"New approaches on Anatolian linguistics" (José-Virgilio García Trabazo, Ignasi-Xavier Adiego, Mariona Vernet, Bartomeu Obrador-Cursach, Susana Soler, eds.), 2023
In the field of Anatolian studies, few words are as influential as Luwian muwa- (noun, verb, and ... more In the field of Anatolian studies, few words are as influential as Luwian muwa- (noun, verb, and their many derivatives), but the precise meaning and etymology are still debated. While recent scholarship seems to have settled around the sense of ‘power, might’ or similar, and Indo-European derivations have been proposed, both issues are far from resolved. An old assumption that muwa- means ‘body fluid’ or ‘semen, sperm’ in addition to a powerful quality persists. The present reassessment starts from the premise that (as a noun) Luwian muwa- is a powerful characteristic, but not (as far as evidence goes) male fertility or reproductive fluid. First, I propose that muwa- originally signified *‘drive, push’ but secondarily became, ‘power, might’, and that it stems from Proto-Indo-European *m(i̯)eu̯h1-, a root which expresses destabilizing movement (cf. Latin moveō). The second part of the paper examines the implications of this hypothesis for the interpretation and translation of related Luwian forms and other Anatolian relatives, including Cuneiform Luwian muizza-, Hieroglyphic Luwian (*462)muwid(a/i)- and *462-muwas(s)is, Lycian muwe͂te, and Hittite muwila- ~ muwīl- and mummuwāi-. The logographic value of Anatolian hieroglyph *462 is also discussed.
Uploads
Books by Miguel Valério
The volume offers state-of-the-art research on undeciphered scripts from the Aegean (as for example, Cretan Hieroglyphic and Linear A) or not completely deciphered (as for example Maya) scripts. From a methodological perspective, these contributions lay out how and why writing was invented, who used it, and to what ends. Here writing is presented as a multi-modal cultural phenomenon, that intersects and transcends neat discipline boundaries, within an inclusive approach bridging archaeology, linguistics, epigraphy, and cognitive studies.
Two recently-published collections of inscriptions (Olivier 2007; Ferrara 2012 and 2013) have facilitated greatly the investigation of Cypro-Minoan, but the field is still missing a comprehensive paleographical study of the script and a definitive sign-list on which most scholars can agree. Albeit being now the main reference, Olivier’s sign repertory of 96 syllabograms is structured upon É. Masson’s (1974) division of Cypro-Minoan into three “subscripts” (CM 1, 2 and 3), supposedly created and used for different languages, a scheme which has come under criticism. It remains uncertain whether the Cypro-Minoan documents contain one or multiple writing systems. Together with the size of the corpus (almost 4,000 signs on fewer than 250 inscriptions), these lacunae greatly reduce the chances of decipherment. The present work intends to demonstrate that Cypro-Minoan in fact presents some advantages that open prospects for elucidating the script and that a methodology that is well-adjusted to them may contribute to improve our understanding of the inscriptions. Therefore, the goal of this thesis is twofold: (1) to establish a signary that identifies individual Cypro-Minoan signs and defines their paleographical variation to a fine degree of accuracy; and (2) to investigate the possible sounds represented by these signs. The second objective is achieved by means of a three-step methodology. The first two steps comprise, on one hand, cross-comparisons between the Cypro-Minoan signs (in terms of form and value) and signs attested in related scripts, namely Linear A and the Cypriot Greek syllabary; on the other hand and independently, internal analyses (positional distribution and frequency, alternations of related signs as a result of morphological activity, and scribal hesitations). The sound values proposed through these two methods are then tested by a third, which consists of provisionally transliterating a limited set of Cypro-Minoan inscriptions, to ascertain whether they yield readings corresponding to linguistic data known from external sources, therefore validating the hypothetical sign values and possibly even proposing new ones.
While a cogent decipherment is not the scope of this project, two main objectives are achieved. The first is to offer a revised list of Cypro-Minoan signs, not framed within the traditional division, but based on selected homogeneous subcorpora of inscriptions, with no preconceived bias as to the number of script varieties represented. It is argued that Cypro-Minoan contains between 57 and 70 different syllabograms, depending on the validity of a number of proposed assimilations of signs that possibly are mere allographs. Secondly, phonetic values are proposed for 60 of these sign forms: nine are considered confirmed and the rest hypothetical. In the investigation of the phonetic values, interpretations are offered for RASH Atab 004 (= RS 20.25), a clay tablet from Ugarit (Syria) long thought to contain a nominal list, and a limited set of sequences found on inscriptions from Cyprus. The suggested sound values and interpretations of sign-sequences, many of which represent identifications of personal names recognizable from cuneiform sources, independently corroborate a significant number of proposals made by Nahm in the 1980s.
Papers by Miguel Valério
of writing on Crete, in the form of seals bearing the so-called ‘Archanes formula’ from ca. 2000-1900 BC, and how they relate to later epigraphic material, as well as earlier and coetaneous iconography. The interfaces of Cretan ‘hieroglyphs’ with imagery have become crucial. The old idea that the script was influenced by Egyptian hieroglyphic has receded, paving the way for a new paradigm whereby local icons, especially as found on seals, should represent the forerunners of its set of signs. The question of how Cretan Hieroglyphic came about then intertwines with issues of typology (what type of signs did it comprise and how phonetic was it?), use (what did the inscriptions convey and in what social settings?) and decipherment. In addressing origins, this chapter echoes recent calls to comparative approaches that consider the trajectories and typology of invented, image-based writing elsewhere in the world, as well as the relationship between seals and writing in the Eastern Mediterranean. It also proposes an agenda to conciliate such approaches with ‘internal’ analyses of Cretan Hieroglyphic inscriptions that might shed light on the
origins and function of its signs.
that contains fewer signs (graphemes) than most published sign-lists might suggest, due to (and despite) the wide range of paleographic variation within the corpus.
contents of its text – a crucial step towards decipherment. In addition to a
previously identified calendar (list of the nights of the moon), Tablet C may
include words related to agriculture, as well as other lexical lists, perhaps copied for the purpose of learning. We thus combine new technologies and more conventional approaches to offer new insight on an undeciphered inscription.