There are several possibilities to explain the morphology of the word in all candidate languages, the semantically most straightforward way is the Luwian (and probably Luwic) suffix -al- forming abstract nouns from verbs (Melchert 2003: 197, note that the -i- disappears in suffixed forms according to the Hittite cognates). Since, however, other Luwic languages (first of all Carian) are by far not that amply attested, the word cannot be attributed unambiguously to Luwian. 136. σμίνθος ‘mouse’: Of Pre-Greek or Anatolian origin (GEW II/750; Beekes 2010: 1369), but there is no reason to doubt the scholiast to Iliad A 39 that this word is Mysian (DELG 1028). 137. σόλος ‘iron mass, used as a discus’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/753; DELG 1030; Beekes 2010: 1372). Laroche 1973: xix suggested a derivation from Hittite šulāi-/šūliya- ‘lead’, which is although plausible, must remain dubious since the vocalism (note the plene spelling with <ú> in IBoT 3.98+ 9 and KUB 28.82 i 23 pointing to /u/, cf. most recently Kloekhorst 2008: 35-60, 2014: 510-519) and the different stems also require explanation (Egetmeyer 2010: 301-302 cautiosly (“peut-être”) suggests rather a common borrowing from a third language). 138. σπατάλη ‘lavish, lascivious way of life, debauchery, luxury; adornment, bracelet, anklet’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/759; DELG 1033; Beekes 2010: 1377). Neumann 1961: 88-89 explained it from Hittite *išpatalla- ‘who gladly and often eats to the full’ from the verb išpai-/išpi- ‘to get full, to be satiated’ (followed by Jucquois 1972: 107; rejected by GEW [without arguments] and by Beekes, because the latter prefers the comparison ryngeal before /w/, a typical Luwian trait (accepted by Tischler). Nevertheless, the reconstructed *šilu/ iḫwa- can hardly be reconciled with Hittite šiluḫa- from a morphological point of view. 72 GEW II/708; DELG 1005; Beekes 2010: 1333-1334 (sceptical due to the formal differences); Rosół 2013: 205. Anatolian influences on Greek 405 with βάταλος ‘lascivious man’). Although the lack of prothetic -i- could be explained by a non-Luwian form, the proposed suffix shows voiceless allomorph only after an -šk- suffix (Hoffner – Melchert 2008: 53). 139. στλεγγίς, -ίδος ‘scraper for scraping off oil and dust, curry-comb’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/800; DELG 1057; Beekes 2010: 1407). Neumann 1961: 94-65 cautiously (“vielleicht”) derived it from Hittite ištalk- ‘to level, flatten’ (cautiously followed by Furnée 1972: 331, 351 n. 50; GEW II /800 with question mark; Tischler 1977-1983: 422). He assumes a nomen agentis *ištalkiš and quotes an alleged Lycian sound law (*a > e) to explain the vocalism (the <e> of his examples, however, goes back to *o, Kloekhorst 2008: 191, 198) and entertains the possibility of separate borrowings due to the high number of existing variants (στλι/αγγίς, στελγ(γ)ίς, στελεγγίς etc.). Set aside the prothetic /i/ that can be explained by the borrowing of a non-Hittite (and non-Sidetic and perhaps non-Lydian, as per above) form and the suffix -id- that may reflect the homonymous Luwian or Luwic suffix (cf. Melchert 2003: 198), the phonological differencies are unexplained: although one can see in στελγ(γ)ίς and στελεγγίς (as well as in the obviously later forms στεγγίς, στρεγγίς, στεργίς) solutions to the initial stl-, which is very rare in Greek (LSJ includes only one more word), there is no explanation for the variation of the vowel in the root syllable (στλε/ι/αγγίς) and for the “intrusive” /n/. 140. συλάω ‘to strip off (the armour), take away, rob, plunder, seize’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/820; DELG 1070; Beekes 2010: 1422). Pisani 1959: 145 suggests a Lydian origin, but there is no evidence for a similar word from the admittedly small Lydian corpus. 141. σφενδόνη ‘sling; throw, missile’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/830; DELG 1076; Beekes 2010: 1430). According to Beekes (cf. also Pisani 1959: 146), the comparison with Latin funda ‘leather strap, string’ would point to a Mediterranean or Anatolian loanword (rejected by LEW I/563 arguing for an Indo-European origin, cf. also De Vaan 2008: 249), but there is nothing in the Anatolian languages that would support such a suggestion. 142. σῶρυ/ι ‘name of an ore, perhaps ferrous sulphate, melanterite’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/843; DELG 1084; Beekes 2010: 1440). Neumann 1989: 95 n. 6 cautiously derived it from Hittite (:)šuwaru- ‘schwer’ (followed by Sh. Hawkins 2010: 225; “peut-être”, Egetmeyer 2010: 264-165; not mentioned by Beekes). However, the Hittite word means ‘full, complete’ (Kloekhorst 2008: 796 with ref.). 143. ταρχύω ‘to inter’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/859; DELG 1095; Beekes 2010: 1454). Many scholars compared it with the Lycian and Luwian name of the Storm God, Trqqñt- / Tarḫunt- from the verb tarḫu- ‘to overpower’ (Blümel 1926: 82-84; Kretschmer 1939: 104-105, 1950: 548; Heubeck 1949-1950: 214; 1961: 81; not mentioned by Beekes; for the most recent analysis of the divine name see Kloekhorst 2006b: 98), which obviously does not fit semantically (Puhvel 1965: 85-85 rejected this hypothesis due to semantically and formally similar words, which are, however, formally not compatible, e.g. ταρῑχεύω ‘to embalm’). 144. τευθίς ‘kind of cuttlefish’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/886-887; DELG 1110; Beekes 2010: 1474). A Hittite transmission (suggested by Grimme 1925: 17) is not necessary and there is no evidence for that. 145. τιβήν, -ῆνος ‘tripod’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/896; DELG 1116; Beekes 2010: 1481). In view of Furnée 1972: 189, the suffix -ην- points to an Anatolian origin, but this is not necessarily so and no Anatolian word supports this proposal. 406 Zsolt Simon 146. τολύπη ‘a clew of wool or yarn’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/909; DELG 1124; Beekes 2010: 1492). Furnée 1972: 35 n. 33, 340 cautiously derived it from Cuneiform Luwian taluppa/i- ‘lump, clod (of clay and dough)’ so did Melchert 1998: 47-48 (who does not quote Furnée), accepted by Yakubovich 2010: 147; Gasbarra – Pozza 2012: 190; and Hajnal 2014: 111 and in press).73 The word can be derived directly from Luwian (/o/ ~ /a/ changes are cross-linguistically widespread), there is no need to assume a common substrate contra Beekes 2010: xv-xvi, 1492. However, De Decker 2015: 13 rightly points out that also a common inheritance is possible formally. 147. τραγῳδός ‘singer and dancer in the tragic choir, tragic actor’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/917; DELG 1128; Beekes 2010: 1498). Szemerényi 1975: 319-330 suggested a Hittite loanword from *tarkuwant- ‘dancing > dancer’, with Anatolian / Greek metathesis (tar- > tra-) and Hittite contraction (-uwa- > -u-), among others (DELG 1128: “hardie”; not quoted by Beekes). However, the precise form of the Hittite word turned out to be /targ want-/ or /tarkwant-/, without any possibility for contraction (Kloekhorst 2008: 842), thus this proposal must be abandoned. 148. τύβαρις ‘celery pickled in wine vinegar (a Dorian salad)’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/940; DELG 1142; Beekes 2010: 1515). Neumann 1961: 86-87 explained it from Luwian tuwarsa- ‘vine(yard)’ (followed by Sh. Hawkins 2010: 225; rejected by DELG 1142 and Furnée 1972: 262, albeit both without arguments). He explains the different stems with anaptyxis in -rs- > -ris reanalysed as nominative, a clearly ad hoc suggestion. 149. τύμπανον ‘ketttledrum, hand drum’: Of Semitic origin.74 Grimme 1925: 19 and Bănăţeanu 1938: 118-119 (cf. also Furnée 1972: 287) assumed a Hittite or Anatolian loanword, but there is no evidence for that. 150. τύραννος ‘absolute ruler, monarch’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/94; DELG 1146; Beekes 2010: 1520). An Anatolian origin has long been assumed connecting it (more recently) to Luwain tarwani- ‘high official, ruler’75 (rejected by Beekes, without arguments). However, the difference in the vowel of the first syllable is unexplained (see already Hegyi 1965: 318; Heubeck’s explanation [Hieroglyphic Luwian /trwana-/ ~ Lydian *turwana- → τύραννος, 1961: 68-70] is ad hoc in its all steps). 151. τυρβασία ‘a dance associated with the dithyramb’: Generally derived from τύρβη ‘confusion, noise, tumuli’ (GEW II/947; DELG 1146; Beekes 2010: 1520). However, Szemerényi 1975: 328 explained it from Hittite *tarw-ant- ‘dancing’ or *tarw-at- (recte -att-) ‘dance’ (rejected by DELG 1146 without arguments; not mentioned by Beekes). Set aside the formal implausibility of the reconstructed Hittite words (the stem taru- appears only 73 Joseph 1982 (who also did not quote Furnée) tried to explain the Greek word from Hittite tarupp- ‘to collect, to unite’. He explained the different consonantism with sporadic r ~ l changes in Hittite, but his examples are problematic (cf. Melchert 1998: 50). Furthermore, he suggests (231 n. 2) that either the verb was borrowed and then the noun was back-formed (which, however, leaves the meaning of the Greek word unexplained) or that an unattested Anatolian noun was the source (his final suggestion, a borrowed deverbal adjective or participle, does not fit since deverbal adjectives or participles are not attested in Anatolian). Despite these arguments, Melchert 1998 believes that these explanations are “plausible” and tries to connect the two words, but cf. the cautious remark of Kloekhorst 2008: 852. 74 GEW II/945; DELG 1144; Beekes 2010: 1518; Rosół 2013: 101-102. 75 Sayce apud Buckler 1924: 88 (possibly Lydian); Bossert 1927: 652; Hofmann 1949: 379 (Lydian with question mark); Heubeck 1961: 68-70, 80 (possible); Hegyi 1965: 316-318; GEW II/94 (AegeanAnatolian); Yakubovich 2002: 112; 2010: 147; 2013: 119; Uchitel 2007; Giusfredi 2009: 141; Zukerman 2011: col. 465. Anatolian influences on Greek 407 with endings that start in a consonant, Kloekhorst 2008: 844), the /b/ and the /u/ remained unexplained (Szemerényi’s explanation for the /u/, τύραννος from tarwani-, does not work, as it is not a loan from that Luwian word [see s.v.], and even if it were the case, one would get †τυρασία). 152. τύρσις, -ιος, -ιδος ‘tower, keep, turret; palace, castle, fortified town’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/948-949; DELG 1147; Beekes 2010: 1521). Heubeck 1961: 65-66, 80 suggested Anatolian origin, but nothing supports this assumption except of some similar looking toponyms that do not prove anything. 153. ὕβρις, -ιος, -εος, -εως ‘arrogance, haughtiness, exorbitance, violence, offence, abuse’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/954; DELG 1150; Beekes 2010: 1525). Szemerényi 1974: 154 derives it from a Hittite abstract noun *ḫu(wa)ppar ‘maltreatment, outrage’ to the verb ḫuwapp- ‘to be hostile towards, to do evil against’ and entertains the possibility of a Luwian origin due to the -i-stem (cited with question mark by DELG; not quoted by Beekes). Set aside that there was no similar productive abstract suffix in Hittite, this hypothesis is not possible due to the lack of the reflex of the laryngeal, the voiced consonant of the Greek word, and the unexplained syncope in the last syllable (rejected also by Puhvel 1991a: 482, albeit without arguments). 154. ὑλίμη ‘μάχη τις’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/963; DELG 1155; Beekes 2010: 1530). Kronasser 1960 explained it from Hittite *šullima- ‘fight’, a regular but unattested derivative of šulli- ‘to fight, quarrel’ (negatively cited by DELG 1155 (“compliquée”); positively by Beekes 2010: 1530). However, the verb šullē- means ‘to become arrogant’ (Melchert 2004) and requires a borrowing before the Pre-Greek *s > h /#_ change, when hardly any contact is plausible between Pre-Greek and Hittite speakers. 155. ὑσσός ‘javelin’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/975; DELG 1162; Beekes 2010: 1539). Bechtel 1906: 272 derives it from Carian on the basis of the personal names Ὑσσισις, Υσσωλ(λ/δ)ος, Μαυσσωλλος (followed by Sasseville 2014-2015: 110; DELG 1162: “sans preuve”). These (and many similar) Carian names contain in fact the Carian word uśoλ / wśoλ of unknown meaning, where -oλ- is a suffix (cf. Adiego 2007: 330, 344). The lack of initial /h/ in the Carian form rather points to a Carian borrowing from Greek, if they are connected at all. Since the meaning of the Carian word is unknown, this proposal cannot be proven yet (guesses regarding the meaning of the Carian word are abound: ‘year’ [cf. Adiego 2007: 344 n. 16 with question mark and refs.; ‘±blessed’ [Melchert 2013: 41, 44]). 156. ὕσσωπος ‘hyssop’: Of Semitic origin.76 A Hittite transmission (suggested by Grimme 1925: 17) is not necessary and there is no evidence for that. 157. φίλος ‘friend, friendly, dear; related, own; reflexive possessive’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/1019-1020; DELG 1206; Beekes 2010: 1574). Kretschmer 1927 derived it from Lydian bili- ‘his/her’, which does not fit semantically (according to Beekes 2010: 1574, the Lydian word must be explained within Anatolian, which is correct, but does not exclude the possibility of a Greek borrowing from Lydian). 158. χαλϰός ‘ore, copper, bronze’: Of unknown origin (GEW II/1070-1071; DELG 1244; Beekes 2010: 1612). Pisani 1966: 46 derived it from Hittite ḫapalki- ‘iron’, assuming “una forma di abbreviazione interna” (?!) or a transmitting languge, where “/p/” (recte /b/) could have diasppeared. This is “sachlich verlockend” / “tempting” according to GEW and Beekes (Tischler 1977-1983: 161: “kann”; Puhvel 1991a: 118: “possibly” as “internally compressed” 76 GEW II/975; DELG 1162; Beekes 2010: 1539; Rosół 2013: 102-104. 408 Zsolt Simon [?!]; but “peu convaincante” according to DELG 1242), and both would explain the differences by the borrowing process. Note, however, that Greek phonotactics do not require the loss of the entire (and from a Greek point of view, entirely regular) syllable <-pa-> / <-ap-> (thus rejected also by Gasbarra – Pozza 2012: 192-193). Also the suggestion of Dussaud 1953: 161-162, a loan from the Urartian theonym Ḫaldi (DELG 1244: “vague”), does not explain the semantic and formal differences. 159. χλαῖνα ‘upper garment, cloak’: from Lycian, see R. Garnier: Étymologie du gr. χλαῖνα: un mot louvite en grec? Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2017/2: 9092 (Nr. 51). Bibliography Abbreviations CAD = Gelb I.J. et al. (eds), (1956-2010): The Assyrian Dictionary of The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago. CHD = Güterbock H.G., Hoffner H.A., van den Hout T.P.J. (eds), (1980–): The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago. DELG = Chantraine P. (1968-1980): Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grec. Histoire des mots. Paris. EAGLL = Giannakis G.K. (ed.) (2014): Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics I-III. Leiden – Boston. EIEC = Mallory J.P., Adams D.Q. (eds), (1997): Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. London – Chicago. GEW = Frisk H. (1960-1972): Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch 1–3. Heidelberg. HW2 = Friedrich J. et al. (1975–): Hethitisches Wörterbuch. Zweite, völlig neubearbeitete Auflage auf der Grundlage der edierten hethitischen Texte. Heidelberg. KEWA = Mayrhofer M. (1953-1980): Kurzgefaßtes etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen 1-3. Heidelberg. LEW = Walde A. (1938–1954): Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 3. neubearbeitete Auflage von J.B. Hofmann. Heidelberg. LfGrE = Snell B. (ed.) (1955-2010): Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos 1-4. Göttingen. LIV2 = Rix, Helmut et al. (2001): Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. 2., erweiterte und verbesserte Auflage, bearbeitet von Martin J. Kümmel und Helmut Rix. Wiesbaden. LSJ = Liddell H.G., Scott R. (1996): A Greek–English Lexicon. 9th edtion. Oxford. Adiego 2007a – Adiego I.-J. 2007: The Carian Language. (HdO 86). Leiden – Boston. Adiego 2007b – Adiego I.-J. 2007: Greek and Carian. In A.-F. Christidis (ed.): A History of Ancient Greek. From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity. Cambridge, 758-762. Adiego 2007c – Adiego I.-J. 2007: Greek and Lycian. In A.-F. Christidis (ed.): A History of Ancient Greek. From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity. Cambridge, 763-767. Adiego 2007d – Adiego I.-J. 2007: Greek and Lydian. In A.-F. Christidis (ed.): A History of Ancient Greek. From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity. Cambridge, 769-772. Bănățeanu 1938 – Bănăţeanu V. 1938: Termes de culture grecs, d’origine égéo-asianique. Revue des études indo-européennes 1: 107-138. Bănățeanu 1943 – Bănățeanu V. 1943: Noten zur griechischen Terminologie des Wagens. Revue des études indo-européennes 3: 132-150. Bechtel 1906 – Bechtel F. 1906: Parerga. Beiträge zur kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen 30: 265272. Bechtel 1914 – Bechtel F. 1914: Lexilogus zu Homer. Etymologie und Stammbildung homerischer Anatolian influences on Greek 409 Wörter. Halle an der Saale. Beekes 1996 – Beekes R. 1996: Ancient European Loanwords. Historische Sprachforschung 109: 215236. Beekes 2002 – Beekes R. 2002: Hom. γέφυρα, and Arm. kamurǰ ‘bridge’. Glotta 78: 12-21. Beekes 2010 – Beekes R. 2010: Etymological Dictionary of Greek. (LIEEDS 10). Leiden – Boston. Benveniste 1953 – Benveniste É. 1953: Le terme obryza et la métallurgie de l’or. Revue de Philologie, de Littérature et d’Histoire Anciennes 27: 122-126. Benveniste 1962 – Benveniste É. 1962: Hittite et indo-européen. Études comparatives. Paris. Bertoldi 1937 – Bertoldi V 1937: Contatti e conflitti di lingue nell’antico Mediterraneo. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 57: 137-169. Bertoldi 1952 – Bertoldi V. 1952: Nuove valutazioni storiche di vecchi termini tecnici. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 68: 73-80. Blümel 1926 – Blümel R. 1926: Homerisch ταρχύω. Glotta 15: 78-84. von Blumenthal 1930 – von Blumenthal A. 1930: Hesychstudien. Untersuchungen zur Vorgeschichte der griechischen Sprache nebst lexikographischen Beiträgen. Stuttgart. Bossert 1927 – Bossert H.Th. 1927: Zur Atlantisfrage. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 30: cols. 649655. Bossert 1952-1953a – Bossert H.Th. 1952-1953a: Die phönizisch-hethitischen Bilinguen vom Karatepe. Jahrbuch für Kleinasiatische Forschung 2: 167-188. Bossert 1952-1953b – Bossert H.Th. 1952-1953b: Die phönizisch-hethitischen Bilinguen vom Karatepe. Jahrbuch für Kleinasiatische Forschung 2: 293-339. Boßhardt 1942 – Boßhardt E. 1942: Die Nomina auf -ευς. Ein Beitrag zur Wortbildung der griechischen Sprache. Doktorarbeit, Universität Zürich. Zürich. Brandenstein 1929 – Brandenstein W. 1929: Die lydische Sprache I. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 36: 263-304. Brandenstein 1954a – Brandenstein W. 1954: Bemerkungen zur Völkertafel in der Genesis. In Sprachgeschichte und Wortbedeutung. Festschrift Albert Debrunner gewidmet von Schülern, Freunden und Kollegen. Bern, 57-83. Brandenstein 1954b – Brandenstein W. 1954: Griechische Sprachwissenschaft I. Einleitung, Lautsystem, Etymologie. Berlin. Brandenstein 1958 – Brandenstein W. 1958: Sprache und Schrift von Side in Pamphylien. In E. Grumach (ed.): Minoica. Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von Johannes Sundwall. Berlin: 80-91. Broger 1996 – Broger A. 1996: Das Epitheton bei Sappho und Alkaios. Eine sprachwissenschaftliche Untersuchung. (IBS 88). Innsbruck. Brown 1965 – Brown J.P. 1965: Kothar, Kinyras and Kythereia. Journal of Semitic Studies 10: 197-219. Brust 2005 – Brust M. 2005: Die indischen und iranischen Lehnwörter im Griechischen. IBS 118. Innsbruck. Buckler 1924 – Buckler W.H. 1924: Sardis VI. Part II. Lydian Inscriptions. A collection of the texts in Lydian script found at Sardis and elsewhere. Leyden. Buckler, Robinson 1913 – Buckler W.H., Robinson D.M. 1913: Greek Inscriptions from Sardes III. Honorific Inscriptions. American Journal of Archaeology 17: 353-370. Cardona 1967 – Cardona G. 1967: Un nom grec de la ‘perdrix’: κακκάβη. Orbis 16: 161-164. Cardona 1968 – Cardona G. 1968: Gr. κύμβαχος, itt. kέpaḫi-, ebr. kôβac/qôβac. AIΩN Sezione Linguistica 8: 5-16. Carnoy 1959 – Carnoy A. 1959: Les noms de végétaux dans la toponymie grecque ancienne. Beiträge zur Namenforschung 10: 221-232. Christidis 2007 – Christidis A.-F. (ed.) 2007: A history of Ancient Greek. From the beginnings to late antiquity. Cambridge. Clackson 1994 – Clackson J. 1994: The Linguistic Relationship Between Armenian and Greek. Oxford – Cambridge. Dale 2015 – Dale A. 2015: Greek Ethnics in -ηνος and the Name of Mytilene. In N.Chr. Stampolidis, 410 Zsolt Simon Ç. Maner, K. Kopanias (eds): Nostoi. Indigenous Culture, Migration and Integration in the Aegean Islands and Western Anatolia during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age. Istanbul, 421-444. Danielsson 1917 – Danielsson O.A. 1917: Zu den lydischen Inschriften. Uppsala – Leipzig. Danka, Witczak 1997 – Danka I.R., Witczak K.T. 1997: Indo-European *ḱwn̥Hos and Its Meanings In the Neolithic and Post-Neolithic Times. The Journal of Indo-European Studies 25: 361-369. Dardano 1997 – Dardano P. 1997: L’aneddoto e il racconto in età antico-hittita: la cosidetta “Cronaca di Palazzo”. Roma. De Decker 2015 – De Decker F. 2015: A New Book on Pre-Greek. International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction 12: 1-21. de Vaan 2008 – de Vaan M. 2008: Etymological dictionary of Latin and the other Italic languages. (LIEEDS 7). Leiden – Boston. Degani 1991 – Degani E. 19912: Hipponactis Testimonia et Fragmenta. Stuttgart – Leipzig. Demiraj 1997 – Demiraj B. 1997: Albanische Etymologien. Untersuchungen zum albanischen Erbwortschatz. (LSIE 7). Amsterdam – Atlanta. Detschew 1957 – Detschew D. 1957: Die thrakischen Sprachreste. ÖAW Phil-hist. Kl. Schriften der Balkankomission. Linguistische Abteilung XIV. Wien. Dunkel 2014 – Dunkel G.E. 2014: Lexikon der indogermanischen Partikeln und Pronominalstämme I-II. Heidelberg. Durante 1970 – Durante M. 1970: Etimologie greche. Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici 11: 43-57. Dussaud 1953 – Dussaud R. 1953: Prélydiens, Hittites et Achéens. Paris. Egetmeyer 2010 – Egetmeyer M. 2010: Le dialecte grec ancien de Chypre. Berlin – New York. Eisler 1910 – Eisler R. 1910: Weltenmantel und Himmelszelt. Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Urgeschichte des antiken Weltbildes 1. München. Forbes 1958 – Forbes K. 1958: Medial Intervocalic -ρσ-, -λσ- in Greek. Glotta 36: 235-272. Forlanini 1998 – Forlanini M. 1998: L’Anatolia occidentale e gli Hittiti: appunti su alcune recenti scoperte e le loro conseguente per la geografia storica. Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici 40: 219-253. Fraser 1924 – Fraser J. 1924: λυϰάβας. In Streitberg Festgabe. Leipzig: 93-95. Friedrich 1928 – Friedrich J. 1928: Hethitisch und die indogermanischen und nicht-indogermanischen Sprachen des alten Kleinasien. Indogermanisches Jahrbuch 12: 313-323. Friedrich 1952 – Friedrich J. 1952: Kurzgefaßtes hethitisches Wörterbuch. Kurzgefasste Sammlung der Deutungen hethitischer Wörter. Heidelberg. Friedrich 1966 – Friedrich J. 1966: Hethitisches Wörterbuch. Kurzgefasste kritische Sammlung der Deutungen hethitischer Wörter. 3. Ergänzungsheft. Heidelberg. Furnée 1972 – Furnée E.J. 1972: Die wichtigsten konsonantischen Erscheinungen des Vorgriechischen. Mit einem Appendix über den Vokalismus. Den Haag. Fuscagni 2012 – Fuscagni F. 2012: CTH 123. hethiter.net/: CTH 123. (Last accessed: 4 June 2016). Gamkrelidze, Ivanov 1995 – Gamkrelidze T.V., Ivanov V.V. 1995: Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans. A Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and a Proto-Culture I-II. Berlin – New York. Gander 2015 – Gander M. 2015: Asia, Ionia, Maeonia und Luwiya? Bemerkungen zu den neuen Toponymen aus Kom el-Hettan (Theben-West) mit Exkursen zu Westkleinasien in der Spätbronzezeit. Klio 97: 443-502. García Ramón 2006 – García Ramón J.L. 2006: Hitita uarr- ‘ayudar‘ y karie-mi/tta ‘mostrar benevolencia’, hom. ἦρα φέρειν (y χάριν φέρειν) ‘dar satisfacción’, IE *uerH- ‘favorecer’ y *gher(H)- ‘estar a gusto, desear’. In R. Bombi et al. (eds), Studi linguistici in onore di Roberto Gusmani. Alessandria: 825-846. García Ramón 2011 – García Ramón J.L. 2011: Sprachen in Kontakt im Griechenland und Kleinasien im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. In D. Boschung, C.M. Rehl (eds): Historische Mehrsprachigkeit. Workshop des Zentrums für Antike Kulturen des Mittelmeerraumes (ZaKMiRa) und des Zentrums Sprachenvielfalt und Mehrsprachigkeit (ZSM) an der Universität Köln, Juli 2008. Aachen: 23-45. Gasbarra, Pozza 2012 – Gasbarra V., Pozza M. 2012: Fenomeni di interferenza greco-anatolica nel II Anatolian influences on Greek 411 millennio a. C.: L’ittito come mediatore tra mondo indoeuropeo e mondo non indoeuropeo. AIΩN N.S. 1: 165-214. Gasbarra, Pozza 2013 – Gasbarra V., Pozza M. 2013: Pluralità di vie del prestito: i casi di itt. laḫanni-, gr. λάγυνος e itt. kupaḫi-, gr. κύμβαχος. In M. Mancini, L. Lorenzetti (eds): Le lingue del Mediterraneo antico. Culture, mutamenti, contatti. Roma: 181-191. Genz 2011 – Genz H. 2011: Foreign Contacts of the Hittites. In H. Genz, D.-P. Mielke (eds): Insights into Hittite History and Archaeology. Leuven – Paris – Walpole: 301-331. Georgiev 1981 – Georgiev V.I. 1981: Introduction to the History of the Indo-European Languages. Sofia. Giorgieri 2000 – Giorgieri M. 2000: Schizzo grammaticale della lingua hurrica. La Parola del Passato 55: 171-277. Goetze 1947 – Goetze A. 1947: Contributions to Hittite Lexicography. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 1: 307-320. Gow 1955 – Gow A.S.F. 1955: Two Epigrams by Diotimus. The Classical Review 5: 238-241. Grimme 1925 – Grimme H. 1925: Hethitisches im griechischen Wortschatze. Glotta 14: 13-25. Grošelj 1951 – Grošelj M. 1951: Etyma Graeca. Živa Antika 1: 253-265. Grošelj 1954 – Grošelj M. 1954: Etyma Graeca. Živa Antika 4: 168-177. Grošelj 1957 – Grošelj M. 1957: Etyma Graeca. Živa Antika 7: 40-44. Gusmani 1964 – Gusmani R. 1964: Lydisches Wörterbuch. Mit grammatischer Skizze und Inschriftensammlung. Heidelberg. Gusmani 1968a – Gusmani R. 1968a: Confronti etimologici greco-ittiti. Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici 6: 14-28. Gusmani 1968b – Gusmani R. 1968: Il lessico ittito. Napoli. Gusmani 1969 – Gusmani R. 1969: Isoglossi lessicali greco-ittite. In Studi linguistici in onore di Vittore Pisani. Brescia: 501-514. Gusmani 1986 – Gusmani R. 1986: Lydisches Wörterbuch. Ergänzungsband. Lieferung 3. Heidelberg. Hajnal 2014 – Hajnal I. 2014: Die griechisch-anatolischen Sprachkontakte zur Bronzezeit – Sprachbund oder loser Sprachkontakt? Linguarum varietas 3: 105-116. Hajnal in press – Hajnal I. in press: Graeco-Anatolian contacts in the Mycenaean Period. In M.A. Fritz, B.D. Joseph, J.S. Klein (eds), Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. An International Handbook of Language Comparison and the Reconstruction of Indo-European. HSK. Berlin. Halleux 1969 – Halleux R. 1969: Lapis-lazuli, azurite ou pâte de verre? A propos de kuwano et kuwanowoko dans les tablettes mycéniennes. Studi micenei ed egeo anatolici 9: 47-66. Hawkins 2013 – Hawkins J.D. 2013: A New Look at the Luwian Language. Kadmos 52: 1-18. Hawkins 2010 – Hawkins S. 2010: Greek and the Languages of Asia Minor to the Classical Period. In E.J. Bakker (ed.): A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language. Malden – Oxford – Chichester: 213-227. Hawkins 2013 – Hawkins S. 2013: Studies in the Language of Hipponax. Münchner Forschungen zur historischen Sprachwissenschaft 14. Bremen. Hazenbos 2005 – Hazenbos J. 2005: Hurritisch und Urartäisch. In M.P. Streck (ed.): Sprachen des Alten Orients. Darmstadt: 135-158. Hegyi 1965 – Hegyi D. 1965: Notes on the Origin of the Greek tyrannis. Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 13: 303-318. Herzhoff 2000 – Herzhoff B. 2000: Homers Vogel kymindis. Hermes 128: 275-294. Heubeck 1949-50 – Heubeck A. 1949-1950: Die homerische Göttersprache. Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft 4: 197-218. Heubeck 1961 – Heubeck A. 1961: Praegraeca. Sprachliche Untersuchungen zum vorgriechisch-indogermanischen Substrat. Erlanger Forschungen 12. Erlangen. Heubeck 1970 – Heubeck A. 1970: Review of R. Gusmani, Il lessico ittito. Indogermanische Forschungen 75: 297-299. Hirschfeld 1889 – Hirschfeld G. 1889: Review of O. Benndorf, G. Niemann, Das Heroon von Gjölba- 412 Zsolt Simon schi-Trysa. Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift 9: cols: 1421-1431, 1453-1458. Högemann 2003 – Högemann P. 2003: Das ionische Griechentum und seine altorientalische Umwelt im Spiegel Homers. In M. Witte, S. Alkier (eds): Die Griechen und der Vordere Orient. Beiträge zum Kultur- und Religionskontakt zwischen Griechenland und dem Vorderen Orient im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (OBO 191). Freiburg – Göttingen: 1-24. Hoffmann 1898 – Hoffmann O. 1898: Die Griechischen Dialekte in ihrem historischen Zusammenhange mit den wichtigsten ihrer Quellen 3. Der ionische Dialekt. Quellen und Lautlehre. Göttingen. Hoffner, Melchert 2008 – Hoffner H.A., Melchert H.C. 2008: A Grammar of the Hittite Language 1. Reference Grammar. (LANE 1). Winona Lake. Hofmann 1949 – Hofmann J.B. 1949: Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Griechischen. München. Householder, Nagy 1972 – Householder F.W., Nagy G. 1972: Greek. In T.A. Sebeok (ed.): Linguistics in Western Europe. (Current Trends in Linguistics 9). The Hague – Paris: 735-816. van den Hout 2007 – van den Hout T. 20072: Institutions, Vernaculars, Publics: The Case of Second-Millennium Anatolia. In S.L. Sanders (ed.): Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures. Chicago: 221-262. van den Hout 2014 – van den Hout T. 2014: Greek and Carian. In: EAGLL II/40-43. Houwink ten Cate 1974 – Houwink ten Cate P.H.J. 1974: Anatolian Evidence for Relations with the West in the Late Bronze Age. In R.A. Crossland, A. Birchall (eds), Bronze Age Migrations in the Aegean. Archaeological and Linguistic Problems in Greek Prehistory. Park Ridge: 141-158. Hyllested 2014 – Hyllested A. 2014: Word Exchange at the Gates of Europe. Five Millennia of Language Contact. PhD thesis. University of Copenhagen. Copenhagen. Jongkees 1935 – Jongkees J.H. 1935: A Lydian Gloss and Some Names. Journal of Hellenic Studies 55: 80-81. Jongkees 1938 – Jongkees J.H. 1938: Μαυλιστήριον eine lydische Glosse. Acta Orientalia 16: 146-151. Joseph 1982 – Joseph B.D. 1982: The Source of Ancient Greek τολύπη. Glotta 60: 230-234. Jucquois 1972 – Jucquois G. 1972: Aspects du consonantisme Hittite. Hethitica 1: 59-128. Kammenhuber 1961 – Kammenhuber A. 1961: Zur Stellung des Hethitisch-Luvischen innerhalb der indogermanischen Gemeinsprache. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 77: 31-75. Katz 2001 – Katz J.T. 2001: Hittite ta-pa-ka-li-ya-<aš>. In O. Carruba, W. Meid (eds), Anatolisch und Indogermanisch. Anatolico e indoeuropeo. Akten des Kolloquiums der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Pavia, 22.-25. September 1998. Innsbruck: 205-237. Katz 2007 – Katz J.T. 2007: The epic adventures of an unknown particle. In C. George et al. (ed.), Greek and Latin from an Indo-European Perspective. Cambridge: 65-79. Kloekhorst 2006a – Kloekhorst A. 2006: Čop’s Law in Luwian Revisited. Die Sprache 46: 131-136. Kloekhorst 2006b – Kloekhorst A. 2006: Initial Laryngeals in Anatolian. Historische Sprachforschung 119: 77-108. Kloekhorst 2008 – Kloekhorst A. 2008: Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. LIEEDS 5. Leiden – Boston. Kloekhorst 2010 – Kloekhorst A. 2010: Initial stops in Hittite (with an excursus on the spelling of stops in Alalaḫ Akkadian). Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 100: 197-241. Kloekhorst 2014 – Kloekhorst A. 2014: Accent in Hittite. A Study in Plene Spelling, Consonant Gradation, Clitics, and Metrics. (StBoT 56). Wiesbaden. Kloekhorst 2016 – Kloekhorst A. 2016: The Anatolian stop system and the Indo-Hittite hypothesis. Indogermanische Forschungen 121: 213-247. Krahe 1939 – Krahe H. 1939: Die Vorgeschichte des Griechentums nach dem Zeugnis der Sprache. Die Antike 15: 175-194. Krahe 1954 – Krahe H. 1954: Sprache und Vorzeit. Europäische Vorgeschichte nach dem Zeugnis der Sprache. Heidelberg. Krause 1942 – Krause W. 1942: Thrak. Ἄσωπος (ἄσις) und Αἴσηπος. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 67: 211-214. Kretschmer 1896 – Kretschmer P. 1896: Einleitung in die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache. Göt- Anatolian influences on Greek 413 tingen. Kretschmer 1921 – Kretschmer P. 1921: Pelasger und Etrusker. Glotta 11: 276-285. Kretschmer 1924 – Kretschmer P. 1924: Literaturbericht für das Jahr 1921. Glotta 13: 241-275. Kretschmer 1927 – Kretschmer P. 1927: Griech. φίλος. Indogermanische Forschungen 45: 267-271. Kretschmer 1928 – Kretschmer P. 1928: Literaturbericht für das Jahr 1925. Glotta 16: 161-198. Kretschmer 1930 – Kretschmer P. 1930: Der Name der Lykier und andere kleinasiatische Völkernamen. Kleinasiatische Forschungen 1: 1-17. Kretschmer 1932 – Kretschmer P. 1932: Literaturbericht für das Jahr 1929. Glotta 20: 218-255. Kretschmer 1933 – Kretschmer P. 1933: Weiteres zur Urgeschichte der Inder. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 55: 75-103. Kretschmer 1939 – Kretschmer P. 1939: Die Stellung der lykischen Sprache. Glotta 28: 101-116. Kretschmer 1940 – Kretschmer P. 1940: Die vorgriechischen Sprach- und Volksschichten. Glotta 28: 231-278. Kretschmer 1947 – Kretschmer P. 1947: Nektar. Anzeiger der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Klasse. 4: 13-26. Kretschmer 1950 – Kretschmer P. 1950: Hethitische Relikte im kleinasiatischen Griechisch. Anzeiger der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Klasse. 24: 545-560. Kronasser 1960 – Kronasser P. 1960: Zur Blattfüllung. Die Sprache 6: 178. Kronasser 1969 – Kronasser H. 1969: Review of J. Friedrich, Hethitisches Wörterbuch. 3. Ergänzungsheft. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 62: 311-314. Kroonen 2012 – Kroonen G. 2012: On the etymology of Greek ἄγλις and γέλγις ‘garlic’: an Akkadian loanword in Pre-Greek. The Journal of Indo-European Studies 40: 289-299. Kroonen 2013 – Kroonen G. 2013: Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic. LIEEDS 11. Leiden – Boston. Lambertz 1914 – Lambertz M. 1914: Zur Etymologie von δοῦλος. Glotta 6: 1-18. Laroche 1955 – Laroche E. 1955: Mots grecs d’origine anatolienne. Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique 51: xxxi-xxxiv. Laroche 1965 – Laroche E. 1965: Sur le nom grec de l’ivoire. Revue de Philologie, de Littérature et d’Histoire Ancienne 39: 56-59. Laroche 1966 – Laroche E. 1966: Études de linguistique anatolienne II. Revue Hittite et Asianique 24: 160-184. Laroche 1973 – Laroche E. 1973: Contacts linguistiques et culturels entre la Grèce et l’Asie Mineure au deuxième millénaire. Revue des Études Grecques 86: xvii-xix. Latte 1952 – Latte K. 1952: Zur griechischen Wortforschung. Glotta 32: 33-42. Lazzeroni 1969 – Lazzeroni R. 1969: Stratificazioni nella lingua poetica greca. In Studi linguistici in onore di Vittore Pisani. Brescia: 619-634. Linderski 1962 – Linderski J. 1962: Etruskische Etymologien: zilaθ und purθ. Glotta 40: 150-159. Maaß 1925 – Maaß E. 1925: Eunochos und Verwandtes. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 74: 432476. Mallory, Adams 2006 – Mallory J.P., Adams D.Q. 2006: The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-Europeans. Oxford. Martirosyan 2010 – Martirosyan H.K. 2010: Etymological Dictionary of the Armenian Inherited Lexicon. LIEED 8. Leiden – Boston. Masson 1967 – Masson É. 1967: Recherches sur les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en grec. Paris. Masson 1962 – Masson O. 1962: Les fragments du poète Hipponax. Édition critique et commentèe. Paris. Matzinger 2005 – Matzinger J. 2005: Phrygisch und Armenisch. In G. Meiser, O. Hackstein (eds), Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel. Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, 17.-23. September 2000, Halle an der Saale. Wiesbaden: 375-394. Matzinger 2006 – Matzinger J. 2006: Der altalbanische Text Mbsuame e Krështerë (Dottrina cristiana) des Lekë Matrënga von 1592. Eine Einführung in die albanische Sprachwissenschaft. Dettelbach. 414 Zsolt Simon Mayer 1960 – Mayer M.L. 1960: Ricerche sul problema dei rapport fra lingue indoeuropee e lingue semitiche. Acme 13: 77-100. Meissner 2013 – Meissner T. 2013: Review of Beekes 2010. Kratylos 58: 1-32. Melchert 1994 – Melchert H.C. 1994: Anatolian Historical Phonology. LSIE 4. Amsterdam – Atlanta. Melchert 1998 – Melchert H.C. 1998: Once more Greek τολύπη. Orpheus 8: 47-51 (Gs. Georgiev). Melchert 2002 – Melchert H.C. 2002: Covert Possessive Compounds in Hittite and Luvian. In F. Cavoto (ed.), The Linguist’s Linguist. A Collection of Papers in Honour of Alexis Manaster Ramer. München: 297-302. Melchert 2003 – Melchert H.C. 2003: Language. In id. (ed.): The Luwians. HdO 68. Leiden – Boston: 170-210. Melchert 2004 – Melchert H.C. 2004: Latin īnsolēscō, Hittite šulle(šš)- and PIE Statives in -ē-. In N.N. Kazansky (ed.), Hŗdā mánasā. Studies presented to Professor Leonard G. Herzenberg on the occasion of his 70-birthday. St. Petersburg: 90-98. Melchert 2005 – Melchert H.C. 2005: The Problem of Luvian Influence on Hittite. In G. Meiser, O. Hackstein (eds), Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel. Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, 17.-23. September 2000, Halle an der Saale. Wiesbaden: 445-460. Melchert 2008 – Melchert H.C. 2008: Greek mólybdos as a loanword from Lydian. In B.J. Collins, M.R. Bachvarova, I.C. Rutherford (eds), Anatolian Interfaces. Hittites, Greeks and Their Neighbours. Oxford: 153-157. Melchert 2012 – Melchert H.C. 2012: Luvo-Lycian Dorsal Stops Revisited. In R. Sukač, O. Šefčík (eds): The Sound of Indo-European 2. Papers on Indo-European Phonetics, Phonemics and Morphophonemics. München: 206-218. Melchert 2013 – Melchert H.C. 2013: Naming Practices in Second- and First-Millennium Western Anatolia. In R. Parker (ed.): Personal Names in Ancient Anatolia. (Proceedings of the British Academy 191). London: 31-49. Melchert 2014a – Melchert H.C. 2014: Greek and Lycian. In EAGLL II/67-70. Melchert 2014b – Melchert H.C. 2014: Greek and Lydian. In EAGLL II/70-71. Morpurgo Davies 1986 – Morpurgo Davies A. 1986: The linguistic evidence: is there any? In G. Cardona (ed.), The End of the Early Bronze Age in the Aegean. Leiden: 93-123. Mountjoy 1998 – Mountjoy P. 1998: The East Aegean – West Anatolian Interface in the Late Bronze Age: Mycenaeans and the Kingdom of Ahhiyawa. Anatolian Studies 48: 33-67. Nehring 1923 – Nehring A. 1923: Zum Namen der Quitte. Glotta 13: 11-16. Nehring 1925 – Nehring A. 1925: Griech. τίταξ, τιτήνη und ein vorgriechisches k-Suffix. Glotta 14: 153-192. Neu 1999 – Neu E. 1999: Altanatolien und das mykenische Pylos: Einige Überlegungen zum Nestorbecher der Ilias. Archiv Orientální 67: 619-627. Neumann 1960-61 – Neumann G. 1960-1961: Weitere mykenische und minoische Gefäßnamen. Glotta 39: 172-178. Neumann 1961 – Neumann G. 1961: Untersuchungen zum Weiterleben hethitischen und luwischen Sprachgutes in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit. Wiesbaden. Neumann 1974a – Neumann G. 1974: ἀστράβη. Incontri Linguistici 1: 103-108. Neumann 1974b – Neumann G. 1974: Review of Furnée 1972. Gnomon 46: 433-437. Neumann 1988 – Neumann G. 1988: Bemerkungen an karischen Ortsnamen. In F. Imparati (ed.), Studi di storia e di filologia anatolica dedicati a Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli. Eothen 1. Firenze: 183-191. Neumann 1989 – Neumann G. 1989: Beiträge zum Kyprischen X. Kadmos 28: 89-95. Niemeier 2007 – Niemeier W.-D. 2007: Westkleinasien und Ägäis von den Anfängen bis zur ionischen Wanderung. Topographie, Geschichte und Beziehungen nach dem archäologischen Befund und den hethitischen Quellen. In J. Cobet (ed.): Frühes Ionien. Eine Bestandsaufnahme. PanionionSymposium Güzelçamlı, 26. September – 1. Oktober 1999. Mainz: 37-96. Niemeier 2009 – Niemeier W.-D. 2009: Milet und Karien vom Neolithikum bis zu den “Dunklen Jahrhunderten”: Mythos und Archäologie. In F. Rumscheid (ed.), Die Karer und die Anderen. Internati- Anatolian influences on Greek 415 onales Kolloquium an der Freien Universität Berlin, 13. bis 15. Oktober 2005. Bonn: 7-25. Oettinger 2002 – Oettinger N. 2002: Die griechische Psilose als Kontakphänomen. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 62: 95-101. Orel 1998 – Orel V. 1998: Albanian Etymological Dictionary. Leiden – Boston – Köln. Oreshko 2013 – Oreshko R. 2013: Hipponax and linguistic, ethnic and religious milieu of Western Anatolia. Some further notes on: Shane Hawkins, The Language of Hipponax. Hephaistos 30: 96-97. Pedersen 1938 – Pedersen H. 1938: Hittitisch und die anderen indoeuropäischen Sprachen. København. Pérez Orozco 2003 – Pérez Orozco S. 2003: Propuesta de nuevos valores para algunos signos des alfabeto sidético. Kadmos 42: 104-108. Pisani 1959 – Pisani V. 1959: Kleinasiatische Wörter und Laute im Griechischen und Latein. Die Sprache 5: 143-151. Pisani 1960 – Pisani V. 1960: Obiter scripta, II. Paideia 15: 241-252. Pisani 1964 – Pisani V. 1964: Review of H. Kronasser, Etymologie der hethitischen Sprache. Paideia 19: 277-286. Pisani 1966 – Pisani V. 1966: Relitti “indomediterrani” e rapporti greco-anatolici. AIΩN Sezione linguistica 7: 41-51. Porzig 1927 – Porzig W. 1927: Kleinasiatisch-Indische Beziehungen. Zeitschrift für Indologie und Iranistik 5: 265-280. Prellwitz 1892 – Prellwitz W. 1892: Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Griechischen Sprache mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Neuhochdeutschen und einem deutschen Wörterverzeichnis. Göttingen. Puhvel 1965 – Puhvel J. 1965: Evidence in Anatolian. In: Werner Winter (ed.): Evidence for Laryngeals. The Hague, 79-92. Puhvel 1984 – Puhvel J. 1984: Hittite Etymological Dictionary 1-2. Words beginning with A / E and I. Berlin – New York. Puhvel 1991a – Puhvel J. 1991: Hittite Etymological Dictionary 3. Words beginning with H. Berlin – New York. Puhvel 1991b – Puhvel J. 1991: Homer and Hittite. IBS Vorträge und Kleinere Schriften 47. Innsbruck. Puhvel 1997 – Puhvel J. 1997: Hittite Etymological Dictionary 4. Words beginning with K. Berlin – New York. Puhvel 2001 – Puhvel J. 2001: Hittite Etymological Dictionary 5. Words beginning with L. Berlin – New York. Rabin 1963 – Rabin C. 1963: Hittite Words in Hebrew. Orientalia 32: 113-139. Ramsay 1917 – Ramsay W.M. 1917: Studies in the Roman Province Galatia I. The Homanadeis and the Homanadensian War. The Journal of Roman Studies 7: 229-283. Richter 2012 – Richter T. 2012: Bibliographisches Glossar des Hurritischen. Wiesbaden. Rieken 2017 – Rieken E. 2017: Word-internal plene spelling with <i> and <e> in Cuneiform Luwian texts. Journal of Language Relationship 15: 19-30. Risch 1984 – Risch E. 1984: Review of DELG. Kratylos 29: 93-104. Rose 2014 – Rose S. 2014: Greek and Anatolian Languages. In: EAGLL II/27-31. Rosół 2013 – Rosół R. 2013: Frühe semitische Lehnwörter im Griechischen. Frankfurt am Main. Sacconi 1972 – Sacconi A. 1972: L’avorio nella tavola di Pilo Va 482. Minos 13: 173-181. Salvini, Wegner 2014 – Salvini M., Wegner I. 2014: Einführung in die urartäische Sprache. Wiesbaden. Sapir 1934 – Sapir E. 1934: Hittite hapatis ‘Vassal’ and Greek ὀπᾱδóς. Language 10: 274-279. Sapir 1936 – Sapir E. 1936: Greek ἀτύζομαι, a Hittite Loanword, and its Relatives. Language 12: 175180. Sasseville 2014-2015 – Sasseville D. 2014-2015: Luwian and Lycian Agent Nouns in *-é-leh2. Die Sprache 51: 105-124. Sayce 1893 – Sayce A.H. 1893: The Karian Language and Inscriptions. Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 9: 112-154. Sayce 1922 – Sayce A.H. 1922: Greek Etymologies: ἀήρ, ἰχώρ, ϰομμός, οἶνος, χαλϰός. The Classical Review 36: 19. 416 Zsolt Simon Sayce 1929 – Sayce A.H. 1929: The Linguistic Position of Hittite. In Donum natalicium Schrijnen. Verzameling van opstellen door oud-leerlingen en berriende vakgenoten opgedragen aan Mgr. Prof. Dr. Jos. Schrijnen bij gelegenheid van zijn zestigsten verjaardag 3 Mei 1929. Nijmegen – Utrecht: 268-274. Schrader 1911 – Schrader O. 1911: Aus griechischer Frühzeit. In: Theodor Siebs (ed.): Festschrift zur Jahrhundertfeier der Universität Breslau. Breslau: 464-480. Schrader, Nehring 1917 – Schrader O., Nehring A. 1917: Reallexikon der indogermanischen Altertumskunde. Grundzüge einer Kultur- und Völkergeschichte Europas 1. Berlin. Schürr 2002 – Schürr D. 2002: Karische Parallelen zu zwei Arzawa-Namen. Kadmos 41: 163-177. Schürr 2013 – Schürr D. 2013: Kaunisch-Karisches in Krya: Revision der Grabinschrift und Vergleiche. In O. Henry (ed.): 4th Century Karia. Defining a Karian Identity under the Hekatomnids. (Varia Anatolica XXVIII) Istanbul – Paris: 21-31. Schulze 1892 – Schulze W. 1892: Quaestiones epicae. Gütersloh. Schuol 2004 – Schuol M. 2004: Hethitische Kultmusik. Eine Untersuchung der Instrumental- und Vokalmusik anhand hethitischer Ritualtexte und von archäologischen Zeugnissen. Orient-Archäologie 14. Rahden/Westf. Schwertheim 2000 – Schwertheim E. 2000: Mysia. In Der Neue Pauly 8: cols. 608-610. Sethe 1933 – Sethe K. 1933: Die Bau- und Denkmalsteine der alten Ägypter und ihre Namen. Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Kl. 22. Berlin, 864-912. Silvestri 1975 – Silvestri D. 1975: Elementi egeo-anatolici nel lessico dell‘egiziano antico. AION 35: 401-413. Simon 2005 – Simon Zs. 2005: Die Etymologie von caballus. In G. Calboli (ed.): Latina Lingua! Proceedings of the Twelfth International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics (Bologna, 9-14 June 2003). Roma: 405-416. Simon 2014 – Simon Zs. 2014: Der phonetische Wert der luwischen Laryngale. In P. Taracha (ed.): Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Hittitology. Warsaw, 5-9 September 2011. Warsaw: 873-895. Simon 2015a – Simon Zs. 2015: Altassyrisch hazuanum: noch eine anatolische Entlehnung. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2015/3: 103-106 (Nr. 65). Simon 2015b – Simon Zs. 2015: Imbros Zur vorgriechischen Geschichte von Imbros aus philologischer Sicht. Ancient West & East 14: 1-21. Simon 2016 – Simon Zs. 2016: Zum hieroglyphen-luwischen Zeichen CAELUM (*182). Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2016/4: 159-162 (Nr. 96). Simon 2017 – Simon Zs. 2017: δέπας und die anderen: Spuren eines verschollenen luw(o)iden Dialekts? WékWos. Revue d’études indoeuropéennes 3: 245-259. Simon forthcoming-a – Simon Zs.: Die karisch-griechischen Lehnbeziehungen. Glotta. Simon forthcoming-b – Simon Zs.: Zum Namen von Nuḫašše Solmsen 1909 – Solmsen F. 1909: Beiträge zur griechischen Wortforschung I. Strassburg. Soysal 2004 – Soysal O. 2004: Hattischer Wortschatz in hethitischer Textüberlieferung. HdO 74. Leiden – Boston. Speiser 1950 – Speiser E.A. 1950: On Some Articles of Armor and Their Names. JAOS 70: 47-49. Sturtevant 1928 – Sturtevant E.H. 1928: The Parts of the Body in Hittite. Language 4: 120-127. Szemerényi 1958 – Szemerényi O. 1958: Mycenaean Greek (Review of M. Ventris – J. Chadwick, Documents in Mycenaean Greek). The Classical Review 8: 57-61. Szemerényi 1964 – Szemerényi O. 1964: Syncope in Greek and Indo-European and the Nature of Indo-European Accent. Naples. Szemerényi 1965 – Szemerényi O. 1965: Etyma Graeca I. Die Sprache 11: 1-24. Szemerényi 1968 – Szemerényi O. 1968: Review of É. Masson, Recherches sur les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en grec. Indogermanische Forschungen 73: 192-197. Szemerényi 1969 – Szemerényi O. 1969: Etyma Graeca II (8-15). In Studia Classica et Orientalia Antonino Pagliaro Oblata 3. Roma: 233-250. Anatolian influences on Greek 417 Szemerényi 1970 – Szemerényi O. 1970: Iranica III (Nos 32-43). In: W.B. Henning Memorial Volume. London: 417-426. Szemerényi 1971 – Szemerényi O. 1971: Review of DELG I-II. Gnomon 43: 641-675. Szemerényi 1974 – Szemerényi O. 1974: The Origins of the Greek Lexicon: Ex Oriente Lux. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 94: 144-157. Szemerényi 1975 – Szemerényi O. 1975: The Origins of Roman Drama and Greek Tragedy. Hermes 103: 300-322. Szemerényi 1981 – Szemerényi O. 1981: Review of DELG IV. Gnomon 53: 113-116. Teffeteller 2011 – Teffeteller A. 2011: Review of Yakubovich 2010. Journal of American Oriental Society 131: 456-459. Teffeteller 2013 – Teffeteller A. 2013: Singers of Lazpa: Reconstructing Identities on Bronze Age Lesbos. In A. Mouton, I. Rutherford, I. Yakubovich (eds), Luwian Identities. Culture, Language and Religion Between Anatolia and the Aegean. Leiden – Boston: 567-589. Teffeteller 2015 – Teffeteller A. 2015: Songs by Land and Sea Descending: Anatolian and Aegean Poetic Tradition. In N.Chr. Stampolidis, Ç. Maner, K. Kopanias (eds), Nostoi. Indigenous Culture, Migration and Integration in the Aegean Islands and Western Anatolia during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age. Istanbul: 709-735. Tischler 1977-83 – Tischler J. 1977-1983: Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar I. A-K. IBS 20. Innsbruck. Tischler 1981 – Tischler J. 1981: Das hethitische Gebet der Gassulijawija. Text, Übersetzung, Kommentar. IBS 37. Innsbruck. Tischler 1990 – Tischler J. 1990: Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar II. Lieferungen 5-6. L-M. IBS 20. Innsbruck. Tischler 2001 – Tischler J. 2001: Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar II. Lief. 11/12. P. Innsbruck. Tischler 2006 – Tischler J. 2006: Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar II/2. S/2. IBS 20. Innsbruck. Uchitel 2007 – Uchitel A. 2007: The Earliest Tyrants: from Luwian Tarwanis to Greek Τύραννος. In G. Herman, I. Shatzman (eds): Greeks Between East and West: Essays in Greek Literature and History in Memory of David Asheri. Jerusalem: 13-30. Valério 2017 – Valério M. 2017: Λαβύρινθος and Word Initial Lambdacism in Anatolian Greek. Journal of Language Relationship 15: 51-59. Van Brock 1959 – Van Brock N. 1959: Substitution rituelle. Revue Hittite et Asianique 65: 117-139. Van Windekens 1989 – Van Windekens A.J. 1989: Explication de quelques termes de civilisation grecs à la lumière de données hittites. Glotta 67: 142-147. Watkins 1995 – Watkins C. 1995: How to Kill a Dragon. Aspects of Indo-European Poetics. New York – Oxford. Watkins 1997 – Watkins C. 1997: Delbrück and the syntax of Hittite and Luwian: predictive power. In E. Crespo, J.L. García Ramón (eds), Berthold Delbrück y la sintaxis indoeuropea hoy. Actas del Coloquio de la Indogermanische Gesellschaft, Madrid, 21-24 de septiembre de 1994. Madrid – Wiesbaden: 611-630. Watkins 1998 – Watkins C. 1998: Homer and Hittite Revisited. In P. Knox, C. Foss (eds), Style and Tradition. Studies in Honor of Wendell Clausen. Stuttgart – Leipzig : 201-216. Watkins 2000a – Watkins C. 2000a: L’Anatolie et la Grèce. Résonances culturelles, linguistiques et poétiques. Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 2000: 1143-1158. Watkins 2000b – Watkins C. 2000b: A Distant Anatolian Echo in Pindar: The Origin of the Aegis Again. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 100: 1-14. Watkins 2001 – Watkins C. 2001: An Indo-European Linguistic Area and Its Characteristics: Ancient Anatolia. Areal Diffusion as a Challenge to Comparative Method? In A.Y. Aikhenvald, R.M.W. Dixon (eds), Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics. Oxford: 44-63. Watkins 2007a – Watkins C. 2007a: The Golden Bowl. Thoughts on the New Sappho and its Asianic Background. Classical Antiquity 26/2: 305-324. 418 Zsolt Simon Watkins 2007b – Watkins C. 2007b: Hipponactea quaedam. In P. Finglass et al. (eds), Hesperos. Studies in Ancient Greek poetry presented to M. L. West on his seventieth birthday. Oxford: 118-125. Watson 2008 – Watson, W.G.E. 2008: Some Akkadian and Hittite equivalences. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires: 95-96. Wharton 1882 – Wharton E.R. 1882: Etyma Graeca. An Etymological Lexicon of Classical Greek. London. Whatmough 1956 – Whatmough J. 1956: Poetic, Scientific and Other Forms of Discourse. A New Approach to Greek and Latin Literature. Berkeley – Los Angeles. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorf 1931 – von Wilamowitz-Moellendorf U. 1931: Der Glaube der Hellenen I. Berlin. Wilhelm 2004 – Wilhelm G. 2004: Hurrian. In R.D. Woodard (ed.): The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages. Cambridge: 95-118. Witczak, Zadka 2014a – Witczak K.T., Zadka M. 2014a: Ancient Greek ΣΙΔΗ as a Borrowing from a Pre-Greek Substratum. Graeco-Latina Brunensia 19: 113-126. Witczak, Zadka 2014b – Witczak K.T., Zadka M. 2014b: On the Anatolian Origin of Ancient Greek ΣΙΔΗ. Graeco-Latina Brunensia 19: 131-139. Woodard 1997 – Woodard R.D. 1997: Linguistic Connections between Greeks and Non-Greeks. In: J.E. Coleman, C.A. Walz (eds), Greeks and Barbarians. Essays on Interactions between Greeks and Non-Greeks in Antiquity and the Consequences for Eurocentrism. Bethesda: 29-60. Yakubovich 2002 – Yakubovich I. 2002: Labyrinth for Tyrants. Studia Linguarum 3: 93-116. Yakubovich 2010 – Yakubovich I. 2010: Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language. Leiden – Boston. Yakubovich 2012 – Yakubovich I. 2012: Review of Adiego 2007. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 71: 131-133. Yakubovich 2013 – Yakubovich I. 2013: Anatolian Names in -wiya and the Structure of Empire Luwian Onomastics. In: A. Mouton, I. Rutherford, I. Yakubovich (eds), Luwian Identities. Culture, Language and Religion Between Anatolia and the Aegean. Leiden – Boston: 87-123. Yakubovich 2016 – Yakubovich 2016: Some Transitive Motion Verbs and Related Lexemes in Late Luwian. Indogermanische Forschungen 121: 69-92. Zinko 2002 – Zinko M. 2002: Laryngalvertretungen im Lykischen. Historische Sprachforschung 115: 218-238. Zukerman 2011 – Zukerman A. 2011: Titles of 7th century BCE Philistine Rulers and their Historical-Cultural Background. Bibliotheca Orientalis 68: cols. 465-471.