[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review]
Most classicists nowadays are probably acquainted with the term ‘Hittite’: Hittite as the earliest attested Indo-European (IE) language, cognate of Greek and Latin; Hittites and their powerful Kingdom in Asia Minor, also cited in the Bible; Hittites and Homer, with the term ‘Ahhiyawa’ in Hittite texts referring in all likelihood to ‘Mycenaean’ Greeks, but also being strongly reminiscent of Homer’s ‘Achaeans’.[1]
The present volume, the outcome of a five-and-a-half-year ERC-funded project (‘Pre-classical Anatolian Languages in Contact’ (PALaC)), is a study of contacts between peoples, cultures and languages of Anatolia and its eastern environs (Syria, Mesopotamia) during the third and, particularly, the second millennia BCE, with a special focus on the Hittites and their textual evidence.[2] But it is also a work of interest to a broader readership keen on sociolinguistics and language contact, literacy, and onomastics as well as archaeology, cultural diffusion, trade, and geohistory, all of which are co-examined in a synthetic manner.
The book is divided into sixteen chapters, including introduction and conclusion. The fourteen main chapters make up the three major parts of the volume: I. ‘The theoretical and historical setting and the earlier phases’ (ch. 2-6); II. ‘The foreign languages of the Hittite archives and textual evidence for interference’ (ch. 7-13); III. ‘Contact phenomena in Early Bronze Age Anatolia’ (ch. 14-15).
The introduction by Federico Giusfredi offers a short account of the main goals of the work: a study of language contact in and around Anatolia by means of a contextualized approach (geo- and cultural-historical), largely on the basis of historical corpora of contact-related languages, Anatolian and non-Anatolian alike, rather than a traditional, notably ‘philological’ examination of the linguistic data. This multidisciplinary, contextualized approach is a major contribution of the whole work.
Part I begins with a theoretical chapter (2), once again authored by Giusfredi, on linguistic and cultural contacts. Despite its brevity and some linguistic technicalities, the text is informative and easy to follow. Some points, though, are discussed without many details, e.g. “lower-ranking codes in contact scenarios […] lend the grammar and higher-ranking codes […] lend the lexicon” (p. 25); this is largely true, but modern-day pidgin languages point sometimes to partly different patterns.
The third chapter, by Alvise Matessi, investigates the Late Chalcolithic (4200-3200 BCE) and, particularly, the Early Bronze Ages (ca. 3200-1950 BCE). The author brings up a number of major topics in Anatolian and Near Eastern archaeology (material culture, chronology / periodization, etc.), and devotes some space to migration, a matter that also pertains to the Indo-European homeland puzzle. Matessi inter alia recaps the problems with Colin Renfrew’s theory of an alleged Anatolian homeland and highlights David Anthony’s contribution to Indo-European migration studies. The author concludes that neither Anatolia nor the Caucasus area could have been the cradle of the Anatolian Indo-Europeans. The Balkan area provides some positive clues, but this does not entail that the Balkan area was ultimately the original IE starting point: Ukraine and its eastern environs seem to remain the best case scenario for the original Indo-European homeland.[3]
The following chapter (Matessi and Giusfredi) investigates roughly the first four centuries of the second millennium BCE (Middle Bronze Age) in Anatolia, a period marked by the first appearance of Hittite evidence in Old Assyrian cuneiform texts from Kaneš (modern-day Kültepe) in central-to-SE Anatolia, a city that was also one of the Assyrian trading posts (so-called kārum) in Anatolia. The corpus of the Old Assyrian texts reflects a multilingual milieu, which is revisited here on the basis of linguistic criteria (e.g. lexicon, onomastics, interference, etc.). Hittite emerges dominant, while the footprint of the other languages is small. On the other hand, the archaeological evidence offers insights into both the Assyrian trading route (central Anatolia) and the other commercial networks (southeast and west Anatolia; northwest Syria).
Chapter (5), by Matessi, focuses on the Late Bronze period (ca. 1650-1190 BCE), a time that coincides with the rise of the Hittite Kingdom (or ‘Empire’ after ca. 1400 BCE). The numerous Hittite corpora now are complemented by texts in other Anatolian languages, both Indo-European (Luwian, Palaic) and non-Indo-European (Hattian), while the languages of the eastern neighbors in Mesopotamia and Syria (Sumerian, Akkadian, Hurrian, and to a limited extent, Indo-Aryan) are also sporadically attested. The author focuses on issues of the periodization of Hittite history as well as on the sites and the forms/types of corpora and scripts, while he also provides a rough historical overview (ca. 1400 BCE onwards). Textual evidence, including myths alluding to events of the early Hittite years, is analyzed in conjunction with relevant archaeological data (e.g. sidelining of the native Hattians, gradual expansion and transformation of the Hittite Kingdom, etc.). Of special interest are some Old Hittite laws setting different penalties for people from the Hittite area proper (Hatti) vis-à-vis people from the Luwian (to the south and southwest) and Palaic territories (to the northwest). The difference is interpreted as a juxtaposition between the core area (Hatti) and the periphery of the Empire rather than as different treatment of populations. A functional interpretation over a strictly geographical one is also favored in the case of an apparent overlapping between the Luwian territory (southwest of Hatti) and the land or Arzawa (west of Hatti). The argumentation is well structured, but the evidence is rather flimsy.
Chapter 6, by Giusfredi, Matessi, and Pisaniello, focuses on the spread of the logosyllabic cuneiform script. ‘Cuneiform koiné’ here refers not only to script per se but also to other elements in common, such as literature (e.g. the popular Gilgameš epic poem), lexicon/lexicography, and the cultures involved. The authors inter alia revisit the expansion of cuneiform into Anatolia (‘paleography-centered’ vs. ‘graphemics-centered’ theories, or a combination thereof), and like others before them, they conclude that the Hittite cuneiform script originated from an Old Akkadian syllabary adapted in a transitional Syro-Anatolian zone in the late Middle / early Late Bronze Age (but cf. also Kaneš before, i.e., in the Middle Bronze Period already). Hittite scribes eventually established a distinct school that influenced other areas later.
Part II includes seven informative, up-to-date accounts of all the other languages, besides Hittite, which may be found in the Hittite archives. Evidence for language contact, interference, or intermediation (i.e., via a third language) in the cuneiform texts is brought into focus, while various other issues relating to textual corpora, paleography, etc. are examined as well. The first two chapters (7-8) deal with the two Mesopotamian languages, Sumerian (Maurizio Viano) and Akkadian (Giusfredi and Valerio Pisaniello) respectively. The complexity of the material, but also the variety of genres and orthographic styles, and various chronological issues are discussed adequately.
The next four chapters (9-12) concern the textual manifestation of three Anatolian languages plus Hurrian (an extra-Anatolian language originally). Alfredo Rizza discusses the interaction between Hattian and Hittite and highlights the status of Hattian in the Hittite state (cf. especially its ritual and scribal functions). Giusfredi and Pisaniello offer an interesting overview of Hurrian, with an emphasis on its contacts with Hittite and Luwian. Palaic is examined by Giusfredi who revisits, historically-geographically and especially linguistically, the language and its sources and focuses on indications about early Palaic-Hattian interference. In addition, Ilya Yakubovich provides a concise, yet thorough account of Luwian and its sociolinguistic status, including dialects and contacts with Hurrian in Cilicia and Hittite in Hattuša, which it superseded by the 13th c. BCE. Finally, Paola Cotticelli-Kurras and Pisaniello carefully revisit the presence of Indo-Aryan linguistic elements among the Hurrian elite—largely in onomastics—of the Mittani kingdom (Syro-Mesopotamia), which are to be attributed to an older Indo-Aryan superstrate.
The last two main chapters, which make up Part III and are co-authored by Pisaniello and Giusfredi, have a clear(er) philological-linguistic orientation. The penultimate chapter, which focuses on lexical contact, starts with a concise discussion of notions of borrowing (forms and typology of loanwords, calques, code-switching/mixing, etc.); these concepts are aptly disambiguated from other terms and phenomena (e.g. glosses, heterograms/logograms, etc.). The main part of the chapter is dedicated to language contact in Anatolia, largely in the Late Bronze Age, as manifested in the lexicon. The discussion of principles, criteria and cases pertaining to the disambiguation of borrowings——directly between Akkadian and Hittite or via Hurrian or Luwian——from areal Wanderwörter is of special interest, while calques, semantic loans and cases of interference are also examined. Overall this chapter constitutes a useful contribution, and some occasional skepticism about some minor points, e.g. some code-switching criteria, is of secondary importance.
The final chapter on grammatical interference, i.e., interlinguistic grammatical impact, is also of considerable interest. The brief theoretical introduction to grammatical interference and the issues of substrate-superstrate relationship (Hurrian and Semitic in Syria and Canaan or Assyrian and Anatolian in Anatolia) is instructive despite its inevitably concise character; on the other hand, some issues——e.g. pidgin languages and interference——seem to be described as more systematic phenomena than they are often deemed to be. All in all, only Luwian interference on Hittite may be established safely, given the strong Luwian-Hittite bilingualism in Hattuša in the times of the Hittite Empire.[4]
The Conclusion recaps the overall discussion and provide some perspective on the next volume (Iron Age, contacts in Late Bronze Age western Anatolia).
The volume is written in good academic English, which is matched by equally skillful editing: typos and other infelicities (spelling, punctuation, etc.) are very few. The bibliography is lengthy and up to date. There are also various indices but unfortunately no index of all cited common words. The inclusion of several maps is a welcome addition, but tables are limited, e.g. there are no chronological tables/lists of the numerous kings and queens, Hittite and other, that are often mentioned in the text.
In conclusion, this volume is a worthwhile synthetic account of the language and cultural contacts in the complex world of Bronze Age Anatolia and its adjacent areas, which follows and builds upon recent works that go beyond traditional philological analysis.[5] It will be of interest to experts, but undoubtedly, even less versed readers will benefit by reflecting on similarities and differences between Anatolia of the second-millennium BCE and later cases of multilingual/-cultural milieus, especially situations involving Greek and Latin (Hellenistic/Roman Asia Minor, Egypt, Palestine, etc.). The second volume on Iron Age Anatolia and the earlier contacts with Mycenaean Greek(s) is eagerly anticipated.
Authors and Titles
- F. Giusfredi, Introduction
- F. Giusfredi, Contacts of cultures and contacts of languages
- A. Matessi, Interregional contacts and interactions during the fourth and third millennia BCE
- A. Matessi and F. Giusfredi, Society, culture, and early language contact in Middle Bronze Age Anatolia (ca. 1950-1650 BCE)
- A. Matessi, History, society, and culture in Anatolia and neighboring regions during the Hittite period (ca. 1650-1190 BCE)
- F. Giusfredi, A. Matessi and V. Pisagnello, Hittite Anatolia and the cuneiform koiné
- M. Viano, Sumerian literary and magical texts from Hattuša
- F. Giusfredi and V. Pisaniello, Akkadian and Akkadian texts in Hittite Anatolia
- A. Rizza, Hattian texts and Hattian in the Hittite archives
- F. Giusfredi and V. Pisaniello, Hurrians and Hurrian in Hittite Anatolia
- I. Yakubovich, Cuneiform Luwian in the Hattuša archives
- F. Giusfredi, Palaic in the Hittite archives
- P. Cotticelli-Kurras and V. Pisaniello, Indo-Aryans in the ancient Near East
- V. Pisaniello and F. Giusfredi, Lexical contact in and around Hittite Anatolia
- F. Giusfredi and V. Pisaniello, Grammatical interference and the languages of the Hittite archives
- F. Giusfredi, Conclusion to vol. 1.
Notes
[1] For the more initiated, Wiluša in Hittite texts may be Ilios/Ilion, i.e., Troy, though the correlation of its king Alakšandu(š) to Alexander, namely Paris of Troy, is far more elusive; finally, various Greek myths, rituals and religious figures seem to have Hittite correspondences: e.g. the myth of Kumarbi—although of Hurrian origin—matches the Greek myth of Zeus swallowing and spitting out stones. Cf. e.g. Rutherford, I. 2020. Hittite Texts and Greek Religion: Contact, Interaction and Comparison. Oxford.
[2] It represents the first installment of a two-volume publication—vol. II (forthc.) is dedicated to the first millennium BCE (‘Iron Age’), although contacts of Hittite(s) with Mycenaean(s) are to be included too—and is worthwhile on its own terms thematically and in scholarly respects.
[3] See e.g. Bouckaert, R. et al. 2012. Mapping the origins and expansion of the Indo-European language family, Science 337, 957 (DOI: 10.1126/science.1219669); Anthony, D. W. and Ringe, D. 2015. The Indo-European homeland from linguistic and archaeological perspectives, Annual Review of Linguistics 1: 199–219; Chang, W. et al. 2015. Ancestry-constrained phylogenetic analysis supports the Indo-European steppe hypothesis, Language 91.1: 194-244; Heggarty, P. et al. 2023. Language trees with sampled ancestors support a hybrid model for the origin of Indo-European languages, Science 381, eabg0818 (DOI:10.1126/science.abg0818).
[4] Morphology in particular provides some good examples (cf. e.g. Hittite nominal and pronominal paradigms).
[5] Cf. Yakubovich, I. 2010. Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language. Leiden.