The Carian Language

HANDBOOK OF ORIENTAL STUDIES

SECTION ONE
THE NEAR AND MIDDLE EAST
Ancient Near East
Editor-in-Chief
W. H. van Soldt
Editors
G. Beckman

C. Leitz

B. A. Levine
P. Michalowski

P. Miglus
Middle East
R. S. OFahey

C. H. M. Versteegh
VOLUME EIGHTY-SIX
The Carian Language
by
Ignacio J. Adiego
BRILL
LEIDEN BOSTON
2007
with an appendix by
Koray Konuk
ISSN 0169-9423
ISBN-10 90 04 15281 4
ISBN-13 978 90 04 15281 6
Copyright 2007 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Hotei Publishers,
IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijho Publishers, and VSP.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior
written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted
by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to
The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910,
Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
rnix+rr ix +nr xr+nrnr.xrs
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Adiego Lajara, Ignacio-Javier.
The Carian language / by Ignacio J. Adiego ; with an appendix by Koray Konuk.
p. cm. (Handbook of Oriental studies. Section 1, The Near and Middle
East ; v. 86).
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN-13 : 978-90-04-15281-6 (hardback)
ISBN-10 : 90-04-15281-4 (hardback)
1. Carian language. 2. Carian languageWriting. 3. Inscriptions, CarianEgypt.
4. Inscriptions, CarianTurkeyCaria. I. Title. II.
P946.A35 2006
491.998dc22 2006051655
Gnter Neumann
In memoriam
CONTENTS
Foreword ........................................................................................ xi
Acknowledgments for the Use of Illustrations ............................ xiii
Chapter One Introduction .......................................................... 1
Chapter Two The Indirect Sources .......................................... 7
A. The Glosses .......................................................................... 7
1. Glosses und Pseudo-glosses .................................................... 7
2. Interpretation ........................................................................ 10
B. The Proper Names .............................................................. 12
1. The Unity and Continuity of Anatolian Onomastics .............. 12
2. Present Compilations of Carian and Anatolian Names ............ 14
3. Carian Names from Indirect Sources vs. Those from Direct
Sources ................................................................................ 15
Chapter Three The Inscriptions ................................................ 17
A. Introduction .......................................................................... 17
1. The Revised System of Transcription of Carian Letters .......... 18
2. Vocalism .............................................................................. 18
3. Consonantism ...................................................................... 19
B. Para-Carian or Caroide Inscriptions .............................. 22
1. Para-Carian Inscriptions from Caria .................................... 22
2. Para-Carian Inscriptions from Other Places .......................... 23
3. The Ostrakon of Hou and the Naukratis Fragment ................ 26
4. Carian Gratti from Sardis .................................................. 27
5. Carian Inscription from Old Smyrna .................................... 29
C. The Carian Inscriptions from Egypt .................................. 30
1. Sais (E.Sa) ........................................................................ 32
2. Memphis (E.Me) ................................................................ 34
3. Abydos (E.Ab) .................................................................... 79
4. Thebes, Tomb of Montuemhat (E.Th) .................................. 95
5. Luxor Temple (E.Lu) .......................................................... 106
6. Murww (E.Mu) ................................................................ 109
7. Silsilis (E.Si) ...................................................................... 110
8. Abu Simbel (E.AS) .............................................................. 115
viii cox+rx+s
9. Buhen (E.Bu) .................................................................. 119
10. Gebel Sheik Suleiman (E.SS) ............................................ 123
11. Unknown Origin, Likely from Egypt (E.xx) ........................ 124
D. The Carian Inscriptions from Caria .................................. 128
1. Tralleis (C.Tr) .................................................................. 130
2. Alabanda and Surroundings (C.Al) ...................................... 132
3. Euromos (C.Eu) ................................................................ 132
4. Kindye (C.Kn) .................................................................. 134
5. Hyllarima (C.Hy) ............................................................ 135
6. Mylasa (C.My) ................................................................ 137
7. Sanctuary of Sinuri near Mylasa (C.Si) .............................. 138
8. Kildara (C.Ki) .................................................................. 141
9. Stratonikeia (C.St) ............................................................ 142
10. Halikarnassos (C.Ha) ........................................................ 144
11. Didyma (Ionia, near Milet) (C.Di) .................................... 145
12. Iasos (C.Ia) ...................................................................... 145
13. Keramos (C.Ke) ................................................................ 150
14. Kaunos (C.Ka) .................................................................. 151
15. Krya (C.Kr) ...................................................................... 158
16. Inscriptions of Unknown Origin, Presumably from Caria
(C.xx) .................................................................................. 159
E. The Carian Inscriptions from Greece ................................ 164
Chapter Four The History of the Decipherment .................. 166
A. The Semisyllabic Era (18871962) .................................. 166
B. The Greek Alphabetic Era ................................................ 176
C. The Egyptian Approach .................................................... 187
1. The First Attempts ............................................................ 187
2. The Seminal Work of Ray ................................................ 191
...... 197
Chapter Five The Carian Alphabet .......................................... 205
A. Alphabetic Varieties ............................................................ 205
1. Alphabetic Varieties of Caria Proper .................................... 206
2. Inscriptions from Continental Greece .................................... 219
3. Egyptian Alphabets ............................................................ 219
4. The Classication of the Alphabets of Caria Proper .............. 223
5. The Relationship between the Alphabet from Egypt and
the Local Alphabets from Caria Proper .............................. 226
6. The Common Origin of the Carian Alphabetic Varieties ........ 228
B. The Origin of the Carian Alphabet .................................. 230
3. The Denitive Decipherment (Ray-Schrr-Adiego System)
cox+rx+s ix
Chapter Six Phonological Features ............................................ 234
A. The Phonological System .................................................... 234
1. Vowels and Semivowels ........................................................ 234
2. Consonants .......................................................................... 242
3. Letters of Uncertain Value .................................................... 251
4. Letters of Unknown Value .................................................... 253
5. Phonotactics ........................................................................ 254
B. Overview of the Historical Phonology of Carian ............ 256
1. Vocalism ............................................................................ 257
2. Consonants .......................................................................... 259
3. Some Secondary Changes ...................................................... 262
Chapter Seven Analyzing Carian Inscriptions .......................... 264
A. Basic Onomastic Formulae .................................................. 264
1. Inscriptions Consisting of Only an Individual Name .............. 264
2. Inscriptions Consisting of Only a Twofold Onomastic
Formula .............................................................................. 265
B. The Structure of the Stelae from Memphis ...................... 267
1. Threefold Formulae .............................................................. 267
2. Stelae for Women ................................................................ 271
3. Inscriptions with Ted and En ............................................ 273
4. Other More Complex Funerary Inscriptions ............................ 275
5. The Rest of the Inscriptions from the Memphis Corpus .......... 276
6. A First Summary ................................................................ 279
C. Analyzing Brief Inscriptions ................................................ 280
1. Inscriptions on Objects .......................................................... 281
2. Funerary Inscriptions of Caria and Athens ............................ 287
3. The Longest Grato from Abu Simbel (E.AS 7) .................. 293
D. The Longer Inscriptions ...................................................... 294
1. The Kaunos Bilingual Inscription .......................................... 295
2. The Kaunos Inscription C.Ka 2 ............................................ 301
3. Sinuris Longer Inscription (C.Si 2) ...................................... 302
4. The Hyllarima Inscription (C.Hy 1) .................................... 305
5. Other Inscriptions from Caria .............................................. 308
E. Summary and Some Controversial Questions .................. 310
Chapter Eight Morphological Features ...................................... 312
A. Nominal Inection .............................................................. 312
1. Nominative Singular ............................................................ 312
2. Accusative Singular .............................................................. 313
x cox+rx+s
3. Genitive Singular .................................................................. 314
4. The -s Ending and the Problem of Carian Datives ................ 314
5. Other Possible Datives .......................................................... 317
6. Nominative Plural ................................................................ 318
7. Accusative Plural .................................................................. 318
8. Other Possible Case Endings ................................................ 319
B. Pronominal Inection .......................................................... 319
C. Verbal Inection .................................................................. 321
Chapter Nine The General Vocabulary and the Proper
Names .......................................................................................... 326
A. General vocabulary .............................................................. 326
B. Proper Names ...................................................................... 328
1. Theophores .......................................................................... 331
2. Some Nominal Stems ............................................................ 333
3. Verbal Stems ...................................................................... 339
4. Adverbs .............................................................................. 339
5. Lallnamen .......................................................................... 340
6. Suxes ................................................................................ 341
Chapter Ten Carian as an Indo-European Anatolian
Language .................................................................................... 345
Chapter Eleven Carian Glossary ................................................ 348
Appendices
A. Carian Inscriptions in Transcription .................................. 443
B. Carian Glosses ...................................................................... 455
C. Carian Names in Greek Sources ........................................ 456
D. Concordances ........................................................................ 464
E. Coin Legends in Carian (by K. Konuk) ............................ 471
Abbreviations and Bibliography .................................................... 493
Table I: The Carian Alphabet .................................................... 508
Table II: Carian signs in coin legends ........................................ 509
Index .............................................................................................. 511
Plates .............................................................................................. 519
Maps .......................................................................................... 521
Coins .......................................................................................... 523
FOREWORD
Fifteen years after my doctoral dissertation on Carian (Studia Carica.
Investigaciones sobre la escritura y lengua carias, y su relacin con la familia
lingstica anatolia indoeuropea, University of Barcelona, 1990), directed by
Pere J. Quetglas and supervised by Jrgen Untermann, and twelve
years after my book Studia Carica (Barcelona 1993), a revised edition of
my dissertation, I now oer a new work on the Carian script and lan-
guage. This is not an English translation of the above titles. In fact,
very little remains of the structure and content of these former works,
mainly due to three, closely interrelated reasons. Firstly, both my dis-
sertation and the subsequent book were conceived to defend a new
proposal for deciphering Carian, beginning with the fundamental work
of the British Egyptologist John D. Ray, which, in the 1980s, marked
a dramatic breakthrough in the history of research on Carian. My aim
at the time was to further develop the decipherment, after noting that
Rays system, although certainly well founded, was by no means totally
satisfactory. Now, following the discovery of the bilingual inscription of
Kaunos in 1996, the system proposed in my book Studia Carica has
been proved correct and is acceptedwith slight modicationsas the
standard tool for transcribing the Carian signs. Therefore, a new book
on Carian no longer needs to oer a combative justication for a par-
ticular decipherment system, but should rather take the denitive deci-
pherment as a starting point for the analysis of Carian texts. Secondly,
the corpus of Carian inscriptions has been augmented by the appear-
ance of several new texts, among which the Carian-Greek bilingual of
Kaunos mentioned above is undoubtedly the most relevant. In addi-
tion, some other inscriptions that were already known have subsequently
been revised, yielding new possible interpretations. Thirdly, the new
decipherment encouraged many scholars to apply themselves to the
study of Carian, so that although many uncertainties remain and our
knowledge of Carian language continues to be very limited, important
progress has been made in recent years, and this must now be incor-
porated into an updated analysis of the subject.
I wish to repeat here my most profound gratitude to those that
helped me when I began to work on Carian, particularly the afore-
mentioned Pere J. Quetglas and J. Untermann, without whose help
xii ronrvonr
and encouragement I could not have undertaken a doctoral disserta-
tion on a topic that was then beset by so many risks. I am also grate-
ful to Theo van den Hout, who invited me to prepare this book for
Brill; to Brill for accepting this project; to Koray Konuk, for giving me
the opportunity to substantially improve this book with an appendix
on Carian coin legends; and to Wolfgang Blmel, H. Craig Melchert
and Diether Schrr, not only for their kind assistance with some of the
problems that arose during the preparation of this work, but also for
the consistently productive and exciting interchange of ideas about
Carian. Georg Rehrenbck (Kleinasiatische Kommission, sterreichi-
sche Akademie der Wissenchaften) also deserves a special mention for
his extreme kindness and unfailing generosity in answering all of my
queries about copies of Carian inscriptions conserved in Vienna.
I am equally indebted to Peter Cottee for his accurate revision of
my imperfect English. Needless to say, all the possible errors and omis-
sions are of my own doing.
On a more personal level, I must express my gratitude to my wife,
Anna, and to my daughters, Alba-Artemsia and Laura-Net, for bear-
ing with such patience the long period during which the book was put
together.
This book is dedicated to the memory of Gnter Neumann: for a
decipherment to be successful it must not only be correct, but also
credible and convincing, and he showed me how to achieve this with
his open-minded consideration of ideas that questioned the prevailing
communis opinio on Carian, his astuteness in refraining from excessive
speculation, his numerous suggestions of improvements, his discreet but
very eective work in favour of the new decipherment, and his advice
to wait patiently for a proposal marked with the signum veritatis (to quote
his own expression) to nally achieve general acceptance.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS FOR THE USE OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Drawings of inscriptions come from O. Masson, Carian Inscriptions from
North Saqqara and Buhen (Masson 1978), and are reproduced by kind
permission of the Egypt Exploration Society.
Drawings taken from O. Masson-J. Yoyotte Objets pharaoniques inscrip-
tion carienne (Masson-Yoyotte 1956) and O. Masson Remarques sur les
grates cariens dAbou Simbel, Hommages la mmoire de S.
Sauneron II (Masson 1979) are reproduced with the permission of the
Institut franais darchologie orientale.
Drawings of grati published in The Epigraphic Survey, Reliefs and
Inscriptions at Luxor Temple II, The facade, Portals, Upper Register Scenes,
Columns, Marginalia, and Statuary in the Colonnade Hall (ESS 1998) are
reproduced by courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago.
Drawings extracted from L. Deroy Les inscriptions cariennes de
Carie, LAntiquit Classique 24 (Deroy 1955) are reproduced with per-
mission of the editors of the journal.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
It is not clear when Caria and the Carians enter into ancient History.
This is dependent on equating classical Caria with the land of Karkiya/
Karkisa mentioned in Hittite sources. This supposition, eminently suit-
able from a purely linguistic point of view (kark in Karkisa, Karkiya
is practically identical to the Old Persian word for Carian, kka-), is
complicated by the uncertainties regarding the exact location of Karkisa/
Karkiya on the map, a problem intimately bound to the complex ques-
tion of Hittite geography, a topic still subject to controversy despite the
great progress made in recent years.
In any case, no information about the language of the land of
Karkiya/Karkisa can be obtained from Hittite sources, so that even if
the equation could be conrmed, its value for the study of the Carian
language would be very limited. The only relevant (but overly generic)
datum is that Karkiya/Karkisa is a land located in the western region
of Anatolia, an area occupied by Luwian population groups, and thus
consistent with the clear similarities between Carian and Luwian, Lycian
and other Indo-European Anatolian dialects that can now, since the
decipherment of Carian, be clearly traced (see Chapter 10).
Classical Caria, the country situated in western Anatolia between
Lydia and Lycia, must therefore be the starting point of the research
on Carian language. It is during this period that we nd both direct
documentation of Carian and a wealth of information about this land
and its inhabitants in indirect, mostly Greek, sources.
Particularly meaningful are the consistent ties that we can establish
between various types of records on Carian and the Carians regard-
ing one of the most remarkable characteristics of Carian language doc-
umentation: the fact that the greatest number of Carian inscriptions
have been found in Egypt, and not in Caria itself.
From Greek sources, we know that Carian and Ionian mercenaries
were employed by the pharaoh Psammetichus I (664610) for consol-
idating his throne (Herod. I, 151). According to Herodotus, these mer-
cenaries were based in the Delta area, near Bubastis (Herod. II, 154).
It is no coincidence then that the oldest datable Carian document from
2 cn.r+rn oxr
Egypt, a bilingual inscription on a statuette of the goddess Neith (E.Sa
2) from the times of Psammetichus I, can be traced to Sais, another
Egyptian city situated on the Delta.
A further connection can be drawn between Carian documents and
historical facts under the reign of the grandson of Psammetichus I,
Psammetichus II (595589): a well-known Greek grato from Abu
Simbel attests the participation of foreign mercenaries in his Nubian
campaign (593/592, see below p. 31 for this dating), and this infor-
mation is consistent with the existence of Carian grati in Abu Simbel
and in other locations further to the south (Buhen, Gebel el-Sheik el-
Suleiman).
Under Amasis (568526), Ionian and Carian settlements were moved
from the Delta to the city of Memphis (Herod. II, 154), where a Carian
quarter (Karikn) and a Greek quarter (Ellhnikn) existed for many
years (Aristagoras of Milet apud Stephan of Byzantium, s. v. Ellhnikn).
Once again this event can be linked to epigraphical evidence: the most
important sub-corpus of Carian inscriptions is the collection of funer-
ary stelae found in Saqqra, one of the necropoleis of Memphis. As
for the rest of Carian inscriptions found in Egyptmostly grati
from Thebes, Abydos, Silsilis, etc.), no connections can be established
with historical facts, and we can only assume that they are the marks
of Carian visitors, similar to Greek grati found in these and another
parts of Egypt.
Caria itself does not oer such striking results. The Carian inscrip-
tions found in Caria are far less numerous than those from Egypt,
come from dierent cities, and appear more heterogeneous, both in
content and in form, thus constituting a very fragmentary and incom-
plete view and lacking a clear connection with historical facts.
1
In fact,
the sole inscription that gives any indication of a link to the history of
Caria is the bilingual inscription from the temple of the god Sinuri
(C.Si 2), which can condently be interpreted as a decree enacted by
the Carian dynasts of the Hekatomnid era, Idrieus and Ada, whose
joint reign is dated in the period 351/350344/343. But not even this
inscription has any real implications for Carian history: it is simply part
of a wider corpus of regulations of a local syngeneiamostly in Greek
produced by the satrapal couple. In the case of another of the most
1
This is not the place for a history of Caria. I refer the reader to Hornblower
(1982).
ix+nortc+iox 3
important Carian inscriptions from Caria itself, namely the bilingual
proxeny decree of Kaunos (C.Ka 5), dated at the end of the IV cen-
tury BC, the two Athenian citizens honoured as proxenoi are not clearly
identiable with any gures found in classical sources. The new inscrip-
tion from Hyllarima (C.Hy 1b), and perhaps also the inscription recently
found in Mylasa (C.My 1), oer lists of priests that can be linked to
local cults. The two texts from Stratonikeia also contain lists of names,
but in these cases their religious character cannot be conrmed. Nothing
can be ascertained about the exact content of the inscription from
Kildara (C.Ki 1) or the longest Carian inscription from Kaunos (C.Ka
2), but their ocial character is beyond doubt. This heterogeneous cor-
pus is completed by a number of funerary, and therefore private, inscrip-
tions and by others about whose content and functionality we know
nothing. The absence of a precise dating for most of these texts fur-
ther compounds the diculties in placing them in a denite context.
If a conclusion must be drawn exclusively from the present corpus
of Carian inscriptions from Caria, we must conclude that written use
of Carian was very limited and conned to certain local communities,
mainly linked to religious cults and to private funerary contexts: in this
latter case there are so few examples that it would be tenuous to make
a comparison with the much richer documents of neighbouring Lycia.
The only notable exception to this extreme scarcity of documentation
is Kaunos, where a small, but very signicant corpus of inscriptions
has been established, thanks particularly to the archaeological excava-
tions carried on in the last forty years. But this is an exception only if
considered in relative terms compared to the rest of the documenta-
tion. In absolute terms, Kaunos provides us with a very a modest col-
lection of Carian inscriptions.
It is astonishing that we have at our disposal only a single, reliable
example of the use of Carian as a co-ocial language (alongside Greek)
in the Hekatomnid period: the aforementioned decree from Sinuri, C.Si
2. This is particularly surprising since it is generally believed that dur-
ing the activity of the Hekatomnid dynasty, a Karianization (to use
Hornblowers word) took place, so that Mausolus and his family, them-
selves native Karians, encouraged the institutions (such as the koin),
the cults, and the language of Karia (Hornblower 1982:352; the empha-
sis is mine). The Carian documentation found to this day in no way
supports this view. It is true that this current interpretation of the writ-
ten use of Carian must be viewed with some caution, since it is pos-
sible that the lack of documentation is in fact a result of our insucient
4 cn.r+rn oxr
archaeological knowledge of the land, and the perishable materials on
which many inscriptions were written. Moreover, both the hypotheses
on the origin of Carian letters envisaged here (p. 231) and the strongly
dierentiated local alphabetic variants point clearly to a much wider
and prolonged use of Carian script. However, at least in the case of
the alleged importance of the Carian language as a tool for Karianization
in the Hekatomnid period, there is compelling counter-evidence: the
total disappearance of Carian letters, and their replacement by single
Greek legends, from the well-documented coinage of the Hekatomnids
from Hekatomnos onward,
2
which would seem to disprove the theory
of the co-ocial status of Carian.
Carian belongs to the IndoEuropean family of Anatolian languages,
which also comprises Hittite, Cuneiform and Hieroglyphic Luwian,
Palaic, Lycian, Lydian and lesser known Sidetic and Pisidian. More
precisely, it forms part of the so-called Luwic
3
group. This classica-
tion of Carian has already been proposed by several scholarsnotably
V. V. evorokinon the basis of indirect documentation armed in
Classical sources, mostly Carian proper names that showed strong con-
nections with Anatolian. But this is now clearly conrmed by direct
sources, now that the Carian alphabet has been deciphered, and deci-
sive linguistic evidence has been obtained from Carian texts.
This book is intended to show the new look of Carian following the
decipherment of the Carian writing system. My aim is to oer as com-
plete and updated a view as possible of our present knowledge of
Carian, paying special attention to existing documentation, the Carian
alphabet, its origin and variants, and to the still developing linguistic
interpretation of the materials and its repercussions for the classication
of Carian as an Anatolian language. In Chapter 2, a brief summary
of the indirect sources on Carian is outlined. Chapter 3 is devoted to
the presentation of the entire corpus of Carian inscriptions available to
2
On Hekatomnids coinage, see the decisive work of Koray Konuk (Konuk 1998a).
3
From now on, I shall use the term Luwic for this group of dialects, following
the suggestion made by Melchert, as a convenient and non-confusing form to refer to
a series of Anatolian dialects that share important dierentiating issogloses but whose
exact internal relationshiporiginating from a common branch, or rather the result
of an areal convergenceis still debated (see Melchert 2003:176). The former use of
Luwian, both for two dialects (Hieroglyphic and Cuneiform) and for the entire group
(embracing also Lycian, Carian, Sidetic and Pisidian), could lead to confusion and must
be therefore abandoned.
ix+nortc+iox 5
me at the time this book was written.
4
Only the coin legends are not
discussed there, since they are the subject of a specic appendix, kindly
prepared by Koray Konuk. Chapter 3 does not constitute an epigraphical
edition. The inscriptions are simply intended to be a useful tool with
which to tackle the following chapters and the analysis of Carian writ-
ing and language in general, hence the inclusion of drawings and the
observations about reading problems.
Chapter 4 oers a general history of the decipherment of Carian. It
is based mostly on the corresponding chapter of my Studia Carica (Adiego
1993a), but has been expanded to include a succinct exposition of the
decisive progress of decipherment, accomplished during the nal decade
of the 20th Century.
Chapter 5 deals with the Carian alphabet, oering an analysis of
the dierent local alphabetic variants and some reections on the pos-
sible origins of this extremely peculiar writing system.
Chapters 6 to 11 focus on linguistic aspects. Chapter 6 oers an
overview of Carian phonology from a synchronic and, insofar as is pos-
sible, diachronic perspective. Chapter 7 introduces the possibility of
analysing a great number of Carian inscriptions, from the briefest and
most transparent, to the more extensive, wherein the diculties of inter-
pretation are practically insurmountable. Chapter 8 discusses the (scarce)
morphological traits that have so far been identied in Carian. Chapter
9 is of a lexical nature: an inventory of all the Carian common words
to have been identied is put together and analyzed, and the same is
done for the proper names, in this latter case in the context of Anatolian
onomastics. As a means of concluding the study, chapter 10 presents
the evidence that suggests Carian can be classied in the group of
Anatolian Luwic dialects. Finally, Chapter 11 provides a glossary of
all the forms shown in Carian inscriptions, inspired by similar works
such as the Lydisches Wrterbuch by Roberto Gusmani, or the more recent
Dictionary of the Lycian Language by H. Craig Melchert. The book is
accompanied by ve appendices: an editio minor of the inscriptions in
transcription, the collection of glosses and a list of proper names found
in Greek sources, a table of concordances with other editions of Carian
4
The only unavailable source is a Carian inscription found in Greece and pub-
lished some years ago (see G. Neumann, Epigraphische MitteilungenKleinasien in:
Kadmos 39, 2000:190). Despite my eorts, it was impossible to obtain when prepar-
ing this book.
6 cn.r+rn oxr
inscriptions, and a special section by Koray Konuk on Carian coins
with Carian legends, as mentioned above. The bibliography that com-
pletes the book is intended to be an exhaustive collection of all publi-
cations on Carian language and inscriptions from Sir Archibald Sayce
to the present, together with other works not specically devoted to
Carian, but that are cited thoroughout this study.
Despite my best eorts, it is inevitable that a study of a language
that is only partially understood, and surrounded by uncertainties, will
contain a number of provisional results, fragile hypotheses and even
mere speculations, not necessarily shared by other scholars. This will
not come as a surprise to seasoned specialists in the study of Trmmer-
sprachen, but I consider it necessary to advise scholars of related disci-
plines against taking all of the interpretations included in my work to
be demonstrated or indeed denitive. Much more will have to be done,
and much more new material will have to be made available before
we are able to paint a condent picture of this language. In any case,
I have tried at all times to separate the assertions presently considered
plausible by the communis opinio (for example, the overall validity of the
decipherment system RaySchrrAdiego) from those interpretations
that rest on more fragile indices, and which are shared by only a hand-
ful of scholars, or indeed those hypotheses that are my own creation.
I have tried where possible to avoid resorting to overly hypothetical
explanations, and to steer clear of long, confusing paragraphs of a crit-
ical nature, which also explains the limited use I have made of works
by other scholars, when their results seemed to me excessively tenuous
or somewhat premature. Only in the glossary, for the sake of com-
prehensiveness, have I included some interpretations suggested for dier-
ent Carian words that I dont share or that I nd too speculative.
Proposed in this study is a new system of classication for Carian
inscriptions, which is intended to be more rational than previous oerings,
and also some modications of the transcription system of Carian signs
(the reasons for this are explained in pp. 1820). I hope that these
innovations will not create any diculties for the reader. For more
clarity, Appendix C (Concordances) can be used to nd the equiva-
lences between the new classication system and the older ones, and
Table I at the end of the book shows the transcription system of Carian
that is used here.
CHAPTER TWO
THE INDIRECT SOURCES
A. Tnr Grossrs
Sur le chapitre des gloses, on peut passer assez rapidement. Le matriel
est dune valeur trs mdiocre (Masson 1973:190).
Olivier Massons categorical statement is absolutely true. There are
very few Carian glosses, and the possibilities of connecting them both
to the direct documentation of the Carian language and to the com-
mon Anatolian lexicon are very limited or simply non-existent. Despite
this, we will examine this modest corpus.
1. Glosses and Pseudo-glosses
The rst problem that must be addressed is the distinction between
true Carian glosses and merely ctitious forms. From the time of the
rst compilation of scientic interestSayce (1887[92]:116120)to the
most recentby Dorsi himself (Dorsi 1979)the inventory of Carian
glosses was articially expanded by invalid entries until Dorsi signicantly
reduced it. Sayce oered a total of 21 glosses, which Dorsi then short-
ened to six denite ones, and three doubtful, adding three relevant
names of gods. Between Sayce and Dorsi, in Brandenstein (1935a) this
articial expansion of the number of glosses reached its peak: Brandenstein
lists more than sixty words under the title Wrter, Glossen, usw.
I have analysed elsewhere the methodological errors that led to this
situation (Adiego 1992b). Here we need simply remember that a source
of tremendous confusion was the lack of dierentiation in Brandenstein
(1935a) between actual glosses and a modern, semantic explanation of
Carian proper names (for the most part very weakly argued). As a
result, some theories were constructed based only on a purely hypo-
thetical meaning attributed to Carian names.
As has been said, Dorsis corpus consists only of six denite glosses,
and three doubtful ones. I choose to disregard the three god names,
since no meaning is oered in ancient sources, and they therefore
8 cn.r+rn +vo
contribute nothing to our knowledge of the Carian lexicon.
1
The six
denite glosses are la horse, bnda victory, soa(n)
2
tomb, gla
king, gssa stone, and koon sheep. Of these, the rst ve are linked
by the fact that they are all found in the work of Stephan of Byzantium,
who quotes them when speaking about the Carian place names Al-
banda, Ulloala, Souggela and Mongissa (see appendix B for the
relevant passages).
As for the sixth gloss, although the Carian character of the word
concerned is expressly mentioned in the sources, there are some prob-
lems concerning the exact form of the word. The sources are two scho-
lia to the Iliad XIV, 255, one in Eusthatius scholia, the other in the
manuscript T of the Scholia Vetera in Iliadem,
3
both of which are related
to the name of the island of Kos (Kw). In T, the word is given as
koon, while Eustathiuss passage is ambiguous: he states that Kn (acc.)
is spelled Kon by some, but then immediately adds that the Carians
use this name for sheep (fas d tow Kraw otv kalen t prbata).
4
It has traditionally been interpreted
5
that the Carian word was in fact
identical to the name of Kos (hence kw sheep), but Dorsi believed
that Eustathius left out the actual Carian word simply through over-
sight, which would be koon as it appears in the other scholion.
However, Erbse, in a work published after Dorsis article (Erbse 1986:
389390), is suspicious of the form koon of T, oering it inter cruces.
His preference is the kon form of Eustathius, interpreting the passage
of Eustathius work mentioned above as a true gloss
6
and noting more-
over that this latter form appears in another passage by Eustathius
1
The three god names are Imbramow = Hermes (St. Byz. s. v. Imbrow; but note
the variant reading Imbrasow, which Dorsi does not mention, reported by the Scholia
vetera in Theogoniam v. 338, and Eustathius, Commentarii ad Iliadem XIV, 281), Msariw
= Dionysus (St. Byz. s. v. Mstaura), and Osoga = Zenoposeidon (Strabo XIV,
659, Pausanias VIII; 10, 4).
2
As Dorsi rightly points out, la n nale di soan pu essere un semplice morfema
di accusativo greco (peraltro non necessario: cfr. sopra la), ma pu anche essere stata
suggerita (a torto o a ragione) dalla scomposizione del toponimo in souan-gela (Dorsi
1979:29).
3
Edited by Hartmut Erbse: Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem (Scholia uetera), Berlin,
19791984. T is the Cod. Brit. Mus. Burney 86, to be dated in 1014 or 1059 A.D.
4
Eusthatius, Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem 983, 33 (= ad Iliad. XIV, 255). I follow
the Leipzig edition of 1827 (re-edited in Hildesheim-New York 1970).
5
Cf. Sayce (188792]:118): Kw (kn) a sheep, although he adds the spelling kow
in Eusthatius. See also Brandenstein (1935:142).
6
At least this is what I have deduced from the very terse and implicit treatment
of the problem in Erbse (1986).
+nr ixrinrc+ sotncrs 9
(318,41 = ad Iliad. II, 677).
7
Although Erbse does not discount the
possibility that Eusthatius could have replaced koon with kon in order
to improve the etymological explanation in both passages, he sees
kon as the genuine form, opting for the simpler solution that koon is
a graphical error.
The three glosses that Dorsi lists as dubious are: tba rock, tou-
ssloi dwarfs, pigmies, and tumna stick, all of which are also attested
by Stephan of Byzantium. The inclusion of tumna, even if it is branded
as dubious, seems rather inadequate; it is true that Stephan mentions
this word when referring to the Carian city of Tumnhsw, but he attrib-
utes it to the language of the inhabitants of Xanthos, a Lycian city,
implying that the word must be Lycian rather than Carian.
8
In the case of tba rock, the word is cited by Stephan of Byzantium
in connection with a Lydian city called Tbai. He adds that the word
tba, which he does not attribute specically to any language, is trans-
lated in Greek as rock. Following this, he mentions another Tbai,
in this case situated in Caria, but it seems to be merely a passing ref-
erence. From his observations then, the gloss had to be interpreted as
Lydian, but Dorsi rightly observes (1979:29) that modern scholarship
coincides in its estimation that no Lydian city of this name existed and
that the two cities are in fact only one, situated in Caria (cf. Zgusta
KON 12771, Blmel KarON:179). It is therefore feasible, although
impossible to demonstrate, that Stephans mistaken belief that the place
name belonged to a Lydian country could have led to an error when
attempting to establish the origin of the gloss. The problem becomes
even more intractable given the existence of Tabhnoi (pl.), the name
given to the inhabitants of some part of Lydia, which suggests that a
Lydian Tabai or similar might actually have existed (see Zgusta
KON:593).
As for toussloi, the text is ambiguous and obscure. The word
appears under the entry Kttouza, a Thracian city inhabited by pig-
mies. Reference to Carians is therefore secondary and open to various
interpretations.
7
However, in this case, the word kon is not attributed expressly to the Carians.
8
Jnyioi gr tn =bdon tumnan lgousin.
10 cn.r+rn +vo
2. Interpretation
If the collection of Carian glosses is very small and their value mediocre,
the attempts to interpret them are equally disappointing. The only
attractive etymological interpretation is that suggested by Carruba,
regarding koon sheep (Carruba 1965). Carruba proposed connecting
it with Cuneiform Luwian a/-, Hieroglyphic Luwian ha-wa/i/- <
PIE *h
2
e/owo- sheep. The new form for the gloss defended by Erbse
(1986), kon, would support this etymological explanation, because it
would come from an intermediate form *kWon, a plausible Carian
result of Proto-Anatolian (henceforth PA) *Hwo- (the stem was not in
-i- originally in Anatolian, cf. Lyc. xawa-, and see Melchert CLL s. v.
a/-). The treatment of PA laryngeal as velar stop in Carian (as in
Lycian) is now clearly conrmed (see below p. 260).
As for the possibility of nding some of these glosses in the Carian
inscriptions, the results are equally discouraging, although in theory
words meaning tomb or king are likely to appear. In fact, thanks to
the bilingual inscription of Athens (G. 1), we know that jas is proba-
bly one of the Carian words used for referring to a tomb or a funer-
ary monument. The word appears as as in Euromos (C.Eu 1). The
possibility of connecting these forms with the gloss soa(n) was con-
ceived by Meier-Brgger (Meier-Brgger 1979:81),
9
but we must be
aware that in order to connect all of these forms, a lot of non-trivial
sound changes are needed (*/swa/- > */swa/- > */sja/ > ja- (> a-),
for instance), and in any case, -s in ( j )as?, vs. -n or - in soa(n)
would remain unexplained.
In the case of the word for king, it is commonly supposed that it
could be very similar in Carian to the corresponding word in Lycian,
xtawat(i)- /kdawati/. Adiego (1994a:240) proposed that the form
k
?
dow (part of a word esak
?
dow, E.AS 7) could be the Carian word
for king, and this hypothesis was substantiated in Adiego (1995:1821)
by the Lycian-Greek-Aramaic inscription of Xanthos (Lycia, N 320),
wherein the Carian divinity King of Kaunos appears in Aramaic as
KNDW (KNDWS) KBYDY. This seems to imply that KNDW-
KNDWS could be the Carian word for king (see below Chapter 11
s. v. esak
?
dow for more details).
9
It is somewhat remarkable that Meier-Brggers proposal, which implies an (a
sort of sibilant) value for z, was formulated some time before this value of z was con-
vincingly established by J. D. Ray in the context of a wider system of decipherment.
+nr ixrinrc+ sotncrs 11
If we accept these identications, the problem of gla is very simi-
lar to that of soa(n): gla and a Carian word kdow( ) have some
points in common (the velar initial, a possible correspondence -l- :
-d- (<*/nd/),
10
but a series of fragile hypotheses about sound changes
would be needed to bring both forms closer.
An alternative approach to these glosses has been to question their
validity by taking into account that some of the place names glossed
by Stephan of Byzantium allow an analysis based on Anatolian ono-
mastics, which is clearly at odds with the etymological explanation of
the Greek source. For example, in the case of Albanda, Brandenstein
(1936) observed that the word displayed the typical Anatolian sux
-anda, frequently used for place names, thus ruling out the segmenta-
tion Al-banda on which Stephans etymological explanation was based,
and consequently the validity of his information.
However, discrediting the information provided by Stephan is hardly
reconcilable with the idea, expressed by Dorsi (1979:34), that these
Carian glosses must all be considered as qualitatively important, since
they may have borrowed from Carian writers of the Alexandrian era.
This would imply that we are dealing with rst-hand evidence, going
back to authors on Carian topics who could be still uent in Carian,
and who are therefore extremely reliable sources.
In my opinion, there is no implicit contradiction in accepting both
the information provided by Stephan of Byzantium and the dierent
interpretation of the place name from the perspective of Anatolian ono-
mastics: a folk-etymological analysis of Al-banda as a compound of
two authentic Carian names does not say anything about the actual
origin of this Carian place name. In other words, even if we accept
that Stephans etymological explanation of the place name Al-banda
was probably awed, this does not necessarily invalidate the informa-
tion that la means horse and bnda victory. A good example of
this is to take just to one of the place names involved: Souggela was
later replaced by Yeggela, undoubtedly by a process of folk-etymo-
logical hellenisation (yew + ggelow). If someone had glossed this place
name as coming from yew god, and ggelow messenger and as
meaning messenger of God or similar, the information about these
10
In the Carian language of Thebes, the letter & d is not used, and if one accepts
that Carian of Thebes mlane corresponds to Carian of elsewhere mdane, a sound change
d > l could be imaginable.
12 cn.r+rn +vo
latter words would be correct, despite the fact that the place name was
not created ex nihilo with this slightly absurd meaning, but rather was
the result of an intricate process of deformation.
11
A similar explana-
tion could be acceptable for all the Carian glosses based on place
names.
12
B. Tnr Pnorrn N.vrs
1. The Unity and Continuity of Anatolian Onomastics
Before the decipherment of Carian writing, our only source of reliable
information on the Carian language was (besides the scarce glosses
analysed in the foregoing section) the onomastic corpus, essentially per-
son and place names transmitted by indirect sources, particularly Greek
ones. The most notable aspects of the Carian onomastics observed dur-
ing the history of the research are shown here:
(1) Carian onomastics is to a large extent inseparable from the ono-
mastics of other minorasiatic regions that have also reached us through
indirect sources.
(2) These onomastics of Asia Minor in Greek transmission, which
can be ascribed to a period that stretches from the middle of the rst
millennium B.C. to the rst centuries A.D., turn out to be a clear con-
tinuation of the Hittite-Luwian onomastics of the second millennium
B.C.
(3) A great part of these onomastics, traceable from the beginning
of the second millennium B.C. to the start of Christian Era, can clearly
be linguistically interpreted as belonging to the Indo-European Anatolian
group. We are dealing therefore with onomastics that are, linguistically
speaking, Anatolian.
(4) In any case, Carian proper names display certain characteristics
that make them distinguishable from other Anatolian onomastics:
11
An intermediate phase Yuaggl/a/ (ethnic Yuagg[leuw] is also documented, see
Hornblower (1992:99, n. 160).
12
For some etymological proposals (all rather provisional) formulated about Carian
glosses, see Adiego (1993a:22). For Albanda as rich in horses (my suggestion, purely
hypothetical), see Adiego (1993a:21).
+nr ixrinrc+ sotncrs 13
several name types, for instance those in -vllow, -vlliw, are typically
Carian, and this singularity can be attributed to specic phonological
and/or morphological traits of the Carian language.
The unity of the Anatolian onomastics transmitted by Greek sources
was established by Paul Kretschmer in chapter X (Die kleinasiatische
Sprachen) of his Einleitung in die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache (Kretschmer
1896). Kretschmer believed that in these onomastics a Pre-Indo-European
substratum common to all Asia Minor (with the exception of Phrygia)
was recognizable, given that many concrete elements (lexemes as well
as suxes) appeared in dierent regions of the Anatolian Peninsula.
The hypothesis of a single minorasiatic group sui generis (Kretschmer
1896:292) constituted in those days an innovation, because the earlier
theories of other scholars (reviewed summarily in Kretschmer 1896:289
292) had tried to establish dierent linguistic groups and attribute a
dierent external kinship to each one (with Indo-European, Semitic or
Caucasian languages). It is true that Kretschmer was wrong in classi-
fying this sui generis group as non-Indo-European, but in his defense,
we must bear in mind that the existence of an Indo-European Anatolian
family was in those days dicult to imagine. But in fact, this negation
of the Indo-European character of minorasiatic languages had a posi-
tive eect: it obliged scholars to adopt the combinatory method for
analyzing Lycian (and later Lydian) inscriptions, and to discard more
fragile etymological approaches.
Moreover, Kretschmers seminal work already outlined some of the
ideaseither new or systematized by himthat in the course of the 20th
Century have become vital to the research on Anatolian: the identication
of -ss- and -nd- as suxes and their possible connection with Greek
place names in -ss- and -nd-; the frequent appearance of the so-called
Lallnamen (names whose structure seems to be characteristic of childrens
language: CV, CVCV, VCV, etc., like Dada, Nana, Ada . . .); and the
isolation of lexical items that enter in compounding or derivation, as
pig-, imbr-, tarku- or -muhw, nowadays easily interpretable as Indo-
European Anatolian stems.
The approach begun by Kretschmer reached its peak in the monu-
mental work of Johannes Sundwall devoted to Lycian indigenous names
(Sundwall 1913). Sundwall tried to establish a systematic study of Lycian
onomastics, isolating and grouping the dierent formative elements in
the proper names. Although it contains mistaken readings and names
that are clearly Greek incorrectly analyzed as indigenous, Sundwalls
14 cn.r+rn +vo
book was a fundamental work in the history of the research on Anatolian
onomastics. It was only to be superseded by the work of Ladislav Zgusta,
who in two books of enormous signicance produced an exhaustive
collection of the Minor Asian person and place names of Classical
sources (Zgusta 1964, 1984).
When a connection could be established between these onomastics
and those of Hittite and Luwian of the second millennium, it heralded
a dramatic change of focus in the study of Minor Asian onomastics
from Classical sources. Obviously, this step forward became possible
only when these languages in Cuneiform writing were suciently under-
stood. Friedrich (1931) had already drawn attention to the lexeme muwa-
in Hittite and Luwian proper names, a lexeme identical to the element
muwa- present in the indigenous names of the rst millennium. The
idea of a linguistic continuity between the second and rst millennia
that could be detected thorough the proper names was given further
weight by new evidence in Goetze (1951), but the denitive work on
this subject is the fundamental book of Houwink Ten Cate (1961), who
demonstrated with a great number of examples that the Lycian names
contained lexical elements of Anatolian origin. This theory came as no
surprise, however; parallel to the study of onomastics, Lycian had been
clearly established as a member of the Anatolian family, rst in Pedersen
(1945) and later by the work of Laroche, who demonstrated that Lycian
was very similar to Luwian (Laroche 1958, 1960, 1968). More impor-
tantly, given the fact (already established by Kretschmer many years
before, cf. above) that Anatolian onomastics in Classical sources showed
a clear unity that suggested the existence of a linguistic group, the attri-
bution of Lycian to the Indo-European Anatolian family together with
Hittite, Luwian, and Palaic, made it very likely that the languages spo-
ken in Cilicia, Isauria, Caria and in the other Minor Asian regions
where this type of onomastics is well documented also belonged to this
same Anatolian Indo-European group. In the case of Carian, this hypoth-
esis constitutes one of the basic tenets of the proposals formulated by
evorokin since his rst works, and seems to be conrmed by the
denitive decipherment of Carian.
2. Present Compilations of Carian and Anatolian Names
Nowadays, we have at our disposal two complete and very up-to-date
repertories of Carian place and person names respectively, both com-
piled by Wolfgang Blmel (Blmel 1992, 1998a). For the other Anatolian
+nr ixrinrc+ sotncrs 15
proper names from Classical sources, the books of Ladislav Zgusta
(Zgusta KPN and the supplement Zgusta 1970 for the personal names,
Zgusta KON for the place names) are still invaluable, although in the
case of Lycian, there are now two updated repertories of personal names
compiled respectively by Anne-Valerie Schweyer and Nicola Cau, which
appeared after Zgustas works (Schweyer 2002:95128, Cau 2003). It
is to be hoped that these updates of Zgustas continue to appear, since
not only do they incorporate new forms, but also oer revised forms
and correct some mistakes, inevitable in works of such dimensions as
Zgusta KPN and KON.
For Anatolian onomastics of the second millennium, Laroches reper-
tories remain indispensable: Laroche (LNH) for person names, and
Laroche (TA1) and (TA2) for place names.
3. Carian Names from Indirect Sources vs. Those from Direct Sources
A methodological problem arises when dealing with the Carian names
found in indirect sources. In Adiego (1993a), these were analysed
(although not exhaustively, looking only at the most signicant aspects)
dispensing totally with those Carian names directly attested in Carian
inscriptions. The reasoning seemed be well founded at the time; the
principal aim of the book was to defend a new decipherment of Carian
wherein the use of Carian onomastics from indirect sources played a
fundamental role, so it seemed preferable to avoid mixing forms directly
obtained from the decipherment with indirect forms from Greek sources,
which were the key to that decipherment (In Adiego 1993:26, n. 4,
evorokins mixing of forms in his book of 1965 was severely criticized).
Nowadays the situation is clearly dierent; this book is not conceived
as a justication of a concrete proposal of decipherment, but is meant
to oer as complete a picture as possible of our current knowledge of
Carian, now that the new decipherment has been universally accepted.
I therefore believe that all the data available from the indirect attes-
tation of Carian names must be taken into account together with the
Carian onomastics from direct sources. The study of Carian onomas-
tics, both from indirect and direct sources, will consequently be dealt
with in a specic section (Chapter 8). In Appendix C, a list of the
Carian personal and place names, mostly based on the compilations
published by Wolfgang Blmel (Blmel KarPN and KarON) is pro-
vided. The list is merely intended to oer a convenient compendium
of Carian indirect onomastics: for the data corresponding to each name,
16 cn.r+rn +vo
the reader should turn to the articles written by Blmel. For extremely
useful, updated accounts of the data obtainable using only the Carian
names from indirect sources, without discussion of the direct documen-
tation, I refer the reader to Neumann (1988) and, above all, Neumann
(1994).
CHAPTER THREE
THE INSCRIPTIONS
A. Ix+nortc+iox
The most direct and important sources of Carian language are obvi-
ously the inscriptions in Carian alphabet, although strangely the bulk
of this epigraphic corpus does not come from Caria itself, but from
various other locations in Egypt. The historical reasons for this curi-
ous circumstance have been covered in Chapter 1.
Inscriptions on funerary stelae and other objects, mainly from Memphis
and Sais, and grati found in other parts of Egypt are the result of
this long presence of Carian-speakers in Egypt. About 170 inscriptions
have been found in Egypt to date. All these texts are relatively short,
given their typology (onomastic formulae in funerary textsCarians
were somewhat laconic when writing epitaphsand brief grati).
1
The epigraphic material found in Caria itself is far less abundant
(approximately 30 inscriptions), but it includes several texts that are
more extensive than those discovered in Egypt, particularly the fol-
lowing three: a decree from Kaunos whose precise terms are still
unknown (C.Ka 2), the proxeny decree for two Athenian citizens writ-
ten in Carian and Greek, also from Kaunos (C.Ka 5), and a decree
enacted by the Carian satraps Idrieus and Ada, possibly concerning a
syngeneia of the temple of the god Sinuri, near Mylasa (C.Si 2). To these
three inscriptions now must be added the new inscriptions of Mylasa
(C.My 1) and Hyllarima (C.Hy 1), the latter in fact a fragment that
completes the inscription already known.
Besides Egypt and Caria, we know of several other inscriptions found
in the bordering regions of Lydia and Lycia, as well as in Greece. For
convenience, I will classify the texts of Tralleis and of Krya (on the
Gulf of Telmessos) as Carian, since we are dealing in both cases
with areas very close to Caria. It is logical to assume that there was
1
On Carians in Egypt, see Masson (1969), Masson (1977[78]) and now Vittmann
(2003:155179).
18 cn.r+rn +nnrr
a linguistic continuity beyond the alleged political boundaries of Caria,
and Carian was spoken in some border zones of Lydia and Lycia.
2
For
the same reason I classify as Carian the grato from Didyma, near
Milet, situated on the Carian border.
1. The Revised System of Transcription of Carian Letters
Before dealing with the Carian corpus of inscriptions, it seems appro-
priate to present here the system of transcription of Carian letters that
will be used throughout this book, since certain new conventions are
introduced here. The phonological reasons behind the new transcrip-
tion procedures for several signs will be dealt with in Chapter 7, and
here I will limit myself to giving a brief justication of them.
Although the bilingual of Kaunos has conrmed the overall Ray-
Schrr-Adiego system (see Chapter 4), and by extension the deci-
pherment tables in Adiego (1993a), (1994a) remain essentially valid,
3
I
believe that this is a good opportunity to introduce slight modications
to the system. These will allow us to adjust the transcriptions of sev-
eral letters more precisely to their actual phonological value, and to
simplify other conventions in transcribing Carian signs. Moreover, since
the publication of the works mentioned above, hypothetical sound val-
ues have been proposed for some formerly undeciphered letters, which
will also be considered in the revised system presented here.
2. Vocalism
The method of transcribing vowels used until now has been largely
superseded by our improved understanding of the Carian vocalic sys-
tem. In the case of i / j and u / v, a purely diacritical distinction
2
Tralleis was situated north of the River Maiander, which served as the traditional
boundary between Lydia and Caria, but this boundary was undoubtedly permeable to
contact between people, see Hornblower (1982:2). According to Strabo (XIV, 1, 42),
Tralleis was inhabited by Lydians, Carians and Ionians, and the Carian avour of the
alternation -ll-/-ld- in Trallew vs. Traldew was already noted by Benveniste (apud
Robert 1945:20, n. 2). As for the Krya inscription, it clearly belongs to the Kaunian
alphabetic variety, which is congruent with the geographical proximity of the two
places.
3
As a exception note only the Kaunian letters T t (vs. in the rest of the alpha-
bets) and / (a specic Kaunian sign), whose value has been established from the
bilingual (about these letters see here pp. 228229).
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 19
(i/, u/) was employed in order to reect the alternations
detected between each pair of letters. At present, it seems clear that,
at least originally, the alternation lay in a vowel vs. semivowel oppo-
sition, so that a transcription i / j, u / w would be more adequate. In
the Carian alphabets of Caria itself, j and v were abandoned, and
i and u took up their functions (cf. Kaunian uol vs. Carian of Egypt
wol ).
As for W and w, their character of u-sounds led to a conventional
and perhaps awed transcription and w, respectively. The idea
that these letters represent a /y/ sound, already proposed in Adiego,
has been conrmed, at least in the case of W, thanks to the Kaunos
bilingual (see p. 237). Therefore a transcription of W by means of y
must be preferred. Consequently w, a letter that alternates with W, will
be transcribed as . It is possible that w represented the semivowel cor-
responding to /y/, id est, /w/, but it is not absolutely certain, and
moreover the transcription w could lead to confusion due to its formal
resemblance to y (cf. the similar problem caused in Lydian transcrip-
tion between n and v).
The letter V/W is only documented in Sinuri, Kildara and Mylasa,
where no traces of W are found. Assuming that a similar process of
eliminating semivowel letters occurred, the simplest solution is to inter-
pret V/W as the Sinuri-Kildara-Mylasa form for W = y, despite of the
(apparently) more formal proximity of V/W to w than to W. For this
reason, V/W will be transcribed by <y>, in the same way that T, the
Kaunian form of t = t, is transcribed simply by <t>.
3. Consonantism
The case of Kaunian T = t and / = has already been mentioned;
given that there are no doubts about these values, and that these let-
ters are simply the forms that t and f, respectively, adopted in the
Kaunian alphabet, it is not necessary to resort to more complex tran-
scriptions, such as t
2
used by Marek-Frei in their worksor
2
.
The transcription of x X merits further consideration. In Ray, and
in my early works, it was transcribed by h. A new transcription was
introducedsuggested by Neumannin my subsequent works: x, which
has been commonly accepted. While this latter transcription is more
consistent with the tectal and stop value of x X, discernable from the
Carian-Egyptian equivalence ursxli- = 3rskr, a more in-depth analysis
of Carian has allowed us to establish a more precise value for this
20 cn.r+rn +nnrr
letter, which cannot be a velar aspirated stop or a velar fricative, the
kind of sounds that the transcription x would imply. Rather there is
evidence that points to a palatal stop (see Chapter 7), hence the pro-
posal that it should be transcribed as , the grapheme used in Indo-
European Linguistics for PIE voiceless palatal stop.
4
The remaining consonants whose values are well known remain
unchanged. Further modications involve several letters of less certain
value. In the case of 1 = z (instead of z), the reason is to avoid employ-
ing too many Greek letters in transcribing Carian. Insofar as z was not
used at all, I think it reasonable to substitute it for z, although I rec-
ognize that z is a somewhat ambiguous letter and its IPA value is cer-
tainly not the same as 1 presumably had in Carian. However, I believe
that this simplication is desirable, in the same way that there is a ten-
dency to use x instead of x in transcribing Lycian.
As for 0 and %, it is likely that they represent several types of tec-
tal, but the evidence is inconclusive, and an exact value is impossible
to determine. The possible identication u0li- = Souaggela points to
a *ng origin for 0, in parallel to & d < *nd and b < *mb, so that
a corresponding g transcription is adopted, although it is true that the
option of <g> was still available. Regarding %, the only clue we have
is Schrrs proposal to identify pr%idas with Bragxdai. Although he
now seems to have abandoned this hypothesis, I still see it as an attrac-
tive idea that should not be ruled out. The purely conventionaland
far from certaintranscription of <> is provisionally adopted here,
although there is no strong supporting evidence.
A rather dierent problem is posed by O, an exclusively Kaunian
letter. In Adiego (2002) I oered arguments in favour of identifying it
with the far more widespread c letter, absent in Kaunos (see here p.
252). In any case, I recognize that my arguments are not particularly
strong, so I adopt, also cautiously, a transcription t
2
.
To avoid confusion, I shall not attach a question mark to these rather
uncertain values in transcribing Carian texts, but instead I will indi-
cate such cases in the sign tables.
The following table shows the new system of transcription of Carian
used in this book:
4
A likely alternative was <c>, which would coincide with the letter used in IPA
for this type of sound. However, this is a very ambiguous letter in Indo-European stud-
ies, so a more precise letter like seems preferable to me.
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 21
N (Masson) Letters Transcription
1(+8) a A ~ (E) a
3 d D G d
4 l l
5(+41) W V W y
6 r R r
7 s 2 L l
9 q Q q
10 b 5 B b
11 m M m
12 o o
14 t T t
15 f F S / _
17 s s
18 H ?
19 u U u
20
21 x X
22 n N n
24(+2) p p () p
25 z Z
26(+8) I y Y I i
27 e e e
28 w
29+30 k K k
31 & d
32 v w
33(+34) 0 8
?
g
35(+36) 1 9 9 z
37 %
38 j T j
39 _ 1 ?
40(+23?) c C / O
?
t / t
2
?
42 6
434445 4 B &
?
b
?
b
46 b
2
?
Note nally two conventions also used throughout this book. Dagger ()
indicates a transcription of a word or letter by means of a dierent
system of decipherment. Double-dagger () is used to mark an old read-
ing of a word or letter now discarded. A combination of both signs
() serves to signal both the use of a superseded deciphering system
and an erroneous reading.
22 cn.r+rn +nnrr
B. P.n.-C.ni.x on C.noirr Ixscnir+ioxs
A serious problem is caused by a heterogeneous body of inscriptions,
whose only common characteristic is the use of writing systems that
have, or seem to have, certain similarities with the Carian alphabet,
but which cannot be denitively classied as Carian inscriptions. A
detailed analysis of this material cannot be provided here, so I merely
intend to establish the problem in precise terms and to enumerate
thecorpus of these inscriptions regularly referred to as para-Carian
or caroide.
For years, the temptation has existed to attribute any inscription from
Asia Minor written in an unknown or barely recognizable alphabet to
Carian. In a sort of obscurum per obscurius, such materials were classed
as Carian at a time when the Carian alphabet itself remained un-deci-
phered. Today, we have a better understanding of the Carian alpha-
bet (letter values, geographical variants, a complete inventory of signs)
and we can reject the theory that these materials are Carian (canoni-
cal Carian, at least).
1. Para-Carian Inscriptions from Caria
The para-Carian or caroide inscriptions discovered in the Carian
area can be separated geographically in ve groups: (1) Khalketor, (2)
Ancin (south of Alabanda), (3) Labraunda, (4) Stratonikeia (a single
inscription), (5) Aphrodisias (also a single text). Groups 24 are in fac-
trock grati that are practically impossible to read. From the existing
editions of the inscriptions, nothing can be acceptably identied as
Carian.
The cases of Khalketor and Aphrodisias are dierent; in Khalketor,
at least one of the two inscriptions discovered is clearly readable. But
this simply allows us to state that the alphabet of Khalketor has noth-
ing to do with the Carian writing system. Concerning the language of
texts from Khalketor, all attempts to interpret them using our limited
knowledge of Carian have proved fruitless. In recent years the theory
has been suggested that we are in fact dealing with much more recent
inscriptions, perhaps written in Turkish.
Finally, the Aphrodisias inscription consists of eight letters (the last
one incomplete) and does not pose problems of reading. Some letters
resemble Carian ones, but others are totally alien to the Carian alpha-
bet. As a matter of fact, we cannot discard the possibility that this
inscription actually represents the Carian alphabetic variety of Aphrodisias,
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 23
but in this case, we ought to accept that this variety was extremely
uncharacteristic. Since further Carian epigraphic testimonies from
Aphrodisias are lacking, this text (which is also uninterpretable) will be
excluded from our corpus.
These texts had been included in the successive inventories of Carian inscrip-
tions: Ancin = D 5, Labraunda = D 17 (recent edition: Meier-Brgger 1983),
Estratonicea = 26* (Hanfmann-Masson 1967); Chalketor = D 4 and 27*
(Neumann 1969a; revised in Blmel 1988); for the Aphrodisias text, see
Innocente (1994:107108 [text n 7]). Blmel (1998:168) mentions the exis-
tence of several other inscriptions in Chalketors alphabet. The Turkish
approach has been suggested by Hasan Malay to Blmel, see Blmel (1998:
169).
I have some doubts about the true Carian character of the two identical
inscriptions from Keramos (here C.Ke 1, C.Ke 2), but I retain them, though
in a provisory way, in the corpus insofar as all the letters that appear there
can be analysed as Carian.
The so-called tegola de Iasos, an inscription consisting of eight signs pub-
lished by Lucia Innocente (Innocente 2002) could be Carian, but, as Innocente
herself observes, the very few letters that can be identied are not unequivo-
cally Carian, and no valuable results can be obtained. Therefore, I exclude
it from the present corpus.
For similar reasons I exclude from the corpus the alleged Carian inscrip-
tion from Labraunda, recently published by Belli and Gusmani (Belli-Gusmani
2001). According to Gusmani, the inscription reads (a) e E 2 e s m (b) M
U.. While part (a) has a Carian avour, the co-occurrence of e and 2 would
be very strange. Also, a form such as E is rather puzzling. As for (b), as
Gusmani rightly observes (Belli-Gusmani 2001:41), a form M instead of the
typical Carian form s for s is surprising.
As for the alleged Carian fragment from Kaunos 51*, consisting of only
two letters c a (see Frei-Marek 2000:125126), I consider it as non-Carian: the
letter c is totally absent from the Kaunian alphabetic inventory, and the form
of a is very dierent from the all the variants attested for this letter in the
Carian alphabets.
2. Para-Carian Inscriptions from Other Places
The rest of the para-Carian or Caroide inscriptions come from other
locations: from the islands of Cos and Rhodes, possibly part of the
Carian linguistic area; from the neighbouring countries Lydia and Lycia;
from Egypt, and also from Persia. Even some texts of unknown origin
have been arbitrarily interpreted as Carian. None of these texts can
be included in a strict corpus of Carian inscriptions, but given their
presence in former collections (particularly in Meier-Brgger 1983), I
will include them here, accompanied by a brief note:
24 cn.r+rn +nnrr
Inscription from the area of Telmessos (Lycia; 36* = Meier-Brgger
1981). It seems to be related to the Chalketor corpus, but its authen-
ticity is not absolutely conclusive.
Inscriptions of Belevi (Ephesos, Lydia; 24* = Dressler 196667).
Three inscriptions on stone fragments. Some letters seem distinctly
Carian, whilst others are clearly alien to the Carian alphabet.
Inscription of Persia (32* = Pugliese Carratelli 1974[77]). An inscrip-
tion on a bronze bowl, whose only alleged Carian trait is a sign, &,
which recalls an identical Mylasean letter now known thanks to the
new inscription C.My 1, and also, although more remotely, the typ-
ical Carian letter &. However, the presence of letters alien to the
Carian signs inventory (P, K, Z) invalidates their classcation as
Carian.
Tablets Peiser-Bhl-von Grotthus (23*). A group of three tablets, the
rst two edited by Bhl (1932/33), the third by Friedrich (1965), and
carefully analyzed by Meriggi (1966). The exact origin of the tablets
is unknown, as is their dating, but they have traditionally been attrib-
uted to Cappadocia. This means that the labelling of their writing
system as para-Carian is based merely on the alleged graphic sim-
ilarities between this system and the Carian alphabet.
Such similarities are indeed clear. It is particularly striking that several
typicaland in some cases exclusiveCarian letters such as p, z, k,
v, j seem to appear. But there are also Greek letters alien to the
Carian alphabet (for instance K), and a number of signs that cannot
be compared either to the Carian or to the Greek alphabet.
The main diculty in interpreting these three tablets lies in many
cases in the impossibility of distinguishing between which signs are actu-
ally dierent, and which are mere variants. For example, the third
tablet (Friedrich 1965), contains several types of r pointing in dierent
directions and with slight modications of shape, and it is impossible
to know whether we are dealing with the same sign in all instances.
As an indication of these diculties, it is worth considering that whereas
Friedrich identies 217 dierent signs in this tablet, Meriggi reduces
this number to 61, and Nahm (1974) further still to 34 (although in
this latter case, Nahm applies somewhat unconvincing criteria). As a
result, it is hard to ascertain whether the graphic system is alphabetic,
syllabic, of a mixture of both. Furthermore, we are unaware of the lan-
guage in which the tablets are written. All these problems make these
texts undecipherable, and the Carian specialist must limit himself to
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 25
noting the rather surprising graphic anities between the Peiser-Bhl-
von Grotthus tablets and the Carian alphabet. Only a signicant increase
of the documentation available would allow us to move forward in
their study.
The only eort at decipherment of which I am aware is that of Nahm, regard-
ing the third tablet (Nahm 1974). After reducing the inventory of dierent
signs as far as possible (cf. above), he transcribes with Greek letters those signs
that show a certain similarity to them. His observations on several recurrent
sequences are of some interest, but they are conditioned by the somewhat
questionable attempt to decrease the total number of signs.
Grato of Cos (29* = Metzger 1973). A grato inscribed on an
amphora coming from the island of Cos. In this case, doubts arise
from the almost complete illegibility of the inscription. evorokin
(apud Metzger 1973:77) and Metzger claim to recognize some Carian
letters such as j, v, or i, but a complete reading of the text is
unfeasible.
Grato of Ialysos (Rhodes) (Innocente 1994:101104 [text n 1]).
Innocente has defended the inclusion of this four-letter grato, for-
merly considered to be Lycian, in the Carian corpus. It is true that
all the letters of the grati could be Carian, but none of the possi-
ble readings of this brief inscription oers compelling results ( utu,
uatu, even utku / utu, utku)
Poettos two para-Carian inscriptions. Innocente (1994:108109
[texts n 8 and 9]) includes in her collection of supposed Carian
monstrosities two texts whose existence has been noted by Massimo
Poetto: a cylindrical seal of unknown origin and extremely old pos-
sible dating (1000 B.C.!), and an object classied among the Grie-
chische geometrische Gemmen, also of unidentied provenance.
Each inscription contains only a few signs, and their attribution to
Carian is based only on the possible resemblance of some letters to
those of the Carian alphabet. Consequently, I believe that it is prefer-
able to exclude them from the Carian corpus.
The Oxford Para-Carian Inscription, a tablet from Sardis rst pub-
lished by Sayce, and recently re-published with excellent photogra-
phy by Innocente (Innocente 1995). The situation is similar to the
preceding para-Carian texts: whilst some letters essentially resemble
certain Carian signs, others are completely alien to known Carian
repertoires (for example the three-straight sigma), and no linguistic
interpretation is possible.
26 cn.r+rn +nnrr
The most extreme case of resorting to Carian script as a panacea,
is the attempt of to classify as Carian a number of masons marks
found in very dierent locations. Gosline (1992) proposed a Carian
origin for the masons marks discovered in Elephantine (Egypt); in
another paper, the same author proposes the same origin for the
masons marks of Pasagardae (Persia) (Gosline 1998). This line of
argument has also been taken up by Franklin (2001) in order to
explain masons marks found in North Israel (Samaria and Megiddo),
dated to as far back as the IX century B.C. More recently, Avishur
and Heltzer devoted a brief article to connecting these latter exam-
ples from Israel with the biblical references to the kr (Avishur-
Heltzer 2003).
Although it remains possible that Carian masons were responsible for
some of these marks (in the case of North Israel, however, I would
think it unlikely),
5
a careful observation of the collections of marks does
not throw up compelling evidence of a connection with Carian: where
the letters that can be easily identied are not specically Carian (for
example, an inconsequential letter such as a), the links proposed with
distinctively Carian letters (w, j) are extremely tenuous.
3. The Ostrakon of Hou and the Naukratis Fragment
None of the para-Carian or Caroide texts mentioned above comes from
Egypt. In fact, the only examples of para-Carian inscriptions found in
Egypt until now are the so-called Carian Ostrakon of Hou (Diospolis
Parva), and the inscribed fragment of a piece of pottery known as the
Naukratis fragment.
The Ostrakon was discovered by Flinders Petrie in 1899. Sayce (apud
Petrie 1901) considered it to be Kaunian, and later re-edited it him-
self as a Carian inscription (Sayce 1905). Masson and Yoyotte excluded
the text from their edition of pharaonic objects, but some years later,
Masson published it as a truly Carian text (Masson 1967). This view,
however, seems to be too optimistic: once again, as in the para-Carian
5
Possible mentions of Carians in Biblical sources are, according to Hornblower, an
inviting but nebulous topic (Hornblower 1982:16, n. 82). Avishur-Heltzer (2003) does
not add any new evidence for these alleged references, and employs dangereously cir-
cular reasoning: the kr of the Bible are Carians precisely because the masons marks
show Carian letters (!).
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 27
texts mentioned above, a few resemblances to Carian letters are found
alongside clearly non-Carian letters, and none of the sequences of let-
ters oers the slightest possibility of a connection with known Carian
words and sequences. It is rather surprising that Masson, generally scep-
tical about the acceptance of other documents as Carian (compare for
instance his exclusion of the scarabaeum inscription, E.xx 5, much more
likely to be Carian, Masson 1959b) defended the addition of this text
to the Carian corpus (Masson 1967, a view repeated in Masson 1969:32).
I include here Massons drawing of the ostrakon:
Ostrakon of Hou (Masson 1967)
The text inscribed on a piece of pottery (the Naukratis fragment), also
found by Flinders Petrie, consists of only three letters, whose Carian
character is unveriable, and must therefore be excluded from a seri-
ously conceived repertory of Carian texts. See Masson-Yoyotte (1956:
1415) for further remarks.
4. Carian Gratti from Sardis
The Carian grati found in Sardis deserve closer attention. The Carian
character of these texts, edited by Gusmani (1975) is in my opinion
beyond doubt, since they contain some of the most typical Carian let-
ters, such as p, z or %. However, the scarcity of the inscriptions,
their highly fragmentary nature, and the serious diculties encountered
when analyzing and interpreting the texts (the direction of reading and
the exact identication of the letters remain unclear in most cases) mean
28 cn.r+rn +nnrr
that we must exclude them, at least provisionally, from the current
Carian corpus.
A good indication of the uniqueness of and the diculties presented
by the grati from Sardis can be seen in the longest example: the join-
ing made by Gusmani (1990) of two fragments (C I 1 and C I 5 in
Gusmani 1975):
Sardis C I 1 + C I 5 (Gusmani 1990)
At rst sight, many typical Carian signs can be easily recognized: v
w w , p p, j j, z , i i, etc., so that the attribution to Carian is
incontestable. The rst diculties arise when one tries to establish the
orientation of the reading. For example, the second line oers contra-
dictory evidence: there are two m, oppositely oriented (m M). Even a
reversal of the text cannot be rejected, due to the form of a. Nearly
every possibility of reading direction implies a dierent interpretation
of the letters (for instance B = b, but u = u). A further complication
is that some letters are not easily identiable: Z in the third line could
simply be a variant of L l, but it could also be interpreted as a form
of z; the letter 8 in the left part of the second line resembles a let-
ter only documented in the alphabetic variant of Kaunos, a trait that
seems suspicious. Similar problems of identication are found in other
grati: a letter E appears at least three times. Are we dealing, then,
with an ancient form of e e (note the alternative form e in Hyllarima
and Mylasa) or rather with a quadrangular variant of i?
But the main problem with this and the other Sardis grati is that
none of the dierent possible readings yields a sequence that can be
compared to the rest of the Carian documentation. The possible con-
nections are far from conclusive, and only can be based on a handful
of signs. For example, in C I 2, ]-?-mzto [, transcribed as ]-?-mto [,
a possible ending of a name in genitive -m could be identied,
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 29
but the brevity of the fragment makes this interpretation simply an ad
hoc one.
In conclusion, the presence of the Carian alphabet in Sardis is unde-
niable, and this may have interesting implications for the chronology
and spread of Carian writing, but from a linguistic point of view, the
scarcity of these materials renders them useless.
5. Carian Inscription from Old Smyrna
A similar problem to that of the grati from Sardis is posed by an
inscription from Old Smyrna, the photography and drawing of which
was published by Jeery (1964, n 23). It contains clearly Carian let-
ters (note &, e and perhaps also p, f), but it is impossible to obtain
a comprehensive and satisfactory reading of the inscription given the
ambiguity of many of the signs, which can be interpreted in very
dierent ways, and the impossibility of establishing the exact direction
of the writing.
6
One of the most signicant features of this inscription is its possible
age: the object is dated at the end of the 7th century (so it would be
more or less contemporary with Carian grati from Abu Simbel). There
are no reasons to suggest that the inscription should be dated much
later than the object: the alleged palaeographical reasons put forward
by Jeery are untenable from a Carian perspective (Adiego, 1993a:86).
6
Schrr (2001c) oers a very hypothetical interpretation of the text: em-?-l / salpde/
. . . ubrod bore. No clear connection with the Carian corpus can be established for any
of these sequences.
Old Smyrna ( Jeery 1964)
30 cn.r+rn +nnrr
7
Masson (1978:67), Martin-Nicholls apud Masson (1978).
C. Tnr C.ni.x Ixscnir+ioxs rnov Eovr+
The epigraphic materials from Egypt (about 170 inscriptions, to which
50 new and still unedited inscriptions found by evorokin must be
added, cf. below) are the most important part of the direct documen-
tation of Carian.
From a typological point of view, a dierentiation can be made
between funerary and votive inscriptions on the one hand, and grati
on the other. The rst group has been the best source for decipher-
ing Carian, mainly due to the relative lack of reading problems, the
regularity of the graphic system used, and the excellent editions of the
inscriptions that subsequently appeared.
The scenario presented by the grati is quite dierent. In contrast
to the high degree of standardization of the alphabet used in the votive
and funerary inscriptions, the grati show a markedly less careful use
of writing, as a result of the spontaneity involved in their execution.
This problem is further complicated by the lack of modern and reli-
able editions of the main body of grati. Of the grati already known
since the times of Sayce, only the grati of Abu Simbel and Buhen
have been revised and edited with a sucient degree of reliability to
be used without signicant reservations. The rest of the documentation
is still pending new collations, which in some cases will become unfea-
sible due to the likely destruction of the grati.
The typological classication outlined above can easily be linked to
geographical distribution: the funerary and votive inscriptions come
from Memphis and Sais, whereas the grati have been found in var-
ious locations further to the south. The historical reason for this is
clear; the grati are present because of the temporary presence of
Carian visitors, particularly during the military campaigns, while the
funerary and votive monuments exist due to the settlement of Carian
people in cities like Memphis or Sais.
When considering the dating of the Egyptian corpus, it is essential
to mention the important work of Kammerzell on the Memphis Corpus.
It had been assumed that this corpus should be dated after the settle-
ment of Carians in Memphis by order of Amasis, i.e. around the mid-
dle of the VI century (Amasis is believed to have ruled Egypt between
570 and 526 B.C.).
7
But Kammerzell, after carefully analyzing the typol-
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 31
ogy of the funerary stelae, has established that some of these inscrip-
tions can be assigned earlier dates. It is true that not all of the method-
ological procedures used by Kammerzell in order to determine the
chronology of Caromemphite stelae are similarly convincing, but at
least in the case of E.Me 7, wherein the same person is mentioned in
both the Carian and the Egyptian parts, a dating before 570 seems
very probable. A more speculative suggestion is his identication of the
name pikre- of the stela E.Me 3, as corresponding to the Pigres (Pgrhw)
mentioned in Polyaenus Stratagemata (7, 3). This gure was referred to
as an adviser of Psammetichus I in the early years of his reign, so this
stela should be dated approximately between 660 and 620 B.C. But it
is very dubious to base, as Kammerzell does, the chronological attri-
bution of E.Me 3 and typologically similar stelae only on this indemon-
strable personal identication.
8
Until now, the oldest Carian inscription from Egypt is the base of
a statue of the goddess Isis, which can be dated to the second half of
VII century thanks to the presence of a cartouche displaying the name
of the pharaoh Psammetichus I. This document is therefore chrono-
logically very close to the arrival of Carian and Ionian mercenaries in
Egypt and their subsequent settlement in the Eastern Delta (Masson
1969:3536, 1977[78]:335). As for the rest of the Carian documenta-
tion from Egypt, a precise dating can be given only to the grati from
Abu-Simbel (E.AS); there is no doubt that these grati were inscribed
in the course of the great Nubian campaign ordered by Psammetichus
II and conducted by Potasimto, as is particularly evident in a long
Greek grato, where mention is made of this historical context. This
campaign has commonly been dated in 591 B.C., but Ray (1982:85)
suggests revising this chronology slightly, to situate the event in 593/92
B.C. The Buhen (E.Bu), Gebel Sheik Suleiman (E.SS) and Murww
(E.Mu) grati are also likely to date from the same period.
The inscription on a bronze lion de provenance gyptienne (E.xx.7)
is dated by Masson (1976) at around 500 B.C., given the Achaemenid
artistic inuence visible in the gure of the lion.
For the remaining inscriptions (mainly grati plus some texts found
inscribed on various objects), there is no certain dating. Only in the
case of the grati from Abydos do we have some idea: Masson has
8
See the same criticism in Masson (1995:176).
32 cn.r+rn +nnrr
suggested that they may be contemporary with the oldest Greek grati
from the same location, so that they can be dated around the end of
the V century.
1. Sais (E.Sa)
The sub-corpus of Sais is currently constituted by two bronze votive
objects, included in Masson-Yoyotte (1956). Both texts are bilingual and
have proved fundamental to the deciphering of Carian.
E.Sa 1 (= MY L)
E.Sa 1 (Masson-Yoyotte 1956)
arkbiom: zidks mdane: n-[?]
mo | den: tumn
(Egyptian text: Jtm ntr 3 dj n snb 3rkbym)
Inscription on a reliquary for mummied reptiles. The only problem-
atic letter is the last letter of the rst line. evorokins attempt to com-
plete n[s]mo (see evorokin 1965:119120) is only based on the
comparison with nsmsos in E.AS 3 (cf. also E.Mu 1). Masson-Yoyotte
(1956) mention two extremely divergent proposals made by Wild and
Raphel after examining the original (K k vs. 1 z, respectively!), and
leave the letter without interpretation. The photography in Masson-
Yoyotte is in this case unusable. The Carian inscription is accompa-
nied by an Egyptian formula, Atum the great god may give life and
health to 3rkbym. The non-Egyptian, and presumably Carian, char-
acter of the name 3rkbym was already noted by Sayce (1905:124), see
Masson-Yoyotte (1956:52). Also correct are the observations in Masson-
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 33
Yoyotte (1956:52) regarding the vocalisation o of ym, based on its
spelling using the Egyptian word for sea ( ym = *ym cf. Coptic eiom),
and about the possibility that the name would be *Sarkebivmow in a
Greek transcription (the form is not yet documented, but a form Kebivmow
has appeared in the meantime). Surprisingly, though, none of this evi-
dence encouraged Masson and Yoyotte to attempt to nd this name
in the Carian text, and the name was not identied there until Kowalski
(1975).
Photograph and drawing: Masson-Yoyotte (1956:53, pl. VI).
E.Sa 2 (= MY M)
9
Other names belonging to the genealogy of the dead are also mentioned. About
these forms and the possible genealogical tree of P3-dj-Njt, see Masson-Yoyotte (1956:61).
E.Sa 2
pdnejt qri i
Inscription found on the base of a statuette of the Goddess Neith. For
this text in scriptio continua, I adopt the division suggested by Meier-
Brgger (1979a:8182), contra Masson (1978) and Meier-Brgger (1979b).
In the Egyptian texts that accompany the Carian inscriptions, a P3-dj-
Njt son of K3rr is mentioned.
9
These two names clearly correspond to
the pdnejt son of qri- in the Carian part. The use of the biliteral sign
k3 for a syllable /ku/ or sim. (= Carian q) has been correctly identied
by Vittmann, see Vittmann (1996).
The presence of a cartouche with the name of Psammetichus I allows
us to date the object to the times of this Saite pharaoh (663609 B.C.),
which would mean that this is the oldest datable inscription of the
Carian corpus from Egypt.
Photograph and drawing: Masson-Yoyotte (1956:63, pl. VIII).
34 cn.r+rn +nnrr
2. Memphis (E.Me)
The inscriptions published in Masson (1978) and those of Memphite
origin included in Masson-Yoyotte (1956) are grouped together under
this label. This corpus has been crucial for the decipherment of Carian.
The excellent quality and preservation of a great number of stelae, the
fact that they appear on monuments, which implies a very standard-
ized use of writing, the geographical and chronological consistency of
the corpus, and the fact that it includes some bilingual texts (E.Me 5,
E.Me 7, E.Me 8, E.Me 9, E.Me 15) make this sub-corpus the most
important direct documentation of Carian.
To this sub-corpus, we must add the so-called stela of Abusir (Masson
1978:91, Kammerzell 1993:138139), although we need also to con-
sider that its reading is very dicult. Very recently, Diether Schrr has
tried to improve the reading of this inscription (Schrr 2003), and his
eorts will be taken into account here. Finally, I also include the frag-
ment 180* from Kammerzell (1993) (here E.Me 66), although it is a
largely unusable document.
Generally, I adopt the readings given in Masson-Yoyotte (1956) and
Masson (1978). The dierences, concerning certain details of reading
and, above all, the order in which some texts must be read, will be
duly indicated.
E.Me 1 (= MY A)
E.Me 1 (Masson-Yoyotte 1956)

ttbazi[] | p
.
iub[a]i | aor[]
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 35
Inscription on a false-door stela. Reading according to Schrr (1996),
the main dierence being the interpretation of the rst letter of the
second name: Massons reading was l l, which must be discarded.
Photograph: Masson (1953: pl. XII). Drawings: Masson-Yoyotte (1956:23).
E.Me 2 (= MY B)
E.Me 2 (Masson-Yoyotte 1956)

uksmu | lkor | mrsi

False-door stela. Unproblematic reading
Photograph: Masson (1953: pl. XIII). Drawings: Masson-Yoyotte (1956:3, 5).
36 cn.r+rn +nnrr
E.Me 3 (= MY D)
E.Me 3

pikre ue arwljat msnord

The fth letter of the second line is not in fact k k, but an inverted
form of l l, given the clear onomastic identication (ar)wljat = Uliatow.
For the penultimate letter of the second line, I adopt the reading d d
instead of Masson i i, according to Schrr (2001b:103), who follows
on from a new direct reading of evorokin: cf. also E.Me 48. Close
observation of the photograph in Masson-Yoyotte (1956) supports the
new reading.
Photograph: Masson-Yoyotte (1956: pl. IX). Drawing: Masson-Yoyotte (1956:10),
Kammerzell (1993:146).
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 37
E.Me 4 (= MY E)
E.Me 4 (Masson-Yoyotte 1956)

terez | upe | nuol

.
[]sarmrolyt
The reading of the text after the second division mark is very doubt-
ful, and the photography in Masson-Yoyotte is not a great help. The
ending in t -t is unexpected. Could it simply be a z?
Photograph: Masson-Yoyotte (1956: pl. I). Drawings: Masson-Yoyotte (1956:19).
38 cn.r+rn +nnrr
E.Me 5 (= MY F)
E.Me 5 (Masson-Yoyotte 1956)

psmkwneit | ue | naria | ugliq | sarl

?
The inscription, published in Masson-Yoyotte (1956), was re-edited in
Masson (1978). Despite this new edition, many doubts remain about
the reading of the second, third, and nal word. Particularly trouble-
some is the last letter: I adopt Schrrs reading, l l (the photography
points to l rather than to ).
The rst word must not be divided in two, contra Masson.
Bilingual stela. In the Egyptian part, the name of the dead gure is
mentioned: Psmtk-wj-Njt, son of W3-jb-r-[. . . .]. The rst name cor-
responds clearly to psmkwneit-, but there is no connection between the
Carian and Egytian patronyms.
Photograph: Masson-Yoyotte (1956: pl. II). Drawings: Masson-Yoyotte (1956:21, 25),
Masson (1978:92).
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 39
E.Me 6 (= MY G)
E.Me 6 (Masson-Yoyotte 1956)

triqo: parma i
klorul i
There are no problems of reading.
The stela also contains an inscription in Egyptian, but the Egyptian
names (P3-dj-st, and his mother T3-dj(t)-wsir) do not correspond to the
Carian ones. Therefore, either the stela seems to have been reused, or
we must accept a double denominationEgyptian and Carianat least
in the case of the deceased (the second name could be the fathers
name in the Carian text).
Photograph: Masson-Yoyotte (1956, pl. III). Drawing: Masson-Yoyotte (1956:28, 30).
40 cn.r+rn +nnrr
E.Me 7 (= MY H)
E.Me 8a
E.Me 8b
E.Me 7

tamou tanai qarsio[-?]

Curved stela with images and hieroghlyphical inscriptions.
The reading adopted here is taken from Schrr (2001b:118). The
controversial point is the last letter: in Masson-Yoyotte (1956), it was
read as o o, but in later works, Masson preferred the reading z (see
for instance the index of words in Masson 1978). The photography
points clearly to o, and the most likely explanation is that the word
is incomplete, since the stone is broken just after this letter. The break
in the text is not particularly big, so only one letter, or at the most,
two, have been lost. Given the typical structure of Carian onomastic
formulae, an integration qarsio[] would be a good solution, but I pre-
fer to leave the question open.
The stela provides an Egyptian inscription that also mentions the
dead man T3j-p-jm=w son of T3[. . .]. The correspondence to the
Carian text is evident: tamou, son of tanai.
Photograph: Masson-Yoyotte (1956: pl. IVa). Drawing: Masson-Yoyotte (1956:33).
E.Me 8 (= MY K)
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 41

a. paraeym: armon i
b. para
!
eym: sb polo
Inscription on a bronze Apis. The fourth letter b, E, has always been
a source of diculty, due to the clear alternation with a (paraeWm
/ parEeWm). It has even been considered an independent sign (Masson
n 10), and the alternation a / E has received varying explanations.
In my opinion, the simplest solution is to interpret E as an a, its
strange form perhaps being the result of a spelling error and subse-
quent correction.
10
The Apis also contains an Egyptian inscription: 3py dj n Prjm
p3wm Apis may give life to Prjm the dragoman. The non-Egyptian
name, Prjm, is logically the transcription of the Carian name Paraeym
mentioned twice in the Carian section. For the problems posed by the
Egyptian word p3wm, apparently translated in Carian as armon, see
Chapter 11, s. v. armon.
Photographs: Masson-Yoyotte (1956: Pl. Va, Pl. VIa). Drawing: Masson-Yoyotte (1956:
43, 48).
E.Me 9 (= M 1)
10
Stephen Durnford (pers. comm. to C. Melchert) has suggested an excellent and
very likely explanation for E as a spelling error: the scribe mistakenly wrote e right
after r, omitting a. He then immediately noticed his error and repaired it by simply
turning e into a by adding the horizontal bar (E).
E.Me 9 (Masson 1978)
42 cn.r+rn +nnrr

arli: upe: arlio-

[m] i: yjas[i]
The reading proposed here is an attempt to improve Massons edition.
I read the penultimate letter of the rst line as i i, instead of Massons
j j, according to the photography. As for the integration of the sec-
ond line, both arlio[m] and yjas[ i] are forms documented in other
Saqqra inscriptions. The space for integration seems to be adequate,
and from a syntactic point of view, one expects two genitives in -
(arli- . . . arliom- . . . yjasi- ).
The inscription is bilingual. The Egyptian part contains the names
Jr(3) son of Jrym3, two non-Egyptian names that are undoubtedly the
adaptation of arli- and arliom-, respectively.
Photographs: Masson (1978, pl. I, 1; II, 1). Drawings: Masson (1978:20, pl. XXXI, 1).
E.Me 10 (= M 2)
E.Me 10 (Masson 1978)

[]q
.
rm: q[] i: pui mno
[mw]don [i ]word i
New reading following the work of Schrr (2002:169, n. 9 [but note
ibid. the error uord for word !]).
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. I, 2). Drawings: Masson (1978:21, pl. XXXI, 2).
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 43
E.Me 11 (= M 3)
E.Me 11 (Masson 1978)

(a) wr[]t[]i[] | mdan

(b) [15]a[]i | mdan
The stela represents a man and a woman. According to Masson, the
drawing included in his edition and reproduced here is too optimistic
with regard to the reading of some signs, so it is preferable to make
a very prudent reading. This would mean that only the respective nal
words of each line, in both cases mdan, and the existence of a pre-
ceding form in -also in both linesare denite. For the icono-
graphical importance of this stela, see Martin-Nicholls apud Masson
(1978:6170).
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. II, 2, I II). Drawings: Masson (1978:22, pl. XXXII).
44 cn.r+rn +nnrr
E.Me 12 (= M 4)
E.Me 12 (Masson 1978)

pjabrm | wol | mwdon i

kbjom | m[no]
In the stela, the prothesis of a woman is represented, which indicates a
female character for the name pjabrm.
The possible integration of the last word was suggested by Kammerzell
(1993:213).
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. IV, 1). Drawings: Masson (1978:23, pl. XXXIII, 1).
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 45
E.Me 13 (= M 5)
E.Me 13 (Masson 1978)

dtat | upa | w | wet i | mwdon i

As in E.M 13, here the prothesis of a woman is represented.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. V, 1). Drawings: Masson (1978:24, pl. XXXIII, 2).
46 cn.r+rn +nnrr
E.Me 14 (= M 6)
E.Me 14 (Masson 1978)

irow | pikarm | mwdon

!

The surprising form of the last word, mvdoUZ mwdou [sic], instead
of the usual mvdoNz mwdon, was convincingly argued by Masson as
a simple case of an incomplete sign U u for N n.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. V, 2). Drawings: Masson (1978:24, pl. XXXIV, 2).
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 47
E.Me 15 (= M 7)
E.Me 15 (Masson 1978)

arli
ursle
kidbsi
(Egyptian text: Jr(3) s3 n 3rskr s3 J(?)[. . .)
Bilingual inscription. The Egyptian part was interpreted by Martin and
Nicholls (apud Masson 1978:86) as Jr(3) s3 Nrskr s3 J(?)[. . . Jresh(a)
son of Nerseker son of Ja(?)-. . .. While the correspondence of each
rst name poses no problems ( Jr(3) = arli, as in E.Me 9), the diver-
gences between Nrskr ~ ursle- have been debated at length. The cor-
rect solution was formulated by Kammerzell (1993:12), who discarded
Martin-Nichollss analysis and argued persuasively in favour of an inter-
pretation, Jr(3) s3 n 3rskr s3 J- Jr(3) son of 3rskr son of J(?)-. . ..
This solution is far more suitable for the second name in the Carian
part, and is now the commonly accepted interpretation.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. VI). Drawings: Masson (1978:25, pl. XXXV, 1).
48 cn.r+rn +nnrr
E.Me 16 (= M 8)
E.Me 16 (Masson 1978)
E.Me 17 (Masson 1978)

irow | p
.
ikra i
semw | mno
mwdon i
No reading problems, with the exception of the initial letter of the second
word, for which Massons intepretation, p, seems to be the best solution.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. VII, 1). Drawings: Masson (1978:26, pl. XXXV, 2).
E.Me 17 (= M 9)
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 49

(a) taubt
kuarib-
ar | en
niqau
ptnupi
(b) idmuon
i | mdayn
i
E.Me 18 (Masson 1978)

arnai
upe | quq
bem i md-
an
No reading problems.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. VII, 2). Drawings: Masson (1978:27, pl. XXXV, 3).
E.Me 18 (= M 10)
50 cn.r+rn +nnrr
E.Me 19
The two parts have been inscribed by dierent hands. Whilst neither
section poses problems of reading, the overall structure of the text
remains obscure.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. VIII, 1). Drawings: Masson (1978:28, pl. XXXV, 4).
E.Me 19 (= M 11)

pnuol
zmu i
Curved stela (stle cintre). No problems of reading.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. VIII, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:29).
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 51
E.Me 20 (= M 12)
E.Me 20

uqsi | rwli i | mwdon i

False-door stela. Unproblematic reading.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. IX, 1). Drawing: Masson (1978:29).
E.Me 21 (= M 13)
E.Me 21 (Masson 1978)
52 cn.r+rn +nnrr

punwol: somne
qblsi i
False-door stela. No reading problems.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. IX, 2). Drawings: Masson (1978:30, pl- XXXVI, 1).
E.Me 22 (= M 14)
E.Me 22
E.Me 23

artay: upe: [. . .
False-door stela. In the damaged part there is sucient space for a
complete onomastic formula.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. X, 1). Drawing: Masson (1978:30).
E.Me 23 (= M 15)
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 53

ap[]ws
a[rb]ikarm i
False-door stela. The integration of the second word was proposed by
Kammerzell (1993:214), who also claimed to have identied a former
inscription under the current one. Nevertheless, his reading of this pre-
vious text does not lead to any connection with the rest of the Carian
materials: (a)?p[. . .]ws # --]b[-]aubm[-].
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. X, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:31).
E.Me 24 (= M 16)
E.Me 24

tduol
kbos | amsqi[. . .?
False-door stela. The crack in the stone makes it impossible to estab-
lish whether the last word is complete.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XI, 1). Drawing: Masson (1978:31).
54 cn.r+rn +nnrr
E.Me 25 (= M 17)
E.Me 25

ayriq | parpeym i
yiasi
False-door stela. The order of reading adopted here is dierent to that
used by Masson (who began from yiasi ), and is the same as in Kammerzell
(1993:214). Contra Masson and Kammerzell, I believe that there is no
text after yiasi. It is true that the stone is damaged, but the existing
part shows evidence enough to assume that yiasi is a complete word
and that the text nishes here.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XI, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:32).
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 55
E.Me 26 (= M 18)
11
The inscription appears marked with an asterisk (*) in the transliteration appen-
dix (Kammerzell 1993:214), which means that he controlled the text, but if he was
able to recognize any letter before ]u, one would expect it to be marked as a doubt-
ful reading, rather than using [ ].
E.Me 26

[. . .]u | upe sa | triel | mrsi

False-door stela. Kammerzell completes the rst word as [arm]u, but
he does not propose any argument for this integration.
11
In any case,
the space preceding u is small, so it is likely that only two or three
letters have disappeared.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XII, 1). Drawing: Masson (1978:32).
56 cn.r+rn +nnrr
E.Me 27 (= M 19)
E.Me 27
E.Me 28 (Masson 1978)

irow: psHm[-]
pttu: mno
False-door stela.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XII, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:33).
E.Me 28 (= M 20)
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 57

sanuq | ue | pntmun i
mwdon i
False-door stela. Unproblematic.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XIII, 1). Drawings: Masson (1978:33, pl. XXXVI 2).
E.Me 29 (= M 21)
E.Me 29

s[]et | [ue] | ynemori | mwdon

False-door stela.
The second word is denitely ue (already suggested by Masson 1978).
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XIII, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:34).
58 cn.r+rn +nnrr
E.Me 30 (= M 22)
E.Me 31
E.Me 30

aruol
pleq i: ugli
False-door stela. Unproblematic.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XIV, 1). Drawing: Masson (1978:34).
E.Me 31 (= M 23)
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 59

wnuti | kwar mHm i | mwdon []i

False-door stela. The integration of the last word, already proposed by
Masson, is suitable. For the second sequence, I adopt the segmenta-
tion kwar mHm suggested by Schrr (apud Vittmann 2001:48, n. 40).
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XIV, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:35).
E.Me 32 (= M 24)
E.Me 32

iturow | kbjom | i en | mw[d]on i

False-door stela. Unproblematic. The integration of mw[d ]on is clear.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XV, 1). Drawing: Masson (1978:35).
60 cn.r+rn +nnrr
E.Me 33 (= M 25)
E.Me 34 (Masson 1978)
E.Me 33

(a) idmns | myre i | mdayn i

(b) idmns | myre i
False-door stela. As Masson (1978) observes, both (a) and (b)in fact
a partial copy of (a)seem to have been written by the same hand.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XV, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:36).
E.Me 34 (= M 26)
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 61

me | somne | tata[r]
False-door stela. The integration of the last word, proposed by Masson,
is based on the occurence of the same word in complete form in E.Me
41.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XVI, 1). Drawings: Masson (1978:36, pl. XXXVI, 3).
E.Me 35 (= M 27)
E.Me 35

ntokris | dwol | mwdon i

False-door stela. The current solution to the uncertainty regarding the
fourth letter of the rst word (a form of l l or an inverted K k?, see
Masson 1978:37) is to favour the last option, which facilitates a very
good onomastic identication (ntokris = Nitokris, a well known Egyptian
female name, see Chapter 11, s. v.).
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XVI, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:37).
62 cn.r+rn +nnrr
E.Me 36 (= M 28)
E.Me 37
E.Me 36
wksmu | wpe | lkor j
qarpsi
False-door stela. This order of reading was already adopted in Adiego
1993asee also Kammerzell 1993and diers from Massons (he read
qarpsis as the rst word).
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XVII, 1). Drawing: Masson (1978:37).
E.Me 37 (= M 29)
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 63

qlali | [. . .]
tkrabi
False-door stela. It is not possible to calculate the extent of the letters
lost after qlali (see Masson 1978:38).
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XVII, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:38).
E.Me 38 (= M 30)
E.Me 38

in | upe | arie
?
i ted
False-door stela. This reading was made by evorokin, who has con-
trolled the original. It diers from Massons interpretation in identifying
e (with doubts) in arie
?
and, particularly, in the interpretation of the
antepenultimate letter, a clear t t, not o o as indicated by Masson.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XVIII, 1). Drawing: Masson (1978:39).
64 cn.r+rn +nnrr
E.Me 39 (= M 31)
E.Me 39

[. . .]s
?
| arila
mno
False-door stela. Dierent reading order (cf. also Kammerzell 1993:215):
Massons reading began at mno.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XVIII, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:39).
E.Me 40 (= M 32)
E.Me 40
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 65

plqo | pikrm i | mwdon i

False-door stela. The sign l of the second word is actually a k inverted
(= /k/) (already noted in Adiego 1993a).
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XIX, 1). Drawing: Masson (1978:40).
E.Me 41 (= M 33)
E.Me 41

|
?
or | wpe | qdarou | tatar
False-door stela. The initial vertical small stroke and the brevity of the
rst name, or, perplexed Masson, who thought that, pour des raisons
obscures, le lapicide nait jamais grav le dbut du premier mot. In
fact, it seems to me most likely that the stoke is an accidental and
intrusive mark. In any case, contrary to Masson, I see no problem in
accepting the existence of a name or- in Carian.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XIX, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:40).
66 cn.r+rn +nnrr
E.Me 42 (= M 34)
E.Me 42 (Masson 1978)

(1) arjom: ue: mwsat: i: mwdon: i

(2) tbridbd: i
False-door stela. Very clear reading (belle stle intacte, Masson 1978:41).
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XX, 1). Drawings: Masson (1978:41, pl. XXXVI, 4).
E.Me 43 (= M 35)
E.Me 43
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 67

(a) lsi | upe | rquq i | ksolb

(b) arliom | mno i
False-door stela. Dierent reading order (already in Adiego 1993a,
Kammerzell 1993): Masson read rstly (b), then (a). The reading of the
initial letter of the third word of (a) is also dierent: f instead of
Massons a .
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XX, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:41).
E.Me 44 (= M 36)
E.Me 44 (Masson 1978)

(a) apmen rquq kojol i

(b) mwton i
False-door stela. Reading order dierent from Massons (already in
Adiego 1993a, Kammerzell 1993): f instead of a a at the beginning
of the second word of (a).
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XX,I 1). Drawings: Masson (1978:42, pl. XXXVII, 1).
68 cn.r+rn +nnrr
E.Me 45 (= M 37)

[q
?
]lalis
[?]iam i
alos arnos
False-door stela. The integration of the initial letter of the rst word
is already in Kammerzell (1993), from the parallel form qlali in E.Me
37.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XXI, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:43).
E.Me 46 (= M 38)
E.Me 45
E.Me 46
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 69

(a) asd | yi{}biks i

(b) mwdon i
False-door stela. Dierent reading order (Adiego 1993a, Kammerzell
1993). Massons reading began with (b).
Masson (1978) reads a sign X between and b in the second word
of (a). A careful observation of the photography shows that this alleged
sign appears placed between and b without keeping distance with
them, unlike the other letters of the inscription. As Schrr (1996b:151)
aleady pointed out, this seems to be eine Illusion, and I have there-
fore decided to discard it.
As for the nal sequence of this word, I maintain that the reading
generally accepted until now, yibiksi (see Massons drawing in the
bottom part of the illustration), must be replaced by a more natural
ibiks i (cf. biks in C.xx 2): in fact, the three later letters can be
read beginning at .
Photographs: Masson (1978, pl. XXII, 1, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:43).
E.Me 47 (= M 39)
E.Me 47 (Masson 1978)

tqtes | paraibrel i | mn[o-?]

With this inscription, a series of texts on dierent objects and frag-
ments begins (E.Me 4764). In this case, it is a limestone plaque whose
use is unclear (Masson 1978:43).
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XXIII, 1). Drawings: Masson (1978:43, pl. XXXVII, 2).
70 cn.r+rn +nnrr
E.Me 48 (= M 40)
E.Me 48 (Masson 1978)

[] j[-]
[-]owt
i: msn-
ord
Note our reading of d d instead of i i in the nal word, cf. above,
E.Me 3.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XXIII, 2). Drawings: Masson (1978:44, pl. XXXVII, 3).
E.Me 49 (= M 41)
E.Me 49 (Masson 1978)
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 71
loubaw | si-
ral | pnldwl
Possibly an oblong stela that has been reused.
A very strange inscription, without clear connections with the rest of
the Memphis corpus. Moreover, the reading is very dicult and there-
fore not absolutely certain.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XXIII, 3). Drawing: Masson (1978:45).
E.Me 50 (= M 42)
E.Me 50 (Masson 1978)

(a) enurt
(b) psimt i
Also likely to be a reused oblong stela. No problems of reading.
Drawings: Masson (1978:46, pl. XXXVI, 4).
E.Me 51 (= M 43)
E.Me 51 (Masson 1978)
72 cn.r+rn +nnrr

arli | psikro [?
ue
Upper fragment of a curved stela (stle cintre). The reading oered
here is new: in my opinion, the last sign of the second word is clearly
z //, and not N /n/ (see plate xxiv in Masson 1978). As for ue,
which appears just below arli, it is possible that it must be read imme-
diately after this latter word (arliue | psikro ), which would represent
a more logical structure (ue, upe, etc. always appear in a second position).
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XXIV, 1). Drawings: Masson (1978:46, XXXVII, 5).
E.Me 52 (= M 44)
E.Me 52

[. . .] ardybyr | md[. . .]
Upper fragment of a false-door stela.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XXIV, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:46).
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 73
E.Me 53 (= M 45)
E.Me 53

[. . .]qsi
Fragment of a false-door stela.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XXIV, 3). Drawing: Masson (1978:47).
E.Me 54 (= M 45a)
E.Me 54

[. . .] mrsj[. . .]
Fragment of a false-door stela.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XXV, 1). Drawing: Masson (1978:47).
74 cn.r+rn +nnrr
E.Me 55 (= M 46)
E.Me 55

[. . .] psma[/k . . .]
The integration proposed here is based on the identication of the
beginning of the typical Egyptian name, Psammetichus. Given that this
name can appear in Carian spelled either with or , I choose not to
discard either possibility.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XXV, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:47).
E.Me 56 (= M 47)
E.Me 56

[. . .] ark[bi/jom . . .?]
Fragment of a false-door stela.
I follow the suggestion of Meier-Brgger (1979b) and Ray (1982b:
189) of reading f instead of i i (Masson 1978) at the beginning.
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 75
The integration is based on the form arkbiom, which appears in other
inscriptions.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XXV, 3). Drawing: Masson (1978:48).
E.Me 57 (= M 47a)
E.Me 57

[. . .]i i
Fragment of a false-door stela. Clear ending in genitive + particle i.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XXVI, 1). Drawing: Masson (1978:48).
E.Me 58 (= M 47b)
E.Me 58

[. . .]s i
Undetermined fragment. A typical ending in genitive + particle i, as
in E.Me 57.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XXVI, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:48).
76 cn.r+rn +nnrr
E.Me 59 (= M 48)
E.Me 59

[. . .]utr[. . .]
Fragment of a false-door stela.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XXVI, 3). Drawing: Masson (1978:48).
E.Me 60 (= M 48a)
E.Me 60
(?)
[. . .]
Fragment of a false-door stela.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XXVI, 1). Drawing: Masson (1978:48).
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 77
E.Me 61 (= M 48b)
E.Me 61 (Masson 1978)
[. . .]i
Undetermined fragment.
Drawing: Masson (1978:48).
E.Me 62 (= M 48c)
[. . .][. . .]
Undetermined fragment.
Drawing: Masson (1978:49).
E.Me 63 (= M 48d)
E.Me 62 (Masson 1978)
E.Me 63

(a) idyes
(b) m [?
78 cn.r+rn +nnrr
Fragment of a false-door stela. Although Masson indicates the presence
of a M m, he does not transcribe it in his edition of the text. I follow
Kammerzell (1993) in including the letter in the transcription.
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XXVI, 3). Drawing: Masson (1978:49).
E.Me 64 (= M 49)
E.Me 64 (Masson 1978)

(a) [. . . u
?
]p
.
e : pd[
(b) [. . .]mi [. . .]
Fragment of a curved stela. I concur with Kammerzell (1993:217) in
the interpretation of the rst word.
Drawing: Masson (1978:49).
E.Me 65 (= Stela of Abusir)
E.Me 65 (Schrr 2003)

u[. . .]m | punm[-] | mudo[n]

See Schrr (2003) for a new attempt at reading this extremely dicult
inscription. I adopt his reading (with the integration of [n] in mudo[-])
and reproduce his drawing (Schrr 2003:94). Former references: Masson
(1978:91), who was the rst to conrm the Carian character of the
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 79
inscription, already suggested by L. H. Jeery: Kammerzell (1993:
138139).
Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XXX). Drawings: Masson (1978:91), Kammerzell
(1993:138), Schrr (2003:94).
E.Me 66 (= Kammerzell *180)
].[. . u][. . .]p[-]n[
Concerning this inscription on a fragment of stela, conserved in the
British Museum, see Kammerzell (1993:144, n. 101). To my knowl-
edge, neither the photography nor the drawing have yet been pub-
lished, so I limit myself to follow Kammerzells reading.
3. Abydos (E.Ab)
The Carian inscriptions from Abydos were found and copied for the
rst time by Archibald H. Sayce, who published them in his most
important work on Carian (Sayce 1887[1892]). He discovered them in
the temples of Ramses II and, more signicantly, Seti I.
Regrettably, there is not a denitive edition of the Abydos grati.
Jean Yoyotte seemed to have revised these grati and even to have
found some others in 19551956, but his work has never been pub-
lished. In his index of Carian words, Masson (1978) pointed out that
he had adopted, insofar as it was possible, Yoyottes revision, and
added the most important unpublished grati found by Yoyotte. Meier-
Brgger (1979b) followed Masson in his collection of Carian inscrip-
tions in transcription. evorokin also (1965) used Yoyottes new readings.
My attempts to obtain more information on this sub-corpus from Jean
Yoyotte were unsuccessful.
As a result, our present knowledge of the Carian grati of Abydos
is unsatisfactory. Neither Masson (1978) nor Meier-Brgger (1979b) oer
any additional information on the readings adopted for each grati,
so that in cases where Massons readings are not coincident with those
made by Sayce (Sayce 1887[92] followed by Friedrich 1932), it is impos-
sible to ascertain whether this is due to the revisions of Yoyotte, or it
is simply a new interpretation of Sayces copies based on mere divina-
tio. However, thanks to evorokin (1965) and to some notices scattered
throughout the works of Masson, it is possible to establish in a great
number of cases that the text is in fact the result of Yoyottes collation.
80 cn.r+rn +nnrr
As for the unpublished grati, Masson and Meier-Brgger take into
account, as already established, only the most important examples: they
oer only 8 from a total of at least 34. Moreover, given that both
authors limit themselves to transcribing the texts, nothing can be said
about the graphic traits of these inscriptions. The only exception is
E.Ab 43 (= Ab. 34 Y)in fact an already known gratopublished
in Murray (1904: 10 and pl. XII) and included in evorokin (1965)
(= 24 ), though absent in the editions of Sayce and Friedrich.
Confusion with the Abydos grati is even augmented by the fact
that Bork (1930) re-ordered Sayces list of inscriptions, putting together
under the same reference number those inscriptions that he believed
had the same content. This decision was not only disputable from an
epigraphical point of view, but was in fact revealed as altogether erro-
neous, since in some cases Bork grouped together texts which were not
strictly identical. This explains the posterior use of redundant reference
numbers like 2a, 2b in works by Friedrich or Masson. In the new
number system introduced here, I prefer to assign each inscription a
dierent number, even in the case of inscriptions that seem to have
the same content.
Given the lack of an up-to-date edition, I adopt in general terms
Massons readings, but in some cases I also include new attempts at
improving these readings, mainly from Schrr (in various papers) and
Vittmann (2001). Since the Abydos grati pose such problems, in the
following sections, I will comment briey upon each inscription and
will explain the reading adopted here. For want of a better solution, I
shall limit myself to reproducing Sayces drawings,
12
although in some
cases the present readings may not coincide.
E.Ab 1 (= Ab. 1 F = Sayce 1887[92] 1)
12
For technical reasons, the source of my illustrations will be Friedrich (1932), where
Sayces drawings are reproduced.
E.Ab 1 (Friedrich 1932)
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 81

pisiri
Revised by Yoyotte (Masson 1974:131). There are no reading problems.
E.Ab 2 (= Ab. 2a F = Sayce 1887[92] 2)
E.Ab 2 (Friedrich 1932)

panejt iarja
Expressly mentioned as revised in Masson-Yoyotte (1956:13, 63). Massons
reading is adopted, but with dierent segmentation (the rst name is
clearly an Egyptian one whose nal element is -nejt).
E.Ab 3 (= Ab. 2b F = Sayce 1887[92] 3)
E.Ab 3 (Friedrich 1932)

ptne | ibarsi
Revised by Yoyotte, according to Masson-Yoyotte (1956:63). For the
second name, I follow Schrrs proposal of reading ibarsi, not irarsi
(Masson).
E.Ab 4 (= Ab. 3b F = Sayce 1887[92] 24)
E.Ab 4 (Friedrich 1932)
82 cn.r+rn +nnrr

amow ltari
Revised by Yoyotte (cf. Masson-Yoyotte 1956:39). Massons reading is
adopted, but with dierent segmentation (Massons reading would indi-
cate amowl tari.
E.Ab 5 (= Ab. 3c F = Sayce 1887[92] 25)
E.Ab 5 (Friedrich 1932)

amow ltari[]
Revised by Yoyotte (cf. Masson-Yoyotte 1956:39).
Masson groups Ab. 3b F and Ab. 3c F under a single epigraph, Ab
3bc F. This procedure, debatable even if the content were exactly the
same, is inappropriate here, as the second word appears complete in
the case of E.Ab 4 = Ab 3b F, but incomplete in E.Ab 5 = Ab. 3c
F (ltari[]). On segmentation, see above E.Ab 4.
E.Ab 6 (= Ab. 4 F = Sayce 1887[92] 5)
E.Ab 6 (Friedrich 1932)

aruol | rsbe | pdubi

Revised by Yoyotte (cf. Masson 1978:34).
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 83
E.Ab 7 (= Ab 5a F = Sayce 1887[92] 6)
E.Ab 7 (Friedrich 1932)

plat | pals
E.Ab 8 (= Ab 5b F = Sayce 1887[92] 9)
E.Ab 8 (Friedrich 1932)

plat pals
E.Ab 9 (= Ab 5c F = Sayce 1887[92] 10)
E.Ab 9 (Friedrich 1932)

plat pals
E.Ab 7, 8 and 9 do not pose reading problems. The three inscriptions
are grouped together by Masson.
84 cn.r+rn +nnrr
E.Ab 10 = (Ab. 6 F = Sayce 1887[92] 7)

piubez
qurbo
Revised by Yoyotte (Masson-Yoyotte 1956:9), this inscription formed
by two personal names still raises serious reading problems. Massons
reading (1978) distances the rst name from the very similar example
found in E.Ab 15. Schrrs reading seems preferable (Schrr 2000:172,
n. 7), because it allows us to connect this name with the second name
in E.Me 1 and with the name mentioned in E.Ab 15 (although we
cannot establish an absolutely certain link). Regarding the second name,
although in Masson-Yoyotte (1956:9) the reading urbo is preferred
(thus also evorokin 1965), in Masson (1978), Sayces reading qurbo
is restored.
E.Ab 11 (= excluded by Masson [Ab 7 F = Sayce 1887[92] 8])
E.Ab 10 (Friedrich 1932)
E.Ab 11 (Friedrich 1932)

?
[. . .]it
Since the letters are apparently Carian, I reintroduce this very frag-
mentary inscription to the corpus, even though it is of no use to us.
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 85
E.Ab 12 (= Ab. 8a F = Sayce 1887[92] 11)
E.Ab 12 (Friedrich 1932)

untri uantrpo
E.Ab 13 (= Ab. 8b F = Sayce 1887[92] 20)
E.Ab 13 (Friedrich 1932)

untri | uantrpu
E.Ab 14 = Ab. 9 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 12)
E.Ab 14 (Friedrich 1932)

abrq[. . .?
Regarding E.Ab 12, 13 and 14, I am unsure as to whether Massons
readings are the result of a revision of the texts. Lacking a better read-
ing, I adopt Massons.
E.Ab 15 = Ab. 10 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 13)
E.Ab 15 (Friedrich 1932)
86 cn.r+rn +nnrr

pdubez or
Revised by Yoyotte (Masson-Yoyotte 1956:13). The reading in Masson
(1978) is not the same as in Masson-Yoyotte (1956:13): pdubtzor vs.
pdubtzt r (with r as a part of a dierent grato!) respectively. I adopt
the reading proposed by Schrr and Vittmann (see Vittmann 2001:42).
E.Ab 16 = Ab. 11 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 14)
E.Ab 16 (Friedrich 1932)

nprosn
Revised? In any case, it does not pose reading problems.
E.Ab 17 = Ab. 12 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 15)
E.Ab 17 (Friedrich 1932)

pa[-]in[-]t
Revised? I follow Masson (1978)
E.Ab 18 = Ab. 13a F (= Sayce 1887[92] 16)
E.Ab 18 (Friedrich 1932)

tamosi | inut
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 87
E.Ab 19 = Ab. 13b F (= Sayce 1887[92] 17)
13
Vittmann (2001:43) mentions Yoyottes collation of E.Ab 20.
E.Ab 19 (Friedrich 1932)

tamosi utnu
E.Ab 20 = Ab. 14 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 18)

ninut | tamosi
E.Ab 21 = Excluded by Masson [Ab. 15 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 19)]
E.Ab 20 (Friedrich 1932)
E.Ab 21 (Friedrich 1932)

to[-]a[]l
tamosi u
?
tnu
?
These four grati seem to coincide in that they contain the same per-
sonal name. Rather surprisingly, in Massons list, this name is read as
trmosi- in E.Ab 18, E.Ab 19, and as tamosi- in E.Ab 20, while E.Ab 21
is excluded. These readings were adopted in Adiego (1993a). It is quite
possiblealthough I cannot conrm itthat this discrepancy has arisen
because only E.Ab 20 was revised by Yoyotte.
13
88 cn.r+rn +nnrr
Vittmann (2001:43) has correctly noted this incongruity, and has
oered a convincing reading of tamosi- everywhere, a view that is sup-
ported here.
14
More problematic, and still unresolved, are the respec-
tive readings of the names that accompany tamosi- in the four inscriptions.
They look very similar, but it is not easy to imagine a complete iden-
tity for all the forms. In the case of E.Ab 20, I continue to work with
evorokins suggestion of reading ninut instead of inut. For the other
names found in the remaining grati, Massons readings are adopted.
I include Ab 15 F, excluded by Masson for reasons that remain unknown
for me.
E.Ab 22 = Excluded by Masson [Ab. 16 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 21])
14
A theory already envisaged by Ray, see Ray (1994:205).
E.Ab 22 (Friedrich 1932)

[-]untlau[-]|
This brief grato is very dicult to read, but it seems to show true
Carian letters. For this reason, I include it in the list (as evorokin
did: evorokin (1965), 34 ).
E.Ab 23 = Ab. 17 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 22)
E.Ab 23 (Friedrich 1932)

beol
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 89
E.Ab 24 = Ab. 18 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 23)
E.Ab 24 (Friedrich 1932)

[. . .] arli
Revised by Yoyotte (cf. Masson 1978:51). This revision identies the
well-known Carian name arli (contrary to Sayces reading, araii ).
E.Ab 25 = Ab. 19 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 26)
E.Ab 25 (Friedrich 1932)

ttubazi kattri
Revised by Yoyotte (Masson-Yoyotte 1956:4, 33). According to Masson-
Yoyotte (1956:33), the sign for t here adopts the form C, as in E.Me
7. The segmentation adopted here diers from that of Masson and is
based on Schrrs works.
E.Ab 26 = Ab. 20 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 27)
E.Ab 26 (Friedrich 1932)

[. . .]pri | ptnuq
?
i
?
Masson (1978:28) points out that this grato was not rediscovered by
Yoyotte in 1956. Note that in Adiego (1993a) the end of the (incom-
plete) rst word was transcribed incorrectly as ]pre, instead of ]pri (a
90 cn.r+rn +nnrr
mistake noted by Vittmann 2001:44). Here I adopt one of the two
interesting corrections proposed by Vittmann for the second word
(Vittmann 2001:44).
15
E.Ab 27 = Ab. 21 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 28)
15
The other possibility suggested by Vittmann is ptnuti. Both readings allow us to
identify good correspondences with Egyptian personal names (see Chapter 11, s. v. ptnuq
?
i ).
E.Ab 27 (Friedrich 1932)

yysmtoHa[
Divergences between Sayces and Massons readings lead me to think
that the grato was revised by Yoyotte, but I cannot conrm this. I
follow Massons reading. Note that the drawing is based on Sayce/
Friedrich editions.
E.Ab 28 = Ab. 22 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 29)
E.Ab 28 (Friedrich 1932)

Hosurz | srton[-]t[. . .?]

(or: . . . +t[-]not
a
/
r
s | z
a
/
r
usoH/l? Schrr)
In Masson-Yoyotte (1956:68) this grato is referred to as not redis-
covered. Indeed, the reading adopted by Masson seems to be based
on Sayces drawing. I maintain Massons reading, but I also consider
as a plausible alternative the suggestions made in Schrr (1996a:65)
that the text could be read in the opposite direction and that the let-
ter H could in fact be L = l (a possibility to be ruled out if Massons
reading is upheld, since it is very unlikely that Carian L l would appear
at the beginning of a word).
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 91
E.Ab 29 = Ab. 24 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 31)
E.Ab 29 (Friedrich 1932)

[. . .]r[--]tnit
Grato consisting of only ve signs. The readings given by Sayce and
Masson coincide.
E.Ab 30 = Ab. 25 F (= Sayce 1874 5+6 = Sayce 1887[92] 32)
E.Ab 30 (Friedrich 1932)

bidlemsa: a[ru]ol: adiq

[. . .]allia: bsis
I am unaware of whether it has been revised. In any case, Sayces
reading is generally followed by Masson, who only improves the read-
ing of the second word in order to obtain a well-known Carian name
(fa[ru]zoL = ar[u]ol).
E.Ab 31 = Ab. 26a F (= Sayce 1887[92] 33)
E.Ab 31 (Friedrich 1932)

aye
92 cn.r+rn +nnrr
E.Ab 32 = Ab. 26b F (= Sayce 1887[92] 34)
E.Ab 32 (Friedrich 1932)

arr
E.Ab 33 = Ab. 27 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 35)
E.Ab 33 (Friedrich 1932)

arpt | p[-]lu
For E.Ab 3133 I follow Massons readings.
E.Ab 34 = Excluded by Masson [= Ab. 28 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 36)
E.Ab 34 (Friedrich 1932)

dbkrm [-]kb
?
[
Despite the diculties of interpretation, Schrr has been able to iden-
tify a good Carian sequence, dbkrm (Schrr 1996b:154, n. 8; see Chapter
11, s. v.). For this reason I have decided to reinstate this grato to the
Abydos sub-corpus.
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 93
E.Ab 35 = Ab. 29 F (= Sayce 1874 4 = 1887[92] 37)
E.Ab 35 (Friedrich 1932)

uol | mi kdu
.
usi
For this grato, I adopt the reading proposed by Schrr (2001b:108,
111), apparently based on the collations of Yoyotte and evorokin.
E.Ab 36E. Ab 43: indits de Yoyotte, unpublished new grati
found by Yoyotte in 19551956. I include only those transcribed by
Masson (1978). As mentioned above, E.Ab 43 = Ab. 34 Y is not strictly
an unpublished grato: a drawing of it appeared in Murray (1904),
and it is also included in evorokin (1965) (= 24 ).
E.Ab 36 = Ab. 8 Y
[-]ars, [-]urb
E.Ab 37 = Ab. 9 Y
arur
E.Ab 38 = Ab. 15 Y
piew
E.Ab 39 = Ab. 26 Y
uarila[-]os
E.Ab 40 = Ab. 27 Y
ialli | qblio
E.Ab 41 = Ab. 28 Y
ttbazi kt
?
tri
I follow Schrrs reading (see Schrr 1996a:60).
E.Ab 42 = Ab. 29 Y
aru[. . ?
94 cn.r+rn +nnrr
16
evorokin (1965:313314) unies Ab 3a, b, c under a sole entry (20 ).
E.Ab 43 = Ab 34 Y = Murray (1904)
E.Ab 43 (Murray 1904)
?-ras
Although Murrays drawing points clearly to an initial k k (by exten-
sion, kras), Massons reading leaves the sign unread.
Grati excluded from our collection:
Ab. 3a F (= Sayce 1887[92] 4), also excluded by Masson.
16
It seems
to begin with am[, which explains how Bork could link it to E.Ab 4
and E.Ab 5.
Ab. 23 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 30), also excluded by Masson and by
evorokin. Apparently it has not been revised since Sayce (Masson-
Yoyotte 1956:46: non retrouv par J. Yoyotte; Masson 1974:131 n. 43:
non revis). The grato could possibly be Greek.
Ab. 30 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 38), also excluded by Masson. It is an
almost illegible grato, which cannot even be denitely identied as
Carian.
The drawings made by Sayce are reproduced below:
Ab 3a F (Friedrich 1932)
Ab 23 F (Friedrich 1932)
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 95
4. Thebes, Tomb of Montuemhat (E.Th)
The case of the corpus of Carian inscriptions found in Thebes (tomb
of Montuemhat) is even worse than that of Abydos: the corpus has
never been published correctly. Leclant, the rst to nd fteen grati
engraved on the walls of the open court of the tomb, never produced
an edition of them, instead publishing only the photographs of two
grati (E.Th 13 and E.Th 14, Leclant (1951, tab. LXIV). evorokin
included in his book on Carian (evorokin 1965) a merely provisional
edition, with drawings of these grati. This edition forms the basis of
Massons transcriptions (in Masson 1978, reproduced in Meier-Brgger
1979b), although Masson aknowledges that these were improved thanks
to the photographs and notes of Leclant that he had at his disposal.
On the other hand, some years later, evorokin himself revised Leclants
grati and discovered some new examples, although these have not
been published either, and the new grati are circulated only in pri-
vate copies. In the Carian conference held in Rome in 1993, Masson
announced a new enterprise in order to adequately publish the Theban
corpus (cf. Masson 1994a), but I do not know if this enterprise is in
fact underway.
More recently, Diether Schrr, who was able to gain access to the
entire dossier of drawings, has drawn up a provisional corpus of Theban
grati in transcription, which he has kindly made known to me. This
corpus consists of four parts: (A) inscriptions found in the entrance of
the temple. I already knew of the drawings of these texts thanks to a
private copy made by evorokin and circulated among scholars; (B)
inscriptions found at the end of the corridor; (C) grati located in the
vestibule, the drawings of which I have never seen, and from which I
knew only certain texts, occasionally cited by evorokin in recent arti-
cles; and (D) grati from the open court, in fact already mentioned
in Leclants corpus (with some additions).
I choose to adopt Massons readings for (D) (Leclants grati), intro-
ducing some corrections suggested by evorokin in published or unpub-
lished works, and I include the drawings published in evorokin (1965).
For (A), I provide the transcription, following Schrr and controlling
evorokins drawings, but I refrain from reproducing the drawings,
Ab 30 F (Friedrich 1932)
96 cn.r+rn +nnrr
since they are as yet unpublished; my aim is merely to contribute to
their use in linguistic research, not to actually produce an epigraphi-
cal edition, which must be made by evorokin himself. For (B) and
(C), I limit myself to reproducing Schrrs transcriptions, adapting them
to the decipherment system followed in this study. According to stan-
dard practice within the Carian corpus, I begin my numeration of the
inscriptions with the rst to be published (Schrr D), which are then
followed by the remaining inscriptions (A, B, C).
E.Th 1 = 47 (= D 1)
E.Th 1 (evorokin 1965)

uarbe
E.Th 2 = 48 (= D 3)

dtbr | kbokt
katbr
E.Th 3 = 49 (= D 2)
E.Th 2 (evorokin 1965)
E.Th 3 (evorokin 1965)
pla
?
t
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 97
E.Th 4 = 50 (= D 5)
E.Th 4 (evorokin 1965)
dokmmpint seqqejewsk | mqtjq
pdnmwd
The second line was usually read in the opposite direction. The new
reading was suggested by Schrr. I am somewhat sceptical about the
last sign, now read & d, a letter rarely found in Thebes (in fact, it only
appears in one other grato, still unpublished and whose drawing I
have not seen; E. Th 14, see below). Former readings pointed rather
to B b (cf. evorokins drawing here reproduced). The reading of the
letters preceding qtjq at the end of the rst line probably comes from
a new collation of the grato, the old drawing showing a lacuna and
some illegible signs.
E.Th 5 = 51 (= D 6)
E.Th 5 (evorokin 1965)

dbr | tatr
The second word, which posed serious problems in evorokin (1965),
was re-read in a new collation by evorokin as tatr, undoubtedly
using the model of the form tatar that appears twice in Saqqra
(evorokin, Corrections to Existing Copies, ms.). Schrr, however,
does not rule out a reading of l l instead of .
98 cn.r+rn +nnrr
E.Th 6 = 52 (= D 7)

bebnd
The last letter, d, does not appear in the old drawing by evorokin
and was thus absent in older collections of Carian inscriptions (for
instance, Adiego 1993a, where the reading bebn was given).
E.Th 7 = 53 (= D 10)
E.Th 6 (evorokin 1965)
E.Th 7 (evorokin 1965)

wljat
The doubts about the second and fourth letters, reected in the draw-
ing, can be dismissed due to the clear onomastic connection of the
word ( wljat).
E.Th 8 = 54 (= D 11)
E.Th 8 (evorokin 1965)

qutbe
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 99
E.Th 9 = 55 (= D12)
E.Th 9 (evorokin 1965)

kudtubr
The initial letter is now read as k k.
E.Th 10 = 56 (= D 8)
E.Th 10 (evorokin 1965)

a
?
qbaq ewm emot qtblo owdown[. . .]mwarudko mlane
The most dicult letter to determine is the rst one: read k by evorokin
(1965) and in the Masson/Meier-Brgger collections. In Adiego (1993a),
a reading w was introduced, based on evorokins observations. Schrr
now reads it as a
?
. For the rest of the letters, the present reading diers
very little from that oered in Adiego (1993a). Only a letter b imme-
diately after owdown is not read by Schrr.
E.Th 11 = 57 + 58 (= D 12)
(evorokin 1965, 57 )
100 cn.r+rn +nnrr

psma[k] [?
| nm[
mplat | o[
Schrrs dossier puts these two lines together, formerly interpreted as
dierent grati. The clearest element is the presence of the name
psmak.
E.Th 12 = 59 (= D 13)
E.Th 11 (evorokin 1965, 58 )
E.Th 12 (evorokin 1965)

?-bjqmq ewmlane qebt | u[. . .]q | qwsal | mqabaewleqooski

.
oms
This reading coincides almost exactly with that presented in Adiego
(1993a), where some corrections from the work of evorokin had
already been introduced. The sole dierence introduced by Schrrs
reading involves the nal sequence kioms, formerly read as lkoms.
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 101
dbiks | kbjoms | wdwn | sb abt
ewm
The reading corresponds precisely to that oered in Adiego (1993a).
Note that evorokins drawing shows sbb
?
instead of sba in the fourth
word. This latter, corrected reading was introduced by evorokin him-
self after revising the inscription (Corrections to Existing Copies, ms.),
and was already reected in Adiego (1993a).
E.Th 14 (= D 4)
]q[. . .]btdeo
This grato from the open court was absent from the corpus of pub-
lished inscriptions. The presence of d is surprising, as in the new read-
ing of E.Th 4 (see above). Schrr observes that a vertical p p appears
under the grato.
E.Th 15 (= D 15)
(Very uncertain reading)
Also a new grato. Schrr mentions two very dierent alternative read-
ings, suggested by Kayser and evorokin respectively (see evorokin
1994:145).
17
E.Th 16 (= A 1)
saml-?-?-o (vacat) dy a
Three unclear signs found under the end of A 1.
17
The readings are, respectively, [1] u
?
a pn-?-ek . . . i / plsiwbms and [2] ubl pn-?-
ekleai/pksiwrm.
E.Th 13 = 60 (= D 14)
E.Th 13 (evorokin 1965)
102 cn.r+rn +nnrr
E.Th 17 (= A 2)
ku
E.Th 18 (= A 3)
t n
Very uncertain reading.
E.Th 19 (= A 4)
dbikrm
k presents an inverted form l, apparently l, but the identication is
based on the good onomastic correspondence of the reading dbikrm (see
Chapter 11, s. v.).
E.Th 20 (= A 5)
orb r i
E.Th 21 (= A 6)
mmnal
An inverse reading lammn is also possible.
E.Th 22 (= A 7)
mwk | te
E.Th 23 (= A 8)
bebi
E.Th 24 (= A 9)
kow[?-?]
The drawing made by evorokin available to me points to koweq.
E.Th 25 (= A 10)
ktmno
Inverted k (l). The interpretation as k, not l, is supported by the
good onomastic connection of ktmno (see Chapter 11, s. v.).
E.Th 26 (= A 11)
brsi yri
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 103
E.Th 27 (= A 12)
pnwol | mlqi
E.Th 28 (= A 13)
bejeym | teboot
K
bebi
.
nt ken
The strange diamond-sign also appears in E.Si 3, preceding precisely
the same word bebint, but it is not present in the other examples of this
word (E.Th 30, E.AS 7), which makes it dicult to consider it an actual
letter. The exact function therefore remains unexplained (see pp. 253254).
E.Th 29 (= A 14)
]ke
Some uncertain signs follow.
E.Th 30 (= A 15)
bebint | psrkrte | mumntnse-?
wkn
E.Th 31 (= A 16)
(Very uncertain reading)
Impossible to describe (Schrr). Allegedly a sign with the form s
appears twice, and a sign % appears once, both of which are alien to
the standard inventory of Carian letters (for this latter sign see also
E.Th 34 below).
E.Th 32 (= A 17)
tqlow
A reading in the opposite direction is also possible (wolqt)
E.Th 33 (= A 18)
lbiks
The second letter could also be a k (evorokins reading).
E.Th 34 (= A 19)
slmaewm | urt | kwri | prnanon | dm-?-n | matnor | qanor | uro
104 cn.r+rn +nnrr
The uncertain letter in the fth word seems to be similar to %, but
evorokins drawing in fact displays a sort of % form. Schrr ques-
tions whether it could merely be o o.
E.Th 35 (= A 20)
lse | i | mlan[-?]
evorokins drawing and reading point to a nal letter e e, somewhat
damaged. Schrr omits it in his reading.
E.Th 36 (= A 21)
\ or
The rst sign, apparently a \, could be the rest of a letter.
E.Th 37 (= A 22)
ktmn
Perhaps an incomplete form of ktmno, cf. E.Th 25 above.
E.Th 38 (= A 23)
]bewmsmnwdiq tebwnqmw
For wdiq (and the suggested segmentation involved), see below E.Th 46.
E.Th 39 (= A 24)
krws | kom
E.Th 40 (= B 1)
pnuol
From this grato on, I shall simply reproduce Schrrs readings, as I
have not seen the drawings of this part of the corpus. I only comment
on the forms that oer some parallel with known words.
E.Th 41 (= B 2)
tmonks
E.Th 42 (= B 3)
rdudmm
E.Th 43 (= B 4)
p
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 105
E.Th 44 (= B 5)
dquq | ewmlane | tebot | gkem
The rst word shows a good onomastic identication, see Chapter 11,
s. v. The second word contains the typically Theban sequence (m)lane.
The third word is the same as in E.Th 28.
E.Th 45 (= B 6)
krw
Cf. the rst word of E.Th 39.
E.Th 46 (= B 7)
prpwri kblow
Apparently a sequence of two names. The rst seems to belong to the
family of yriq/ydiq names, but spelled with w, not y/, and with (as
in Euromos idyri). For the rst spelling, cf. perhaps the sequence wdiq
in E.Th 38, although I do not think we should rule out that v w
may in fact be a variant of W y, so that the name could be read *prpyri.
E.Th 47 (= B 8)
w
.
dbokn ewl
.
e [
E.Th 48 (= B 9)
brsi
A well-known Carian name, see Chapter 11, s. v. and cf. above E.Th 26.
E.Th 49 (= B 10)
bal ewlane | rb[-]sal|
E.Th 50 (= C 1)
pn-?
E.Th 51 (= C 2)
p
E.Th 52 (= C 3)
plqodse | ewm-?-?-?-? | rqemw | k-?[
106 cn.r+rn +nnrr
In plqodse, perhaps the name plqo should be identied, see Chapter 11,
s. v.
E.Th 53 (= C 4)
driem
5. Luxor Temple (E.Lu)
Some Carian grati were recently identied in the Luxor Temple.
18
They are very brief, damaged texts, and only one of the seven I con-
sider to be genuinely Carian
19
suggests a clear connection with the rest
of the Carian Corpus.
E.Lu 1 (= G 19)
18
They have been published in: ESS (1998). I am very grateful to Richard Jasnow
and to Theo van den Hout for the information provided about this sub corpus.
19
The grato G 12 is excluded here: it could also be Carian, but none of its signs
can be clearly identied.
E.Lu 1 (ESS 1998)

ds-?
E.Lu 2 (= G 21)
E.Lu 2 (ESS 1998)
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 107

rsy
suso

?
rquq [. . .?
The clearest grato of the collection. The last word isif the reading
of the rst letter here proposed is acceptedthe well-known Carian
name rquq.
E.Lu 3 (= G 22)
E.Lu 3 (ESS 1998)
Very uncertain reading: o or t followed by m and another m or rather
u. The order of reading is unclear.
E.Lu 4 (= G 23)
E.Lu 4 (ESS 1998)

?-?-[-]ms[-]ry-?-?
Very uncertain letters at the beginning and the end of the grato. The
letter immediately after y could be j j, and the last letter a D d.
108 cn.r+rn +nnrr
E.Lu 5 (= G 24)
E.Lu 5 (ESS 1998)

b
?
s
?
uiam | o
?
Van den Hout (pers. comm.) suggests reading the apparent interpunc-
tion trace .as L l. The resulting sequence mlo would have a good par-
allel in C.Ka 9 [. . .]ois
?
ur
?
mlo. The presence of % h, not a typical letter
in the Carian alphabet of Egypt, is not certain: the letter could be also
r r. But note that % also appears in the nearby corpus of Thebes.
E.Lu 6 (= G 25)
E.Lu 6 (ESS 1998)

| urq
The reading is far from certain. The last sign could also be .
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 109
E.Lu 7 (= G 26)
E.Lu 7 (ESS 1998)
tksr or rather tasr?
Neither of the two possible readings oers a good connection with other
Carian sequences.
Summing up, although these grati are practically unusable (with
the exception of E.Lu 2), the presence of Carian grati among the
grati of the Luxor temple is indisputable, as demonstrated by the
presence of genuine Carian letters such as I or f.
6. Murww (E.Mu)
In his monumental work on the inscriptions of Lower Nubia, Zbyn^k
ba published, in collaboration with Fritz Hintze, a Carian grato
found in the region of Murww, about two kilometres north of the
temple of Dendr (ba 1974[79] n 196 & g. 323).
This inscription does not appear either in Massons indexes (Masson
1978) or in the transcribed corpus of Meier-Brgger (Meier-Brgger
1979b). Our only source is the unsatisfactory edition of ba, which
includes a fairly poor quality photograph, an inaccurate and unreliable
facsimile (reproduced here), a transliteration to the systems of Bork-
Friedrich and evorokin, and some rather confusing notes. Only the
reading of two words known elsewhere is certain.
110 cn.r+rn +nnrr
E.Mu 1 (= ba 1971, 196)
E.Mu 1 (ba 1971)

p
?
owk | wljat | nsmsos
saaw
?
on sa
?
awon
Despite the drawing, the readings wljat and nsmsos are practically
assured because they are known elsewhere: wljat (not wljot !) = E.Th
7 wljat, and nsmsos = E.AS 3 nsmsos. The remaining words pose very
serious reading problems. As well as powk, an alternative reading sowk
is possible, and even the last letter of this word is far from certain: it
could also be t t, which gives sowt/powt as further alternative readings.
The alleged letter / in the second lineunexpected in an Egyptian
inscriptionseems in fact to be ~ a. The two words of the second
line are generally taken as almost identical (already in ba, see draw-
ing), but they could be dierent, coinciding only in their nal part
(-on). In this sense, the letter under s in the second word might be not
an a but in fact a b b, so that a reading sb-awon would be possible. In
conclusion, only son is completely certain for both words of the sec-
ond line. Therefore, the reading adopted here is merely provisional.
7. Silsilis (E.Si)
There is not a modern edition of the Silsilis grati, it should be added
at this point that in all probability producing this new edition will never
be possible: according to Masson (1969:32), a great number of these
grati must have been destroyed.
The corpus consists of 11 generally very short and impenetrable
grati. Only a pair of words that correspond to the rest of the Carian
documentation can be clearly interpreted: psmak, the name Psammetichus,
well documented in the Carian of Egypt (E.Si 2, E.Si 7), and be
?
bint
(E.Si 4), also attested in Thebes. I adopt the readings of Masson (1978),
with the exception of E.Si 2 and E.Si 10. In the rst case, I follow
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 111
Schrrs proposal of reading the text as boustrophedon, and modifying the
interpretation of some signs from the drawings of Sayce and Legrain
(Schrr 2000:172). In the case of E.Si 11, Schrr has argued con-
vincingly for a new reading, based on a photograph published by Hans
A. Winckler in 1939 (see below).
I provisionally reinstate the inscription Si 61 F (= Sayce 1906, n. 5),
excluded from Massons corpus. This is also present in evorokin (1965)
(69 ), see also Schrr (1996b:149).
20
E.Si 1 = Si 39 F
20
For technical reasons, the source of my illustrations will be Friedrich (1932), where
Sayces drawings are reproduced.
E.Si 1 (Friedrich 1932)

iqud | marariso[-. . .]
E.Si 2 = Si 53 F
Sayce I
Sayce II
112 cn.r+rn +nnrr
[]eld | wa | psmak |
uejresi | qan | kolt | kowrn[. . . ?
I oer the three existing copies of this grato (two by Sayce, the third
by Legrain 1905) and adopt Schrrs proposed reading (Schrr 2000:172).
In any case, as noted above, the only clearly recognizable form is the
name psmak in the rst line.
E.Si 3 = Si 54 F
Legrain
E.Si 2 (Friedrich 1932)
E.Si 3 (Friedrich 1932)

irasa | n[-]eakrnanb
E.Si 4 = Si 55 F
Sayce
Legrain
E.Si 4 (Friedrich 1932)
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 113

[. . .]t bebint | sqlumidun | sqla

For the diamond-sign preceding the same word, see above E.Th 28.
The reading bebint (instead of bbint in Adiego 1993a) now seems prefer-
able, given the clearer evidence of the Theban inscriptions.
E.Si 5 = Si 56 F
E.Si 5 (Friedrich 1932)

betkrqit[. . .]
E.Si 6 = Si 57 F
E.Si 6 (Friedrich 1932)

bta | sursiabk | dr[-. . .]

qku
E.Si 7 = Si 58 F

psmak
E.Si 7 (Friedrich 1932)
114 cn.r+rn +nnrr
E.Si 8 = Si 59 F
E.Si 8 (Friedrich 1932)

bijpe (. . . ?)
E.Si 9 = Si 60 F
E.Si 9 (Friedrich 1932)

[. . .]rbna[. . .
E.Si 10 = Si 61 F
E.Si 10 (Friedrich 1932)

?
mpi
E.Si 11 = Si 62 F
E.Si 11 (Friedrich 1932, modied)
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 115

dmobqs
Reading taken from Schrr. The photograph of the inscription pub-
lished by Winckler in 1939 (which I was made aware of by Schrr)
quite clearly substantiates the reading proposed by Schrr. It also serves
to denitively rule out the alleged presence of a letter b in the Carian
alphabet of Silsilis.
21
8. Abu Simbel (E.AS)
Fortunately the current situation of the Abu Simbel corpus is very
dierent to those mentioned above; we have at our disposal a recent
and very careful edition of these grati, thanks to the eorts of Olivier
Masson (Masson 1979), who was also responsible for the publication,
some years ago and in collaboration with Andr Bernand, of the cor-
pus of Greek grati from the same location (Bernand-Masson 1957).
The Carian grati from Abu Simbel are strongly tied to the history
of research on Carian: it was Richard Lepsius who rst edited and cor-
rectly identied as Carian these inscriptions found on the legs of the
two colossi of Abu Simbel (Lepsius 1844, Abt. 6, Bl. 98 [Kar. 13],
and Bl. 99 [Kar. 47]). This theory was conrmed by Sayce (1874,
1887[92]) when texts in a similar alphabet were found in Caria and
bordering areas. However, from an epigraphical point of view, Sayce
could not contribute to an improved edition of the text, and he had
to be satised with Lepsius copies (see Masson 1979:3536 for details).
Massons edition is based on the drawings and photographs made
by Andr Bernand and Abd el Latif Ahmed Aly in 1956. The draw-
ings had already been published provisionally (Bernand-Aly 1959?), and
reproduced in evorokin (1965). The corpus presented here introduces
some corrections and additions made by Diether Schrr.
21
See Schrr (1996b) where, contrastingly, the presence of a letter / is argued.
Later, Schrr argued in favour of a f, which seems more likely. This latter reading
is the one that I adopt here. For the alleged initial letter my in the inscriptions, see
the convincing arguments in Schrr (1996b) for rejecting it.
116 cn.r+rn +nnrr
E.AS 1 = AS 1
E.AS 1 (Masson 1979)

parolou
[. . .]oe
Grato discovered by Bernand.
E.AS 2 = AS 2
E.AS 2 (Masson 1979)

abd
?
aikal
Also a new grato found by Bernand, absent from Lepsius corpus.
Schrrs reading is followed here.
E.AS 3 = AS 3 = Lepsius Kar 4
E.AS 3 (Masson 1979)

pismak | arnw | nsmsos

+nr ixscnir+ioxs 117
E.AS 4 = AS 4 + Lepsius Kar 7
E.AS 4 (Masson 1979 + Lepsius 1844)

aakowr | emsglpn | b[. . .] pisma[/k . . .]

The rst part of the grati (which appears in the drawing) was rec-
ognized by Bernand, while Lepsius was only able to identify some illeg-
ible characters (Bernand apud Masson 1979:39, n. 39). But as Schrr
notes ( per litteras), Lepsius Kar. 7 (left out by Masson because it was
not re-found by Bernand) is actually the continuation of E.AS 4, and
the beginning of the Egyptian name (in its Carian adaptation) pismak/
pismak is easily readable in Lepsius copy.
The direction of the reading oered for AS 4 in earlier works (for
instance Adiego 1993a) was incorrect.
E.AS 5 = AS 5 = Lepsius Kar 6
E.AS 5 (Masson 1979)

pnyriru | ikr | a[--]ib

?
wn
Schrr suggests that the nal letters may be part of another grato.
118 cn.r+rn +nnrr
E.AS 6 = AS 6 = Lepsius Kar 3
E.AS 6 (Masson 1979)

platt
sla i
E.AS 7 = AS 7 = Lepsius Kar 1
E.AS 7 (Masson 1979)

naz i | b | esak
?
dow | mqudem | pismak | bebint | mo | ne
| ps[|
?
] ai[-]iqom
Schrrs reading (Schrr 2001b:108, and per litteras) is adopted here.
E.AS 8 = AS 8
E.AS 8 (Masson 1979)
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 119

nidkusas | meqak | sn | t | uni | kmmsm[. . .]

[. . .]rwk[-][
Grati discovered by Bernand. Massons reading is followed, despite
the signicant problems posed by the nal part.
E.AS 9 = Kar 2
E.AS 9 (Lepsius 1844)

sm [?
This grato is omitted without any reference in Masson (1979). It had
already been identied as a part of a Greek grato in Bernand-Masson
(1957:38; the grato is Bernand-Masson n 32), but Schrr ( per litteras)
maintains that it is in fact Carian. In fact, no connection seems to exist
between the clear drawing wsm of Lepsius and the Greek grati as
reproduced in Bernand-Masson loc. cit.
9. Buhen (E.Bu)
Also in the case of the grati from Buhen, we can refer to an excel-
lent, recent edition, made by Masson and published together with the
Saqqra corpus (Masson 1978).
In 1895 Sayce published seven inscriptions copied in the Southern
Temple of Buhen (then mentioned as Temple of Thothmes III at
Wadi Halfa (Sayce 1895). He had serious doubts about the Carian
nature of two of these (numbers 6 and 7). They have not been redis-
covered since and must remain outside our collection.
For his edition, Masson was able to re-read three of the ve clearly
Carian grati (E.Bu 2, 3, 6), and he also added a new and important
grato found during the British campaign 19621963 (E.Bu 1). For
the remaining Carian grati (4 and 5), Masson was obliged to work
only from Sayces copies.
120 cn.r+rn +nnrr
Despite the quality of his edition, Masson was unable to nd a sat-
isfactory solution to the problem posed by the same word that appears
repeatedly in dierent inscriptions from Buhen. Following the deci-
pherment of Carian, we now know that this word is the name Psam-
metichus in Carian, and that the many divergent readings adopted by
Masson must be brought together. This correction aects E.Bu 1 ( psmak,
not psmau ), E.Bu 4 ( psmak, not psmam) and E.Bu 5 (identical cor-
rection). Other discrepancies with Massons edition aect the word ari
(not arli !) in E.Bu 1 and E.Bu 2 (evorokins correction, see evorokin
1984[86]:199), and ibrsi (not iyrsi ! ) in E.Bu 4 (Schrrs correction:
Schrr 19911993). These corrections were already set out in Adiego
(1993a).
E.Bu 1 = M 50
E.Bu 1 (Masson 1978)

[]msal | ar-
[ ]i | psma-
k | urm | an-
kbu | trel
kbou
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 121
E.Bu 2 = M 51
E.Bu 2 (Masson 1978)

euml
?
bna-
sal | ari
pdtom
urom | an-
kbu
E.Bu 3 = M 52

[-]tmai[]
E.Bu 3 (Masson 1978)
122 cn.r+rn +nnrr
E.Bu 4 (= M 53)
E.Bu 4
Massons copy of Sayces drawing
Sayce (1895)

psmak
ibrsi
This constitutes a good example of a biased interpretation of a text
known only from a single copy; the inscription was not found again
when Masson was preparing his edition, so he had to use Sayces draw-
ing. Masson interpreted the second letter of the second line as a W,
modifying Sayces copy in order to approximate the traces of the let-
ter to a more standard form. However, as Schrr (19911993:167) has
convincingly demonstrated, this letter is actually b, and not W y,
since we are dealing with the typical Carian name ib(a)rsi, brsi, attested
by a number of examples. The other problematic letter is the last one
of the rst line, for which an interpretation as k k is now beyond
doubt, as the whole word is the Carian form of the Egyptian name
Psammetichus.
E.Bu 5 (= M 54)
E.Bu 5 (Masson 1978)

psmak
As in E.Bu 4, the last sign is now interpreted as k, in order to obtain
the well-known Egyptian name psmak.
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 123
E.Bu 6 (= M 55)
E.Bu 6 (Masson 1978)

eypsal
puor | aor
urseak i
This inscription is extremely dicult to read, so some uncertainties
remain. In any case, the reading aor for the third word should be pre-
ferred to ar, as found in previous works, given the good parallel in
E.Me 1 and the sound onomastic identication (see Chapter 11, s. v.
aor ).
10. Gebel Sheik Suleiman (E.SS)
E.SS 1 (= 72 F)
This grato, which constitutes the southernmost document of Carian
to be found in Africa, is known only from two dierent copies: Sayce
(Sayce 1910 = Friedrich 1932) and A. J. Arkell (reproduced in evorokin
1965) respectively. As we are informed by Masson (1978: 35, n. 1, and
98), this inscription, which never was photographed, now lies beneath
the waters of the Nile. The correction introduced in Adiego (1993a) is
maintained here: the second word of the second line is read in, not
n, because it is undoubtedly the same word that appears in E.Me
38.
124 cn.r+rn +nnrr
Friedrich (1932)

nn[-]s|aruol
pneit|in
pard
11. Unknown Origin, Likely from Egypt (E.xx)
Under this title I include seven inscriptions whose Egyptian origin seems
clear, but for which no exact location can be determined.
E.xx 1 (= MY C)
evorokin (1965)
E.xx 1 (Masson-Yoyotte 1956)
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 125

qorb | isor i | ugli

This stela is known as the stle de Grenoble. The attribution of an
origin from Bubastis was discarded in Masson-Yoyotte (1956:7). In any
case, the alphabet is clearly of the same kind as that used in Memphis
and Sais. Unproblematic reading.
Photograph: Masson-Yoyotte (1956: pl. IV). Drawings: Masson-Yoyotte (1956:89).
E.xx 2 (= MY I)
E.xx 2

wliat
This so-called ichneumon of Berlin, is actually a reliquary for a
mummied shrew with a Carian name followed by an Egyptian votive
formula X (the god incarnated by the animal) may give life.
Photograph: Masson-Yoyotte (1956: pl. 4). Drawing: Masson-Yoyotte (1956:37). My
drawing of the shrew is based on the photograph.
E.xx 3 (= MY a)
E.xx 3
126 cn.r+rn +nnrr

ionel
Inscription on the mount of a ring.
Photograph: Masson-Yoyotte (1956: pl. VIII). Drawing: Masson-Yoyotte (1956:11). My
drawing of the object is based on the photograph.
E.xx 4 (= MY b)
E.xx 4

pduba
Word engraved on a vase.
Photograph: Masson-Yoyotte (1956: pl. VIII). Drawing: Masson-Yoyotte (1956:12). My
drawing of the object is based on the photograph.
E.xx 5 (= MY c)
E.xx 5 (Friedrich 1932)
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 127

owmebt
This is the scarabaeum with a Carian inscription, rst edited by
Sayce (1887[92]). It was briey referred to in Masson-Yoyotte (1956)
(MY c), but neither photography nor drawing or transcription was
attempted at the time, given that neither editor knew where the object
was. The object was rediscovered a short time after the publication of
Masson-Yoyotte (1956), and Masson dealt with it in an article (Masson
1959b). In the absence of more information, Masson considered it to
be pseudo-Carian. In Masson (1978) it was omitted.
Contrastingly, evorokin included it in his book on Carian (evorokin
1965: 127; 6 ) and oered a very plausible reading (owmebt). The
nal sequence bt is a particularly attractive suggestion, because it also
appears in two grati from Thebes (E.Th 12 and E.Th 13). I have
therefore included alongside the other Carian texts.
Photograph: Masson (1959: pl. 2). Drawing: Masson (1959: pl. 3).
E.xx 6 (= 4 )
E.xx 6

arnajs | sb taqbos
Inscription on the so-called Leningrad Isis, published by evorokin
(evorokin 1964b; evorokin 1965). As in the case of E.xx 2, a Carian
128 cn.r+rn +nnrr
onomastic formula is completed by an Egyptian votive phrase, here Js.t
dj n Isis may give life.
I adopt here a new suggested reading formulated by Diether Schrr.
Photographs: evorokin (1964b:pl. IIV). Drawing: evorokin (1964b:5859). My
drawing of the inscription is based on the photograph.
E.xx 7 (= Lion)
E.xx 7 (Masson 1976)

ntros: pridas
ora
nu mdane: uksi wrm
Inscription on a lion of Egyptian origin, edited by Masson (Masson
1976). Some years ago, I suggested to Masson the possibility of read-
ing ntros ntros, instead of noros noros (sic in Masson 1976), a
suggestion based both on the photograph and the comparable sequence
ntro ntro in C.xx 1. Yoyottes revision of the inscription made this
correction possible, which was already included in Adiego (1993a) and
is now widely accepted.
Photograph: Masson (1976: pl. 1). Drawing: Masson (1976 pl. 2).
D. Tnr C.ni.x Ixscnir+ioxs rnov C.ni.
The rst and last specic edition of all the Carian inscriptions from
Caria available at the time was produced by Louis Robert and Louis
Deroy, in two complementary articles: Robert (1950), which includes
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 129
photographs and epigraphical information, and Deroy (1955), a col-
lection of drawings based on the photographs published by Robert.
The numbering of the inscriptions introduced by Robert and adopted
by Deroy became the standard (hence the use of D or, less frequently,
R.-D. followed by a number to refer to the Carian inscriptions from
Caria). This ordering did not follow a coherent set of criteria.
22
As for the inscriptions published after the Robert-Deroy edition, in
Meier-Brgger (1983) a catalogue was established (although the inscrip-
tions were not edited) and the numbering system of Robert-Deroy was
continued, but an asterisk mark was added to the new inscriptions
instead of the D and R.-D abbreviations.
23
The numbering crite-
rion employed was the order of publication of the new inscriptions. A
source of further confusion was the fact that both Robert-Deroys and
Meier-Brggers catalogues included Para-Carian inscriptions, here omit-
ted from the true Carian corpus. The inscriptions from locations other
than Caria were also listed, so this catalogue actually comprises all the
non-Egyptian-originated epigraphical documents of Carian.
In this study, a new classication system, parallel to that introduced
for Carian inscriptions from Egypt, will be introduced. The inscriptions
are classied according to the locations in which they were found.
We are clearly in a better position to analyse the corpus from Caria
than the corpus of Egyptian texts: with the sole exception of C.Tr 2,
at least photographic evidence is available for all the inscriptions.
Moreover, some of the texts edited by Robert and Deroy have been
revised thanks to the eorts of Blmel, Gusmani, Frei and Marek,
whereas the texts found after Deroys compilation have generally been
edited satisfactorily.
22
13 are already published. 45 are inscriptions neglected by scholars prior to
Robert (in fact, Para-Carian inscriptions from Chalketor and Ancin, south of Alabanda).
613 are inscriptions found by Robert himself. 14 is a text discovered by G. E. Bean,
15 is a Carian (Kaunian) inscription from Lycia already known and previously pub-
lished (as 13), and 16, oered in addendum, is the great inscription of Kaunos, also
discovered by Bean. In Deroys article, the confusion continues: D 17 are Para-Carian
grati from Labraunda, D 18 Carian coins, and D 19, the Greek-Carian bilingual
inscription from Athens.
23
For the continuation of the numbering after Meier-Brgger (1983), see Meier-
Brgger (1994:113), Frei-Marek (1997:6, n. 10), Frei-Marek (2000:85).
130 cn.r+rn +nnrr
24
I am grateful to Dr. Georg Rehrenbck (Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna),
for your extreme kindness in sending me a reproduction of Kubitscheks drawing and
notes concerning this inscription.
1. Tralleis (C.Tr)
C.Tr 1 (= D 1)
Deroy (1955) Kubitscheks copy conserved in Vienna

sdi amt[
pau
art{ }mon
This inscription has not been re-found since it was seen and copied at
the end of the 19th Century, but Deroys drawing, based both on a
photograph of the cast and a copy conserved in the notes of Kubitschek
in the Austrian Academy of Vienna (which I reproduce here)
24
is quite
reliable. Moreover, the inscription does not pose any particular prob-
lems of reading. The third letter of the rst line is denitely Y i.
I adopt the reading suggested by Schrr (cf. Schrr 2001b:109,
n. 12), but I am unsure about the segmentation of the rst line.
Photograph of a cast and drawing in Deroy (1955:307 and pl. I).
C.Tr 1
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 131
C.Tr 2 (= D 2)
Pappakonstatinous drawing
(Meier-Brgger 1978)
Kubitscheks copy conserved in Vienna
C.Tr 2

an sidi a-
rtmi pau
paraq
?
This inscription, which has since disappeared, is known only through
drawings.
I retain the reading adopted in Adiego (1993a), based on the image
published by Meier-Brgger (1978:81), a direct reproduction of the
drawing edited by Pappakonstantinou in 1895. The copy conserved in
Vienna among Kubitscheks travel notes (see above C.Tr 1), brought
to my knowledge by Dr. Georg Rehrenbck, is concurrent with Pappa-
konstantinous drawing, the only surprising dierence being the omis-
sion (accidental?) of r in the third line ( paaq
?
instead of paraq), see
the illustration.
The only problem of reading is the last letter of the inscription:
Schrr (2001b:109, n. 12) argues that it is (das letzte Zeichen wohl
), but Pappakonstantinous and Kubitscheks drawings points rather
to a Q q.
Drawings: Deroy (1955:308), Meier-Brgger (1978:81).
132 cn.r+rn +nnrr
2. Alabanda and Surroundings (C.Al)
C.Al 1 (= D 13)
(Deroy 1955)

sdi a[-]mob[
Found by Robert in Eski ine, south of Alabanda. To my knowledge,
the inscription has not been seen again. I adopt Schrrs reading (Schrr
2001b:109, n. 12).
Photograph: (1950: pl. II 1, VIII 2, XXI 2). Drawings: Robert (1950:17), Deroy (1955:319).
3. Euromos (C.Eu)
C.Eu 1 (= D 3)
Drawing conserved in Vienna

as: ktais idyri: mn[os

?
]
This inscription was copied, photographed and edited for the rst and
last time, by E. Hula and E. Szanto in 1894. As Meier-Brgger has
demonstrated (Meier-Brgger 1978:7879), the drawing made by the
rst editors is considerably better than that published in Sayce (1905)
and Deroy (1955). I reproduce here a copy of the original drawing by
Hula and Szanto conserved in Vienna, kindly sent to me by Georg
Rehrenbck.
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 133
The main diculty is posed by the alleged sequence WW yy. Some
years ago, evorokin (in his unpublished document Corrections to
Existing Copies) proposed to correct it on the basis of the direct study
of the cast: according to him, the sequence was actually a Wr yr. This
correction is eminently suitable from a linguistic point of view, since a
sequence WW yy is hardly acceptable; moreover, a reading Wr yr yields
a good onomastic identication (see Chapter 11, s. v. idyri ). However,
considered from the point of view of the local alphabet of Euromos,
we would expect a form Rrather than a form rfor r, as can be
seen in the other inscription from Euromos (C.Eu 2).
Thanks to the kindness of Dr. Rehrenbck, I have been able to con-
trol directly the two (very similar) casts of the inscription conserved in
Vienna. Both Dr. Rehrenbck and I agree that, at rst sight, an W can
be recognised in both casts. Without totally ruling out the possibility
of an original mistake made by the engraver, one can suppose that
either the intermediate trait or the lower trait is intrusive. It is true
that the intermediate trait seems weaker, favouring thus a reading R
(which would be more consistent with the testimony of C.Eu 2), but it
is frankly impossible to decide denitively between a reading r, or a
reading R.
The last word, incomplete, must be without any doubt the Carian
word for son, mno-. The diculty lies in establishing whether it was
inected. In my proposal of integration, I tentatively suggest the com-
pletion mn[os
?
], based on the assumed concordance of this word with
the name ktais, very possibly a name with an -s ending.
Photograph: Robert (1950:Pl. VI 4). Drawings: Deroy (1955:309), Meier-Brgger
(1978:80).
C.Eu 2 (= D 8)
C.Eu 2 (Blmel 1988)
134 cn.r+rn +nnrr

omob i: temazi
dun: oniabkol
armon qyrbmudolo
manon
This inscription was re-edited almost simultaneously, and with divergent
readings, by Blmel (1988) and Gusmani (1990). Wolfgang Blmel was
kind enough to allow me to see a cast of the inscription, and I can
conrm the accuracy of his edition. I reproduce Blmels drawing here.
The text does not pose reading problems. The most remarkable inno-
vation of the current transcription is the interpretation of the letter e
not as a variant (Kaunian-like type) of L l, but rather as a local form
of e e, as in Hyllarima and probably also in Mylasa (see below p. 225).
Photographs: Robert (1950), pl. IV. Drawings: Deroy (1955:316),
Blmel (1988:262), Gusmani (1990:49).
4. Kindye (C.Kn)
C.Kn 1 (= D 6)
C.Kn 1 (Deroy 1955)

pares
Extremely fragmentary inscription found by Laumonier, which has been
not recovered.
Drawing: Deroy (1955:314). Photograph: Laumonier (1933:35).
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 135
5. Hyllarima (C.Hy)
C.Hy 1 (= D 7 + new fragment)
C.Hy 1 (col a: Adiego-Debord-Varinlio<lu 2005; col. b: Laumonier 1934)

(a) asqariod dymda

muot armotrqdosq
brsi ari brsi
mane: uol
rtim uol pur
?
i
ubzol tu brsi
pau mane ybr-
s
(b) kduopizipususot
mol msot ylarmit
(Greek textonly the oldest inscriptions that appear also in the illustration):
(a) ereew yen pntvn:
Ermaw Fanv Ermadow
(b) erew yen pntvn:
Ussvllow Arrissiow
The stone containing the Col. b, was discovered by Laumonier in 1933.
In 2004, a new bilingual inscription was found in Hyllarima, which
136 cn.r+rn +nnrr
turned out to be a fragment of the same stone, the two pieces tting
together. This sensational discovery provides us with almost the com-
plete marble stela (only the lower part is missing), and the result is a
complex mixture of inscriptions from dierent periods, which makes
the interpretation of the Carian text dicult, both internally and in
connection with the Greek texts.
The rst problem is to establish whether the two rst Carian lines
of each column must be read as two complete lines (the rst line of
column (a) being followed immediately by the rst line of column (b),
and likewise for the two second lines), or if one must begin reading
from the rst two lines of (a) and then the rst two lines of (b), or
whether column (a) and column (b) in fact represent two independent
inscriptions.
Also problematic, and related to this discussion, is the connection
between Carian and Greek texts. It is clear that the majority of Greek
texts seem to have been engraved long after the Carian lines,
25
but the
rst four lines of column (b) could be contemporary with the Carian
texts. Whether this contemporaneity implies a connection between the
two texts or not is impossible to decide.
The problem is compounded somewhat by the fact that in the Carian
text of (a), the last three lines, clearly separated from the preceding
ones, show marked dierences in the shape of the letters, and thus
seem to have been written long after the preceding lines. A similar sit-
uation can be observed in the four Greek lines mentioned, the last two
showing divergent traits to the rst. This opens the way for a number
of dierent hypotheses about the order in which the sections of the
Carian inscription and the sections of the oldest Greek inscription were
engraved.
Independent from the problems of interpretation, which will be dealt
with in pp. 305308, the inscription of Hyllarima is an exceptional
document: it is the best-preserved long Carian inscription, the text being
complete and with only one diculty of reading: the antepenultimate
letter of the fth line of column (a), apparently a R r.
25
The Greek texts are the following: in col. (a), immediately after the Carian inscrip-
tion, a list of Apollos priests at the time of the joint rulership of Antiochos and his
son, dated in 263262. In col. (b), after the Carian text, a list of priests of all the gods
followed by a sale of the priesthood of all the gods, and a land renting document. In
the lateral side of col. (a), another sale of priesthood of the same date as that of col.
(b), the name of the divinities implied not being readable. In the lateral side of col.
(b), other land renting documents.
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 137
Col. b, photographs: Laumonier (1934:347), Robert (1950:pl. V), drawings:
Laumonier (1934:346), Deroy (1955:315). Edition of the new frragment in
Adiego-Debord-Varinlio<lu (2005).
6. Mylasa (C.My)
C.My 1
C.My 1

idrayridsemdbq mol ty[

tsial tusol: moi m[-]sao[
banol paruos: p
?
au paryri
qzali obrbi: tsial obrbi
banol yrqso: paryri psoir
[-]bdo pnuo: myze trdy
arkbiom qzali: umo kbdmu
skdubrotoz: pau toi
[-]qo idyri: ksbo iduol
[-]obiokli: toi yrqso
Inscription found in 2004 in Krca<iz, near Mylasa. As with other
Carian inscriptions, this text poses serious reading problems regarding
the letters z, Q and o, which in several cases can barely be distin-
guished. It also seems that the engraver was not overly experienced in
138 cn.r+rn +nnrr
his taskas the editors of the inscription have pointed out (Blmel-
Kzl 2004: 138)and that some dicult readings could in fact be mere
errors.
The reading adopted here follows in general terms that given in
Adiego (2005), but with the inclusion of improvements suggested more
recently by Blmel (Blmel 2005). I am aware of some reading prob-
lems that still exist. In any case, this inscription is a very important
document both for Carian onomastics and for our knowledge of the
Carian alphabetic variety of Mylasa.
Photograph: Blmel-Kzl (2004). The drawing presented here has been made on the
photograph.
7. Sancutary of Sinuri near Mylasa (C.Si)
C.Si 1 (= D 9)
C.Si 1 (Deroy 1955)

adymd: yri: t[-]rsi: [. . .?]

tbe
(vacat)
yri: binq: saidlo
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 139
Found by Pierre Devambez in 1935, it has been not recovered since.
The drawing reproduced here is from Deroy (1955). Several reading
problems therefore remain unresolved. I adopt the reading that can be
deduced from Deroys drawing.
Photographs: Robert (1950: pl. 1). Drawing: Deroy (1955:316).
C.Si 2 (= D 10)
C.Si 2 (Deroy 1955)

(a) []ryin tmo: sb ada tmo

eri: pisoi mda: pmnn: pda-
mu i aoyrri mtel
mailo mda lrH: stsp vacat
sms[5] sb amssi mda
sm[7]ae[
[8]tud[
e-?-[
(b) pim[. . .]
Ha
?
[. . .]
140 cn.r+rn +nnrr
(Greek text:)
Robert (1945), n. 75
[ Idrivw Ekatmnv]
[ ka A]daw Ekatmnv ka[
[ ?S]uennitvn eriow [
[ ]now Ponmoonnou [
[tl]eian pntvn ep[
[Id]riew Ekat[mnv ka Ada]
Ekatmnv [dvkan?
tleia[n
sunge[n
tis o[
oug.[
Robert (1945), n. 74 (+ C.Si 2).
] kastow
]areihw
?k]at niautn
?]p Nhsaiou
]w
to]w Suennoiw
Bilingual inscription found by Louis Robert. The Carian part was edited
by Robert (1950) and Deroy (1955). The Greek part can be found in
Robert (1945). Regrettably, neither Blmels eorts to locate the inscrip-
tion years later nor the steps given by Schrr in order to obtain Roberts
cast have been successful.
In any case, the reading of the three rst lines is quite certain,
with the important correction made by Schrr, consisting in reading d
d instead of F, in the name ada. Things are not so clear from the fourth
line onwards: H in lrH could be U (therefore lru), and the t t in stsp could
be o o (sosp), etc. Also problematic is the reading of the entire fth line.
Schrrs suggestion of linking this fragment of stone with another
from Sinuri that contains two decrees in Greek by Idrieus and Ada
(Robert 1945, n 75) seems to me a very attractive theory, and it is
adopted here (see Schrr 1992:136138; cf. Adiego 2000:134135 for
details; I reproduce the text Greek edited in this latter article).
26
26
This edition was revised by W. Blmel.
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 141
This inscription can be now dated more accurately: the mention of
the joint ruling of Idrieus and Ada situates it between 351/350 and
344/343 (cf. Hornblower 1982:45).
Photographs: Robert (1950:pl. II and III). Drawing: Deroy (1955:317).
8. Kildara (C.Ki)
C.Ki 1 (= D 11)
27
The Greek inscription has also been published by W. Blmel in Die Inschriften von
Mylasa. II, Inschriften aus der Umgebung der Stadt (= I. K. 35), Bonn 1988.
C.Ki 1 (Blmel-Adiego 1993)

[. . . . . . . (.)]zolbaa[..(.)] kil[
[. . .]uda[. . .] trqdimr qrds tazomd[
kilarad[-]ybzsdmHnmkda[-]aHuq[
iasoum
Greek text:
doje Kildaresin, kklhshw genomnhw: Uss[vllvi?]
Samvou eergthi genomnvi Kildarvn t[leian]
donai ka proedran ka sagvgn ka jagv[gn]
ka n ernhi sule ka sponde ka ati
ka kgnoiw: ka Kildaraw enai n y[lvsin?]
Discovered by Louis Robert in 1934, this inscription is followed by a
Greek decree honouring Uss[vllow], son of Samvow. The inscription
was seen again by Blmel, and a new edition of the Carian text was
subsequently published in Kadmos (Blmel-Adiego 1993).
27
The present
142 cn.r+rn +nnrr
drawing and reading synthesize the readings of Deroy and Blmel-
Adiego, both conserving the letters that were impossible to identify in
the revision, and incorporating the new readings of some letters.
I still see the exact reading of the last word as problematic; the read-
ing m of the last letter implies the presence of a M oriented to the
left, contrary to all the other instances of the letter in the inscription
(m), and also the rightward direction of the writing. The reading of the
remaining letters is also uncertain. I believe therefore that a reading
*Amous amous, instead of AsouM iasoum, cannot be altogether
dismissed. Such a reading would be compelling, insofar as it would
allow us to identify in the Carian text the name of the father of the
individual honoured in the Greek section, and consequently to estab-
lish a connection between the texts. But for want of sucient evidence,
I maintain the old reading, iasoum.
Photographs: Robert (1950:pl. VI 2, VIII 1, IX 2, X), Blmel-Adiego (1993:pl. 1).
Drawings: Deroy (1955:318), Blmel-Adiego (1993:89).
9. Stratonikeia (C.St)
C.St 1 (= D 12)
C.St 1

]sel a[]a[]om
]som[n
?
]e brsi ula[]ol
]latmne ysal[
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 143
] ari maqly[
]sel piks[
]sel p[
This inscription, found by Robert in 1946, has not been revised since
then. The present reading and modied drawing are based on my own
interpretation of the photograph published by Robert (1950). The most
remarkable innovation appears in the second line. I propose that a pos-
sible personal name som[n]e (see Chapter 11, s. v. somne/somne ) can be
recognized, followed by the well-known name brsi, in genitive: the let-
ter R r seems to be certain (and not W y, as formerly read), and the
sign preceding it (b) seems to be the local form of $ 4 b, although
neither Roberts photograph nor Deroys drawing provides a clear image
of what the exact form of the letter was. Also new is the reading Q
q, not o o, of the seventh sign of the fourth line.
For the rst line, I adopt the reading of Schrr (2001b:106).
Photograph: Robert (1950:pl. VI). Drawing: Deroy (1955:319). The drawing oered
here has been made on the photograph.
C.St 2 (= 36*)
C.St 2 (}ahin 1980 modiWed)

uol uodrou u[
mute ymezus[
diye uodryia[
uliade pidaru[
144 cn.r+rn +nnrr
maqaraHrl-?-[
darqemorms[
Hdaqedorms[
Inscription edited by }ahin (1980).
I adopt Schrrs suggestion that l. 7, sign 5 is Q q, not o o. In fact,
some rounded signs of the inscriptions are dicult to distinguish cor-
rectly (they could be o, z, or Q).
Photograph: }ahin (1980:pl. V 1). Drawing: }ahin (1980:206). The drawing presented
here is a modied version of }ahins, in order to introduce the new readings of some
letters.
10. Halikarnassos (C.Ha)
C.Ha 1 (= 33*)
C.Ha 1

smdbrs | psnlo | ml orkn tn | snn

Inscription on a bronze phiale (6th B.C.) published by Jucker and Meier-
Brgger ( Jucker-Meier-Brgger 1978). The attribution to Halikarnassos
is based on the information given by the dealer to Jucker (Karien,
Bereich von Bodrum, Jucker-Meier-Brgger 1978:104; cf. also 109:
Der Hndler, der als Fundort die Gegend von Halikarnass (. . .)
nannte . .). It is true that a phiale is an easily movable object, so it
could have been made elsewhere. For this reason, the possibility that
the alphabetic variant used here may represent that of Halikarnassos
must be viewed with caution.
The text does not pose reading problems.
Photograph: Jucker-Meier-Brgger (1978:pl. 2). Drawing: Jucker-Meier-Brgger (1978:109).
My drawing is based on the photograph.
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 145
11. Didyma (Ionia, near Milet) (C.Di)
C.Di 1 (= 21*)
C.Di 1

]ub
Inscription on a broken fragment, datable to the 6th century B.C.
Although this grato is located not in Caria, but in Ionia, I include
it in the Carian section of the corpus given the clear proximity of
Didyma (and Milet) to the Carian country.
This is a very dicult text: not even the direction of reading is clear.
It is ascribed to the Carian corpus based on the clear presence of the
letter w . The overall reading is far from certain (see remarks in Adiego
1993a:80). The reading proposed here (the same as in Adiego 1993a)
is merely hypothetical. Steinherrs reading, adapted to the present deci-
pherment system, would be ult, whilst Innocente (1994:106) prefers
to read a, in reverse direction
Photograph: Naumann-Tuchelt (1963/64: pl. 25). Drawing: Adiego (1993a:324). See
also Tuchelt (1970), which includes a reading and some notes made by Steinherr. My
new drawing is based on the photograph.
12. Iasos (C.Ia)
Italian excavations in the Carian city of Iasos have brought several
Carian inscriptions to light. Their value, with the exception of C.Ia 3,
is very limited: the texts are extremely short and fragmentary, and no
parallels with the rest of the Carian corpus can be traced.
146 cn.r+rn +nnrr
C.Ia 1 (= 20* a)
(Pugliese Carratelli 1985[86])

]la
limtaoa | [
om
Inscription on the neck of a vase. I have not seen any photography,
and my only sources of information are the drawings and comments
in Levi-Pugliese Carratelli (196162 [1963]:632) and Pugliese Carratelli
(1985[86]:151).
Drawings: Levi-Pugliese Carratelli (196162 [1963]:632), Pugliese Carratelli (1985[86]:
151).
C.Ia 2 (= 20* b)
(Pugliese Carratelli 1985[86])

]uel | ob[
Although a reverse reading is possible, given that all the letters present
in the inscription are symmetrical, the theory is practically dismissed,
insofar as it would situate L l as the initial letter of a word, which is
highly improbable.
Photograph: Levi-Pugliese Carratelli (196162 [1963]:632); Drawings: Levi-Pugliese
Carratelli (196162 [1963]:632), Pugliese Carratelli (1985[86]: 151).
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 147
C.Ia 3 (= 38* a)
C.Ia 3

?] are | anne mlne | siyklo | ann | trqule | lmud [?

Inscription on a cratera. Published for the rst time by Pugliese Carratelli
(1985[86]:150151). Gusmani (1988:145149) oered a new reading
that challenged Pugliese Carratelli regarding the identication of the
two ~ in the second and fourth sequences: Gusmani proposed that
they be read in both cases as /. This new reading would subsequently
be discredited, because this letter is typical only in the Kaunian alpha-
bet, where its existence is inseparable from the fact that in this alpha-
bet there is no t t, and t is represented by T, so that a diacritically
dierentiated / (and variants) is used to represented , instead of
the f F of other alphabets. In the present inscription from Iasos, both
t and f do appear, which leaves the need for a letter such as /
unexplained.
Careful observation of the photograph provided by Pugliese Carratelli
shows that, at least in its second appearance, the letter in question
148 cn.r+rn +nnrr
clearly has a form of ~ very similar to the example in the rst word
(the only dierence being the somewhat rounded upper trace). It can
therefore extremely unlikely to be a letter comparable to / and vari-
ants. Therefore, Pugliese Carratellis reading is preferable.
Photograph: Pugliese Carratelli (1985[86]:pl. I). Drawings: Pugliese Carratelli (1985[86]:
150), Gusmani (1988:146). My drawing has been made directly on the photography
published by Pugliese Carratelli.
C.Ia 4 (= 38* b)
(Pugliese Carratelli 1985[86])

n[. . .]
pr[. . .]
is[. . .]
Very fragmentary inscription published by Pugliese Carratelli (1985[86]).
The few remaining letters are easily readable.
Photograph and drawing: Pugliese Carratelli (1985[86]:152).
C.Ia 5 (= 47*)
C.Ia 5 (Berti-Innocente 1998)

baqgk[. . .]
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 149
C.Ia 6 (= 48*)
C.Ia 6 (Berti-Innocente 1998)

[. . .]b
?
e
C.Ia 7 (= Berti-Innocente 2005)
C.Ia 7 (Berti-Innocente 2005)

?]y
?
n
C.Ia 57 are three very recently discovered grati on vases, edited by
Fede Berti and Lucia Innocente (Berti-Innocente 1998 for C.Ia 5, 6;
Berti-Innocente 2005 for C.Ia 7). Note the surprising letter v in C.Ia
7, apparently a variant of Mylasa W, Sinuri-Kildara V (cf. Berti-Innocente
2005:21).
150 cn.r+rn +nnrr
13. Keramos (C.Ke)
C.Ke 1 (= *39a)
C.Ke 1 (Varinlio[lu 1986)

uso-
t
C.Ke 2 (= *39b)

uso-
t
This pair of inscriptions with the same text, rst published in Varinlio[lu
(1986), were briey the focus of attention when Ray ingeniously sug-
gested that the sole word they contained could be identied with the
well known Carian name Ussollos, uol (Ray 1988). This identication
was based on an assumption that has since turned out to be false: that
the letter c could be equivalent here and in Hyllarima to the letter L
l. It is now clear that c does not represent l in Hyllarima, where
there is a particular letter for this sound (L), and the supposedly equiv-
alent sequence usoc in Hyllarima has nothing to do with the Carian
name mentioned (even the segmentation is far from certain!). As already
mentioned (p. 23), I even have a number of doubts concerning the
true Carian nature of these documents, which contain an initial sign
| that makes no sense as a letter in Carian. The disposition of the let-
ters is also a little strange, and their inclusion in the Carian corpus
must be accepted not without certain reservations.
Drawing: Varinlio[lu (1986).
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 151
14. Kaunos (C.Ka)
C.Ka 1 (= D 14)
C.Ka 1 (Deroy 1955)

sis: sdisa-
s: psuol
mal: mno
This funerary inscription, discovered by G. E. Bean and published by
Robert, does not pose any reading problems.
Photographs: Robert (1950: pl. VI 3 and IX, 1); Masson (1973[75]: pl. I, 1) Drawing:
Deroy (1955:320).
C.Ka 2 (= D 16)
C.Ka 2
152 cn.r+rn +nnrr

[ui
?
]oml qrds grdso[-]i[
[-]r sb amnnartnyr obsmns[
[-]arlano sb zarios i[
[-]nudrma yrpai sarni sb u[
[-]aH punot
2
otr bi sb atmsk[m
[-]d bi 1aitk ouor gdbla1_i[-]
[-] sarni sb 1orsol sb uHbit
[-]bi qrdsol ait 1mali Hit
[-]intnor yrapai umot
2
oba
[-]diurt obsmsm1 ouor mt1_yr
[]abrunur[-]ynHynn sb vacat
[]tbsms _1mali [
[]maH sb an[
[.............................]ba vacat
This inscription, the longest Carian text known to date, has recently
been revised by Marek and Frei, and this new reading is followed here.
The segmentations are purely hypothetical, mostly based on the iden-
tication of some clear words (for example the conjunction sb) and
endings (-, - ).
Photographs: Robert (1950: pl. XXIX, XXX, XXVIII, 2); Masson (1973[75]: pl. II,
2); Frei-Marek (2000:86). Drawings: Steinherr (1950[51]:331), Deroy (1955:321), Masson
(1973[75]:125). For an evaluation of these drawings, see Meier-Brgger (1978). I have
made the drawing on the basis of the excellent photograph published by Frei-Marek.
C.Ka 3 (= 28*)
C.Ka 3 (Roos 1972 modied)
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 153

oru
ann ibrs
This funerary inscription, rst published in Roos (1972), has been revised
by Schrr (see Schrr 1996c, Adiego 1996), and the new reading has
highlighted some important corrections: the rst letter is notas Roos
drawing indicatedan unexpected form of a letter pi, but in fact a
variant of the typical Kaunian letter /. This new reading is now
conrmed by the photograph published by Frei-Marek (2000). Schrrs
revision also allows us to identify the well-known Carian stem ibrs-.
Photograph: Frei-Marek (2000:126). Regrettably, this photograph shows only part of
the inscription. Drawings: Roos (1972:93, and pl. 40), Schrr (1996c:158). My draw-
ing is based on that of Roos, but implements the new readings made by Schrr and
the information available from Mareks photography.
C.Ka 4 (= 30*)
C.Ka 4

[. . .]uou ibrsdr[-]
[. . .]a yomln r1_i
[. . .]dar1_ idym
This fragment, published by Masson (1973[75]), has been re-read and
re-published in Frei-Marek (2000). The new revision has allowed some
154 cn.r+rn +nnrr
corrections of former readings and, perhaps more importantly, has lead
to the rejection of Massons suggestion (supported by Peter Hermann)
that this was a further fragment of the long stela C.Ka 2: the thick-
ness of C.Ka 4 is more than 3 cm greater than that of C.Ka 2 (Frei-
Marek 2000:99).
Photographs: Masson (1973[75]: pl. I, 2 and II, 1); Frei-Marek (2000:98). Drawings:
Masson (1973[75]:125), Frei-Marek (2000:97). My drawing is based on the photograph
published by Frei and Marek.
C.Ka 5 (= 44*)
C.Ka 5 (Deroy 1955)
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 155

kbidn uiomln i[]

inis drual nik[]
lan lysiklas[-
?
]
otonosn sb lys[ikl]
an lysikratas[-
?
]
otonosn sarni[]
mdot
2
un sb undo[]
tl kbdyn sb b
2
o[]
ol otr sb at[ms]
kmt absims sb []
yt
2
oru sb at[]
buy[]i[]i
[] un moa[-]lboror
[]Hlsasot
2
ort
tab sb ort[-] sb Hor-
ouo bi mslmnlia
purmoruos mnos
aitusi
Greek text:
doje Kaun[]oiw p dhmio[u]-
rgo Ipposynouw: Nikok-
la Lusiklouw Ayhnao[n]
ka Lusikla Lusikrt[ouw]
[A]yhnaon projnouw e[ nai k-]
a eergtaw Kaunv[n auto-]
w ka kgnouw ka []
n autow [. . .
This is the now well-known bilingual inscription honouring two Athenians.
The reading I adopt here is that published in Frei-Marek (1998), which
improves the editio princeps (Frei-Marek 1997) and adds a new frag-
ment of the stela. Concerning the dating, Frei-Marek (1997) proposes
connecting the proxeny decree contained in the stela with events that
happened in 322 B.C. However, Descat (1998) has argued in favour
of a slightly more recent dating: 314 B.C. From a linguistic point of
view this discrepancy is not particularly relevant. In both cases, the use
of Carian writing at the very end of 4th century, in a post-Hekatomnid
era, seems meaningful enough.
156 cn.r+rn +nnrr
The segmentation of the words is based in part on my own analy-
sis of the text, and must be taken as provisional.
Photographs: Frei-Marek (1997), (1998). The drawing here is mine.
C.Ka 6 (= 45*; Schmaltz 1998)
C.Ka 6

or
Photograph: Schmaltz (1998: Abb. 4). My drawing is based on the photograph.
C.Ka 7 (= 46*; Schmaltz 1998)
]no
?
(or better: ]no?)
C.Ka 6 and 7 are two very brief grati found on vases and published
by Schmaltz (1998). No photograph is available for the second of these
in Schmaltz, so we must make do with the reading he oers, leaving
a doubt about the last letter (z or ? Schmaltz 1998:209).
C.Ka 8 (= 49* Frei-Marek 2000:116119)
C.Ka 8

potkol
?
aba
?
d
?
ya
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 157
Inscription on two blocks from to the wall of the so-called Demeters
temple, published for the rst time in Frei-Marek (2000:116119). The
reading oered here diers slightly from that of the rst editors: instead
of potkolo, I prefer to readwith reservationspotkol
?
with a nal Z
, not o o: the dierentiating trace is quite clear, and I do not believe,
contra Frei-Marek, that the dierent form of the vertical trace regard-
ing the other letter can is an obstacle to this reading. Moreover, I
give (with some doubts) the reading of the last two signs of the rst
line. Both are clearly visible in the photograph, and even the two edi-
tors suggest these readings in their comment on the single signs of the
inscriptions, although they decide against including them in their edi-
tion of the text.
Photograph: Frei-Marek (2000:116). My drawing is based directly on that photograph.
C.Ka 9 (= 50* Frei Marek 2000:120125)
C.Ka 9

[. . .]ois
?
ur
?
mlo
Inscription on a broken fragment, published in Frei-Marek (2000:120125).
This text poses serious problems of reading, since if the we adopt the
interpretation of signs proposed by Frei-Marek, it is not easy to estab-
lish the direction in which the letters must be read: Frei-Marek sug-
gests four possibilities. I believe however that Schrr (2001a) oers the
correct solution to the problem in reading i, not Z, for sign 2, and
s, not m, for sign 3. If the s reading is not absolutely certain (the
apparent trace that would allow to read it as s could be an intrusive
mark), in the case of i, Schrrs proposal must be accepted, and this
latter reading would mean that the orientation of the text no longer
158 cn.r+rn +nnrr
poses a problem: the fragment must be oriented as it appears in my
drawing, and it must be read from left to right (the photograph in
Frei-Marek 2000 must therefore be inverted; the photography is cor-
rectly reproduced in Schrr 2001a:63). Some doubts remain, however,
about the sign read as r r by Schrr.
Photograph: Frei-Marek (200:120). My drawing has been obtained directly from this
photograph.
15. Krya (C.Kr)
C.Kr 1 (= D 15)
C-Kr 1

qot
2
omu sdisa-
s
?
n odubr or rather: mn odubr?
sb mno knor
noril
?
amsor rather: norimams?
The single inscription from Krya (the modern Ta{yaka) in the gulf of
Telmessos, whose alphabet is clearly similar to the Kaunian variety, is
not free from reading problems: there are several drawings of the inscrip-
tion, yet none of these coincides exactly each the others. Sayce
(1887[1892]: pl. III) reproduced two divergent drawings, by von Hammer-
Purgstall and by Forbes and Hoskyns. A further drawing was published
by Cecil Smith in 1888. Kalinkas edition in the Tituli Linguae Lyciae
oered a new drawing and reading, made in collaboration with Heberdey
(Kalinka 1901:93). Deroy also included a new drawing based on two
photographs sent by G. E. Bean (Deroy 1955). Finally, Gusmani (1990)
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 159
produced a revision of the inscription, following the autopsy made by
Roos. Gusmanis reading was used in Adiego (1993a), although the
drawing included there was a reproduction of Deroys copy (Gusmani
did not publish any drawing in his paper).
From these various readings and the photograph published by Deroy,
and if we disregard several old reading errors that have since been
superseded, it is clear that controversy still exists regarding two letters:
the rst letter of the second line, and the fth letter of the last line.
In the rst case, Kalinkas and Deroys readings, which both propose
a letter M m, have been challenged by Gusmanis suggestion that this
letter could in fact be s s. As for the second problematic letter,
Gusmani, following Roos, proposes M m instead of Deroys l l (Hammer-
Purgstall, Smith, and Kalinkas readings B can be ruled out, as this
kind of letter is alien to the Kaunian alphabetic variety, to which this
inscription belongs).
The drawing I oer here is based directly on the photograph of the
calque published by Deroy (1950). From this photograph it is impos-
sible to tell if the rst letter of the second line is M, as it would seem
to be, or actually a broken s, as Gusmani suggests. This latter read-
ing has the advantage that it creates the sequence sdis as, parallel to
sdis as in C.Ka 1 (see p. 291 for an interpretation of this sequence).
For the other problematic letter, the drawing points to l, but the
horizontal line could be an intrusive one. The most prudent solution
is to oer a reading that leaves open the alternative readings for both
letters.
Photograph: Deroy (1955:pl. II). Drawing: Deroy (1955:320).
16. Inscriptions of Unknown Origin, Presumably from Caria (C.xx)
I group together under this title diverse inscriptions whose common
characteristics are their unknown origins and the fact that the object
on which they are incised points to a Greek-Carian background and
not, as in the case of the pharaonic objects, to an Egyptian one.
160 cn.r+rn +nnrr
C.xx 1 (= 34*)

rquq | qtblem | bt | snn | orkn | ntro | pjdl

Text on a bronze phiale published by Gusmani (1978). Some doubts
have arisen about the letter , which Gusmani interpreted as a, but
which is in fact l (as shown by the clear onomastic identication, qtblem
= Kutbelhmiw). Also concerning the last word, a reading pjdl must be
preferred over a: from Gusmanis photographs, it is beyond doubt that
the nal letter is the same as the third letter of qtblem.
Photographs: Gusmani (1978: Pl. I, II). Drawing: Gusmani (1978:69). My two draw-
ings showing the part of the phiale with the inscription have been made on the photo-
graphs of Gusmani.
C.xx 1
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 161
C.xx 2 (=35*)
C.xx 2

biks not: alosd arnosd: jzpe mdane

This inscription, on a bronze dinos, was published by Gusmani together
with the previous text (Gusmani 1978). There are no reading prob-
lems. The segmentation of the rst sequence as biks not is based on
my own analysis of the text (see below p. 284).
Photographs: Gusmani (1978: pl. III and IV). Drawing: Gusmani (1978:71). My draw-
ing has been made by combining the two photographs of Gusmani (1978).
162 cn.r+rn +nnrr
C.xx 3 (= 40*)
C.xx 3

akymydueryly[vacat]d
An inscription on a cult object conserved in Geneva, edited by Meier-
Brgger (1994:112113; photograph and transcription). I adopt Schrrs
proposed reading (in Schrr 2001c).
Photograph: Meier-Brgger (1994:112). Drawing: Schrr 2001c:118). My drawing is
based on the photograph published by Meier-Brgger.
Meier-Brgger (1994:113) suggests that C.xx1, C.xx 2, C.xx 3 and also
C.Ha 1, all of which have surfaced in the European antiques trade in
recent years, come from the same Carian location, perhaps a sanctu-
ary of the god *Natr- (or rather ntro- = Apollo according to the Lycian
trilingual, see Chapter 11, s. v. ntro for further details), from which they
may have been stolen.
C.xx 4 (= 41*)
C.xx 4 (Zalhaas-Neumann 1994)
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 163

kduol
C. xx 5 (= 41*)
C.xx 5 (Zalhaas-Neumann 1994)

kduol
Regularized form of the letters of both inscriptions:
(Zalhaas-Neumann 1994)
C.xx 4 and C.xx 5 are two identical inscriptions on two bracelets pub-
lished by Zalhaas-Neumann (1994). Although the origin of both objects,
conserved in Munichs Prhistorische Staatssamlung, is unknown, their
inscriptions are not only clearly Carian, but even display manifest con-
nections with the Kaunian alphabetic variant: note the form Z of z
and particularly the presence of the letter / , characteristic in this
alphabet (see already Zalhaas-Neumann 1994:166). Note however the
use of l l instead of l (L, Kaunos 2) in uol (vs. uol in other places).
There are no reading problems.
Photographs: Zalhaas-Neumann (1994: between 166167). Drawings: Zalhaas-Neumann
(1994:161161, 164).
164 cn.r+rn +nnrr
E. Tnr C.ni.x Ixscnir+ioxs rnov Gnrrcr
G 1 (= D 16, Athens)
G 1

sema ma tde: Tur[

Karw to Skl[akow]
jas: san tur
[A]ristoklew p[oe
-
]
This is the well-known Athenian bilingual, dated ca. 525/520 B.C. I
maintain the reading adopted in Adiego (1993a), conrmed by my own
revision of the inscription.
Photograph: Masson (1977:between 9091). Drawing: Deroy (1955:335). My drawing
has been made on my own photographs.
G 2 (= 42*, Thessaloniki)
G 2 (Tzanavari-Christidis (1995)
+nr ixscnir+ioxs 165

qlali | k
?
[
This inscription was found in Thessaloniki and edited by Tzanavari
and Christidis (Tzanavari-Christidis 1995). It appears on a fragment of
a skyphos. The vase is dated by Tzanavari to the third quarter of the
5th century B.C. The Carian character of the inscription is indisputable.
Photograph: Tzanavari-Christidis (1995:pl. I). Drawing: Tzanavari-Christidis (1995:14).
CHAPTER FOUR
THE HISTORY OF THE DECIPHERMENT
The history of the research to decipher the Carian Alphabet can be
divided for convenience into three periods:
1
1. The semisyllabic era
2. The alphabetic Greek era
3. The Egyptian approach and the denitive decipherment of Carian
It must be said that only the third period constitutes the true history
of the Carian decipherment: until the pioneering work of Zauzich (1972),
who was the rst to correctly identify the solutionalthough his approach
was unsuccessfulpractically all the previous eorts had produced no
results. This does not mean, however, that all the work preceding
Zauzich is worthless: for example, all the studies devoted to clarifying
the inventory of Carian lettersand in this sense, the roles played by
Olivier Masson or Vitali evorokin should not be dismissedmust be
considered important contributions to the decipherment of Carian
Indeed, some intuitions have proved to be right, as for instance Steinherrs
interpretation of the bilingual coin of Erbbina (see below), although it
is true that cases such as this are the exception.
A. Tnr Srvisvrr.nic En. (18871962)
The semisyllabic era was dominated by the gures of Sayce and Bork,
and lasted until the 1960s. As a conventional date for its end, I use
1962, the year evorokins inuential article appeared in RHA (evorokin
1
This periodization is dierent from that adopted in Adiego (1993a). There, it was
more important to separate the previous unsucessful or incomplete eorts (including
Zauzich and Ray) from the principal goal of the book: to present a complete deci-
pherment of the Carian alphabet.
+nr nis+onv or +nr rrcirnrnvrx+ 167
1962). It is true that the foundations of the alleged Carian semisyl-
labism had already been questioned at the very beginning of the 1950s,
when Theodor Bossrn+ observed that the then recently discovered long
inscription of Kaunos pointed to a purely alphabetic system, but it is
also true that the semisyllabic transcription was still used (indeed in a
conventional way) by Masson (1959b).
To Archibald H. S.vcr we owe, among many other things, the rst
paper to oer an overall table of sound values for Carian letters (Sayce
1887[92]).
2
In order to decipher Carian, Sayce started with the mixed origin of
the Carian writing system: he stated that, on the one hand, a great
number of letters were of Greek-Phoenician origin, whereas some signs
came from what he called an Old Asianic Syllabary, traces of which
would also remain in the Lycian alphabet and whose last vestige would
be the Cypriot syllabary:
It is clear at rst sight that the main part of the letters is derived from
the Phoenicio-Greek Alphabet, but that, as in the case of the Lykian
alphabet, certain other characters have been added to express sounds
which were unrepresented in the Greek. Now Dr. Deecke, Dr. Isaac
Taylor and myself have pointed out that these additional characters
have in the case of Lykian been taken from the old Asianic syllabary,
a local form of which continued to be used in Cyprus down to a late
date. A probability therefore arises that the additional characters in the
Karian inscriptions also come from the same source (Sayce 1887[92]:
128).
2
Sayce had devoted a previous article to Carian (Sayce 1874), but Sayce (1887[92])
is the rst (and last) complete study of the Carian alphabet by the British scholar.
168 cn.r+rn rotn
Sayce (1887[92])
The following table reproduces that of Sayce (1887[92]):
+nr nis+onv or +nr rrcirnrnvrx+ 169
Therefore, whereas a r W m, for instance, come from a Greek model,
the letter & has for Sayce the same origin and value as the equivalent
sign in the Cypriot Syllabary. A dental value is assigned to 1 (dh), only
on the basis of its similar value in Lycian, assuming that both letters
have the same origin.
In one case, Sayce was forced to accept that a sign coming from
that alleged syllabary was used in Carian for a sound existing in Greek:
the sign p, which he transcribed as mi, me, m on the basis of the value
mi of a similar sign in the Cypriot syllabary. This anomaly is justied
by the concurrence of the letter s with s.
Sayce opens a series of interpretations of letters that will be contin-
ued by many other scholars: the dierentiation between m and M and
the vocalic value of t are also present in evorokins decipherment.
The vocalic character of e and w and the dental character of 1, also
defended by evorokin, are nowadays conrmed, following the denitive
decipherment of Carian. Yet this does not mean that the arguments
then used were as compelling as the present ones, and indeed it is clear
that Sayces decipherment, like all theories prior to the Egyptian approach,
was wrong.
It is worth noting that Sayces system was not exactly semisyllabic.
For Sayce, the syllabic component of Carian writing is in fact of a his-
torical character: the Carian alphabet comes in part from a syllabary,
but it is not actually a syllabary or semisyllabary as such. Our label
semisyllabic era must therefore be interpreted in a broad sense. The
semisyllabic character of Carian writing was developed by Bork.
As for the Carian language, Sayce was commendably prudent.
Moreover, he was able to establish two basic and correct principles of
interpreting the texts: that the Carian inscriptions of Egypt must con-
tain essentially person names, and that -z ending was of genitival char-
acter. However, Sundwall (1911) was very much to the point in criticizing
the failure of Sayces decipherment to oer forms comparable to the
Carian onomastics known from the Greek sources. The possible equiv-
alences are scarce andwe are now able to sayill founded: -z--
kho-e = Osogva (E.xx 3, now reads in the opposite direction: ionel),
L-e-le-kh- = Lelegians (mythical inhabitants of Caria) (E.AS 7: bebint).
The transcription system of Sayce (1887[92]) is also used in his subse-
quent contributions to Carian, although there are doubts, modications
(the clearest ones regarding vocalism, in Sayce 1906) and some incongruities.
170 cn.r+rn rotn
As for the connection of Carian to other languages, although Sayce
assumes provisionally that Carian belongs to the Aryan family (Sayce
1887[92]:117), this hypothesis is not based on data from his decipher-
ment, but merely on a combination of his own impression that Lydian
was an Indo-European Language, and the notices given by Herodot of
a kinship between Lydians and Carians.
Sayces decipherment was only used until the appearance of Borks
articles (Bork 1930, 1931). Yet despite the failure of his decipherment,
and the dilettantism of many of his proposals, Sayce deserves recognition
as the founder of Carian studies: he localized and edited all the texts
then available and established the basis for a scientic study of Carian.
Although they cannot be considered decipherments per se, since they
are merely contributions to the line of research begun by Sayce, some
other works must be mentioned: Knr+scnvrn (1896:377384), where
an o-value for z was proposed, and where the typical nal sequence
-xi, read h (now i ) was compared with Lycian genitival ending -he ;
Tonr (1903:4350), wherein Sayces system was adopted in an attempt
to nd a sigmatic nominative in Carian; and Stxrv.rr (1911), who
formulated several interesting ideas, for instance, that e was dierent
from k, and w from K, and that k and K were mere variants of one
sign. He also tried to analyze the Carian inscriptions in the wider back-
ground of Minor Asian onomastics.
In Torp (1903:44) a value i for t is proposed for the rst time, an idea
later repeated by evorokin.
The next decipherment was proposed by F. Bonk, who in two papers
(Bork 1930, Bork 1931) laid the foundations of the semisyllabic theory
(the so-called Bork-Friedrich system).
In Bork (1930) the proposed decipherment diered from Sayces in
two basic points:
a) A clear-cut distinction between alphabetic signs and syllabic signs.
Moreover, the latter have the same value as the (allegedly) corre-
sponding signs of the Cypriot syllabary. Needless to say, in most
cases, the similarities between Cypriot signs and Carian were extremely
questionable, both formally and phonetically.
b) A xation of the sound values for the Carian signs more precise
than that of Sayce, based on the assumption that the sound inven-
tory of Carian must be not very dierent from that of Lycian, given
their common origin (according to Bork) and their geographical
proximity.
+nr nis+onv or +nr rrcirnrnvrx+ 171
This latter point could have oered interesting resultsat least regard-
ing the criterion of geographic proximity, since it is well known that
nearby languages tend to share phonetic traits, but Bork had a very
sui generis vision of Lycian phonetics, far removed from the communis
opinio. For both languages Bork assumed the existence of sounds like
/pf/ or /kh/ (this latter an aricate palatal), and in Carian he estab-
lished ve series of consonants (labials, dentals, palatals, gutturals and
velars), with three articulation modes for each one ( fortes, aricates and
spirants). Borks transcriptions therefore appear complex, with an array
of aspirates mixed with syllabic signs. This is his decipherment system,
as appears in Bork (1930):
Bork (1930)
172 cn.r+rn rotn
This is, v. gr. his transcription of E.Sa 1:
R-a-v-ro-l.h(e).on | No-qh-ro-s.n R(e)-a-kh.ja | va-kh-?-no | re.ja-kh
| h(e)-u.vu.kh
[arkbiom zidks mdane yn[-?]mo den tumn]
Bork (1931) focused on the linguistic analysis of Carian. The gram-
matical elements that Bork believed to have recognized are not wor-
thy of consideration, as his analyses are totally arbitrary. Similarly, the
meanings he attributes to the words are capricious. Finally, the typical
Carian onomastics known from Greek sources do not appear anywhere
in his study. To quote a few examples, in the aforementioned inscrip-
tion E.Sa 1, Bork claimed to recognize two Carian names hardly rec-
oncilable with the indirect sources, Ravrol and Noqhros. Other Carian
personal names were forms like Khasja, Ravuvoc, or Rejajape, equally
aberrant.
Bork (1931) oers the rst attempt to situate linguistically the Carian
language based on a particular decipherment. According to Bork, Carian
would belong to an Old Caucasian family that would also include
Sumerian, Elamite, Mitani (nowadays known as Hurrian), Lycian and
Alasian (the language of the Cypriot Minoic inscriptions). At present,
none of these languages is believed to have any connection with the
others: Sumerian is an isolated language, Elamite has been linked
very tentatively, howeverto the Dravidian family, Hurrian forms an
independent group together with Urartian, Lycian is an Anatolian Indo-
European dialect, and Alasian is yet to be deciphered. Needless to
say, all these speculations, based on an invalid decipherment and a
nonexistent linguistic family, have been totally superseded.
The relative success of an overly unscientic decipherment must be
attributed to the authority of J. Fnirrnicn and W. Bn.xrrxs+rix.
Friedrich used it in his important work Kleinasiatische Sprachdenkmler
(Friedrich 1932) for transcribing the Carian inscriptions. However,
Friedrich himself recognized that Carian could still not be seen as com-
prehensively deciphered (Friedrich 1932:91) and uses a simplied tran-
scription that substitutes <b> for <pf>, <k> for <kh>, etc., which
in fact means destroying Borks complex speculations about the sound
system of Carian:
+nr nis+onv or +nr rrcirnrnvrx+ 173
Friedrich (1932)
174 cn.r+rn rotn
The so-called Bork-Friedrich system was adopted in a purely instrumen-
tal way by Masson in his editions of Carian texts until 1976.
Brandenstein also adopted Borks systemalthough with some modi-
cationsin his article Karische Sprache for the Pauly-Wissowas
Realencyclopdie (Brandenstein 1935a): he not only took on the simpli-
cations of Friedrich (1932), but also recovered two values proposed
by Sayce: t = (Bork he) and i = e (Bork he, Friedrich he). His pro-
posal of attributing a value p to x X is new, and based on the alleged
labial value of X in Lydian (at present, this Lydian letter is in fact com-
monly interpreted as representing a labiovelar [transcribed by q]).
3
This
proposal, put forward by Brandenstein in a former paper (Brandenstein
1934b) was unsuccessful:
3
See now Grard (2005:5657).
Brandenstein (1934b)
+nr nis+onv or +nr rrcirnrnvrx+ 175
4
Die entscheidende Erkenntnis ist, da das karische Alphabet keine Mischung von
Brandenstein made some eorts to nd Carian personal names in the
inscriptions: in E.Ab 16, read as k-mi-v-o-s-k-vo (now nprosn ), he believed
he had identied the nal element of the Carian names Se-skvw, Sa-
skvw. In other cases, he included Borks interpretations. In general,
Brandensteins contributions are scarce and not particularly convincing.
After Borks decipherment and until the end of 50s, I know of only
one attempt to decipher Carian letters: that of A. Mrx+z (Mentz 1940).
Its only interest lies in being the rst work to employ the Carian-
Egyptian bilingual inscriptions in order to establish sound values for
the Carian signs, and in having ruled out the alleged semisyllabic char-
acter of Carian writing.
4
Otherwise, Mentzs decipherment is an exer-
cise in dilettantism, and has received harsh, but merited, criticism: ganz
dilettantisch in Lesung und Deutung (Friedrich, quoted by Masson
1973:207); tentative ambitieuse (. . .) qui na pas convaincu (Masson
ibid.); It is dicult to imagine that there can exist works on Carian
language more prone to fantasizing than Borks researches. Mentz
showed that it was indeed possible (evorokin 1965:51; my translation).
Mentz (1940)
176 cn.r+rn rotn
Mentzs use of bilingual inscriptions is very surprising, as he tries to
nd Egyptian verbs and nouns in the Carian parts. The resulting Carian
is a somewhat bizarre, mixed language. In his translation, the Carian
short grati turn out to be of a pleading tone: R, gib, R Amon,
gib Leben, Hathor, gib. Such demonstrations of Carian devotion to
Egyptian deities may indeed be praiseworthy, but when they are based
only on an analysis like E.Si 11 = pn

obpya Apis Ptah, they are

highly suspect.
B. Tnr Gnrrk Arrn.nr+ic En.
In 1949, George E. Bean found an inscription of Kaunos (C.Ka 2)
that remains to this day the longest Carian text conserved. Almost
immediately, Th. Bossrn+ (apud Steinherr 195051:332) rightly observed
that this long inscription, where less than 30 dierent letters were used,
pointed clearly to a pure alphabetic system: Nach dem Zeichenbestand
der Kaunos-Inschrift zu urteilen kann von einer Mischung von Alphabet-
und Silbenscrhrift nicht die Rede sein. Es handelt sich um eine reine
Buchstabenschrift (. . .). It is true, as we have seen above, that Mentz
was in fact the rst to discard the semisyllabic approach and to defend
the purely alphabetic nature of the Carian writing system, but his only
argument was his decipherment itself, which we have already established
as being even worse than Borks (if this is possible). In any case, it was
Bosserts well-reasoned contribution that put an end to the alleged semi-
syllabism of Carian. In general, the proposals of decipherment of this
new period concur in their assumption that the Carian writing system
is alphabetic, and in attributing Greek values to letters of Greek shape.
5
Between Mentzs and Stoltenbergs (see below) decipherments, it is
also fair to mention the contributions of F. S+rixnrnn (Steinherr 195051,
1955). Steinherr did not oer a concrete decipherment, rather he lim-
ited himself to formulating remarks on certain Carian signs. His obser-
vations are generally very thought-provoking and, in some cases,
surprisingly accurate. Among them, the following four must be highlighted:
Laut- und Silbenschrift ist, wie man seit Sayce allgemein annahm, sondern ein rein
Lautschrift. (Mentz 1940:279)
5
The sole exception is Stoltenbergs decipherment, where syllabic values are assigned
to a few letters in a rather capricious way. But even he refuses any connection to
Cypriot syllabary, see below.
+nr nis+onv or +nr rrcirnrnvrx+ 177
1. Steinherr (195051:336) proposed a liquid value for the sign z resort-
ing, among other arguments, to the comparison of the genitival
endings in -z with the oblique case in -l of Lydian. This proposal
anticipated an idea developed later by evorokin, but which has
since been superseded.
2. Steinherr suggested that j had to have a value near to i, because
both alternate in some inscriptions. Consequently, he proposed a
transcription / e, respectively. This observation, for many years
ignored (a nasal-like value for j was for a long time the preferred
theory), has since proved to be correct, now that the Carian alpha-
bet has been denitively deciphered (i = i, j = j ).
3. Steinherr pointed out that the sign f F (and variants) could hardly
have an r value, because it often appears in an initial position,
whereas Anatolian languages show a clear reluctance to an initial r,
a well-founded argument reiterated by Ray (1987).
4. For this latter sign, Steinherr suggested a t value. We now know
that he was wrong, but only partially: the sign has in general an
value, but the bilingual inscription of Kaunos has revealed that in
the Kaunian alphabet the letter T was actually used for t. Moreover,
in at least one case his analysis was right: he proposed that the let-
ters i F in the bilingual coin of Erbbina, dynast of Telmessos, read
t e, could correspond to the Lycian legend teleb(ehi) erbbina Telmessos
/ Erbbina in other coins (Steinherr 1955:184192). Similar rea-
soning is nowadays used to explain the Carian legend i F, by assum-
ing that the alphabet used is of Kaunian type (a very plausible
assumption from a geographical point of view), see Adiego (1998b:
5860), Meier-Brgger (1998:45).
Steinherrs work can hardly be considered a decipherment, but it does
deserve a great deal of respect: before the Egyptian approach, this
was the only moment in the history of decipherment that a correct
method of analyzing the Carian alphabet had been envisaged, even if
it was in a very limited way.
The fties ended with another failed attempt at decipherment, by
H. L. S+or+rxnrno (Stoltenberg 1958a, b, 1959).
Stoltenberg started with the automatic attribution of Greek values to
the allegedly Greek letters: a = a, o = o, m = n, p = m, and so on.
As for the apparently non-Greek signs, he rejected any comparison with
the Cypriot syllabary and proposed as an alternative to resort to the
Minor Asian onomastics of Greek sources, and the comparison with
178 cn.r+rn rotn
Stoltenberg (1958a)
Termilian (= Lycian). This latter hypothesis would in principle be
acceptable, were it not that that Stoltenberg, like Bork, had a very
peculiar vision of Lycian: he believed that Lycian belonged to a group
that he called Laric together with Etruscan, Tyrsenian (= Lemnian,
an Etruscan dialect of the Lemnos island) and the language of the
Cretan pelasgians. Moreover, this alleged Laric group would be con-
nected with Uralic languages. This classication of Lycian is clearly
wrong, and most of the meanings for Lycian words that Stoltenberg
proposed are also completely incorrect (see Neumann 1969b:364).
If this approach does not promise good results, any hope of success
vanishes when the values attributed to the non-Greek letters are taken
into account: let us examine the following table that contains his deci-
pherment system (Stoltenberg 1958a):
+nr nis+onv or +nr rrcirnrnvrx+ 179
By attributing values such as ija, nda, and m to some letters, it is
easy to obtain words of a falsely Anatolian avour. For instance,
1wmuip piumz, now read piubez (E.Ab 10), transcribed as m-
e-u-n-uwa-nda can be easily compared with the typical Anatolian names
in -anda, -wanda. However, even resorting to these tricks Stoltenberg
was unable to obtain convincing results.
It is worth remembering that during the fties the Carian corpus
underwent a considerable improvement. It was during this period that
the complete corpus of Carian inscriptions of Caria to date was pub-
lished by Robert (1950) and Deroy (1955), Masson and Yoyotte col-
lected the inscriptions on pharaonic objects (Masson-Yoyotte 1956), and
a provisory edition of grati of Abu-Simbel appeared (Bernand-Aly
1959?). Moreover, the important Greek-Carian bilingual stela of Athens
was discovered, as well as grati in Thebes.
At the beginning of the sixties appeared the rst works of Vitali
r\onokix, one of the most prominent Carian scholars, and the author
of the rst book devoted exclusively to the decipherment of Carian
(evorokin 1965).
evorokins method oers some innovative elements. In order to
separate vowels from consonants, he resorts to typology: given that the
languages combine vowels and consonants in dierent ways, which im-
plies dierent patterns of sequences such as CVC. VCV, etc., evorokin
tries to establish the patterns of Carian on the basis of personal and
place names from Greek sources. Remarkably, the results are not far
removed from the distribution of vowels and consonants in Sayces
decipherment. The explanation for these rather surprising results is that
Sayce himself took into account the distributive properties of the signs,
albeit in a rudimentary way.
After establishing a rst separation between vowels and consonants,
evorokin moves on to the statistical comparison between Carian signs
and the phonemes present in the names of Greek transmission. However,
in some cases this criterion seems to be used merely to conrm a value
obtained by other means. These other methods are the formal anal-
ogy with Greek letters and the identication of onomastic elements in
Carian words.
The following tables reect the system of evorokin as it appears
in evorokin (1965) and thirty years later, in evorokin 1994, respectively:
180 cn.r+rn rotn
evorokin (1965)
+nr nis+onv or +nr rrcirnrnvrx+ 181
evorokin 1994
182 cn.r+rn rotn
It is clear that evorokin follows the traditional equivalence between
Carian signs and Greek letters in a great number of cases. Regarding
the non-Greek signs, one also comes across values already outlined
by other scholars: t = i, suggested by Torp 1903; z = l (1965) / L
(1994), for which a liquid value was defended by Steinherr. A less exact
precedent is the value for e (Sayce ) or the dental character of c,
already suggested by Bork. However, other proposals are totally new:
j = (based undoubtedly on the Lycian N ); & = t (1965) / D
(1994), a dental sound, based primarily on the sequences m& that
evorokin identied with the typically Minor Asian consonantal group
o
nd
o
); k K = p (1965), b (1994), based on statistical criteria and on the
comparison with names from indirect sources.
Careful examination of both tables shows that the changes intro-
duced by evoroskin during three decades of research on Carian were
of no great importance. Perhaps the most signicant modication is v
= U, resulting from the observation of Memphis corpus, where it alter-
nates with u = u (formerly, evorokin took v as a sort of e). In the
remaining cases, the modications are aimed at adjusting the tran-
scription to etymological explanations. This is the case, for instance, of
x X, transcribed as q (formerly h) in order to better reect his ety-
mology of xi qe [now i ] < PIE *k
w
e, or of k K, previously tran-
scribed as p and more recently as b.
One of the most characteristic values that evorokin defended was
z = L (formerly transcribed as l). This was a not totally new idea (it
was previously considered by Steinherr 195051, see above), but in
evorokins hands it took on greater importance. Using this value, he
believed he could recognize the Carian name Lujhw in zu0Li-, read
as Luxze- [now ugli-], comparing the genitival ending -z = -L with
the genitival adjective ending -li- in Lydian, and he claimed to nd
typical Carian names in -vllow/-vldow in some sequences uz = uL
[now u ]. Obviously, these proposals have since been proved erroneous,
as the sign has been denitively identied as representing a sibilant
sound.
However, the main problem with evorokins decipherment is that
the typical Carian names attested by indirect sources do not appear
anywhere in Carian inscriptions if we adopt his system of decipher-
ment. In this sense, a case such as Lujhw = Luxze- is almost unique.
In most cases, the only means of establishing connections between
evorokins readings and the stock of Anatolian names in Greek (and
Hittite) sources is to resort to partial comparisons of constituents, ety-
+nr nis+onv or +nr rrcirnrnvrx+ 183
mologically reconstructed forms, complex sound changes, and so on.
Indeed, such techniques can be used to explain any form as Anatolian
and/or Indo-European. However, almost none of the typical Carian
names (for instance Ussvllow and related forms) are obtained with this
decipherment. Masson rightly pointed out this deciency:
Contrairement bien dautres tentatives, celle de evorokin parat raison-
nable: les discussions philologiques sont judicieuses et les comparaisons
linguistiques sont intressantes, sinon toujours convaincantes. Peut-on alors
parler dun vritablement dchirement? Il ne le parat pas, car lensemble
des lectures ne donne pas une impression dvidence, et les noms dhommes
cariens (. . .) ne se retrouvent pas de manire tangible.
This inability to nd recognizable Carian names could explain why, in
his works of the 80s and 90s, evorokin focused his eorts on the
search for nouns and verbs in Carian texts, paying far less attention
to the amount of onomastic formulae provided by the recently pub-
lished corpus of Memphis inscriptions. evorokin seemed to feel more
comfortable translating long and complex texts in a rather speculative
way than analyzing the abundant personal names in the laconic funer-
ary inscriptions from Saqqra.
Nowadays, in the knowledge that evorokins decipherment was a
failed attempt, continuing critical analysis seems unnecessary, and it is
preferable to instead note some important merits of his work. The rst,
although apparently negative, does in fact have a positive reading:
despite his methodological weakness, due above all to the abuse of
etymological and analytical speculations, evorokins study remains
the only serious eort to interpret the Carian alphabet as a normal
Anatolian alphabet, similar to Phrygian, Lydian and Lycian writing sys-
tems, wherein letters with Greek shape have their Greek or like-Greek
sound value, and other letters are added to reect peculiar sounds not
found in Greek. After evorokins failure, this method became imprac-
ticable, and a dierent approach became necessary.
The other merits of his work are decidedly more positive: evorokin
contributed decisively to the demonstration that Carian writing is purely
alphabetic. He showed that the seemingly large number of letters was
due to the existence of alphabetic varieties, which he was able to sep-
arate correctly. Moreover, evorokin has always defended the suppo-
sition that Carian was an Anatolian Indo-European language, ruling
out the attempts of the dilettanti to connect it with other languages, and
emphasizing the need to include the other Anatolian languages in an
analysis of Carian forms.
184 cn.r+rn rotn
Reviews of evorokin 1965: Pisani 1967, Gusmani 1967 (laudatory,
although he believes that it is precipitate to consider the decipherment
as done), Zgusta 1968 (totally favourable: We can then, conclude that . . . the
basic step is done and the Carian inscriptions are really deciphered
(p. 154)).
In contrast to the predominantly serious approach adopted by evorokin
the so-called decipherment of R. Sn.rrn (Shafer 1965) can be taken
as an example of how a language must not be deciphered. He com-
bines a lack of rigor (dierent values assigned to the same sign, absence
of a table to display sound values, senseless hypotheses about the mean-
ing of the inscriptions . . .) and an arrogant dismissal of other scholars,
which explains the harsh but just opinion formulated by Masson: ten-
tative vaine et trs prtentieuse dun renouvellement complet des lec-
tures et des interprtations (Masson 1973:211).
As is often the case in other attempts to decipher Carian, the begin-
ning of Shafers work seems very promising, despite the somewhat inap-
propriate tone. He rightly criticizes Bork-Friedrichs decipherment system,
the outcome of which is a language he derisively terms Super-Hawaiian
because of the profusion of vowels and semivowels, phonologically very
distant from the Carian names in Greek sources.
But the interest of his paper ends here. When trying to establish
sound values for Carian letters, the solutions he resorts to are routinely
bizarre: for instance, he attributes a strange value br to p, takes the
clear interpunction sign | as a letter i, and imagines surprising evolu-
tions of the letters, like L > R > r. As for the linguistic interpretation,
in the Egyptian-Carian bilinguals, he claims to identify stereotyped for-
mulae referring to pharaohs in the Carian part. In many cases, he even
reads the texts in the opposite direction to that commonly accepted.
One of his interpretations surpasses Mentzs litanies:
(q)-lolak qirmdun b(a)bu kimrda (E.Si 4)
According to Shafer, this means: In the language of the Leleges qirm-
dun is spoken kimrda or The Leleges qirmdun pronounce kimrda. It is
not easy to imagine the reason for which a Carian mercenary would
feel the need to write a sentence such as this, which instead seems to
belong to a sort of Carian Appendix Probi !
This period of the history of Carian decipherment ends with another
somewhat supercial eort, that of Ju. V. O+ktriko\ (Otkupikov
1966; cf also Otkupikov 1968, on the origin of the Carian alphabet).
His proposal is shown below:
+nr nis+onv or +nr rrcirnrnvrx+ 185
Otkupikov (1966)
186 cn.r+rn rotn
These are the more notable elements of his decipherment:
1. Otkupikov assumes that some signs have two forms, one frequent
(asto), and other more infrequent or rare (redko). For instance, B
would be the infrequent form corresponding to the frequent a (!).
2. By this logic, Otkupikov converts the Carian alphabet into a pure
Greek alphabet, wherein the apparently non-Greek letters are sub-
sumed beneath the Greek ones. The values attributed are in gen-
eral also the Greek ones, note for example j = ks.
3. In fact, for Otkupikov, the Carian language is merely a Greek dialect.
None of these three assumptions are convincingly argued. The group-
ings are largely unjustied and absurd (for example k = u), and
Otkupikov arbitrarily assigns dierent values to a single letter: for
instance, q is both a frequent letter with value th and a redko letter
equivalent to o, and similarly in the case of B (=l / a).
As for the supposed Greek character of Carian, the dialect result-
ing from this decipherment proves to be rather curious: ue uh would
mean daughter and would be connected with the Greek uw son(!)
(Otkupikov 1966:22); paraeWm, read SaWaieien would be an opta-
tive (Otkupikov 1966:24) and so on. It is not dicult to agree with
Massons judgement: on aura peine conclure autrement que par un
scepticisme total devant la langue qui nous est propose . . . (Masson
1973:193).
Reviews of Otkupikov (1966): O. Masson (1967), Heubeck (196768),
Jordan (1968), all adverse.
Before concluding this section, it is worth mentioning the contributions
made to Carian studies by the Italian scholars Piero Mrniooi and
Roberto Gtsv.xi. Their presence here can be justied by the fact that,
in their approach to the language, both scholars broadly adopted the
Greek alphabetic interpretation of the Carian writing system.
In the 60s, Meriggi published two papers on Carian (Meriggi 1966,
1967). The rst, though devoted to the study of Para-Carian tablets,
contains very useful inventories of signs. The second consists of a series
of remarks regarding several inscriptions from Caria itself and certain
Carian letters. Although Meriggi did not oer a decipherment as such,
he assumed implicitly that the Greek letters had Greek sound val-
ues. In the 70s, Meriggi dedicated two of his last works to Carian:
Meriggi (1978) adds little new material to Meriggi (1967), aside from
+nr nis+onv or +nr rrcirnrnvrx+ 187
his argument in favour of the Luwian character of Carian based in a
process of elimination. More interesting is his review of Masson (1978
(Meriggi 1980), in which he leaves aside any discussion of the letter
values and aims instead to analyze the structure of the inscriptions of
Saqqra, with some thought provoking hypotheses, such as the mean-
ing son for mno- (already suggested in Meriggi 1967:223), or the pos-
sibility that mwdon- could be an ethnic (Caromemphite).
Gusmanis rst approach to the study of Carianother than his
review of evorokin (1965), Gusmani 1967was his edition of the
Carian grati from Sardis (Gusmani 1975), wherein he adopts the con-
ventions of evorokins system (except in a few cases, such as j = ,
not ). In any case, the very limited linguistic usefulness of these grati
does not allow Gusmani to enter into discussions about the sound val-
ues of the signs. Similarly, no linguistic discussion is present in Gusmani
(1978), which contains two Carian inscriptions: Gusmani adopts Massons
system of transcription, with the sole dierence of & = (= Masson
31).
In fact, the very rst work by Gusmani devoted specically to Carian
decipherment itself is Gusmani (1979). Here he focuses on the letters
2, t, i, e, K and j. The most valuable contribution is the observa-
tion that t alternates with d, which invalidates evorokins theory of
a vocalic value for t. Less successful is his attempt to defend a simi-
lar alternation between e and o, leading to a transcription of e by
means of . Other suggestions are equally unconvincing, with the sole
exception of the alternation j / i. Most of the ideas Gusmani puts
forward in this article are no longer recognised, having been super-
seded by the denitive decipherment.
C. Tnr Eovr+i.x Arrno.cn
1. The First Attempts
The Egyptologist K.-Th. Z.tzicn deserves to be considered as the pio-
neer of the so-called Egyptian approach: his use of Egyptian-Carian
bilinguals as the starting point to decipher the Carian alphabet is an
approach that has proved successful.
From a historical perspective, it is interesting that for one hundred
years (from Sayces rst work to Zauzichs monography), with the sole
188 cn.r+rn rotn
and frustrating exception of Mentz, nobody considered the possibility
of using the bilingual inscriptions to decipher Carian, despite this being
the most customary way of focusing a decipherment.
The aw in Zauzichs attempt is its inability to establish a clear con-
nection between Greek and Carian parts of the bilingual inscriptions.
Practically the only correct value that he discovered was p = p, which
appears at the beginning of three names in both the Carian and Greek
part of three bilinguals (E.Sa 2. E.Me 5 and E.Me 8).
6
Other than this
equivalence, both the methods and the results are very disappointing:
he corrects Carian texts whose readings are not in doubt, oers uncon-
vincing equivalences, like Prjm = patalem [now paraeym], assigns the
same value to dierent letters, as b e = l, z v = s, and, nally, con-
cludes that Carian is a Greek dialect, rendering his study as defective
as Otkupikovs (see above). Consequently his decipherment received
erce criticism from serious scholars like Masson and Heubeck.
Reviews of Zauzich (1972), both very critical: Masson (1973[74]), Heubeck
(1974:97 col. 1): Die Entzierung Z[auzich]s hat uns . . . keinen Schritt
weiter gebracht.
The way opened by Zauzich (1972) was followed by Thomas Kov.rski,
with more promising results (Kowalski 1975). The most striking ele-
ment of Kowalskis only paper devoted to Carian is that he sets most
of the values later established by J. D. Ray, but he does so in an
unusual way, often starting from weak or even erroneous suppositions.
Moreover, his article gives the impression of being a condensed ver-
sion of a more extensive study on Carian that was never published:
nowhere does it attempt to justify, for example, the grouping together
of clearly dierent signs or the separation of mere variants.
6
Zauzich also believed that a Carian name beginning with p could be connected
with an Egyptian name with an initial p in E.Me 6, an incorrect assumption, because
this is a case of a re-used stela, and indicates no correspondence between Egyptian
and Carian epigraphs. It is also true that Zauzich was right in assigning a sibilant
value to z, but this attribution was based on faulty interpretations.
+nr nis+onv or +nr rrcirnrnvrx+ 189
Kowalski (1975)
190 cn.r+rn rotn
I consider the main deciencies of Kowalskis proposal to be the
following:
1. Kowalski tried to obtain and correlate results from very dissimilar
inscriptions, treating Egyptian-Carian and Greek-Carian inscriptions
in the same way, even though connections are far more dicult to
establish within the latter type, increasing the risk of falling into haz-
ardous speculations. He also considered the inscription E.Me 6 truly
bilingual, when it is in fact a reused stela and indicates no connec-
tion between Carian and Egyptian names.
2. His transcription and interpretation of the frequent sequence xi as
yr son, clearly reminiscent of Zauzich (1972),
7
was not only absurd
per se, but also seriously impeded the overall decipherment, because
it implies an r value for i, a clearly vocalic letter.
3. It has already been mentioned that Kowalskis article lacks a detailed
explanation of the treatment of certain Carian letters as mere vari-
ants, and vice versa. The above table demonstrates how inconsis-
tent these groupings and separations are: Kowalski separates N (=
t ) from (= h), L (= z ) from 2 (= ), and yY (= c) from i (=
r ). Conversely, he puts together v and (= t ). The most surpris-
ing case is z: two dierent values are oered: , and . In the rst
case it is grouped with 9 and 6, and in the second, with . All
these assumptions have turned out to be false.
4. Kowalski does not apply the values obtained from the bilingual
inscriptions to the rest of Carian texts, which would be the only
way to check the validity of the decipherment, particularly regard-
ing those signs whose values are dependent on the weak interpre-
tation of a single inscription.
To sum up, Kowalskis deciphermentthough it far exceeds Zauzichs
attempt when Egyptian-Carian bilinguals are used, oering correct val-
ues for some important signs (p = p, k = k, r = r, m = m, b = b,
f = )is fatally awed by excessive speculation and its chaotic treat-
ment of signs and variants that inexplicably disregards the illuminating
7
= Zauzich ir. However, Kowalski does not make reference to Zauzichs inter-
pretation. Zauzich aimed to connect this form with Greek uw, an assumption unten-
able from the point of view of both Greek dialectology and the structure of Carian
inscriptions.
+nr nis+onv or +nr rrcirnrnvrx+ 191
work of evorokin and Masson. As a result, its usefulness is extremely
limited, working only for those words where the correctly deciphered
letters mentioned above appear almost exclusively, for instance in
farKbiom = arkbrom [now arkbiom], a not entirely correct tran-
scriptionnote rbased on the Egyptian form 3rkbym.
The Egyptian approach took a brief step back with Jean F.tcotx.t
(Faucounau 1980). In this article, the Egyptian-Carian bilinguals are
considered, but the overall attempt is rendered worthless by the authors
customary dilettantism. Faucounau bases his work on two assumptions:
that Carian local alphabets are very dissimilar to each other, and that
they may reect dierent dialects or even languages.
Both assumptions are untenable, at least in the form in which
Faucounau develops them: it is true that there are local alphabetic vari-
eties, with some peculiar forms in each case for certain signs, but
Faucounau proposes absurdly that letters such as f or t may have
dierent values in diverse inscriptions from Egypt, where the general
unity of the Carian alphabet is undeniable. As for the existence of
dierent languages, not only is there no evidence for this assertion, but
in fact the presence of similar words and endings in distant Carian
sub-corpora points in the opposite direction. The presumed existence
of dierent alphabetic systems and languages combined with a markedly
unscientic approach result in an continuously ad hoc assignation of
sound values to the letters and to an inconsistent decipherment. Faucounau
also attempts to identify proper names, but in many cases he resorts
to alleged Carian names transcribed in Greek (without any reference)
that do not appear in either Zgustas or other similar collections.
2. The Seminal Work of Ray
The Egyptian approach, as the denitive method for deciphering Carian,
begins in earnest with the fundamental work of British Egyptologist
John D. R.v. It must be pointed out that for his decipherment Ray
starts from scratch: it is clear that when he begins to work on Carian,
he is still unfamiliar with Kowalskis article. Whilst his decipherment
of Carian cannot be considered complete, the denitive decipherment
could not have been producedat rst independently, and later jointly
by Diether Shrr and myselfwithout the seminal work of Ray, which
acted as its starting point.
Rays rst work on Carian is his recension of Masson (1978), received
by the editor of the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology ( JEA) in 1980,
192 cn.r+rn rotn
but published three years later (Ray 1983). This brief article is impor-
tant for two reasons: here Ray already establishes a criterion for the
use of bilingual inscriptions, consisting in leaving aside those inscrip-
tions where the individual has an Egyptian name in the Egyptian part
and deciphering only those where the Egyptian part contains a non-
Egyptian, presumably Carian, name. The other contribution is his
hypothesis, now conrmed, that the name Psammetichus can be identied
in the Carian sequence of signs kfasip / pismazk ,
which would suggest totally innovative values for allegedly Greek signs
as p, m or f.
It is interesting to note that the rst assertion is now known to be
partially false: Egyptian names from the Egyptian part of the bilingual
inscriptions do appear in the Carian part (E.Sa 2, E.Me 5). However,
in somewhat paradoxical fashion, this limitation imposed on the inven-
tory of bilingual inscriptions proved instrumental in triggering the rst
dramatic steps towards a denitive decipherment. Apart from the two
inscriptions mentioned above, Ray also left out E.Me 6, in this case
with good reason: there is no correspondence between the names in
the Carian and Egyptian parts. So we can see that, unlike Kowalski,
Ray did not obtain incorrect sound values for his decipherment by
using an inappropriate bilingual inscription. Kowalskis error was, as
we have seen, to include this inscription in his decipherment.
Ray (1981) oered the rst complete proposal of decipherment, based
on the inscriptions of Saqqra. His method consisted in bringing the
sound values obtained from the bilingual texts to the remaining inscrip-
tions, in order to nd Carian proper names comparable to those pre-
served in Greek sources. This onomastic comparison as a form of
conrming and developing the decipherment was not new, as the his-
tory of Carian studies shows. The singularity of Rays approach to the
onomastics of indirect sources lies rather in the cautiousness with which
he operates: the onomastic identications are not so numerous, but
some important similarities begin to appear. Another prudent decision
was the initial limitation to the Saqqra corpus: almost all the bilin-
gual inscriptions used were from Saqqra, where a very unitary and
standardized alphabet was used. This left little room for confusion
between letters and variants, a risk that the former followers of the
Egyptian approach did not take care to avoid. It must be added that
Ray was also much more rigorous than his predecessors in the use of
the Carian alphabet: unlike some, he did not distort the Carian sig-
nary in order to obtain a particular equivalence between forms.
+nr nis+onv or +nr rrcirnrnvrx+ 193
In Ray (1982b), undoubtedly his most ambitious and important work,
numerous inscriptions are transcribed and briey commented, not only
those from Saqqra, but also the grati from Buhen, Abu-Simbel,
Silsilis and Abydos, as well as other inscriptions. Ray (1982a) is an arti-
cle focused rather on historical aspects and theoretical problems of deci-
pherment. In Ray (1987) he responds to criticisms formulated by Gusmani
(1986), by comparing the results of his own decipherment with those
gained from the traditional approach.
Ray (1982b)
The proposed sound values vary slightly from one article to another,
but they can be characterized in the following way:
1) A signicant number of signs had been transcribed in a similar man-
ner by Kowalski. The coincidence is logical: these are the letters that
appear in the bilingual inscriptions used by both authors. However, in
contrast to Kowalski, Ray does not oer arbitrary groupings or sepa-
rations of signs.
Rays use of bilingual inscriptions is shown in the table of p. 194.
There were admittedly some problems of interpretation: the value of
l, that in Egyptian appears adapted by means of r, and which was
194 cn.r+rn rotn
S
o
u
n
d

v
a
l
u
e
s

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

b
y

J
o
h
n

D
.

R
a
y

o
n

t
h
e

b
a
s
i
s

o
f

C
a
r
i
a
n
-
E
g
y
p
t
i
a
n

b
i
l
i
n
g
u
a
l
s
I
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
C
a
r
i
a
n
E
g
y
p
t
i
a
n
R
a
y

s
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
R
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
g

s
o
u
n
d

v
a
l
u
e
s
f
o
r
m
s
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
t
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
f

=

r
=

r
k
=

k
m
=

m
p
=

p
l
=

d
s
=

s
x
=

h
c
=

(
R
a
y

1
9
8
2
b
)


E
.
S
a

1
f
a
r
K
b
i
o
m

3
r
k
b
y
m

-
a
-
r
-
k
-
b
-
e
-
o
-
m

a
r
k
b
i
o
m
+

+

+

+
E
.
M
e

5

p
s
m
f
k
.
.
.

P
s
m

k
.
.
.

p
-
s
-
m
-

-
k
-
.
.
.

p
s
m

k
.
.
.

+
+

+

+






E
.
M
e

7

C
a
m
o
u

T
3
-
n
-
j
m
.
w

-
a
-
m
-
o
-
u
t
a
m
o
u
+
+
E
.
M
e

7
C
a
n
a
i
z

T
3
[

-
a
-
k

-
a
-
e
-

t
a
n
a
i

+
E
.
M
e

8

p
a
r
a
e
W
m

P
r
j
m
p
-
a
-
r
-
a
-
j
-

-
m
p
a
r
a
e
y
m
+
+

+
E
.
M
e

9
,

1
5
a
r
l
i
f
z

J
r

3
,

J
w
r

3
a
-
r
-
d
-
e
-

a
r
l
i

+

+




+
E
.
M
e

9

a
r
l
i
o

[
J
r
y
[
m
]
3
a
-
r
-
d
-

[
s
i
c
]
-
o
-
[
m
-

]
a
r
l
i
o
[
m

]
+
+
+
E
.
M
e

1
5

u
r
s
x
l
e
z
N
r
s
k
r
[
s
i
c
;
u
-
r
-
s
-
h
-
d
-
j
-

u
r
s

l
e

+
+

+

+
n
o
w
:
3
r
s
k
r
]
+nr nis+onv or +nr rrcirnrnvrx+ 195
troublesome for Ray; the only partial analysis of the name in E.Me 5;
the problematic reading Nrskr (now read 3rskr); the imprecise analysis
of vocalism, hampered by the almost purely consonantal adaptation in
Egyptian. Yet most of the values proposed by Ray have in fact turned
out to be right. Note that a great number of the sound values were
established on the basis of more than one correspondence: m = m results
from its presence at the end of two names (3rkbym, Prjm), and in the
middle of a third one (3n-j.mw), f = is established thanks to E.Sa
1, E.M 5, E.Me 9, and E.Me 15, etc.
2) Other values are the result of graphical alternations in the inscrip-
tions of Saqqra already noted by Masson (1978) and Meier-Brgger
(1979a): i / j, u / v, etc.
3) Curiously, two of the most important sound values proposed by
Ray were not obtained from the bilingual inscriptions: L = l (Ray
used ld to transcribe it) and z = .
The rst equivalence- totally new- is based on C.Ki 1(Kildara) k-
e-ld-a[ (now kila[ ) interpreted as the Carian form of the place name
Kildara (following Kowalskis suggestion, although he interpreted L as
z), and the endings in -oL = o-ld (now -ol), that Ray correctly com-
pared with the typical Carian names in -vllow from Greek sources.
The second equivalence (z = ) was already suggested in Meier-Brgger
(1979a)as Ray pointed outbut based on weak argumentation, and
without exploiting the consequences. Rays basis for this equivalence
was initially only the interpretation of the name vzoL- as --o-ld-
(now wol-), corresponding thus to the Carian name Ussvllow (Ray
1981:161), although it was subsequently noted in Ray (1982b:189) that
more convincing evidence could be found: the clear alternation between
z and f = in the Egyptian name pismak / pismak.
4) For the remaining signs, whose values he could not ascertain from
the bilinguals used, Ray generally kept to the traditional transcription
used by other scholars (evorokin, Meriggi, Gusmani, Masson), id est,
that is based on the similarities with Greek alphabet: d = g, t = q, n
= k, k [= kt ?], q = t, even l = d, etc. This is also valid for vocalic
signs: given the consonantal character of the majority of Egyptian tran-
scriptions, Carian-Egyptian bilinguals were useless for establishing vocalic
values, and Ray chose to keep the traditional value e for i, despite
the evidence of onomastic identications, that pointed clearly to i.
In Ray (1988), several inscriptions from Caria itself are analysed.
The most relevant contribution is the comparison of the nal sequence
196 cn.r+rn rotn
in C.Hy 1, read -d-a-r-m-e-ld (now ylarmit) with the place name where
the inscription was found, Ullrima.
Two further articles by Ray previous to the denitive decipherment should
be cited here: Ray (1990a) is an ambitious attempt to systematize the
results of his decipherment, but there are few new ideas. The most strik-
ing contribution is the discussion devoted to the sign n, in which Ray
mentions, and rejects, the proposal of a nasal value suggested to him pri-
vately by Schrr.
Ray (1990b) oers an interpretation of the initial line of C.Si 2, which
owes much to Schrrs brilliant analysis, also privately communicated (see
below). However, in trying to adapt this to his own decipherment system,
Ray seriously distorts Schrrs ideas and the nal result is unconvincing.
The role played by John D. Ray in the decipherment of Carian is cru-
cial: for the rst time, true Carian names emerge from the inscriptions,
although in some cases Rays transcription does not correspond exactly
to the Greek adaptation: u--o-ld = Ussvllow, -a-r-u--o-ld =
Sarussvllow, a-r-d-e- = Arlissiw. Even more importantly, a great
number of the values involved in these forms were established from
the independent evidence of Egyptian bilinguals and the alternation of
letters.
Yet despite these merits, Ray was unable to oer a complete deci-
pherment system. The values proposed for very important consonan-
tal signs were either wrong (d t q n), or inaccurate (l & X), while
others remained undeciphered. As for vowels, Rays transcriptions were
also imprecise, when not mistaken (i = e, j = , e = j, W = ),
to the extent that the Egyptian bilinguals were rendered useless given
the almost purely consonantal notation of Carian names. Only in the
case of a o u v and to some extent w, did his transcriptions seem
to more accurately reect the actual value of the letters. The sound
system that arose from his proposal was also inadequate, the most
important gap being the absence of a letter for n, the basic nasal con-
sonant in all the sound systems of the world. As for the onomastic
identications, although the spectacular comparisons cited above pointed
clearly to the accuracy of the Egyptian approach, they were counter-
balanced by the great number of personal names in the Carian inscrip-
tions left without suitable interpretation. Forms such as -d-e-a-q,
e-r-t-u-t, t-q-b-a-j-m-, -a-j
u
-g-e-t-, -a-r--k--a-q-, m-s-k-o-r-e-,
(now wliat,
!
rquq, qtbl
!
em-, adiq-, arwl
!
jat-, msnord-) and many others,
which are now easy to interpret from the point of view of Carian ono-
mastics by using the denitive system, remained obscure in Rays system.
+nr nis+onv or +nr rrcirnrnvrx+ 197
The rst eort to improve Rays dechipherment was made by
Faucounau (Faucounau 1984). But the typical dilettantism of this scholar
converts his work into a practically worthless attempt. The only inter-
esting suggestion was l = l (vs. Ray d ) later conrmed more denitively.
Much more serious is the work of Frank K.vvrnzrrr, who devoted
his doctoral dissertation of 1990 to Carian (published with a Nachbemerkung
in 1993: Kammerzell 1993). However, his decipherment diers too lit-
tle from Rays: any dierencesnot in transcription, but in interpre-
tationare found only in the vocalic system. The consonantal values
for letters are coincident with those already proposed by J. D. Ray.
3. The Denitive Decipherment (Ray-Schrr-Adiego System)
In this history of the decipherment of the Carian alphabet, I must
speak of my own contributions to the subject. In my rst work, pro-
duced in 1989 and published one year later (Adiego 1990), I concen-
trated on only two letters, l and n. For the rst, new evidence was
presented in favour of an l value, following the suggestion made by
Faucounau. As for n, I tried to demonstrate that this sign was actu-
ally the Carian letter for n, a sound surprisingly absent in Rays sys-
tem (see above). In this later case, the evidence was exclusively based
on onomastic identications that seemed convincing (for instance p-n-
uol = pnuol = Ponussvllow). Shortly after writing this brief article,
I decided to devote my doctoral dissertation to Carian, with the aim
of oering a complete analysis of all Carian materials available (Adiego
1990b). For the decipherment, the most important contribution was to
use as a further clue two Carian-Egyptian bilingual inscriptions disre-
garded by Ray because they contained true Egyptian names in the
Egyptian part. A more attentive study of these two inscriptions (E.Sa
2, E.Me 5) showed that the Carian parts did indeed reect the same
Egyptian names present in the Egyptian ones. This lead to new val-
ues for very important letters: n, whose value n was now conrmed,
t, which reected a t sound (transcribed t in Adiego 1990a, t already
in Adiego 1993a), and d, a d sound (d in Adiego 1990a, d already in
Adiego 1993a):
198 cn.r+rn rotn
E.Me 5 E.Sa 2
Carian form psmfkvneitz pdnejt
Egyptian form Psmk-wj-Njt P3-dj-Njt
Ray p-s-m--k--k-j-e-q- p-g-k-j-e-q
Adiego (1993a) p-s-m--k--n-e-i-t- p-d-n-e--t
[now: psmkwneit ] [now: pdnejt ]
The t value of t allowed me to analyse the Athens bilingual inscrip-
tion in a both straightforward and convincing way: read as : san tur[
(now transcribed jas : san tur[ ), the third last letters could be connected
to the Carian name present in the Greek part, Tur[.
Another important improvement concerned the vocalic letters: i =
i (not e), j = (given its alternation with the former, not [now j ]),
e = e (not j ) and sound values close to /u/ for the letters w = w
(Ray j
u
, but on a weak basis; now []), W = (Ray [now y]). All
these values are now universally accepted.
As for other letters, a labial character was proposed for $ (m [now
b]), based on the good correspondence ( para)i$rel = Imbarhldow, and
a liquid value for 6.
A brief report on this new decipherment system was published in
Kadmos (Adiego 1992a).
An error of decipherment, regarding q, was rectied shortly after
the completion of the doctoral dissertation, in which a more traditional
value t was envisaged (which explains the use of t for transcribing t).
However, a more detailed analysis of E.Sa 2 brought me to the con-
clusion that the second name in the Egyptian part, K3rr, was also
identiable in the Carian part, qwri-, so that a tectal value for q
was proposed. This value was also reinforced by convincing onomas-
tic identications, such as quq = Gugow, or qtblem = Kotbelhmow, Kutbelhmiw.
The new value was presented in a lecture held in Cologne in 1992
and incorporated into my book Studia Carica (Adiego 1993a), wherein
a denitive decipherment of Carian was proposed.
+nr nis+onv or +nr rrcirnrnvrx+ 199
Adiego (1993a)
200 cn.r+rn rotn
As for the linguistic results obtainable by means of this decipher-
ment, a very prudent method was adopted: both in Adiego (1990a) and
in Adiego (1993a) the attention was focused exclusively on the most
evident grammatical information recognizable in the Carian texts: the
existence of an opposition Nominative - / Genitive (or Possessive)
-. The clear connection with Hittite, Luwian, Lycian, Sidetic, and
Pisidian sigmatic genitives and possessives, and the Lycian, Sidetic, and
Pisidan zero nominatives was seen as a clue for the consideration Carian
as an Indo-European Anatolian language, more closely related to these
later dialects. This assertion was fully consistent with the indices observ-
able in Carian onomastics, as evorokin and others had already showed.
During these decisive years for the elaboration of my own deci-
pherment system (19891992), I was unaware that another scholar,
Diether Scnnn, had already obtained to the same results for the sound
values of t, d, q, n, i and j. As early as 1982, also inspired by the
works of Ray, Schrr had observed the signicance of the bilinguals
E.Sa 2 and E.Me 6 for deciphering Carian, which explains the coin-
cidence of the values proposed for these letters. However, Schrr merely
communicated his theory privately to Ray, who rejected it, and after
this disappointing answer he became silent until the appearance of my
rst works. This explains why his rst contribution appeared after Adiego
(1992a) (Schrr 1992). The positive side was that the two studies had
reached very similar conclusions independently of each other, which
served to reinforce the validity of the decipherment.
However, Schrrs decipherment was not totally coincident with my
own: the main dierence lay in the values attributed to vocalic signs.
While he agreed with i = i, and j = [now j ], he was very scepti-
cal about e = e, or about the u-like values of w and W. In any case,
Schrr has since come to accept these values. He has been also scep-
tical about other aspects of my decipherment, such as my interpreta-
tion of the Athenes bilingual, or the identication of the name Ullrima
in C.Hy 1 ( ylarmit)an idea formulated by Ray (see above) and eas-
ily integrated into my decipherment system.
Despite these discrepancies, Schrrs proposals opened up new inter-
pretations of some aspects I had disregarded. The most relevant was
undoubtedly his brilliant explanation of the Sinuri bilingual inscription
(C.Si 2), in which he was able to recognize the Carian version of the
formula Idrieus (son) of Hekatomnos and Ada (daughter) of Hekatomnos
that appears in Greek, in some decrees enacted by this pair of Carian
satraps. Schrrs explanation of the letters & and $, which he con-
+nr nis+onv or +nr rrcirnrnvrx+ 201
vincingly interpreted as representing the outcome of Proto-Anatolian
(PA) *nd and *mb respectively, is also relevant.
In 1993, an international congress on Carian decipherment took
place in Rome. In this congress, I presented a long list of onomastic
identications that could be obtained with the new system (the Ray-
Schrr-Adiego).
8
The new decipherment clearly won the support (ex-
pressed either in public or privately) of many relevant scholars, like
Gnter Neumann and Heiner Eichner, but both evorokin and Gusmani
rejected it: while the former continued to argue in favour of his own
system, Gusmani declared his scepticism for a decipherment that implied
extremely surprising sound values for letters of Greek shape (the so-
called metakharakterisms).
I must stress here the role played by Gnter Nrtv.xx in backing
the new decipherment. Although his public position was very cautious
(for instance at the Rome congress), he encouraged it with meaningful
gestures, for instance writing the preface for Adiego (1993a) or oering
support and suggesting ideas in private correspondence. In Neumann
(1993) he expressed his conviction that the Egyptian approach of Ray
and myself was a step in the right direction.
9
In the same paper, he
suggested linking Carian sb, very likely to be a coordinative conjunc-
tion, to Milyan sebe and. It is also worth mentioning the clear sup-
port for the decipherment manifested by Heiner Eicnxrn in the Rome
Symposium (see Eichner 1994).
Even more decisive in gaining wide acceptance of the new deci-
pherment was H. Craig Mrrcnrn+s contribution. In an important arti-
cle published in Kadmos (Melchert 1993), Melchert not only accepted
the new system, but also employed it to interpret Carian texts, open-
ing new and thought-provoking ways of deciphering the language. Of
particular note was his proposal of connecting Carian bt (in C.xx 1)
to Lycian ubete he oered). As in the case of Neumanns sb = Milyan
sebe, a word of common lexicon was recognized, and the generic
connection of Carian with Lycian and in general Anatolian was thus
8
Dierent ordering of names has been given by scholars to refer to the system of
decipherment that has become standard (alphabetical: Adiego-Ray-Schrr, strictly chrono-
logical regarding the published works: Ray-Adiego-Schrr). The ordering adopted here
responds to the authentic chronological succession of the research, even if Schrrs rst
contribution appeared after my rst works.
9
. . . aber nun endlich scheint doch ein erfolgreicher und nahezu vollstndiger
Abschlu der Entzierung in Reichweite zu kommen (Neumann 1993:296).
202 cn.r+rn rotn
reinforced. Also important was the analysis of snn and orkn as accusatives
in -n (< PA *-n < PIE *-m), an analysis equally relevant for the linguistic
position of Carian, and later conrmed by the Kaunos bilingual.
Another scholar to take the Ray-Schrr-Adiego system as a starting
point for research on Carian was Michael J.xr., who in his contri-
bution to Rome Symposium oered a series of new ideas, among them
the fascinating hypothesis (developed here) regarding the presence of
ethnic names in the onomastic formulae of Saqqra ( J.xr. 1994).
Finally, Ivo H.x.r was another of the scholars quick to take up the
new decipherment, with excellent results: he devoted a paper to the
Carian particle i, analysing it as originally a relative pronoun from
PIE *k
w
i- (Hajnal 1997a). Moreover, in an independent way, Hajnal
and Schrr (1996[98]) identied two further Carian words: ted father
and en mother, clearly related to the corresponding Lycian and Lydian
nouns.
It is not easy to briey sum up the amount of new ideas and hypothe-
ses regarding Cariansome conrmed, others ruled out- that arose in
the rst half of the 90s: apart from those quoted above, other partic-
ularly sound theories were: the sound value z (< *st) proposed in Schrr
(1996a) for the letter 1; the identication of the name of the Anatolian
Storm God under the forms trqude, trqd (Blmel-Adiego 1993) and of
the name Hekatomnos in the unedited grati from Thebes (Adiego
1995); the reconstruction of the Carian name of Kaunos as *kbid-
(Adiego 1995:21), denitively conrmed a year later by the discovery
of the Kaunos bilingual; the attribution to Kaunos of the coins with
the Carian legend kb, interpreted as the beginning of the place name,
discovered by Koxtk and also conrmed by the bilingual (Konuk
1998);
10
the satem-treatment of PIE palatals in Carian, as in Luwian
and Lycian (Melchert 1993); the identication of the Carian family of
names in ( i)br- = Gr. Imb(a)r- made by Schrr (19911993), etc.
During the excavations of summer 1996 in Kaunos, a new bilingual
inscription in Greek and Carian was found. The behaviour of the two
scholars responsible for the editing of the inscription, Peter FREI and
Christian M.nrk, was exemplary: they edited the text as quickly as
possible, but also extremely accurately (Frei-Marek 1997), and suggested
10
Although this paper appeared after the publication of the Kaunos bilingual, it is
clear that Konuks hypothesis was formulated previously (see Konuk 1998:218, n. 14,
and 223 n. 51).
+nr nis+onv or +nr rrcirnrnvrx+ 203
holding an international conference on the subject in the same year as
their article appeared, to which the principal scholars researching Carian
were invited (1997, in Feusisberg, Switzerland).
The new inscription was the outside evidence that was needed to
remove any doubt about the validity of the Ray-Schrr-Adiego system.
The presence of the place name Kaunos, and of the onomastic formulae
of two Athenian citizens in both parts of the inscription led to values
such as k = k, b = b, d = d, i = i, l = l, W = y, r = r, n = n, s
= s, a = a fully coincident with the values established in Adiego (1993a).
The only anomaly, T = t (not = according to the Egyptian approach)
is merely apparent, and easy to explain: there is no t (= t ) in the
Kaunian alphabet, so that in its writing system, a letter in the form of
T represents the value t, whereas for a clearly diacritical form of the
common Carian form for (/) was used in order to distinguish it from
T. This particularity aects only the Kaunian alphabet: in the other
alphabetic varieties, the value for f continues to be valid.
Shortly before the Feusisberg meeting, during the summer campaign
of 1997, a new fragment of the inscription was found, which enabled
the beginning of the Greek part to be completed, showing that Frei-
Mareks integration of the lost endings of the line, based on the Carian(!)
part, was correct. Therefore, the complete edition of the inscription
can be found now in Frei-Marek 1998. The following table shows the
Greek-Carian correspondences obtainable from the bilingual inscription
of Kaunos:
Greek Carian Transcription Lycian evidence
Kaun[]oiw, k5idn, kbidn, Cf. Lyc. Xbide- Kaunos,
Kaunv[n k5dWn/ kbdyn xbidene/i- Kaunian
Ipposynouw i[]ini i[]ini
Nikokla ni[]lan ni[]lan
Lusiklouw lWsiklas[ lysiklas[
Lusikla lWs[]an lys[]an
Lusikrt[ouw] lWsikraTas [ lysikratas[
Ayhnao[n] oTonosn otonosn
[A]yhnaon oTonosn otonosn
Unfortunately, the bilingual inscription of Kaunos, so useful for conrming
the decipherment of the writing, has proved to be less useful in deci-
phering the Carian language, given the incompleteness of the Greek
part and the possible non-literal correspondence between the two texts:
204 cn.r+rn rotn
perhaps the most notable new discoveries are: (1) the word otr-, whose
probable meaning is self and is possibly etymologically connected to
the Lycian atra/etli self , (2) the ethnic sux -yn- in kbdyn- Kaunians,
clearly comparable to Luw. -wanni-, Mil. -wni-, Lyc. -ni- (with the
same function in all three languages), (3) the accusative plural ending
-, related to Lyc. and Mil. -s < *-ns. To these discoveries we must
add the conrmation of -n as an accusative singular ending, and of sb
as a coordinative conjunction. A plausible interpretation of the remain-
ing words and formants has yet to be made.
CHAPTER FIVE
THE CARIAN ALPHABET
A. Arrn.nr+ic V.nir+irs
One of the areas of Carian studies in which our knowledge has dra-
matically improved in recent years is undoubtedly the writing system.
Thanks to the denitive decipherment and the appearance of new
inscriptions, we can now create an overview of the dierent alphabetic
varieties that, although still limited and with very important gaps, was
unthinkable some years ago. If we compare the table of the Carian
alphabet established by Masson in the 1970s with the results that will
be uncovered here, it will be easy to acknowledge the progress made
in this eld. Masson was able to oer a complete inventory only for
the alphabetic varieties of Egypt and Kaunos; we now have an almost
complete inventory for the alphabets used in two other two Carian
cities (Hyllarima and Mylasa). Moreover, the combination of new infor-
mation obtained both from the decipherment and from these new
inscriptions gives us a much better understanding of the relationship
between the dierent alphabetic varieties. Certain signs that Masson
had deemed independent are now interpreted as variants, in some cases
within an alphabetic variety, in others belonging to dierent alphabetic
inventories but functionally equivalent. Finally, the total of 44 dierent
letters in the table drawn up by Masson, the result of combining the
alphabets of Egypt and Caria could give the false impression that the
Carian alphabet consisted of a surprisingly high number of dierent
letters. In fact, as we will see, the number of dierent letters found in
each alphabetic variety barely exceeds 30 (31 in Memphis is currently
the highest number of letters documented for a concrete alphabet).
Many questions remain unresolved, however. The new inscriptions
from Caria complicate to a certain extent former classications of the
dierent alphabets of Caria proper, based on a geographical criterion
that now seems to be too rigid. Our current knowledge also makes it
dicult to establish the exact nature of the relationship between the
Carian alphabet of Egypt, a very homogeneous sign inventory, and the
alphabets of Caria proper, which are much more varied between
206 cn.r+rn ri\r
themselves, and are also dierent from the Egyptian alphabet. Finally,
the most intriguing question of all is yet to receive a wholly satisfac-
tory answer: what is the origin of the Carian writing system?
In the following pages, we will see rstly the known inventory for
each Carian alphabetic variety, together with a succinct commentary
on the main characteristics in each case. In the subsequent sections of
this chapter, the open questions mentioned above will be briey dealt
with.
1. Alphabetic Varieties of Caria Proper
Alphabet of Tralleis We do not yet possess sucient Trallean materials
to reconstruct the alphabet used in this Carian-Lydian city: C.Tr 1
oers 12 dierent letters, C.Tr 2, 12 or perhaps 13.
1
Given the brevity
of the texts and the coincidence of some words, the combination of
both inscriptions produces an inventory of only 1314 dierent letters.
This means that in all probability less than the half of the complete
inventory of letters is attested. However, despite the very limited num-
ber of letters, some interesting traits can be observed. Perhaps most
striking are the unique characteristics of C.Tr 1: it shows a right-to-
left orientation, totally atypical for Carian inscriptions from Caria proper.
Moreover, the letters for a and r seem to be A and A respectively.
This is a clear contrast with the corresponding forms in C.Tr 2: a
and R. The form of a A is the same as that found in the Sinuri-Kildara
variety, and shows the particularity of a dextrorse orientation in a sin-
istrorse context. As for A, at a glance it seems closer to Egyptian and
Kaunian r (r) than to the more extended shape of the letter in the
alphabets of Caria proper (R). In any case, it is very likely that the
denitive form of both letters is the result of internal tendencies to sym-
metry (A | A): such tendencies to structural uniformities are well known
in the history of the writing system. Regarding the rest of the letters
from C.Tr 1, particularly remarkable is the form adopted by the sign
for i, a right-to-left version (Y) of the i found in Hyllarima (y). Also
in this case, C.Tr 1 divergesthough to a lesser degreefrom C.Tr
2, where the corresponding letter is Y. Both y and Y point to an iden-
tical subtype of Carian i characteristic of the Northern zone (see above),
1
The real sign that appears at the very end of C.Tr 2 is much disputed: it could
be a Q (as assumed here) or simply a z. See p. 131 and here below.
+nr c.ni.x .rrn.nr+ 207
but it is rather surprising that the form found in C.Tr 1 is in fact
closer to that of the Hyllarimean alphabet than to its equivalent in the
other Trallean inscription.
Compared to C.Tr 1, C.Tr 2 appears more as we would expect: a
for a, R for r. It is worth noting the presence of %, a letter absent
from the alphabet of Memphis. But the most uncertain point of this
inscription is the last letter, as mentioned in p. 131: the drawings are
ambiguous, pointing to either Z or q. The rst of these forms would
suggest a z of Kaunian type, but the second drawing, and the fact
that in the same inscription appears as z, make it more plausible in
my opinion to interpret the letter as a q, comparable to the form that
this sign adopts in the most local alphabets of Caria proper (Q).
Alphabet of Hyllarima The new fragment of the sole remaining inscrip-
tion of Hyllarima, added to the part of the text already known, has
allowed us to create an almost complete inventory of the letters of the
alphabetic variant used in that city. They are shown below:
Alphabet of Hyllarima
a a U u
D d
l l N n
W y p p
R r z
L l y i
Q q e e
B b K k
m m & d
o o 9 z
t t c t
S B b
s s
The most remarkable absence is the letter for (x X in other alpha-
bets). This absence is most probably a matter of chance. It is also pos-
sible that other letters, less common but nonetheless found in other
alphabets of Caria proper (such as %, H) could have belonged to the
inventory of Hyllarima. In any case, these 25 letters constitute an inven-
tory large enough to allow us to consider our knowledge of Hyllarimas
alphabet to be fairly comprehensive.
208 cn.r+rn ri\r
While most of the letters used in Hyllarima are clearly comparable
to the other Carian alphabets, the new fragment sees the appearance
of three somewhat surprising new forms of letters: L l, e e, and B b.
In the case of L and B, it seems clear that we are dealing with graph-
ical innovations produced within Hyllarimas alphabet. Both letters have
undoubtedly been created from Greek letters: L is a diacritised form
of B that only can be explained by a Greek lambda (B is b in Hyllarima).
2
B is simply a Greek beta, used for the Carian sound represented in other
alphabets by 4 <b> (< *mb). e, however, could be an old variant
of e e assuming a common origin from Greek archaic eta E, and con-
sidering its probable presence in the Carian alphabets of Euromos and
Mylasa (see below).
The reasons for a recent introduction of L and B are not clear. In
the rst case, it is worth mentioning the fact that some alphabetic vari-
ants (Thebes, Mylasa) lack a specic letter for l, this sound being cov-
ered by the sign for the basic lateral liquid l, l. Perhaps this was
also the original situation in Hyllarima, so a specic letter may have
been created when the local alphabet already existed. Regarding B, the
same explanation could be envisaged, although the alternative suggested
in Adiego (2005) must not be discounted: that the original form of
4 <b> was &, i.e. the form attested in Mylasa, and that the similar-
ity of & to & could mean discarding the rst letter in favour of a new
sign directly borrowed from the Greek alphabet, B.
3
Alphabet of Euromos Our knowledge of the alphabet used in the Carian
city of Euromos is more limited than that of Hyllarima. The two brief
inscriptions that remain give us an inventory of 20 letters:
Alphabet of Euromos
a a s s
d d U u
l l x
W y n N n
R (/ r?)
4
r z
Q q I i
2
However, we must not rule out an alternative origin from Carian l l.
3
For a detailed discussion on these new letters, see Adiego-Debord-Varinlio[lu (2005).
4
On the doubts about the presence of the variant r for r in C.Eu 1, see p. 133.
(continued on next page)
+nr c.ni.x .rrn.nr+ 209
B b e e
m m k K k
o o & d
t t 9 z
The absence of the signs for two very important and widespread Carian
sounds ( p and ) is without doubt a coincidence. It is also likely that
the alphabet of Euromos had specic letters for , t and b, as in
Hyllarima. It is particularly unfortunate that we are unable to ascer-
tain whether there was a specic letter for l, or if this sound was
assumed by l l, as is the case in Thebes and Mylasa.
5
The letter e,
formerly interpreted as a sign for l similar to the Kaunos form of the
letter (rotated 2 against L in other alphabets), must now be considered
a sign for e: Kaunian 2 is a peculiarity that is hard to separate from
the similarly rotated form Z of z , a letter that appears in Euromos
in the more widespread form z. e as e in Euromos is more consistent
with the use of the sign with this value in the nearby cities of Mylasa
and Hyllarima.
6
Alphabet of Mylasa The newly published single inscription of Mylasa,
of signicant length, oers us a very wide inventory of letters, which
undoubtedly marks a clear improvement in our knowledge of the local
alphabetic varieties of Caria.
Alphabet of Mylasa
a a U u
D d x
l l N n
W y p p
R r z
Q q I i
B b e e
5
The two sole examples of l (in C.Eu 2) appear in contexts without the parallels
that would allow us to decide if they represent l or l.
6
Schrr (pers. comm.) has independently come to the same conclusion.
table (cont.)
Alphabet of Euromos
(continued on next page)
210 cn.r+rn ri\r
m m k k
o o & d
t t 9 z
F & b (?)
s s
The presently known inventory consists of 23 letters. None of the most
widespread Carian signs are missing here (on l, see immediately below).
If we compare this inscription with that of Hyllarima, for example, the
only notable absences are c and , neither of which is a particularly
common Carian letter.
The most notable traits of the alphabet of Mylasa are the following:
There is not a specic sign for l, the sound involved being repre-
sented by means of l l: note iduol besides dwol (E.Me 35).
Given the use of l for l in iduol, the letter e cannot represent this
sound here, and it is more likely that we are dealing rather with a
letter for e, as in Hyllarima and perhaps also Euromos. Unfortunately,
the only example of this letter in E.My 1 appears in an unclear con-
text.
For y, a letter similar to that used in Sinuri and Kildara is employed:
W (Sinuri-Kildara V).
Also very close to Sinuri and Kildara alphabetic variety is the form
adopted by i in Mylasa: I (cf. Sinuri-Kildara ).
It is interesting to note the angular form of some letters: besides the
sign for i (I), the same trait is observed in 9 z (9, 1 in other
alphabets), and in & if we accept the interpretation of this latter
sign proposed here (see the following point).
The most troublesome sign in this alphabet is &. I have proposed
to interpret it as the local form of the letter for b, which in other
alphabets is , 4 (Adiego 2005).
From these observations, the alphabet of Mylasa turns out to be of a
very idiosyncratic nature; while it shows some clear anities with the
Sinuri-Kildara variety, as could be expected ( W = y, I = i ), the use
of e for e (against Sinuri e) or the lack of a specic sign for l (which
table (cont.)
Alphabet of Mylasa
+nr c.ni.x .rrn.nr+ 211
does exist in Sinuri-Kildara) prevent us from speaking of a common
local alphabet for the region of Mylasa, Sinuri and Kildara.
Alphabet of Stratonikeia The two inscriptions from Stratonikeia give us
an inventory of 25 letters:
Alphabet of Stratonikeia
a a U u
d d
l l X
W y N n
R r p p
L l z
Q q i
m m e e
o o K k
t t & d
F 9 z
s s b (?) b
H ?
It is somewhat strange, but perhaps merely a matter of chance, that
there is no letter for the widespread sound b. Leaving aside this one
uncertainty, the inventory of Stratonikeia, with a number of dierent
letters identical to that Hyllarima, seems almost complete. When com-
pared with Hyllarima, the only letter that might be missing is c,
7
since
the other letters that are not present here are rather idiosyncratic for
some local alphabets or for the alphabet attested in Egypt.
I oer the new suggestion of recognizing in C.St 1 the Stratonikeian
letter for b, a hypothesis based on the identication of the name brsi
in the second line (see p. 143). The problem arises from the fact that
it is not easy to establish the exact form of the letter: the photograph
in Robert (1950) is not absolutely clear, and the drawing published by
Deroy (1955) could not be totally faithful. Given that the question can-
not be satisfactorily resolved, I use conventionally a form based on
Deroys drawing (b). In any case, this letter seems to be formally related
to the Egyptian () and Kaunian (4) signs for b.
7
About the possibility that in other alphabets of Caria proper the undeciphered let-
ter H could in fact represent c t, see p. 253.
212 cn.r+rn ri\r
Apart from this new letter, the alphabet of Stratonikeia does not
oer other remarkable traits, with the exception of the form of i, ,
until now exclusively documented in this alphabet, and which shows
certain similarities to corresponding signs in Mylasa and Sinuri-Kildara.
Also comparable with Mylasa and Sinuri- Kildara is the form of F .
Regarding the rest of the letters, we nd the typical forms Q, 9 of
Caria proper (against q, 1 respectively, in Egypt and Kaunos). In any
case, it is worth noting the form of , X, against x in most of the
Carian alphabets from Caria proper (including Kaunos).
8
Alphabet of Sinuri-Kildara The combination of the letters documented in
the inscriptions of Sinuri and Kildara gives a total of 26 dierent signs:
Alphabet of Sinuri-Kildara
Sinuri Kildara
A A a
d d d
l l
V V y
R R r
L L l
q (??) Q q
B b B b
m m M m
o o o
t t t
T F
s s s
H (?) ?
U u u

x x
N n n
p p
z
i
e e
k k
& & d
9 z
% ?
8
The form X only appears in the inscription C.Ia 3 (but note also x in Iasos, C.Ia
2) and in the inscription C.xx 2 (of unknown origin).
+nr c.ni.x .rrn.nr+ 213
An attentive examination of the inventories of letters used in each loca-
tion reveals the close anity between the alphabets used in Sinuri and
Kildara, which allows us to speak of a single alphabetic variety. Note
particularly the forms of a (A), y (V), i (). The new inscription from
Mylasa has served to reinforce this theory, because several letters, which
formerly seemed unimportant given their presence in other varieties,
have become more representative insofar as they are absent, or dierent,
in the inventory of Mylasa. This is the case of e e (against Mylasa e)
and L (absent in Mylasa).
What is alleged to be the most remarkable dierence between Sinuri
and Kildarathe use of q in Sinuri against Q in Kildaraperhaps
does not exist: the reading of q in C.Si 1 is far from assured (see
p. 138). Note that other divergences occur within the alphabet of one
or both places: b and B in Sinuri, m and M in Kildara (but about the
doubts regarding the reading of this latter sign, see p. 142).
We can suppose that this inventory of Sinuri-Kildara is practically
complete. If compared with the inventories of Hyllarima, Mylasa, and
Stratonikeia, only the letters for b and t are missing.
9
Conversely, it is
interesting to note the presence of % (as in Tralleis and Kaunos).
Alphabet of Kaunos The alphabetic variety of Kaunos is the best known
of all the varieties attested in Caria proper, thanks for the most part
to the long inscription C.Ka 2, and the bilingual text C.Ka 5. The
inventory of signs, which we can consider complete,
10
consists of 29
letters.
11
Alphabet of Kaunos
a a
d d x
l l N n
W y p p
r r Z
2 l I i
q q k k
9
This latter sound, however, could be represented by H, see the similar observa-
tion on Stratonikeia above.
10
Obviously, it is not impossible that some letter has still not been documented,
but in this case its functional value would be very low.
11
I assume that is the form of C.Ka 5 corresponding to 4 in C.Ka 4.
(continued on next page)
214 cn.r+rn ri\r
5 b & d
M m 8 g? (if = 0)
o o 1 z
T t % ? _
/ 1 ?
s s O t (if = c)
H ? 4, b
U u
The main characteristics of this alphabet, some of which have already
been mentioned, are the following:
Leaving aside the particular cases of Iasos and Halikarnassos (see
below), this is the alphabet that shows the most resemblances to the
Carian alphabet of Egypt: as the table seen above makes clear, in
this alphabet the forms for r, q and z are identical to those found
in Egyptian inscriptions (r, q, 1 against R, Q, 9 in other alphabets
of Caria proper, respectively).
However, despite these formal analogies with the Egyptian alpha-
betic model, from a functional point of view, Kaunos behaves as a
typically Carian local alphabet: unlike the Egyptian model, there are
no specic letters for semivowels (j j, v w, perhaps also w ), and
it also lacks 6 . Conversely, it does contain letters such as or
% ?, both of which are absent in the Memphis Alphabet.
As for the specic traits that characterise Kaunos, the following must
be mentioned:
1. A letter for e is missing. The reasons for this absence seem to be
rather of phonological nature (the Kaunian vowel system would
lack a sound /e/).
2. Some letters have only been documented in Kaunos: 8, O, 1_.
It is very likely that some, if not all of these letters have the same
value as other letters with a dierent shape in the rest of the
alphabets: 8 seems to be the Kaunian form of 0, and for O I
have proposed an identication with c t (Adiego 2002; see here
p. 253). But even if these correspondences were correct, these
Kaunian letters would remain unique.
table (cont.)
Alphabet of Kaunos
+nr c.ni.x .rrn.nr+ 215
3. The letters for l and show a rotation (2, Z) regarding the rest
of alphabetic varieties (L, z).
12
Other Less Documented Alphabets (Kindye, Eski ine, Keramos) Little can be
said about the alphabet varieties of other Carian locations due to the
scarcity of documents.
In Kindye, the most remarkable feature of the single, six-letter inscrip-
tion is the sign w, unknown in the other alphabets of Caria proper.
Merely hypothetically, we could consider the possibility that this is the
form adopted by V y in this alphabetic variety. Note that in Kindye
the Egyptian-like letter w exists side by side with R, the typical form
for r in Caria proper (against Egypt and Kaunos r).
In the case of the Eski ine (near Alabanda) inscription (C.Al 1),
note the shape of the sign for i, apparently ,
13
which recalls the typ-
ical northern forms (Tralleis Y, Hyllarima y).
The Problem of the Iasos and Halikarnassos Alphabets The alphabets stud-
ied to date share the characteristic that they are attested in inscriptions
for which an origin from the location where they are found is the sim-
plest and most logical explanation. In the case of Hyllarima, Kaunos,
or Sinuri-Kildara, for example, there is no doubt that each alphabetic
inventory reects the local writing used in each place; in Kaunos,
Kildara and Hyllarima, evidence is given by the mention of the place
name (kilara, kbid Kaunos) or the ethnic name ( ylarmit Hyllarimean(s),
cf. also kbdyn Kaunians). In Sinuri, the Carian text of C.Si 2 is insep-
arable from the preceding Greek text, and the two together t well in
the context of inscriptions concerning the syngeneia in charge of the
sanctuary of Sinuri. The funerary inscriptions of Tralleis and Euromos,
and the long inscription of Mylasa also seem to be closely related to
the places where they were found, and the characteristics of the respec-
tive alphabetic varieties are consistent with the geographical situation.
The case presented by the inscriptions from Halikarnassos and Iasos
is very dierent.
12
It is true that z can occasionally appear as Z in some Egyptian inscriptions (see
for instance E.Me 14), but this occurs as a result of the disposition of the text on the
stela. The particularity of the Kaunos alphabet is that this rotated form is the canon-
ical form of the letter.
13
At least this is the form that can be hypothesized both from the photograph in
Robert and the drawing in Robert and Deroy, see p. 132.
216 cn.r+rn ri\r
For Halikarnassos, there is only one inscription, found on an object
that could be moved very easily, but even its origin in Halikarnassos
cannot be assured. Here is the inventory of letters documented in C.Ha
1 (note that the inscription is written right to left):
Alphabet of C.Ha 1
# r
L l
b
M m
o o
t t
s s
N n
p p
w
K k
& d
The possibility that this alphabet could be that used in Halikarnassos
has important repercussions for the discussion of the origin of the
dierent Carian local scripts, because although the inventory of letters
that can be obtained is very limited, it is sucient to draw some clear
parallels with the Carian alphabet attested in Egypt: w , # r, or the
right to left orientation, a very unusual practice in the alphabets of
Caria proper but well known in Egypt. This would make the region
of Halikarnassos the most likely origin of the Carian alphabet from
Egypt.
The situation is similar, but more complex, in Iasos. Here, six of the
seven inscriptions documented until now appear on fragments of vases,
so they may be of non-Iasian origin. The sole inscription found on a
stone fragment, C.Ia 4, consists of only ve letters, the only remark-
able trait being the form R (not-Egyptian) of r (against Egypt-Kaunos
r). Of the remaining inscriptions, the longest is C.Ia 3, where we nd,
rather surprisingly, r and R side by side. Also of note is the Egyptian
or Kaunian form for q, q (against Q in the rest of Caria, including
another inscription from Iasos, C.Ia 5). Another Egyptian trait could
be recognized in the brief fragment C.Ia 6, where it would possible to
identify the letter b, not attested in this form in the rest of the alpha-
bets of Caria proper. However, this reading is not certain (see p. 149).
+nr c.ni.x .rrn.nr+ 217
Similarly puzzling is the letter v in C.Ia 7 (= Mylasa W, Sinuri-Kildara
V?).
The following table synthesizes the letters documented in the corpus
of Iasian inscriptions:
C.Ia 1 C.Ia 2 C.Ia 3 C.Ia 4 C.Ia 5 C.Ia 6 C.Ia 7
~ ~ a a
d
l l l
W v(?) y
r R R r
L L l
q Q q
B B b
m m m
o o o o
t t t
F D
s s s
U u u
x X
n
p p
z
i i I z i
e e e e
k k k
& d
0 g?

?
b
Supposing that all the inscriptions found in Iasos reect the local writ-
ing, we obtain a total of 24/25 dierent letters, a number very simi-
lar to the almost complete inventories of signs documented in other
Carian cities. Note the presence of 0, a typical Egyptian letter, and
the absence of H, c, , %, and of a sign for z (1, 9, 9 in other alpha-
bets). Such absences could be due to chance. None of the specically
Egyptian letters j, v, w appears (but note v!).
The Alphabets of the Inscriptions of Unknown (but Presumably Carian) Origin
It is particularly regrettable that we are ignorant of the origins of the
218 cn.r+rn ri\r
two inscriptions on vases, C.xx 1 and C.xx 2, since they show the clos-
est anities with the Carian alphabet of Egypt: in both inscriptions the
letter j j is found; moreover, in C.xx.2 the letter w appears, also typ-
ically Egyptian; signs for r, q, i, z are of the Egyptian (and Kaunian)
type: r, q, I, 1. In fact, both inscriptions could t well in the Egyptian
corpus, because all the letters have a similar form to the Carian alpha-
bet of Egypt, and there is no example of a letter alien to that writing
variety. Here is the inventory of letters from both inscriptions:
C.xx 1 C.xx 2
a a
d
l l
# + r
q q
b
m m m
o o o
t t t
D
s s s
u u
X
N n N n
p p p
z
i i
e e e
w w
k k k
& d
1 z
j j j
C.xx 3 also shows a notable Egyptian trait: the coexistence of w and
W in the same alphabetic inventory. As far as we are aware, in the
alphabets of Caria proper there is only one letter for the sound /y/
and its semivocalic form, /w/ (W, V, perhaps also w in Kindye, but the
evidence is lacking, see above). In any case, unfortunately the inscrip-
tion C.xx 3 is hard to analyse, and the reading of some letters remain
uncertain. This, together with the brevity of the text, prevents us using
it as a valuable source on the Carian alphabet.
+nr c.ni.x .rrn.nr+ 219
We must recall the possibility, suggested by Meier-Brgger (1994:113)
that Cxx 1, C.xx 2 and C.xx 3, together with C.Ha 1, could come
from the same place (a sanctuary of the god ntro-), see above p. 162.
The anities between the alphabets of all these inscriptions are con-
sistent with this hypothesis, and a common origin from Halikarnassos
is an attractive possibility.
Finally, C.xx 4 and C.xx 5, in fact two identical inscriptions con-
taining only a single word, clearly belong to the Kaunian alphabet, as
was observed previously by the editors (Zalhaas-Neumann 1994) and
has been referred to here (see above p. 163). The close connection to
the Kaunian alphabet can be ascertained on the basis of the use of
the letter Z (= Kaunos Z against z in the rest of the alphabets) and,
above all, the letter / for : this letter only appears in the Kaunian
alphabet, where its presence is closely related to the use of T for t (see
above). But contrary to Kaunos, these inscriptions show the lack of a
specic letter for l, instead of which the letter l (l) is used (as in
Mylasa and Thebes).
2. Inscriptions from Continental Greece
In the case of G 1, G 2 only G 1, the Athens bilingual inscription,
shows some signicant traits regarding the Carian alphabet: we note
the presence of the Egyptian letter j j, clearly used for the semi-
vowel /j/ (jas). However, this Egyptian trait is counterbalanced by
the use of R (not Egyptian r) for r.
3. Egyptian Alphabets
The main characteristic of the Carian alphabets used in Egypt is their
homogeneity, which contrasts with the pronounced local dierences that
can be seen in the alphabetic varieties found in Caria proper. This
homogeneity has been demonstrated by the Saqqra alphabet, which
oers us a point of reference for analysing the other Egyptian alpha-
bets. It is true that the dierent sub-corpora of grati can at initially
suggest the contrary, because the forms of the letters show a high degree
of variety, but these dierences are in reality very supercial, and can
be attributed to the less accurate writing in the grati. If we look at
the more pronounced dierences for some letters in the varieties of
Caria proper (for example q / Q for q, r / R for r, i / y / Y /
. . . for i ), we can observe that in all the documentation found in
220 cn.r+rn ri\r
Egypt only one form for each letter is found (q, r, i), which implies
a common alphabetic model for the Carian of Egypt. Only in the case
of Theban grati can we envisage a sucient number of remarkable
traits to speak of a specic variety, and even in this case the dierences
are more functional (the absence of some letters whose function is
fullled by another sign) than formal.
Alphabet of Memphis As already said, the corpus of the alphabet of
Memphis (Saqqra) shows a complete and clear inventory of letters:
Alphabet of Memphis
1 a a 17 n N n
2 d D d 18 p p
3 l l 19 z Z
4 W y 20 I i
5 r r 21 k K k
6 L l 22 & d
7 q q 23 0 g
8 b B b 24 1 z
9 m M m 25 c t
10 o o 26 b
11 t t 27 e e
12 f g 28 w
13 s s 29 v w
14 H ? 30 j T _ j
15 u U u 31 6
16 x X
The following traits must be taken into account when making a com-
parison with the best-known alphabets of Caria proper:
The Memphis Alphabet, along with the other alphabets from Egypt,
has specic letters for the semivowels /j/ /w/ and perhaps also /w/:
j, v and w or W. In this latter case, it is not possible to clearly
establish which of the two letters was originally used for the semi-
vowel, and which for the vowel. In the Carian alphabets of Caria
itself, there is neither j nor v, and in the case of w/W only one of
the signs is used (V/ W, very probably an evolution of w in Sinuri-
Kildara and Mylasa, W in the rest).
Also specic to Memphis, and to some other Egyptian alphabets, is
the use of the letter 6 for a special liquid sound ( ). No comparable
+nr c.ni.x .rrn.nr+ 221
letter has been identied in any alphabet of Caria proper.
14
Moreover,
it is interesting to note that if the identication ari = Arrissiw is
correct, this would mean that, at least in Hyllarima, where the name
Arrissiw can be denitively identied under the form ari, there is
not any particular strategy for spelling a possible sound cluster -r-
(Greek rr). A similar situation seems to exist in Stratonikeia, where
the same name also appears (ari ).
Typical shapes of certain letters separate the Egyptian alphabet from
most of the alphabets of Caria proper, as has been noted repeatedly
in the preceding pages: q q, r r, I i, 1 z (against Q, R, and diverse
variants of i, respectively).
None of the Carian alphabets of Caria proper display a simultane-
ous use of H and c (the only exception would be Kaunos, and only
if the very hypothetical identication O = c is accepted). Obviously,
this does not necessarily mean that both letters must be related, but
the fact certainly merits consideration.
Two letters documented in the alphabets of Caria proper are absent
from the inventory of Memphis: % and . The rst of these letters
does appear in the inscription (of apparently Egyptian origin) E.xx
7 and probably also in Thebes (E.Th 34) and in the Luxor temple
(E.Lu 5). In Caria, it is documented in Tralleis, Sinuri and Kaunos.
More meaningful is the absence of , until now not documented at
all in Egypt, but very widespread in Caria proper (Hyllarima, Sinuri,
Stratonikeia, Kaunos).
The Remaining Carian Inscriptions of Egypt Leaving aside the particular
case of Thebes and E.xx 7 (see immediately below), the alphabet used
in all the inscriptions from Egypt is consistent with the inventory of
letters that makes up the alphabet of Memphis. Even the less commonly
attested letters in Memphis are present to some extent in the dierent
sub-corpora. This is the case, for instance, of 6 , present in Buhen
(and also in Thebes), or b, documented in Abydos and Buhen (and
Thebes). Allegedly abnormal letters, such as B in Silsilis (E.Si 11), have
turned out to be the result of an incorrect reading (it must be read g
). Perhaps the most signicant variants found in the other Egyptian
inscriptions are B for b (against Memphis b (), and G for d (against
14
However, it is methodologically advisable not to rule out the possibility that in
Kaunos the sign 1, still undeciphered, corresponds to 6 in Memphis.
222 cn.r+rn ri\r
Memphis d D). Regarding the remaining letters, the dierences are not
so marked, and in fact seem to correspond to the more informal char-
acter of the grati or to varying degrees of skill of the engravers.
The Case of Thebes The alphabet of Thebes shows some singularities
when compared to the alphabetic model of Memphis. Unfortunately,
the importance of these dierences is hard to estimate without a com-
plete epigraphical edition of the entire Theban corpus. I can only base
my observations on the partial knowledge gained from the drawings of
the inscriptions, thus the conclusions that will be formulated here must
be taken as merely provisional.
One singularity of the alphabet of Thebes is the absence of a letter
for l, a sound represented simply by l l, a feature also apparent in
the alphabet of Mylasa and in the two objects C.xx 4 and C.xx 5.
This particularity is best attested by the clear example pnwol, against
pnuol, punwol in Memphis.
Another trait already observed in this alphabet, namely the absence
of a letter for d (against & in the rest of the alphabets), and the use
of l (and occasionally t)
15
in its place, is nowadays less clear: in the cor-
pus of Theban inscriptions provisionally elaborated by Diether Schrr
and followed here, the letter & does appear (in E.Th 4 and E.Th 14).
Rather surprisingly, both inscriptions are not new, but were in fact
already published in evorokin (1965), where the letters in question
were read in a dierent way. Due to a lack of further information, the
question remains open. In any case, it must be stressed that the prob-
lem posed by the presence or absence of & in Thebes transcends the
topic of the alphabetic varieties and aects the linguistic interpretation
of Theban inscriptions, because the identication of the Theban word
mlane with the form mdane depends on the hypothetical lack of & in
Thebes and its substitution by l l. Also, from a phonological point of
view, this trait will be inseparable from the absence of a letter for l:
in Thebes, l l would represent three dierent but related sounds (l,
l, d ) or the convergence of these three sounds in a single one.
In the unpublished inscriptions of Thebes, other rather surprising
traits appear, but they must be considered with caution until a satis-
factory edition of the whole corpus is edited. According to the drawings
15
This latter use would be visible in the name katbr if its equivalence with Janduberiw
(attested in Lycia) were accepted (see Chapter 11, s. v.).
+nr c.ni.x .rrn.nr+ 223
of evorokin, at least an example of % is attested (in E.Th 34),
16
and two new letters, until now unknown in Carian, are present: %
and s. Both of these letters seem to appear in E.Th 31. The rst also
seems to be present in E.Th 34. However, in the case of E.Th 31,
Schrr decides against giving a reading of the whole inscription, and
in E.Th 34, he proposes an alternative reading o (see above p. 103104).
Therefore the existence of both letters seems to be highly doubtful. As
for %, it must be pointed out that this letter can be easily mistaken
for a more standard letter x. Summing up, the alphabet of Thebes
cannot be used in any discussion of the Carian alphabet without the
denitive edition of all the Theban grati.
E.xx 7, the inscription of a bronze lion, shows (together with a typ-
ical Egyptian trait, the presence of v w) the use of %, a non-Egyptian
letter.
4. The Classication of the Alphabets of Caria Proper
We have seen that in contrast to the homogeneity of the alphabet used
in Egypt, a high degree of variation is found between the dierent local
scripts of Caria proper.
Former studies of the alphabets used in Caria proper have attempted
to classify them in groups on the basis of the marked dierences in
the shape of some letters (see evorokin 1965, followed in Adiego
1993a). These groups coincide roughly with the geographical situation
of the local varieties, so that a Northern group (Tralleis, Hyllarima,
Eski ine [South of Alabanda]), a NW group (Euromos, Kindye), a
Central group (Stratonikeia), a Western group (Sinuri-Kildara), and a
SW group (Kaunos and the inscription of Krya) have been established.
I now think that this classication should be revised, not least because
our knowledge of the alphabets of Kindye and Eski ine is so limited
that we cannot possibly use them in a serious discussion of alphabetic
variants. Even in the case of Tralleis and Euromos, we cannot work
with inventories that are suciently extensive to give an idea of all the
characteristics of these alphabets.
Moreover, the new inscription of Mylasa presents a strong argument
against such groupings; despite the clear anities between the alpha-
bet of Mylasa and the Sinuri-Kildara variety, there are also signicant
16
Note also its possible (but doubtful) presence in Luxor (E.Lu 5).
224 cn.r+rn ri\r
dierences, some of which point rather to a connection with some
northern and north-western alphabets (Hyllarima, Euromos).
In fact, if we leave aside Kindye from the north-western group and
Eski-ine and Tralleis from the northern group, given the scarcity of
the materials, and if we also claim that Mylasa did not have the same
alphabet as the nearby sanctuary of Sinuri, we come to a surprising
conclusion: with the sole exceptions of Sinuri and Kildara (two places
with an identical alphabet), and Krya in Lycia (where a Kaunian alpha-
bet was used), each of the other places where the Carian alphabet is
attested seem to have had their own alphabet.
For this reason, I believe that a more suitable way of analysing the
connections between the dierent local alphabets of Carian is to focus
on the isographs, i.e. the identical or similar shapes of several letters
that are shared by diverse alphabetic varieties.
The following table oers a comparative overview of the most rep-
resentative letters in the main alphabetic varieties of Caria. I leave out
the inscriptions of Kindye and Eski ine for the reasons stated above,
and the inscriptions of Iasos and Halikarnassos, given the particular
problems mentioned in the preceding pages. The cities are ordered
from North to South and from West to East:
Tralleis Hyllarima Euromos Mylasa Stratonikeia Sinuri- Kaunos
Kildara
a a (A) a a a a A a
y ? W W W W V W
r R (/A!) R R (/r?) R R R r
l ? L ? - L L 2
q Q (?) Q Q Q Q Q q
b ? B B B ? b B 5
t t t t t t t T
? S ? F F F /
z z z z z z Z
i Y y I I I
e ? e e e e e -
z ? 9 9 9 9 9 1
b ? B b (?) & (?) ? ? 4
The rst, and most important, contrast can be established between the
Kaunos alphabet and the rest of the alphabetic varieties. As we have
commented previously, some (but not all!) of the particularities of the
+nr c.ni.x .rrn.nr+ 225
Kaunian alphabet connect it to the Egyptian alphabet: q q, r r, 1 z.
Other singular traits are specic to Kaunos: the rotated form of and
l, the use of T for t (and the subsequent creation of a specic letter
for ) and the form of b. To these we must also add the absence of
a letter for e and the presence of letters not found in the rest of the
varieties (8, 1).
As for the remaining alphabets from Caria, there is clear evidence
of internal anities that correspond to some extent to the geographi-
cal situation of the cities. But, as we have already seen, with the excep-
tion of Sinuri and Kildara, whose alphabets show sucient similarities
to speak of a single alphabetic variety, we nd dierent isographs, not
always coincident, rather than real groupings of alphabets.
In this sense, the dierent forms of i are particularly striking; whereas
the northern Alphabets of Tralleis and Hyllarima show forms that
are clearly interrelated and dierentiated from the rest (y, Y), the forms
in the central alphabets of the Mylasa-Stratonikeia-Sinuri/Kildara tri-
angle point to a common original form.
The coinciding form for y in Mylasa and Sinuri-Kildara is also impor-
tant; in this case, Stratonikeia does not share this characteristic, so we
can limit the extent of V/W to a more restricted area.
The distribution of the forms for e oers a somewhat dierent per-
spective. If one accepts my interpretation of Euromos and Mylasa e
as an e-sign, we can establish an area that includes these two alpha-
bets and that of Hyllarima, in contrast with Sinuri (a letter for e is not
documented in Kildara, probably a matter of chance) and Stratonikeia.
This distribution of e-signs can be connected with the signs for l.
As in the case of e, Sinuri-Kildara and Stratonikeia coincide in the
form of the letter, L., while in the e-zone the situation is totally
dierent: in Mylasa there is no specic sign for l, l l carrying out its
function, and in Hyllarima a special letter L is used, probably a new
sign introduced more recently on the basis of Greek L or Carian l.
Unfortunately, in the case of Euromos, the only two inscriptions to
have been found do not help us to establish whether this connection
between the signs for e and l also existed there.
The explanation for these isographs is not clear: could they be the
result of a common origin for a group of alphabets, or rather the con-
sequence of a diusion? Our knowledge of Carian writing is still too
incomplete to give a clear answer. The case of Sinuri-Kildara and
Mylasa is particularly puzzling; the corresponding use of a special form
for y and the form of i, both features that point to a clear common
226 cn.r+rn ri\r
origin, is counterbalanced by the treatment in Mylasa of e and l. Giving
priority to certain signs to the detriment of others in order to explain
the relationship between both alphabetic variants, would be arbitrary.
5. The Relationship between the Alphabet from Egypt and the Local Alphabets
from Caria Proper
An initial conclusion can be drawn from a comparison of the alpha-
bet from Egypt with the local alphabets from Caria proper: none of
the alphabets of Caria proper identied until now can be considered
as the source of the alphabetic variety attested in Egypt. In theory, we
can formulate two extremely divergent hypotheses in order to explain
this circumstance: (1) the Carian alphabet of Egypt is a sort of
Uralphabet, prior to a dierentiation of the original Carian alphabet
into dierent local varieties, or; (2) the Carian alphabet of Egypt is
merely another local variety, with the particularity that we are yet to
nd any Carian inscriptions in the Carian area it comes from, and we
are thus unable to establish where this place was.
Certain characteristics of the Egyptian alphabet, which could be inter-
preted as archaic, could be used to support the rst hypothesis, in par-
ticular the existence of pairs of letters for vowels and semivowels (i/j,
u/v, W/w) against the reduction to a single series of vocalic signs in
the alphabets of Caria proper. Moreover, in the latter case, the split
observed within the local writings, where some use W for /y/ while
others resort to a letter that seems to come from w (V/W), could reinforce
this hypothesis of a more archaic system in Egypt. The chronology is
also favourable to this theory (the inscriptions from Egypt belong to
an earlier period) as is the homogeneity of the alphabet used in Egypt
set against the clear fragmentation within local varieties in Caria proper.
However, this hypothesis encounters some diculties: not all the vari-
ants of the letters found in the local alphabets of Caria proper can be
explained by the letters used in Egypt. The most notable case is the
letter for i; northern variants (y, Y) can hardly come directly from a
proto-form identical to the Egyptian shape of the letter (i), but instead
seem to indicate a common form that would share the angular form
of y, Y, and the horizontal trait visible in i (and also in other vari-
ants of the letter: , , I). The absence in Egypt of certain letters
found throughout the scripts of Caria proper (% and particularly ) is
further evidence that the Egyptian alphabet cannot be considered simply
as the Carian Uralphabet.
+nr c.ni.x .rrn.nr+ 227
Therefore, I believe that the second hypothesis must be preferred,
although it must be qualied taking into account the possible archaic
traits mentioned above. We can base the theory that the Carian alpha-
bet used in Egypt could represent a local variety on the following
evidence:
1. There is a very signicant gap in our epigraphical documentation
of Carian in Caria proper; leaving aside the only possible excep-
tion, which I shall address in the following point, there are no
inscriptions from most of the Carian coast. Only in Iasos and Kaunos
have we obtained epigraphical documentation. The rest of the known
local writings come from the inner part of Caria (Tralleis, Hyllarima,
Euromos, Mylasa, Stratonikeia, Sinuri, Kildara). It is therefore pos-
sible that the Carian mercenaries who arrived in Egypt by sea came
from coastal cities where no epigraphical documentation is available.
2. We have already commented on the Egyptian features recognizable
in a Carian inscription that could possibly come from Halikarnassos.
It is true that the Halikarnassean origin of this inscription is not
absolutely certain, and that it appears on an object that could easily
be moved, thus there is no guarantee that it reects the alphabetic
variety used in the place it was discovered. Yet despite this, a pos-
sible origin from Halikarnassos would be consistent with the coastal
origin of the Carian alphabet of Egypt.
3. Despite some clear dierences, the local writing most closely related
to the Egyptian alphabet is that of the coastal city of Kaunos.
4. Also, in one of the inscriptions from Iasos we nd important par-
allels with the Egyptian alphabet (C.Ia 3). Of course, the problem
mentioned for C.Ha 1 (that the object could easily have been moved)
is again an issue, but in this case at least the place in which it was
discovered is certain.
Is therefore possible that the Carian alphabet found in Egypt comes
from certain western, mostly coastal areas (Myndos, Halikarnassos,
Keramos, perhaps also Iasos, and others), where an alphabetic variety
still not clearly attested in Caria was used. A further argument can be
given, but it must be used with a degree of caution: the strong possi-
bility that in the onomastic formulae of Memphis, some ethnic names
appear (see below p. 269271). If we accept this hypothesis, some forms
become very meaningful: ksolb-, from Kasolaba, ugli-, from Suangela
228 cn.r+rn ri\r
(both cities near Halikarnassos), yjasi-, from Iasos, and kojol- from Kos.
17
The possibility that alos arnos may be the Carian form of the place
name Halikarnassos would also have some interesting consequences:
alos arnos appears in an inscription from Memphis (E.Me 45), which
would support the idea that this place was one of the points of origin
of the Carians in Egypt, and also in C.xx 2, one of the inscriptions of
unknown origin that contains an alphabet very close to the Egyptian
alphabetic variety. However, these examples cannot be considered as
conclusive, and must be used with care.
6. The Common Origin of the Carian Alphabetic Varieties
The existence of a number of strongly dierentiated alphabetic vari-
eties in Caria proper, and the hypothesis that the alphabetic variety
used in Egypt is not a sort of Uralphabet but rather another local
variety, does not preclude the possibility of an original unity behind
the divergent Carian local writing systems. There is clear evidence in
favour of a common origin for these varieties: all the alphabetic varieties
share the same aberrant sound values assigned to the Greek-looking letters. In
other words, it is the unexpected use of the Greek letters that allows
us to speak of a common origin for the Carian alphabetic varieties.
Had the Greek letters retained the same sound values as in Greek, a
polygenesis of the diverse local writings could be conceivable. Conversely,
the fact that q Q is q, b B is b, m M is m, and so on, in all the Carian
alphabets can only be explained by attributing them a single origin.
The (apparently) non-Greek letters also show consistent values in the
dierent local writing systems, which reinforces the hypothesis of a mono-
genesis of the Carian alphabet. Even the exceptions can in general be
easily explained. Note the case of Kaunian t (T): this letter (or others
of a similar shape) represents in the rest of the Carian alphabets,
where t is used for t. But the Kaunian situation is not a chaotic one,
and can be explained in the wider context of Carian writing: (1) T and
t letters share enough formal similarities to consider a single origin;
(2) in Kaunos, / is used for , a letter that seems to have been created
from T by means of a diacritic mark. The reason for the introduction
17
Cf. Adiego (2004:310).
+nr c.ni.x .rrn.nr+ 229
of this diacritic mark is, obviously, to dierentiate this letter from
Kaunian T t. This implies that (1) in a earlier period, T or a very sim-
ilar letter was used for in the Kaunian alphabet, and (2) the need
for introducing a diacritic mark was caused by a sort of evolution of
the letter for t, which led to an excessive similarity between the letters
for t (> T) and for (already T). The starting point of Kaunian T t is
not attested but the abovementioned formal similarities between t and
T point to a t, or at least to a form equally similar to both t and T.
In conclusion, before Kaunian T and / there seems to have existed a
pair of letters that were very close to those present in the rest of the
Carian alphabets (t, T/F/f).
18
We can now imagine a sort of Carian Uralphabet that would include
at least all of the letters attested in all, or at least most, of the Carian
local varieties. The resulting Carian Uralphabet could be the following:
Carian Uralphabet
a a x X
d D d n N n
l l p p
W y z Z
r R r I I Y y i
L 2 l e 2 e
q Q q w
b B 5 b k K k
m M m & d
o o v w
t T t 0 8 g ?
f F (> /) 1 9 9 z
s s j T _ j
H (?) c C (O ?) t
u U u $ 4 ( ? & ?) b
In this inventory only four letters, of more limited use, are missing:
18
The evolution that led to Kaunian T and / strongly recalls the process that
occurred in Latin regarding P and R: the rst letter, originally G, changed to P, and
consequently, the original P become R.
230 cn.r+rn ri\r

1
(?)
% ? 6
Obviously, this Uralphabet is only a very hypothetical assumption,
and it may possibly be too rigid, insofar as some letters could have
been created after the dierentiation of the local varieties, and could
have arrived to a wide number of alphabets as the result of diusion.
Also, some or all of the four letters excluded from the hypothetical
Uralphabet could have existed in the original inventory of signs. But
irrespective of the exact number of letters present in the original alpha-
bet, the key fact is that the total number of dierent letters identied
to date is 34, and that they never appear all together in a single alpha-
betic variety. The highest number of dierent letters documented in a
local writing variety is 31 (in Memphis). This means that the Carian
alphabet, although it seems highly anomalous from a formal point of
view, given the strange phonetic values of a lot of signs, is much more
normal from a functional perspective: both the possible Carian orig-
inal alphabet and the dierent local varieties contain a number of let-
ters that do not dier greatly from either the Greek alphabet or from
the non-Hellenic alphabets of Anatolia (Phrygian, Lydian, Lycian, even
Sidetic). The former image of a writing system characterized by a huge
number of letters, which led to speculations about a semi-syllabic char-
acter, has now been clearly superseded thanks to our better under-
standing of the local dierences and of the values of the letters.
B. Tnr Onioix or +nr C.ni.x Arrn.nr+
As has been repeatedly mentioned, the most striking trait of the Carian
alphabet following its decipherment is that most of the alleged Greek
letters have an aberrant phonetic value in Carian. Strictly speaking,
only the letters a o u s show a good correspondence between form
and value from a Greek point of view. The rest of the Greek letters
have unexpected values, and while in some cases these could be explained
phonologically (for example, the value /l/ for l), many other forms
cannot: t = /t/, n = /n/, m M = /m/, r R = /r/, etc. At rst sight,
the Carian alphabet seems to have suered a metakharakterisms (to
use Gusmanis expression, Gusmani 1994:120) which clearly contravenes
+nr c.ni.x .rrn.nr+ 231
the stability principle present in the Lycian, Lydian and Phrygian
alphabets, according to which the letters for sounds common to both
Greek and the language that borrows the Greek alphabet are included
in the new alphabet, retaining their respective original forms and pho-
netic values.
19
How, then, do we explain this clear anomaly in the Carian alpha-
bet? The hypothesis of a chaotic, arbitrary assignment of phonetic val-
ues to Greek letters cannot be ruled out, given that several parallels
exist in the adoption of Western writing systems by illiterate people in
modern times. However, this is absolutely the exception in the Anatolian
context. In addition, this hypothesis is a very frustrating one: if we
acknowledge a free attribution of phonetic values, the Carian alphabet
is rendered an inexplicable unicum. Moreover, the chaos hypothesis
does not explain why some letters did conserve their Greek phonetic
value (the abovementioned a o u s), and overlooks other possible
points of contact between Greek, Carian and other Anatolian alpha-
bets: for example the letter p for /p/, so closely linked to Lydian beta
b, whose value is also /p/.
It is precisely these possible points of contact that have led me to
develop an alternative hypothesis: that the Carian alphabet was origi-
nally also an alphabet of Greek origin, based on the same stability prin-
ciple as Phrygian, Lydian or Lycian (Adiego 1998b). The main dierence
is that this rst Carian alphabet, or the Greek model on which it was
based, underwent a strong process of cursivization that dramatically
altered the form of many letters. According to this hypothesis, Carian
t (qoppa-sign) would come from a H, m M from a m, n N from a
n and so on. My hypothesis requiresand this is perhaps its weakest
pointthat at a certain moment in the history of the Carian alpha-
bet, the strongly cursivized graphical system underwent a sort of restruc-
turing to a system of capital letters, so to speak, and that to this end
Greek capital letters were again used as models, although in this case
only from a formal point of view and without consideration of their
phonetic values. A qoppa could inspire the new form for the /t/-letter,
a ny for the /m/-letter, and so on. This could also explain why the
letter H, a very poorly documented letter, and one whose phonetic
value is still unknown, has the shape of one of the most common Greek
letters.
19
For this stability principle (principe de stabilit), see Boisson (1994).
232 cn.r+rn ri\r
If we follow to its logical conclusion the hypothesis that the Carian
alphabet was originally totally comparable to the Phrygian, Lydian and
Lycian alphabets regarding the stability principle, we must assume that,
like in Phrygian, Lydian, and Lycian alphabets, the majority of the
Carian signs that represent sounds existing in Greek originate from the
corresponding Greek letters. This assumption was developed in Adiego
(1998b), (2004:315317). The following table represents, with some cor-
rections and updates, the hypothesis formulated in Adiego (2004) for
each Carian letter of the Uralphabet.
Letter Value Possible origin
a a Greek. a /a/
d D d Greek lD /d/
l l Greek B /l/
W y Originally a non-Greek value
Perhaps a modication of r /w/?
r R r Greek T /r/
L 2 l Non-Greek value
Note in Hylllarima L, directly from Greek B /l/ plus
diacritic mark
q Q q Greek value? In any case, an origin from Greek t
seems likely
b B 5 b Greek B (?). Note the archaic forms of beta in
Crete
m M m Greek M (more exactly a M form)
o o Greek O
t T t Greek T
f F (> /) Non-Greek value
s s Greek M san or S sigma
H (?) ? (most probably with a non-Greek value)
u U u Greek U
x X Non-Greek value
Modication of one of the tectal letters K /k/ q q x /k
h
/?
n N n Greek N
p p Greek B (cf. Lydian b /p/)
z Z Non-Greek value
Related to sampi-letter 3?
I I Y y i Greek E /e/, E or EI /ej/ (> closed /e/)?

e 2 e Greek E, H //
w Non-Greek value
A modication of Carian e?
k K k Greek K /k/ or rather N /k
h
/?
,
(continued on next page)
+nr c.ni.x .rrn.nr+ 233
& d Non-Greek value (at least originally)
A ligature of Greek ll /dd/?
v w Non-Greek value (?)
A modication of r /w/?
0 8 g ? Non-Greek value
1 9 9 z Non-Greek value (?)
j T _ j Non-Greek value
Perhaps related to Phrygian letter for /j/, y, Y
c C (O ?) t Non-Greek value
Related to sampi-letter 3?
$ 4 b Non-Greek value (at least originally)
( ? & ?) A ligature of Carian bb /bb/?
Note in Hyllarima the use of B directly from Greek
It is clear that this hypothesis poses serious problems that make it
dicult to accept: it forces us to assign a very high chronology to a
cursivized writing system. No examples in favour of this old phase of
the Greek or Carian alphabets exist and consequently, the evolution-
ary processes proposed for each Carian letter, no matter how con-
vincing they may seem, are totally ad hoc.
20
However, this is, together
with the hypothesis of a purely chaotic imitation of a Greek model,
the only solution that I am able to imagine, if one intends to prove
that the Carian alphabet comes from the Greek alphabet. Alternative
hypotheses would have to accept the intervention of other writing sys-
tems that could be responsible for the nal form of the Carian alpha-
bet, and such a solution turns out to be an obscurum per obscurius, since
these supposed writing systems are unknown.
20
In any case, I consider that the parallel examples in other writing systems, although
they are not at all useful as evidence, do oer some support several explanatory hypothe-
ses on the origin of the Carian letters. This is the case of the South-Picenian letters
for t or q, see Adiego (1998b:68).
table (cont.)
Letter Value Possible origin
CHAPTER SIX
PHONOLOGICAL FEATURES
A. Tnr Pnoxorooic.r Svs+rv
In the present section, I will try to illustrate the phonological system
of Carian. This goal can be achieved only in an approximate way, by
interpreting the graphemes of Carian on a twofold basis: from the cor-
respondences between Carian letters and how they are reected in the
adaptation of Carian names in Greek and Egyptian, and from the rela-
tionships between graphemes within the Carian graphical system. The
degree of precision in describing the Carian phonological system can-
not be particularly high. In many cases, we can only attain a very
generic characterization of the phonological values of the graphemes.
I will try to avoid excessively Byzantine arguments. Firstly, I will attempt
to establish a descriptive table of possible Carian phonemes. A further
section will explore the Anatolian background of these phonemes.
1. Vowels and Semivowels
The inventory of possible graphemes for vowels and semivowels varies
in the dierent sub-corpora of Carian inscriptions. In general terms,
we can divide these into three areas: (a) the Egypto-Carian inventory,
(b) the Carian (except Kaunos) inventory, and (c) the Kaunos inven-
tory. Despite the dierences between these three types, I believe that
some interesting generalizations can be traced, so that the resulting sys-
tems are coherent and can be easily inter-related.
(a) The Egypto-Carian inventory is the most complete. Here we nd
9 dierent graphemes for vocalic (in a broad sense, including possi-
ble semivowels) phonemes: a e i o u y j w .
(b) In the Carian inventory, the graphemes are reduced to 6: a, e,
i, o, u, y (for y, the letter in most of the alphabets is W; in Sinuri-
Kildara, V; in Mylasa, W).
(c) In the Kaunos alphabet, the inventory is limited to 5 dierent
graphemes: a, i, o, u, y.
rnoxorooic.r rr.+tnrs 235
The most remarkable fact is undoubtedly that the Egypto-Carian sys-
tem displays a higher number of graphemes than the other two sys-
tems. How can this discrepancy be explained? During the decipherment
process, it became evident that the Egypto-Carian system contains
graphic alternations: i alternates with j, u alternates with w, and y alter-
nates with :
i/j u/w y/
i/j pnuol/pnwol mdayn/mdan
(psmkw)neit/(pd)nejt uksmu/wksmu-
(ar)kbiom/kbjom- upe/wpe
arnai-/arnaj-s uol/wol
wliat/wljat
yiasi/yjas[i-]
These alternations certainly cannot be explained as morphological, because
they appeared in dierent positions and in some cases, although not
all, no morphological dierences between the words implied could be
observed. The simplest solution, at least in the case of i/j, u/w has
already been suggested in earlier works (see Adiego 1994a:4748): j and
w seemed to be the graphemes for the semivowels corresponding to i
and u respectively. It is true that in some cases an interpretation of j
and w as semivowels is not absolutely clear, but in such cases, it is
plausible that the semivowels were used for their corresponding vow-
els on occasions. The advantage of this hypothesis is that it allows us
to explain the relationship between the Egypto-Carian and Carian sys-
tems in a straightforward way; given that the Egypto-Carian system is
chronologically older than the actual Carian inventories, a graphemic
reduction process could take place, so that the use of specic graphemes
for the semivowels /j/ and /w/ was abandoned, and the simple vocalic
letters /i/, /u/ were used in their place. This could be used to explain
a form such as uol in Hyllarima vs. wol in Egypt.
The situation is not so clear in the case of y vs. ; while for i/j and
u/w, an opposition vowel (i, u)/semivowel ( j, w) can be established,
both from their distribution properties and from the survival of i, u in
the reduced systems of Caria itself, neither of these criteria is valid in
establishing the dierence between y and . The number of appear-
ances is very similar, but the only clear example of alternation is not
sucient to attribute to one or the other letter a vowel vs. semivowel
value, and in the case of the alphabets of Caria itself, while W continues
236 cn.r+rn six
as a vocalic sign in many alphabets (including Kaunos), the letters V/W
of Kildara-Sinuri-Mylasa seems to be closer to w than to W. In any
case, I believe that the hypothesis of a vowel/semivowel opposition for
explaining both the existence of two graphemes in the Egypto-Carian
system and the reduction to one grapheme in the Carian proper and
the Kaunos systems is also the simplest solution for y/. The sole unre-
solved problem would be to ascertain which of the letters represents
the vowel sound, and which the semivowel. In the transcription system
adopted here, preference is given to W, transcribed y, but this must be
taken as a purely conventional solution.
According to this hypothesis, systems (a) and (b) coincide in that they
both consist of six dierent vocalic sounds, a, e, i, o, u, y, to which
three graphemes for the semivowels corresponding to the closest vocalic
sounds (i, u, y) are added in (a) ( j, w, ). In the Kaunos system, where
there are no specic graphemes for semivowels, the most notable char-
acteristic is the absence of an e vowel.
As for the phonological value attributed to each vocalic letter, the
transcription system adopted here aims to oer a broad reection of
the quality of the vowels:
a is used to adapt Greek a in Lusikrthw = lysikrata-, `Ekataow =
ktai -. Conversely, a corresponds systematically to a sound transcribed
in Greek as <a>: ada = Ada; kilara = Kildara; par(a)- (in para-eym,
par-yri) = Para- (in Para-ussvllow, Par-ussvldow, Para-udigow; aruol
= Sarusvllow.
e is used for Greek h in the name Olidhw (Carian uliade). In Greek,
Carian e is adapted systematically by means of <h>: mane = Manhw;
pleq- = Peldhkow; qtblem- = Kotbelhmow, Kutbelhmiw; somne- = Svmnhw.
i is used to adapt Greek i: Lusiklw = lysikla-; Lusikrthw = lysikrata;
Nikoklw = nik[]la-; Olidhw = uliade. Note also Ipposynhw = i[]ini.
This latter example also demonstrates the use of Carian i to reect
Greek e, but one must note that the example comes from Kaunos,
where no specic letter for e-sounds (Greek e, h) existed.
1
Conversely,
Carian i/j is transcribed in Greek as i: ari = Ar(r)issiw; arli = Arlissiw;
ibarsi-/ibrsi- = Imbarsiw, Imbras(s)iw; (ar)kbiom/kbjom- = Kebivmow;
pikre/pikra = Pigrhw.
1
The adaptation in Kaunos of Greek e by means of Car. i vs. that of Greek h by
means of Car. a seems therefore an attempt to reect the dierent sound qualities of
(close) e and (open) h.
rnoxorooic.r rr.+tnrs 237
o is represented by Greek v: (ar)kbiom/kbjom- = Kebivmow; ksolb- =
cf. Kasvlba; ktmno, tmo = Ekatomnvw; msnord- = cf. Masanvrda;
plqo = Pel(l)ekvw; somne- = Svmnhw; uol (and compounds) = Ussvllow
(and compounds); yrqso- = Urgosvw.
<u> is used to reect Greek ou in Olidhw = uliade. Conversely,
Carian <u>/<w> corresponds to Greek <ou>, <u>, <o>: quq, dquq =
Gugow, Idagugow; pun-wol- = Pon-usvllow; tu- = Tonnouw; wljat/wliat =
Oliatow/Uliatow; uol/wol = Ussvllow.
For the phonological value of y/, the Greek-Carian bilingual inscrip-
tion of Kaunos C.Ka 5 clearly supports the argument for a /y/ (semi-
vowel /w/) sound; in this inscription, W y is used in the Carian adaptation
of the Greek names Lusiklw and Lusikrthw (lysiklas[, lysikratas[ ). This
is consistent with the systematic use of Greek u for the transcription of
y/ in the Carian names: ayriq (E.Me 25) = Saurigow, yrqso (C.My 1) =
Urgosvw, etc. Unlike u, no examples of Greek ou, o for Carian y, are
documented in Carian personal names of Greek sources. Therefore, it
seems that the best explanation for the apparent proliferation of u-
letters in Egypto-Carian (a puzzling aspect of earlier works, see Adiego
1993a:273275) is to assume that in Carian there were two [+ high],
[+ rounded] vowels, /u/ and /y/, dierentiated by their back vs. front
articulation, respectively, and that in Egypto-Carian each one of these
sounds had a specic grapheme for the corresponding semivocalic glides
(/w/, /w/).
In Kaunian the vocalic system is reduced to ve vowels: /i, a, o, u,
y/. There is no e, and this absence is apparent in the adaptation of
Greek names, where a is used for h: both Lusiklw and Lusikrthw
appear as a-stems in lysikla-, lysikrata-. More obscure is the case of the
ethnic otonosn (accusative) for Athenian. The presence of o for Greek
h (Aynai, Ayhnaow) seems inseparable from the apparent vocalic
metaphony that has converted the three vowels of the Carian form into
o. The trigger for this metaphony could be the nal vowel: the Greek
-stem would have been adapted as an o-stem, and this o would have
caused the metaphony (atano- > otono-, see below p. 259). It is irrele-
vant if the original form for Athens in Kaunian was in fact a Doric
form with a long a instead of h or not, because both and would
be adapted as a in Kaunian, as shown above by the personal names.
2
2
Blmel (1998b:172173) has argued convincingly against a Doric model for the
Carian word, pointing out, among other things, that Kaunian Greeks did not speak
Doric.
238 cn.r+rn six
The Defective Notation of Vowels
One of the most dicult problems posed by Carian vocalism is the
apparently defective notation of vowels. This phenomenon can be
detected above all in the comparison of the Carian nouns with their
adaptation in Greek (1), but also in alternations within Carian docu-
mentation (2), and by comparing several Lycian (and Milyan) parallel
forms (3):
(1)
artmonArtmvn
dquqIdagugow
kbjomKebivmow
ksolb(place name) Kasvlaba
ktaisEkataow
ktmno, tmoEkatomnvw
msnord(place name) Masanvrada
ntrocf. Neter-bimow, Lyc. Natr-bbijemi
pardParaudigow
plqoPel(l)ekvw
pleqPeldhkow
pmnnPonmoonnow
qlaliKolaldiw, Kulaldiw
qtblemKutbelhmiw, Kotbelhmow
qblsi(ethnic) Kubliss//ow//
ugli(place name) Souaggela
tuTonnouw
ylarm-it(place name) Ullarima
(2)
brsiibrsiibarsi
dwoliduol
kbidn/kbdyn
yrpaiyrapai
mdayn, mdanmwdon
pikrmpikarm
pnuolpunwol (Ponussvllow)
psmk(wneit)psmakpismak/pismak
sdi(sas)sidi
r(quq)ar(kbiom, etc.) (Greek Sar-)
rnoxorooic.r rr.+tnrs 239
trqd-trqude cf. Lycian Trqqt-
ttbazittubazi
urmurom
(3)
sbcf. Mil. sebe
btcf. Lyc. ubete
To these examples we may add a number of forms that display chains
of consonants without vowels: adymd, atmsk, ankbu[, (idrayri)dsemd
?
bq,
pdamu, snn, saidlo, tbridbd, etc.
Some of these examples could be interpreted as the result of syllabic
liquids and nasals that in Greek must be represented with the aid of
a vowel. This explanation is valid for forms such as tu- vs. Tonnouw
or vs. on in pmnn- vs. Ponmoonnow. Moreover, several internal alter-
nations such as pikrm-/pikarm- or r-/ar- point to a syllabic liquid,
which develops an intrusive vowel in Carian (see below p. 262). But
this explanation does not account for many other forms in which the
interpretation of liquids or nasals as syllabic nuclei is less plausible; in
the case of msnord- vs. Masanvrada, an interpretation as /.s.o.d/
seems very unlikely. Also in examples like ntro, ntokris, it seems unlikely
that n can be a syllabic nasal in direct contact with t: a sequence -nt-
seems to have evolved into -nd- and is systematically noted by means
of a specic letter, d (trqd, trqud, cf. CLuw. Tarunt-). In other cases,
there are no liquids or nasals involved at all: sb vs. Lyc. sebe, kt vs
Ekat etc.
Yet conversely, if in several cases the inclusion of intrusive vowels
in Greek adaptations could be seen as an attempt to resolve the diculties
of pronouncing some consonant groups in Greek (for example dq
dag in dquq Idagugow), this explanation is unfeasible when applied
to cases such as qlali- Ko/ulaldiw, where kl was phonotactically
available in Greek. This explanation also fails to account for internal
alternations within Carian ( pn/pun, d/id). Therefore, at least in a
considerable number of cases, we must accept the actual existence in
Carian of vowels that are not reected graphically. The question of
how to explain this defective notation of vowels is indeed a very dicult
one. Can one assume that Carian writing shows the vestiges of a graph-
ical system wherein vowels were not noted? This hypothesis would have
fascinating implications for the origin of the Carian alphabet, since it
could imply that Carian writing was borrowing from a graphical
240 cn.r+rn six
system very close to the Semitic model of the Greek alphabet, that is
to say from a purely consonantal system. But this hypothesis, attrac-
tive as it may seem at rst sight, runs into serious obstacles. The use
of vowel signs is generally very consistent; no forms such as **ul or
even **l besides uol or **kbjm besides kbjom are found, forms which
one would expect to nd if the defective notation of vowels was a
purely graphical question. Moreover, in general, at least one vowel sign
is found in each independent Carian word, a particularity that war-
rants an explanation.
3
Given that these consistencies are more important than occasional
alternations like dwol-/iduol-, a linguistic basis for the defective nota-
tion of vowels seems more likely. The possibility that the omitted vow-
els is a sort of schwa-sound can explain some cases, particularly those
in which a vowel a or e is found in the Greek adaptations. Note par-
ticularly an alternation like Ussaldvmow/Usseldvmow. Even in some
examples of Greek o/u vs. in Carian, the back character of the schwa-
vowel could be attributed to a secondary backing caused by the pre-
ceding consonant; in all of these cases, the sound preceding the unrecorded
back vowel is q, a possible uvular sound (see below p. 244). However,
this explanation would make it dicult to explain i in dwol- vs. iduol.
Perhaps then we are dealing not with schwa-like vowels, but simply with
non-stressed, short vowels (*a, *e, *i, *o/u) vs. stressed and/or long vow-
els. Finally, another factor that could account for the presence of vow-
els in Greek and their absence in Carian has been conveniently noted
by Tremblay (1998:119); it is possible that some Carian names were
borrowed by Greek before certain processes of vowel weakening or loss
took place in Carian. Tremblay (ibid.) put forward an important argu-
ment in favour of this hypothesis, suggesting that some indirect Greek
forms seem to be more archaic than the direct Carian equivalents (note
for instance the absence of original medial i in the ethnic ylarmit vs.
Greek Ullarima, if it continues the cuneiform place name Wallarima).
4
3
Exceptions like sb are undoubtedly connected to the fact that this type of word
always appears attached to the following word (sb=polo, sb=ada, etc.), which would sug-
gest a proclitic nature. In other cases such as snn, the presence of syllabic nasals could
explain the absence of vowels.
4
Other examples given by Tremblay (ibid.) seem to me less compelling. Also the
attempt of elaborating a relative chronology (Tremblay 1998:117118) is in my opin-
ion premature.
rnoxorooic.r rr.+tnrs 241
The tendency to omit unstressed vowels (whether schwa-like vowels
or simply short vowels, without discarding an actual vowel loss) would
be a satisfactory explanation for the above statement that at least one
vowel per word is noted in Carian writing. It could also explain the
apparently morphological alternation found in the place name kbid-n
vs. the ethnic form in pl. acc. kbdyn-, where stress movement would
be responsible for the i/ alternation: /kbi.dn/ /kb(i).dy.n(V)/.
In cases like ibrsi/brsi, trqude/trqd-, sidi/sdi, the notation vs. absence
of notation of the vowels seems inseparable from the type of conso-
nant that immediately follows the relevant vowel: b and d are at least
originally *mb, *nd respectively (see below). The presence vs. absence
of a full vowel is consistent therefore with an alternation between a
syllabic nasal , and a Vm, Vn sequence (or a nasalized vowel)
(/imbrsi/, / brsi/ ~ //brsi/, /trqund-/, /trq ud-/ ~ /trqd-/, /sindi/,
/s di/ ~ /sdi/).
When w, j appear as a seemingly syllabic nucleus, there is some
doubt about their real value. Are they simply used instead of the purely
vocalic letters (i, u, respectively) or must they be interpreted as true
semivowels, omitting the vowel that accompanies them? Many exam-
ples are ambiguous, and point to either one interpretation or the other.
We must rst of all note that in the case of j, the instances of an
(apparent) syllabic use are extremely scarce: generally, j appears with
a clear semivocalic function, immediately preceding and/or following
a vowel (wljat(), arjom, pdnejt, pjabrm, kbjom, kojol). In the entire Saqqra
sub-corpus, only a single example of j in a syllabic position can be
found: j in E.Me 36, which seems to be merely an uncommon use of
j instead of i (cf. the systematic spelling i of this frequently used word
in the rest of the inscriptions of the sub-corpus). In the other Carian
inscriptions, I have found only two unclear examples in Thebes, an
equally complicated form in Silsilis, and the words pjdl in C.xx1 and
jzpemdane in C.xx2. All of these forms are ambiguous.
The situation of w is markedly dierent; the examples of this letter
in a syllabic position are far more frequent. Ultimately a single, com-
prehensive solution for all cases is simply impossible to nd. Cases such
as wpe (E.Me 36, E.Me 41) seem to point to a simple graphical alter-
nation with u (cf. the more spread form upe for this word). Conversely,
the systematic use of w in the spelling of the (possibly) ethnic word
mwdon (mwton 1x), widely documented in Saqqra, supports its inter-
pretation as a true semivowel followed (or preceded) by an un-notated
vowel.
242 cn.r+rn six
The behaviour of the names of the uol-family in the Saqqra sub-
corpus also substantiates the use of w for w(V); in this case, the name
uol, both in its solitary and compounded forms, appears with u when
in nominative case, but with w when in genitive: pnuol (E.Me 19),
tduol (E.Me 24), aruol (E.Me 30) vs. wol (E.Me 12), punwol (E.Me
13), dwol (E.Me 35).
5
A compelling explanation for this situation could
be that there was a stress displacement, with /uol/ vs. /w(V).ol/.
In the genitives, the unstressed vowel would not be notated graphically,
and w would represent a true semivowel preceding it. This hypothesis
has a counter-example: in Thebes a nominative pnwol is found. However,
in the Saqqra sub-corpus the rule functions well and the examples
seem to go some way towards supporting this explanation. It is also
corroborated by the likely connection of uol with the family of nouns
ending in -uassiw (Aktauassiw, Panuassiw, Saruassiw, cf. also Oa3a3iw),
where a *wa- basis could be reconstructed.
Also in the case of the names wljat, wliat, arwljat- and r-wli, the
etymological connections proposed (see Chapter 11, s. v. wliat) point to
original *waliat-, *wali- forms.
2. Consonants
Voiceless Stops
The following ve voiceless stops can be recognized in Carian:
p t/T xX kK q/Q
p t k q
Labial p, dental t and velar k do not pose any particular problems.
The phonological value of the corresponding letters has been rmly
established in previous works and it should be sucient here to pro-
vide a few relevant examples:
p is used to adapt Egyptian p and Greek p in proper nouns: pismak
(and variants) = Psmtk, pdnejt = P3djNjt, pidaru = Pndarow. Conversely,
Egyptian p and Greek p reect Carian p in Carian personal names:
paraeym = Prjm, pnuol = Ponussvllow, pikre = Pigrhw, etc.
If the explanation of npro (in nprosn) as a Carian version of the
Egyptian name Nfr-r (Nefervw) is accepted (Schrr 1996a:68, n. 18,
5
Adiego (1993a:273).
rnoxorooic.r rr.+tnrs 243
Vittmann 2001:42), it could serve as a good example of an Egyptian
f adapted to p in Carian. See Chapter 11, s. v.
t is used for Egyptian t and for Greek t, and also y (/t
h
/): pdnejt =
P3djNjt, ntokris = Nj.t-jqr (Nitvkriw), lysikrata-s = Lusikrthw, otono-sn =
Ayhna-. This latter example conrms the absence of voiceless aspirate
stops in Carian, the corresponding Greek ones being adapted by means
of the simple voiceless stop. For the use of Greek t for Carian t in
personal names, cf. wljat (and variants) = Uliatow, Oliatow, tu = Tonnouw,
etc.
k is used for Egyptian k in the abovementioned personal names pismak
(and variants), ntokris, and for Greek k in the names lysiklas[ and lysikratas[
= Lusiklw, Lusikrthw. k is used for k in the adaptation of Carian
nouns: kbjom = Kebivmow, kilara- = Kildara/Killara, ksolb cf. Kasvlaba.
Note also the equivalence of Carian kbidn Kaunos = Lycian Xbide id.
(with Lycian <x> = /k/)
The exact values of and q are less clear. That represents a tec-
tal sound is easily deducible from the use of Egyptian k in the tran-
scription of the Carian name ursle, 3rskr. For this letter, a palatal value
(palatal stop [c] or palatalized velar stop [k
j
]) can be envisaged, although
the argument is based only on comparative evidence: its use in the
(originally) relative pronoun i, whose Anatolial proto-form is *k
w
is (Hitt.,
CLuw. kui ). It is plausible to imagine that Carian has undergone a
process similar to Milyan: the labiovelar stop has rst been delabial-
ized (*k
w
is > *ki, with loss of the nal s) and then palatalized before i
(*ki > /k
j
i/ or /ci/, Milyan ki [ci]). In Lycian, /ci/ has eventually
become /ti/, completing the fronting process.
6
The palatal character of is also recognizable in the striking alter-
nation /k, shown by the name ktmno (Thebas) vs. tmo (Sinuri). Here,
if k and t were in contact, t could have caused the fronting of k to .
Certainly, the Greek form of the name, Ekatomnvw, with a between k
and t, seems contradict the existence of a contact between the two
stops, but it is possible that the Greek form has undergone the ana-
logical inuence of the goddess name Hekate, so that the a vowel
would be absent in the original Carian name.
7
An alternative view, fol-
lowing on from Tremblay (see above) could be to assume that the
6
This explanation was formulated for the rst time in Adiego (1995:2931).
7
It is interesting to recall that Ekatomnvw can plausibly be seen as a pure Greek
name, as Neumann has repeatedly pointed out, see Neumann (1994:17).
244 cn.r+rn six
Greek form reects a more archaic stage than Carian, and that in this
latter language a syncope would have taken place, permitting a con-
tact between k and t. In any case, it seems more than a mere coinci-
dence that the same name appears in Lycian spelled as katamla, with
k [c], not x [k].
Apart from ursle and tmo-, there are no more clear examples of
onomastic identications where would be included: the connection of
alos(d) arnos(d) with the place name Halikarnassos remains very doubt-
ful. In any case, it would only be useful for conrming the tectal value
of the sound. As for psimt, although its connection with the well-
known Egyptian name Potasimto (P3-dj-r-sm3-t3wy, shorter form P3-
dj-sm3-t3wy, Greek Potasimto) suggested by Schrr (apud Ray 1994:205)
is a compelling theory, the phonetic details of the Carian adaptation
of the name remain obscure to me.
The tectal character of q is also beyond question; in the Greek adap-
tation of Carian names it is systematically represented by k or g: qtblem
= Kutbelhmiw, qlali, qlalis = Kolaldiw, Kulaldiw, quq = Gugow etc. In
the bilingual inscription E.Sa 2, the Carian name qyri is adapted in
Egyptian as K3rr, with the use of the biliteral sign <k3> for ku ~ q
(Vittmann 1996). It is also used in the possible Carian adaptation of
the Egyptian name Ny-k3w, Nekw, niqau.
This letter appears in several of examples followed by o, u (triqo, plqo,
quq, trqude, etc.), and o, u are also the vowels used in Greek after k
when this latter corresponds to a q in contexts of defective vowel nota-
tion (qlali, qlali = Kolaldiw, qtblem = Kutbelhmiw, Kotbelhmow, per-
haps also qtblo = Kotobalvw, and this would seem to point to a back
articulation of q (uvular /q/?)
Occasionally, both k and q (there are no examples available for ) are
rendered in Greek through a voiced velar stop: pikre = Pigrhw, yrqso =
Urgosvw, quq = Gugow, dquq = Idagugow. The two rst examples can be
easily categorized as allophonic; k, q would tend to become voiced in
contact with the sonorant r (note the alternative spelling Pikrhw for the
second name, which conrms the rather spontaneous and irregular voic-
ing phenomenon). More delicate is the case of (Ida)-gugow, wherein the
spelling of the two voiced stops is systematic, making possible the exis-
tence of true tectal voiced sounds, not noted graphically in Carian.
An alternation /q can be identied in the family of names in yriq/yri
(= Greek -urigow), note ayriq vs. idyri-, paryri(-), and perhaps also in
diq/d (adiq- vs. pard- ) (for the possible common origin of yriq-
and diq- stems, see below pp. 262263). It would be dicult to oer
rnoxorooic.r rr.+tnrs 245
a clear explanation of this alternation if the rather distant sound val-
ues argued here ( palatal vs. q uvular) are accepted.
Voiced Obstruents(?)
b B 5 d D
b /b/ [b]? d /d/ []?
The Greek rendering of Carian names, along with additional evidence
from Egyptian and Lycian, conrms the point of articulation and the
voiced character of these two letters:
b is rendered by b: kbjom = Kebivmow, ksolb , cf. (place name) Kasvlaba,
katbrJanduberiw, qtblem = Kutbelhmiw, Kotbelhmow, qblsi , cf. the
ethnic Kublissew, etc.
In addition to this evidence, we must also consider the use of Carian
b for Egyptian b in some personal names of Egyptian origin: ttbazi,
ttubazi = T3-dj(.t)-b3st.t (Tetobastiw), pdubez = P3-dj-b3st.t, Petobastiw,
Petoubestiw. The comparison with Lycian and Milyan reinforces this
phonological value; as well as the correspondence between the Carian
and the Lycian name of Kaunos, Car. kbid-, Lyc. Xbide, the lexical
equivalences Car. sb and = Mil. sebe, Car. bt = Lyc. ubete oered
are also very signicant.
d is adapted as d in Greek: ada = Ada, dquq = Idagugow, dwol,
iduol = Idussvllow, msnord cf. place name Masanvrada, ardybyr =
Arduberow. Conversely, Carian d reects Greek d in the name uliade =
Olidhw.
Carian d is used to render Egyptian d: pdnejt = P3djNjt.
A good example of the correspondence Carian d: Lycian d is the
word ted associated with Lycian tedi father.
It seems that there is no letter for /g/ [g]. See above for Greek g
corresponding to <k>, <q> in Carian.
It is possible that b, d were articulated as fricatives in intervocalic
position, as is the case in Lycian, but there is no direct evidence for
this type of articulation. Our suspicions are based mostly on the exis-
tence of the letters & d and /4/B/ b: they represented, at least
originally, clusters of nasal + voiced stop (*/nd/, */mb/), precisely the
context typical for the articulation of voiced obstruents as stops vs. the
fricative realisation of these sounds in most other contexts (cf. the sim-
ilar situation in Lycian). But the doubts concerning the real sound value
of <d> and <b> in Carian (see below) are sucient to cast doubt on
the fricative character of b, d.
&
246 cn.r+rn six
It is also possible that in an initial position, the original /b/ and
/d/ have become voiceless, as in Lycian. However, the Carian docu-
mentation is not as clear as the Lycian evidence. Although examples
of b and d are scarce, and some of them can be interpreted as the
result of a lack of notation of the initial vowel (for instance, dquq =
Idagugow), there is not enough evidence to support the assertion that
all the examples of initial b and d must be interpreted in this way.
As for the indirect documentation, the number of forms with initial b
and d is also minimal, and in a considerable part of these a contact with
a sonorant r, l, n could be responsible for an allophonic voicing of a voice-
less stop: Bruajiw/Bruassiw, Brvlow (personal names), Broula, Bridaw
(place names), and perhaps also Beryaw, Berrablviow, Dandvmow, Daru..ow,
Dersvmanhw, Dersvw, Dersv . . . tiw (personal names), Brgasa/Brgaza,
Barglia, Bolli.evn (place names). A good argument in favour of this
explanation is the alternation P-/B- attested by the name Brgas/Prgasa.
The remaining examples of B- and D- would thus become very scarce
(personal names: Boivmow, Deibow, place names: Babein, Bvnitv, Bubassw
and variants, Bvrand//a//, Ddmasa, Didassai, Ddumaalthough this
is doubtful, as it could have been inuenced by Greekand Dndason).
An alternative explanation for some of these words, to my knowl-
edge not proposed until now, would be to assume that the Greek ini-
tials B- and D- are in fact a reection of Carian <b> (< *(V)mb) and
<d> (< *(V)nd ). This explanation is plausible at least in the case of
the name Dersvw, which could be compared simultaneously with
Andarsvw/Androsvw and with dar (if a PN). Also Brvlow, if from
*(V)mbrol-, could be connected to the family of names in (i)br- (cf. par-
ticularly para-ibrel-). The absence of an initial vowel in the Greek adap-
tation would correspond precisely to the situation in Carian, where we
nd vis--vis forms both with an initial vowel (vgr. ibrsi-) and without
it (vgr. brsi-).
Arguing in favour of a devoicing process of b in an initial position,
we should nally mention a good indication found directly in Carian:
the internal alternation seen in Carian between piks- and dbiks, pik(a)rm
and dbikrm, where b is clearly etymological (bik- < PIE *b
h
h
2
-).
Voiced Stops or Nasal + Voiced Stops
, 4, (Hyllarima) B, (Mylasa) &
b d
/mb/ or /b/? /nd/ or /d/?
&
rnoxorooic.r rr.+tnrs 247
As Schrr has demonstrated, practically all the interpretable examples
of the letters b and d nd their origin in (respectively) *-mb- *-nd- groups
and are reected systematically in Greek by -mb-, -nd-: (i)brsi, ibarsi =
Imbrassiw, Imbarsiw, trqd, trqude = CLuw. Tarunt-, lycian trqqt (<nt>,
<t> = /nd/). We are left with the problem of ascertaining what these
letters actually represent in Carian. Three main hypotheses are plau-
sible:
(1) b and d denote true consonantal groups -mb-, -nd-, respectively.
(2) b and d denote pre-nasalized consonants (/
m
b/, /
n
d/), a type of
stop that exists in dierent world languages.
8
(3) b and d denote only the oral voiced stops /b/ and /d/; like in
many other languages (from Lycian to Modern Greek or Spanish), /b/
and /d/ would appear as stops only in certain contexts, particularly
after nasals. In the remaining contexts, their articulation would be frica-
tive and denoted by b [b] and d [] (see above). The graphemes <b>
and <d> would therefore be used only to represent these stops, and
the nasal that precedes them would not be noted graphically.
With our current knowledge of Carian, it is impossible to choose
between these hypotheses. Preference could be given to (3) if we were
to nd examples wherein b or d were used for a voiced stop not aris-
ing from a nasal + stop sequence. Unfortunately, no concrete exam-
ples of this kind have been found; the only form for which this explanation
has been suggested is pda in pdamu, compared in Adiego (2000:145)
with Lycian pdde place, from PIE *pedom. According to this interpre-
tation, d would represent a stop articulation of the dental in direct con-
tact with the stop p, as in Lycian (where a gemination has also taken
place). However, this connection is not conclusive enough to be used
as the basis of a denitive argument in favour of d = [d], and not
[nd] or [
n
d].
Liquids
r R l 6 L 2 L
r l l
/r/ /l/ /r
j
/? /l.l/?
8
Cf. Boisson (1994:219).
248 cn.r+rn six
Four letters have been identied as representing liquids and nasals in
Carian.
r corresponds to Greek r and Egyptian r in the adaptation of per-
sonal names in Carian: lysikratas[ = Lusikrthw, ntokris = Nj.t-jqr (Nitvkriw).
Conversely, both Greek r and Egyptian r reect Carian r in Carian
names: kilara = Kildara/Killara, arli() = Arlissiw, arliom = Arlivmow,
pikre = Pigrhw, etc. paraeym = Prjm, arli() = Jr3, arkbiom = 3rkbym,
ursle = 3rskr.
l renders Greek l in lysiklas[, lysikratas[ = Lusiklw, Lusikrthw, uli-
ade = Olidhw, and l is used in Greek for Carian l: arli = Arlissiw,
arliom = Arlivmow, lse, lsi = Lujhw, qlali, qlalis = Kolaldiw etc.
In Egyptian, where the graphical reection of l was always problem-
atic (see Loprieno 1995: 31, 33), we nd r for Carian l in 3rskr =
ursle, whereas the sequence rl in arli, arliom is noted by means of
a single r ( Jr3, Jrym). Although more precise conclusions about their
exact articulation (was r apped or trilled, and was l more or less den-
tal?) cannot be established, it is clear that the letters r and l represent
the two basic liquids of the Carian phonological system.
The status of the two remaining liquid letters is less clear, and it is
signicant that these signs are not found in all the Carian alphabets:
l is absent from the Thebes and Mylasa inventories, and is even less
widespread, having only been found in Egypt.
The use of is limited to the following words: ari, me, qdarou
and tat(a)r. Both ari = Arrissiw and tat(a)r maintain the theory
of as a palatalized r /r
j
/, as a result of the contact with a palatal
sound (i, ).
9
This explanation is less convincing in the case of qdarou,
whilst me does not oer any evidence either for or against this hypoth-
esis. In arri, an assimilation process could be behind r if we assume
that there is a connection with the more widespread name arli. This
explanation would also be feasible for qdarou if the word is related to
CLuw. utarl- slave, as suggested in Adiego (1995:2425).
l is the letter used in Carian for the sound(s) transcribed in Greek
adaptations as ll and ld. Boisson (1994:216217) oers a detailed
analysis of earlier proposals for interpreting this letter, and formulates
some possible values. While I believe that one cannot rule out the
9
It is worth noting that the new text of Hyllarima (C.Hy 1a) oers for the name
Arrissiw the form ari, without any special sign for the (possibly peculiar) sound ren-
dered in Greek as -rr-.
rnoxorooic.r rr.+tnrs 249
possibility that l represents a peculiar unitary sound, for which the
oscillating Greek spelling ll/ld would be a rough translation, it seems
to me preferable to interpret l as the simple notation of a geminate
sound, whose articulation was more dental than that of the Greek ll;
indeed this could explain the alternative spelling ld. That the sound
was very close to Carian l is demonstrated by the systematic use of l
in those alphabets (namely Thebes and Mylasa) that do not have a
specic letter for this geminate. Also, the use in Hyllarima of a dia-
critised Greek lambda for the sound (L) is a clear indication of an l
sound. The geminate nature of l (originally, at least) is supported by
its distribution: l never appears in an initial position, which probably
implies that it needed at least a vowel preceding it (/Vl.l/).
Nasals
m M n N
m n
/m/ /n/ ?
m and n represent the labial and dental nasal stops typical for many
phonological inventories of world languages.
m is used to adapt Egyptian m: pismak (and variants) = Psmtk.
Conversely, Carian m is reected in Egyptian by m, and in Greek by
m: paraeym = Prjm, arkbiom = 3rkbym, kbjom = Kebivmow, msnord cf.
Masanvrada, etc.
n reects Egyptian n and Greek n: -nejt, -neit = -Njt, ntokri = Nj.t-jqr
(Nitvkriw), niqau = Ny-k3w (Nexvw), nik[ ]la- = Nikoklw; and Greek n
transcribes Carian n: somne = Svmnhw, pnuol, punwol = Ponussvllow,
msnord cf. Masanvrada, etc.
Schrr correctly established that , a letter absent from the Carian
alphabet of Egypt, also represents a kind of n, on the basis of the ono-
mastic identications tmo- (2) = Ekatomnvw and pmnn- = Ponmoonnow
in the Sinuri bilingual text (E.Si 2), and this has since been conrmed by
the new inscription of Hyllarima, where tu is found side by side with
Tonnouw. Note also the alternation /n in tmo vs. (Thebes) ktmno.
Its absence from the Egyptian inventory is a little surprising, espe-
cially considering its wide distribution in most of the Carian alphabets
of Caria itselfit appears in such distant places as Hyllarima and
Kaunosand the tendency of Egypto-Carian writing to contain letters
that the alphabets of Caria have lost (j j, v w, for example). Perhaps
the formal resemblance of to z played a part in its disappearance.
250 cn.r+rn six
Its exact phonetic value is dicult to determine. In most cases, it
can be attributed the value of a syllabic nasal (like Lycian ): pmnn,
mailomda, yri, tu (note the Greek adaptation Tonnouw that could be
a reection of /tn.nu/-), but its use in pdamu weakens the validity
of this interpretation. In any case, a functional dierence between
and n seems more probable than an articulatory dierence: none of
the examples seems to support the interpretation of as a nasal artic-
ulated as palatal, velar, or the like.
Fricatives
s f F / z Z
s
/s/ // //?
The exact value of the three fricative sibilants of Carian, and also their
origin (see below) is undoubtedly the phonological particularity of Carian
that has yielded most discussion.
10
In this case, Greek adaptation of
Carian names proves to be largely useless, due to the existence in this
language of a single sibilant s /s/. The three Carian sibilants are sys-
tematically transcribed as s- /-s(s)-: aruol = Sarussvllow, arli =
Arlissiw, msnord- = Masanvrada, (i)brsi, ibarsi = Imbarsiw, Imbras(s)iw
etc. In the other direction, Greek s is adapted to s in Carian (lysiklas,
lysikratas).
More interesting, however, is the contribution of Egyptian, in which
Carian s is adapted to s and Carian to : ursle- = 3rskr, arkbiom =
3rkbym. As for the adaptation of Egyptian names, it is particularly
noticeable that and alternate in rendering the sound t /t/ of the
Egyptian name Psmtk ( pismak, pismak, etc.), in contrast with the use of
Carian t for the same Egyptian sound in tamou (see below). A possi-
ble use of Carian s for Egyptian s could be seen in psimt if the con-
nection of this form with Egyptian Potasimto (P3-dj-r-sm3-t3wy,
P3-dj-sm3-t3wy, Potasimto) were accepted.
From all this information, certain conclusions can be drawn: (1)
Carian s most probably represents the basic voiceless dental sibilant in
the phonological systems of the world, as shown by its use for transcribing
Greek s in the two Greek names quoted above; (2) is probably a
palato-alveolar voiceless fricative, which can be concluded from the use
10
See Hajnal (1998), Schrr (2001b), Melchert (2002).
rnoxorooic.r rr.+tnrs 251
of Egyptian in 3rkbym = arkbiom; (3) As for , its use in pismak allows
two possible interpretations: it could be either a sound very close to
Carian (perhaps a palatal //, like German ch in ich), given the alter-
nation pismak/pismak, or an aricate sound dierent from /t/ (for which
the letter t already exists), corresponding roughly to the Egyptian aricate
t. If the latter were true, /ts/ would be a logical solution. In any case,
the interpretation as (palatal) fricative seems preferable; if were to
represent /ts/, we would expect to come across an occasional use of
Greek z in the transcription of the uol-family of names, but in fact,
ss is systematically found.
Aricates
c C 1 9
t z
/t/ /ts/ and/or /st/?
The attribution of the phonological value of t is based exclusively on
its use in the bilingual inscription E.Me 7, where it is used in the
Carian adaptation of the Egyptian name T3j-jm = w [amu] (Tamvw,
Yamvw, Samauw, Samv#w). Further examples of this letter are extremely
scarce, and no satisfactory onomastic interpretations have been pro-
posed for the possible personal names in which it appears.
The value of z was established by Schrr on the basis of Carian
names that appear to contain the name of the Egyptian goddess Bastet
(B3st.t): tt(u)bazi, piub[a]zi (see Chapter 11, ss. vv.). Doubt remains as to
whether z represents a consonantal heterosyllabic sequence s + t (or
s + d or similar), or rather a phonetic result of this sequence (most
probably an aricate /ts/ or /dz/). No clear evidence can be found
in the other forms that contain this letter. In the new inscription of
Mylasa some possible onomastic identications have been suggested (see
Adiego 2005) that point to both /st/ and to /ts/ as possible values of
z: qzali = Kostvlliw vs. myze cf. Mouzhaw. However, both identications
are rather tenuous.
3. Letters of Uncertain Value
0 and its possible Kaunian form 8 can represent a nasal + voiced tec-
tal stop, but this assumption is based practically on a single piece of
evidence: the likely connection of u0li with the place name Souaggela.
This tectal value is also suggested by the sequence qrds8rdso[- in the
252 cn.r+rn six
rst line of C.Ka 2, in which a sort of gura etymologica formed from
the word qrds (cf. qrds, C.Ki 1, and qrdsol in the same inscription C.Ka
2) seems to exist. The rather conventional transcription g is adopted
here for these letters.
As for %, a letter absent from all the Egypto-Carian alphabets with
the sole exception of Thebes (and also E.xx 7 if the inscription really
comes from Egypt), we can draw on two rather weak sources: rstly
pr%idas in E.xx 7, for which Schrr has proposed a connection with
Bragxidai, the name of the priests of Apollon in Didyma (near Milet),
and secondly ]oml% in C.K 2, which may be related to C.K 5 uiomln.
The rst case would seem to point to a nasal + tectal value, as for 0,
but if the second connection is reliable, perhaps % would in fact be
rather a type of nasal. Both contexts would then favour a nasal with
a tectal mode of articulation (for example, a velar nasal //. Other
examples are not so clear, but some of them indicate a nasal rather
than a nasal + stop: the third line of C.Ka 2 shows a construction
[-]arlano% sb zarios% where % seems to be a morphological ending.
If a (tectal) nasal value is accepted, the forms could be interpreted as
singular accusatives in n (cf. lusikla-n in C.Ka 5) spelled with a tectal
nasal, for reasons we are unaware of. In any case, the possibility of a
/nasal + tectal/ value cannot be ruled out. In such a case, the dierence
between 0 and % would come from the point of articulation of the
tectal, in other words, both letters would be the correlate of one of the
three voiceless tectal stops that exist in Carian (, k, q).
I provisionally and conventionally adopt the transliteration <> for
%, although this is not to say that I consider that attribution of a velar
nasal value to this letter certain, or indeed even preferable.
The letter O appears exclusively in the alphabetic variant of Kaunos.
Adiego (2002) proposed that it represents the letter c C t /t/ of other
alphabetic variants. This proposal was based principally on the dis-
tributive properties of the sign, which appears in a nal sequence -oO,
at least in the word punoO (C.Ka 2; the segmentation is guaranteed
thanks to the following word, otr, equally segmentable in C.Ka 5). This
sequence can be compared to the endings in -ot from Hyllarima C.Hy
1, pususot, msot, to which we can now add muot, from the new frag-
ment of the inscription recently discovered.
An alternative approach, adopted by evorokin and tentatively sup-
ported in recent times by Schrr and Melchert, is to view O as a sort
of glide /w/, given its appearance between two o in most examples.
This explanation is complicated by the fact that in Kaunos there are
rnoxorooic.r rr.+tnrs 253
three clear examples of ouo sequences, where it is dicult to interpret
u as anything other than a /w/ (ouor 2, orouo).
For this sign a transcription t
2
is adopted.
4. Letters of Unknown Value
Strictly speaking, there remain only two letters for which no possible
phonological value can be suggested at the present: H and
1
. Of these
two letters, the rst is undoubtedly the most important, as it appears
in Egypto-Carian alphabets (Saqqra 2, Abydos 2) as well as in in
Sinuri-Kildara (4), in Stratonikeia (2), and in Kaunos (7). No expla-
nation has been found for any of the forms where H is used, not even
the two clear personal names from Saqqra (E.Me 28 psHm[-], E.Me
31 mHm ). Most likely is that it had a consonantal value, given its inter-
vocalic context in forms such as aHuq[ (C.Ki 1), sb uHbit (C.Ka 2); this
explanation is consistent with its use in mHm, if a typical defective
vowel notation (m(V)H(V)) is used.
As was noted in the chapter devoted to the Carian alphabet, the
apparently complementary distribution of H and c in the alphabets of
Caria itself is curious: where c appears, there is no H (as in Hyllarima)
and vice-versa (Sinuri-Kildara, Stratonikeia, Kaunos). One would be
tempted to interpret H as a local variant of c, a hypothesis also sup-
ported by the formal proximity of the two signs, but the existence of
both letters side by side in the Egypto-Carian alphabet, and the pos-
sibility that the Kaunian counterpart of c may in fact be O (see above),
make it dicult to argue the case further.
The situation of
1
is very dierent: it is only present in the Kaunian
alphabet, and only 9 examples (7 in C.Ka 2, 2 in C.Ka 4) can be
found. Purely for the sake of hypothesis, one could assume that it is a
particular Kaunian form for a letter existing in other alphabetic vari-
ants, in which case, the only remaining possibility would be to equate
it to Egypto-Carian 6 . However, this cannot be conrmed by any
of the instances in which
1
is used, and the possibility therefore remains
that the letter has a phonological value specic to Kaunian.
According to the drawings of evorokin, the still unedited grati
of Thebes seems to show two new signs: and Z. Since I do not pos-
sess a denitive and accurate epigraphical edition of this new corpus,
I shall simply draw attention to this possible existence (see pp. 103104).
Finally, very little (indeed almost nothing) can be said about the
strange diamond-like sign (K, t ) that appears on two occasions (E.Th
0 0
254 cn.r+rn six
28, E.Si 4), in both cases preceding the same word (bebint). Note that
the other two examples of the word are not accompanied by this sign
(E.Th 30, E.AS 7), making it highly unlikely that the sign was actu-
ally a letter.
5. Phonotactics
The defective notation of vowels makes it very dicult to draw an
accurate picture of Carian phonotactics, since the task of distinguish-
ing whether a sequence of consonants actually represents a consonan-
tal group, or whether in fact one vowel is graphically missing, is extremely
complicated. Accuracy is also compromised when resorting to the indi-
rect evidence in the Greek adaptation of Carian names, as there is a
risk of identifying certain characteristics as Carian when they in fact
belong to Greek adaptations of Carian onomastics. The only solution,
although far from perfect, is to combine both sources, but the results
are then incomplete and many gaps and uncertainties remain. Therefore,
in the following points, I shall limit myself to pointing out certain traits
that in principle can be denitively attributed to Carian.
1. Carian seems to share with other Anatolian languages the absence
of initial r-: there is no example of R- in Greek adaptations of Carian
personal and place names, and the only denite example of initial r in
Carian is found the name rtim, in the new inscription of Hyllarima (to
which rtmi of Tralleis can be added if a segmentation sdia rtmi is pre-
ferred to sdi artmi ). In this case, a defective vowel notation (rtmi for
/artmi/) or a syllabic r produced by aphaeresis could be the cause
/tmi/ (for this latter possibility, cf. the similar explanation given by
Lycian rMmazata in Melchert 1994:297). In any case, it seems certain
that the possibilty of rV- at the beginning of a word does not exist in
Carian.
2. As stated above, there is no denite example of the letter l in
an initial position (Adiego 1993a:276). This restriction is consistent with
the geminate origin of the sound represented by l.
3. A similar tendency can be observed when considering d, as evi-
dence of (possible) initial d is very scarce. Our glossary only contains
three forms: darqemorms[, den, drual. We should also note that for two
examples a connection with two etymologically related function words
has been suggested (den as preposition comparable to Hitt. andan; drual,
segmented in d = rual, where d would be a preposition comparable to
Lycian te, see Chapter 11 ss. vv. for details). Also in this caselike l
rnoxorooic.r rr.+tnrs 255
the origin of d from a consonant cluster -nd- is a good explanation for
this restriction: in general, this cluster is preceded by a vocalic sound
(-Vnd-), which limits the appearance of d < -nd- in absolute initial po-
sition, which is then only possible if the vowel disappears secondarily
or is not noted graphically. A similar situation can be envisaged
for b. The (also scarce) examples of an initial b, when etymologically
clear, point to a preceding Vmb- sequence: brsi < ibrsi (also attested) <
*imbrsi-.
4. Note the following clusters in internal positions, documented both
in Carian and in Greek sources:
-bl- = -bl-: qblsi- = Kublissew
-b- = -mb-: ib(a)rsi = Imbarsiw, Imbrassiw
-kr- = -gr-/-kr- = pikre/pikra- = Pigrhw, Pikrhw
-s- = -j-: lyse/lysi- = Lujhw
-ks- = j: uksmu, wksmu- = Omajamoaw
-mn-/m- = -mn-: ktmno-, tmo = Ekatomnvw, somne = Svmnhw
-m- = -nm- = pmnn- = Ponmoonnow
-rd- = -rd-: ardybyr- = Arduberow
-rl- = -rl-: arli = Arlissiw
-rm- = -rm-: armo- cf. Ermapiw
-rn- = -rn-? alos arnos, cf. Alikarnassow?
-rq- = -rg-/-rk- : yrqso- = Urgosvw; trqude = Tarkonda[
-rt- = -rt-: artay- = Artaow, Arthumow
-rs- = ibarsi = Imbarsiw
-tb- = -tb-: qtblem- = Kotbelhmow, Kutbelhmiw
-d- = -nd-
-db- = -ndu-? kidbsi- cf. Kinduh?
Other internal clusters seems also to have existed: for instance -rk- in
arkbiom, or -dr- (note idrayridsemd
?
bq, uodrou, uodryia[ in Carian and Idriew
in Greek sources).
5. For initial consonant clusters, the evidence is less certain: unlike
interior clusters, there are no clear examples appearing simultaneously
in both direct and indirect sources, with the exception of katbr = Lyc.
Janduberiw (Zgusta KPN 1061), which points to an initial k- (cf. also
Jermedu<be>row as an example of initial k + sibilant cluster). Some evi-
dence does exist of an initial cluster such as kb- (Carian kbidn = Lycian
Xbide), andalthough very limitedfor clusters of the type s + stop
(skdubrotoz, sqla, sqlumidun besides sp-, sk-: Skoaranow, Spareudigow).
Greek sources also contain several cases of stop + liquid beginnings
256 cn.r+rn six
(br-, gl-, kr-, pl-, pr-, tr-),
11
but there are no denitive examples in
Carian, in the sense that practically all the examples can be alternatively
interpreted as sequences of stop plus syllabic liquid (note for example
pridas, prpwri, trqude) or as cases of defective vowel notation (qlali- =
Greek Kolaldiw, etc.).
B. O\rn\irv or +nr His+onic.r Pnoxoroov or C.ni.x
The content of the following pages must be considered purely provi-
sional. Our present knowledge of Carian is such that we must be cau-
tious when attempting to sketch an overview of this kind. It must be
noted that most of the information that can be obtained from Carian
sources comes from Carian proper names, and onomastics is not always
a good tool for comparative research: rstly, because the etymological
interpretation of proper names can only be based on formal criteria,
since they lack an actual meaning; secondly, because we cannot be sure
that all the personal names correspond to the actual language, as some
of them could come from nearby languages, and others could betray
the conservation of old traits, modications caused by analogical processes,
and other such characteristics. In any case, both problems can be
avoided to a certain extent when the volume of evidence and internal
consistencies makes it logical to interpret them as a true reection of
Carian language. But I deem it necessary to issue this warning when
one comes to evaluating the information that follows.
I adopt the reconstruction of Proto-Anatolian (PA) as it appears in
the fundamental work of Melchert (Melchert 1994), which currently
represents the most useful tool for comparison.
It is impossible to give a complete account of the outcome of PA
sounds in Carian, with particular diculties being found in the vocal-
ism. Evidence is extremely limited in many cases, due to the defective
vowel notation, and the complexity of the treatments of vocalic sounds
from PIE to PA and from PA to the particular Anatolian dialects. In
other cases, the evidence is simply nonexistent. Here I shall merely
indicate the more relevant aspects that can be identied from our cur-
rent knowledge of Carian.
11
There are, however, few examples.
rnoxorooic.r rr.+tnrs 257
1. Vocalism
(1) One of the few traits that can be established is of great relevance
to the position of Carian, since it supports the theory that Carian
belongs to the group of Luwic dialects of Anatolian (Luwian, Lycian
and Milyan). This is the change of PA * to /i(:)/. This is demonstrated
above all by the root pik-/-bik- < PA */be:H/- < PIE *b
h
h
2
- to shine,
present in dierent Carian names (dbiks, pik(a)rm, pikre . . .).
(2) A unique characteristic of Carian is the emergence of a rounded
front vowel y, /y/ and its semivocalic counterpart /w/. This is a con-
ditioned change, but it is impossible to identify all the precise contexts
in which it takes place. However, at least a trigger for the fronting
seems clear: the immediate contact of original /u(:)/, /w/ with /i/,
/j/. We come across examples such as yiasi, yi
?
biksi, []ryin,
uodryia[, yjas[i], in (2), and diye, siyklo, ikr that point to */wi/
> /wi/, */uj/ > */yj/, */iw/ > /iw/, */ju/ > /jy/. Particularly strik-
ing is the Kaunian alternation yomln (C.Ka 4) / uiomln (C.Ka 5). It is
very likely that both spellings are attempts at representing /wi( j)o/-.
The absence of a specic grapheme for the semivowel /w/ in the alpha-
bet of Kaunos would explain the graphical oscillation. Note that ui is
only attested in Carian in this word, and that there are no examples
of wi, uj in the entire Carian documentation. It is also likely that other
examples of y, before a vowel other than i should be explained in a
similar fashion, as yomln: idyes, aye, terez, asd. Note particularly the
last example: it is tempting to bring it closer to yiasi, yjas[i] and to
reconstruct a protoform */wijas(V)nd/-.
For the remaining examples of y, , the case is not so clear, but the
inuence of a near i, j can be envisaged: in the family of names in
ydiq/yriq (see below pp. 262263), a sort of metaphony caused by the
i in the following syllable could be suggested. Even in ylarmit, one could
imagine a more distant assimilation, triggered by the nal i, or rather
by the (un-notated) i present in the Greek form of the place name,
Ullrima (*/ularim/ > /ylar(i)m/. In the case of ethnics formed with
the Luwic sux CLuw. -wanni, Mil. -wni, kbdyn, mdayn/mdan, the con-
nection with []ryin cannot be overlooked, but the exact interpreta-
tion of y/ in these forms remains unclear: is y/ here used for /wi/,
like in yomln? Or rather has /wi/ coalesced into a single vocalic sound
/y/? A third possibility would be to ascribe the fronting process to
metaphony, by postulating a *-uni- > -yn(i) evolution.
258 cn.r+rn six
(3) Another vowel that seems to have appeared secondarily in Carian
(at least for some words) is o. It appears to come from */a:/ and also
from */a/ in accented syllable (where */a/ would become a long vowel,
a change that is typical in Anatolian languages. Forms such as armo- (in
armotrqdosq, E.Hy 1a) < *arm-
12
would also suggest this process. A sim-
ilar explanation could be given for ntro < *n(e?)tr (cf. perhaps for the
formation Lyc. kbatra < tr + ). In general, Carian names with -o could
be explained as original stems in -: note particularly plqo and ksbo, where
-o is clearly accented. The latter form can be etymologically related to
the Lycian xahba, grandchild, also an -stem. Finally, Kaunian otr,
themselves, as well as Lyc. atra-, HLuw. atra/i- also point to an accented
a > o, although the etymological origin of these words remains unclear.
This leads to an interesting explanation of -ol (Greek -vllow, -vldow)
names: Assuming Melcherts explanation that Luwian -alla- forms come
from*-lo- with ops law (*-lo > *-lla-), in Carian a lengthening of
and subsequent change to o could have taken place *-lo- > *-llV- >
*-llV- > *-

oll(V), spelled -ol (with l for, or the result of, geminated l,

see above p. 249). The forms with -el ( para-ibrel, ionel ) ought to be
explained then as the result of a sux with i-motion followed by
metaphony caused by i (see below): *-li- > *-lli- > *-(:)ll(i)- > *el.
In the case of -on in mwdon, a monophthongization process had been
suggested (see Adiego 1994:94) *mwdawn > mwdon, but I now prefer
to look for another solution, given the form mdan/mdayn, where the
monophtongization process has not taken place. Perhaps o here also
represents *, which in this case comes from the contraction *a-wan- >
*a-an- (with loss of w) > *n- > on-. In mdayn/mdan, the lack of con-
traction can be attributed to a dierent vocalism of the sux (*a-wen-),
whether original or originated by metaphony (*a-wen-i- vs. *a-wan-
as- in mwdon ?). The other examples of possible monophthongi-
zation cited in Adiego (1994:49) (arliom < *arliya-uma, etc.) are by no
means conclusive. It could also be argued that they come directly from
* (> o).
12
That arma was an a-stem in PA seems the most likely explanation, although the
evidence is not certain: note Lyc. N304, 5 arMma, wherein the isolated context of the
form does not allow us to conrm that in Lycian it was also an a-stem (Melchert, DLL
s. v.).
rnoxorooic.r rr.+tnrs 259
13
Melchert (1994:296).
14
For the probable non-Doric origin of the form (according to Blmel), see above
p. 237. The non-existence of e in Kaunian is sucient to explain the adaptation of
Greek h to a.
(4) The vocalism of the words en, mother, and ted, father, is a clear
indication of an umlaut process a > e / _.Ci similar to that of Lycian:
13
PA sg. nom. *anna-s (cf. Hittte anna- ) > Luwic *anni-s (with i-motion,
cf. CLuw. anni- ) > carian en, like Lycian e ni; PA *dda-s > Luwic *tdi-
s (with i-motion, cf. CLuw. tti- ) > Carian ted, like Lycian tedi. Cf. the
similar explanation above for -el.
(5) The form otonosn shows a strange vocalic harmony in o. At least
the second and third vowels can be explained with * > o (*Ayhn* a- >
*atn-,
14
cf. Lycian atnaze/i ) > *atono-), but the rst seems to be caused
by metaphony (*atono- > otono-).
2. Consonants
(1) The PA labial and dental voiceless stops remain unaltered in
Carian:
PA */p/ > Carian p /p/: para(eym), para(ibrel), Para- < *PA pr/pr:
cf. Hittite par forth. Cf. pun-/pn- in punwol, pnuol, perhaps also in
punot
2
, < Luwic puna- all (Lyc. punma- totality, CLuw pna- all).
*/t/ > Carian t /t/: trqud-e, trqd-os < PA *THt- Storm-god (CLuw
Tarunt-, Lyc. Trqqt-). -t < -te or -ti < PA pret. 3rd sg. *-to or pres.
3rd sg. *-ti in bt < *ubete oered or < *ubeti oers, cf. Lyc. ubete.
(2) Like the other Luwic dialects, Carian presents a satem-like treat-
ment of PIE, PA *, as can be seen in the demonstrative pronoun sa-
/sn- this in sa, san, snn < PA *o- (Hitt. ka-, Luw. za-). Perhaps also sidi,
sdi tomb, if it can be connected with PIE *ei- to lie (Lyc. sije-).
(3) Luwic also deals with * > in *emro- steppe > *imr- >*imbr- >
ibr-/br-: (i)br-si < *imbrV- < *emr-, (para) -ibrel- < *emrli-.
(4) The only clear example of the treatment *k
w
is the (original) rel-
ative pronoun i < PIE, PA *k
w
is (Hitt., CLuw. kui, Lyc. ti, Mil. ki
[ci]). in this case Carian displays a process similar to Milyan: delabi-
alization and fronting before i.
(5) Forms like tedi < PA *dda/i- or pik- (in pikre-, pikarm-, etc.) in
addition to dbiks and dbikrm point to an unvoicing of voiced stops in
initial position, a process that has also taken place in parallel to this
in other Anatolian languages (cf. Lycian tedi, Lydian taadas).
260 cn.r+rn six
(6) In the sequences of Nasal + voiceless stop, this latter example
has become, as in Lycian (and probably in the rest of the Anatolian
languages), a voiced stop. The evidence is clear for dentals: *THt- >
trq(u)d-, with *-nd- > d, see above.
(7) Traits (5) and (6) clearly indicate that the situation for Carian is
very similar to that of Lycian: voiced stops merge with voiceless stops
in initial position, become fricative in intervocalic position, and remain
as voiced stops only after a nasal, where voiceless stops merge with them.
(8) Carian liquids l, r and nasals m, n come from the respective liquid
and nasal sounds in PA and/or in Luwic:
r < *r: para(eym), para(ibrel), Para- < *PA pr/pr: cf. Hitt. par
forth, armo < PA *arm- moon, ar-, r- upper (in ar-uol, r-wli-,
etc.), cf. Hitt. r, CLuw. arri, Lyc. hr-i, Mil. zri-
l < *l: wljat. Cf. Hitt. walliwalli- strong, powerful
m < *m: msn-ord. *msn- god: Cf. in the rest of Luwic languages:
CLuw. man(i)-, Lyc. maha(na)-, Mil. masa-, Sidetic maara (pl. dat.)
gods; *mu- (in uksmu-) = CLuw., muwa- Mil. muwa- might, power.
n < *msn-ord < msn- god, see immediately above; -n acc. sg. end-
ing: lysikla-n, ork-n, etc. < PA *-n < PIE *-m; -yn- sux for ethnic names
(kbd-yn- Kaunians) = CLuw. -wanni-, Lyc. -ni-, Mil. -wni-.
As for , l, , see the remarks in pp. 248250 above. l seems to
point to a geminate *-ll- (*-lo > *-llV- > -ol, see above). can be a
palatalized r, which in some cases could come from l (qdarou, cf. CLuw
utarl- slave?). comes from n at least in the ending - of pmnn-
(acc. sg of a possessive adjective).
(9) PA Laryngeal *H (PIE < *h
2
) appears as a tectal voiceless stop
k, q in Carian. The process is therefore parallel to that of Lycian (<x>
/k/ / <q>). Examples: for *H > k: kdou- (< *Hntaw-, cf. Lyc. xtawat(i),
from PIE *h
2
ent-), pikre-, piks- (both containing PIE *b
h
h
2
- > Luwic *piH-);
for *H > q: trqude, trqd- < Luwic *THt- (CLuw. Tarunt- Lycian,
Milyan trqqt-). If the word quq comes from PA *HuHo- grandfather
(> Lycian xuga), the lenition process seen in Lycian ( xuga = /kuga/) is
absent, at least graphically, in Carian. But the Greek form Gugow points
to a voiced articulation (the initial G- remains unclear).
(10) The existence of at least three fricative sibilants in Carian (s, ,
) poses a puzzling situation regarding their respective origins. It seems
that (at least some) results of the three sibilants come ultimately from the
single fricative voiceless dental fricative PA *s. Recent work by Melchert
(see Melchert 2002) has signicantly claried the matter, and new evi-
dence from the Hyllarima inscription seems to corroborate his views.
rnoxorooic.r rr.+tnrs 261
Concerning Carian s, Melchert (2002) has stated that it reects a
prehistoric simple *s in forms such as i[]inis (C.Ka 5), ntros, arnais,
etc., in which he claims to have identied genitive-dative forms coming
from PIE *-e/oso (Melchert 2002:309). This hypothesis has essentially
been conrmed by the new inscription of Hyllarima, wherein an analy-
sis of the ending -os in armotrqdos would suggest that it originates from
a genitive ending *-Vso, or from an adjective sux *-Vso-.
15
Another
possible new example of Carian s from *s is the name ksbo in C.My
1, if it is related to Lycian xahba grandchild < PIE *h
2
onsu secondar-
ily converted to an -stem.
As for , the clearest examples for a conditioned origin are (a)r- and
acc. pl. -(in otr, kbdyn, sarni ). The rst example could be interpreted
as the result of a palatalisation process caused by direct contact with
r (cf. perhaps also zri-, not sri- in Milyan). One must therefore start
from *sri- (cf. Mil. zri-, Lyc. hri-, CLuw. arri ) and to postulate *sri- >
*s - > - (palatalisation) > ar- (samprasraa):
16
the second example is
the outcome of Luwic accusative plural *-ns (> - ). The parallelisms
with the use of z in Milyan are striking: there we nd *sri- > zri- (zri-
gali, zriqali ) and nom.-ac. pl. -z < *-ns (masaiz, Xbadiz, xuwasaz, etc.) vs.
Lycian hri, (pl. acc.) -s. Other instances of are not so clear (mol, kow ).
Finally, in the case of , Melchert proposes that Carian possessive-
genitive - continues the PIE possessive sux *-asso- in its form -ass,
i.e. with i-mutation (Melchert 2002:311). From a phonological point of
view, the supposition is extremely compelling, given the likely palatal
character of // (see above), although some doubts do remain.
17
3. Some Secondary Changes
In this brief section I oer a succinct analysis of several cases of sec-
ondary changes observable in the Carian documentation. Once again,
the material and results are far from conclusive, and must therefore be
viewed with a certain amount of caution.
15
The exact analysis of -s and its actual value in Carian is not relevant here, see
pp. 314317 for the problems posed by the Carian s- ending.
16
I consider this interpretation of in (a)r- as preferable to Melcherts use of Lydian
serli-/selli- (note that Lydian <s> = //!) for explaining the palatalization. The devel-
opment of a secondary support vowel in contact with syllabic r is also visible in pikarm-
vs. pikrm- (from pikr, cf. pikre- ) and the Milyan testimony seems then more compelling
than the need for postulating that Carian ar- comes directly from *ser-.
17
No explanation has yet been found for the form ib(a)rsi- if it comes from an -ass-
262 cn.r+rn six
1. The family of names brsi/ib(a)rsi, ( para-)ibrel, Greek Imbras(s)iw,
Imbarsiw, Imbarhldow, if the etymology from PA*emro- is accepted,
would indicate a sound change *-mr- > -mbr- (<br>), a kind of epenthetic
development well known in other languages (cf. Greek mbrotow < *amro-
tos < PIE *-mto-s, Spanish hombro [ombro] from Vulgar Lat. *umru(m)
< Lat. umerum).
Perhaps a similar process can be identied in the names Andarsvw,
Androssvw (cf. also dar ?): it is tempting to start from *naras- (to be
related to Narasow, epithet of Zeus in Panamara, Caria)
18
> *ras- >
*dras > * ds > Andarsvw, Androssvw.
2. The examples mentioned above (1) point to a secondary charac-
ter of a in ibarsi- (Greek Imbarsiw), given that epenthetic b could only
appear in direct contact with the following r. Cf. also Andarsvw, dar
if the explanation proposed here is accepted. It seems that in Carian
a kind of samprasraa could have taken place when r became syllabic,
and the entire process could therefore be the following: *imrasi- >*
imbrasi - > *imbsi- > /imbarsi/ (ibarsi -). The same rule can be applied
to alternations such as pikrm-/pikarm-, and ar-/r- (cf. above for the eect
of this explanation on the merging of palatal in these latter forms).
3. It is plausible to imagine a common origin for the collection of
stems diq/d-/yriq-/yri-/wri- if one accepts a progressive dissimila-
tion process. The following are all the forms that have been identied
thus far (E = in Egypt; C = in Caria):
(perhaps re-derived by -*iye in *-assiye-) sux, because the phonological context is very
similar to that assumed for the origin of -. The possibility that these forms contain a
dierent sux (*-o- or *-tyo-, see Melchert 2002:310 n.13) cannot be ruled out, but
it is a more ad hoc solution.
18
For this form a connection with CLuw. annara/i- strong can be envisaged (Neumann
1994:22; see here p. 333).
rnoxorooic.r rr.+tnrs 263
-d- -r-
Greek diq- d- Greek yriq- yri- (wri-?)
yri- (?) C
idyri- C
Paraudigow pard- E paryri(-) C
prpwri? E
rather prpri?
adiq- E Saurigow ayriq E
Senurigow
Spareudigow
Semeuritow?
It is possible that the original form of the stem was *yriq-/yri-,
19
as
the non-compound form yri- suggests. The forms with d are limited to
par(a)-, a- and Spare-compounds, and for the two rst, the correspond-
ing forms with r are also attested. If one assumes that a-/Sa- is a vari-
ant of the well-known adverbial stem ar-/r-, originating from a loss of
r in intervocalic position (*ar-yriq > a-yriq, cf. perhaps Saussvllow besides
Sarusvllow), the resulting forms in d in compounds with par(a)-, a(r)-
could be explained as a dissimilation r-r > r-d: par-yri- > *par-ydi ( par-
d-)-, *a(r)-yriq (cf. a-yriq) > *a(r)-ydiq (adiq-).
4. Schrr has argued in favour of a change p > from some alleged
examples of alternation (Schrr 1992:141). Perhaps the most compelling
example of this possible alternation would be the words for stela (or
similar) in Memphis: upe/ue, although it is also possible that we are in
fact dealing with two dierent words. Less convincing is the name
paraeym vs. parpeym, where a dierent second element (eym/peym) could
also be suggested.
20
No other clear examples are known of, either in
Carian direct sources or in Greek ones.
5. Other examples of vowel and consonantal alternations, in Carian
direct sources or in Greek indirect sources, are far more occasional,
and not easy to explain. Note for example a/e in pikra/pikre, upa/upe,
which could be a morphological rather than a phonological alterna-
tion. For changes detectable in Greek sources, see Neumann (1994:1819).
19
The alternation q/ remains unexplained (cf. supra pp. 244245). As for y/, see
above pp. 235236.
20
A further example, qarpsi- vs. qarsi-, oers a totally dierent context, and cannot
be compared to the two cases mentioned above, where p would be lost between vowels.
CHAPTER SEVEN
ANALYZING CARIAN INSCRIPTIONS
Contrary to the customary order in grammars, where morphology,
together with phonology, precedes syntax, in the case of Carian it seems
methodologically more accurate to begin with the analysis of Carian
texts; our knowledge of Carian morphology depends on the way in
which the texts can be interpreted syntactically, and such an interpre-
tation remains in most cases controversial, to say the least. In the fol-
lowing pages I will try to analyze Carian texts from the easiest to the
most dicult, beginning with those that contain only very basic ono-
mastic formulae. The following step will be to analyze the inscriptions
of the Memphis sub-corpus, where we nd more complex onomastic
formulae, but no recognizable verbal forms are attested. This analysis
will also allow us to identify some common nouns used in the formu-
lae of these funerary texts. The third section will oer an analysis of
some brief inscriptions (mainly on objects) that seem to contain forms
other than onomastic formulae. Finally, a few aspects of the interpre-
tation of the longer inscriptions, where there are serious diculties of
analysis, will be briey addressed.
A. B.sic Oxov.s+ic Fonvtr.r
1. Inscriptions Consisting of Only an Individual Name
The briefest Carian inscriptions consist of a single word, which in the
great majority of cases can be condently interpreted as an individual
name. As one can easily imagine, these types of texts are found among
the grati and also on some objects. In the grati, the name appears
without an ending, in a case that we can consider the nominative, a
logical explanation given that the inscription can be interpreted merely
as a type of signature: pisiri (E.Ab 1), piew (E.Ab 38), pla
?
t (E.Th 3),
wljat (E.Th 7), psmak (E.Si 7, E.Bu 5) etc. Only occasionally does the
.x.rvzixo c.ni.x ixscnir+ioxs 265
name appear with the - ending, commonly interpreted as a genitive:
E.Ab 32 arr, E.Ab 37 arur.
1
Also, in the so-called pharaonic objects (excepting funerary stelae)
published in Masson-Yoyotte (1956) we come across inscriptions con-
sisting of only an individual name, in nominative or in genitive: wliat
(E.xx 2) pduba (E.xx 4,) vs. ionel (E.xx 3).
The only possible examples of a form in another caseleaving aside
forms with no clear interpretationare provided by the two identical
inscriptions on bracelets that contain the word kduol, where the nal
- could represent a dierent case ending.
2. Inscriptions Consisting of Only a Twofold Onomastic Formula
Despite the above examples, the most typical Carian onomastic for-
mula, as in other ancient Indo-European languages, seems to have been
a twofold one: individual name + fathers name. This latter is system-
atically expressed in Carian by the genitive ending .
2
This formula can
explain a number of Carian inscriptions consisting of two words, as
well as others in which a particle i appears together with the two
names.
We can attempt a typological classication of twofold formulae on
the basis of the case of the rst member and the presence or absence
of i:
Nominative + Genitive
panejt iarja E.Ab 2
ptne | ibarsi E.Ab 3
amow ltari E.Ab 4, 5
plat | pals E.Ab 7, 8, 9
piubez qurbo E.Ab 10
untri | uantrpu E.Ab 13
pdubez or E.Ab 15
tamosi | inut E.Ab 18
tamosi utnu E.Ab 19
ninut | tamosi E.Ab 20
ttubazi kattri E.Ab 25
ialli | qblio E.Ab 40
1
The interpretation of the ending -z (- ) as a genitive was rst made by Sayce
(1887[92] = 1893:141142).
2
For the use of an ending -s- in C.Ka 5, see below p. 316.
266 cn.r+rn sr\rx
ttbazi kt
?
tri E.Ab 41
dbr | tatr E.Th 5
psmak ibrsi E.Bu 4
Nominative + Genitive i
pdnejt qri i E.Sa 1
pnuol zmu i E.Me 19
(a) enurt (b) psimt i E.Me 50
platt sla i E.AS 5
sending (?) + Genitive i
ap[---]ws a[rb]ikarm i E.Me 23
idmns | myre i E.Me 33b, cf. E.Me 33a
As the examples show, the twofold formula is typically used in grati,
particularly those from Abydos. In practically all of the quoted exam-
ples of grati, with the sole exception of E.AS 5, the formula consists
of the individual name in nominative followed by the fathers name in
genitive. E.AS 5 is the only one that contains the genitive accompa-
nied by a postclitic i. In this and the other cases where the structure
N- N-- i appears (E.Sa 1, E.Me 19, E.Me 50), there is no visible
semantic dierence when compared to the structures without i. The
role of i in all of these cases seems to be merely to connect the nom-
inal complement in genitive to the name it refers to. The most likely
explanation, as Hajnal (1997a) suggests, is that this construction pre-
supposes and/or comes from an elliptical word for son: pdnejt qri i
Pdnejt, the (son) of Qri- = that of Qri-.
3
Given that from an ety-
mological point of view, an origin of i from a Proto-Anatolian rela-
tive pronoun *k
w
is (< PIE *k
w
is) is a convincing interpretation, it is easy
to assume that behind pdnejt qri i and similar constructions, there
was an original meaning Pdnejt, who (is the son) of Qri.
As we can see, twofold formulae are very scarce among the funer-
ary stelae of Memphis, but the examples are very interesting in that
they show another pattern of the formula; as well as N- N- (3 exam-
ples), we can identify two instances with possible s-endings (N-s N-,
both with the genitive followed by i ), but we should bear in mind the
possibility that we are in fact dealing with nominatives of s-stems (on
this problem, see pp. 314317).
This twofold formula individual name + fathers name in genitive
is easily recognizable in longer inscriptions, which we will address below:
3
We can conclude that the second name represents the fathers name from the
Egyptian text that accompanies the Carian one, where P3-dj-Njt is mentioned as the
son of K3rr = qri-.
.x.rvzixo c.ni.x ixscnir+ioxs 267
in votive texts such as the inscription on a bronze lion (E.xx 7 uksi
wrm ), or the inscription on a phiale (C.xx 1 rquq qtblem), in the list
of names from Mylasa (C.My 1), and even in the mention of the two
satraps Idrieus and Ada ([--]ryin tmo sb ada tmno [--]ryin of Hekatomnos
and Ada of Hekatomnos).
B. Tnr S+ntc+tnr or +nr S+rr.r rnov Mrvrnis
The onomastic formulae limited to the two basic constructions men-
tioned above (Individual name or Individual name + fathers name)
are extremely scarce in the Memphis sub-corpus: to the examples men-
tioned above (four, and only for twofold formulae), we can add only
one other in which the individual name in the genitive is accompanied
by the fathers name and one of the formula words in Memphis, ue,
used to designate the object (stela; on this word see Chapter 11, s. v.).
arli | psikro ue E.Me 51
In general, the stelae from Memphis, insofar as they are integrally (or
almost integrally) preserved, show more complex onomastic formulae.
It is common to nd threefold formulae, as well as another type of
formulae that includes more proper names.
1. Threefold Formulae
To the individual name + fathers name formula, a third word in
genitive can be added. The simplest interpretation of these threefold
formulae would be to take the third name as the grandfathers name
(papponym). As we will see below, this interpretation is certain in cases
such as the threefold onomastics formulae of the new inscription of
Hyllarima (C.Hy 1a), but in the Memphis sub-corpus, where this type
of formula is very frequent, (in fact, it can be considered the typical
onomastic formula of the funerary stelae) the situation is not so clear.
In Memphis we nd the following three types of threefold structures:
N- N- N-, N- N- N- and N-s N- N- (with or without i after
the second and/or the third name). When the individual name is in
genitive, a word for stela (ue, upe,
4
wpe, upa) can appear (cf. above the
4
In one case (E.Me 26) accompanied by a demonstrative pronoun: upe sa this stela
(on sa, see Chapter 11, s. v.).
268 cn.r+rn sr\rx
example of E.Me 51), so that the use of the genitive simply indicates
that the stela belongs to the individual it mentions.
The inscriptions consisting of only these kinds of threefold formulae
I leave aside for now the inscriptions of a more complex structure
are the following:
5
Nominative + Genitive + Genitive
uksmu | lkor | mrsi E.Me 2
tamou tanai qarsio[-?] ? E.Me 7
irow | pikarm | mwdon E.Me 14
uol | mi kdsi E.Ab 35
Nominative + Genitive i + Genitive
aruol pleq i : ugli E.Me 30
qorb | isor i | ugli E.xx 1
Nominative + Genitive i + Genitive i
uqsi | rwli i | mwdon i E.Me 20
plqo | pikrm i | mwdon i E.Me 40
Genitive + Genitive + Genitive
ttbazi[] | piub[a]zi | aor[] E.Me 1
pikre ue arwljat msnord E.Me 3
arli ursle kidbsi E.Me 15
[. . .]u | upe sa | triel | mrsi E.Me 26
s[--]et | [--] | ynemori | mwdon E.Me 29
me | somne | tata[r] E.Me 34
| or | wpe | qdarou | tatar E.Me 41
Genitive + Genitive i + Genitive
arli : upe : arlio[m] i : yjas[i] E.Me 9
wksmu | wpe | lkor j qarpsi E.Me 36
[--]j[-] [-]owt i : msnord E.Me 48
Genitive + Genitive + Genitive i
punwol : somne qblsi i E.Me 21
(a) asd | yi
?
biksi (b) mwdon i E.Me 46
Genitive + Genitive i + Genitive i
dtat | upa | w | wet i | mwdon i E.Me 13
sanuq | ue | pntmun i mwdon i E.Me 28
sEnding + Genitive + Genitive i
ntokris | dwol | mwdon i E.Me 35
5
I add to this list an example from Abydos (E.Ab 35), and also the inscription of
unknown origin (but clearly close to the Memphis stelae) E.xx 1, which is consistent
with this type of threefold formula.
.x.rvzixo c.ni.x ixscnir+ioxs 269
The possibility that the third word is not a papponym can be deduced
from at least three factors: rstly, the very large number of examples
of the word mwdon in that position, a word for which there are no
parallels among the Carian personal names in Greek sources; secondly,
the iteration of some words in that very position (ugli, msnord, mrsi );
thirdly, the fact that these words never appear as a rst name in any
onomastic formula, and even their appearance as a second name or
patronym is limited to the word tatar, which appears in E.The 5 as
a clear patronym (dbr tatr ). These distributive properties do not
favour the interpretation of most of these forms as simple personal
names functioning as papponyms.
An alternative interpretation that was envisaged some years ago is
to classify them as ethnic names.
6
This possibility is very clear in the
case of mwdon; there are few doubts that mwdon is the genitive cor-
responding to the nominative mdayn, mdan also found in the Memphis
sub-corpus, and following the discovery of the Kaunos bilingual inscrip-
tion, -yn/-n has been conrmed as a sux for the formation of eth-
nic names (kbd-yn- Kaunians).
7
The exact meaning of mwdon is a
dierent question, for which I refer to the Glossary (Chapter 11), where
a discussion of the various proposals of interpretation is oered. For
now it is sucient to state that it could simply mean foreigner or, if
it refers to a concrete place, that this must be the main point of origin
for Carian mercenaries in Egypt, given the high number of occurrences.
For some other third-position words, the possible connections with
well-known place names have not gone unnoticed (see Janda 1994:
174176; Melchert apud Adiego 1995:20; Adiego 2004:310): ugli <
Souaggela, kidbsi and/or kdusi < Kinduh, yjasi[] < Iasow, msnord <
Maosanvrada, ksolb < Kasvlaba, qblsi < Kubliss/ow/. There is also
the interesting possibility of recognizing certain suxal formations: -si-
in kidbsi, kdusi, and also probably in mrsi, qarpsi; -i- in yjasi[] and
6
In Adiego (1993:212), the hypothesis formulated by Meriggi (1980) of interpreting
mwdon- as an ethnic name, was already taken into consideration, but the rst author
to propose that a number of third names in onomastic formulae could be interpreted
as ethnic names was in fact Janda, see Janda (1994:174176). The idea was also taken
up by Melchert (apud Adiego 1995:20) and further developed in Adiego (2004:309310).
That I did not mention Jandas work in this latter paper is a regrettable oversight, for
which I ask forgiveness.
7
For mwdon as an ethnic name, see Adiego (1993:212). For integration of mdayn/
mdanmwdon into the same paradigm and for the identication of the Luwic ethnic
sux, see Melchert (1993:8283).
270 cn.r+rn sr\rx
qblsi. For -si-, a connection with Lycian -zi- is likely. For -i-, cf. Lyc.
-i( je)- (in Trmmili( je)- Lycian), and above all the Carian form ylarmit,
which seems to contain an -i- sux attached to the place name *ylar(i)m(a)-
= Hyllarima in order to express the meaning Hyllarimean. In the
case of msnord, ksolb, no suxation can be recognized, perhaps due
to the defective vowel notation. It is rather puzzling that none of these
forms, leaving aside mwdon, show the typical -yn-/-on- ethnical sux,
but this could be due to chance (cf. the great variety of ethnical suxes
also present in Lycian).
A new argument can be added to this evidence for ethnic names:
there are three inscriptions in which a N- N- N- formula is found,
which means that the third name can hardly be a papponym, since it
agrees in nominative case with the rst name. Moreover, in two of the
three cases, the third word can be interpreted as an ethnic name:
ayriq | parpeym i yiasi E.Me 25
idmns | myre i | mdayn i E.Me 33a
triqo : parma i klorul i E.Me 6
In the rst example, read thus,
8
we nd the word yiasi, which cannot
be anything other than the nominative form, referred directly to the
individual name ayriq, of the word that appears in E.Me 9 as yjas[i ],
and which we have just connected to the place name Iasow.
E.Me 33a is equally clear: here, the third position in nominative is
occupied by mdayn, which has also already been interpreted as an eth-
nic name (corresponding to genitive mwdon). In this same inscription,
the onomastic formula appears iterated, but for the second time (E.Me
33b) without the ethnic name (idmns myre ).
9
In the case of klorul, a similar explanation can be envisaged, although
it is necessary to admit that there are no parallels in the place names
of Greek sources for a place name *k(V)loru- or similar.
10
A further example of a possible ethnic name in nominative is oered
by E.Me 44:
(a) apmen rquq kojol i
(b) mwton i
8
On this reading, see p. 54.
9
For the problem of idmns (s-stem nominative or rather a stem with s-ending?), see
below pp. 314317.
10
An alternative analysis would be to think of a type of title referring to triqo.
.x.rvzixo c.ni.x ixscnir+ioxs 271
Leaving aside the particle i, the structure of E.Me 44a is identical to
E.Me 25, E.Me 6 and (with the caveat of -s in idmns) E.Me 33a. The
last form therefore also appears in nominative. A good connection can
be established here with the name of the island of Cos. The exact par-
allelism with the name of the inhabitants of this island in Greek sources,
Koi, is astonishing. For -l, note also a possible similar sux in kloru-l.
As for (b), the genitive mwton must be related to the fathers name
rqurq. This specication has been added outside of the basic formula,
but connected with it by means of the agreement.
11
To sum up, there seems to be good evidence for interpreting a great
number of third words in three-fold formulae as ethnic names. However,
cases like tatar prevent us from extending this interpretation to all
the examples of three-fold formulae. As the examples from Hyllarima
show, a threefold structure consisting of name + patronym + pap-
ponym also existed in Carian, and some examples from Egypt could
correspond to this kind of structure.
A more complicated question is which part the ethnic name must
be attributed to: in the inscriptions with the structures N- N- N-
(ethnic name), N- N- N- (ethnic name), or N-s N- N- (ethnic
name), there is no ambiguity: in the rst case, the ethnic name refers
to the deceased, in the second and third, to the father of the deceased.
But in N- N- N- (ethnic), the structure is ambiguous, as the last gen-
itive could refer to the rst one or to the second one. The existence
of both possibilities, as demonstrated by the unambiguous formulae
above, does not help to resolve the problem. It is possible that the
dierent uses of i also mark dierences in the structure, but it is gen-
erally dicult to tell which functions this particle is bearing when it is
used.
2. Stelae for Women
At least in two cases, the illustration in the stela makes it clear that
the deceased was a woman: in E.Me 12 and in E.Me 13:
pjabrm | uol | mwdon i kbjom | m[no] E.(Me 12)
dtat | upa | w | wet i | mwdon i (E.Me 13)
11
Note, however, that this overall analysis of E.Me 44 raises questions that are still
unclear: the individual to which kojol is referred bears an Egyptian name (apmen), which
is rather strange (we must accept, then, that this individual, coming from Kos, adopted
a new, Egyptian, name). Moreover, this intepretation implies that while apmen came
from Kos, his father was a mwdon-.
272 cn.r+rn sr\rx
E.Me 13 does not show any special characteristics. We have already
included it in the list of GenitiveGenitiveGenitive inscriptions above.
Like other inscriptions of the same kind, the role of mwdon is ambigu-
ous, and could complement either the rst or the second name: wet
could be the fathers name, but it is also possible that it represents the
husbands name (see below). The w after upa is unusual: is it a mistake,
as Masson suggests, or does it represent a word, either complete or
abbreviated?
E.Me 12 oers a more interesting structure. It presents a four-fold
onomastic formula, pjabrm- uol- mwdon- kbjom and a last, incomplete
word, whose integration as m[no] seems suitable using the example of
another four-fold inscription, E.Me 16, which we will come to imme-
diately after. The meaning son for mno has been already proposed
on several occasions (see Chapter 11 s. v. for further details), and seems
to be the simplest and most logical solution, especially in the light of
certain funerary inscriptions of Caria (see below p. 289 and ss.). There
seems to be some connection between the fact that the deceased is a
woman and the presence of an atypical four-fold formula. A good solu-
tion would therefore be to interpret uol mwdon kbjom m[no ] of Uol,
the mwdon, the son of Kbjom as the name of the husband.
A comparable analysis can be proposed for E.Me 16, which presents
a structure very similar to E.Me 12, as has been mentioned above:
irow | pikra i semw | mno mwdon i (E.Me 16)
irow is a name of Egyptian origin, where it appears documented as
both masculine and as feminine (see Chapter 11 s. v.). If we choose to
interpret it as feminine, the structure and analysis of the text is iden-
tical to E.Me 12, the sole dierence being the position of mwdon i,
which in E.Me 12 precedes the liation formula with mno. Therefore,
here we can translate it thus: Irou (f ), (husband) of Pikra, the son of
Semw, the mwdon-. It is impossible to decide whether the dierent
placing of mwdon i is due to the fact that here, unlike in E.Me 12,
mwdon refers to the fathers name, semw, and not to the husbands
name, pikra: the accumulation of genitives renders the overall struc-
ture ambiguous.
The following inscription also contains the co-occurrence of the name
irow and the word mno:
irow : psHm[-] pttu : mno (E.Me 27)
.x.rvzixo c.ni.x ixscnir+ioxs 273
In this case, it is a threefold formula, and a supercial approach would
suggest that it be grouped with the other Genitive-Genitive-Genitive
formulae. But the presence of mno after the third name seems to chal-
lenge this simple interpretation. If: psHm[-] pttu was a sequence of
patronym and papponym of irow, we would instead expect the word
for son to follow psHm[-] , not pttu. But if in this case irow is a
female name followed by the onomastic formula of the husband, the
placing of mno makes sense: Of Irow (f.), (the husband) of PsHm[-],
son of Pttu.
3. Inscriptions with ted and en
Hajnal and Schrr independently proposed that the Carian words for
father and mother could be recognised in the forms ted (E.Me 38)
and en (E.Me 32) respectively. The correspondences with Lycian and
Luwian are striking (CLuw. tti, Lyc. tedi; CLuw. anni, Lyc. eni, see
Chapter 11, ss. vv.) and the contexts in which they appear favour this
analysis as kinship terms:
in | upe | arie
?
i ted (E.Me 38)
iturow | kbjom | i en | mw[d]on i (E.Me 32)
The structures of both inscriptions are very similar, and the dierences
easy to explain. In both cases, the name of the deceased appears in
genitive; in E.Me 38 it depends on the word for stela (here upe),
whereas in E.Me 32, as in many other cases, the word for stela is
elliptical. The construction of the kinship noun with i is identical in
both texts: N- i ted, N- i en, and the interpretation, clearly paral-
lel: who (is) the father of N, who (is) the mother of N.
The construction with the particle i presents very interesting char-
acteristics. First of all, the interpunction in E.Me 32 seems to be more
than a mere coincidence; unlike the most widespread type of con-
struction with i, characterized by the postclitical position of this parti-
cle (it appears systematically attached to the preceding word), in this
case, i hangs on the following word en. This prosodic discrepancy
seems to correspond to a deeper, syntactic, dierence. It must be noted
that in both examples, ted and en must be analysed as nominatives,
which implies that the construction with proclitic i constitutes a true
relative clause, despite the absence of an express verb, with i and
ted/en in nominative (as the syntax of the relative clause demands) vs.
the respective antecedents in genitive. This diers from the postclitic
274 cn.r+rn sr\rx
uses of i: in an inscription like the above-mentioned E.Me 16, repeated
here:
irow | pikra i semw | mno mwdon i
Here, mwdon is an ethnic name referring to semw. If the construction
of postclitic i were similar to that of proclitic i, we would expect
*semw mdayn i, i.e. both i and mwdon in nominative. Instead, mwdon
agrees with the antecedent of i, semw. As Hajnal (1997a) has con-
vincingly demonstrated, this construction is a further evolution of con-
structions of the proclitic type; from the use of elliptical constructions
N
1
-() N
2
- i (*mno) (Of ) N
1
, who (is the son) of N
2
, the position of
N
2
- was extended to receive predicates and appositions syntactically
attracted by the antecedent.
The existence of two uses of ias proclitic, introducing what can
still be considered a relative clause, and as postclitic, with a function
closer to a simple articleallows us to interpret the structure of E.Me
17 with a certain precision:
arnai upe | quq bem i mdan (E.Me 17)
Regardless of whether arnai- is in this case a female nameif so, quq-
could be interpreted as the husbands name, as in E.Me 16, 32 and
38or a masculine onewhich would imply that we are dealing with
an individual name + patronym + papponym formulathe most rel-
evant fact is that bem- (gen.) i mdan (nom.) is exactly parallel to
in- . . . i ted and iturow- . . . i = en, in contrast to the abundant exam-
ples of postclitic constructions (mwdon = i (irow pikra = i semw mno
mwdon = i E.Me 16, etc.).
This analysis of i mdayn/mdan vs. mwdon = i encounters some prob-
lems in the interpretation of two inscriptions containing mdayn = i:
(a) taubt / kuarib/ar | en / niqau / ptnupi
(b) idmuon / i | mdayn i (E.Me 18)
(a) idmns | myre i | mdayn i
(b) idmns | myre i (E.Me 33)
The diculties posed by E.Me 33 are not so serious: we can assume
that idmns is an s-stem nominative form, and that mdayn depends directly
on idmns. The case of E.Me 18 is more dicult, but in this inscription
it is the overall sense of the text that remains unclear. In any case,
idmuon i mdayn i, added by a dierent hand, must refer to a name
in part (a), as shown by the presence of i after the two words. The
.x.rvzixo c.ni.x ixscnir+ioxs 275
closest name is ptnupi, in nominative form, which allows us to interpret
mdayn i as an ethnic name referring directly to ptnupi, in which case
the construction of the postclitic i would be regular (mdayn is also a
nominative, like ptnupi ).
It must be noted that the hypothesis envisaged here about the exis-
tence of two dierent uses of ia postclitic one introducing not only
genitive but also attributive and appositional words, and with attrac-
tion to the case of the antecedent, and a proclitic one in a construc-
tion closer to the original structure of relative clausesis based on
evidence that remains scarce, and must therefore be considered as
merely provisional.
4. Other More Complex Funerary Inscriptions
Leaving aside those already analysed (E.Me 12, E.Me 16 and E.Me
44), and the very dicult stela E.Me 18, mentioned above, there are
only three other inscriptions from Memphis that include complex for-
mulae with more than three names:
arjom : ue : mwsat : i : mwdon : i tbridbd : i (E.Me 42)
(a) lsi | upe | rquq i | ksolb (b) arliom | mno i (E.Me 43)
[--]qarm : q[---] i : pdubi mno [mw]don [i ---]word i (E.Me 10)
E.Me 42 can be compared to other typical inscriptions that present
the structure N- N- N-mwdon (E.Me 13, 28, 31), the sole dierence
being the addition of a fourth name. The simplest interpretation is to
view this as the papponym, but expressed formally as a patronym of
the patronym: Of Arjom the stela, who (is the son) of Mwsat, the
mwdon-, the (son) of Tbridbd-.
E.Me 43 is perhaps less complex than it appears, as one can in fact
speak of two dierent formulae. In E.Me 43a, we nd a typical three-
fold formula N-, N- i N-, where the third name seems to be an
ethnic, as already seen: Of Lsi- the stela, the (son) of rquq-
Kasolabean (with the ambiguity of the exact referent of the ethnic
name: rquq or Lsi?). E.Me 43b, arliom mno i, literally translated
as of Arliom, who (is) the son makes complete sense when considered
as a further addition to E.Me 43a. Therefore, the stela would be ded-
icated to both Lsi and his son Arliom. An satisfactory overall trans-
lation would be, Of lsi- the stela, the (son) of rquq- Kasolabean.
(And) of Arliom, the son.
276 cn.r+rn sr\rx
As for E.Me 10, the lacunary character of the text makes it dicult
to understand. The most remarkable fact is that this inscription appar-
ently contains a ve-fold formula, which represents an exceptionally
long structure. This unusual characteristic, and the presence of mno
after the third name, leads us to the possible conclusion that we are
once again dealing with a stela for a woman; aside from the last name,
the structure is very similar to E.Me 16, the only dierence being the
genitive vs. nominative case for the rst name, although this is largely
irrelevant:
[--]qarm q[---] i: pdubi mno [mw]don [i] ]word i (E.Me 10)
irow pikra i semw mno mwdon i (E.Me 16)
In this example, a woman, [--]qarm, would therefore be mentioned as
the wife of Q[---], the son of Pdubi, the mwdon-. As in the case of the
irow inscription, the function of mwdon- is ambiguous, insofar as it could
refer either to pdubis or to q[---] (see above for E.Me 16).
If this interpretation is correct, the last name [---]word must be
either the name of the father of pdubi- (i.e., the papponym of q[---])
or, less likely, the ethnic name of pdubi- if [mw]don- refers to q[---].
5. The Rest of the Inscriptions from the Memphis Corpus
The formulae and structures analyzed in the preceding pages account
for most of the inscriptions from the Saqqra corpus. Only a few inscrip-
tions have not yet been cited and/or analyzed. Several of these are so
fragmentary that they cannot be included in any of the structures
already mentioned (E.Me 22, E.Me 37, E.Me 39, E.Me 52E.Me 66).
The remaining examples will be commented on briey in the follow-
ing paragraphs.
terez | upe | nuol[---]sarmrolyt (E.Me 4)
Although the beginning of the inscription points to a typical N-
upe . . . formula, no parallels can be found for the nal part. Unfortunately,
the gap in the middle of the text complicates the interpretation still
further. The nal -ol in ?]sarmrol would be consistent with an indi-
vidual name in -ol (= -vllow) or with a possible ethnic name, like
kojol. This interpretation would leave the last three letters as an inde-
pendent word yt. Could this be a verb? The nal -t recalls the pos-
sible third singular ending -t in bt (see p. 281282). This would mean
.x.rvzixo c.ni.x ixscnir+ioxs 277
that a typical formula Stela of Terez . . . would be followed by the
name of the dedicant, ?]sarmol made/dedicated. This is, however, a
very hypothetical solution.
12
psmkwneit | ue | naria | ugliq | sarl
?
(E.Me 5)
The characteristics of E.Me 5 are to some extent comparable to those
of E.Me 4. The inscription begins in a strictly ordinary way (N- ue
N- Stela of Psmkwneit, (son) of Naria-), but the following two words
move away from the usual formulae; ugli- has already been already
mentioned, appearing in two other inscriptions as third name, and this
interpretation as a possible ethnic form is corroborated by its resem-
blance to the place name Souaggela. But the most surprising feature
of the present inscription is that we would expect to see a form in gen-
itive ugli, according to the typical formula N- N- N-. With this in
mind, is ugliq merely a mistaken form intended to be ugli (id est,
q q erroneously used for z ), or is the nal -q linked in some way
to the presence of the nal word sarl
?
, a hapax? The existence of the
particle -q, perhaps of connective nature, is now conrmed thanks to
the new inscription of Hyllarima (armotrqdos=q), but its function in this
latter text unfortunately remains unclear.
The dicult reading of the last letter (sarl
?
is a proposal made by
Schrr; an alternative reading is sara) makes an analysis of the inscrip-
tion even more complicated.
(a) war[---]t[------]i[---] | mdan
(b) [--15--]a[-]i | mdan (E.Me 11)
The only reason for citing such a fragmentary, largely illegible inscrip-
tion is the repeated presence of mdan. As the illustration on p. 43
shows, this stela represents a male-female couple, and each line of the
inscription, situated behind each member of the couple, seems to cor-
respond to the individuals drawn on the stone. We can imagine that
the structure of both onomastic formulae was identical: N- N- . . . mdan,
i.e. individual name in nominative + fathers name (and also grandfa-
thers name?) in genitive + ethnic name mdan in nominative. These
are the only examples in which mdan appears without i.
12
Schrr (1992:155) tries to connect the peculiar content of this inscription to the
fact that the stela in which it appears is a stle de donation, representing the Pharaoh
Apries making an oering to the god Ptah.
278 cn.r+rn sr\rx
tduol / kbos | amsqi[. . .? (E.Me 24)
The inscription, and consequently the formula, is almost complete: only
a few signs can be missing in the nal part of the last word. The most
notable feature of this inscription is that the individual name in nom-
inative is followed by another name ending in -s. Interpreting kbo-s as
a dative of dedication, which would be a good argument for -s as a
true dative ending, seems unlikely, not only because of the resulting
exceptional structure (Tduol to Kbo), but also because of the par-
ticular disposition of the text in the stela; tduol, situated at the very
top of the stela, and inscribed in longer letters, must be the name of
the deceased. The simplest solution is to consider kbos an attribute or
apposition in nominative to tduol. It could certainly be a title accom-
panying the name of the deceased, but an interesting connection also
arises if we interpret it as an ethnic name: the coin legend kbo, which
Konuk has convincingly classied as a place name, identifying it with
Keramos (Konuk 2000b). It is true that kbo may only be the initial let-
ters of the place name, unknown in Greek sources, but the possibility
that kbo is a complete form cannot be discarded: kbo-s could therefore
be an ethnic name corresponding to that place name. The suxation
can be compared directly to (accusative) -s-n in otono-s-n Athenian,
from *otono- Athens. As for samsqi[, it could be the patronym (sam-
sqi[?. . .-].
wnuti | kwar mHm i | mwdon []i (E.Me 31)
The analysis of this inscription is hampered by the problematic sequence
kwarmHm, where it is not clear if we are dealing with a single name
or rather with two dierent names, both in genitive. The latter solu-
tion has been adopted here (p. 59), but the resulting structure is some-
what strange: it would apparently be a four-fold structure, where mwdon
appears as a fourth name, and not as third name, which it is more
typical.
Vittmann (2001:4849) has oered a plausible solution to this prob-
lem and at the same time a very convincing interpretation of the rst
word, wnuti. He suggests that wnuti- could be the adaptation of Egyptian
wnwtj, hour-observer, astronomer (see Chapter 11 s. v. wnuti ), so that
wnuti- would be a title referring to kwar-, the name of the deceased.
Thus the structure of the onomastic formula becomes an ordinary three-
fold one: Of the astronomer Kwar-, who (is the son) of MHm-, who
(is the) mwdon- (once again with the ambiguity about the exact refer-
ent for mwdon-).
.x.rvzixo c.ni.x ixscnir+ioxs 279
[q
?
]lalis / [?]iam i / alos arnos (E.Me 45)
In the two initial words we can easily identify a formula, Nominative
or s-ending + Genitive. As in other cases, it is dicult to decide
whether the name is an s-stem in nominative or an s-ending, in which
case the formula would have to be compared to the ntokri-s type (E.Me
35).
The pair of words alos arnos is far more dicult to analyse. The
resemblance to the well-known place name Halikarnassos, rst sug-
gested in Adiego (1990), continues to be an attractiveif problematic
possibility. The word reappears in another inscription (C.xx 2, under
the form alosd arnosd), and I refer to the analysis of that inscription
(below p. 284). In this case, we cannot rule out the possibility of inter-
preting it as an ethnic name or even a place name.
tqtes | paraibrel i | mn[o-?] (E.Me 47)
The initial name could again be a nominative of an s-stem or an
s-ending form, tqte-s. The following sequence, paraibrel i mn[o-?], where
we nd N- i mn[o-?] son, recalls the structures arie
?
i ted (E.Me 38),
kbjom i en (E.Me 32) mentioned above, and leads to an interpretation
tqte(s). who (is) the son of Paraibrel. In this case, it is very likely that
the word son appeared in nominative (*mno), a form that is still undoc-
umented.
loubaw | siral | pnldwl (E.Me 49)
This inscription is perhaps the most unusual example found in the
Carian corpus of Saqqara. Apparently a threefold formula, the second
and third names end in -l, which would be a morphological ending
without clear parallels. Moreover, no parallel can be found in the Carian
onomastics for any of the three alleged names. In any case, we must
bear in mind that the overall reading of the text remains very uncer-
tain (see p. 71 for remarks).
6. A First Summary
The previous pages have allowed us to familiarize ourselves with the
onomastic formulae, from the most basic to the more complex. Our
main sources of information were the funerary stelae of Saqqra, where
it is common to nd more complex structures than simply the indi-
vidual name, or of the individual name + fathers name. We have seen
280 cn.r+rn sr\rx
the high frequency of threefold formulae, which contain a third name,
possibly an ethnic name, but also in some cases the name of the grand-
father. Even more complex structures can also be found, and in some
remarkable cases the increased complexity seems linked to the fact that
the deceased is a woman; in such cases, the onomastic formula that
accompanies the female individual name seems to refer to the husband
and his genealogy. In two exceptional cases, the deceased is mentioned
as the father or mother of another person (E.Me 38, E.Me 32).
Also typical in the Memphis funerary stelae is the absence of verb
forms. Only in the case of E.Me 5 could this possibility be envisaged,
but the fragmentary nature of the text prevents reaching a denitive
conclusion. The rest of the Saqqra epitaphs are characterised by the
direct reference to the deceased in nominative or in an s-ending form,
or to the stele in an expressed or elliptical form, in which case the
name of the deceased appears in genitive, indicating possession. None
of these cases require the use of a verb form. Indeed, not even in the
constructions with i is a verb used.
The absence of verb forms is counterbalanced by the presence of
certain nouns that belong to the Carian common lexicon: mno- son,
ted father, en mother, upe (and variants), ue stela, to which two
pronominal forms can be added: the abovementioned relative i and
the demonstrative sa (in upe sa). As for the use of i, we have identied
two dierent constructions: the rst, closer to a use as relative, where
the nominal predicate introduced by i is in the nominative while the
antecedent is in the genitive (type arie
?
i ted), whilst the second is more
comparable to an article or connecting particle, where the complement
introduced by i is attracted by the antecedent (type semw . . . mwdon
i ). Although the evidence is not sucient to draw denitive conclu-
sions, we have been able to observe a clear correspondence between
the position of i and each of these two functions: it seems to be pro-
clitic when used as relative, and postclitic when used as article.
C. Ax.rvzixo Bnirr Ixscnir+ioxs
In this section, I shall analyze a selection of brief Carian inscriptions
other that those mentioned in the preceding sections. I leave out those
grati containing more than simply onomastic formulae, given the
diculties of reading present in most cases, which have not been ade-
quately edited (Thebes, Silsilis, Abydos). Speculating about the struc-
.x.rvzixo c.ni.x ixscnir+ioxs 281
ture and meaning of inscriptions for which we do not possess a reli-
able reading would be a very risky practice. In my view it is prefer-
able to limit the research to those inscriptions we can be condent of
reading correctly.
1. Inscriptions on Objects
Two Pharaonic Objects (E.Me 8, E.xx 6) and the Use of sb and
We begin with two very brief inscriptions on so-called pharaonic objects,
which serve to illustrate the use of the coordinative conjunction sb
E.Me 8, a bilingual inscription on the base of a statuette of Apis,
consists of two parts. The text that appears in the rst part, paraeym:
armon i, is now interpreted without diculties as Paraeym the inter-
preter, in direct correspondence to an identical formula that appears
elsewhere in Egyptian (see p. 41 and Chapter 11 s. v. armon). In this
case i introduces an apposition to the personal name in nominative.
In the second part, two personal names in nominative are united by
sb, which has been unanimously interpreted as a coordinative con-
junction (and), above all since the discovery of the Kaunos bilingual,
where it appears repeatedly with this function. E.Me 8b paraeym sb polo
can therefore be interpreted as Paraeym and Polo.
A construction similar to E.Me 8b, but in s-ending case, is visible
in the inscription E.xx 6 on the basis of a statuette of Isis: arnajs sb
taqbos For/of arnaj and Taqbo. It is probable, but impossible to
demonstrate, that these formulae of EMe 8b and E.xx 6, consisting of
a pair of names, represent the names of a husband and wife.
Three Inscriptions on bowls (C.xx 1, C.Ha 1, C.xx 2)
Three inscriptions on bowls constitute a type of small sub-corpus of
particular interest. In a very inuential and decisive article, Melchert
(1993) oered an interpretation of one of these texts (C.xx 1), which
in my opinion remains essentially valid. We will begin thus with this
inscription, adopting in general terms the views expressed by Melchert:
rquq | qtblem | bt | snn | orkn | ntro | pjdl
?
C.xx 1
In this inscription, an onomastic formula had already been identied:
rquq qtblem rquq (son) of Qtblem. Melcherts interpretation of the
remainder of the text is based on two fundamental and compelling
hypotheses: rstly, that bt is a verb comparable both formally and
282 cn.r+rn sr\rx
semantically to Lycian ubete, oered, and secondly that snn orkn is the
direct object of this verb, formed by a demonstrative snn (which would
belong to the same paradigm as san in the Athens bilingual inscription)
and a common noun referring to the phiale, orkn. Both elements appear
in the accusative singular, morphologically reected by the ending -n
(sn-n ork-n). Melcherts elegant interpretation of the ve rst words of
C.xx 1 is now supported by the discovery of the bilingual inscription
from Kaunos, which has conrmed the existence in Carian of an
accusative sg. ending -n and has dispelled the doubts about the value
of y/ (close to u), thus assuring the equivalence bt = Lyc. ubete.
The last two words remain problematic. Melchert has recently revised
his initial views on these forms. In his 1993 article he intepreted ntro
as a dative of the Carian name for Apollo. For pjdl, he proposed the
analysis as an apposition to snn orkn with the meaning gift, etymo-
logically related to Hitt. pi-/piya-, Luw. piya-, Lyc. pije- to give: -dl
would represent a sux*-d
h
lo-). However, Melchert (2002:309310)
denies the existence of Carian datives ending in a vowel and, follow-
ing a suggestion by Schrr, prefers to interpret of ntro as referring to
rquq, with the meaning priest of Apollo: rquq (son) of Qtblem ded-
icated this bowlthe priest of Apollo as a gift. Leaving aside for now
the discussion about the alleged datives in -s, the internal syntactic
reasons that Melchert adduces in refusing the interpretation of ntro as
dative are not particularly convincing: he states that pjdl cannot be an
apposition to the direct object if ntro is a dative, due to the separation
that this latter word introduces between snn orkn and pjdl. For this rea-
son, he classies both ntro and pjdl as two epexegetic, add on phrase[s]
dening, respectively, the subject and the direct object, as his transla-
tion oered above tries to reect. However, following this logic, I see
no reason why we should not consider only the word pjdl as an epex-
egetic phrase (= rquq (son) of Qtblem dedicated this bowl to Apollo
as a gift). A further complication arises if we take ntro to be not the
Carian name for Apollo, but rather a derivative of it: it obliges us to
recognize the same derivative in E.xx 7, where an s-ending form appears
(ntro-s), which Melchert interprets as a dative. We must also assume
therefore that this latter inscription is dedicated not directly to Apollo
Branchid but to an unmentioned priest of Apollo Branchid, perhaps a
less satisfactory solution (see below p. 317).
In any case, despite these diculties that depend to a great extent
on the crux about datives in Carianon which see pp. 314317 for
.x.rvzixo c.ni.x ixscnir+ioxs 283
further remarksMelcherts interpretation of the overall meaning and
the rst part of the syntactic structure of C.xx 1 remains one of the
most brilliant contributions to the understanding of a Carian text, and
the consequences of the etymological connections it highlights are very
important.
The connection of C.xx 1 with another inscription on a bowl (C.Ha 1)
has not gone unnoticed:
smdbrs | psnlo | md orkn tn | snn (C.Ha 1)
Melchert (1993:81) correctly notes the presence of snn and orkn, the
same nominal phrase that appears as a direct object in C.xx 1. Given
that both inscriptions are engraved on similar objects, this parallelism
is consistent with the interpretation of snn orkn as this bowl (acc.). But
the correspondence between the two inscriptions ends here, and it would
be very dicult to interpret the structure of C.Ha 1 using the exam-
ple of C.xx 1. The only clear form (apart from snn orkn) is smdbrs,
which is undoubtedly a personal name, although this is ambiguous due
to the nal -s, which could be either an inection mark (s-ending) or
simply the nal consonant of an s-stem. Forms such as ktbr, ardybyr-,
dtbr, Arduberow could point to the rst solution, but the new personal
name ybrs- from Hyllarima (C.Hy 1a), a true s-stem that seems to con-
tain the same root ybr-/br-, allows us to classify smdbrs as a pure nom-
inative form.
The presence of orkn . . . snn leads to the assumption that a transitive
verb must be also present in the inscription. Without entirely discard-
ing the possibility of omitting the verb, suggested by Melchert (1993:81),
it is advisable from a methodological point of view to pay careful con-
sideration to whether any of the three remaining words ( psnlo, md, tn)
could represent the verb of the inscription. If we look at each of the
three possibilities in turn, we will see that the choice here is not easy.
It seems almost certain that tn is a word in agreement with orkn snn,
given that it is situated between these two words; a dierent explana-
tion would imply that the noun of the recipient and the demonstrative
that accompanies it form a discontinuous noun phrase, a hyperbaton
that is not altogether impossible, but certainly quite unlikely.
13
In the
case of md, we must not overlook its resemblance to the forms mda,
13
However, the interpunction that separates md orkn tn from snn suggests that this
possibility should not be ruled out altogether.
284 cn.r+rn sr\rx
mdane, which have been interpreted as verbs in various studies (see for
instance Melchert 2002:308, n. 7). However, in my view, the forms mda
and mdane forms cannot be verbs, as we will see later (p. 324). This
leaves psnlo as the form most likely to be a verb. As evidence to sup-
port this hypothesis we could consider the resemblance of psnlo | md
to pisoimda in the Hekatomnids decree from Sinuri (C.Si 2). In Adiego
(2000:141143), this latter form was connected with the Anatolian verb
for to give (Hitt. pi-/piya-, Luw. piya-, Lyc. pije-, etc.), see p. 304.
An alternative analysis of psnlo would be to take it as a personal
name; this possibility would lead us to accept Melcherts hypothesis on
the absence of an express verb, or to attribute this function to md or
tn, the diculties of which have already been mentioned. If pnslo is
a personal name, the resulting sequence smdbrs psnlo would create an
embarrassing dilemma: is smdbrs the indirect object and psnlo the sub-
ject, or vice versa? The dilemma is inseparable from the problem of
the Carian dative (see pp. 314317).
Shown below is the third inscription on a bowl:
biks not : alosd arnosd : jzpe mdane (C.xx 2)
Adiego (2000:153155) oered an interpretation of this inscription. This
interpretation hangs on two fundamental hypotheses: that biksnot must
be segmented biks not and interpreted as a sequence Individual Name
14
+ Verb (where not would be morphologically comparable to bt in C.xx
1, see above), and that the well-known word mdane is not a verb, but
rather a sequence of particles and clitic pronouns. For no-t, a connec-
tion to Hitt. n(i)-, CLuw. (reduplicated stem) nana- < * PIE *neyH
to bring was cautiously put forward. Regarding mdane, an analysis
already proposed in former works was reintroduced: in -ne, a clitic
accusative pronoun -n- + a clitic dative pronoun -e attached to a base
md-, for which no explanation was given. The form jzpe was consid-
ered a proper name dative (to/for jzpe). Finally, alos-d arnos-d was
interpreted as an ablative instrumental (with -d = Luw. -ti, Lyc. -di ) of
the word (in fact a noun phrase) alos arnos, also present in E.Me 45
and tentatively identied (in Adiego 1990a) as the Carian place name
Halikarnassos. This yielded a possible translation as biks brought it
to Jzpe from Halikarnassos. Obviously, this proposal was based only
14
For sbiks as PN, cf. yi{}bik (E.Me 46a).
.x.rvzixo c.ni.x ixscnir+ioxs 285
on a set of hypotheses, and as such is far from conclusive. But the core
of the discussion must be retained here: not and mdane are the most
obvious choices for constituting the verb of the sentence, and either
choice has important repercussions for the interpretation of the other
inscriptions containing mda, mdane.
The inscription on a bronze lion (E.xx 7)
Another very interesting short inscription is found on the base of a
bronze statue representing a lion (E.xx 7):
ntros : pridas / ora / nu mdane : uksi wrm
ntro-s prida-s shows an inected form of ntro, the same word that appears
in C.xx 1, where it was interpreted as a god name (the Carian Apollo;
cf. however the alternative explanation as a derivative, priest of Apollo).
ntro-s is accompanied by prida-s, whose nal s seems to indicate an
agreement with ntro-s. Schrr proposed that this could be identied as
a Carian form connected to Greek Bragxdai, the Branchidsthe
name of the family of priests consecrated to the cult of Apollo in the
sanctuary of Didyma near Milet (Schrr 1998:158)but as attractive
as this theory is, it is dependent on the rather ad hoc assumption of
a phonological value close to gx for the infrequent and obscure Carian
letter %. Lacking further evidence, I have chosen to adopt this assump-
tion here in purely conventional fashion (which explains the use of <>
for transliterating %, see p. 20). In any case, there is a general con-
sensus that pridas constitutes an attribute or an apposition to ntros, with
which it would agree.
Melcherts interpretation of the whole inscription (see Melchert
2002:308) is as follows: Uksi, (son) of Ur(o)m, has now given it, the
ora, to the priest of Apollo, the Branchid. There are no particular
problems posed by analyzing uksi wrm as a typical onomastic formula,
individual name + fathers name in genitive, and uksi as a nominative
and consequently, the name of the donor. The rest of Melcherts inter-
pretation is more controversial: he claims that mdane is the verb, nu is
an adverb,
15
ora is the name of the object and nally ntros pridas must
then be the indirect object in dative case. We have already seen (above
15
No comments are made about this word in Melchert (2002), but it is self-evident
that he assumes an etymological connection with PIE *nu- now (Hitt. nu-, Lat. nunc,
Gr. nn, etc.)
286 cn.r+rn sr\rx
p. 282) that in this paper, Melchert abandons his earlier interpretation
of ntro/ntros as a god name in favour of the meaning priest of Apollo.
This change is a consequence both of his refusal to analyze ntro as
dative and of his assumption that the s-ending is a dative mark. The
result of this new analysis is in my opinion rather unsatisfactory: E.xx.7
becomes an inscription dedicated to an anonymous priest of Apollo,
whereas in C.xx 1 the verb bt, oered, is not accompanied by the
name of the being to whom the object is oered. In my opinion it
would be simpler to interpret ntro/ntros as the god name (Apollo), ntro
as dative and to search for an alternative explanation for the s-ending
in ntros pr%idas, but I leave the discussion of the forms with s-ending
until the following chapter.
The interpretation of mdane as a verb is also unconrmed, and this
word will be analysed in the following chapter. In any case, if it is not
classied as a verb, the verbal form ought to be looked for in the pre-
ceding sequence of words: either nu, ora, or less probably oranu (with-
out discarding further segmentations). Of all these possibilities, nu seems
the most likely: nal -u immediately preceding mdane reminds us of ew
mlane (/ ew lane 1), a sequence that appears in some inscriptions of
Thebes, where it could also be a verb.
The Tarhunt-inscription of Iasos (C.Ia 3)
The inscription of Iasos C.Ia 3 oers some very interesting forms but
unfortunately the overall structure and meaning remain unclear:
?] are | anne mlne | siyklo | ann | trqude | lmud [?
There is no question that the most signicant word is trqude, interpreted
as a god name (Tarhunt, the Anatolian Storm God) in Blmel-Adiego
(1993), which has now been conrmed by the form armotrqdosq in
Hyllarima (C.Hy 1), where a dvandva Arma-Tarhunt (the moon-god
plus the storm-god) is easy to recognize.
Given that the inscription appears on a cratera, we can assume that
this object is oered to the god Tarhunt, which would imply that trqude
should be considered an indirect object in dative. However, the rest of
the text does not allow us to conrm this syntactic analysis; the only
other form that can be analyzed with any condence is siyklo, a gen-
itive, probably of a personal name, which implies that it depends on
another personal name, as part of an onomastic formula. The most suit-
able candidate is ?]are, the word that apparently begins the inscrip-
tion, but the discontinuity of the onomastic formula would then be
.x.rvzixo c.ni.x ixscnir+ioxs 287
somewhat surprising. Also unclear are the formal connection between
anne and ann and the resemblance of mlne to the sequence mln in
C.Ka 4 yomln C.Ka 5 uiomln, two forms which should probably be
interpreted as verbs (see below pp. 298299, 301). Finally, the analy-
sis of lmud[? is hampered by the uncertainty about the nal part of
the word. Gusmanis proposed complete form, lmud[e], would give a
possible epithet for trqude.
The inscription of arkbiom (E.Sa 1)
The text of E.Sa 1, inscribed on the base of a reliquary for three
mummied reptiles, is the following:
arkbiom : zidks mdane : n[-?]/mo | den : tumn
The text is even more impenetrable than those of the inscriptions on
recipients analyzed above. It clearly begins with a personal name in
nominative (arkbiom, also cited in the Egyptian part of this bilingual
text). This name seems to appear here as a complete onomastic for-
mula, with no mention of the fathers name. The inscription again con-
tains the verb or particle sequence mdane, a word ending in -o whose
complete reading is not possible ( n[-?]mo), and a very obscure form
with no parallels, zidks. For the two last words, a tentative analysis was
made in Adiego (1995:2123): given that the Egyptian text contains a
formula, that Atum the great god may give life and health to rkbym,
I suggested that the Egyptian god name Atum could be reected in
the form tumn at the end of the Carian text. This latter form would
therefore be an accusative in -n of a stem tum-. The somewhat unusual
presence of an accusative instead of a more typical dedication dative
was explained by analysing den as a type of preposition, etymologically
related to Hitt. anda, andan, Lyc. te.
Irrespective of this latter interpretation, the overall structure and
meaning of the inscription remain unclear. If we retain the hypothesis
that mdane is a particle sequence, the search for verbs can be limited
to the words zidks and n[-?]mo, for which no parallels can be given.
2. Funerary Inscriptions of Caria and Athens
A brief sub-corpus of funerary inscriptions other than those from Egypt
can be identied. It consists of eight inscriptions, seven for dierent
Carian places (C.Tr 1, C.Tr 2, C.Al 1, C.Eu 1, C.Ka 1, C.Ka 3, C.Kr 1)
and the bilingual inscription of Athens (G.1). The funerary character of
288 cn.r+rn sr\rx
other inscriptions (C.Eu 2, C.Si 1) cannot be ruled out, particularly in
the rst case, but they do not display the requisite lexical elements that
would allow us to include them in this typological classication.
These lexical elements are the words s(i)di, present in C.Tr, CTr 2,
C.Al 1, C.Ka 1, C.Te 1, and ( j)as in C.Eu 1, G.1. Although neither
of these appears in C.Ka 3, the context of the inscription, engraved
on the facade of a typical Kaunian rock tomb, is undoubtedly funerary.
The only bilingual text is found in the inscription from Athens. In
Adiego (1992a:3233; 1993a:165170) an interpretation was attempted,
based on the hypothesis that the single Carian line corresponds exactly
to the rst line of the Greek text:
sma tde Tur[
jas : san tur[
According to this inscription, Carian jas would be equivalent to Greek
sma, whereas san would be a demonstrative pronoun corresponding
to Greek tde. This latter equivalence indicates a very interesting ety-
mological connection: san could be related to Luw. za-, Hitt. ka- this
< PIE *o-, and would also be evidence of the satem treatment of
PIE palatals in Carian, as in the rest of Luwic languages (cf. Adiego
1995:12). Melchert (1993:7980) rened this comparison, explaining the
Carian nal n of san by comparing with the Hitt. adverb kn(i) look
here, lo!, eni this, the aforementioned, and combining san and snn
from the bowl inscriptions in a single paradigm.
The interpretation of jas as a word for tomb, funerary monument
or similar is reinforced by its presence in C.Eu 1, where it appears
in the slightly dierent form asaccompanying a standard twofold
onomastic formula:
as : ktais idyri : mn[o-?]
Both ktais and idyri admit good onomastic identications: ktais recalls
Ekataow, a Greek name commonly attested in Caria, perhaps because
of its resemblance to the indigenous name ktmno (adapted in Greek as
16
In former works, I suggested that ktais, analyzed as nominative, could contain an
s-stem created from the Greek nominative, on which the Carian inection of the loan-
word could have been formed (cf. Lyc. zeus- in dat. zeus-i, from Greek Zew). But for
the reasons explained above, I believe that the use of nominative can be excluded in
this case.
.x.rvzixo c.ni.x ixscnir+ioxs 289
Ekatmnvw). As for idyri, it belongs to the same family of names as
Saurigow, Senurigow (on this family, see pp. 262263). Once again, the
nal -s in ktais can seem ambiguous (s-stem
16
or case ending), but in
this case the simplest solution is to interpret it as a inectional mark,
given the presence of a word referring to the monument, which rules
out the possibility of expressing the name of the deceased directly in
nominative. ktai-s must therefore be an s-ending form, and, as in many
other cases, it can be translated as true dative = indirect object (tomb
for Ktai) as well as possessive or genitive (tomb of Ktai). idyri does
not pose any problems: it is the name of the father of ktai, expressed
in the usual genitive in -. As for mn[o-], it is regrettable that the nal
part of the inscription is broken. An integration mn[os] seems the most
likely solution, because this word must agree with ktais. The complete
text can thus be translated: Funerary monument for/of Ktai, son of
Idyri, without ruling out, however, the possibility that mn[os] could
actually be a juxtaposed word to ktais, which would give the following
meaning: Funerary monument for/of Ktai (son) of Idyri (and his) son.
Interpreting the inscriptions with s(i)di is more problematic, since
their structure is more ambiguous and the segmentation of the words
in the contexts where s(i)di appears is not always certain.
We can begin with C.Tr 2, a complete and brief inscription with
virtually no problems of segmentation:
17
an sidi a-/rtmi pau / paraq
?
However, the interpretation of this text is seriously impeded by the
diculties of reading posed by the last sign of the last word. As noted
in p. 131, all the existing drawings of this lost inscription seem to point
to Q, but the well-known problem of distinguishing between z, Q and
also o make it unwise to automatically accept a reading as Q. Therefore,
we must also consider the possibility of an alternative reading with z
( para
?
),
18
a theory that has been vehemently defended by Schrr.
The main advantage of the reading para is that it results in a clear
threefold onomastic formula, N- N- N-: rtmi pau- para-. Although
17
Only the segmentation sidi artmi could be contested, because one could theoreti-
cally separate sidia rtmi (for this latter, cf. rtim C.Hy 1a), but this alternative segmen-
tation does not aect most of the possible interpretations that will be considered here.
18
The third possibilityreading o, hence parao
?
seems to be excluded, given that
a nal sequence ao in this position has no parallels and does not lead to any satis-
factory analysis.
290 cn.r+rn sr\rx
there are no clear parallels for a name para-, the typical onomastic
element par(a)- can be easily recognized. Even a connection to pridas
could be considered: if prida-s corresponds to the name of the priest
family of Didyma Branchidai, para- could be the Carian name corre-
sponding to Greek Brgxow. However, the problem is to syntactically
connect the onomastic formula rtmi pau- para- with the initial for-
mula an sidi. This latter seems to consist of a noun that would denote
the funerary monument, sidi, preceded by what is probably a demon-
strative pronoun an (cf. san in G.1): therefore, an sidi would mean this
tomb, or this (is) the tomb, or similar. The presence of this formula
seems little consistent with an N- (nominative) rendering of the name
of the deceased. This sentence could only make sense if we interpret
an sidi as an accusative, and assuming an elliptical verb (made).
An attractive alternative is to suppose that artmi is not an accusative,
but rather a dative, which would mean that the overall sentence must
be interpreted as This tomb/this (is) the tomb for A., (son) of P., (grand-
son) of P. Developing this hypothesis further, one might wonder if -i
could be a true dative ending for a stem artm-. This possibility would
allow us to integrate artm-i and the name (in nominative) rtim from
C.Hy 1a in a single paradigm (nominative (a)rtim- / dative art(V)m-i ).
However, the existence in Minor Asian onomastics of a large number
of names formed on the basis of the onomastic element art(e/i)m-, but
with dierent derivations, makes this paradigmatic connection of artmi
and rtim a very fragile theory.
19
Consequently, it is currently impossi-
ble to decide whether artmi is a nominative or a dative, since there are
signicant diculties encountered by either solution.
The reading paraq would give a new perspective. If para- is a per-
sonal name stem, -q could recall ugli-q in E.Me 5, but this is an obscu-
rum per obscurius solution, given that the interpretation of ugli-q in the
context of E.Me 5 is also very problematic (see above). A very dierent
way of analyzing paraq was suggested in Adiego (1993a:263) and devel-
oped further by Hajnal (1995[97]:20). Taking as a starting point my
proposal of connecting paraq with the Lycian verb prnawa- to build,
very common in Lycian funerary inscriptions (ebene xupa prnawate
X, . . . X has built this tomb . . . and variants), Hajnal tries to connect
nal -q with the 1st singular active preterite ending in Luwic languages:
19
See Zgusta (KPN 108) and here Chapter 11 s. v. artmi.
.x.rvzixo c.ni.x ixscnir+ioxs 291
CLuw. -a, Lyc. -xa, -ga. The advantage of this hypothesis is that it
convincingly resolves the structural problems posed by the text; an sidi
would be therefore the accusative of a verb meaning to make (or,
with a more specialized meaning, to build), and the problem of an
onomastic formula with an individual name in nominative would no
longer be relevant, as the text would read, This tomb (acc.) Artmi,
(son) of Pau, I made. This is undoubtedly a very attractive hypothe-
sis, but it is seriously weakened by the doubts surrounding the exact
phonological value of % <>.
sis : sdisa-/s : psuol / mal : mno C.Ka 1
The main diculty of analysing of C.Ka 1 lies in how to interpret the
initial formula sis sdisas, where a word sdi, undoubtedly a variant form
of sidi with defective vowel notation, can be identied. In psuol- mal
mno, it is not dicult to recognize a twofold formula, with both per-
sonal names in genitive ( psuol-, mal ). The well-known Carian word
for son, mno-, also in genitive, could agree with the name of the
deceased and govern the other genitive, mal- (of Psuol, the son of
Mal), but, as in C.Eu 1, an asyndetic construction must not be ruled
out: of Psuol (son) of Mal, (and) of (his) son.
As for the initial words, sis sdisas, I believe it very unlikely that sis
can be a personal name, although not impossible. The hypothesis that
will be considered here argues instead that it is part of the reference
to the tomb. The main problem is how to reconcile sdisas with the
form an sidi in C.Eu 1. One could attempt the segmentation sdi sas
and recognize here the dierent pronominal stem sa-/san-/snn-, but the
nal s would then remain unexplained. Without dismissing this possi-
bility, I wish to propose an alternative: if we intend to nd here the
same pronominal stem of an, the only possible procedure is to use the
segmentation sdis as. This gives a sequence si-s sdi-s a-s, which seems
to contain a common ending -s for all three words. Could this ending
be a plural mark? If this were the case, sis could be interpreted as a
plural form of the pronominal stem san-/sn- (s-is), and the overall sense
of sis sdisas could be These (are) the burials . . . or These burials are
those . . ., completed by the genitives that follow (. . . of Psuol (son)
of Mal (and) the son. If I must be honest, this latter translation is
somewhat forced, as it assumes an asyndetic construction, which is a
possible, but not the only, interpretation of the whole sequence (see
above). However, the link between the presence of sdisas and a collective
292 cn.r+rn sr\rx
tomb is much clearer in the other inscription in which this form appears
(C.Kr 1):
qot
2
omu sdisa-
s
?
n odubr or rather: mn odubr?
sb mno knor
noril
?
ams or rather: norimams?
In this inscription, the existence of more than one burial can be deduced
not only from the clearest part of the inscription, odubr- sb mno-,
which can be translated of odubr and the son, but also from the
fact that the tomb clearly contained three burial chambers, as pointed
out by Olivier Henry (pers. comm.). Unfortunately, the overall struc-
ture of the inscription remains very unclear. It is possible that qot
2
omu
could be a personal name, which would allow us to recognize the ref-
erence to three individuals (qot
2
omu, odubr- and one son, mno-), but
the syntactical connection of qot
2
omu with the rest of the inscription,
and the sequence n that appears after isolating sdis-as, remain unex-
plained. Note also that the reading of the nal s in sdisas and the sub-
sequent segmentation are far from conclusive. If we accept (with some
reservations) the reading sdisas, we could tentatively envisage that qot
2
omu
is not a nominative functioning as subject, but rather a nominative of
appellation, designating the owner of the tomb. In this case, n could
be a resumptive pronoun referring to Qot
2
omu: Qot
2
omu. These tombs
(are) of him, of odubr, and of the son . . . Needless to say, this inter-
pretation is more a desideratum than a fact based on solid evidence.
As for knor norilams (or knor norimams), practically nothing can be said.
20
The two remaining inscriptions that contain sdi- are too fragmen-
tary to attempt an interpretation. In C.Tr 1, two personal names, one
in nominative (artmon) and the other in genitive ( pau ) can be identied,
but sidi appears followed by an unclear and incomplete sequence, amt[.
The case of E.Al is worse still, where only sdi a[-]mob[ is legible.
The last funerary inscription of this sub-corpus, although complete
and without reading problems, thanks to the recent autopsy made by
Diether Schrr, is very brief and contains no specic word to desig-
nate the tomb:
oru / ann ibrs C.Ka 3
20
Only as a purely assonant connection can we resort to Lyc. nere/i-, a term of
relationship whose exact meaning is unknown (Therefore sb mno k-nor noril
?
ams and of
the son and(?) the nor nori- relatives?).
.x.rvzixo c.ni.x ixscnir+ioxs 293
The segmentation proposed here (already suggested in Adiego 1996)
seems to me the most plausible, although other possibilities exist.
21
According to this segmentation, we can identify two names in genitive
(oru, ibrs) and the word ann, probably a demonstrative pronoun that
can be related to an (see above). The meaning of the inscription would
therefore be This (tomb is) of oru, (son) of Ibrs or, simply, That (is)
of oru, (son) of Ibrs.
In conclusion, the study of this sub-corpus of funerary inscriptions is
seriously limited by the scarcity of materials, and the divergent for-
mulae employeddespite the coincidence of several formulaic words
(s(i)di, (j)as, and some demonstrative pronounscannot be reduced to
a single, stereotyped model of expression.
3. The Longest Grato from Abu Simbel (E.AS 7)
While a great number of the Carian grati from Egypt contain only
onomastic formulae (usually N- or N- N-), some grati are more
extended and probably also include common lexicon. However, this
material cannot realistically be analyzed; for some important sub-cor-
pora there are no updated and reliable editions, and in the case of the
Abu-Simbel and Buhen grati, for which we are lucky enough to have
Olivier Massons reliable editions, the reading diculties are such that
in most cases they cannot be used with any degree of condence. For
that reason, I will limit my analysis to a long grato with certain par-
ticularities that have attracted the interest of scholars.
naz i | b | esak
?
dow | mqudem | pismak | bebint | mo | ne |
ps[|
?
] ai[-]iqom
The most striking feature of this inscription, engraved by a Carian sol-
dier during the Nubian campaign in 593/592 BC, is the suspicion that
the personal name pismak alludes directly to the Pharaoh Psammetichus
II, under whose supreme command the military campaign was under-
taken; this would closely link the grato to the well-known Greek
inscription, also from Abu Simbel, in which the same Pharaoh is men-
tioned.
22
It is true that pismak (and variants) is well documented as a
21
For instance, to isolate only two personal names, oru and annibrs. Also theoret-
ically possible is the segmentation anni brs.
22
Bernand-Masson (1957), inscription n 1: basilow lyntow w Elefantnan
Camatxo, / tata gracan to sn Cammatxoi t oi Yeokl ow / pleon, lyon d Krkiow
katperye, uw potamw / nh: loglsow d xe Potasimto, Aguptow d Amasiw:
294 cn.r+rn sr\rx
name often used by the Carians in Egypt, but the appearance of the
word esak
?
dow in the grato is favourable to this hypothesis: kdow
/kndow/ (or its phonetic result) has been convincingly compared to
Lycian xtawa- to rule (cf. also xtawat(i)- ruler, king = CLuw andawat(i)-
supreme authority, king).
23
Therefore, in esak
?
dow . . . pismak, we could
attempt to nd a meaning king Psammetichus or similar. Both the
initial sequence esa- and the precise function of nal - are problem-
atic, and dierent possibilities can be envisaged: ese- could be compared
with the Lycian preverb ese-, for which a meaning with has been pro-
posed (see Melchert DLL s. v.). Perhaps in this instance it may have
a reinforcing function. As for -, two hypotheses can be considered: it
could be a sux attached to the verbal stem kdow- to rule in order
to create a noun (cf. Lycian -za?), or it could be a nominative plural
ending. This latter theory is less consistent with an interpretation of
pismak as the name of the Pharaoh, since he would appear at the same
level as the other alleged commanders. Moreover, in the rest of the
Carian grati there is no form that can be likened to the names of
military ocials cited in the corresponding Greek inscription.
Ultimately, these doubts cannot be resolved, as the rest of the inscrip-
tion remains unclear. It is possible that both the identication of pismak
with Psammetichus and the equation of kdow = Lycian xtawa- are
correct, but the overall interpretation of both words as king Psammetichus
may still be erroneous.
D. Tnr Loxorn Ixscnir+ioxs
Some of the Carian inscriptions found in Caria proper are more extended
than the rest. We may assume that their content can be broadly dened
as legal: honorary decrees, regulation of cults, lists of priests, and so
on. As the study of fragmentary languages shows, the longer texts are
the most dicult to analyze. A good example is our meagre knowl-
edge of Milyan vis--vis Lycian: having at our disposal a text as long
/ grafe d m Arxon Amoibxo ka Pleqow Odmo. When the king Psammetichus
came to Elephantina, this was written by those who sailed together with Psammetichus,
(son) of Theokles and who came beyond Kerkis, as far as the river permitted. Those
speaking foreign tongues were leaded by Potasimto, the Egyptians by Amasis. We have
been written by Arkhon (son) of Amoibikhos, and Pelekos, son of Eudamos.
23
Adiego (1995:1920).
.x.rvzixo c.ni.x ixscnir+ioxs 295
as the Milyan inscription in the Xanthos stela does not necessarily guar-
antee an understanding of the grammar and lexicon of this language,
but in fact implies quite the opposite. It is preferable to work with a
sizeable corpus of relatively brief textsas is the case with Lycian
than to be restricted to a single, very long, and generally impenetra-
ble text.
This is also the situation with Carian. Texts such as the Kildara
inscription are currently impossible to analyse. We can identify some
isolated words, but we know nothing about the context in which they
appear.
The only way of getting inside such a text is through the existence
of a translation. Of the entire Carian sub-corpus of longer inscriptions,
the only inscription that is accompanied by even a minimally legible
text, and whose content corresponds undoubtedly to the Carian text,
is the bilingual inscription of Kaunos. But even in this case, the results
that we are able to obtain are very limited. Our analysis of longer
inscriptions will begin therefore with this example.
A problem that seriously impedes the interpretation of this type of
inscription is our current inability to identify verbal forms. Without
knowing which words represent verbs it is practically impossible to
devise any approach to analysing the structure of the text and the func-
tion of the common nouns that it contains. Even in the bilingual of
Kaunos, where the existence of the Greek inscription ought to help
identify verbal forms, no agreement has been reached on which of the
words must be identied as verbs. As we have already seen, the prob-
lem of identifying verbs also aects shorter inscriptions, and only with
a substantial increase in the Carian documentation available will we
be able to resolve this great problem.
1. The Kaunos Bilingual Inscription
We will begin with the only text that can be read alongside a paral-
lel Greek text. The possibility of comparing the two texts explains the
special attention that this inscription has received since its discovery.
Even the editors of the inscription, Frei and Marek, did not limit them-
selves to a simple epigraphical edition, but oered in addition a rst
attempt to establish the parallel passages in both texts, paving the way
for further research.
24
Following this initial study, other scholars have
24
See Frei-Marek (1997), (1998).
296 cn.r+rn sr\rx
drawn up essays of interpretation for the overall text or for concrete
sections.
25
In the present work, I follow in general terms the views
adopted in Adiego (1998a), completing the discussion by referring to
the works cited above. No real developments have appeared since then,
and the initial enthusiasm inevitably generated by the discovery of such
a unique document has clearly diminished, since the results that have
been obtained are relatively modest.
Of the 18 lines of the Carian inscription, the current possible inter-
pretations are in fact limited to the rst 10, essentially for three rea-
sons: (1) these 10 lines correspond roughly to the conserved part of
Greek inscription, the rest of which has been lost; (2) lines 1112 of
the Carian text is unfortunately very dicult to read because of the
crack in the stone, which creates a lacune that makes it very dicult
to continue the analysis of the text; (3) the last lines of the Carian text
are practically impossible to interpret, since most of the forms are hapax
legomena and display no external characteristics that could help their
understanding. The segmentation of words in these nal lines is also a
very dicult task.
The identication of proper names that appear in both texts has
proved fundamental to an analysis of the comparable parts of the
inscriptions. The correct interpretation of sb as a coordinative con-
junction is also relevant, as it thus becomes an important tool for estab-
lishing the phrases and sentences of the Carian text. A third decisive
factor, already noted by the editors, is the existence of textual paral-
lelisms with the other large text from Kaunos (C.Ka 2).
Kaunos bilingual (lines 110) Greek version
kbidn uiomln i[---] doje Kaun[]oiw p dhmio[u]-
inis drual nik[--] rgo Ipposynouw: Nikok-
lan lysiklas[-
?
] la Lusiklouw Ayhnao[n]
otonosn sb lys[ikl] ka Lusikla Lusikrt[ouw]
an lysikratas[-
?
] [A]yhnaon projnouw e[nai k-]
otonosn sarni[] a eergtaw Kaunv[n auto-]
mdot
2
un sb undo[--] w ka kgnouw ka [-----]
tl kbdyn sb b
2
o[--] n autow [. . .
ol otr sb at [ms]-
kmt absims sb [---]
25
See among others Hajnal (1997b), Melchert (1998), Neumann (1998).
.x.rvzixo c.ni.x ixscnir+ioxs 297
A quick look is sucient to identify the correspondence of all the proper
names that appear in both texts. Even in the only case where the words
are not formally relatedthe reference to the Kaunians, reected in
Carian by means of kbidn, kbdynLycian evidence (Xbide is the Lycian
form for Kaunos) dispels any doubt. All these correspondences have
been underlined in the table above.
The onomastic formulae appear clearly in accusative case (marked
with the ending -n: nik[--]lan, lys[ik]lan), which allowed the rst editors
to correctly identify the words ending in - as plural accusatives. This
means that the words that present this ending (including sarni[ ]) could
represent the Carian equivalent of the Greek accusative plural formula
projnouw . . . [k]a eergtaw Kaunv[n auto]w ka kgnouw. The fact
that the Carian formula contains more words that the corresponding
formula in Greek made it dicult to establish the precise connection
between the two texts, and the attempt the rst editors led to mistaken
assumptions. The identication of the word otr with Lycian atra-/etli-,
person, self , made independently by various authors, has claried the
situation decisively; it implies that the Carian passage corresponding to
the Greek formula projnouw e[nai k]a eergtaw Kaunv[n], which
immediately precedes [auto]w, must be identied in the more extended
construction, sarni[ ] mdot
2
un sb undo[--]tl kbdyn sb b
2
o[--]ol, which
in turn precedes otr.
The possible explanation for this extended formula in comparison to
the Greek version will be dealt with later. Before addressing this prob-
lem, we must focus our attention on what is undoubtedly the main
obstacle to interpreting these rst lines of the Kaunos bilingual: the
identication of the possible verbal forms. The need to rst locate the
verbs in the bilingual is clearly justied by the fact that some of the
forms appearing in the sequence sarni[] . . .b
2
o[--]ol have entered into
the discussion about possible verbal forms.
The Greek construction of the sentence is clear: an impersonal verb,
it seemed good, constructed with dative (to the Kaunians) and an
innitive clause as the subject of the impersonal verb (that Nikokles
(. . .) and Lysikles (. . .) were public guests and benefactors of the
Kaunians). As Greek syntax demands, the subject and nominal pred-
icate of the innitive clause are in the accusative case. Much discus-
sion has arisen as to whether the Carian text contains, or indeed can
contain, a construction of this kind, or whether the formula of the
proxeny decree is instead expressed in Carian in a very dierent way.
The only clear indication that the Carian text oers is the fact, mentioned
298 cn.r+rn sr\rx
above, that the personal names of the honoured Athenian citizens are
in accusative. This implies at least a verb that either directly or indi-
rectly governs these accusatives, and all the proposals formulated to
date attempt to nd verbs among the words of these rst lines. Scholars
have adopted two diering approaches to the question; while some of
them have assumed that there is only a verb in personal form, with-
out the actual presence of an innitive, others have claimed to recog-
nize an innitive form, which would indicate the further existence of
a main verb or equivalent construction.
The options suggested as possible innite or nite verbal forms are
uiomln, mdot
2
un, and un (2; from segmenting mdot
2
un and un do[--]tl ).
Although the verbal character of rual has also been considered, in the-
ory there is a certain consensus to interpret it rather as a noun, within
a formula equivalent to Greek p dhmio[u]rgo Ipposynouw.
The rst editors adopted the approach of postulating a nite verb
construction. In fact, they claimed to have identied two nite verbs,
uiomln and mdot
1
un (interpreting O t
2
as a glide sound between o and
u). Both would be third person plural preterite verbs with the respec-
tive meanings to decide and to make, to invest as, to establish as
(Frei-Marek 1997:2930), and the accusatives would be dependent on
this latter verb.
Melchert (1998) suggested that the accusatives are directly constructed
with a nite verb. But unlike Frei-Mareks proposal, he prefers to clas-
sify uiomln as a noun with the meaning decree (kbidn uiomln decree
of Kaunos, with kbidn as plural genitive of the place name),
26
and
although he agrees with the rst editors in considering mdot
1
un (also
interpreted as mdo/w/un, with O t
2
as a glide) to be a nite verb gov-
erning the accusatives, he analyzes it as a rst person plural preterite,
we have established, we have install (as). A weak point of Melcherts
interpretation is that the analysis of this word as a rst person verb
depends on the assumption that O represents a /w/ sound, as he com-
pares an alleged ending -/wun/ with Hittite preterite rst plural end-
ing -wen and with the corresponding Lydian ending -wn.
The proposal in Adiego (1998a) is very dierent. Here, the suggested
segmentation is mdot
1
un (although without considerations about the
phonological value of O t
2
, which was studied in a subsequent paper,
26
For a place name kbid- as plurale tantum, Melchert reminds us of the similar
interpretation for the Lycian name of Kaunos, Xbide (Melchert 1998:37).
.x.rvzixo c.ni.x ixscnir+ioxs 299
Adiego 2002), and both this un and the un segmentable in undo[--]tl
are taken as innitives depending on the nitive verb uiomln, for which
Frei-Mareks interpretation as they decided is accepted. As for un as
innitive, it is compared with the Luwian innitive ending -una (aduna
to eat) and the whole form is considered as the innitive of a verb
to make, by comparing Lycian a(i)-, Cuneiform Luwian -/ya- to
make. The remaining word mdot
2
is then interpreted as a complement
of sarni[ ] that would therefore constitute a locution equivalent to Greek
projnouw. This hypothesis was rened in Adiego (2002), where argu-
ments were given in favour of O as the Kaunian form of the letter c
t, and for the interpretation of endings in -ot, -ot
2
as plural genitives.
These hypotheses do not cover every theoretically possible interpre-
tation of each of the words involved, and it is impossible with our cur-
rent knowledge of Carian to choose one above the rest, or to simply
deem them all incorrect. In any case, all these analyses coincide in see-
ing sarni[ ] (or sarni[ ] mdot
2
) and undo[--]tl (or do[--]tl) kbdyn as the
Carian equivalent to Greek projnouw [k]a eergtaw Kaunv[n]. This
interpretation seems to be one of the scarce certaintiesleaving aside
the onomastic formsthat currently exist about the structure and mean-
ing of the Carian text. However, it does pose a serious problem, inso-
far as between kbdyn and otr = atow we are left with sb b
2
o[--]ol,
which has no recognizable correspondence in the Greek part. It must
be remembered that this sequence led the rst editors to make mis-
takes, because they assume that sb b
2
o[--]ol is the Carian equivalent of
Greek ka kgnouw and the descendents, and otr was therefore inter-
preted as a possessive (of them. their). This intepretation was undoubt-
edly caused by the fact that b
2
o[--]ol is linked to the former text by
sb, which made it dicult to nd an equivalent to atow, since it
could hardly be preceded by a coordinative conjunction.
The Lycian etymology for otr mentioned above showed that this
interpretation was mistaken, since otr must be the Carian word trans-
lated into Greek as atow. But this explanation, based on a very con-
vincing etymological approach, fails to account in any way for sb
b
2
o[--]ol.
A provisional solution was suggested in Adiego (1998:23): b
2
o[--]ol
could be another ethnic name coordinated with kbdyn, referring to
Imbrow, the fortress near Kaunos
27
that Bean (1953:22) identied with
27
Strabo XIV, 651.
300 cn.r+rn sr\rx
the archeological remains on the summit of lemez Da<, the moun-
tain north of Kaunos. This hypothesis would t well with the initial b
2
of b
2
o[--]ol, but the fact that the Carian word is incomplete makes it
less certain. Moreover, it is not unthinkable that sb is in fact coordinat-
ing b
2
o[--]ol not with kbdyn, but directly with sarni[ ] and undo[-]tl /
do[--]tl, so that the Carian equivalent to the Greek twofold formula
projnouw [k]a eergtaw would be a threefold one, (sarni . . . (un)do[--]tl . . .
b
2
o[--]ol ).
The identication otr = atow makes it likely that the following
sequence, sb at[ms]kmtabsims sb [, corresponds to Greek ka kgnouw
ka [.
28
In Adiego (1998a) an etymological connection for at[ms]km(t?)
was proposed, based on the identication of mskm with the Luwian
stem masa- recognizable in mait- growth, prosperity, and the sug-
gestion that at- could be compared with Hittite katta, kattan down.
at[ms]km(t?) could therefore be a compound noun formally and seman-
tically comparable to o-spring, German Nach-kommenschaft and
Spanish de-scendencia. As for the remaining tabsims or absims, it was
suggested in the same study (Adiego 1998a:25) that this could be a
possessive, comparable to Lycian ehbi( je) < *ebesi( je)-. All these con-
nections are phonologically sound, but they fail to explain t (if it does
not belong to the word at[ms]km) and the nal -ms.
From absims sb on, the possibilities of interpreting the Carian text
decrease dramatically: both the sudden interruption of the Greek part,
and the lacuna of almost an entire line (l. 12) make it impossible to
continue with the analysis. We can identify further possible instances
of the conjunction sb and, but it is impossible to identify which type
of syntactic elements it is coordinating. Among the words of this nal
section of the inscription, special attention should be paid to the sequence
orouo, which recalls Lycian arawa- freedom, a term that is consistent
with the sort of privileges conferred on the proxenoi in these types of
decrees. However, the segmentation is far from certain, as it leaves an
isolated letter H between sb and orouo. Also of interest here are the pos-
sible presence of the word mno- son under the form mnos, and the
nal sequence aitusi, where we could identify a possible imperative aitu
or preterite ait of a verb corresponding to Lycian a(i)- to do, to make
(cf. Lycian aite they made).
28
The integration [ms] is based in the parallel sequence atmsk[ in C.Ka 1.
.x.rvzixo c.ni.x ixscnir+ioxs 301
2. The Kaunos Inscription C.Ka 2
[-(?)-ui
?
]oml qrdsgrdso[-]i[
[-?-]r sb amnnartnyr obsmns[
[-?-]arlano sb zarios i[
[-?-]nudrma yrpai sarni sb u[
[-?-]aH punot
2
otrbi sb atmsk[m
[-?-]dbi _1aitk ouor gdbla1_i[-]
[-?-] sarni sb 1orsol sb uHbit
[-?-]bi qrdsol ait _1mali Hit
[-?-]intnor yrapai umot
2
oba
[-?-]_iurt obsmsm1 ouor mt1_yr
[-?-][-]abrunur[-]ynHynn sb vacat
[-?-----------------]tbsms _1mali[
[-?------------------]maH 1sb an[
[-?----------------------]ba vacat
C.Ka 2, the most extensive Carian inscription, remains a virtually
impenetrable text. The discovery of the Kaunos bilingual has allowed
us to establish some connections between the two texts, and it is cer-
tainly very signicant that the word sarni, which in the new bilingual
seems to represent either totally or partially the Carian expression for
proxenoi, is also present in C.Ka 2. Other important correspondences
are the word otr = atow, the possible word for descendence, atmskm(t?),
and the noun or verb that appears apparently to indicate that the
inscription is a decree (uiomln, [--]mln in C.Ka 2). All of these ele-
ments seem to suggest that the content of C.Ka 2 and C.Ka 5 has a
similar purpose, but these correspondences are not corroborated by a
comparable overall structure. In this respect, the absence of clear ono-
mastic formulae, which we would expect to nd if dealing with the
concesion of proxeny to more than one individual (note the plural
sarni ), is very puzzling.
In the rst line, after ]mln, a word qrds can be segmented, recalling
a similar sequence in Kildara (C.Ki 1). In this case it seems to be fol-
lowed by another word etymologically related to it, grdso[, which points
to a possible gura etymologica. Another derivative of qrds appears in line
8, followed by a word ait: qrdsol ait. The nal - points to an animate
accusative (and perhaps also nominative) plural, and ait recalls, as
Melchert (1998:35) has pointed out, Lycian aite they made, so that an
interpretation as the qrdsol-s made or they made (them) qrdsol-s seems
likely. The presence of qrds immediately after ]mln, the noun or verb
302 cn.r+rn sr\rx
that initiates a decree, implies that qrds could be referring to the city
or to a city institution such as the assembly.
29
sarni appears twice, in both cases followed by sb, and. In the rst
instance, it is impossible to decide whether sb is joining sarni to another
plural noun, due to the crack of the stone. The second example is
much clearer: sarni sb 1orsol is undoubtedly a sequence of two accusative
(or nominative) plural nouns. The rst editors of C.Ka 5 tried to com-
pare this latter word with C.Ka 5, l. 89 b
2
o[--]ol, and proposed the
integration b
2
o[rs]ol. Although this hypothesis is very attractive, it is
complicated by a serious diculty: b
2
seems to be formally closer to
b (C.Ka 4) than to 1.
30
The only form that can be identied as a possible proper name is
l. 4 yrpai (nominative?), which reappears as genitive singular in l. 9
(yrapai- ).
The clearest syntactic parallel between C.Ka 2 and the Kaunos bilin-
gual is l. 67, otrbi sb atmsk[m . . .]dbi = Bilingual otr sb at[ms]kmt
absims themselves and (their) descendants. Unfortunately, it is impos-
sible to calculate the letters missing between atmsk[ and ]dbi, but it
seems likely that =bi was attached to (a form of ) the word atmskm(t?),
so that the formula in C.Ka 2 would present a X= bi and X= bi
structure: otr=bi sb atmsk[m . . .]d=bi. The exact function of this = bi
is unknown. It could be a particle reinforcing the coordination (both
them and (their) ospring, not only . . . but also . . .), but it could also
be a postposition (for, with?). Both interpretations permit an etymo-
logical connection with Lycian -ppi in hr-ppi on; for (cf. for this form
Lyc. hri = CLuw. arri up; (on) top). Carian =bi could be a generalisa-
tion of the lenited form of this particle instead of Lycian unlenited -ppi
(cf. the parallel process in Lycian -be vs. CLuw. -ppa, Melchert DLL
s. v.).
3. Sinuris Longer Inscription (C.Si 2)
(a) [--]ryin tmo : sb ada tmo
eri : pisoi mda : pmnn : pda-
mu i aoyrri mtel
29
For a purely theoretical etymology suggested in Blmel-Adiego (1993:94) see
Chapter 11, s. v.
30
That 1_ and are dierent letters (which rules out a triple equivalence 1_ =
= ) is conrmed by their co-occurrence in C.Ka 4.
.x.rvzixo c.ni.x ixscnir+ioxs 303
mailo mda lrH : stsp vacat
sms[--5--] sb amssi mda
sm[--7--]ae[
[--8--]tud[
e-?-[
(b) pim[. . .]
Ha
?
[. . .]
The longer inscription from Sinuri, engraved after a long Greek text,
could be a true bilingual, but the Greek text is so badly damaged that
it turns out to be practically unusable as a means of understanding the
Carian one.
The greatest progress in the analysis C.Si 2 has been made by Diether
Schrr: he was able to identify in the rst line of the text a reference
to the Carian dynasts Idrieus and Ada, sons of Hekatomnos ([--]ryin
tmo: sb ada tmo ). Moreover, Schrr argued convincingly that it
belonged to the same stela as a fragment of a Greek inscription also
discovered in Sinuri. This fragment adds very limited, but nonetheless
interesting information about the content of the Greek inscription pre-
ceding the Carian one, and it is certainly more valuable than the infor-
mation that can be obtained from the scarce remains of the Greek text
in the bilingual fragment. The Greek unied text contains two decrees
of the abovementioned dynasts, both conceding an tleia (tax exemp-
tion). A personal name, Ponmoonnow, is also mentioned in genitive in
the rst Greek decree, and Schrr also found it in the Carian text
(l. 2 pmnn, alternative reading ?pmun). This could be the same
name that appears in later Sinuri inscriptions in the form Pormounow,
as the denomination of the syngeneia devoted to the administration of
the temple.
In Adiego (2000), I attempted to make some progress in the under-
standing of the text. Many of the proposals outlined in that study were
very hypothetical, and I will not repeat them in any detail in the pre-
sent book. Perhaps the main idea that should be retained is my insis-
tence on searching for verbal forms: it is logical to assume that some
verbal form must exist not very far from the mention of the Hekatomnids,
expressing the action carried out by the dynasts, in the same way that
in the second Greek text the names of the dynasts were very proba-
bly followed by a verb [dvkan] (if Roberts very plausible integration
is accepted). In Adiego (2000) it was suggested that both pisoimda (l. 2)
and mailomda (l. 4) were verbs. In the rst case, a connection was
304 cn.r+rn sr\rx
proposed with the Common Anatolian verb for to give (Hitt. pi-/piya-
CLuw. piya-, Lyc. pije, etc.); in the second, I suggested a rather kling-
klang resemblance to Lycian mmaite in the trilingual of the Letoon of
Xanthos, a third person plural verb with a possible meaning to install,
to build. In both alleged verbs, mda was interpreted as the same ele-
ment that appears as mdane in other Carian inscriptions, which I con-
sider to be a particle chain (see p. 324). As for the resulting sequences
pisoi, mailo, o (in both forms) and i (in pisoi) were interpreted as
clitic pronouns (Adiego 2000:142):
Verb Direct Object Indirect Object -mda element Translation
pis- -o- -i- -mda they gave-it-to him/to
them
mail- -o- -mda they established it/him
These postclitic pronouns, attached to the verb, were syntactically com-
pared with the well-known nasalized preterites of Lycian ( pijete, mmaite ),
where the nasalized vowel comes from the univerbation of the verb
with a clitic pronoun ( pije-te < *-to+om he gave-it).
The rest of the ideas contained in Adiego (2002) are merely hypo-
thetical. In the sequence pmnn: pdamu i a construction with the
relative i was envisaged, and two possible interpretations were sug-
gested: Pmnn- who (is) the priest or the syngeneia of Pmnn-. Both
interpretations for pdamu were considered to be consistent with an
etymological connection of pda with Lycian pdden- and Hitt. peda-,
place. For eri, I proposed a possible word for tleia, on the basis of
its resemblance to Lycian arawa-, exemption (tleia), freedom, but
without discounting the alternative view suggested by Neumann (apud
Adiego 2000:144) of eri as preverb identical to Lycian eri (cf. Hitt. ara).
Leaving aside all these speculative attempts, the most conclusive and
remarkable morphological information provided by the bilingual inscrip-
tion of Sinuri is the form pmnn, which must surely be an accusativus
genitivi or, more correctly, an accusative formed on the basis of the (old)
possessive adjective, comparable to the Lycian forms in -h (Lustrah).
The same analysis is probably also valid for pdamu, although the
presence of u between and obliges us not to disregard alternative
interpretations.
.x.rvzixo c.ni.x ixscnir+ioxs 305
4. The Hyllarima Inscription (C.Hy 1)
The recently discovered bilingual stone in Hyllarima has proved to be
a fragment that ts well alongside what was until recently the only
known inscription from that location. Joining the two pieces together
has provided us with a complete version of the Carian part of the orig-
inal stela with practically no problems of reading, and has also helped
us to understand the Greek texts that accompanied the Carian inscrip-
tion. Of these, the only one that seems to be contemporary or very
close to the Carian texts is the brief list of priests of all the gods in
column B:
Column A Column B
asqariod dymda kduopizipususot
muot armotrqdosq mol msot ylarmit
brsi ari brsi ereew yen pntvn:
mane : uol Ermaw Fanv Ermadow:
rtim uol pur
?
i erew yen pntvn:
Ussvllow Arrissiow
ubzol tu brsi
pau mane ybr-
s
(A later Greek inscription containing (A later Greek inscription containing a
a list of priests of Apollon follows) priesthood sale follows)
(Recall that other, later Greek inscriptions appear on both sides of the
inscription, see p. 136, n. 25 for details).
Any attempt to analyse the Carian text is seriously hampered from
the beginning by the doubts about the exact order in which the rst
two lines of both columns (in fact, the only part containing common
vocabulary, since the remaining lines contain only onomastic formulae)
should be read. As pointed out in Adiego-Debord-Varinlio<lu (2005),
three posibilities can be considered: (1) to read the rst line of each
column and then the second line of each column (A1 + B1 +A2 +
B2); (2) to read the two rst lines of column A and followed immedi-
ately by the two Carian lines of column B (A1 + A2 + B1 + B2); (3)
to read all of column A before reading column B, that is, to treat the
columns as (relatively) independent texts (A + B). The existence of a divid-
ing line bewteen the columns seems to support the last solution, but
given that the two columns are apparently lists of priests, it is strange
306 cn.r+rn sr\rx
that an identical word for priests cannot be found in each column.
This option would also raise another intriguing question: why are the
names of the priests in the rst column in Carian and the names in
the second column in Greek, despite the fact that Carian is used for the
headings of both columns?
Both solution (1) and solution (2) imply that the two rst lines of
both columns would be the common heading for the entire Carian
inscription. But there are no clear arguments for or against either solu-
tion: the rst lines in both are for now impenetrable, and in the case
of the second lines, although they do contain words that can be inter-
preted (see immediately below), their structure does not allow us to
clarify whether or not they consitute a consecutive sequence.
From the two initial lines of both columns, the only forms for which
we can nd a plausible interpretation are armotrqdosq and mol msot ylar-
mit. The rst, armotrqdosq, is undoubtedly the most relevant contribution
of the new Hyllarima fragment: its interpretation is straighforward
although the syntactic connection with the rest of the text remains
unclearand it is of great interest from both a linguistic and a cul-
tural perspective. In armotrqdosq, it is easy to recognize two typically
Anatolian god names: armo-, the name of the moon good ( Hitt.
Arma-), and trqd-, the storm god already documented in other Carian
inscriptions (Kildara, Iasos). As noted in Adiego-Debord-Varinlio<lu
(2005), the simplest explanation of armotraqd- is to see it as a dvandva
compound (Arma (and) Tarhunt), which would allude to worship
devoted to a divine paredria.
31
As for the morpho-syntactical interpre-
tation of armotrqdosq, we can identify here an ending -os (assuming that
trqd- retained its original nt-stem), followed by q, perhaps some sort of
enclitic connecting particle (in Adiego-Debord-Varinlio<lu 2005, I pro-
pose an etymological link with the enclitic coordinative conjunction
CLuw. -a, and), although it is by no means clear what this -q is actu-
ally connecting.
Regarding mol msot ylarmit in column B, in Adiego (2002:17) it was
analysed as a formula corresponding roughly to Greek ereew yen
pntvn priests of all gods, which would mean priests (mol ) of the
Hyllarimean gods (msot ylarmit). Although this interpretation requires
31
Other solutions seem less convincing, see Adiego-Debord-Varinlio<lu (2005:616617)
for details.
.x.rvzixo c.ni.x ixscnir+ioxs 307
us to make a series of (sometimes fragile) assumptions about the mor-
phology and semantics of the three words involved, at least in the case
of ylarmit, it seems plausible to consider a connection with the place
name Hyllarima, as suggested for the rst time by Ray (1988:152).
32
The interpretation of msot as, of the gods, is based on the possibility
of connecting it with the Luwic word for god: note particularly Milyan
masa- god, and also Lyc. maha(na)-, CLuw. man(i)-. The stem also
appears in Carian onomastics: msnord-, Masanvrada (see Chapter 11
s. v. msnord ). Less definite connections can be established for mol =
priests,
33
where moreover the character of the final - (an ending or
rather a derivative sux) remains unclear (see p. 318), although the
new inscription from Mylasa (C.My 1) now offers another example of
mol in the first line, preceding a long list of individuals. Even if the
meaning priests proved to be incorrect, the appearance of mol in the
heading of two inscriptions consisting of lists of onomastic formulae
would still be worth noting.
From a morphological point of view, this interpretation of mol msot
ylarmit assumes that mol must be in plural, presumably in nominative
(as in the Greek formula), although the possibility of another case can-
not be totally ruled out. Following the same interpretation, msot ylar-
mit must by contrast be a genitive plural, characterized by the ending -t.
On these morphological repercussions of interpreting mol msot ylarmit
as priests of the Hyllarimean gods, see p. 319.
The remaining lines of column A consist exclusively of ve onomastic
formulae, engraved at dierent times (see Adiego-Debord-Varinlio<lu
2005). With the exception of the second formula, where only the names
of the individual and the father are recorded, the rest of the formulae
are threefold: individual name, fathers name and grandfathers name.
It is interesting to note that the names cited in the Carian part coin-
cide with several names that appear in the Greek inscriptions on
the same stone; particularly striking is the fact that in one of the
priesthood sales, the daimones of an Arrisis son of Imbrasis, and a
Hermias son of Arrisis, are quoted among the other divinities mentioned.
32
Schrr (1992:146) had attempted to identify a name corresponding to Greek
Eemiaw in the Greek list of priests by isolating armit, but the value y /y/ of W, now
conrmed by the Kaunos bilingual, makes the connection between ylarmit and Hyllarima
clearly preferable.
33
Cf. perhaps Lyc. mle-, sacricial oering (??) and related words (particularly mla-
traza, mluhidaza, two priestly titles) in Melchert DLL, ss. vv.
308 cn.r+rn sr\rx
Both Arrisis and Imbrasis are names that appear in the rst Carian
onomastic formula (brsi ari brsi ), and it is reasonable to assume that
we are dealing with the same individuals.
34
5. Other Inscriptions from Caria
The new inscription from Mylasa (C.My 1) consists of an initial line
as the heading for a list of personal names. Therefore, only this rst
line contains what seems to be common lexicon. As is the case of most
Carian texts without personal names, it remains practically impenetra-
ble:
idrayridsemd
?
bq mol ty[
The most interesting characteristic is the presence of the word mol,
also found in Hyllarima, which has been analysed as accusative or nom-
inative plural with the meaning priests (see above). The presence of
a noun in plural ts well with the following list of personal names. In
Adiego (2005:9293) it was also suggested that ty[ could be the Carian
adaptation of Greek Txh, the goddess of Fortune. Therefore mol ty[
could mean priests of Fortune, priests for Fortune, although this is
merely hypothetical. The preceding sequence idrayridsemdbq is very dicult
to analyze. If the reading of d is certain, perhaps a word or particle
chain, md (cf. md orkn), could be segmented. In idrayri, we can attempt
to identify two stems idra- and yri- that recall, respectively, the place
name Idriaw and the yri-formant in personal names such as ayriq, idyri,
Saurigow. Cf. also (without tectal suxation) E.Th 26 yri and possibly
E.AS 5 pnyriru.
Little can be said about the rest of Carian inscriptions from Caria.
The Euromos inscription C.Eu 2 does not seem to be a funerary
inscription, insofar as none of the typical words for tomb, burial can
be identied, as already noted. Neither can we identify any clear ono-
mastic formulae. It is possible that the rst sequence omobi contains
34
See Adiego-Debord-Varinlio<lu (2005:614) for a rather speculative attempt to con-
nect the formula brsi ari brsi with Arrisis, Imbrasis and Hermias, by assuming that
the two Arrissis are the same person (which implies a descendence Hermias, son of
Arrisis, son of Imbrasis), and that the Greek individual Hermias would the same as
the Carian one brsi, a supposition based in the Carian name of Hermes Imbrasow/
Imbramow.
.x.rvzixo c.ni.x ixscnir+ioxs 309
the relative pronoun (hence the segmentation adopted here). As for the
following words, perhaps a genitive temazi can be segmented. In this
case, the d that immediately follows it could be compared with d in
i[---]inis=d=rual from C.Ka 5. Another word that may be present in
the text is armon, which cannot be clearly interpreted: it could be directly
compared to armon in E.Me 8 (dragoman, interpreter, although this
meaning would seem somewhat out of place here) or be analyzed as
an accusative in -n of the moon-god armo (attested in C.Hy 1a). The
rest of the inscription is even more dicult to fathom.
In the shorter text of Sinuri (C.Si 1) at least a possible onomastic
formula can be identied:
(1) adymd : yri : t[-]rsi : [. . .?]
tbe
(vacat)
(2) yri : binq : saidlo
t[-]rsi : [. . .?]tbe is convincing as a N- N- structure, and the incom-
plete second name can be compared with Thebes qutbe, Kuatbhw.
The rest of the inscription remains unclear, a situation that is fur-
ther compounded by the reading diculties. In Adiego (2000), saidlo
was tentatively analysed as a verb, comparable to pisoi=mda, mailo=
mda. aid was directly linked to Lycian a(i)-, to make, and s was
compared to Lycian se=(e). Leaving aside these more provisional
attempts, one must focus on the striking disposition of the two texts; a
relatively large gap has been left between the two, and the fact that
in the rst text a word adymd that possibly contains a plural ending
(-, cf. mol ) is followed by a single onomastic formula, makes it plau-
sible that the formula adymd: yri was conceived as the heading of a
list of personal names, and that this list was never completed. The
inscription from Hyllarima shows how dierent names were added to
the list on subsequent occasions, and this could also have been also
the initial aim of C.Si 1.
The inscription of Kildara (C.Ki 1), shown below, is even harder to
analyse than the preceding texts:
[. . . . . . .(.)]zolbaa[..(.)] kil[
[. . .]uda[. . .] trqdimr qrds tazomd[
kilarad[-]ybzsdmHnmkda[-]aHuq[
iasoum
The only elements to have been isolated as recognizable words are: (1)
the two instances of the place name Kildara (l.1: kil[, l.3; kilara or
310 cn.r+rn sr\rx
kilarad? -d could be a case ending or a clitic form d, comparable to
-d- in i[---]inis=d=rual); (2) the god name trqd (l.2, or better trqdimr as
a compound name?); (3) the word qrds, also in l.2, undoubtedly related
to qrds, qrdsol in C.Ka 2, and for which an institutional meaning has
been proposed. The only clear evidence for the content of the Kildara
inscription is negative: there is no point of contact with the Greek text
inscribed immediately after it. The name of the individual honoured
as proxenos and eueregetes in the Greek inscription, Uss[vllow?] son of
Samvow, does not appear,
35
and there is no sequence that can be com-
pared with the phraseology used in the proxeny decree of Kaunos
(C.Ka 5).
As for C.Ka 4, the fragmentary inscription from Kaunos that is
largely incomplete and has no clear context, it is impossible to even
attempt an analysis:
[. . .]uou ibrsdr[-]
[. . .]a yomlnr_1i
[. . .]dar1_ idym
Only two elements have been recognized here: the form ibrs, without
any doubt related to the family of names ibrs(i)-, brsi, and yomln, a
variant of the word uiomln in the rst line of the Kaunos bilingual,
interpreted as a verb or noun pertaining to the semantic eld of decree,
decision, to decree, to decide.
The two Stratonikeia inscriptions (C.St 1, C.St 2), as far as we can
currently tell, consist exclusively of onomastic formulae.
E. B.r.xcr .xr Sovr Cox+no\rnsi.r Qtrs+ioxs
The sum of the preceding analysis of a great part of the Carian cor-
pus can seem at rst sight somewhat disappointing: the results that can
essentially be considered conclusive are very scarce, and even some of
these are perhaps overly optimistic, since speculation has been unavoid-
able in several cases. Strictly speaking, our ability to analyze Carian
inscriptions is limited to the identication of proper names and ono-
mastic formulae, which allows us to understand only a very small area
35
However, one could be tempted to read Amous
!
amous instead of AsouM
iasoum in the last line, in order to obtain the name of the father of Uss[ollos?], Samoos,
mentioned in the Greek inscription, see p. 142.
.x.rvzixo c.ni.x ixscnir+ioxs 311
of Carian grammar. Only in the case of the Kaunos bilingual can
the interpretation be developed to any extent, thanks to existence of
the Greek version, but even with this advantage we do not obtain the
results we would hope for. As for the rest of the texts, the inscription
of rquq qtblem (C.xx 1) is something of an exception, since the bril-
liance of Melcherts interpretation has not been matched for other
inscriptions.
These limited results will be systematized in the next chapter, where
I shall focus on two problems that have arisen in the course of this
chapter, namely the s-ending and the alleged verbal forms mdane and
variants.
CHAPTER EIGHT
MORPHOLOGICAL FEATURES
In this chapter I summarize the morphological traits that can be obtained
from an analysis of the inscriptions, and interpret them from a histor-
ical and comparative perspective. Needless to say, the resultant picture
will remain exasperatingly incomplete, and in many cases will be based
on extremely fragile evidence. It will however be sucient to demon-
strate the clear relationship between Carian and Indo-European Anatolian
languages and, more specically, Luwic dialects.
A. Novix.r Ixrrrc+iox
Our present knowledge of nominal inection is based mainly on the
information given by the personal names, to which we can also add
some common nouns. There are no examples of adjective inection,
with the exception of ethnic forms, which can be interpreted as adjec-
tival complements (for instance otonosn in C.Ka 5). Only a few endings
can be established with some condence.
1. Nominative Singular
The singular nominative ending is systematically -, as appears clearly
in the onomastic formulae (uol, arli, ada, etc.). This also seems to be
the ending for common nouns, for instance upe, ue stele.
This zero ending can be directly compared with Lycian and Milyan
sg. nom. c. -, and we can imagine it to have a similar origin: a PIE
*-s > Proto-Anatolian (PA) *-s (Hitt., CLuw, HLuw, Pal., Lyd. -/s/)
dropped in absolute nal position. Words such as the abovementioned
upe, ue seem to be vocalic stems of the common gender, also with loss
of nal -s.
1
1
If they are not old eh
2
- stems with inherited ending - for the sg. nom.
vonrnorooic.r rr.+tnrs 313
2. Accusative Singular
An ending -n for the singular accusative has been clearly established
thanks to the Kaunos bilingual, conrming former interpretations which
led to the same conclusion.
2
The personal names nik[]la-n, lys[ikl ]a-n
show this ending for a-stems of personal names (Frei-Marek 1997:34,
48). Another clear example of -n accusative is orkn (bowl or similar).
The ending -n for singular accusative also appears in the pronominal
exion (see below p. 320).
This ending is also comparatively transparent: PIE *-m > PA *-n.
Unlike in Lycian, where the ending in contact with a stem nal vowel
a, e results in a nasalized vowel (noted by means of special letters <>,
< e>), the Carian forms with -an could point to a conservation of the
nasal, although it is not impossible that a process similar to the Lycian
example has occurred, though not noted with the same graphical pre-
cision. In ork-n we nd the same ending, but in this case after a con-
sonant, which could represent a syllabic nasal or merely a defective
vowel notation (/orkVn/).
3. Genitive Singular
The most characteristic ending for the genitive singular, conrmed only
by personal names, is -. Melchert (2002:311) has argued convincingly
that its origin lies in PA *-ass-, a possessive sux with i-mutation that
serves to create adjectival forms in Luwic dialects (CLuw. -ass-, HLuw.
-asi-, Lycian -ahi, -ehi, Milyan -asi, -esi ) that carry out the proper func-
tion of a genitive (cf. Lyc. eni mahanahi mother divine = mother of
the gods). This etymological connection explains the presence of -,
most probably a palatal sibilant // resulting from the contact of s
with , and either dropped or not graphically noted in Carian.
3
It is less clear if - in Carian continues to act as an adjectival sux,
agreeing in number and case with the word that complements it, or if
2
See Melchert (1993:80).
3
Melchert (personal communication) informs me that his views about the origin of
Carian - have changed since the publication of Melchert (2002). He now proposes
that - is cognate with Hierohplyphic Luwian -(a)si, and that both forms come from
the true PIE genitival ending, *-osyo. This interesting alternative hypothesis merits fur-
ther discussion that will not be included here. In any case, it does not alter the phono-
logical explanation, formulated above, of - as a palatal sibilant resulting from the
contact of s with i.
314 cn.r+rn rion+
in fact it has been reinterpreted as a pure case ending. A single form,
pmnn in C.Si 2, suggests that - retains its adjectival value, as it shows
a further accusative ending -. However, the example is too isolated
to be considered proof that the adjectival character of - has been pre-
served: it could merely be the result of a secondary process of agreement,
as occurred in Lycian with -h. In any case, whatever the explanation
of pmnn, it is a good illustration of that fact that in Carian, like in
Lycian, the limits between genitive and possessive adjective constructions
were rather blurred.
4
4. The -s Ending and the Problem of Carian Datives
Throughout the chapter devoted to the analysis of Carian inscriptions,
we have repeatedly mentioned the existence of a specic -s ending,
which has been interpreted as a dative ending by some authors (Schrr,
Melchert, Vittmann). Our analysis has led us to the provisional con-
clusion that the solution is perhaps not so clear. We shall now attempt
to analyse this ending more carefully and evaluate the plausibility of
interpreting it as dative.
Any analysis of the possible examples of s-endings is hampered from
the beginning by the diculty of distinguishing between true s-ending
forms and simple -nominatives of s-stems (whose existence is undeni-
able, given the presence of s-stems inected in genitive: ibrs-, idyes-,
pals-, etc.). To quote a case already mentioned (see p. 283), a word
such as smdbrs (C.Ha 1) could for example be analysed as an s-ending
form of a stem smdbr-, comparable to katbr, dtbr ardybyr-, or as a
nominative of an s-stem smdbrs-, parallel to ybrs-. The examples of forms
ending in -s from the sub-corpus of Memphis also help to illustrate
this. Listed below are all the Memphis inscriptions that present these
types of words. I exclude only E.Me 39, where the reading of -s is not
certain. The inscription is also very fragmentary and hardly usable:
ap[]ws / a[rb]ikarm i (E.Me 23)
tduol / kbos | amsqi[. . .? (E.Me 24)
(a) idmns | myre i | mdayn i / (b) idmns | myre i (E.Me 33)
ntokris | dwol | mwdon i (E.Me 35)
[q
?
]lalis / [?]iam i / alos arnos (E.Me 45)
tqtes | paraibrel i | mn[o-?] (E.Me 47)
4
More problematic is the intepretation of the form pdamu, see the discussion in
Melchert (2001:311).
vonrnorooic.r rr.+tnrs 315
From all of these examples, the most likely to have the s-ending form
is undoubtedly ntokris; Vittmann (2001:52) has argued convincingly that
this name was taken directly from Egyptian, ruling out Rays theory that
it can be identied as a form that arrived in Carian from the Greek
Nitvkriw, the only way to explain the nal s as a part of the stem (by
assuming it to be an s-stem arising from the Greek sigmatic nominative).
Also suggestive of an s-ending, if the reconstruction of the initial letter
is accepted, is [q?]lalis, given the existence of a name qlali- (G 2),
Greek Kolaldiw, Kulaldiw.
The rest of the examples are ambiguous: ap[]ws, idmns and tktes
allow more than one interpretation.
5
Finally, kbos is very unlikely to be
a personal name in nominative of an s-stem, because it occurs pre-
cisely after the nominative tduol, i.e. the name of the deceased. However,
it could also be a title or an adjective accompanying tduol (an ethnic
name? see p. 278), so that it would also be in nominative. A similar
explanation could be given for the enigmatic alos arnos of E.Me 45.
For convenience, I will assume that all these examples can be inter-
preted as s-ending forms. In fact, this will not aect the ideas to be
formulated about the value of the s-ending to any great degree, since
with the exception of kbos and alos arnos, the context in which we nd
the rest of the examples is similar to that of the clearest ones (ntokris,
[q
?
]lalis): as the rst word of an onomastic formulawhich implies that
they represent the name of the deceasedfollowed by one or more
personal names in genitive.
By analyzing the possibility that the s-ending recognizable in some
words could be a mark of a dative case, we can rst of all clearly sep-
arate the formal aspects from the functional ones. Formally, we can
agree with the hypothesis formulated by Melchert (2002:309) that this
s-ending comes from a genitive ending PIE *-e/oso (like Lycian -a/-ehe,
cf. Adiego 1994c). An alternative viewa Luwic possessive sux with-
out i-mutation *-assocannot be ruled out, although Melchert (ibid.)
is right in pointing out that there is no evidence to support the pro-
posal of an adjectival character for -s in Carian. In any case, both
solutions are equally attractive from a phonological point of view, as
both oer a straightforward explanation for the presence of a dierent
5
In the case of idmns, the name idmuon- could favour an analysis as idmn- if both
forms belonged to the same paradigm, but the dierences between idmn- and idmuon-
do not allow us to conm this hypothesis.
316 cn.r+rn rion+
sibilant sound in this -s-ending (< *-e/oso or *-asso-) vs. the Carian gen-
itives in - (< *-ass, see above).
If we accept the above arguments, the problem for Carian datives in
-s can be reduced to a purely functional one, the question being whether
there is evidence for a functional displacement of these old genitives
to the expression of a dative value. As Melchert points out, such a dis-
placement would not be particularly problematic because it is well doc-
umented in other languages. However, in my opinion, the evidence
currently at our disposal is not at all convincing.
The most radical version of this hypothesisthat -s has become exclu-
sively the mark for dative, contrasting with - specialized as genitive/pos-
sessiveis disproved, as Melchert admits, by the formula i[]inis=d=rual,
where -s cannot be anything other than a genitive or possessive gov-
erned by rual (= Gr. p dhmio[u]rgo Ipposynouw). Moreover, the ono-
mastic formulae in the same inscription nik[]lan lysiklas[-
?
], lys[ikl]an
lysikratas[-
?
] suggest that -s should be interpreted as a genitive or
possessive.
If one accepts the existence of genitives/possessives in -s-, the claim
of an s-dative must be substantiated by unequivocal evidence, and this
is hard to nd, since all the examples of alleged datives can also be
interpreted as genitives/possessives:
a) All the examples of possible datives in -s in the Memphis sub-
corpus can also easily be interpreted as genitives or possessives: if one
observes the texts quoted above, a translation for X or of X sounds
equally acceptable.
b) The same analysis can also be applied to other examples: an inter-
pretation of arnajs sb taqbos as of arnaj and of Taqbo is as good as
a dative interpretation to arnaj and to Taqbo. Vittmann (2001:5254)
has made the case for a dative value based on the fact that the Carian
inscription appears integrated in an Egyptian formula, give life, which
seems to require a dative. He cites the parallel examples of certain
Egyptian-Phoenician bilingual inscriptions where the same Egyptian for-
mula give life is used, and where the personal name is introduced in
Phoenician by the preposition l, to, for. However, while the Phoenician
parallel may seem to provide a strong argument for seeing the Carian
sequence as syntactically integrated in the Egyptian sentence, the oppo-
site may also be true, namely that the Carian and Egyptian parts are
more loosely related: the Egyptian sentence might simply be a stereotyped
formula, and the Carian phrase a mere indication of possession. Even
the Phoenician example accommodates a similar loose relationship
between both parts, insofar as l is usually employed in Phoenician for
vonrnorooic.r rr.+tnrs 317
introducing the target of a dedication. Regarding armotrqdosq in Hyllarima,
the context does not allow us to ascertain whether the word is a gen-
itive or a dative, but the character of the inscription, which presents
a list of priests, seems more consistent with an interpretation as geni-
tive (priests of the god Armotrqd-) than as dative (although a reading
priests for the god Armotrqd- or a generic reference to the establish-
ment of a cult to Armotrqd- cannot be ruled out).
c) The -s-dative hypothesis adds an unnecessary complication to the
interpretation of ntro/ntros in their respective inscriptions (see above
pp. 285286). The dativum dedicationis with the god name ntro, Apollo,
a simple and elegant interpretation that ts well with the overall sense
of the text, becomes a nominative with the meaning priest of Apollo
and, conversely, ntros pridas must then be an anonymous priest of
Apollo to whom the object is dedicated instead of a direct reference
to the divinity. But even accepting this explanation, there is nothing
to prevent us interpreting ntros pridas as a possessive, insofar as the
overall structure of the inscription remains unclear.
d) Attributing a dative role to the forms in -s means that the form
trqude from Iasos remains unexplained. It is true, as Melchert remarks,
that the overall sense of the inscription is not clear, but if trqude is
simply the name of a godas armotrqdosq in the new inscription from
Hyllarima seems to conrmit is dicult both formally and semantically
to assign it a value other than dative. It cannot be an accusative (as
we would expect a nal -n), a genitive (there is neither - nor possessive
-s) or a nominative (the subject of the entire text seems to be a personal
name, perhaps ]are, on which the patronym in the genitive siyklo- is
dependent).
To summarize, we can draw two conclusions: (1) there is evidence
for the retention of the original genitive/possessive value of -s, at least
in some clear examples, and (2) there is no conclusive evidence to
arm that -s has adopted a dative value.
5. Other Possible Datives
Note that my opinion, which does little to support the existence of
s-datives, is accompanied by an attempt to recognize other words as
datives. In this book at least three possible candidates have been men-
tioned: in the previous pages I have referred to trqude and ntro. We can
add also rtmi, but it depends on the analysis of the inscription C.Tr 2,
which remains very controversial. From an etymological point of view,
ntro could be explained as a dative in -o < *- comparable with the
318 cn.r+rn rion+
(admittedly scarce) examples of datives in -a for a-stems in Lycian (see
Melchert DLL:x; note for instance Urebillaha). As for trqude, we can
envisage a PIE dative singular ending *-ei, as can be expected in an
nt-stem such as trqud- < *tHnt-. Finally, rtmi could be a dative in -i of
an i-stem (*artimi-?, cf. rtim nominative in C.Hy 1a).
6. Nominative Plural
No clear examples of nominative plural can be cited at present. We
can only mention two possible forms:
in C.Hy 1, and also in C.My 1, it has been proposed that mol could
be a common plural nominative with the meaning priests, although
other explanations are possible. If this hypothesis were true, a suit-
able interpretation of mol could be mol-, with an -ending formally
identical to that of the common plural accusative - (see below), a
trait that Carian would share with Milyan (Nom. pl. -z / Ac. pl.
-z) against Lycian (- / -s). However, - could in this case be a
derivative sux, so that mol ought to be interpreted as mol-, lead-
ing to the converse situation: a nom. pl. in - nearer to Lycian
than to Milyan.
in the funerary inscriptions of Kaunos and Krya, the possibility was
envisaged that sdis could be a nominative plural corresponding to
sidi (see p. 291). However, this interpretation is dicult to reconcile
with either of the two above hypotheses for mol. We could attribute
the discrepancies to a dierentiation between a Kaunian dialect and
a purely Carian one, but at this point it becomes a merely ad hoc
solution.
7. Accusative Plural
The Kaunos bilingual oers good evidence of - as a plural accusative
ending for the common gender: sarni, (un)do[]tl, kbdyn, b
2
o[]ol
make reference to the two Athenian citizens honoured in the decree,
who are mentioned in accusative. The simplest etymological explanation
of - as an accusative plural mark can be found in Lycian -s and Milyan
-z, both from Luwic*-ns (< PIE *-ns). The appearance of the (presumably)
palatoalveolar sound instead of the generic, unmarked dental sibilant
s recalls the Milyan use of z instead of s, irrespective of the exact nature
of z in Milyan. In both languages, the use of a sibilant other than s
can be interpreted as the outcome of the original cluster *-ns.
vonrnorooic.r rr.+tnrs 319
8. Other Possible Case Endings
1) In Adiego (2002) it was argued that some words ending in -t were
plural genitives. The basis of this hypothesis is the interpretation of mol
msot ylarmit as priests of Hyllarimean gods, roughly corresponding to
the Greek text priests of all the gods (see pp. 306307). The hypoth-
esis was developed from the assumption that the Carian letter O was
the Kaunian variant for the sign t, and consequently some words end-
ing in O = -t were also interpreted as genitives.
If this hypothesis is accurate, we still do not know what the origin
of this genitive plural ending might be. Given that -t probably repre-
sents a dental-palatal aricate /t/ or similar, a direct derivation from
PIE -om (> Old Hittite -an, Lycian -e ) is impossible, which opens the
way for analogical process. In this way, the palatal character of -t could
be somehow related to the palatal ending - of the genitive singular.
Assuming a plural nominative *-ns (see above), an analogical propor-
tion Nom. sg. *-s (>-)Genitive sg. *-si-s (>- ): Nom. pl. *-ns (- ?)
Gen. pl. *-ns-is (>-) could be proposed (with a phonological process
*-nsis > *-nt > -t).
2) The contrast between alos arnos (E.Me 45) and alos-d arnos-d
(C.xx 2) leads me to think that -d could be a true case ending in the
latter example. The (very hypothetical) interpretation of C.xx 2 out-
lined in Adiego (2000:153155; see here p. 284) pointed implicitly to
an analysis of alos-d arnos-d as ablative (from Halikarnassos). The end-
ing could then be compared to Lycian -adi/edi CLuw. -ati, HLuw.
-ari-/ati, but this comparison is complicated by the fact that in most
cases of the origin or Greek transcription of Carian d that can be con-
trolled, this letter reects an original -nd- group, which would not be
the case of -d from *-Vdi (see p. 247).
Other analyses are also possible: one could connect -d with the likely
preposition d (cf. Lycian te) in C.Ka 5 d=rual (see p. 254). However,
one ought to assume then that d became a sort of case ending, the
only possible explanation for the iteration alos-d arnos-d.
B. Pnoxovix.r Ixrrrc+iox
We can identify in Carian at least two demonstrative pronominal stems:
s(a)- and a-.
The only clear indication of a pronominal paradigm can be stated for
the pronoun sa, on the basis of sa E.Me 27, san (G 1), snn (C.Ha 1,
320 cn.r+rn rion+
C.xx 1): sa and san seem to be singular nominatives according to the
context in which they appear, whereas snn is undoubtedly a singular
accusative. The diculty is to establish the relation between the two
nominatives sa and san, for which there are two possibilities: the dierence
between both forms could consist of a gender distinction (sa common
gender vs. san neuter gender, reecting - vs. -n respectively), or alter-
natively that san is a kind of extended form (this was the explanation
given in Melchert 1993:7980) independent of the possible gender dis-
tinction. This latter hypothesis is supported by the accusative form snn
that seems to imply a s(a)n- stem to which the accusative ending -n
has been attached. However, it is also possible that in snn, both n actu-
ally constitute an accusative mark,
6
thus the rst interpretation can be
maintained. In this sense, there is a striking parallel between Lycian
inection and the pronoun ebe-:
Nom sg. c. ebe- cf. Carian sa- < *-s
Ac sg c. ebene cf. Carian snn long forms of original *-n
Nom-Ac sg. nt. ebe cf. Carian san < *-n
However, perhaps this parallelism is merely an illusion: in the case of
the pronoun a-, we nd ann in C.Ka 3, where it can hardly be a com-
mon accusative parallel to snn, ebene, since it appears in a context with-
out a verb. It might instead be interpreted as a (neuter?) nominative.
The interpretation of an in an sidi is not clear either, because it is not
certain whether in this inscription it represents an accusative or a nom-
inative. In the latter case, interpreting it as neuter seems inconsistent
with the proposed analysis of sdis as as common plurals (cf. supra). In
summary, the current inventory of pronominal forms is too incomplete
and their interpretations too ambiguous for even a minimally coherent
paradigm to be traced.
Besides these demonstrative pronouns, we can also refer to the (at
least originally) relative pronoun i, whose etymology is unproblematic:
it comes from PIE, PA *k
w
is (cf. Hitt, CLuw. kui, Lyc. ti, Mil. ki ). As
seen in Chapter 7, this pronoun became in Carian a type of connect-
ing particle, in a similar way to the Old Persian haya/taya, although
some examples of its use can be still identied as remaining very close
to its original relative value.
6
Cf. Neumann (apud Melchert 1993:80, n. 5), who compared snn with Lycian ebene.
vonrnorooic.r rr.+tnrs 321
C. Vrnn.r Ixrrrc+iox
The diculties of identifying verbal forms were outlined in our analysis
of the Carian inscriptions. The only word I consider to be even a min-
imally reliable verbal form is bt, for which Melchert suggested a very
plausible interpretation (= Lyc. ubete he oered). The search for other
possible verbal forms can take one of two directions, which although
not totally incompatible, are in some cases dicult to reconcile. On the
one hand, recognizing an ending -t, comparable to Lyc. -te (or perhaps
also -ti if the verb was a present, not a preterite), opens the search for
other forms also ending in -t that can be compared with these singular
endings or with other endings that in Lycian are also characterized by
a -t (for example, the third plural present and preterit endings -ti/-te
after diphthongs, such as ai-ti, ei-ti, ai-te / ei-te). In such cases, the
resemblance of the sound context (t after a vowel) regarding the sin-
gular ending could make it likely that the outcome in Carian is also t
(although this is an optimistic supposition, and disregards possible ana-
logical alterations). The results of such a search are however very limited:
in our analysis of Carian inscriptions (Chapter 7), only two forms have
appeared that, based on their context, can be interpreted as verbs with
these type of endings: (1) not in C.xx 2 (connected there to Hitt.
n(i)-, CLuw. nana- < * PIE *neyH-, so that a meaning he brings/he
brought3rd sg. present or preteritecould be suggested); (2) ait in
C.Ka 2, l. 8, where it appears in a sequence qrdsol ait: ait has been
tentatively connected to Lycian aite, a 3rd pl. preterite form of the verb
a- to made (see p. 301). To these two forms one can also provision-
ally add the word aitusi in C.Ka 5, if segmented ait + usi, although
problems arise when trying to establish the meaning of usi. An alter-
native viewto segment aitu + siis an attractive solution as it yields
a possible imperative form (cf. -tu in Lycian), but it fails to analyse the
word si.
Other possible forms ending in -t could allow a similar interpretation.
A good example is 1aitk, also in C.Ka 2, if segmented 1ait=k), but the
verbal stem cannot be established as we are unsure of the phonologi-
cal value of the initial letter 1.
On the other hand, scholars have searched for verbal forms by means
of an internal and combinatory analysis of the Carian texts. In this sense,
there has been a certain consensus in regarding a sequence repeated
in dierent inscriptions as a possible verbal form: the sequence mdane
(Thebes mlane). The fact that this interpretation is based on internal
322 cn.r+rn rion+
and combinatory grounds explains why it preceded the denitive deci-
pherment of Carian: it was evorokin who suggested that mdane, mlane
was a verb (see for instance evorokin 1977:124). Following the deci-
pherment, authors such as Hajnal, Melchert and Schrr have followed
this line of argument, and in the case of these possible verbal forms
they have also added some etymological connections to the functional
basis of the hypothesis. The most recent and comprehensive treatment
of the subject is an unpublished paper by Melchert (Melchert, mdane).
7
The interpretation of mdane, mlane as a verb is supported above all
by evidence from three brief inscriptions found on objects, where mdane
appears to be the one verb of a sentence. By contrast, most of the
examples of mlane, from Thebes, are contextually far less clear. All the
examples are given below:
mdane:
arkbiom : zidks mdane : n-?-mo | den : tumn (E.Sa 1)
ntros : pridas / ora / nu mdane : uksi wrm (E.xx 7)
biks not : alosd arnosd : jzpe mdane (C.xx 2)
mlane:
a
?
qbaq ewm emot / qtblo owdown[. . .]mwarudko mlane (E.Th 10)
?-bjqmq ew mlane qebt | u[. . .]q | qwsal | mqabaewleqooski
.
oms
(E.Th 12)
lse | i | mlan[-?] (E.Th 35)
dquq | ewmlane | tebot | gkem (E.Th 44)
w
.
dbokn ewe [ (E.Th 47)
(cf. also lane in: balewlane | rbk[-]sal | (E.Th 49).
Of the three examples of mdane, the last is of particular importance,
since there is a possible conict with the word not, which I have proposed
to be the verb of the sentence.
8
In the other two instances, it must be
recognized that there is a reasonable chance of mdane being a verb,
although there is no reason not to look for a verb in some of the other
words that appear in both inscriptions, and that remain uninterpreted.
If mdane is a verb, from the inscriptions in which it appears we could
take it to mean, to vow, to oer or similar (cf. Melchert, mdane).
As stated above, Theban grati with the variant form mlane are
much more obscure. Only E.Th 44, and perhaps also E.Th 35but
7
I thank H. C. Melchert for allowing me to use this paper. Although I disagree
with Melcherts views on mdane and related forms, I consider his usage and analysis
of the forms superior to Hajnals (see Hajnal 1997b:151157), who arbitrarily sepa-
rates mlane from mdane and does not include mda forms in his study.
8
Indeed, there is no reason why the inscription should not contain two dierent
verbs, not and mdane
vonrnorooic.r rr.+tnrs 323
note the lack of a nal letteroer apparently complete and brief texts
in which mlane could be a verb. In the remaining examples, it appears
after a sequence ew, very close to the form ewm, which is also typical
in the Thebes corpus. This creates the possibility of a dierent seg-
mentation of ewmlane: ewm + lane, instead of ew + mlane. The example
E.Th 49 introduces even more confusion: the sequence ewlane, analyzed
as ew + lane, supports both ew and lane as isolable words in ewmlane. A
possible compromise, and perhaps the correct solution, would be to
isolate three elements: ew + m + lane. This would allow dierent com-
binations: ew + m, ew + lane, m + lane and ew + m + lane.
9
The diculties of analysing mdane as a verb begin when other, less
favourable factors become involved: besides mdane, the sequence mda
appears repeatedly in C.Si 2:
. . . eri : pisoi mda : pmnn : pda/mu i aoyrri mtel / mailo
mda lrH : stsp vacat / sms[-5-] sb amssi mda (C.Si 2a)
10
Moreover, in C.Ha 1, a sequence md can be easily segmented:
11
smdbrs | psnlo | md orkn tn | snn
As I have argued (see Adiego 1994a:5455, 2000:140), this mda/md
seems almost inseparable from mdane, a theory also expounded by
Melchert in his unpublished paper. In fact, he interprets md- to be the
lexical root of all these alleged verbal forms. Melchert even extends
the presence of this root to the form mln in C.Ka 5, unifying md, mda,
mdane, mln under a common root *mVld- (by assuming a *-ld- > -nd-
process in the forms with d), which he compares with Hitt. mald-
12
vow, solemnly pronounce, but also dedicate, give. As for the dierent
endings of the md-family of words, Melchert (mdane) oers the following
analysis: mln as a preterite third plural from *mVld-onto;
13
mda as a pre-
sent third singular (used as a preterite) with an ending parallel to Hittite
-i in maldi; -ne would be an enclitic object pronoun (following Schrr
1996a:66).
9
Given the diculties regarding the segmentaton of the (possible) elements that
make up ewmlane, I enter this in the Glossary (Chapter 11) as a complete word.
10
Cf. also C.Hy 1a dymda, but in this latter case I am not sure of the segmenta-
tion dy mda.
11
md also appears as a sequence in other inscriptions (C.My 1 (?), C.Si 2, C.Ki
1: note also in the rst word of C.Ha 1), but the contexts are too obscure (C.My 1,
C.Ki 1) or simply too unlikely (C.Si 2, C.Ha 1) to allow us to isolate md as a word.
12
As Melchert recalls, the connection mln = Hitt. mald- was already suggested in
Hajnal (1997:152).
13
Without discounting the possible interpretation as a present (< *mVld-enti ).
324 cn.r+rn rion+
In Adiego (2000:140), I argued against this interpretation of
md/mda/mdane/mlane as a verb, and I believe that the objections for-
mulated in that study are still valid: it would be very unusual not only
that the same verb was used in very dierent classes of texts (dedica-
tory inscriptions on objects, visitors grati, a public decree, the heading
of a list of priests . . .) but also that the same verb was used at least three
times in the same inscription (the decree from Sinuri, C.Si 1). Thus if
we were to accept this interpretation we would be obliged to acknowl-
edge both an excessively polysemic or general meaning for md-, and
an unrealistic lack of lexical variety in Carian. For this reason, I choose
to recognise in md/mda/mdane/mlane a functional word or a chain of
functional words. If one wants to retain the interpretation of md- as a
verb, the only remaining possibility would be to see it as an auxiliary,
lacking any lexical meaning (cf. Adiego, ibid.). I am however more
inclined to categorise md/mda/mdane as a chain of particles; in Adiego
(1994:5455) I already introduced the idea of analyzing mdane as a
chain of introductory particles followed by two enclitic pronouns, -n-
(accusative) and -e- (dative), although I now believe that an analysis of
-ne as a unique enclitic pronoun, as suggested by Schrr and Melchert,
is perhaps more plausible. In any case, md would remain as particle
chain m-ddocumented tel quel in C.Ha 1where one could tentatively
imagine a connection with the Lycian introducing particle me for initial
m-. It is true, nevertheless, that this comparison is a mere desideratum,
since the behaviour of Lycian me vs. Carian m- would be totally dierent
in terms of the order of constituents: whereas Lycian me always appears
in the rst or second position in a clause,
14
Carian m- can seemingly
be placed anywhere.
15
Besides mdane (and variants), other forms have been considered pos-
sible verbs on the basis of the context in which they appear. Perhaps
the most likely of these to in fact be a verb is uiomln, documented in
the Kaunos bilingual inscription (C.Ka 5), and possibly also in C.Ka
2 [ui?]oml and C.Ka yomln, if these forms are interpreted as pure
variants of uiomln. It is possible that this word is the Carian form cor-
responding to the verb doje in the Greek part of the bilingual, although
this does not necessarily mean that the Carian version had a literal
14
See Melchert (2004), s. v. me.
15
The interpretation of mdane as a chain m+da+ne, where m stands as a particle, is
consistent with the tentative analysis of the Theban form ewmlane as ew+m+lane (analy-
sis based on the independent existence of ewlane and ewm, see above p. 323).
vonrnorooic.r rr.+tnrs 325
correspondence to the Greek one (indeed, other possible analyses of
uiomln have been envisaged, see Chapter 11 s. v.). Of the dierent
attempts to explain uiomln, perhaps the most convincing is the pro-
posal made by Hajnal and Melchert to isolate a verb, mln, a preterite
third plural of a stem, ml- < *mVld-, so that mln could come from
*mVld-onto (cf. Melchert, mdane).
One of the advantages of this analysis is that it can be applied to
another of the words to have been identied as a possible verb (Adiego
2000:142, see here p. 304): pis (in the sequence pisoi mda) in C.Si 1a.
In Adiego (2000), pis was also interpreted as a preterite third plural
with the meaning they gave, formed from verbal root pi -, equivalent
to Hitt., Luw. piya-, Lyc. pije- to give, followed by an iterative sux
-s- and a personal ending -. The form would therefore be almost par-
allel to the Lycian, tusti, a present third plural of an iterative stem tu-
s-, created from tuwe-. Both the function and the meaning proposed
for pis are consistent with the context: the form appears following the
onomastic formula of the Hekatomnids Idrieus and Ada at the beginning
of a decree, so a suitable translation might be Idrieus (son) of Hekatomnos
and Ada (daughter) of Hekatomnos gave . . ..
16
This would mean that
pis could contain a preterite third plural ending - from *-onto, paral-
lel to -n in mln.
Other possible verbal forms (mail in C.Si 1a, cf. Adiego 2000:142;
nu in E.xx 7) have been suggested on very hypothetical grounds, and
they will not be discussed here.
To summarise, the results of the search for verbal forms in Carian
are currently very uncertain. We can establish, with the utmost cau-
tion, only three possible endings: -t as a preterite (or present) third sin-
gular ending, and -t and -n/ as preterite (or present) third plural
endings (the rst after the diphthong -ai, the second in other contexts,
similar to those that in Lycian become -te/-ti ).
16
In Carian: []ryin tmo : sb ada tmo eri : pisoi mda . . . As for eri, it could be
a preverb or a noun (direct object of pis ?), see above p. 304.
CHAPTER NINE
THE GENERAL VOCABULARY AND THE PROPER NAMES
A. Grxrn.r Voc.ntr.nv
Our knowledge of Carian general vocabulary is unavoidably very lim-
ited; we have already seen (Chapter 2) that the indirect sources pro-
vide us with a very small number of glosses, and these in turn, despite
their seemingly reliable origins (they appear to date back to Greek
authors of Carian origin), remain uncertain insofar as none of them
has been identied in the Carian inscriptions up to now. As for the
direct documentation, the only texts that can be interpreted with any
degree of condence are a number of brief inscriptions that contain
exclusively, or almost exclusively, onomastic formulae. It is true that
some of the longer texts must contain essentially Carian common words,
but they are in general impossible to analyse. In this necessarily brief
section, I will limit myself to collecting in a synthetic way the general
vocabulary that arises from an analysis of the inscriptions (see Chapter
7): further details about these forms and about others, which are inter-
preted more hypothetically, will be presented in the corresponding
entries of the Glossary (Chapter 11).
Given the typology of a great number of Carian inscriptions, it is
not surprising that one group of the common words whose meanings
we can establish belongs to the semantic eld of kinship: we know the
Carian words for son, mno-, father ted, and mother en, although in
the case of these two latter terms, the interpretation is based solely on
the combination of an etymological connection with other Anatolian
dialects and the suitable, but unique, context in which they appear (E.Me
38 and E.Me 32, respectively). No other kinship terms have been iden-
tied directly in the Carian inscriptions, and we can only speculate that
the personal names quq-Gugow and ksbo-Xasbvw might also be the com-
mon words for grandfather and grandchild, on the basis of the good
Lycian parallels xuga grandfather and xahba grandchild.
Due to the funerary character of many Carian texts, a collection of
words has been compiled which refer to the funerary stele or, more
generically, to the tomb: upe/wpe/upa, ue, jas/as, s(i)di. However, no
+nr orxrn.r \oc.ntr.nv .xr +nr rnorrn x.vrs 327
clear etymological connections can be established for any of these words
(see Chapter 11 ss. vv.) and it is impossible to specify the exact mean-
ing in each case. The only denite word to have been identied for
dierent objects is ork-, which appears on two bronze phiales in accusative
(orkn), hence it must mean directly phiale or more generically bowl,
receptacle. Also secure is the identication of tr- as the Carian word
for person, self .
Apart from these few words, most other items of Carian general
vocabulary have been identied based on merely hypothetical analyses
of the texts, which are not necessarily accepted by all the scholars. For
example, I have argued for mso- as the Carian word for god. The
connection is formally suitable (cf. CLuw. msan(i)-, Lyc. maha(na)- and
particularly Mil. masa-), and has good parallels in Carian onomastics
(msnord-), but it relies on my own interpretation of C.Hy 1, where it is
found. This problem is particularly evident in the case of Carian verbs;
we have already seen (Chapter 8) how dicult it is to nd verbal forms
in Carian, so practically all the possible examples of verbs are in fact
dependent on a concrete interpretation of certain Carian inscriptions,
which are in general very dicult to analyse. The clearest form, bt
in C.xx 1, points to a verbal stem b-, to oer, but this interpretation
is essentially based only on the good parallel ubete oered in Lycian.
Similar situations arise in the case of other possible verbs, such as ait,
which would seem to indicate a stem a- to make (= CLuw. /ya-,
Lyc. a(i)-), or pis, compared (see above Chapter 8) to CLuw. piya-,
Lyc. pije- to give. Needless to say, in cases like this, there is a clear
danger of resorting to circular arguments: if we take the example of the
latter form, we can establish a meaning to give for an alleged verbal
form pis only on the basis of an etymological connection, yet we then
believe it plausible to claim Carian has a verb pi- to give, which in
turn conrms a genetic relationship between Carian and the Anatolian
languages! Lacking more concrete evidence (bilingual texts, convincing
combinatory analysis and so on), these formsusually hapax legomena
in uncertain contextsmust be used with great care, and must be
included in our analysis only as provisory and hypothetical possibilities.
On functional words (demonstrative and relative pronouns), I refer
to Chapter 8. To those forms we can add the clear identication of a
copulative conjunction: sb (to be connected to Mil. sebe, and).
328 cn.r+rn xixr
B. Pnorrn N.vrs
As stated repeatedly in this work, the area that yields the greatest vol-
ume of information is Carian onomastics: the sources, both direct and
indirect, provide a large number of proper names, currently the most
valuable information on Carian available.
Carian onomastics can be analysed in two dierent, but comple-
mentary and interrelated ways. Firstly, diverse stems and suxes can
be identied through an internal analysis of the compounding and deriva-
tion mechanisms that clearly intervene in their formation. Secondly,
many of these names can be totally or partially compared to the rest of
Anatolian onomastics, both from the rst and the second millennia B.C.
Given our scarce knowledge of Carian common vocabulary, the rst
approach yields very limited results: we are only able to establish some
regular patterns, both in composition and derivation, from a purely
combinatory analysis of the onomastic materials, and the meaning of
the elementslexical stems, suxesthat we isolate cannot be established.
Yet despite its limitations, this method of analysis is not altogether
worthless, insofar as it allows us to identify some recurrent procedures
in the formation of proper names. A good example is the series of
stems that appear combined, giving rise to a number of very charac-
teristic compound proper names, as the table of the p. 330 is intended
to show. We nd here a set of rst elements (i)d-, par(a)-, pun-, ar-,
etc. that in general never appear as independent words and that are
used alongside a set of second elements (quq, uol, etc.), which are for
the most part also documented in a simple, non-compounded, form.
This implies a dierent functional nature of rst vs. second elements,
a possibility that can be conrmed in at least those cases where an ety-
mological explanation is plausible (see below).
More dicult is to establish possible derivation procedures without
the use of comparative evidence. The segmentation of suxes is not
always easy, and it is also dicult to specify in some cases whether we
are dealing with a sux or a lexical stem in composition; for instance,
the useful list of suxes, created by Blmel using only this approach,
and included in his corpus of Carian personal names (Blmel KarPN:
3233), oers some elements that can condently be considered (on
the basis of an etymological approach) lexical stems, and not suxes
(-biw, -muhw).
1
In any case, several suxes can be well established from
1
It must be said, however, that Blmel, very cautiously, does not speak of suxes:
+nr orxrn.r \oc.ntr.nv .xr +nr rnorrn x.vrs 329
directly and indirectly attested personal Carian names: -ol (Greek
-vllow/-vldow, -vlliw), -s(i)- (Greek -assiw), -om (Greek -vmow). As for
place names, the well known suxes -(V)ssow and -(V)nda are abun-
dantly attested.
Comparison with the other Anatolian proper names oers more
promising results. As I explained in Chapter 2, the research on Anatolian
onomastics during the last century demonstrated not only the existence
of a clear linguistic unity to which Carian onomastics belongs, but also
the Anatolian Indo-European character of this linguistic unity. In other
words, an important part of this geographical and chronological ono-
mastic continuum can be condently analysed etymologically, since a
lot of lexical stems, suxes, and morphological procedures of the
Anatolian Indo-European family can be identied. Three excellent exam-
ples of this type of interpretation are the decisive book of Laroche on
Cuneiform Anatolian personal names (Laroche: LNH), the equally inu-
ential work of Houwink Ten Cate devoted to Lycian personal names
(Houwink Ten Cate 1961), and nally the contribution of Zgusta (Zgusta
1964b), which although cited less frequently, is nonetheless very valu-
able. Comparison of Carian proper names with the rest of Anatolian
onomastics therefore not only provides us with a greater capacity for
combinatorial analysis, but also allows us to establish the meaning of
many lexical and functional elements that intervene in their construction.
In the following pages, I will oer (in a non-exhaustive, but in my
opinion suciently representative way) examples of this latter approach
by collecting several lexical elements of Anatolian origin that can be
identied in the Carian name system, and which generally also appear
in the known inventories of proper names from the rest of Asia Minor.
This exposition is very similar to that presented in Adiego (1993a),
where Houwink Ten Cate (1961) was used as a model,
2
but in this
case, the names directly attested in Carian inscriptions are also included.
3
the list appears in a section entitled Komposition und Wortbildung, although true
suxes appear mixed together with these lexical stems.
2
Names with no indication of origin must be taken as Carian.
3
The reasons for this inclusion are given in p. 15.
330 cn.r+rn xixr
i
b
r
e
l
-
k
b
i
o
m
-
-
m
u
h
w
q
u
q
-
p
/
b
i
k
(
a
)
r
m
-
p
/
b
i
k
s
-
w
l
i
/
j
a
t
-
-
u
a
s
s
i
w
u

o
l
/
w

o
l
y
d
i
q
-
/
y
r
i
q
-
O
t
h
e
r
s
/
k
b
j
o
m
-
/
y
r
i

-
/
-
y
d

I
m
b
a
r
h
l
d
o
w
k
b
j
o
m
-
q
u
q
-
p
i
k
(
a
)
r
m
p
i
k
s
-
w
l
i
a
t
-
u

o
l
-
/
w

o
l
-
K
e
b
i
v
m
o
w
G
u
g
o
w
/
w
l
j
a
t
U
s
s
v
l
l
o
w
U
l
i
a
t
o
w
,
O
l
i
a
t
o
w
A
k
t
a
-
A
k
t
a
u
a
s
s
i
w
A
k
t
a
u
s
s
v
l
l
o
w
A
k
t
a
d
h
m
o
w
(
i
)
d
-
d
q
u
q
-
d
b
i
k
r
m
,
d
b
i
k
s
-
d
w

o
l
-
,

i
d
u

o
l
i
d
y
r
i

-
i
d
m
n
(
-
s
)
I
d
a
g
u
g
o
w
d
b
k
r
m
I
d
u
s
s
v
l
l
o
w


i
d
m
u
o
n
-
i
d
y
e
s
-
p
a
r
(
a
)
-
p
a
r
a
i
b
r
e
l
-
P
a
r
(
a
)
u
s
s
v
l
l
o
w
p
a
r

p
a
r
a
e
y
m
-
p
a
r
y
r
i

p
a
r
p
e
y
m
P
a
r
a
u
d
i
g
o
w
P
a
n
(
a
)
-
P
a
n
a
m
u
h
w
P
a
n
u
a
s
s
i
w
P
a
n
a
b
l
h
m
i
w
p
(
u
)
n
-
p
n
u

o
l
-
/
p
u
n
w

o
l
p

n
m
n
n
-
-
p
n
w

o
l
-
,

p
n
u

o
l
-
P
o
n
m
o
o
n
n
o
w
?
P
o
n
u
s
s
v
l
l
o
w

a
-
S
a
u
s
s
v
l
l
o
w
S
a
u
r
i
g
o
w

d
i
q
-

a
y
r
i
q
-

(
a
)
r
-

a
r
k
b
i
o
m
-

r
q
u
q
-

a
r
w
l
j
a
t
S
a
r
u
a
s
s
i
w

a
r
u

o
l
-

r
w
l
i
-
S
a
r
u
s
(
s
)
v
l
l
o
w
O
t
h
e
r
s
E
k
a
m
u
h
w
,
a
[
r
b
]
i
k
a
r
m
k
d
u

o
l
(
-

)
?
p
r
p
w
r
i

?
E
j
a
m
u
h
w
t
d
u

o
l
-
S
e
n
u
r
i
g
o
w
X
e
r
a
m
u
h
w
p
s
u

o
l
-
Y
u
s
s
v
l
l
o
w
K
a
r
u
s
v
l
d
o
w
M
a
u
s
s
v
l
l
o
w
C
a
r
i
a
n

C
o
m
p
o
u
n
d

P
r
o
p
e
r

N
a
m
e
s
+nr orxrn.r \oc.ntr.nv .xr +nr rnorrn x.vrs 331
1. Theophores
A type of personal name very widespread in Anatolian onomastics is
the theophore: we nd god names used directly as personal names,
dvandva compounds in which two god names are associated compounds
consisting of a personal name and a lexical element, nouns derived by
suxation from a god name, and so on (see the enlightening study by
Laroche LNH:282295).
1. 1 (Hitt., Luw.) Arma, Carian armo-
Arma is the Hittite and Luwian Moon-god (Laroche NDH: 80). This
god name is now also documented in Carian, in the dvandva form
armotrqd- from Hyllarima (C.Hy 1).
4
Its use in the formation of proper
names is commonly seen in the languages of the second millennium as
well as those of the rst millennium.
Carian PN Ermapiw < Arma + piya ( 3.1) = Armapiya (Laroche LNH
n 135).
Cf. Ermapiaw (Zgusta KPN 35520, Lycia), Armapiaw (KPN 973,
Lycia, Cilicia), Armapia (fem., KPN 974, South of Phrygia-Lycia).
a) Other instances (not in Caria) of Arma, either alone or in composition with
muwa-, nani-, etc.: Houwink Ten Cate (1961:132134), In Hittite and Luwian:
Laroche (LNH:290)
b) The variant Erma- (besides Arma-, Arma-) of the Carian name and others,
is usually attributed to the analogical inuence of the Greek divine name
Ermw (already Kretschmer 1896:361).
c) The Egyptian avour of the name Ermapiw (Sayce 1887[92]:122) was con-
sidered by Masson as merely coincidental, because the name can be satis-
factorily analysed from an exclusive Minor Asian point of view (Masson
1959:167170). However, Hornblower (1982:357, n. 35), though accepting
Massons views, wonders if in cases such as this a sort of homonymy could
inuence the choice of the name.
1. 2. Luw. Tarunt-, Lyc. Trqqas, Mil. Trqqiz, Carian trq(u)d- Cf. Hitt.
Taru-
The Anatolian Storm god. The name has a good PIE etymology (*terh
2
-
to cross, to pass: in Anatolian to overcome, *trh
2
-u- from a
-u-present).
4
Although I prefer to interpret armotrqd- as a theonym representing a divine pare-
dra due to the context in which it appears, I do not completely rule out the possi-
bility that it could be a personal name.
332 cn.r+rn xixr
The god name is directly attested in Carian: trqude C.Ia 3, ?/trqd/?
C.Ki 1, armo-trqd- C.Hy 1. At least in Iasos and Hyllarima, it is most
likely that we are dealing with the divine name itself.
Place name Tarkondar//a// deducible from the name of a syn-
geneia Tarkondarew (Mylasa).
More dubious are Konodvrkond//a// possible place name, from a
name of phyle Konodvrkondevn in Mylasa, Otvrkond//a//, from a
name of a phyle Otvrkondew.
a) Internal analysis of Tarkondar//a// is not clear: Tarkond+ar(a)-? (perhaps
better than Tarkon+dar(a), Adiego 1993a:28).
b) In Konodvrkond(a), Otvrkond(a), neither the internal structure nor the ori-
gin of v vocal are clear (the connection with Hitt. anna- grandmother,
Adiego 1993a:28 is very hypothetical). For the second name, a prothetic
o- could be postulated (Adiego 1993a:28),
1. 3. Lyc. natr-, god name to be identied with Apollo
The existence of a god name natr, equivalent to Apollo, can be deduced
from the well-known translation Apolldotow of the indigenous name
Natrbbijemi in the Xanthos bilingual. The god name seems to appear
directly in Carian in the form ntro- (see Chapter 11, s. v.), and can
also be recognized also as intervening in the formation of several per-
sonal names from Greek sources. The clearest example is Neterbimow,
undoubtedly the same name as Lycian Natrbbijemi. Also of this family
are the names Nvtrassiw and, less clearly, Nutar.
1. 4. CLuw. mssan(i)-, Lyc. maha(na)-, Mil. masa- god, Carian mso-
(?). Cf. also Sidetic masara = yeow
A clear isogloss shared by Luwian, Lycian, Milyan and Sidetic (the pre-
sumed Luwic group) in contrast to Hittite, Palaic and Lydian, is the
common word for god. While Hittite and Lydian have forms inherited
from PIE *dyew- (Hitt. iu(n)-, secondarily thematic forms iuna-, iuni-;
Lyd. civ-), the Luwic dialects present a form masa-, man(i)-/*masa(na)
(> Lyc. maha(na)-), masar(a/i)-, of unknown origin and with serious
formal problems (is masa- the original form, and maan(i)-, *masana-
massar(a/i)- secondary formations?).
Place name Masanrada, msnord-, possible ethnical name from this
city. This can be analysed as a compound name with a second ele-
ment equivalent to Luwian *(a)radu-, see below.
Place name Massvn//a// (name of a demos in Mylasa).
Massariw (Carian name of Dionysos), PN Massarabiw, seem to con-
tain an r-form of the stem, as in Sidetic. Massarabiw can be analysed
as *masara-bi- (-bi = -piya, see below 3. 1).
+nr orxrn.r \oc.ntr.nv .xr +nr rnorrn x.vrs 333
2. Some Nominal Stems
2. 1. CLuw. annara/i- forceful, virile, nnari- forcefulness, virility,
etc. Cf. Hittite innar-, forceful.
Perhaps this stem can be seen in the place names Naras//a// and
Naruandow
5
and in the name (or title?) naria- (see Chapter 11. s. v.). Cf.
also Narbaw?
Cf. also the name Andarsvw, if the explanation of -nd(a)r- as a result
of *-nr-, given in p. 262, is accepted.
2. 2. CLuw.(?) *(a)radu-
This element can be identied in two Arzawian names, Tarhundaradu
and Piyammaradu. The status of (a)radu- is unclear: it could be a god
name related to the name of the Luwian stag-god, Runt(iy)a- (a more
recent form of Kurunta-), but this connection is far from certain (cf.
Laroche LNH:282, n. 6). Schrr has claimed to identify this element
in the Carian place name Masanvrada, ethnic (?) msnord-, assuming
that the place name derives from a PN Masanvradow, the name of
the citys founder according to the information given by Stephan of
Byzantium (Schrr 2002). Although the validity of this latter point must
be viewed cautiously (Masanvradow could be an articial creation from
the place name), Schrrs argument is in my opinion quite persuasive.
Schrr also proposes that the same element can be identied in the
Carian place name Parembvrda (analysed as Paremb-vrda, Schrr
2002:170), and that the possibility also exists that other Carian names
in Greek sources that include a sequence ard, ord belong to this fam-
ily of nouns (place name Ardur//a//, PN Ordomaw). Even the PN
Arduberow/ardybyr-, if analysed as Ard-uberow/ard-ybyr- (not Ar-duberow/ar-
dybyr-) on the basis of ybrs- (C.Hy 1), could contain the same stem.
6
2. 3. CLuw. arpa- confusion, tumult, strife, Lyc. erbbe- strife, battle
7
The stem CLuw. arpa-, Lyc. erbbe- intervenes in the formation of proper
names, but it is only attested in those of the rst millennium, as Houwink
5
Neumann (1998:185), by contrast, connects Naruandow to an alleged Hitt. naru-,
a type of plant, but this latter word is actually Akkadian (*nar, a type of malt, see
Tischler 2001, s. v.).
6
According to Melchert, the element -arada may be analyzed as a derivative of
the word seen in Hittite ard- companion. A Luwic *arada- would mean community,
which seems appropriate for a placename. The further derived -aradu would again
mean companion or similar (pers. comm.).
7
Not defeat (Adiego1993a:30), see Melchert DLL.
334 cn.r+rn xixr
Ten Cate has pointed out (1961:147148).
The basis for his association of -arba-/-arbh- with this Luwian word
is a passage in Milyan of the Xanthos stela: trqq[i]z : esetesi[k]e er[b]besi[k]e:
lusasi : esene[m]la (TL 44d 1213). Houwink Ten Cate takes the same
view as Laroche, who associated erbbe with Luw. arpa-. As for esetesi[k]e,
CLuwian also oers a possible direct cognate: aattai-, Gen. Adj. of
aatti- documented as divine epitheton (
d
la aattai ). It is clear there-
fore that er[b]besi[k]e and esetesi[k]e are genitive adjectives used as epi-
thets of god Trqq[i]z. The key to connecting erbbe-/arpa- with onomastic
forms is the Cilician proper name Trokoarbasiw (KPN 151222)
where the same god name and one of his epithets appear together in
composition.
PN Arbhssiw, Arbhsiw. The same name in Cilicia: Arbasiw (Zgusta
KPN 851).
2. 4. HLuw. hasu- Lyc. xahba- grandson
PN ksbo, Greek Xasbvw. Both Carian and Lycian point to a secondary
- stem (Carian - > -o, cf. armo) from the u-stem attested in Hieroglyphic
Luwian (cf. Melchert DLL). Cf. also Kasbvlliw, apparently derived
from ksbo/Xasbvw.
2. 5. CLuw. pa/i- river, *api- irrigate, water
It possible that the sequence kb- (Greek Keb, Kb) that appears in some
Carian names (kbjom-Kebivmow and arkbiom, kbdmu-, Kbondiassiw, Kbvdhw,
and the indigenous place names kbid- for Kaunos and kbo- for Keramos)
is the Carian result of this Luwic stem: at least from a phonological
point of view, the correspondences are appropriate, and in the case of
the two place names, a denomination river, irrigated (land) or sim-
ilar is very suitable (cf. Schrr 2001a:64 for Keramos-kbo).
2. 6. CLuw. a-, Hitt. ua-, Lyc. xuga-, Mil. xuga- grandfather
This word intervenes in the formation of the onomastics of the second
millennium: Huhanani (LNH n 379), Huhhaziti (LNH n 385), etc. It is
also documented alone in the Lycian name Kougaw (KPN 717).
Carian: quq, Greek Gugow.
dquq, Greek Idagugow. The (rst element, (i)d- Ida-, is well docu-
mented as a proper name, either alone (Ida KPN 4511, Eida KPN
4512, both in Lycia) or as the rst element of compounding: Carian
iduol-, duol- = Greek Idussvllow, dbiks-, dbkrm-; Lyc. Eida-ssala,
Ida-zzala KPN 45110, cf. Salaw, Zzala KPN 13581).
I now have little doubt that the name of the Lydian king Gghw must
+nr orxrn.r \oc.ntr.nv .xr +nr rnorrn x.vrs 335
have the same origin. The problem posed by the phonetics (Lydian
does not conserve PIE laryngeal *h
2
, unlike the other Anatolian dialects)
can be overcome if we imagine the name to have a Carian origin. As
a result, the long discussion in Adiego (1993a:4041) does not need to
be repeated here.
2. 7. CLuw. im(ma)ra/i- open country
im(ma)ra/i- (only veried as common word under the form of Gen Adj
im(ma)rassa/i-) is the CLuw. word corresponding to Hitt. gimmara-. It
appears in the formation of a proper name already found in Cuneiform
sources: Immaraziti (Laroche LNH n 450). In the onomastics of the
rst millennium it adopts the forms imbr-, imbar-, etc., id est, with the
development of an epenthetic labial. A possible form without labial
could be the place name Imrougara (KON 374, Eastern Phrygia; cf.
Zgusta KON:198199). In Lycian direct documentation, the word seems
to appear as ipre. With this in mind, the proper name Ipresidi is very
interesting, as it could correspond exactly to Luw. Immaraziti.
Most instances of proper names containing this element from the
documentation of the rst millennium come from Lycia and Caria.
Place name Imbrow (promontory near Kaunos), from the pure stem.
PN para-ibrel, Imbarhldow. This corresponds formally to CLuw.
im(ma)ralla-, adj. attested fragmentarily (im-ra-a[l ) and as a place-name
(
URU
Imralla), see Melchert CLL s. v.)
PN ibrsi-/ibarsi-/brsi-, Imbrasiw, Imbrassiw, Imbarsiw. It corresponds
to the CLuw. Gen. Adj. im(ma)raa/i- or to a further derivation of this
word (*im(ma)raiya-).
Imbramow, var. Imbrasow, Carian name of Hermes, Steph. Byz. s. v.
Imbrow. Imbrasow is also the name of a river in Samos.
Schrrs objections
8
to connecting these forms with Luw. im(ma)ra-
are in my opinion not overly convincing.
2. 8. Lyc. mere- law, maraza- judge, arbitrator
Panamara. Cf. also PN Mareuw, Marow.
2. 9. Hitt. muwa-, Luw. *mwa-, Mil. muwa- might, power
This word, common to both Hittite and Luwian, is one of the most
characteristic terms in the formation of proper names from all periods.
8
Schrr (1991[93]:171), (2001b:104105).
336 cn.r+rn xixr
Before the discovery of Hittite and Luwian it had already been identied
by Kretschmer (1896:332333). It was Friedrich (1931) who connected
the Anatolian names of the rst millennium with the names in -muwa
of the second millennium, and who identied muwa- as a common word
in Cuneiform texts.
Carian: Mtulow, mythic founder of the Carian city Samylia (Steph.
Byhz. s. v. Samula, Zgusta KPN 976: not in Blmel KarPN) =
Muwatalli-, a name well documented in Cuneiform sources (Laroche
LNH n 837).
9
With rst element pan(a)-/pun(a)-: pmnn-, Greek Ponmoonnow, Panam-
uhw, Panamuaw, an inhabitant of Kos (Zgusta KPN:695), place name
Pounomoua.
Pormounow is most likely a more recent form of pmnn-, since it
appears as the name of a Syngeneia in the temple of Sinuri, where
pmnn-/Ponmoonnow is documented in an earlier inscription.
10
The sound
change required is commonplace (nm > rm by nasal dissimilation).
Other compounds with muwa- as a second element: uksmu-/wksmu-,
a Carian name corresponding to Ouajamoaw (Zgusta KPN 11412,
Isauria, Cilicia), Ouajamvw (Zgusta KPN 111412, ibid.). Perhaps also
kbdmu-.
muwa- as the rst element in mwsat-, corresponding to Lydian Mousathw
(Zgusta KPN 987a), Pisidian Moushta, Moshta (all equivalent to
CLuw. Muwaziti- Laroche, LNH n 840?). Less clear is myze-, Mouzeaw.
2. 10. Hitt. peda-, Lyc. pdden- place
Some Carian place-names show a stem Phda-, Pida-, Peda- that can
be connected with Hitt. peda-, Lyc. pdde and, ultimately, with a Proto-
Anatolian *pdon place, from PIE *pdom (> Greek pdon, etc.). The
stem also appears in the place names from Cuneiform sources, Petassa
and Pitassa (See Laroche TA1, n 49).
Phdasa, Pidasa (pl. nt.) ( 10541). According to Blmel KarON,
s. v., at least two places bore this name: Phdasa near Halikarnassos,
and Pidasa in Grion.
Pedanass//ow//. For the reading, see Blmel (KarON:177, n. 56),
not Pid (Adiego 1993a:43)!
9
It has been suggested that Mtulow not only corresponds to the name Muwattalli
but is in fact also the name of a Hittite king, transmitted by the Greek sources. The
question has been raised in the more general problem of the historicity of the Trojan
War (Motylos was a king who received Paris and Hellena during their ight to Troy).
10
The equivalence of the two forms was already suggested by Robert (1945:98).
+nr orxrn.r \oc.ntr.nv .xr +nr rnorrn x.vrs 337
Pidossus 10581, an island near Halikarnassos.
Cf. Perhaps also the personal name Pedvldow.
In Adiego (2000), I proposed that the same stem could be seen in
C.Si 2 pdamu/?, see Chapter 11, s. v.
2. 11. Luw. *pia- luminosity, splendour, might
This stem appears in Luwian in this form only in personal names (See
Melchert CLL), but various derivatives are veried in common lexicon
( piamma/i-, piaa/i-, piatta/i-).
11
The etymological interpretation is
clear: pia- comes from PIE *b
h
eh
2
- shine, glow (OInd bh

ti shines,
Greek fanv make visible etc.). The stem had already been identied
by Houwink Ten Cate (1961:156157) in the Anatolian onomastic sys-
tem, particularly in the Luwian area (at this point, however, the mean-
ing of the root was unknown).
Carian:
piks-, dbiks-; Pigassvw.
pikre-/pikra- = Greek Pigrhw (var. Pikrhw, Pitrhw?). This is a frequently
documented name (either in this form or through derivates, as Pigrassiw,
12555, Pamphilia), not only in Caria but also in other countries of
Asia Minor: Lycia, Pisidia, Pamphilia, etc. The only possible cognate
in Cuneiform sources is Piirim, the name of a Cilician king, Laroche
LNH n 977, but this is an isolated form (cf. Adiego 1993a: 3637).
pikarm-/pikrm-, dbikrm-/dbkrm-, cf. the Lycian name from Greek sources
Pigramiw, Pigramow (Zgusta KPN 12551/2).
Pijvdarow (internal structure not clear).
It is very doubtful that the two Carian place-names, Peigelasow and
Piginda, belong to this group.
2. 12. CLuw. pna- all, totality, cf. also CLuw. pnata/i- all, Lyc.
punma- totality
In Anatolian onomastics from all periods, two elements, puna- and pana-
are repeatedly found. Laroche (LNH:32) considered them two variants
of a single form, the meaning of which was unknown at the time.
Nowadays, a quantier meaning all, totality or similar seems to be
well established for Luwian pna- (and derivative pnata-), and for Lycian
11
The last two only in the form of GenAdj, with -aa/i- sux attached to them
(Melchert CLL, s. v.).
338 cn.r+rn xixr
punma-. The same meaning can be determined for the onomastic com-
ponent. Whether pana- was actually a variant of puna- is less clear ( pana-
does not appear as a common lexical item in Luwian). If this is the
case, the alternation must be very old, because both puna- and pana-
are found in the Cappadocian onomastics, from the beginning of the
second millennium.
Pna- in Carian:
PN p-mnn- = Pon-moonnow, Por-mounow.
Place name Pouno-moua
For these forms, and particularly for Pormounow, see above muwa-.
pnuol-/pnwol-/pnwol- Pon-ussvllow.
More doubtful: pnyriru-.
It is possible, although very hypothetical, that the common noun also
appears in Carian direct documentation in the form punot (see Chapter
11 s. v.).
Pana- in Carian:
Pana-blhmiw. For the second element, cf. Lyc. -plemiw, -plemi, -pl mmi
in Sedeplemiw, Sedepl mmi, Esedeplemi (KPN 13871/3).
Pana-muhw. For the second element, see above 2. 9.
Pan-uassiw. For the second element, cf. Akta-uassiw, Sar-uassiw.
Place name Pana-mara (for -mara, see above 2. 8).
2. 13. CLuw. ura- great, HLuw. ura/i-, cf. Hitt. ura/i- great
This adjective appears in the Anatolian onomastics of both the second
and the rst millennia (cf. Houwink Ten Cate 1961:164165): Laroche
LNH: n 774: Massanaura, n 872 Nattaura, n 1431 Ura, 1437 Urawalkui,
etc. Oraw (Lycian; Zgusta KPN 11001), Ouramoutaw (Cilician; Zgusta
KPN 1169), etc.
In Carian it can be recognised in the personal names urom-, urm-,
wrm-, and in the place name Urvmow (converted to Eurvmow, Eurvpow
by the inuence of Greek). However, the etymological connection of
this latter form to ura- is challenged by the existence of variants such
as Kurmew and hurmew (see Blmel KON s. v. Urvmow) because the
initial k-/h- would then remain unexplained.
2. 14. Hitt. *walli-, walliwalli- stark, mighty (Cf. CLuw. wallant- t,
capable)?
Some Carian names point to a stem that could be reconstructed as
*wala/i-:
+nr orxrn.r \oc.ntr.nv .xr +nr rnorrn x.vrs 339
wliat/wljat, Greek Uliatow, Oliatow (documented directly in Carian
as wliat/wljat)
Oaloalow (about this form, see Adiego 1993b).
At least in the second case, a direct connection with the redupli-
cated stem Hitt. walliwalli- seems very likely (< PIE *uelH- to be stark).
For Uliatow, however, there is also a possible relationship with the
family of Hittite walli-, glory, CLuw. walli(ya)-, HLuw. wa/iliya-, to
exalt (see Melchert CLL s. v.), from PIE *uelh
1
to choose, to select
(if we are not actually dealing with the same root).
3. Verbal Stems
3. 1. Hitt. pi-/piya-, Luw. piya-, Lyc. pije-, Pal. pi(sa)-, Lid. bid- [pid-]
to give
All the Anatolian languages in which the verb to give is found con-
tain a similar form that has a clear common Proto-Anatolian origin.
Its use in onomastics is also common to all Anatolian linguistics and
very productive, above all in the formation of theophores: Tarhundapiya
(LNH n 1267) = Tarkumbiou (gen.; KPN 151213, Cilicia).
Ermapiw, cf. above arma-
Massarabiw cf. above massan()-
As well as the simple form of the stem, we also nd in Anatolian
onomastics forms that can be clearly denoted Luwic participles in
*-mo/i- (cf. CLuw. -mma/i-, Lycian -me/i-): Laroche LNH: n 980 *Piyama-
d
KAL, n 981 Piyamaradu, Lycian Armadapimiw, Pisidan Kouadapemiw, etc.
In Carian: Neter-bimow = Lyc. Natr-bbij emi = Apolldotow (in the trilin-
gual inscription of Xanthos).
4. Adverbs
As previously mentioned, Carian contains some characteristic compound
names that were systematized in the table above (p. 330) only on com-
binatory grounds. A comparative approach serves to conrm that, at
least in two cases ( par(a)-, ar-), the rst elements of these compound
names can easily be connected to adverbial stems in other Anatolian
Languages. The use of adverbs as the rst elements of compounds is
also veried by the rest of the Anatolian proper names, particularly in
Lycian (see Houwink Ten Cate 1961:172175 and the forms cited
below).
340 cn.r+rn xixr
4. 1. Hitt. par, CLuw. par, HLuw. para/i forth, away, Lyc. pri
forth; in front.
This adverb appears in Carian as para-/par-, Greek Para-/Par-:
para-eym, para-ibrel, par-d- (= Greek Para-udigow), paryri-.
Para-ussvllow, Par-ussvldow. Probably also in the place name
Paremborda (Neumann 1988:191, cf. also above p. 333).
4. 2. Hitt. ara, r, Luw. arra, arri, Lyc. hri
ar-/r-, Greek Sar- in Carian:
ar-uol-, Greek Sar-us(s)vllow
r-quq, r-wli

Sar-uassiw. For the second element, cf. Pan-uassiw.

The following forms might perhaps be considered as a variant of
Sar-: a-, Greek Sa-:
a-yriq- (= Greek Sa-urigow), Sa-usvllow
Note the parallel use of hri- in the Lycian personal name Hrixttbili
(besides simple Ktibilaw, cf. Melchert DLL, s. v. Hrixttbili ).
5. Lallnamen
As mentioned in p. 13, Lallnamenhypocoristic names whose structure
recalls the language of children, characterised by open syllables, with
or without dierent patterns of reduplicationwere identied by
Kretschmer (1896) as characteristic of the Anatolian onomastic system.
Hittite and Luwian evidence conrms the antiquity of such formations
in Anatolian (see the exhaustive analysis in Laroche LNH:239246).
Carian is no exception: we can identify a considerable number of names
that can be interpreted this way, although mostly in Greek sources,
since only one Lallname, ada, is directly attested. I refer here to Appendix
C, where it will not be dicult for the reader to identify them in the
list of Carian names from indirect sources. Many of these Lallnamen seem
to obey simple structures of the type aC(C)a (Aba, Abaw Abbaw ada-Ada,
Adaw Appa) and reduplicated CaC(C)a (Nana, Nanaw, Papaw, Tata, Tataw,
perhaps also forms in -h, -o- and -v if these stem vowels are secondary:
Nanh, Nannh, Nannow, Nannow, Nannv), while others show somewhat
dierent patterns (Minnaw, Nonnow) or are derived from suxes of un-
known value (Amiaw, Ammiaow, Nannixow, Papiaw, Tatarion, etc.).
+nr orxrn.r \oc.ntr.nv .xr +nr rnorrn x.vrs 341
6. Suxes
Extensive evidence exists of the use of dierent suxes in the forma-
tion of Anatolian proper names, but as Laroche (LNH:327328) rightly
pointed out, their analysis is hampered by diverse factors: the impos-
sibility of explaining their actual origins and values, the risk of incor-
rect segmentations (les dangers du dcoupage formel in Laroches
words),
12
and the great variety of stems to which they can be attached,
which prevents us from identifying the derivational mechanisms behind
the construction of such names. These problems are compounded in
the case of the indirect documentation, insofar as the Greek adapta-
tions may be masking a more complex situation. A good example of
this is provided by sigmatic suxes; taking into account only Greek
evidence, one might be tempted to consider a single sux -ssi- both
for Arlissiw and for Imbrassiw. Direct evidence, however, available for
these forms but not for others, indicates two dierent Carian suxes,
-- for arli-Arlissiw and -si- for (i)b(a)rsi-Imbrassiw. Note the parallel
situation in Lycian, where -si- in Mollisiw and Triendasiw from indi-
rect sources, treated as a single sux (-zi [sic]) in Houwink Ten Cate
(1961:183184), in fact corresponds to two Lycian dierent suxes,
-se/i- (Mullijese/i-) and -zi- (Trijetezi-).
13
It is because of these doubts that
I shall limit myself to listing a very reduced number of suxes, citing
only those cases where the identication of the sux seems clear.
6.1 Place name suxes -assa-, -nda- (Cuneiform sources) = -(a)ssow,
-(a)nda (Greek sources)
These two suxes intervene in the formation of a large number of
Anatolian place names, documented both in the second and the rst
millennia. As we have seen (cf. p. 13), it was Kretschmer (1896) who,
systematizing former ideas, rightly concluded that the Anatolian place
names in -ss-, -nd- widely attested in Greek sources belonged to a sin-
gle linguistic family spoken in Anatolia. Later, the (re)discovery of the
Anatolian languages of the second millennium allowed us to conrmthis
theory, thanks to the appearance of numerous place names in -assa-,
-nda-, as well as authenticating these suxes as purely Indo-European
12
Laroche (LNH:328, m. 25).
13
It is even possible, if we accept Neumanns analysis (Neumann 1978:64; cf. also
Melchert DLL, s. v.) that Mullijesi- is actually a compound name from *mulli+ esi shall
be strong, parallel to Aruwtijese/i- shall be high (*aruwti + esi ).
342 cn.r+rn xixr
Anatolian. This is not the place to address a further aspect of Kretschmers
views, namely the possible link between both suxes and the suxes
-ss-, -ny- that appear in the Greek linguistic area, a very complex ques-
tion that remains unresolved.
14
The place names formed with these
suxes are systematically collected in two key works by Laroche: TA1
(-assa- place names) and TA2 (-nda- place names), where they are also
interpreted linguistically in the framework of Anatolian.
Both suxes are widely found in Carian place names from Greek
sources, which should come as no surprise, since the south-western part
of Asia Minor is one of typical areas for -assa- and -anda- place names
in Hittite sources (Laroche TA2:72). Given that the exact location of
many place names form Hittite sources is unknown, it is impossible to
ascertain which of these place names in -assa- and -anda- were situated
within the limits of Classical Caria, but at least in two cases we can
establish a connection, thanks to recent progress in the study of Hittite
geography: (1) the identication Millawa(n)da with Milhtow, an Ionian
city situated on the Carian coast, is now widely upheld as a result of
the denitive equivalence Lukka = Lycia, and the subsequent reorder-
ing of the map of Western Anatolia;
15
(2) the proposal of identifying
Mutamutassa from Cuneiform sources with the important Carian city of
Mylasa (Carruba 1996:23, Hawkins 1998:27), which although subject
to a certain amount of disagreement, is in my opinion consistent with
the newly congured Hittite geography.
It seems unnecessary to quote here the wealth of examples of Carian
place names constructed with these two suxes. I refer the reader in
this case to Appendix C, where a complete list of names attested in
Greek sources can be found. As for direct Carian sources, there are
no certain examples of this type of place name, the only possible exam-
ple being the contentious alos(d) arnos(d) if it is equated to Halikarnassos
(see Chapter 11, s. v. alos). A detailed analysis of Carian place names
in -(a)nda- and -(a)ssow, with some very interesting suggested inter-
pretations, can be found in Neumann (1988).
14
See the recent treatment by de Hoz (2004), who rightly criticizes the tendency
to oversimplify the problem and argues against a genetic relationship between both pairs
of suxes.
15
Cf. Melchert (2003:6): . . . it no longer seems possible to deny the long proposed
identifications of Apasa with Ephesos and Millawanda with Miletos.
+nr orxrn.r \oc.ntr.nv .xr +nr rnorrn x.vrs 343
6. 2 Luwic participle sux (CLuw. -mma/i-, Lyc. -me/i-)
Laroche categorised as original Luwian participles a number of per-
sonal names with a -mma/i- sux in Cuneiform sources (for instance
Ayami/aimi, from Luw. /-ya- to make, Laroche LNH:530), although
not all the names that contain these suxes can or indeed should be
considered participles.
Names in -mow, -miw are abundant in the Anatolian onomastics of Greek
sources, and Carian is no dierent. However, as in the case of the sec-
ond millennium names, it cannot be automatically assumed that these
are original participles, as this would constitute an oversimplication.
Rather, it is more advisable to interpret them in this way only if their
internal structure is clear and the base to which the sux is attached
can be condently identied as a verbal stem, in a similar fashion to
the abovementioned name Ayami/Aimi. In assuming this more accurate
analysis, the possibilities of recognizing participles among the Carian
names with nasal labial sux decreases dramatically. In fact, we are
left with only one Carian name that can be interpreted as a participle
with absolute certainty: Neterbimow, thanks to its clear correspondence
to Lyc. Natrbbijemi, a transparent name formed by a theophore (Natr-)
and a participle of the verb pije- to give (see above 1.3 and 3.1).
The search for other participles in Carian names yields only hypo-
thetical results: it is plausible that names such as qtblem-/Kutbelhmiw/
Kotbelhmow, or those ending in -om (kbiom-Kebivmow, arliom-Arlivmow,
etc.) may come from participles, but without a clear identication of
possible verbal stems in the sequences preceding -m-, it remains indemon-
strable.
6. 3. -alla/i-
Anatolian personal names characterized by a sux -alla/i- are well
attested (Laroche LNH:329330). As with -mma/i names, formations of
dierent origin and meaning have converged under an apparently sin-
gle -alla/i- sux, which could also be valid in the case of Carian com-
parable forms.
This sux appears in Carian with the form -ol (Greek-vll-/-vld-)
and perhaps also -el (Grek -hld-). I refer the reader to Chapter 6,
p. 258 for a more detailed phonological explanation of these Carian
forms; here it is sucient to note that a vocalic change > o, commonly
seen in Carian, serves to explain the very particular form -ol- taken
by this sux in this Anatolian dialect. Examples of -vll-/-vld- in
Greek sources are extremely numerous (see examples in Appendix C),
16
In Adiego (1993a:4445), evorokins proposal of connecting u-/Uss- to CLuw.
wu- was accepted. Now I have serious doubts about this connection, insofar as it
does not explain why the peculiar sibilant sound appears here. The explanation of
Carian genitives in - as arising from *-si- (see p. 313) points rather to a *usi- stem
as a starting point, although without discounting other possibilities. Could u- < usi-
to be related to CLuw. ua/i-, Lycian uhe/i- year?
and it is also well documented directly in Carian, particularly by the
family of uol-Ussvllow names, which undoubtedly contain this sux
even though the origin and meaning of the stem to which they are
attached (u ) is by no means clear.
16
For other possible suxes recognizable in Carian place names (-ulia-,
-um-), and a tentative connection to Hittite-Luwian onomastics, see
Neumann (1988:389).
344 cn.r+rn xixr
CHAPTER TEN
CARIAN AS AN INDO
-
EUROPEAN
ANATOLIAN LANGUAGE
Despite the scarcity of linguistic information obtainable from the analy-
sis of Carian inscriptions, several traits can be observed that clearly
place Carian within the Indo-European Anatolian family of languages.
More precisely, some of these traits situate Carian in the group of so-
called Luwic dialects, integrated by Cuneiform and Hieroglyphic Luwian,
Lycian, Milyan, and probably also Sidetic and Pisidian, which share a
series of phonological and morphological features that dierentiate them
from other Anatolian dialects (Hittite, Palaic, Lydian). The present
chapter will be devoted to summarizing all of these traits found in
Carian. For this task, it is essential to use evidence drawn from ono-
mastics, in order to create a more complete picture of the Luwic char-
acter of Carian. I am aware of the risk involved in basing an argument
on the etymological interpretations of proper names, but I think that
a signicant number of these interpretations can be condently used
to demonstrate the proximity of Carian to Luwian, Lycian and the rest
of the Luwic dialects. I refrain from oering an exhaustive treatment
of this subject because I consider it to be more realistic, and also more
illustrative, to focus on a reduced, but very meaningful set of traits that
clearly establish the Anatolianand particularly Luwiccharacter of
Carian.
Beginning with phonology, a good indication that Carian belongs to
Anatolian is the preservation of the PIE laryngeal *h
2
, a trait that
dierentiates Anatolianwith the exception of Lydianfrom other
Indo-European languages. As shown in Chapter 6, in Carian (and also
in Lycian and Milyan) this PIE laryngeal becomes a tectal stop (lenited
in some positions, at least in Lycian and Milyan), in contrast to Hittite
and Luwian, where it appears as a (velar?) fricative (Hitt. CLuw. ,
HLuw. h). The examples are taken from onomastic materials, but they
seem convincing: pik/bik in piks, dbiks, pikre (Pigrhw), all from PIE *b
h
h
2
-
vs. CLuw. pi (see p. 337), quq = Lyc. xuga, grandfather, vs. CLuw.
a-.
Specically Luwic is the satem treatment of the PIE palatal voice-
less stop * (CLuw., HLuw. z, Lyc., Myl. s, against k used elsewhere
346 cn.r+rn +rx
in Anatolian). Evidence for this treatment in Carian (> s) is provided
by the demonstrative pronoun s(a)-: sa, san, snn, comparable to CLuw.,
HLuw. za- vs. Hitt. ka-. We can also consider as Luwic the loss of PIE
* in (i)br = CLuw. im(ma)ra/i- open country, against its preservation
in Hitt. gim(ma)ra- (< PA *emro-).
In derivational morphology, a remarkable trait that once again sit-
uates Carian in the Luwic subgroup is the presence of an ethnic sux
-yn-/-n-, easily interpretable as the Carian counterpart of Luwian
-wanni-, HLuw. -wani-, Lyc. -ni, Mil. -wni-.
In inectional morphology we can also identify the i-Mutation, i.e.
the insertion of -i- (probably from PIE *-ih
2
-) before the ending (replac-
ing the thematic vowel if this exists) in the nominative and accusative
singular and plural of the common gender nouns, a widespread phe-
nomenon in the Luwic subgroup. It is true that this -i- does not appear
as a result of the apparently defective vowel notation in Carian,
1
but
its eects can be detected in the umlaut displayed by the vowel of the
preceding syllable in the word ted, father, for which an original a can
be postulated, therefore *tadi- > *tedi- > ted- (cf. Lyd. taada- father vs.
Lyc. tedi- id., also with umlaut). Another possible example of i-Mutation
can be considered for the Carian genitive -, if we accept Melcherts
very plausible etymological explanation (from the possessive *-ass-, in
fact an i-mutated form of the possessive *-asso-).
Melcherts explanation of - also implies that Carian employed this
sigmatic adjectival sux to build nominal complements, which repre-
sents another clearly Luwic feature of Carian: it is in these languages
(Cuneiform and Hieroglyphic Luwian, Lycian) that we nd this sux
used as a replacement for the inherited genitive endings, either in all
cases or in the great majority, depending on the dialect.
Other Carian case endings are equally consistent with this theory.
While the acc. sg. -n informs us merely of the IE character of Carian
(-n < PIE *-m), the common gender acc. pl. -, if really indicative of
a *-ns origin (as the preservation of the sibilant seems to suggest, vs.
its loss when it comes from *-Vs in the nom. sg.), allows us to see the
proximity of Carian to Luwic: *-i-ns is the ac. pl. c. ending behind
CLuw. -inz, HLuw. <-iza> (= -/inz/), Lyc. -is, Mil. -iz. The presence
of the Carian palatoalveolar (?) sibilant -, instead of simple dental -s,
1
Regarding this problem, see above pp. 238242.
c.ni.x .s .x ixro-rtnorr.x .x.+ori.x r.xot.or 347
suggests a secondary change of s, perhaps due to the contact with n,
similar to the case of CLuw, HLuw, Mil. -z, irrespective of which sound
actually represents z in each of these dialects, a question that is the
subject of much debate.
Verbal morphology cannot really be used as evidence of Carian as
an Indo-European Anatolian language, since the insucient direct exam-
ples noted in Chapter 8 ( bt, ait, etc.) produce a clear risk of circu-
larity: we interpret them as verbs mainly on the basis of their formal
resemblance to Lycian (ubete, aite), so it is dangerous to use them as
evidence for the classication of Carian. As for indirect examples, the
name Neterbimow, a Carian version of the Lycian Natrbbijemi (see above
p. 343), is a good, although isolated example that suggests the exis-
tence in Carian of a participle sux -m, comparable to CLuw. -mma/i-,
Lycian -me/i-, itself another example of a Luwic trait.
Several words of the scarce vocabulary from Carian inscriptions whose
meaning can actually be condently established also show clear paral-
lels to the rest of the Anatolian languages: en mother = Hitt. anna-,
CLuw. nna/i-, Lyc. ene/i-, Lyd. ena-; ted father = CLuw. tta/i-, HLuw.
tata/i- Lyc. tede/i-, Lyd. taada- (vs. Hitt. atta-); armo- Moongod = Hitt.
arma-, Luw. *Arma- (see Melchert CLL, s. v.), Lyc. ar mma-, cf. Lyd. armta-
belonging to Arma. Specically Luwic are mso- god (?), cf. also ethnic
msnord- = CLuw. man(i)-, Lyc. maha(na)-, Mil. masa-, Sidetic maara (dat.
pl.), and the form of the name of the Storm-god, Carian trq(u)d- =
CLuw. Tarunt-, HLuw. TONITRUS-hut- (= *Tarhu(n)t-) Lyc. Trqqt-
vs. Hitt. Taru-. Finally, a meaningful isogloss shared by Carian and
Milyan is the copulative conjunction Car. sb, Mil. sebe and (cf. also
Lycian se and).
Therefore, although the number of Carian phonological, morpho-
logical and lexical traits that can be used for comparative purposes is
limited, they are in my opinion signicant and consistent enough to
classify Carian as an Indo-European Anatolian language, closely related
to the so-called Luwic dialects (Cuneiform and Hieroglyphic Luwian,
Lycian, and Sidetic). This comes as no surprise: even before decipher-
ing Carian, the analysis of Carian proper names from indirect sources
had already allowed some scholars to identify Carian as an Anatolian
dialect, and to point out its anities with Lycian and other southern
Anatolian dialects, but we can now, for the rst time, actually conrm
this linguistic classication of Carian on the basis of direct testimonies
from the language.
CHAPTER ELEVEN
CARIAN GLOSSARY
A list of the words found in the Carian inscriptions is presented here,
accompanied by a brief interpretation (whenever possible) and a short
bibliographical note. It should be taken into account that in the cases
of inscriptions without interpunction, the entry is the result of my seg-
mentation, and must therefore be taken as hypothetical and viewed
with caution.
The following is the order of the letters (in transcription) adopted here:
a b b d d e g i/j k l l m n o p q r s t t u/w y// z H 1
Note that the letters for the pairs of vowel/semivowel sounds have been
put together. This allows us to clearly show the equivalences between
forms such as wol (Egypt) and uol (Caria proper, where a specic
letter for /w/ does not exist).
I exclude from the glossary the sequences consisting of one or two
letters that appear in contexts that are very fragmentary, isolated and
impossible to interpret. The coin legends are also excluded (see the
appendix by K. Konuk).
aba
?
d
?
C.Ka 8
abrq[
E.Ab 14
absims
C.Ka 5
Pronominal form?
In Adiego (1998a:25) absi is tentatively connected to Lyc. ehbi < *ebesi his (there-
fore at[ms]kmt absi = his (for their?) descendents), but this hypothesis leaves
nal ms unexplained.
c.ni.x oross.nv 349
ada
C.Si 2a
Nom. sg. in the formula ]ryin tmo sb=ada tmno Idrieus of Hekatomnos
and Ada of Hekatomnos.
Fem. PN: Ada (the Carian queen, Hekatomnos daughter and Idrieus
sister and wife): Ada in Greek sources, a typical Carian feminine name
(cf. Aba, Alasta) documented particularly in the regions of Mylasa and
Stratonikeia (Blmel KarPN:9).
Schrr (1992:138), Adiego (1994a: 40).
adymd
C.Si 1
Singular or plural nominative? Verbal form?
Cf. Adiego 2000:152. Final - could point to a nominative-accusative ending.
Melchert (apud Hajnal (1995[97]:18, n. 15) suggests that it could be a verb in
a reexive construction (he made for himself ): ad (made, cf. Lyc. ade) + md
(particle) + (reexive); y would be an anaptyctic vowel.
Cf. dymda in Hyllarima?
ait
C.Ka 2
Possible verbal form: 3. plur. pret. they have made = Lyc. aite (Car.
ai- = Lyc. a(i) to do, to make?).
Melchert (1998:35). See also Adiego (1998a:25, 2000:140141).
aitusi
C.Ka 5
Perhaps related to ait. A segmentation aitu could oer a good connec-
tion with Anatolian imperatives (cf. Lycian ttu they must put): there-
fore aitu, they must make, ai- to do, to make = Lyc. a(i) id.), but
the resulting nal word si would remain unexplained.
Adiego (1998a:25).
ai[-]iqom
E.AS 7
The segmentation of the word is very doubtful.
350 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
Reading and segmentation according to Schrr. Ray (1994:203), starting from
the older reading psainiqom, proposes comparing psaini to the Egyptian PN
P3-sb3-j-m-njw.t, Greek Cousennhw, literally the star arisen in Thebes, although
he recognizes that no explanation can be given for the isolated three nal
letters qom. Vittmann (2001:58) mentions Rays proposal without further
commentaries.
akymydueryly[vacat]d
C.xx 3
A complete inscription whose segmentation into words remains unclear.
The meaning of the whole inscription is unknown.
On this inscription, see Schrr (2001c). Schrr points out that the abundance
of vowel signs present here is very unusual in Carian. He isolates a form aky-
mudu as a possible 3rd pl. imperative, with a < */-ndu/ ending comparable
to Hittite and Luwian corresponding endings. For akymy-, he proposes a con-
nection with Hitt. ak(k)- to die. All these proposals are formulated within the
framework of a very speculative interpretation of the possible content of the
text. In any case, a segmentation akymydu eryl[ is likely, given the unusual
sequence ue.
The syllabic iteration y . . . y recalls the similar situation in ardybyr (as well
as dtbr, katbr, smdbrs), so that the rst y in these cases could in fact be sec-
ondary (epenthetic?): akymydu < *akmydu-.
Could this inscription actually be a sort of alphabet model (with the names
of letters: a-ky-my-du, etc.)?
aakowr
E.AS 4
amnnartnyr
C.Ka 2
Van den Hout (1999) claims to recognize here a clitic chain a==m=n, to be
compared with Lycian parallel forms. Cf. his analysis of at[ms]kmt.
at[ms]kmt
C.Ka 5
atmsk[m-]d
C.Ka 2
The respective integrations are dependent on each other, but given the
textual connections between C.Ka 2 and C.Ka 5, they seem to be well
founded. Some doubts persist, however, regarding the nal letters of
c.ni.x oross.nv 351
each word. Perhaps we are dealing with two dierently inected forms
of the same stem.
In C.Ka 5, the corresponding Greek text makes the meaning descen-
dants a plausible interpretation.
See Adiego (1998a:24) and here on p. 300 for a very speculative attempt at
an etymological explanation (at- = Hitt. katta, mskm-, to be related to Luw.
maait- growth, prosperity, the overall sense of the word being ospring,
Nachkommenschaft).
A radically dierent approach is taken in van den Hout (1999): he suggests
analysing this form as a clitic-sequence, in which he underlines =ms=, inter-
preted as a pl. dat. of a 3rd sing. personal pronoun. As for the rest of the
elements (segmented as a==t=ms=km), he suggests some possible Lydian
parallels.
at[
C.Ka 5
It could be the same word as in the two preceding entries (at[mskm . . .]).
alos
E.Me 45
alosd
C.xx 2
Attested in both cases in agreement with the word arnos: alos arnos,
alosd arnosd. Tentatively connected with the Carian place name Halikar-
nassos (Alikarnassw), but this raises serious formal diculties.
Halikarnassos-identication already included in Adiego (1990:135136). With
more reservations: Adiego (1993a:245246), (1994a:40).
The duplicate ending -d points clearly to two dierent nouns (substantive
+ adjective or vice versa). In Adiego (2000:154) alos-d arnos-d is interpreted
as an ablative singular (Carian -d = Luw. -ti ) from Halikarnassos; alos arnos
in E.Me would be merely the name of the city in nominative (see here pp. 279,
315).
Other proposals: a salutation or wish formula (Gusmani 1979a:222), (1986:62);
Schrr (1992:153) interprets -s as a dative ending, which makes an analysis
of these forms as place names dicult.
amt[
C.Tr 1
352 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
an
C.Tr 2
ann
C.Ka 3
These forms appear in two funerary inscriptions. In C.Tr 2, an is accom-
panied by sidi, a typical word found in funerary contexts. In C.Ka 3,
it appears preceded and followed by two personal names in genitive
(orus and i brs ). The simplest interpretation is to consider an/ann a
demonstrative that functions as adjective modifying sidi in C.Tr 2 (this
tomb(?)), and as substantive governing the personal names in C.Ka 3
(this of oru (son of ) Ibrs).
For this interpretation, see Adiego (1996:161) and here pp. 290, 320. Also,
Hajnal sees here a demonstrative (Hajnal (1995[97]:20, from */eno-/). Adiego
(loc. cit.) suggests other possible forms of the pronoun in ankbu and amssi.
Schrr (1996c:158) proposes that ann C.Ka 3 designates the tomb, but given
an sidi of C.Tr 2, the interpretation as demonstrative seems more suitable.
ankbu
E.Bu 1, E.Bu 2
Perhaps a title or a kinship term (in nominative), given the contexts in
which it appears.
See Schrrs etymological attempt (Schrr 1996[98]:9798] to connect kbu
with the kinship terms kombow, kombion grandson, attested in several late Greek
inscriptions from Caria, and related to Hitt. kappi- little by Neumann (1961:61).
an would then be a sort of prex modifying in some way the kinship term
(cf. ep-neni in Lycian, from neni brother).
an[
C.Ka 2
amssi
C.Si 2a
Perhaps to be segmented into a mssi. In such a case, a comparison
with Luwian anni masanai, Lycian [e ]ni mahanahi mother of the Gods
would be striking. In any case, the reading, based only on the Robert-
Deroy edition of C.Si 2, is not absolutely certain.
Connection of mssi to Luwian maanaa/i-, Lycian maha(na)- suggested in
van den Hout (1999:39).
c.ni.x oross.nv 353
aor
E.Me 1 (aor[]), E.Bu 6
PN in genitive, Carian adaptation of an Egyptian name ( J-r literally
O(?) Horus, [ar], Greek Avw (?), see DNb:55).
Vittmann (2001:42).
apmen
E.Me 44a
PN in nominative, Carian adaptation of the Egyptian name p-mn (lit-
erally Apis is perpetual, *[apimn], Greek Apimenhw, see DNb:781).
ap[---]ws
E.Me 23
PN. It is not clear if it is a nominative of a s-stem, or a s-case.
a
?
qbaq
E.Th 10
a[rb]ikarm
E.Me 23
PN in genitive. If the form is correctly completed, it gives a Carian
name corresponding to Lycian (in Greek sources) Arpigramow (Zgusta
KPN 1041). The name would therefore be a compound ar-bikarm-.
For the second element, cf. pikarm-/pikrm-.
Completed and connected to Arpigramow by Kammerzell (1993:214), this view
is commonly accepted: see for instance Schrr (1992:139), Adiego (1994a:31)
(with further remarks on the structure of the name).
ardybyr
E.Me 52
PN in genitive. Corresponding to the Carian name in Greek adaptation
Arduberow. A name belonging to the family of names in -(d )ybr-.
Connection to Arduberow already suggested by Ray (1982b:189), but seriously
hampered by his decipherment system (argbr ). See Adiego (1993a:225226),
(1994a:40).
The doubts about the exact reading raised in Schrr (2001c:119)who sug-
gests an alternative interpretation a | rdybyr )are not particularly convinc-
ing, and in any case do not alter this correct identication.
On this family of names, see Adiego (1993a:224227).
354 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
are
C.Ia 3
Probably a PN in singular nominative (but a plural nominative cannot
be ruled out). It is possible that the beginning of the word is incomplete.
arie
?

E.Me 38
PN in genitive.
arjom
E.Me 42
PN in genitive. The connection with the PN arliom- is unclear: is it
perhaps a variant, parallel to arri, ari (Arrissiw), as well as arli
(Arlissiw). Independently of this possible connection, compare also arj-
with the Carian PNs Ariauow or Aridvliw.
Schrr (1992:134) suggests attributing the alternation arjom-/arliom to a dialec-
tal variation.
ari
C.St 1
ari
C.Hy 1a
PN in nominative (ari ) and genitive (ari ). Correspondence to the
Greek adaptation Arrissiw is conrmed by the evidence of the bilingual
inscription C.Hy 1, where the name Arrissiw appears in the Greek
part (although the individuals mentioned are not necessarily the same).
Given this identication, ari could be a variant spelling of ar ri, q.v.
Both ari-Arrissiw and arri could be variants of arli-Arlissiw, as arjom
against arliom. See arjom for further remarks.
arila
E.Me 39
PN in genitive. Perhaps a Carian adaptation of the Greek PN Arxlaow
(Dor. Arxlaw). For the use of for a Greek velar stop, cf. ursle-.
Greek origin already suggested by Ray (1994:202)]. For an interpretation as
an purely Anatolian name, see Adiego (1993a:240).
c.ni.x oross.nv 355
arliom
E.Me 9 (arlio[m]), E.Me 43b
PN in genitive. It is the Carian name that appears as Arlivmow in
Greek sources.
For the identication, see Adiego (1990:134; 1993a:231; 1994a:35).
arli
E.Ab 24
arli
E.Me 9, E.Me 15, E.Me 51
PN in nominative (arli ) and genitive (arli ), corresponding to Arlissiw
in Greek sources. Cf. moreover the Carian place name Arlissow. The
stem seems to be the same as arliom-. Note also the possible variants
ari, arri.
Connection to Arlissiw already stated in Faucounau (1984:236). Cf. Adiego
(1993a:230; 1994a, n. 3.3).
armon
E.Me 8a, C.Eu 2
In E.Me 8a, noun in nominative: dragoman, interpreter, corresponding
to Egyptian p3 wm dragoman, interpreter in this bilingual inscription.
In C.Eu 2: function and meaning unknown (it would be very unlikely
for it to have the same meaning as in the other example).
For a detailed discussion of the problems posed by the exact meaning of
Egyptian p3 wm, see Vittmann (2001:5052), who argues convincingly for the
sense interpreter, and dispels all the doubts raised in Masson-Yoyotte (1956)
and subsequent literature about this interpretation.
Janda (1994:180182), starting from the alleged meaning herald, proposes
for armon- an origin from *ar(V)ma-wanni-, where *ar(V)ma- would correspond
to HLuw. ataman-/adaman-/ name, assuming a semantic change, name >
determination, decision. The meaning dragoman corresponds even better to
the semantics of this explanation (perhaps interpreter: who names the things
in another language) but the sound changes assumed are ad hoc.
For armon in C.Eu 2, see above p. 309.
armotrqdos
C.Hy 1a
Most probably a dvandva-like compound formed by the divine names
armo- (Carian version of the Anatolian moon-god Arma-) and trqd- (the
356 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
Anatolian Storm-God, Hitt. Tarhu-, CLuw. Tarhunt-, Lyc. Trqqt-, see
below, trqude). A (possessive?) ending -os (= Luw. -aa-?) has been added
to the compound stem armo+trqd-.
On this form, and for a dierent possible analysis, see Adiego-Debord-Varinlio<lu
(2005:616617). The possibility cannot be discounted that a secondary vocalic
stem (trqdo-) may have been formed from the original nt-stem (as in the rest
of Luwic languages) trqud- (<*tarHunt-), so that the ending would be -s (like in
ntro/ntro-s).
ari
E.Bu 1(ar[]i), E.Bu 2
PN in nominative. The identication with the Carian name from Greek
sources, Arris(s)iw, depends on the exact value of the letter transcribed
as , but this is now reinforced by the certain equivalence ari (q.v.)
= Arrissiw in Hyllarima (where there is no letter ). The connection
of all of these forms to arli-Arlissiw is unclear (cf. also arjom- and
arliom-).
Adiego (1992a:34). See also Adiego (1994a:35).
artay
E.Me 22
PN in genitive, to be compared with Artaow, although the Greek adap-
tation as an o-stem could mean that the stem is not exactly the same.
Cf. also Arthumow (Zgusta KPN 109, Blmel KarPN:11), which can
be analyzed as a stem, *artay-/artey-, followed by a sux, -m-. The nal
part of Arthumow recalls names such as paraeym- parpeym-. For art /Art-
cf. also Artuassiw, Aryuassiw.
Adiego (1993a:231232; 1994a:35).
artmi
C.Tr 2
PN in nominative(?). It could be the Greek goddess name Artemiw,
directly used as personal name (cf. Lydian artimu, also attested both as
personal and god names), or a variant form of the Carian name Artimhw.
The problem posed by the relationship between the Greek divine name (of
Asian origin?) Artemis, and the family of Anatolian names collected in Zgusta
KPN 108 (Arteimaw, Arteimow, Artimhw, etc.), is not at all clear, and cannot
c.ni.x oross.nv 357
be dealt with here (see remarks in Zgusta KPN:102 and Adiego-Debord-
Varinlio<lu 2005:611). Cf. also the Carian name rtim.
The ambiguous structure of C.Tr 2 does not mean we can dismiss the the-
ory that artmi could be a dative, see above p. 290.
artmon
C.Tr 1(art{ }mon)
PN in nominative. It is the Carian adaptation of the Greek name
Artmvn. Note the identical adaptation in Sidetic (artmon).
The Greek PN Artmvn is well documented in Caria. For instance,
it appears in the well-known inscription of Halikarnassos, SGDI 5727,
where it is used by individuals whose fathers name is clearly Carian
(Artmvnow to Panamuv, Artm[v]na Territ, etc.).
For the identication, see Schrr apud Adiego (1994, 3.49).
abt
E.Th 13
a[-]mob[
C.Al 1
a[--]a[----]om
C.St 1
The nal part clearly indicates a PN in genitive (for the ending, cf.
names such as arliom-, kbjom-, etc.
bal
E. Th 49
PN?
baqgk[. . .]
C.Ia 5
bebi
E.Th 23
It seems to be an incomplete form of bebint, see the following entry.
358 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
bebint
E.Th 28 (bebi
.
nt), E.Th 30, E.Si 4 (be
?
bint), E.AS 7
Word of unknown function and meaning. In E.Th 28 and E.Si 4 it appears
preceded by a diamond-like sign (t, K) whose function is uncertain.
Former readings of some of these testimonies raised doubts about the second
letter of the word (w rather than e e), but a unied reading, bebint, must
now be preferred (see Schrr 2001b:108).
Schrr has argued in dierent works in favour of an interpretation as a
verb (a third singular preterite form, see Schrr 1996a:65) with the meaning
to oer (Schrr 2001b:108). It is also seen as a verb by Hajnal (1995[97]:18):
a 3rd sg. present he sends of the verbal root that he also recognizes also in
binq (q.v.).
bebnd
E.Th 6
Perhaps related to the preceding entry (bebint).
bejeym
E.Th 28
Perhaps a PN in nominative. As for the nal part of the word, cf. the
PNs paraeym, parpeym.
beol
E.Ab 23
PN in nominative. Although no directly comparable form is attested
in Greek sources, it recalls other Carian names with -ol (Greek -vllow,
-vldow).
betkrqit[-- . . .]
E.Si 5
bi
C.Ka 2 (2)
C.Ka 5
Apparently a conjunction or particle, as it appears in C.Ka 2 follow-
ing an accusative otr (themselves). In this same passage, it seems to
be used as a postclitic in correlation: . . . bi . . . bi. Its identication in
C.Ka 5 is less certain. Cf. also another example ]bi in C.Ka 2.
On the possible dierent interpretations of bi, see p. 302.
c.ni.x oross.nv 359
bidlemsa
E.Ab 30
Function and meaning unknown. Not a PN, because it precedes an
onomastic formula in nominative. Cf. perhaps [--]msal (E.Bu 1), which
also precedes a PN in nominative.
Hajnal (1995[97]:23) proposes the segmentation bidlem sa, where sa would be
a demonstrative (see sa). For the rst word, he suggests that em indicates a
participle.
bijpe
E. Si 8
Probably a PN in nominative.
binq
C.Si 1
A verb? The reading of the last letter is not absolutely certain.
Hajnal (1995[97]:18): ich schenkte, 1st sg. pret. < */piann-a/, to be com-
pared to Hitt, piyanni- to send. For the same verb also bint, bebint as 3rd
sg. present.
bsis
E.Ab 30
b
?
s
?
uiam
E.Lu 5
buy[-----]i[-----]i
C.Ka 5
b
E.AS 7
A word that apparently agrees with the following: (esak
?
dow ). A demon-
strative pronoun in accusative or nominative plural?
The idea of a demonstrative pronoun has been repeatedly defended by Schrr
(see Schrr 1996a:69, 2001b:98, 112): b- would come from PA *ob/i-( >
CLuw. apa-, Lyc. ebe-) with aphaeresis (as in HLuw. pa- besides apa-, or Lyd.
bi- [pi-]). The ending - can be compared with -, the acc. pl. animate end-
ing in C.Ka 5.
360 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
bta
E.Si 6
PN in nominative?
banol
C.My 1 (2)
PN in nominative. Perhaps the Carian name corresponding to Ibanvlliw
in its Greek adaptation.
For this possible connection with Ibanvlliw, see Blmel-Kzl (2004:134), Adiego
(2005:85).
bem
E.Me 17
PN in genitive.
b
2
o[--]ol
C.Ka 5
Noun in plural accusative. It appears in a long sequence that corre-
sponds to the Greek formula projnouw e[nai k]a eergtaw Kaunv[n].
Frei-Marek (1997:3839) try to bring this word closer to 1orsol (completing
therefore [rs]). However, this solution implies that the initial letter of the word,
(here transcribed by b
2
), has to be likened to 1, contradicting the theory
defended in the present book, that is a letter for b (see also Adiego 1998a:23).
As for the meaning, it hardly can be descendents, as Frei-Marek suggests,
given the clear correspondence otr = atow. b
2
o[--]ol must rather be a word
at the same level as kbdyn (in kbdyn sb b
2
o[--]ol ). In Adiego a connection of
b
2
o[--]ol with Imbros, the citadel near Kaunos, is very tentatively suggested.
See pp. 299300.
brsi
E.Th 26, E.Th 48, C.Hy 1a
brsi
C.Hy 1a (2), C.St 1
PN in nominative (brsi ) and genitive (brsi ). Carian name rendered in
Greek as Imbarsiw, Imbras(s)iw. Form with aphaeresis or no notation
of initial vowel that coexists with the full forms ibrsi-, ibarsi-. Identication
now assured thanks to the bilingual inscription C.Hy 1, where both
brsi and Imbrasiw appear (although not necessarily referring to the same
individuals).
c.ni.x oross.nv 361
Schrr (1991[93], passim). For brsiImbrasiw in Hyllarima, see Adiego-Debord-
Varinlio<lu (2005).
dbikrm
E.Th 19
PN in nominative. Can be analysed as (i)d- + bikrm. For the rst ele-
ment, cf. d-quq- (Greek Idagugow), d-wol/id-uol- (Greek Idussvllow),
d-biks. For the second element, cf. pikrm/pikarm (cf. also Pigramiw, Pigramow
in Lycia, Zgusta KPN 12551, 2).
Note below the devocalised form dbkrm.
dbiks
E.Th 13
PN in nominative. A compound name formed by d- (see dbikrm above)
and biks (see piks[ ).
dbkrm
E.Ab 34
PN in nominative. A variant form of dbikrm.
dmobqs
E.Si 11
Perhaps a PN.
See the study dedicated to this word by Schrr (1996b). There, bqs is con-
nected with piks-/biks- and other forms that are derived from PIE *b
h

hos (see
piks-).
dm-?-n
E.Th 34
It could be a noun in accusative singular, given the context ( prnanon
dm-?-n).
dokmmpint
E.Th 4
dquq
E.Th 44
PN in nominative. It corresponds to Idagugow in Greek sources, a com-
pound name (i)d- (see dbikrm-) + quq- (see quq-).
362 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
For this identication, see Adiego (1993a:235; 1994a:3536). Tentatively com-
pared in Adiego (1995:27, n. 9) with Milyan ddxug[, but the segmentation and
the interpretation of this latter form are doubtful (see Schrr 1996b:154).
driem
E.Th 53
PN in nominative?
Initial dr recalls dar in darqemorms[. Note that in Thebes d is practically
absent, and its function could be assumed here by d.
saml-?-?-o
E.Th 16
dtbr
E.Th 2
PN in nominative. It belongs to the family of names in -(d)ybr- (and
variants). Cf. ardybyr-, dybr, etc.
On this family of names, see Adiego (1993a:224227)
dwol
E.Me 35
PN in genitive. This is a variant with aphaeresis (or no notation of the
initial vowel) of the name now attested in its complete form in Mylasa
(iduol-), which corresponds to Idussvllow. A compound name (i)d- (see
dbikrm-) + uol (cf. uol-/Ussvllow).
For this identication, see Adiego (1993a:241). Aphaeresis suggested by Neumann
apud Adiego ibid.).
Schrr (1996b:154) recalls, in addition to Idussvllow, the Carian name
Yussvllow.
dbr
E.Th 5
PN in nominative. A name belonging to the family of names in -(d)ybr-.
On this family of names, see Adiego (1993a:224227)
c.ni.x oross.nv 363
dymda
C.Hy 1a
Meaning and function unknown. Cf. in any case adymd in C.Si 1.
darqemorms[
C.St 2
Part of an onomastic formula, like those that precede it in the same
inscription?
Schrr (2001c:119) proposes the segmentation dar qem orm s[ and interpret-
ing qem as a participle. For dar, if a PN, compare with Andarsvw and prob-
ably also Dersvw (see p. 246).
den
E.Sa 1
Analysed as a sort of preposition (comparable to Hitt. andan) governing tumn
(= for Atum) in Adiego (1995:2123). See here p. 287.
drual
C.Ka 5
Unclear form. It must correspond in some way to Greek p dhmio[u]rgo
in the bilingual inscription C.Ka 5, but the precise analysis remains
unclear.
An attractive theory has been formulated independently by Hajnal (1997b:150)
and Melchert (1998:37; cf. also 2002:308) that the entire sequence i[--]inis d
rual can be analysed as under the ship of Hi[pposth]enes, with d < *nde =
Lyc. te in(to), i[]inis genitive/possessive, and rual as a noun correspond-
ing to the title dhmio[u]rgo. Attempts to nd an etymological explanation for
rual (Hajnal 1997b:151, from */erow-/ freeedom, cf. Lyc. arawa-; Schrr
2001b:109110, a similar explanation, but starting from a dierent analysis
of the sequence) seem somewhat rash.
emsglpn
E.AS 4
364 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
en
E.Me 32
mother (nominative). It corresponds to Lycian eni, Lydian ena, CLuw.
anni mother. Carian vocalism points to an i-mutation stem (*ani-)
and subsequent umlaut a > e caused by this i-sux.
For this meaning, see Schrr (1996a:62), Hajnal (1995[97]:2122). For i-muta-
tion and umlaut, see Schrr (2001b:97) and here on p. 259.
eri
C.Si 2a
Function and meaning unknown.
In Adiego (2000:143144) it is interpreted as a noun with the meaning tax
exemption, tleia, functioning as direct object of pisoi mda (q.v.). Moreover,
a connection with Lycian arawa- tax exemption is suggested. Neumann (apud
Adiego 2000:144) envisages the possibility that eri could be a preverb identi-
cal to Lycian eri. All of these hypotheses are dependent on a particular inter-
pretation of C.Si 2 traced in Adiego (2000), cf. here on p. 304.
esak
?
dow
E.AS 7
Very likely to be a compound noun that seems to contain the stem
kdow- (cf. kdou in E.Bu 1), usually interpreted as the Carian word for
king (cf. Lycian xtawat(i )- king, and the form KNDW/KNDWS in
the Aramaic part of the Trilingual inscription of the Letoon of Xanthos,
which is perhaps a direct reection of the Carian word).
See Adiego (1995:1821) for a detailed discussion of this question. The most
compelling point of this interpretation is undoubtedly the coexistence in E.AS
7 of esak
?
dow and pismak (= Psammetichus)separated by the word mqudem
that opens the possibility of interpreting them as the king . . . Psammetichus,
and of linking this inscription to the well-known long Greek grato, also from
Abu-Simbel, in which this Pharaoh is also mentioned. But decisive formal
details of esak
?
dow remain unexplained: the value of initial esa-, and the precise
function of -, which seems to agree with the word preceding esak
?
dow, b
and which recalls the ending of plural accusative in C.Ka 5, which would make
the interpretation king Psammetichus very dicult to argue (see here on
p. 294).
c.ni.x oross.nv 365
ewlane
E.Th 49
See following entry and ewmlane.
ewm
E.Th 10, E.Th 13
A typical sequence in Theban grati: Cf. slmaewm, which can perhaps
be segmented into slma ewm, the incomplete form ewm-?-?-?-?, and the
sequence ewmlane. Note also ew in the preceding entry ewlane.
See p. 323 for a possible segmentation into two elements ew+m.
ewmlane
E.Th 12, E.Th 44
One of the alleged verbs in mlane, mdane, q.v. Note that the segmen-
tation is not clear (ew+mlane, ewm+lane or ew+m+lane?), see p. 323.
euml
?
bnasal
E.Bu 2
Analysis, function and meaning are unknown. Cf. eypsal also in Buhen,
which would allow us to isolate an element sal.
Could be sal and adverb with the meaning here (cf., for the ending, Lyc.
ebeli, and for the stem, the pronoun sa-/sn-).
ewm-?-?-?-?
E.Th 52
See ewm entry.
eypsal
E.Bu 6
See euml
?
bnasal above.
gkem
E.Th 44
PN in genitive
grdso[-]i[
C.Ka 2
Probably related to qrds, qrdsol, especially since it appears in a sequence
qrds grdso[-]i[ that could constitute a type of gura etymologica.
366 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
gdbla1i[-]
C.Ka 2
i[---]inis
C.Ka 5
PN, probably with s-ending. This incomplete name must be the Carian
adaptation of the Greek Hipposthenes, the name of the demiurge in
the bilingual inscription C.Ka 5. Tentatively completed as i[poz]inis
(Frei-Marek 1997:31).
For this interpretation, see drual. However, an alternative segmentation i[---]ini
sdrual (thus Schrr) cannot be discounted. As for the missing letters, Frei-
Mareks solution is quite good, but not the only possibility (the use of <z>
for Greek sy is impossible to demonstrate).
ialli
E.Ab 40
PN in nominative.
iarja
E.Ab 2
PN in genitive.
iasoum
C.Ki 1
See here p. 142 on the doubts about the exact reading and a very hypo-
thetical alternative reading.
ibarsi
E.Ab 3
ibrsi
E.Bu 4
PNs in genitive. Alternate forms of a name corresponding to Imbras(s)iw/
Imbarsiw in the Greek source. For further remarks, see the variant form
brsi-.
ibrsdr[-]
C.Ka 4
The initial sequence is undoubtedly related to the ibarsi-/ibrsi-/brsi-
family of words, but both the precise analysis and the segmentation
c.ni.x oross.nv 367
into elements are not clear. Perhaps we must segment ibr-s dr[ and
identify here a construction similar to i[---]ni-s drual (under the demi-
urge Hipposthenes, according to the Greek translation) in C.Ka 5.
Connection to ib(a)rsi-family already noted in Schrr (1992:140). Schrr also
recalls Imbrow, the name of a citadel near Kaunos (Zgusta KON 3731,
Blmel KarON:168), and whilst in former works he suggested that ibrs could
be the ethnic name of Imbros, following the discovery of the Kaunos bilin-
gual he prefers to take ibr as the actual name of the citadel, and to inter-
pret ibr-s dr[u] as (in?) Imbros, the people (with *sdru- people as the basis
for sdrual demiurgos). However, s is most likely to be an ending, both here
and in C.Ka 5.
ibrs
C.Ka 3
PN in genitive. The same name as ib(a)rsi-, or a name closely related
to it.
The doubts about the analysis lie in the absence of i at the end of the stem.
It could simply be the result of a defective notation, or perhaps the reection
of a dierent suxation (for instance -s- < *-so- against -si- < *-siyo-).
idmns
E.Me 33a
E.Me 33b
PN. Case unclear (nominative of an s-stem, or rather a stem idmn- with
a dative -s ending?). It seems to be a compound whose rst element
is (i)d-, cf, iduol-/dwol-/Idussvllow, etc.
idmuon
E.Me 18b
PN in genitive. No parallel forms in Greek sources. It could be ana-
lyzed as a compound name: id + muon-. For the rst element, see the
preceding entry (idmns), whilst -muon- could belong to the family of
muwa- names.
Janda (1994:176) suggests interpreting this name as a derivative of the Carian
place name Iduma by means of the ethnic sux Luw. -wanni-: aus Iduma stam-
mend.
368 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
idrayridsemdbq
C.My 1
Heading of the long inscription of Mylasa, followed by the words mol
tu[, and a list of onomastic formulae. This sequence, undoubtedly con-
stituted by more than one word, remains impossible to analyse.
See here on p. 308 for the sequence idrayri .
iduol
C.My 1
PN in genitive. Carian name rendered in Greek as Idussvllow. For its
analysis, see the variant form dwol-.
Blmel-Kzl (2004:137).
idyes
E.Me 63a
PN in genitive. Initial id recalls the lexical element (i)d-/Id-, see dwol-.
idym
C.Ka 4
The nal - could point to a plural accusative (and also nominative?).
A stem idym- recalls the Carian place name Iduma.
idyri
C.Eu 1
C.My 1
PN in genitive. A clear compound name id+yri-, still not attested in
Greek sources. For the rst element, cf. (i)d-/Id- in dquq, iduol, etc. The
second element is the well-known stem yri-/yriq- /diq-/d- (Greek
-urigow, -udigow).
Cf. Blmel-Kzl (2004:137), who reconstruct a possible Greek adaptation
*Idurigow. For a unifying explanation of yri-/yriq- /diq-/d-, see pp. 262263.
inut
E.Ab 18
PN in genitive.
c.ni.x oross.nv 369
ionel
E.xx 3
PN in genitive. It could contain the same stem as Ionia, Ionian.
For this connection, see Schrr (1991[93]:173), Adiego (apud Schrr ibid.). In
Adiego (1994:49, n.15) a detailed account of the possible process is given:
starting from *iona- < *iyauna- < *iyawana- Ionian (cf. Lyc. Ijna-), *-wana-
would be the ethnic sux Luw. -wanni-, Lyc. -ni, Carian -yn/-on.
irasa
E.Si 3
PN in nominative? The context is very unclear.
irow
E.Me 14, E.Me 16
irow
E.Me 27
PN in nominative (irow) and genitive (irow ). Most likely to be a femi-
nine name in E.Me 16 and 27 (see pp. 272273). As according to
Vittmann, a name of Egyptian origin: J.r =w (attested both as a mas-
culine and feminine name), phonetically [irw] or [ j6rw].
Vittmann (2001:45). Egyptian origin already suggested in Ray (1994: 202). The
Egyptian interpretation for irow now seems preferable to former attempts to
analyse it as Anatolian (cf. Ray 1982b:184, Melchert apud Adiego 1995:23,
Hajnal 1995[97]:27, n. 38), especially given the diculties raised by the dierent
proposals of this type (see Adiego 1993a:247; 1995:2324).
isor
E.xx 1
PN in genitive, of Egyptian origin: it is the adaptation of Ns-r (liter-
ally (s)he belongs to Horus, phonetically reconstructed *[6sr]; Greek
perhaps Esour, Esouriw, etc., DemNb:685).
Vittmann (2001:50). Former attempts to connect it to the Anatolian place name
Isaura (Adiego 1993a:247) must be ruled out.
370 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
iturow
E.Me 32
PN in genitive, whose feminine character is clear from the context (the
word en mother refers to it). Carian adaptation of the Egyptian (both
masc. and fem.) PN Jr.t =w-r.r=w (DemNb:70) *[ j6turw], Greek Iyorvw.
Ray (1994:202). See Vittmann (2001:45) for the phonetically reconstructed form.
ikr
E.AS 5
PN in genitive
jzpe
C.xx 2
PN? It immediately precedes mdane in the inscription.
In Adiego (2000:154) it is analysed as a PN in dative. Schrr (1996a:65), takes
Jzpe to be the name of the donor of the object (presumably in nominative).
Hajnal (1997b:150) interprets the entire sequence alosd arnosd jzpe as a dat-
ing formula zur Zeit der ?-schaft von Jzpe, but he does not explain the pre-
cise morpho-syntactical status of jzpe.
All the attempts to nd explanations for a possible PN jzpe are somewhat
speculative: Schrr (1996a:65, n. 14) compares jzpe with the Lydian PN itubelm-
, and Hajnal (1997b:150, n. 14) recalls the Persan PN Vitspa-/Ustsphw.
kattri
E.Ab 25
PN in genitive
kbdmu
C.My 1
PN in genitive. Perhaps a compound name kbd+mu-. The rst element
clearly recalls the place name kbid- Kaunos (for the omission of the
vowel, cf. particularly the form of the ethnic name kbd-yn- ), although
it is not clear if the PN alluded directly to the place name or if it con-
tained the common noun from which the place name was created. As
for the second element, it seems to be the well-known Anatolian stem
muwa-, strength, force.
c.ni.x oross.nv 371
For the connection of kbd(+mu)- to kbid- Kaunos, see Blmel-Kzl (2004:136),
who also recall the Carian name from Greek sources Kbvdhw. For a possible
Anatolian etymology of all these names in kb, see p. 334.
kbdyn
C.Ka 5
Kaunians (in plural accusative). Meaning assured by the Greek part
of the bilingual C.Ka 5. An ethnic noun derived from the place name
kbid- Kaunos (q.v.) by means of a sux -yn- that corresponds to Lycian
-ni-, Milyan -wni-, CLuw. -wanni-.
Identication as ethnic name and comparison of -yn- with the Luwic sux
already in Frei-Marek (1997:37, 50).
kbidn
C.Ka 5
Carian name of the city of Kaunos (cf. the Lycian form xbide), or, more
improbably, an ethnic name derived from it (cf. kbdyn ). Morphological
analysis is unclear.
Cf. the Lycian name of this city, Xbide, and the Aramaic adaptation
of the god name Kaunian king, KDW/KDWS KBYDY.
For the reading of the last letter of the word, see Frei-Marek (1998:2). It is
possible that this city name was in Carian a plurale tantum (as is presumably
Lycian xbide), according to Hajnal (1997b:149), see also Melchert (2001:310,
n. 12). Both Hajnal and Melchert (loc. cit.) point to a genitive plural (-n <
*-m), but while Hajnal imagines a true genitival value (decree of Kaunos),
Melchert suggests that this genitive plural could become a dative-locative, like
in Lydian (therefore kbidn in Kaunos).
For the possibility that kbidn is an ethnic name (in nominative plural, from
*kbid-wen-is), see Adiego (1998a:20), (2002:1920). For a possible etymology of
the names in kb, see p. 334.
kbjom
E.Me 12, E.Me 32, E.Th 13
PN in genitive. Carian name adapted in Greek as Kebivmow. kbjom- also
appears in the compound name arkbiom.
Adiego (1993a:232). Hajnal (1995[97]) suggests that this name would contain
a participle < */piemmo//- given, with an alleged change *^m > om. For a
possible etymology of the names in kb, see p. 334.
372 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
kblow
E.Th 46
PN in genitive.
kbokt
E.Th 2
PN in genitive.
See Adiego (1994b:252), where the name is analysed as a compound formed
by kbo- (cf. kbo-s, perhaps also taqbo-s) and kt (cf. ktmno).
kbos
E.Me 24
Ethnic name? (Keramean?). It could be formed from a place name
kbo- (Keramos? see Konuk 2000b) by means of an -s- sux (cf. otono-
s-n from otono- Athens).
For this interpretation, based on the peculiar structure of E.Me 24, see above
p. 278. The interpretation was already suggested by Schrr (2003:116, n. 1).
For a possible etymology of the names in kb, see p. 334.
kdou
E.Bu 1
Noun in genitive.
Could it be the Carian word for king? See esa
?
kdow.
kdu
.
si
E.Ab 35
PN in genitive. It seems to contain the lexical element kd-, as esa
?
kdow,
kdou, kduol (= Hitt., Luw. ant-).
kduol
C.xx 4, C.xx 5
PN? It seems to be a name of the uol-family, but the nal - could
be a plural ending (cf. kbdyn, sarni, etc.) Note also the element kd- (see
preceding entry).
Schrr (2001b:117) suggests that we are dealing with the plural of an adjec-
tive whose meaning would be belonging to the king (= the god) (for the
meaning king, cf. esa
?
kdow, kdou ).
c.ni.x oross.nv 373
kduopizipususot
C.Hy 1b
Sequence most probably consisting of more than one word, but impos-
sible to be segment with any condence.
Note the presence of the sequence kdu , to be related either totally or par-
tially to esa
?
kdow, kdou, kduol.
ken
E.Th 28
kidbsi
E.Me 15
Ethnic name (less probably PN) in genitive. It could be (at least orig-
inally) the ethnic name derived from a place name *kidb-, to be identied
with the Carian city Kinduh in Greek sources.
Hajnal (1998:90). Schrr has attempted to establish dierent connections for
this word, which he instead considers a PN: comparison with the Carian name
Kindacow (Blmel KarPN:16), name of the father of the founder of Masanvrada,
according to Stephan of Byzantium (Schrr 1991[93]:170); connection to Mil.
xtabasi, poss. adj. of xtaba ruler (Schrr 1996b:152) and to the Cilician
names Kendebhw, Kendhbhw, Kendhbaw (Schrr 2001b:105), for these latter names,
see Zgusta KPN 576).
kilarad[
C.Ki 1
kil[
C.Ki 1
Place name: the Carian city of Kildara/Killara (Kildara/Killara). In
the rst example it is not clear if d belongs to the word.
The identication was made already by Kowalski (1975:79, 83), although his
transcription was still very unsatisfactory (kr zara).
klorul
E.Me 6
Ethnic name, title, or common noun in nominative. Hardly a PN, given
the structure of the inscription in which it appears.
374 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
See above p. 270, where the inscription is analysed and this word is taken as
an ethnic name. Schrr (1992:135) instead suggests that it is a common noun
with the meaning wife, because he interprets the entire inscription triqo parma
i klorul i as Triqo (f.), the wife of Parma.
knor
C.Kr 1
kojol
E.Me 44a
Ethnic name, title or sim. in nominative. Hardly a PN, given the struc-
ture of the inscription in which it appears.
Above p. 271, kojol is analysed as an ethnic name and tentatively related to
the name of the island Kos. This connection is hampered by the fact that the
name of the person to which kojol seems to make reference, is of Egyptian
origin. Schrr (1992:155) proposes interpreting kojol as a title in -ol (like
nuol, sarmrol ), and suggests connecting it with the Carian gloss koon, sheep.
kolt
E.Si 2
kom
E.Th 39
PN in genitive
kowrn[. . .?
E.Si 2
kow[?-?]
E.Th 24
krws
E.Th 39, E.Th 45 (krw)
PN in nominative.
ksbo
C.My 1
PN in nominative. Carian name that corresponds to Xasbvw (all the
examples are from Mylasa) in Greek sources. Cf. also Kasbvlliw.
Blmel-Kzl (2004:137).
c.ni.x oross.nv 375
ksolb
E.Me 43a
Ethnic name (less probably PN) in genitive (see above p. 269). In either
case, it seems to be related to the place name Kasvlaba from Greek
sources.
Schrr (1992:143), Adiego (1994a:36). As an ethnic name: Janda (1994:174).
katbr
E.Th 2
PN in nominative. Name belonging to the -(d)ybr-family. Cf. in this case
the Lycian name Janduberiw (Zgusta KPN 1061).
For this family of names, see dbr-.
kmmsm[. . .]
E.AS 8
ktais
C.Eu 1
PN in s-case (dative case) or, less likely, in nominative. Carian form
of the Greek name Ekataow.
For the identication: Schrr (1992:154), Schrr apud Adiego (1994a:39,
1994b:252). In Adiego (1994a:39) ktais is interpreted as an s-stem created from
a Greek nominative (like Lycian zeus-, from Zew), but in the present book an
analysis of -s as an ending is preferred (see pp. 288289).
ktmn
E.Th 37
PN, perhaps an incomplete form of ktmno (see the following entry).
Adiego (1994b:251).
ktmno
E.Th 25
PN in nominative, corresponding to Ekatomnvw (Zgusta KPN 32513,
Blmel KarPN:13) in Greek sources. Note the variant tmo-.
Adiego (1994b:251252).
376 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
kt
?
tri
E.Ab 40.
PN in genitive. Perhaps related to the PN kattri.
kuaribar
E.Me 18a
An unclear form. Perhaps it must be segmented into kuari bar, the rst
word being a PN in genitive (cf. the following entry kwar ). However,
bar would remain unexplained.
kwar
E.Me 31
PN in genitive.
kudtubr
E.Th 9
PN in nominative. It apparently belongs to the family of names in
-(d)ybr-, but note the use of u instead of y/ (like odubr-, q.v.)
kwri
E.Th 34
PN in genitive. Perhaps it contains the same stem as kwar-, kuaribar.
arnos
E.Me 45
arnosd
C.xx 2
See alos, alosd.
arr
E.Ab 32
PN in genitive.
aye
E.Ab 31
PN in nominative.
diye
C.St 2
PN in genitive.
c.ni.x oross.nv 377
i
E.Sa 2: qri i; E.Me 6 (2): parma i, klorul i; E.Me 8b: armon
i, E.Me 9: arlio[m] i; E.Me 10 (3): q[---] i, [mw]don [i], [---
]word i; E.Me 12: mwdon i; E.Me 13 (2): wet i, mwdon i;
E.Me 16 (2): pikra i, mwdon i; E.Me 17: bem i; E.Me 18b (2):
idmuon i, mdayn i; E.Me 19: zmu i; E.Me 20 (2): rwli i,
mwdon i; E.Me 21: qblsi i; E.Me 23: a[rb]ikarm i; E.Me 25:
parpeym i; E.Me 28 (2): pntmun i, mwdon i; E.Me 30: pleq
i; E.Me 31 (2): kwarmHm i, mwdon []i; E.Me 32 (2): i en,
mw[d]on i; E.Me 33a (2): myre i, mdayn i; E.Me 33b: myre i;
E.Me 35: mwdon i; E.Me 38: i ted; E.Me 40 (2): pikrm i, mwdon
i; E.Me 42 (3): mwsat : i, mwdon : i, tbridbd : i; E.Me 43a:
rquq i; E.Me 43b: mno i; E.Me 44a: kojol i; E.Me 44b: mwton
i; E.Me 45 (2): [?]iam i, yi{}biks i; E.Me 46b: mwdon i;
E.Me 47: paraibrel i; E.Me 48: [-]owt i; E.Me 50b: psimt i;
E.Me 57: ]i i; E.Me 58: ]s i; E.Bu 6: urseak i; E.xx 1: isor i;
C.Eu 2: omob i; C.Si 2a: pdamu i
j
E.Me 36
Originally a relative pronoun, turned into a particle for introducing
complements. From PA *k
w
is < PIE *k
w
is (Hitt., CLuw. kui, Lycian ti,
Milyan ki ). Most spellings point to a postclitical usage, with the excep-
tion of E.Me 32: i en, where it seems to be proclitic.
See Adiego (1993a:213216) for a brief status quaestionis and for a functional
comparison of i with the Old Persian relative constructions. Compared to
Lycian and Milyan relatives in Adiego (1994a:46). See Hajnal (1997a) for a
more detailed treatment and here pp. 273275.
i
E.AS 7
Meaning and function are unclear.
Schrr (2001:98) compares it to the Lycian indenite pronoun tike (cf. also
Milyan -kike). While the comparison is sound from a phonological point of
view, the presence of an indenite pronoun in E.AS 7 depends on the over-
all interpretation of the inscription, a question that remains unresolved.
iqud
E.Si 1
Very probably a PN in nominative.
378 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
lbiks
E.Th 33
PN in genitive. It seems to include the nominal stem -biks- (cf. piks[,
dbiks, biks, yi{}biks-, but there are no clear parallels for the result-
ing rst element l-.
lmud [?
C.Ia 3
Perhaps an epithet of the word that it follows, the GN trqude Tarhunt,
although other interpretations cannot be discounted (for instance, a ver-
bal form).
The possibility of a word in agreement with trqude would increase if we accept
Gusmanis proposal of reading a letter e after lmud[ (therefore trqude lmude,
with the same ending for both words).

?
mpi
E.Si 10
tmo
C.Si 2a (2)
PN in genitive. It is the typical Carian name Ekatomnvw (cf. the vari-
ant form ktmno), that here makes direct reference to the well-known
Carian dynast Hekatomnos, the father of Maussollos, Artemisia, Idrieus
and Ada.
Schrr (1992:137). See also Adiego (1994b). Neumann has repeatedly argued
in favour of a purely Greek origin of the name (a hypochoristicon of an
*Ekatmnhstow: Neumann apud Schrr 1993:137, n. 6; Neumann apud Adiego
1994b:248; Neumann 1994:17), but the existence in Carian of a noun mno-
son means that we can analyse the name as a Carian compound kt+mno (for
kt- cf. Akta-ussvllow, kbo-kt-, etc. see Adiego 1994b).
toi
C.My 1
toi
PN in nominative (toi ) and genitive (toi ). Tentatively compared to
ktai-, Ekataow.
See Adiego (2005:9091). For the reading toi, see Blmel (2005:188).
c.ni.x oross.nv 379
yrapai
C.Ka 2
yrpai
C.Ka 2
Two forms apparently belonging to the same paradigm: genitive (ura-
pai- ) and perhaps nominative (yrpai ). It is not clear, however, if we
are dealing with a PN. Note the divergent vocalisation rp/rap.
[-]urb
E.Ab 36
PN in genitive
[--8--]tud[
C.Si 2a
limtaoa
C.Ia 1
lkor
E.Me 2, E.Me 36
PN in genitive
loubaw
E.Me 49
PN in nominative. It appears in the contentious inscription E.Me 49.
lrH
C.Si 2a
ltari
E.Ab 4, E.Ab 5 (ltari[])
PN in genitive
lse
E.Th 35
lsi
E.Me 43a
PN in nominative and genitive. However, it is not totally clear if we
are dealing with two forms belonging to the same paradigm (which
380 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
would imply a vowel-stem alternation e / i-), or two dierent stems
derived from the same root. In any case, the name seems to corre-
spond to the Carian name Lujhw in Greek sources (Zgusta KPN 836,
Blmel KarPN:18). Cf. also Lu-uk-u, the name of an Egypto-Carian
in Borsippa.
Adiego (1990a:134). On Lu-uk-u, see Eilers (1935:217), (1940:192), and Waer-
zeggers, Borsippa, where the Egyptian origin of the Carians of Borsippa is
stated.
lys[ikl ]an
C.Ka 5
lysiklas[-
?
]
C.Ka 5
PN in accusative (lysikla-n) and in genitive/possessive (lysikla-s(-?)).
Carian adaptation of the Greek name Lusiklw. It is not clear if lysik-
las is a complete form (of a true genitive in -s) or if a further letter
must be added. In this latter case, the most suitable solution is lysik-
las[n], a possessive adjective in accusative for expressing the name of
the father of Nikoklw in the inscription.
Frei-Marek (1997).
lysikratas[-
?
]
C.Ka 5
PN in possessive (lysikrata-s(-?)). Carian adaptation of the Greek name
Lusikrthw. As in the case of lysiklas[ (see the preceding entry), it is
not clear if the word is complete (representing a true genitive) or
whether it must be completed (most probably as lysikratas[n]) in order
to obtain a possessive adjective in accusative.
Frei-Marek (1997).
mal
C.Ka 1
PN in genitive.
c.ni.x oross.nv 381
mane
C.Hy 1a
mane
C.Hy 1a
PN in nominative and genitive. Typical Carian name that appears in
Greek as Manhw.
Adiego-Debord-Varinlio<lu (2005:607).
manon
C.Eu 2
maqaraHrl-?- [
C.St 2
matnor
E.Th 34
maqly[
C.St 1
Perhaps a complete form. If so, it would be a PN in genitive.
marariso[- . . .]
E.Si 1
Apparently the beginning of a PN.
mdayn
E.Me 18b, E.Me 33a
mdan
E.Me 11a, E.Me 11b, E.Me 17
Ethnic name (or similar) in nominative, the genitive of which is mwdon
(q.v.). Dierent possible interpretations have been envisaged, none of
them denitive: foreigner, Carian, inhabitant of Myndos (a Carian
coastal city). In any case, the word seems to contain the sux -yn-/
-n- equivalent to the Luwic sux for ethnic names *-weno/i- (cf. in
Carian kbd-yn- ).
For the paradigmatic relationship with mwdon, see Melchert (1993:8283). If
this relationship is, as it seems, correct, former attempts to explain mdayn/mdan
as a word for husband/wife (Merigi 1980:35b36a) or farewell (Ray 1982b:184)
must be ruled out ( pace Adiego 1993a:219220).
382 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
mdot
2
C.Ka 5
Function and meaning are unknown. The segmentation mdot
2
un adopted
here is not denite.
In Adiego (2002:1718) the word is analyzed as a plural genitive correspond-
ing to mdayn/mdan, and a meaning foreigner is assumed for all of these
forms. The sense of sarni mdot
2
in C.Ka 5 would therefore be representatives
(sarni- ) of the foreigners, corresponding to Greek prjenoi).
Melchert (1998) prefers to read mdot
2
un as a complete word and, assuming
a glide-value (/w/) for the letter O (here transcribed as t
2
), analyzes the form
as a preterite rst plural with the meaning we have established, and with
md to be connected with Hitt. mid(i)- x, fasten.
md[. . .]
E.Me 52
Perhaps to be completed as md[ay/n].
md
C.Ha 1
See below mdane
mda
C.Si 2 (3)
See below mdane.
mdane
E.Sa 1, E.xx 7, C.xx 2
Analysis of this form has been much discussed (a verb or a chain of
particles?). Cf. also the possible variant mlane in Thebes (see mlane, ewm-
lane, ewlane).
On mdane and the two preceding forms md, mda see discussion in pp. 321324.
me
E.Me 34
PN in genitive.
meqak
E.AS 8
c.ni.x oross.nv 383
mi
E.Ab 35
PN in genitive.
mlane
E.Th 10
Cf. mdane, and see p. 323 on the intricate relationship between this
form and ewlane, ewmlane.
mlan[-?]
E.Th 35
Cf. the preceding entry.
mlqi
E.Th 27
PN in genitive.
mlne
C.Ia 3
Connection to mdane/mlane and/or mln in uiomln, yomln is possible,
but far from certain.
mmnal
E.Th 21
mnos
C.Eu 1 (mn[os
?
]), C.Ka 5
mno
E.Me 10, E.Me 12 (m[no]), E.Me 16, E.Me 27, E.Me 39, E.Me 43b,
C.Ka 1, C.Kr 1
mn[o-?]
E.Me 47
Common noun in genitive (mno- ) and in a s-case (mno-s), son. Perhaps
in some way related to HLuw. nimuwiza-, son. The precise analysis of
mnos in C.Ka 5 is far from certain, given the unclear context in which
it appears.
Meriggi (1967:223), (1980:35a), Ray (1982b:184185), Gusmani (1986:63),
Adiego (1993a:216219).
384 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
moa[-]lboror
C.Ka 5
moi
C.My 1
PN in nominative. Perhaps it corresponds to the Carian name in Greek
sources, Moiw.
Blmel-Kzl (2004:134).
mol
C.Hy 1b
C.My 1
Plural nominative with the meaning priests?
See above pp. 306207 on this interpretation, based on the analysis of C.Hy
1b and its possible correspondence to the Greek text that follows it.
mplat
E.Th 11
PN in nominative.
mqabaewleqooskioms
E.Th 12
An impenetrable sequence, undoubtedly consisting of more than one
word. Note the isolable sequence ew, to be related to ew lane, ewm, also
in Thebes.
mqtjq
E.Th 4
mrsi
E.Me 2, E.Me 26
Ethnic name or PN in genitive.
mrsj[. . .]
E.Me 54
Very probably related to the preceding entry.
mslmnlia
C.Ka 5
c.ni.x oross.nv 385
msnord
E.Me 3, E.Me 48
Ethnic name or, less probably, PN. Clearly related to the Carian place
name Masanvrada (Zgusta KON 782, Blmel KarON:174). According
to Schrr, msnord-/Masanvrad can be analyzed as msn + ord, with a
second element comparable to Luwian -aradu in Tarunt-aradu (Laroche
LNH n. 1268, Piyam-aradu (Laroche LNH n. 981), so that msnord- =
Luw. *Maan-aradu-
Connection to Masanvrada already mentioned in Adiego (1990a:136). Note
that the word was formerly read as msnori, which conditioned some pro-
posals of interpretation. For the corrected reading, see Schrr 2001b:103,
Schrr 2002:166168).
As for Schrrs analysis, see Schrr (2002:165168). He interprets msnord-
as a PN and instead prefers to compare it with the name of the eponymous
founder of Masanorada, Masanvradow (Steph. Byz. s.v. Masanvrada).
On aradu-, see above p. 333.
msot
C.Hy 1b
Genitive plural (?) or another case from a stem mso- or similar = god?
See above pp. 306307 for this interpretation, based on the search for par-
allels between C.Hy 1b and the Greek texts that follow it.
mt1yr
C.Ka 2
mtel
C.Si 2a
mudo[n]
E.Me 65
mwdon
E.Me 10 ([mw]don), E.Me 12, E.Me 13, E.Me 14 (mwdon
!
), E.Me
16, E.Me 20, E.Me 28, E.Me 29, E.Me 31, E.Me 32 (mw[d]on), E.Me
35, E.Me 40, E.Me 42, E.Me 46b
Genitive of the ethnic name (or sim.) mdayn/mdan, q.v.
386 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
Interpretation as ethnic name already suggested in Meriggi (1980:35). Identication
of -on- with the Luwic ethnic sux -wanni- and connection to the Carian place
name Mundow already noted in Adiego (1990b:501502). See also Adiego
(1993a:210212), Melchert (1993:8283), Janda (1994:173174).
mwk
E.Th 22
mumntnse-?
E.Th 30
muot
C.Hy 1a
-ot recalls identical endings in C.Hy 1 (kduopizipususot, msot, cf. also ylarmit). If
the analysis of this latter is accepted (see s. v.), muot can be also a genitive plural.
mwsat
E.Me 42
PN in genitive. Cf. the Lydian name Mousathw (Zgusta KPN 987a).
Perhaps both names, and also the Pisidian names Moushta, Moshta,
correspond to Luwian PN Muwaziti (Laroche LNH 840), a compound
of muwa- Hitt., Luw. strength, force, and Luw. ziti man.
Adiego (1992a:32), (1993a:233), (1994a:36).
mwton
E.Me 44b
Variant form of mwdon, q.v.
mute
C.St 2
PN in genitive. Cf. the Cilician name Moutaw (Zgusta KPN 9892).
Behind mu, the Anatolian stem muwa- can be identied.
Adiego (1994a:36).
mqudem
E.AS 7
c.ni.x oross.nv 387
myre
E.Me 33a, E.Me 33b
PN in genitive.
myze
C.My 1
PN in nominative.
Tentatively compared in Adiego (2005:91) to the Carian PN in Greek sources,
Mouzeaw.
mHm
E.Me 31
PN in genitive.
m[-]sao[
C.My 1
naria
E.Me 5
PN or title in genitive. If it is a personal name, it must be the father
of psmkneit in the bilingual text E.Me 5, which implies that this man
had a double denomination, Egyptian W3-jb-r-nb-[ (in the Egyptian
part) and Carian Naria-. However, it could instead be a title of Psmkneit
(general, priest or similar). Possibly related in some way to the fam-
ily of place names Naras/a/, Narisbara, Naruandow (connected to
CLuw annarai-, forceful, virile = Hitt. innar- forceful, violent, all
derived from PIE *h
2
n

r man).
For these and other possible examples of this stem in Carian onomastics, see
p. 333.
naz
E.AS 7
ne
E.AS 7
nidkusas
E.AS 8
388 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
nik[--]lan
C.Ka 5
PN in accusative, to be completed nik[ok]lan, nik[uk]lan, or similar. It is
the Carian adaptation of the Greek name Nikoklw.
Frei-Marek (1997).
ninut
E.Ab 20
PN in nominative.
niqau
E.Me 18a
PN in genitive. Very likely to be a Carian adaptation of the Egyptian
pharaonic name Nechao/Necho (Ny-k3w, Greek Nexvw).
Adiego (apud Schrr 1996a:63, n. 11).
noril
?
ams
C.Kr 1
not
C.xx 2
Verbal form (he brought)?
This is the interpretation proposed in Adiego (2000:153155), where not is
analyzed as a preterite third singular verb, to be connected to Hitt. n(i)-,
CLuw. (reduplicated stem) nana- < * PIE *neyH- to bring, see above p. 284.
nprosn
E.Ab 16
Apparently a complete PN in genitive. However, Schrr has proposed
a segmentation npro + sn, interpreted as a PN (nominative) + PN
(fathers name in genitive). As for the assumed rst name, he compares
it with the Egyptian name Nfr-r Nefervw (DNb:641), phonetically
[nefer] according to Vittmann. For sn, Schrr provides the same
form in E.AS 8 and allegedly in C.Kr 1 (read and segmented dierently
in this case). However, although the explanation of npro is very sound
(see also Vittmann), the existence of a Carian name *sn- is doubtful.
Schrr (1996a:68, n. 18), Vittmann (2001:42).
c.ni.x oross.nv 389
wn
E.Th 30
n
C.Kr 1
See a very hypothetical explanation (as pronoun) in p. 292.
nn[-]s
E.SS 1
ntokris
E.Me 35
(Presumably) feminine PN in s-case, a Carian adaptation of the Egyptian
fem. name Nj.t-jqr (literally Neith is perfect), Greek Nitvkriw (DNb:628).
This was the name of a daughter of Psammetichus I.
Schrr (1992:152, n. 9), Ray (1994:202203). Vittmann (2001:5253) argues
convincingly (against Ray loc. cit.) that ntokris arrived in Carian directly from
Egyptian, without Greek intermediaries. This implies that in ntokris, the nal
s must be a case ending, not a vestige of the Greek sigmatic nomimative (see
above p. 315).
ntro
C.xx 1
ntros
E.xx 7
Carian God name, assimilated to Greek Apollo, in dative (ntro) and in
s-case (ntro-s) or, less probably, a priest title (in nominative ntro and in
s-case ntro-s), derived from a god name ntr = Apollo. Independently of
either interpretation, there is a general consensus that ntro- should be
connected to Lycian Natr- in the PN Natr-bbijemi, translated in Greek
as Apoll-dotow.
On these two alternative interpretations (the latter defended in Melchert 2002),
see above p. 282. Carruba (2002) rejects the equation Natr-/ntro- = Apollo,
and argues for a generic meaning god and for an Egyptian loanword in
Carian (from Egypt. ntr god).
390 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
nu
E.xx 7
Function and meaning are unknown.
Melcherts tentative translation of E.xx 7 (see Melchert (2002:308) implies the
assumption that nu is an adverb, now (to be compared therefore with Hitt.
nu-). See above p. 286, where an intepretation as a verb is suggested.
nuol[---]sarmrolyt
E.Me 4
Perhaps more than one word, but the lacuna does not allow us to iso-
late words in the sequence.
Schrr (1992:155) claims to identify two titles in -ol, nuol and sarmrol (cf.
also his similar analysis of kojol). While the repeated ending in -ol could be
good evidence for segmentation, no parallel forms, either to nuol or to sarm-
rol, are attested in Carian.
Final sequence yt could point to a verbal form, see above p. 276.
n[-]eakrnanb
E.Si 3
mailo
C.Si 2a
A sequence containing a verbal form?
Interpreted as a verb mail + enclitic pronoun -o- in Adiego (2000:141142),
where it is further connected to Lycian mmaite they have established), see here
on p. 304.
oba
C.Ka 2
obrbi
C.My 1 (2)
PN in genitive.
obsmns[
C.Ka 2
c.ni.x oross.nv 391
obsmsm1
C.Ka 2
omob
C.Eu 2
or
C.Ka 6
PN?
orb
E.Th 20
orkn
C.Ha 1, C.xx 1
Noun in singular accusative, of a stem ork- phiale, vessel, or similar.
Melchert (1993:80). Neumann and Edwin Brown (apud Melchert, ibid.) suggest
a comparison with Gr. rxh jar, Lat. orca butt, tun. Cf. also Lat. urceus, urna
water-pot (all these words probably share a common origin).
or
E.Ab 15, E.Me 41, E.Th 36
PN in genitive. According to Vittmann, an adaptation of the Egyptian
name r Horus (phonetically [hr])
Vittmann (2001:42). However, cf. or in Kaunos.
ora
E.xx 7
ort
C.Ka 5
ort[-]
C.Ka 5
oru
C.Ka 5
392 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
otonosn
C.Ka 5 (2)
Ethnic name in accusative, Athenian. Derived from a Carian form
*otono- for Athens by means of a -s- sux.
Much has been discussed about the precise nature of the -s- sux. It could be
a possessive sux (= Lyc. -h-; also Frei-Marek 1997:35), an ethnic sux equiv-
alent to Lyc. -s- (Schrr 1998:161; similarly Hajnal 1997b:160, but resorting
to Lyc, -is-) or, less probably, an ethnic sux equivalent to Lycian -zi (cf.
Hajnal 1997b:160161, n. 32, where the diculties of this explanation are
highlighted). All three hypotheses are envisaged in Adiego (1998a:18).
otr
C.Ka 2, C.Ka 5
Pronoun in acc. pl., corresponding to Greek atow in the bilingual
inscription C.Ka 5. It can be connected etymologically with Lyc. atla-/
atra- person, self (cf. also HLuw. atra/i- person; image; soul.
This interpretation and etymological connection was established independently
by various scholars: Adiego (1998a:21), Hajnal (1997b:164; 1998:102), Melchert
(1998:34), Neumann (1998:20)who very appositely recalls the correspondance
Lycian atru: Greek autn in TL 25a, 4. See here on p. 297.
owdown[. . .]mwarudko
E.Th 10
A chain probably containing more than one word.
The initial sequence owdown hardly seems to be separated from wdwn, q.v.
owmebt
E.xx 5
ouor
C.Ka 2 (2)
pals
E.Ab 7, E.Ab 8, E.Ab 9
PN in genitive.
c.ni.x oross.nv 393
panejt
E.Ab 2
PN in nominative. Carian adaptation of the Egyptian name P3-n-Nj.t,
Greek Panitiw, literally the one of Neith (DNb:385). Cf. the variant
form pneit)
Schrr (1992:152, n. 9), Adiego (1993a:254), Ray (1994:203 and n. 19). Cf.
also Vittmann (2001:58).
paraeym
E.Me 8a, E.Me 8b (para
!
eym)
PN in nominative. The name presents the well-known adverbial stem
para- as a rst element of a compound (cf. para-ibrel, Para-ussvllow,
etc.). As for -eym, it recalls Arthumow. Compare also parpeym-.
paraibrel
E.Me 47
PN in genitive. A compound name consisting of para- (cf. above paraeym)
and ibrel (= Greek Imbarhldow).
Adiego (1994:3637). On ibrel-, a stem derived from *ibr- = CLuw. im(ma)ra/i-,
see above p. 335.
pares
C.Kn 1
parma
E.Me 6
PN in genitive.
paraq
?
C.Tr 2
Adiego (1993a:263), Hajnal (1995[97]:20). See the discussion of the reading
and possible interpretations of this word in pp. 289291.
394 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
parpeym
E.Me 25
PN in genitive. It is not clear if we are dealing with a compound with
par(a)- as a rst element, or whether in fact a stem parp- should be rec-
ognized. For the nal part of the word, cf. paraeym-.
For parp, see s. v. prpwri.
parolou
E.AS 1
paruos
C.My 1
PN in genitive. Cf. the Carian name (f.) Paruv.
Adiego (2005:91).
pard
E.SS 1
PN in genitive. It corresponds to the Carian name Paraudigow in Greek
sources. A compound name par- (cf. para-ibrel, Para-ussvllow, etc.) +
d-
Adiego (1994:43). For the family of names containing the stem yri-/yriq-
/diq/d-, see pp. 262263.
paryri
C.My 1
paryri
C.My 1
PN in nominative and genitive. A compound name: par- + yri-. See
the preceding entry.
pau
C.Hy 1a, C.My 1
p
?
au
C.My 1
c.ni.x oross.nv 395
pau
C.Tr 1, C.Tr 2
PN in nominative ( pau) and genitive ( pau ) corresponding to the Carian
name transcribed in Greek as Paow.
Adiego (1994:37).
pa[-]in[-]t
E.Ab 17
Apparently a PN in genitive.
pd[
E.Me 64a
Cf. the following entries.
pdnejt
E.Sa 2
PN in nominative. Carian adaptation of the Egyptian P3-dj-Njt, liter-
ally the one whom Neith has given (Greek Petenaiyiw, Petenhyiw,
Petenht, see DNb:316).
Adiego (1992a:2930).
pdtom
E.Bu 2
NP, a Carian adaptation of the Egyptian name P3-dj-Jtm, literally the
one whom Atum has given, Greek Peteyumiw, Petetumiw (DNb:294).
Schrr (1992:152, n. 9) and apud Ray (1994:205); Vittmann (2001:58).
pduba
E.xx 4
PN in nominative.
pdubez
E.Ab 15
PN in nominative. Carian adaptation of the Egyptian name P3-dj-B3st.t,
literally the one whom Bastet has given, Greek Petyubestiow, Petobastiw,
Petoubastow, Petoubestiw (DNb:303).
396 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
Identication proposed in Schrr (1996a:60), where the word is still read as
pdubz. Corrected reading given in Schrr (2000:172). See also Vittmann
(2001:42). Cf. also the corresponding feminine theophoric name ttbazi, ttubazi.
pdubi
E.Me 10 (pui), E.Ab 6
PN in genitive. Cf. pduba. It is possible that we are dealing with two
forms of the same paradigm, cf. the similar situation in (lse/lsi ).
pdamu
C.Si 2a
An accusativus genetivi in agreement with the PN pmnn that precedes it?
See Adiego (2000:144148) for this morpho-syntactic analysis and for some
attemps at etymological explanations (particularly the hypothetical connection
of pd with Lyc. pdde place, cf. also here on p. 304).
pjabrm
E.Me 12
PN in nominative. According to the illustration of the stela in which
it appears, the name is feminine.
pjdl
?
C.xx 1
Noun in apposition to acc. sg. orkn? Other interpretations are also
possible.
The meaning and function of this word have been much discussed. Melchert
(1993:8081) interpreted it as a word gift oering (from a *piyod
h
lom, to be
related to the stem CLuw. piya-, Lyc. pije- to give), a view followed here (see
p. 282). Totally dierent is the approach of Janda (1994:178), who preferred
to see here a verb comparable to Lyd. bill /pill/ (< *pid-l ) he has given.
pidaru[
C.St 2
PN, probably to be completed pidaru[ ] in genitive. A possible Carian
adaptation of the Greek name Pndarow.
Adiego (1994a:3940).
c.ni.x oross.nv 397
piew
E.Ab 38
PN in nominative. Adaptation of the Egyptian name P3-n-jwjw (liter-
ally that of the dog), Greek Pieuw, Pihow, Pih# (Cf. DNb:349).
See Vittmann (2001:44) for the identication and for further details on the
Egyptian variants of the name.
pikarm
E.Me 14
PN in genitive. It is equivalent to the Lycian names in Greek sources
Pigramiw, Pigramow (Zgusta KPN 12551/2). The name contains the
same stem as pikra-/pikre-, q.v., to which a m-sux has been added. Cf.
also the variant form pikrm, and the compund name dbikrm, dbkrm
(d +bikrm = pik(a)rm-).
Adiego (1992a:36), (1993a:233), Kammerzell (1993:19, 22).
pikra
E.Me 16
pikre
E.Me 3
PN in genitive. It is not clear if we are dealing with a simple alternance
a/e or with two dierent stems, one in a- and the other in e. The name
appears in Greek sources as Pigrhw/Pikrhw, a very spread Anatolian name.
The name shows the stem pik- = Luw. *pia-.
Adiego (1992a:36), (1993a:228229). On the family of names built on this
stem, see p. 337.
pikrm
E.Me 40
PN in genitive. A variant, devocalised form of pikarm, q.v.
piks[
C.St 1
A PN or part of a PN. The part conserved clearly contains the nom-
inal element piks-/biks- Cf. dbiks, biks-/yi{}biks-, derived from the
stem pik- = CLuw. *pia-, as pikre-/pikra-, pik(a)rm-.
On this stem, see p. 337.
398 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
pim[. . .]
C.Si 2b
pisiri
E.Ab 1
PN in nominative. Very likely to be an adaptation of the Egyptian
name P3-n-Wsjr, literally the one of Osiris or P3j-Wsir, this of Osiris,
Greek Pisiriw.
Ray (1994:203); cf. also Schrr (1996a:6162), Zauzich (apud Schrr, ibid.),
Vittmann (2001:58). This Egyptian interpretation of the name must be pre-
ferred to former attempts to connect this name with Anatolian proper names
(Adiego 1993a:248 and, with many reservations, 1994:43).
pismak
E.AS 7, E.AS 3
PN in nominative. Carian adaptation of the Egyptian name Psmtk,
Greek Cammhtixow. See also the devocalised form psmak.
Identication already proposed in Kowalski (1975:91).
pisma[/k . . .]
E.AS 4
The same name as the preceding entry. Doubts about completing or
arise from the existence of psmk(wneit), as well as pismak.
pisoi
C.Si 2a
Analyzed as a verb pis + clitics (-o-i ), in Adiego (2000:141), where pis
is identied as a preterite third plural of a root pi-, to give. See above
p. 304 for details.
p
.
iub[a]i
E.Me 1
PN in genitive.
Probably the Carian adaptation of an Egyptian name whose nal part
contained the name of the goddess Bastet (B3st.t), although no exact
parallels for the whole name can be found.
Schrr (1996:62). For Bastet-names in Carian, cf. ttubazi-, ttbazi-.
c.ni.x oross.nv 399
piubez
E.Ab 10
PN in genitive. It seems to be a variant of the preceding entry.
psimt
E.Me 50b
PN in genitive. Tentatively compared by Schrr to the Egyptian name
P3-dj-r-sm3-t3wy (shorter form P3-dj-sm3-t3wy), literally one whom
Horus, uniter of two lands, has given, Greek Potasimto.
Schrr (apud Ray 1994:205). Not included by Vittmann in his list of Egyptian
names in Carian sources (Vittmann 2001:5859). Although the use of this
Egyptian name among the Carians of Egypt ts well with Egypto-Carian envi-
ronment (Potasimto was the name of the commander of the Carian and Ionian
mercenaires in the Nubian campaign of Psammetichus II), and the similari-
ties between Carian and Greek adaptations are striking, the use of Carian
for Egyptian d or dj is surprising (compare the use of Carian d or t for Egyptian
d or dj in other names that also include the Egyptian verb dj, to give: pdnejt,
pdtom, ptnupi, etc.).
An Anatolian interpretation, by connecting psi with Pija-, Pije-, Pijo-:
Lycian Pijaw (Zgusta KPN 12631), Pije-darow (KPN 12632), Carian
and Lycian Pijodarow) is given in Adiego (1993a:248).
pla
?
t
E.Th 3
PN in nominative. If the reading plat is accepted, it could be a variant
of the name plat q.v. (l instead of l is typical in Theban inscriptions).
plqo
E.Me 40
PN in nominative. It appears in Greek sources as Pellekvw, Pelekvw.
Note particularly Peleqow in the Greek grati of Abu-Simbel.
Adiego (1993a:234), Schrr (19911993:170). On Peleqow = Pel(l)ekvw (against
former interpretations as a Greek name derived from plekuw), see Adiego
(1994a:37), Masson (1994b:140), (1995:175).
plqodse
E.Th 52
PN? It seems to include the name plqo, but nal dse remains impossible
to analyse.
400 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
plat
E.Ab 7, E.Ab 8, E.Ab 9
PN in nominative.
platt
E.AS 6
PN in nominative. Perhaps related to the preceding entry, but the nal
-t remains unexplained.
pleq
E.Me 30
PN in genitive. It corresponds to the Carian name in Greek sources
Peldhkow.
Adiego (1993a:234), (1994a:37).
pneit
E.SS 1
PN in nominative. Variant form of panejt (q.v.), an Egyptian name.
Schrr (1992:152, n. 9), Adiego (1993a:254), Ray (1994:203).
pnldwl
E.Me 49
About the peculiar inscription where it appears, the reading of which is very
dicult, see p. 279.
pntmun
E.Me 28
PN (or title?) in genitive. According to Vittmann, it could be the adap-
tation of Egyptian p3 m-nr n Jmn *[ pent6n6mn], literally the Prophet
of Amun. Among other possibilities, Vittmann suggests that it could
be a title (therefore sanuq ue pntmun i mwdon i: Stela of sanuq, who
(was) the Prophet of Amun (a priest title), who (was) mwdon.).
Vittmann (2001:4647). The fact that the three names of E.Me 28 appear
in genitive makes the structure of the inscription very ambiguous. See Vitmann
(2001:47) for dierent possible analyses. Given this ambiguity, I prefer to inter-
pret the inscription as a N- (PN)N- (fathers name)mwdon- (ethnic name
probably referring to the father).
c.ni.x oross.nv 401
pnuol
E.Th 40
pnwol
E.Th 27
pnuol
E.Me 19
PN in nominative. It appears in its Greek adaptation as Ponussvllow.
Note the variant form for the genitive, punwol.
A name of the uol-family (q.v.).
Adiego (1990a:135). On the Anatolian origin of the element p(u)n-, see pp.
337338.
pnuo
C.My 1
PN in genitive. No parallel form is found in Greek sources, but it is
possible that the word should be corrected as pnuo<l>, so that the
name would be the same as that of the preceding entry.
Adiego (2005:84).
pnyriru
E.AS 5
pmnn
C.Si 2a
PN apparently in accusativus genetivi. The name appears in Greek
as Ponmoonnow (documented also in Sinuri).
Schrr (1992:138).
polo
E.Me 8b
PN (?) in nominative. Coordinated with the PN in nominative paraeym
by means of sb, and.
Melchert (1993:84) suggests that polo is a common noun representing a kin-
ship relation. Although this possibility cannot be ruled out, this tentative pro-
posal of meaning and etymology (son, comparing Hitt. pulla- child, son) is,
as Melchert himself recognizes, very speculative.
402 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
potkol
?
C.Ka 8
If the reading of the nal letter is accepted, it is apparently a genitive
(of a PN?).
p
?
owk
E.Mu 1
PN in nominative.
prnanon
E.Th 34
A form in accusative sg.? It seems to agree with another word ending in -n
(dm-?-n).
pridas
E.xx 7
A word with s-ending, in agreement with ntros Apollon, q.v. Tentatively
connected by Schrr with Bragxdai Branchids, the priestly family in
charge of the sanctuary of Apollo in Didyma, near Milet.
Schrr (1998:158).
prpwri
E.Th 46
PN in nominative. Apparently a compound name that can be seg-
mented as prp + wri. For the rst element, cf. perhaps the Lycian name
Perpenduberiw (Zgusta KON 12421) or even Carian parpeym-. The
second element seems to be a variant of yri, also present in other
compound names (idyri-, paryri-).
For a possible explanation of the alleged use of w instead of y, see p. 105.
psikro
E.Me 51
PN in genitive.
c.ni.x oross.nv 403
psmak
E.Th 11 (psma[k]), E.Si 7, E.Bu 4, E.Bu 5
psmak
E.Si 2, E.Bu 1
psma[/k . . .]
E.Me 55
PN in nominative ( psmak) and genitive ( psmak- ). Carian adaptation
of the Egyptian name Psmtk, Cammhtixow. Cf. the variant form pismak.
psmkwneit
E.Me 5
PN in genitive. Carian adaptation of the Egyptian name Psmtk-wj-Njt,
literally Psammetichus in the arms of Neith. Carian and Egyptian
forms appear together in the bilingual text E.Me 5.
Adiego (1992a:2930).
psnlo
C.Ha 1
On the dierent possible analyses of this word, see p. 284.
psoir
C.My 1
PN in genitive.
psrkrte
E.Th 30
psuol
C.Ka 1
PN in genitive. It belongs to the family of names in uol/Ussvllow,
but the remaining rst element ( ps-) is not clear.
ps [|
?
]
E.AS 7
Reading and segmentation (suggested by Schrr) are very doubtful.
See the entry ai[-]iqom for an alternative analysis.
404 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
psHm[-]
E.Me 27
PN in genitive.
ptne
E.Ab 3
PN in nominative.
ptnupi
E.Me 18a
PN in nominative (?) of Egyptian origin: P3-dj-Jnp, Greek Petenoupiw
(literally the one whom Anubis has given (DNb:27).
Schrr (1992:152, n. 9). Ray (1994:204). Ray (ibid.) also oers an alternative
Egyptian explanation, starting from *P3-dj-nfr (literally the gift of the good
one), but this name, as he recalls, is not documented in Egyptian.
ptnuq
?
i
?
E.Ab 26
PN in nominative of Egyptian origin, according to the new reading
proposed by Vittmann: ptnuqi would be Egyptian P3-dj-nq.t (literally
the one whom [the goddess] Anukis has given, DNb:294), phoneti-
cally interpreted as [peeanqi].
Vittmann (2001:44). Vittmann does not rule out an alternative reading ptnuti,
which also has a good correspondence in Egyptian: P3-dj-(p3)-ntr (literally the
one whom the god has given), Greek Petepnouyiw, DNb:306 (phonological
reconstruction: [pee(p)nte)].
pttu
E.Me 27
PN in genitive. Tentatively interpreted as an adaptation of an Egyptian
name, which is not in fact documented, *P3-dj-t3wy, literally One whom
the two lands have given.
Ray (1994:205); Vittmann (2001:58).
c.ni.x oross.nv 405
punm[-]
E.Me 65
PN in genitive. It seems to be a compound name with pun- as the rst
element.
See Schrr (2003a:95), who goes a little further and compares it with Lyc.
Punamuwe, Ponamoaw (Zgusta KPN 12881), and Punamu(W)aw (KPN 12882,
Pamphylia); cf. also Puna-A.A (= *Punamuwa) in cuneiform sources (Laroche
LNH: 1050). These latter comparisons depend on a restitution punm[u].
punot
2
C.Ka 2
See Adiego (2002) for a connection with Luwic puna-, all, and for a mor-
phological interpretation as plural genitive.
punwol
E.Me 21
PN in genitive. It is the same name as pnuol (and variants, equivalent
to Ponussvllow), q.v.
puor
E.Bu 6
PN in genitive. As according to Vittmann, an Egyptian name adapted
in Carian: P3-whr (literally the dog), Greek Povriw, Pouvriw (DNb:181)
pronounced [puhr].
Vittmann (2001:41).
pur
?
i
C.Hy 1a
PN in genitive.
purmoruos
C.Ka 5
p[-]lu
E.Ab 33
PN in genitive.
406 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
=q
C.Hy 1
Connecting particle? It appears after armotrqdos, q.v.
Adiego-Debord-Varinlio<lu (2005:617).
qan
E.Si 2
See the somewhat risky interpretation in Schrr (2000:171) as a word with
the meaning dog and borrowed from Lyd. *kn- (also dog), based on the
hunting scene drawn under the grato E.Si 2.
qanor
E.Th 34
Connected with the preceding entry in Schrr (2000:172).
qarm
E.Me 10
PN in genitive.
qarpsi
E.Me 36
Ethnic name (less likely to be PN) in genitive.
On the structure of the inscription, which suggests an ethnic name, see pp. 267
271. Note also the sux -si- or -i- that appears in other possible ethnic names
(kidbsi-, q bsli-, yiasi- ylarmi-). Among the possible Carian place names that
could be connected with qarpsi- (see Appendix B), Karbasuand/a/, Karpasuand/
a/ is a good candidate.
qarsio[-?]
E.Me 7
qdarou
E.Me 41
PN in genitive.
See Adiego (1995:2425) for an attempted etymological analysis (compared with
CLuw. utarl- slave, servant; cf. the PNs in Cuneiform sources u-da-ar-l,
u-du-ur-l, u-u-tar-li, u-ut-ra-la-(a), u-ut-ra-li-i (Laroche LNH n. 411).
c.ni.x oross.nv 407
qebt
E.Th 12
qku
E.Si 6
qblio
E.Ab 40
PN in genitive.
qlali
E.Me 37
G 2
[q
?
]lalis
E.Me 45
PN in genitive (qlali- ) and in s-case ([q]lali-s). This name appears in
Greek sources as Kolaldiw, Kulaldiw.
Adiego (1993a:235)
qorb
E.xx 1
PN in nominative.
qot
2
omu
C.Kr 1
qrds
C.Ki 1, C.Ka 2
Word with a possible institutional meaning, given its appearance in
two legal texts. Cf. the following entry and also grdso[-]i [.
In Blmel-Adiego (1993:94) this is tentatively compared with Hitt. gurta-, castle,
citadel, acropolis (cf. also the place-name of the Phrygian-Carian borderland
Gordio/n/). Melchert (1998:35, n. 2) suggests connecting it with Mil. kridesi, a
place-name.
qrdsol
C.Ka 2
Acc. (or nom.?) pl. of a stem qrdsol-, apparently a noun derived by
means of the sux -ol- from qrds: belonging to the qrds(?).
408 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
Blmel-Adiego (1993:94), Melchert (1998:35). The sequence it appears in, qrd-
sol ait, could be interpreted as they have made them belonging-to-qrds or
the belonging-to-qrds ones have made. (cf. Melchert ibid., Adiego 1998a:22).
qtblem
C.xx 1
PN in genitive. Name corresponding to Kotbelhmow (Blmel KarPN:17),
Kutbelhmiw (Zgusta KPN 771, Blmel KarPN:18).
Adiego apud Schrr (1992:142), Adiego (1993a:235), Melchert (1993:78).
qtblo
E.Th 10
If PN (in nominative), it must be the Carian name adapted in Greek
as Kotobalvw.
Schrr (apud Adiego 1994a:43). The doubts about its character as PN are the
result of the very unclear context in which the form appears (see the remarks
in Adiego ibid.).
quq
E.Me 17
PN in genitive. It is the Carian name that appears in Greek sources
as Gugow. Cf. also the compound names dquq, rquq.
Adiego (1993a:235, 1994a:37). On the possible Anatolian etymology of quq,
see p. 334.
qurbo
E.Ab 10
PN in genitive.
qwsal
E.Th 12
qutbe
E.Th 8
PN corresponding to the Carian name in Greek sources, Kuatbhw.
Adiego (1993a:235), (1994a:37).
c.ni.x oross.nv 409
q blsi
E.Me 21
Ethnic name or, less probably, PN. If an ethnic name, it clearly recalls
the place name Kublissow (Zgusta KON 1296, Blmel KarON:171).
See somne (name to which qblsi is referred) for the curious coincidence of
personal name and ethnic name in the sole example of Svmnhw in the Greek
sources.
Comparison with the ethnic name (but still taking it as a PN) in Adiego
(1993a:235). Analysis as an ethnic name (with the same connection) in Janda
(1994:174).
qyrbmudolo
C.Eu 2
q ri
E.Sa 2
PN in genitive. It appears adapted in the Egyptian part of E.Sa 2 as
K3rr.
For the identication of qri with K3rr: Schrr (1992:135), Adiego (1993a:161).
Egyptian k3 (written by means of a biconsonantic sign) is used here to reect
a syllabic sound /ku/, so *kur (Vittmann 1996). Note that in Egyptian a vowel
/y/ did not exist, so that the use of /u/ for /y/ seems reasonable. The dou-
ble r is explained by Zauzich (apud Schrr 1996:68) as a graphic attempt to
emphasize that r did sound (the nal r was not pronounced in Late Egyptian).
qzali
C.My 1
qzali
C.My 1
PN in nominative and genitive.
Connection with the Carian name of Greek sources Kostvlliw (Adiego 2005:91)
is very hypothetical!
q[---]
E.Me 10
PN in genitive.
rdudmm
E.Th 42
410 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
rqemw
E.Th 52
rsy
E.Lu 2
rtim
C.Hy 1a
PN in nominative. Cf. the Carian name Artimhw and, more generally,
the family of Anatolian names collected in Zgusta KPN 108): Arteimaw,
Arteimianow, Arteimow, Arteimhw, Artimaw, Artimhw, etc.
Adiego-Debord-Varinlio<lu (2005:611). On the possibilty that rtim and artmi
(q.v.) could be part of a single paradigm, see above p. 290.
r1i
C.Ka 4
sa
E.Me 26
Demonstrative pronoun in nominative (this), which appears following
the word upe stela: upe sa: this stela. From PIE *o-/*eh
2
- > PA *o-/
- (> Hitt. ka-, CLuw., HLuw. za-). See also san, snn.
Adiego (1992a:33). Hajnal (1995[97]:23) suggests that the same form can be
recognized in the sequence bidlemsa.
On these pronominal forms, see pp. 319320.
sa
?
awon
E.Mu 1
saawon
E.Mu 1
san
G 1
Demonstrative pronoun in nominative. It corresponds etymologically to
Hitt. ka-, CLuw., HLuw. za- this, see above sa.
Adiego (1992a:33). On the nal n, see Melchert (1993:7980) and here on
pp. 288, 320.
c.ni.x oross.nv 411
sanuq
E.Me 28
PN in genitive.
sarl
?
E.Me 5
sarni
C.Ka 2 (2), C.Ka 5 (sarni[])
Plural accusative of a stem sarni-. This word (or the wider sequence it
appears in) corresponds to Greek projnouw in the Kaunos bilingual
(C.Ka 5).
Frei-Marek (1997:39). There are diverse etymological proposals, none of them
denitive: connection to CLuw. arri above; up; for (?) (Frei-Marek, ibid., fol-
lowed by Hajnal 1997b:164, hard to accept, because *arni would be expected,
as they themselves recognize); related to CLuw. zariya- safe-conduct, Gastrecht
or sim. (therefore sarni-, guarantor, Neumann 1998:29). Schrr (apud Hajnal
1997b:164, n. 35) compares sarni- with Lyd. saretas benefactor(?).
In Adiego (1998a:22) the equivalence to projnouw is seen in the whole
sequence sarni[ ] mdot
2
representative of the foreigners (with mdot
2
[gen. pl.]
related to mdayn/mdan/mwdon-, interpreted as foreigner).
sb
E.Me 8b, E.Th 13, E.xx 6, C.Si 2a (2), C.Ka 2 (8), C.Ka 5 (8),
C.Kr 1
Coordinative conjunction: and. When there is interpunction in the
text, it always appears attached to the following word, as a sort of
proclitic.
Cf. Lycian se and particularly, Milyan sebe (both and). From PIE
*e (cf. Venetic ke and), plus a reinforcing particle *-be?
For sb = and, see the explanation already oered in Schrr apud Ray
(1990b:129130). Connection with Milyan sebe: Neumann (1993:296). For se-
< PIE *e: Adiego (1995:3132).
412 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
sdi
C.Tr 1, C.Al 1
sdisas
C.Ka 1
sdisas
?
C.Kr 1
Noun used in funerary contexts (therefore tomb, stela or sim.) The
morphological analysis of these forms remains unclear. Cf. the variant
form sidi.
Connected with PIE *ei- to lie (Lyc. sije-)?
semw
E.Me 16
PN in genitive.
seqqejewsk
E.Th 4
sidi
C.Tr 2
A variant form of sdi, q.v.
siral
E.Me 49
siyklo
C.Ia 3
PN (?) in genitive,
skdubrotoz
C.My 1
A sequence containing an onomastic formula PN- PN-, the main
diculty being the point of segmentation. The best solution seems to
be skdu brotoz, but other alternatives cannot be dismissed.
sla
E.AS 6
PN on genitive.
c.ni.x oross.nv 413
slmaewm
E.Th 34
smdbrs
C.Ha 1
PN in nominative (of a s-stem) or in s-ending (if the stem is smdbr-).
The name belongs to the family of nouns in -(d)ybr-/-(d)br, cf. ardy-
byr, dbr, etc. A comparison with the Carian name in Greek sources
Zermenduberow by Blmel (1990:81) is attractive, but the lack of r poses
a problem.
sms[5]
C.Si 2a
sm[7]ae[
C.Si 2a
snn
C.Ha 1, C.xx 1
Acc. sg. of the demonstrative pronominal stem sa/san-, q.v.
Melchert (1993:79).
sn
E.AS 8
saidlo
C.Si 1
Tentatively interpreted as a verb (aid- they made, cf. ait) preceded by a pro-
noun or introducing particles and followed by clitics in Adiego (2000:152),
where even an exact correspondence with Lyc. senaite is proposed.
sis
C.Ka 1
See p. 291 for a possible interpretation as a demonstrative pronoun (related
to sa/san-, this).
414 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
som[n
?
]e
C.St 1
somne
E.Me 21, E.Me 34
PN in nominative (somne if the reading is accepted) and genitive (somne ).
Directly comparable to the Carian name in Greek sources, Svmnhw.
It is undoubtedly a matter of chance, but it is curious nonetheless to note that
somne- is followed in E.Me 21 by a possible ethnic name q blsi-, while the
only example of Svmnhw in Greek sources is an individual belonging to the
Kublissew (inhabitants of Kyblissos), mentioned as witnesses in a treaty between
Mylasa and Kindya (Inscription of Mylasa, n. 11 in Blmels edition).
sqla
E.Si 4
sqlumidun
E.Si 4
srton[-]t[. . .?]
E.Ab 28
stsp
C.Si 2a
sursiabk
E.Si 6
suso
E.Lu 2
s[--]et
E.Me 29
PN in genitive.
as
C.Eu 1
A variant form of jas (tomb, or similar).
c.ni.x oross.nv 415
dun
C.Eu 2
emot
E.Th 10
en
E.Me 18a
jas
G 1
Noun corresponding to Greek sma in the bilingual inscription G 1.
Adiego (1992a:33). For the diculties of relating jas to the Carian gloss soa(n),
see p. 10.
oniabkol
C.Eu 2
t
E.AS 8
ugliq
E.Me 5
ugli
E.Me 30, E.xx 1
Ethnic name or, less likely, PN, attested at least in genitive (ugli ).
The exact analysis of ugliq is unclear. If an ethnic name, it can be
connected with the Carian place name Souaggela, although the doubts
about the precise sound value of 0 g make this identication more
dicult.
Adiego (2004:310). Connection to Souaggela suggested to me independently
by Prez Orozco and Melchert (both in pers. comm.).
umo
C.My 1
uni
E.AS 8
416 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
ysal[
C.St 1
abd
?
aikal
E.AS 2
amow
E.Ab 4, E.Ab 5
PN in nominative. It corresponds to Samvuow, Samvow in Greek sources.
Adiego (1994a:38). Vittmann (2001:5557) does not rule out the possibility
that amow-Samv(u)ow could be a Carianised form of the Egyptian name 3j-
jm=w (directly attested in Carian as tamou q.v.).
amsqi[. . .?
E.Me 24
ann
C.Ia 3
anne
C.Ia 3
aoyrri
C.Si 2a
See Adiego (2000:148149) for a very hypothetical attempt to connect it with
Xrusaorw, the oldest name of Stratonikeia.
arkbiom
E.Sa 1, E.Me 56 (ark[bi/jom . . .?]), C.My 1
PN in nominative. Transcribed as 3rkbym in the Egyptian part of the
bilingual E.Sa 1. Not found in Greek sources (although the form could
be condently reconstructed as *Sarkebivmow). Compound name formed
by the adverbial stem ar- (/gr. Sar-) (= CLuw. arri, Lyc. hri, Mil. zri;
cf. also Hitt. r upon) and the stem kbiom-, also attested as an inde-
pendent name (see kbjom-, Greek Kebivmow).
c.ni.x oross.nv 417
Curiously, the Greek reconstruction *Sarkebivmow was already given as the
possible form corresponding to Egyptian 3rkbym in Masson-Yoyotte (1956:52),
when both the true form arkbiom behind the Carian letters and the name
Kebivmow were still unknown.
An initial, and still imperfect transcription of the name appears in Kowalski
(1975:90). See also Ray (1981:153). For an analysis of the name: Adiego
(1993a:242).
arnai
E.Me 17
arnajs
E.xx 6
PN in genitive (arnai- ) and in s-case (arnaj-s). It is not clear if the
stem can be related to the adverbial stem ar-. A connection to the
Carian name of Greek sources Sarnow is hampered by the doubts about
the reading of the name (alternative reading Parnow, see Zgusta KPN:449,
n. 6, Blmel KarPN:24)
Adiego (1993a:250)
arnw
E.AS 3
PN in genitive. Perhaps formed on the same stem as arnai-/arnaj- (see
preceding entry).
Adiego (1993a:250)
arpt
E.Ab 33
PN in genitive.
arwljat
E.Me 3
PN in genitive. A compound formed by ar- (cf. arkbiom, aruol) and
wljat- (q.v.). No Greek adaptation of the name has been found to date
(a form such as *Sar-uliatow, *Sar-oliatow is the most likely possibility).
Adiego (1993a:242243).
arur
E.Ab 37
PN in genitive.
418 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
aruol
E.Me 30, E.Ab 6, E.Ab 30 (a[ru]ol), E.SS 1
PN in nominative. Carian name that appears in Greek sources as
Sarus(s)vllow. A compound name formed by Sar- (cf. arkbiom) and
uol (q.v.).
Ray (1981:155, 161).
aru[. . .?
E.Ab 42
If complete, a PN in genitive. But it is more likely to be an incom-
plete form of the noun aruol (see the preceding entry).
asqariod
C.Hy 1a
adiq
E.Ab 30
PN in genitive. A compound name a- + diq, perhaps a variant of
the name in the following entry.
On this explanation, see pp. 262263.
ayriq
E.Me 25
PN in nominative. It corresponds to the Carian name from Greek
sources, Saurigow. A compound name a- (~ ar?) + yriq. For the rst
element, cf. Sa-ussvllow. The second element is the well-known stem
yri-/yriq- /diq-/d- (see idyri-, paryri-, etc.).
Adiego (1993a:250), (1994a:44). On this family of names, see pp. 262263.
a[--]ib
?
wn
E.AS 5
dtat
E.Me 13
PN in genitive.
c.ni.x oross.nv 419
enurt
E.Me 50a
PN in nominative. It probably corresponds to the Carian name Sanortow
in Greek sources.
Adiego (1993a:236), and with some doubts about the identication (1994a:43).
i
E.Th 35
PN in genitive?
odubr
C.Kr 1
PN in genitive. It seems to belong to the family of names in -(d)ybr-/-
(d)br-, but in this case u, and not y, is used.
Could this name be the Kaunian version of katbr (= Lycian Janduberiw)?
For a > o, cf. otonosn and the following entry.
oru
C.Ka 3
PN in genitive.
Assuming an a > o change (cf. otonosn and the preceding entry), a compari-
son with the Carian name Sarow could be feasible (for the adaptation of a
Carian u-stem in Greek as a thematic one, cf. pau- = Paow).
rb[-]sal
E.Th 49
rquq
E.Lu 2 (
?
rquq), C.xx 1
rquq
E.Me 43a, E.Me 44a
PN in nominative (rquq) and in genitive (rquq ). A compound name
formed by r- = ar-/Sar- (cf. ar+uol-Sar+ussvllow, ar+kbiom, r +wli-)
+ quq (= Gugow in Greek sources).
Adiego (1993a:243). A name arquq (Adiego 1993a:241, 1994a:35) does not
exist: all the alleged examples are actually misreadings of rquq.
420 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
rwli
E.Me 20
PN in genitive. Can be analysed as a compound r- (cf. r-quq) + wli-,
very probably the same stem behind wliat/wljat (q.v.). Moreover, wli-
can be directly compared to the Isaurian name Oualiw (Zgusta KPN
11343/4). Cf. also Pisidian Oliw, Zgusta KPN 10861.
See Adiego (1993a:243).
in
E.Me 38, E.SS 1
PN in genitive.
-in- recalls -yin in [--]ryin (the Carian form of the dynast name Idrieus), where
it is analyzed as a form of the ethnic sux -yn-/-n (see s. v. [--]ryin
tab
C.Ka 5
tamosi
E.Ab 18, E.Ab 19, E.Ab 21
tamosi
E.Ab 20
PN in nominative (tamosi ) and genitive (tamosi ). Vittmann suggests that
we can recognise here the Egyptian name Pt-ms (literally Ptah is born),
note particularly the old Akkadian adaptation, Tamai.
Vittmann (2001:43). However, note that there is no further evidence to sup-
port pt > t in Carian adaptations of foreign names.
taqbos
E.xx 6
PN in s-ending, coordinated with arnaj-s by means of sb, and.
taubt
E.Me 18a
PN in genitive.
tazomd[
C.Ki 1
c.ni.x oross.nv 421
tbridbd
E.Me 42
PN in genitive.
tduol
E.Me 24
PN in nominative. It belongs to the uol-family of names, but the rst
element, td-, is not clear. It is perhaps to be related to ted-, father?
Schrr (2003b:69, n. 1) sugggests considering initial t as a mistake and that
instead we should simply recognize here the same name as dwol-.
tebot
E.Th 28 [tebot], E.Th 44
tebwnqmw
E.Th 38
ted
E.Me 38
Common noun in nominative: father. Compare CLuw. tta/i-, Lyc. tedi-,
Lyd. taada- father. Note the apparent umlaut *a > e as in Lycian, which
implies an original stem in -i- or with i-mutation (*tadi- > *tedi- > ted-).
Schrr (1996[98], already suggested in 1996a:68), Hajnal (1997a:210).
temazi
C.Eu 2
terez
E.Me 4
PN in genitive.
tkrabi
E.Me 37
PN in genitive.
tksr
E.Lu 7
422 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
tmonks
E.Th 41
tu
C.Hy 1a
PN in genitive. The name appears adapted in Greek as Tonnouw in one
of the inscriptions that accompanies C.Hy 1.
Adiego-Debord-Varinlio<lu (2005:612).
tqlow
E.Th 32
tqtes
E.Me 47
PN in s-case (or rather a nominative of an s-stem?).
trdy
C.My 1
PN in genitive
triel
E.Me 26
PN in genitive.
triqo
E.Me 6
PN in nominative.
trqdimr
C.Ki 1
Sequence that contains the god name trq(u)d-, Tarhunt (see following
entry and armotrqdos). Neither the internal structure (perhaps it must be
segmented into two words trqd imr or trqdi mr) nor the function and
meaning (a PN or place name, or the god name proper?) are clear in
this case.
See Blmel-Adiego (1993:9495), where possible connections for imr and mr
are proposed (imr = CLuw. im(ma)ra/i- [but note that the normal correspon-
dence of this latter word in Carian is (i)br-!], mr = Lyc. mere- laws).
c.ni.x oross.nv 423
trqude
C.Ia 3
God name: trqud- = Hitt. Taru-, CLuw. Tarunt-, Lyc. trqqt-, the
Anatolian Storm God. Unclear ending: perhaps a dative?
See also trqdimr, armotrqdos.
Blmel-Adiego (1993:94). trqude as dative: Adiego (1994a:38, 50). The simplest
interpretation is to assume that trqude is the divine name to whom the cratera
where C.Ia 3 is inscribed was dedicated, (Blmel-Adiego 1993:95), although the
overall context of the inscription is unclear and makes it dicult to give a
precise analysis (Melchert 2002:310).
tatar
E.Me 34 (tata[r]), E.Me 41
tatr
E.Th 5
PN in genitive.
The attempt to compare tat(a)r- with Tarhunt- and the Carian place name
Tarkondar/a/ (Adiego 1992a:34, 1994a:43; see also Janda 1994: 175, who
interprets the word directly as an ethnic name) is hampered by the unsuit-
ability of the sound correspondences, particularly if compared with trq(u)d-,
the usual form of Tarhunt- in Carian. The interpretation as an ethnic name,
feasible for the examples from Memphis, is questioned by the clear PN
(patronym) from Thebes, see p. 269.
tsial
C.My 1 (2)
PN in nominative.
ttbazi
E.Ab 41
ttbazi[]
E.Me 1
ttubazi
E.Ab 25
Feminine (?) PN in nominative (ttbazi, ttubazi ) and genitive (ttbazi[]).
As suggested by Schrr, an adaptation of the Egyptian name T3-dj(.t)b3st.t
(literally the one (fem.) whom (the goddess) Bastet has given), Greek
Tetobastiw.
See Schrr (1996a), for details about the reading of the inscriptions in question.
424 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
tumn
E.Sa 1
Accusative of tum-, a Carian adaptation of the Egyptian god name Jtm
(Atum)?
For this interpretation, see Adiego (1993a:255) and particularly (1995:2123).
tur[
G 1
Beginning of a PN. It corresponds exactly to the truncated name that
appears in the Greek part of the bilingual G 1 (Tur[ ).
Adiego (1992a:33).
tusol
C.My 1
PN in genitive. The nal ol of the stem could correspond in Mylasa to
the typical ending -vll/-vld- in Carian names. However, the name
hardly can belong to the family of the uol-/Ussvllow names, given
the use of s, and not , as would be expected.
ty[
C.My 1
For a very hypothetical interpretation, see Adiego (2005:9293) and here on
p. 308.
tn
C.Ha 1
See p. 283.
t [-]rsi
C.Si 1
tamou
E.Me 7
PN in nominative, an adaptation of the Egyptian name that appears
in the hieroglyphic part of this bilingual inscription as 3j-p-jm=w
(literally may Apis take them *[ipimw]. But the Carian adaptation
in fact corresponds to 3j-jm=w or 3j-n.jm=w, Greek Tamvw, Yamvw,
c.ni.x oross.nv 425
Samauw, Samv#w, in this case an abbreviated form (phonetically *[amw])
of the abovementioned name (DNb:13481349).
Ray (1981:58). See Vittmann (2001:5556) for a discussion of the relationship
between tamou and the pure Carian name amow.
tanai
E.Me 7
PN in genitive. Ray suggests that it may be an Egyptian name: *3-n-
n3-jw, literally ospring of the (sacred) cows.
Ray (1994:200). Vittmann (2001:56, n. 87) notes that the name is not attested
in Egyptian.
trel
E.Bu 1
w
E.Me 13
Complete word, abbreviated form, or a simple mistake? See p. 272.
uantrpo
E.Ab 12
uantrpu
E.Ab 13
PN in nominative and genitive. It is very likely, but not completely
certain, that both forms belong to the same paradigm (therefore with
an alternation -o / -u; the parallel with -e / -i in lse/lsi is striking).
uarbe
E.Th 1
PN in nominative.
uarila[-]os
E.Ab 39
Apparently a PN in genitive.
war [---]t[------]i[---]
E.Me 11a
Remains of an onomastic formula N- . . . N-.
426 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
wdbokn
E.Th 47
wdwn
E.Th 13
Cf. owdown[ (E.Th 10). Janda (1994:182183) observes the striking resemblance
of wdwn/owdown[ to the Pisidian sequence oudoun, but this comparison can-
not be taken further due to the similarly unclear contexts in which Carian
and Pisidian forms appear.
ue
E.Me 3, E.Me 5, E.Me 28, E.Me 29 ([ue]), E.Me 42, E.Me 51
Funerary stela, or similar. It seems to be similar or correspondent to
upe/upa, but the precise relationship between the words (if it indeed
exists) is not clear.
See below s. v. upe about upe/ue connection. As indicated there, Schrrs
hypothesis of a loss of p (upe > ue; Schrr 1992:141; 1993:172) is attractive,
but ad hoc.
uejresi
E.Si 2
wet
E.Me 13
PN in genitive.
uiomln
C.Ka 5
[ui
?
]oml
C.Ka 2
Cf. also yomln, very likely to be a variant.
Probably a verbal nite form, corresponding in some way to Greek
doje, It seemed good, in the bilingual inscription C.Ka 5. However,
the precise analysis remains unclear. An alternative view, suggested by
Melchert, is to analyze it as a noun with the meaning decree.
All the analyses take as a starting point the example of the bilingual C.Ka 5,
contextually more clear (note moreover that the value of the nal letter of the
C.Ka 2 example, here transcribed as <>, is far from being assured).
c.ni.x oross.nv 427
Frei-Marek (1997:30) propose a third plural person of a past tense with the
meaning to decide, whose subject would be kbidn, interpreted as the Kaunians
decided. Both Hajnal (1997b:151153) and Neumann (1998:30) suggest that
the verb must correctly be mln, and try to connect the verbal stem ml- with
dierent Hittite verbs: malai- to approve (Neumann), mald- solemnly pro-
nounce, vow. Similar analysis and etymological connection given in Adiego
(2002:20).
Eichners interpretation (only partially deducible from references apud Tremblay
1998:117, 123) concurs in isolating mln as a verb. He translates kbidn uio mln
as il plat/plaisant la communaut des Cauniens with uio interpreted as a
dative sg (communaut).
For Melcherts view, see Melchert (1998:37): kbidn uiomln decree of Kaunos
(kbidn: place name, plurale tantum, here in genitive). In a supplementary note,
Melchert suggests very tentatively a connection of uiomln with CLuw. wayam-
man-, cry, howl, cf. also Hitt. wiyi-, to cry, assuming a semantic develop-
ment comparable to Lat. proclamatio to proclamation. However, in Melchert
(mdane), Hajnals view is preferred: he isolates mln and analyzes it as a preterite
third plural from, *mVld-onto, to be related to Hitt. mald-.
uksi
E.xx 7
PN in nominative (?)
uksmu
E.Me 2
wksmu
E.Me 36
PN in nominative (uksmu) and genitive (wksmu ). Cf. the Anatolian names
Ouajamoaw (Zgusta KPN 11412, Isauria, Cilicia), Ouajamvw (Zgusta
KPN 111412, ibid.). This compound name therefore contains as a
second element the well-known Anatolian stem muwa-, strength, force.
It is very likely that the individual alluded to could be the same in
both inscriptions.
Neumann apud Adiego (1993a:236). On the identication of both individuals
(both show the same fathers name), see Masson (1976:38), Ray (1982b:187).
See here p. 336.
ula[----]ol
C.St 1
428 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
uliade
C.St 2
PN in nominative. Carian adaptation of the Greek name Olidhw,
very widespread in Caria, probably due to its resemblance to the purely
Carian name wliat (see the following entry).
Adiego (1994a:3940). On the name Olidhw see Masson (1988b).
wliat
E.xx 2
wljat
E.Th 7
wljat
E.Mu 1
PN in nominative (wliat/wljat) and genitive (wljat ). It is the Carian
name that appears in Greek sources as Uliatow or Oliatow. Note the
compound name arwljat-.
For the identication, see Adiego (1992a:31). The stem of the name has been
connected with Hittite walliwalli-, strong, powerful (also on the basis of other
Anatolian names: Walawala, Walawali, and particularly Carian Oaloalow, about
which see Adiego 1993b), cf. Adiego (1993a:238). See here p. 339.
umot
2
C.Ka 2
un
C.Ka 5 (2)
Tentatively analyzed as an innitive in Adiego (1998a:22), see here on p. 299.
Segmentation in both cases is not guaranteed!
undo[--]tl
C.Ka 5
Acc. pl. c. of a stem undo[--]tl-. It seems to correspond to Greek ergtaw
benefactors in the bilingual inscription C.Ka 5.
Already proposed in Frei-Marek (1997:38), who added the important obser-
vation that the sequence tl- could represent a sux of a nomen agentis com-
parable to Hitt. -talla-.
c.ni.x oross.nv 429
In Adiego (1998a:22) a segmentation un do[--]tl is suggested, taking un as
an iteration of un (innitive: to make) that appears just before (see preced-
ing entry), so that only do[--]tl was the word corresponding to ergtaw.
untri
E.Ab 12, E.Ab 13
PN in nominative.
wnuti
E.Me 31
Genitive. According to Vittmann, this is a title rather than a PN, given
the good correspondence to Egyptian wnwtj (*[w6nti/e] or *[wnti/e])
hour-observer, horoscoper, astronomer. Vittmann rightly observes that
the absence of an article in the adaptation of the Egyptian title ts well
with the Egyptian syntactical practice, consisting of omitting the arti-
cle when the title precedes the noun that it qualies (in E.Me 31, wnuti
is the rst word of the inscription, followed by the personal name kwar ).
Vittmann (2001:4849). See here on p. 278. Vitmann is reasonably cautious
in suggesting this interpretation, but the correspondence Carian wnuti = Egyptian
wnwtj cannot simply be a matter of chance.
uodrou
C.St 2
uodryia[
C.St 2
upa
E.Me 13
upe
E.Me 17, E.Me 4, E.Me 9, E.Me 22, E.Me 26, E.Me 38, E.Me 43a,
E.Me 64a ([. . . u
?
]pe)
wpe
E.Me 36, E.Me 41
Common noun in nominative: (funerary) stela, or tomb. Its connec-
tion with ue, used in similar contexts, is not clear.
Perhaps somehow related to Lycian xupa tomb?
430 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
It is clear that upe/upa, independently of its precise meaning, makes reference
to the object where the inscription stands (funerary stela), or to its function
(tomb): see Meriggi (1980:36), followed by Adiego (1993a:208). E.Me 26
clearly supports this explanation, where upe appears accompanied by the demon-
strative sa, this (Adiego 1993a:209). Other interpretations (son, Ray 1982b,
followed by Kammerzell 1993; I am, Ray 1990a:72; a demonstrative, Ray
ibid.) must be ruled out.
Schrr has argued in favour of a generic meaning stela instead of tomb,
assuming that E.Me 4 is a stle de donation, and that the Carian text does
not seem to contain a typical onomastic formula (Schrr 1992:155). However,
pace Schrr, this stela has clearly been re-used (there is no connection between
the Egyptian and Carian texts), and the Carian inscription poses serious read-
ing problems that do not allow us to identify the type of formula used.
For upe/wpe vs. ue, Schrr has proposed a purely phonetic explanation, by
resorting to an alleged tendency in Carian to drop p in intervocalic position
(Schrr 1993:172; however, the evidence adduced is not convincing).
uqsi
E.Me 20
PN in nominative. Perhaps a simple graphical variant of PN uksi-?
urm
E.Bu 1
wrm
E.xx 7
PN in genitive. Note also the vocalized variant urom in E.Bu 2, which
possibly alludes to the same person as urm in E.Bu 1.
On the possible connection of this name to Luw. ura-, great, an adjective
that enters into the formation of Anatolian proper names, see above p. 338.
uro
E.Th 34
urom
E.Bu 2
PN in genitive. See urm, wrm.
urq
E.Lu 6
c.ni.x oross.nv 431
urseak
E.Bu 6
ursle
E.Me 15
PN in genitive. It appears transcribed as 3rskr in the Egyptian part of
the bilingual inscription E.Me 15.
Final le of the stem has led us to imagine a Carian adaptation of a Greek
name in -klw (Neumann ers. comm. suggested Orsiklw). The use of palatal
for Greek k recalls Lyc. k (also a palatal) in Perikle < Gr. Periklw.
urt
E.Th 34
PN in nominative?
ubzol
C.Hy 1a
PN in nominative.
uol
E.Ab 35
uol
C.Hy 1a (2), C.St 2
wol
E.Me 12
PN in nominative (uol) and genitive (uol/wol ), corresponding to
the Carian name that appears as Ussvldow, Ussvllow in Greek sources
(Zgusta KPN 16297/8, Blmel KarPN:27); uol- enters in compo-
sition with a series of prexes ( pn-uol, ar-uol, id-uol, etc.)
For the identication uol = Ussvllow, one of the most decisive steps in the
Carian decipherment, see Ray (1981:160). About the possible etymology of
the name, see here p. 344, n. 16.
usot
C.Ke 1, C.Ke 2
On the doubts about these inscriptions, see p. 150.
432 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
utnu
E.Ab 19, E.Ab 21 (u
?
tnu
?
)
PN in genitive.
uHbit
C.Ka 2
u[. . .]q
E.Th 12
ya
C.Ka 8
asd
E.Me 46a
PN in genitive.
Initial as recalls the ethnic name (?) yiasi-, yjas[i]- Iasean (see s. v.); vs.
yi/yj- nds a good parallel in ybiks vs.- yi{}biks-. As for d-, it can be inter-
preted as a nt-sux.
ybrs
C.Hy 1a
PN in genitive. The stem ybrs- recalls the family of names in -(d)ybr-
/(d)br-, particularly smdbrs (see pp. 283, 314). It is possible that this
indigenous name was identied with the Greek name Ubraw (Zgusta
KPN 1624), commonly used in Caria, in a process similar to that of
wliat-Olidhw.
Adiego-Debord-Varinlio<lu (2005:613).
bt
C.xx 1
Probably a verb: 3rd singular preterite or present of a verb b- =
Lycian ube- to oer: If preterite, it would be completely equivalent to
Lycian ubete, he oered. If present, it would be from *ube-ti.
For this interpretation, see Melchert (1993:7879). Melcherts interpretation is
followed by, among others, Adiego (1994a:240) and Hajnal (1995[97]). An
alternative view was attempted by Janda, who prefers to consider pjdl as the
c.ni.x oross.nv 433
verb in C.xx 1; Janda (1994:179) suggests that bt can be a particle chain or
a noun corresponding formally to CLuw. upatit- landgrant (< *donation.
The Carian word would retain this original meaning).
About the possibility that bt can be a present, cf. Hajnal (1995[97]:17).
yiasi
E.Me 25
yjas[i ]
E.Me 9
Ethnic name (?) in nominative ( yiasi ) and genitive yjas[i ]. Connected
with the Carian place name Iasos (Iasow)?
Adiego (2004:310) and here p. 270.
yi{}biks
E.Me 46a
PN in genitive. If the corrected reading is accepted (see p. 69), it is a
variant form of biks, q.v.
ylarmit
C.Hy 1b
Ethnic name (in genitive plural?) referring to the Carian city of Hyllarima.
Connection of this word to the place name Hyllarima already noted in Ray
(1988:152). For ylarmit as genitive plural with the meaning Hyllarimeans, see
Adiego (2002:17).
ymezus[
C.St 2
n-?-mo
E.Sa 1
Cf. nsmsos, although the integration of s between n and m is by no
means clear.
ynemori
E.Me 29
PN in genitive.
434 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
nsmsos
E.Mu 1
E.AS 3
Possibly a title or adjective in nominative, where a sux -os can be
identied (cf. kbos E.Me 24).
yomln
C.Ka 4
Perhaps a variant form of uiomln, q.v.
pdnmwd
E.Th 4
yri
C.Si 1 (2)
Final (if the reading is accepted), points to a possible accusative. A
possible stem yri- would recall the family of names in yri-/yriq- /diq-
/d- (see idyri-, paryri-, etc.).
Can yri have any connection with the GN Sinuri?
yri
E.Th 26
PN in genitive.
Cf. pnyriru. Could yri- be related to yri-/yriq-?
yrqso
C.My 1 (2)
PN in genitive. It corresponds to the name adapted in Greek as Urgosvw.
Adiego (2005:90)
rsbe
E.Ab 6
Unclear word. Cannot be a PN in nominative, given the context in
which it appears (preceded by a PN in nominative (aruol) and fol-
lowed by a PN in genitive ( pdubi ). Perhaps a title?
c.ni.x oross.nv 435
biks
C.xx 2
PN in nominative. Compare yi{}biks. The name is a compound whose
second element is biks (cf. piks-, dbiks- and see p. 337 for an etymolog-
ical explanation).
sm
E.AS 9
yysmtoHa[
E.Ab 27
zidks
E.Sa 1
Sequence immediately followed by mdane. Function and meaning unknown
(an s-case of a PN? A verb?).
zmu
E.Me 19
PN in genitive.
zarios
C.Ka 2
Coordinated by means of sb to another word ending in - ([-]arlano).
Hdqedorms[
C.St 2
Hit
C.Ka 2
Hnmkda[-]aHuq[
C.Ki 1
Horouo
C.Ka 5
Function and meaning unknown.
In Adiego (2000:144) attention is drawn to the good parallel between orouo
and Lycian arawa- tax exemption, tleia, but the connection is hampered
by the initial H (dicult to separate from orouo, given that Horouo appears
immediately after sb, and).
436 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
Hosurz
E.Ab 28
[41]
1aitk
C.Ka 2
Function and meaning unknown. Perhaps k could be an enclitic ele-
ment, and the resulting form 1ait could be compared with ait in the
same inscription, for which an analysis as a third plural person verb
has been proposed (see ait).
1mali
C.Ka 2 (2)
1orsol
C.Ka 2
Apparently an accusative plural, coordinated with sarni by means of
sb. Meaning unknown.
?-bjqmqew
E.Th 12
Function and meaning unknown. Perhaps we are dealing with more
than one word. Note the nal ew (see ewm), and the sequence kbj ,
which recalls the PN kbjom, arkbiom and place name kbidn.
?-ras
E.Ab 43
PN in nominative (?)
Acrrn.ric Wonrs
[-]aH
C.Ka 2
Cf. a similar ending (]maH) in the same inscription.
[-]ars
E.Ab 36
Apparently a PN in nominative.
c.ni.x oross.nv 437
[-]bdo
C.My 1
PN in nominative. No parallels have been established.
[-]bi
C.Ka 2
Perhaps the same enclitic element that appears twice in the same inscrip-
tion, see bi.
[-]diurt
C.Ka 2
[-?]iam
E.Me 45
PN in genitive.
[-]intnor
C.Ka 2
[-]arlano
C.Ka 2
Coordinated by means of sb to another word ending in - (zarios).
[-]nudrma
C.Ka 2
[-]obiokli
C.My 1
Onomastic formula consisting of a PN in nominative followed by a PN
in genitive, the diculty being the isolation of the two names.
[-]owt
E.Me 48
PN in genitive.
[-]qo
C.My 1
PN in nominative. For the nal, cf. plqo-Pellekvw.
[-]tmai[--]
E.Bu 3
438 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
[-]untlau[-]
E.Ab 22
[--]abrunur[-]yn Hynn
C.Ka 2
A sequence of words whose segmentation is not clear.
Neumann (1998:2627) proposes isolating a word ur[-]yn, which he inter-
prets as an ethnic name in plural (with the -yn- ethnic sux, cf. kbdyn ) and
connects to the Carian place name Koar(r)end/a/, Koarenz/a/ Koaranz/a/,
Kvra(n)z/a/. Although the proposed segmentation is attractive (particularly
regarding the ending -yn- ), the relation with the mentioned place name is far
less compelling; note that the Carian word cannot be read integrally: also the
correspondence Car. : Greek -nd-/-(n) z- (in the dierent variants of the name)
is not at all satisfactory.
[--]eld
E.Si 2
[--] j [-]
E.Me 48
Extant letters of a PN in genitive.
[--]msal
E.Bu 1
Last letters of an initial word in a grato from Buhen. Final sal recalls
euml
?
bnasal, eypsal, also initial words in Buhen grati. See euml
?
bnasal for
a proposed interpretation of sal.
[--]ryin
C.Si 2a
PN in nominative. Given the context in which it appears, it must be
the Carian name of the dynast Idrieus. It is clear that the Carian form
of the name was not totally coincident with the Greek one. One could
tentatively complete *[id]ryin and assume a PN formed on the name of
the Carian city Idriaw, *idr-, by means of the sux for ethnic names
-yin (cf. kbd-yn-, mda-yn/mda-n). The resulting meaning, inhabitat of
Idrias, could roughly correspond to the Greek Idriew.
Schrr (1992:137138).
c.ni.x oross.nv 439
[--]Hlsasot
2
C.Ka 5
The nal -ot
2
recalls similar endings in this inscription and in C.Ka 2:
mdot
2
, punot
2
, umot
2
.
[--]word
E.Me 10
Final part of a PN or ethnic name in genitive. For the ending, cf. the
ethnic name (or PN) msnord-
[--] yt
2
C.Ka 5
]a[-]i
E.Me 11b
Extant letters of a PN in genitive.
]allia
E.Ab 30
]bewmsmnwdiq
E.Th 38
A sequence that seems to contain more than one word. We could per-
haps isolate a word smnwdiq, probably a PN related to the family of
names in yri-/yriq- /diq-/d- (Greek -urigow, -udigow) (but note here
the apparent use of w). As for ]bewm, it recalls the element ewm pre-
sent in other grati from Thebes (see the corresponding entry).
]btdeo
E.Th 14
]b
?
e
C.Ia 6
Probably the nal letters of a PN in genitive.
]dar1
C.Ka 4
]i
E.Me 57
Final part of a PN in genitive.
440 cn.r+rn rrr\rx
]
E.Me 60
Very likely to be the nal part of a PN in genitive.
]latmne
C.St 1
PN in genitive. It is possible that the name may be complete. In this
case, cf. perhaps the Carian place name Latmow (Zgusta KON 696,
Blmel KarON:173). The segmentation ]la tmne would also be an
attractive theory, as well as a comparison of this latter with the Carian
PN Tumnhw (Zgusta KPN 1615, Blmel KarPN:26).
]maH
C.Ka 2
Cf. [-]aH in the same inscription.
]no
?
C.Ka 7
Last letters of a PN in genitive?
]ois
?
ur
?
mlo
C.Ka 9
]pri
E.Ab 26
Probably the last letters of a PN in nominative.
]qsi
E.Me 53
Final part of a PN or ethnic name in genitive.
]rbna[
E.Si 9
]rwk[-] [
E.AS 8
]r[]tnit
E.Ab 29
c.ni.x oross.nv 441
]sel
C.St 1 (3)
Very likely to be the nal letters of a PN in nominative.
]s
E.Me 58
Final letters of a PN (s-stem) in genitive.
]tbe
C.Si 1
It seems to be the nal part of a word (perhaps a PN?) in genitive.
]tbsms
C.Ka 2
]ub
C.Di 1
]uda[
C.Ki 1
]uel
C.Ia 2
]u
E.Me 26
Last letters of a PN in genitive.
]uou
C.Ka 4
]utr[
E.Me 59
] ybzsdm
C.Ki 1
]zolbaa[. . .]
C.Ki 1
Sa = Sais
Me = Memphis
Ab = Abydos
Th = Thebes
Lu = Luxor
Mu = Murww
Si = Silsilis
AS = Abu Simbel
SS = Gebel Sheik Suleiman
Bu = Buhen
xx = Unknown origin
E.Sa = Sais
E.Sa 1
arkbiom : zidks mdane : n-?-
mo | den : tumn
E.Sa 2
pdnejt qri i
E.Me = Memphis
E.Me 1
ttbazi[] | iub[a]i | aor[]
E.Me 2
uksmu | lkor | mrsi
E.Me 3
pikre ue
arwljat msnord
E.Me 4
terez | upe | nuol[---]sarmrolyt
E.Me 5
psmkwneit | ue | naria | ugliq |
sarl
?
E.Me 6
triqo : parma i
klorul i
E.Me 7
tamou tanai qarsio[-?]
E.Me 8
a. paraeym : armon i
b. para
!
eym : sb polo
E.Me 9
arli : upe : arlio
[m] i : yjas[i]
E.Me 10
rm : q[---] i : pui mno
[mw]don [i ---]word i
APPENDIX A
CARIAN INSCRIPTIONS IN TRANSCRIPTION
E = Eovr+
C = C.ni. (.xr xr.nnv .nr.s ix Lvri. .xr Lvci.)
G = Gnrrcr
E = Eovr+
444 .rrrxrix .
E.Me 11
(a) wr[---]t[------]i[---] | mdan
(b) [--15--]a[-]i | mdan
E.Me 12
pjabrm | wol | mwdon i
kbjom | m[no]
E.Me 13
dtat | upa | w | wet i | mwdon
i
E.Me 14
irow | pikarm | mwdon
!

E.Me 15
arli
ursle
kidbsi
E.Me 16
irow | pikra i
semw | mno
mwdon i
E.Me 17
arnai
upe | quq
bem i md-
an
E.Me 18
(a) taubt
kuarib-
ar | en
niqau
ptnupi
(b) idmuon
i | mdayn
i
E.Me 19
pnuol
zmu i
E.Me 20
uqsi | rwli i | mwdon i
E.Me 21
punwol : somne
qblsi i
E.Me 22
artay : upe : [. . .
E.Me 23
ap[---]ws
a[rb]ikarm i
E.Me 24
tduol
kbos | amsqi[. . .?
E.Me 25
ayriq | parpeym i
yiasi
E.Me 26
[. . .]u | upe sa | triel | mrsi
E.Me 27
irow : psHm[-]
pttu : mno
E.Me 28
sanuq | ue | pntmun i
mwdon i
E.Me 29
s[--]et | [ue] | ynemori | mwdon
E.Me 30
aruol
pleq i : ugli
E.Me 31
wnuti | kwar mHm i | mwdon
[]i
c.ni.x ixscnir+ioxs ix +n.xscnir+iox 445
E.Me 32
iturow | kbjom | i en | mw[d]on
i
E.Me 33
(a) idmns | myre i | mdayn i
(b) idmns | myre i
E.Me 34
me | somne | tata[r]
E.Me 35
ntokris | dwol | mwdon i
E.Me 36
wksmu | wpe | lkor j
qarpsi
E.Me 37
qlali | [. . .]
tkrabi
E.Me 38
in | upe | arie
?
i ted
E.Me 39
[. . .]s
?
| arila
mno
E.Me 40
plqo | pikrm i | mwdon i
E.Me 41
|
?
or | wpe | qdarou | tatar
E.Me 42
arjom : ue : mwsat : i : mwdon :
i
tbridbd : i
E.Me 43
(a) lsi | upe | rquq i | ksolb
(b) arliom | mno i
E.Me 44
(a) apmen rquq kojol i
(b) mwton i
E.Me 45
[q
?
]lalis
[?]iam i
alos arnos
E.Me 46
(a) asd | yi{}biks i
(b) mwdon i
E.Me 47
tqtes | paraibrel i | mn[o-?]
E.Me 48
[--]j[-]
[-]owt
i : msn-
ord
E.Me 49
loubaw | siral | pnldwl
E.Me 50
(a) enurt
(b) psimt i
E.Me 51
arli | psikro
ue
E.Me 52
[. . .] ardybyr | md[. . .]
E.Me 53
[. . .]qsi
E.Me 54
[. . .] mrsj[. . .]
E.Me 55
[. . .] psma[/k . . .]
446 .rrrxrix .
E.Me 56
[. . .] ark[bi/jom . . .?]
E.Me 57
[. . .]i i
E.Me 58
[. . .]s i
E.Me 59
[. . .]utr[. . .]
E.Me 60
[. . .]
E.Me 61
[. . .]i
E.Me 62
[. . .][. . .]
E.Me 63
(a) idyes
(b) m [?
E.Me 64
(a) [. . .u
?
]pe : pd[
(b) [. . .]mi
E.Me 65
u[. . .]m | punm[-] | mudo[n]
E.Me 66
---].[..u][. . .]p[-]n[---
E.Ab = Abydos
E.Ab 1
pisiri
E.Ab 2
panejt iarja
E.Ab 3
ptne | ibarsi
E.Ab 4
amow ltari
E.Ab 5
amow ltari[]
E.Ab 6
aruol | rsbe | pdubi
E.Ab 7
plat | pals
E.Ab 8
plat pals
E.Ab 9
plat pals
E.Ab 10
piubez
qurbo
E.Ab 11

?
/ [. . .]it
E.Ab 12
untri uantrpo
E.Ab 13
untri | uantrpu
E.Ab 14
abrq[. . .?
E.Ab 15
pdubez or
E.Ab 16
nprosn
c.ni.x ixscnir+ioxs ix +n.xscnir+iox 447
E.Ab 17
pa[-]in[-]t
E.Ab 18
tamosi | inut
E.Ab 19
tamosi utnu
E.Ab 20
ninut | tamosi
E.Ab 21
to[-]a[---]l
tamosi u
?
tnu
?
E.Ab 22
[-]untlau[-]|
E.Ab 23
beol
E.Ab 24
[. . .] arli
E.Ab 25
ttubazi kattri
E.Ab 26
[. . .]pri | ptnuq
?
i
?
E.Ab 27
yysmtoHa[
E.Ab 28
Hosurz | srton[-]_[. . .?]
(or: . . . +t[-]not
a
/
r
s | z
a
/
r
usoH/l?)
E.Ab 29
[. . .]r[--]tnit
E.Ab 30
bidlemsa : a[ru]ol : adiq
[. . .]allia : bsis
E.Ab 31
aye
E.Ab 32
arr
E.Ab 33
arpt | p[-]lu
E.Ab 34
dbkrm [-]kb
?
[
E.Ab 35
uol | mi kdsi
E.Ab 36
[-]ars, [-]urb
E.Ab 37
arur
E.Ab 38
piew
E.Ab 39
uarila[-]os
E.Ab 40
ialli | qblio
E.Ab 41
ttbazi kt
?
tri
E.Ab 42
aru[..?
E.Ab 43
?-ras
448 .rrrxrix .
E.Th = Thebes
E.Th 1
uarbe
E.Th 2
dtbr | kbokt
katbr
E.Th 3
pla
?
t
E.Th 4
dokmmpint seqqejewsk | mqtjq
pdnmwd
.
E.Th 5
dbr | tatr
E.Th 6
bebnd
E.Th 7
wljat
E.Th 8
qutbe
E.Th 9
kudtubr
E.Th 10
a
?
qbaq ewm emot
qtblo owdown[. . .]mwarudko mlane
E.Th 11
psma[k] [?
| nm[
mplat | o[
E.Th 12
?-bjqmq ewmlane qebt | u[. . .]q
| qwsal | mqabaewleqooskioms
E.Th 13
dbiks | kbjoms | wdwn | sb abt
ewm
E.Th 14
]q[. . .]btdeo
E.Th 15
Very uncertain reading!
E.Th 16
saml-?-?- (vacat) dy a
E.Th 17
ku
E.Th 18
t n
E.Th 19
dbikrm
E.Th 20
orb r i
E.Th 21
mmnal
E.Th 22
mwk | te
E.Th 23
bebi
E.Th 24
kow[?-?]
E.Th 25
ktmno
E.Th 26
brsi yri
c.ni.x ixscnir+ioxs ix +n.xscnir+iox 449
E.Th 27
pnwol | mlqi
E.Th 28
bejeym | tebt
K
bebint ken
E.Th 29
]ke
E.Th 30
bebint | psrkrte | mumntnse-?
wn
E.Th 31
Very uncertain reading!
E.Th 32
tqlow
E.Th 33
lbiks
E.Th 34
slmaewm | urt | kwri | prnanon
| dm-?-n | matnor | qanor | ur
E.Th 35
lse | i | mlan[-?]
E.Th 36
\ or
E.Th 37
ktmn
E.Th 38
]bewmsmnwdiq tebwnqmw
E.Th 39
krws | kom
E.Th 40
pnuol
E.Th 41
tmonks
E.Th 42
rdudmm
E.Th 43
p
E.Th 44
dquq | ewmlane | tebot | gkem
E.Th 45
krw
E.Th 46
prpwri kblow
E.Th 47
wdbokn ewe [
E.Th 48
brsi
E.Th 49
bal ewlane | rb[-]sal |
E.Th 50
pn-?
E.Th 51
p
E.Th 52
plqodse | ewm-?-?-?-? | rqemw | k-?[
E.Th 53
driem
E.Lu = Luxor Temple
450 .rrrxrix .
E.Lu 1
ds-?
E.Lu 2
rsy
suso

?
rquq [. . .?
E.Lu 3
Very uncertain reading!
E.Lu 4
?-?-[-]ms[-]ry-?-?
E.Lu 5
b
?
s
?
uiam | o
?
E.Lu 6
| urq
E.Lu 7
tksr (or: tasr)
E.Mu = Murww
E.Mu 1
p
?
owk | wljat | nsmsos
saawon sa
?
awon
E.Si = Silsilis
E.Si 1
iqud | marariso[-. . .]
E.Si 2
[--]eld | wa | psmak |
uejresi | qan | kolt | kowrn[. . .?
E.Si 3
irasa | n[-]eakrnanb
E.Si 4
[. . .]K bebint | sqlumidun | sqla
E.Si 5
betkrqit[-- . . .]
E.Si 6
bta | sursiabk | dr[- . . .]
qku
E.Si 7
psmak
E.Si 8
bijpe
E.Si 9
[. . .]rbna[-- . . .]
E.Si 10

?
mpi
E.Si 11
dmobqs
E.AS = Abu Simbel
E.AS 1
parolou
[. . .]oe
E.AS 2
abd
?
aikal
E.AS 3
pismak | arnw | nsmsos
E.AS 4
aakowr | emsglpn | b[. . .]
pisma[/k . . .]
E.AS 5
pnyriru | ikr | a[--]ib
?
wn
E.AS 6
platt
sla i
c.ni.x ixscnir+ioxs ix +n.xscnir+iox 451
E.AS 7
naz i | b | esak
?
dow | mqu-
dem | pismak | bebint | mo | ne
| ps[|
?
] ai[-]iqom
E.AS 8
nidkusas | meqak | sn | t | uni
| kmmsm[. . .]
[. . .]rwk[-][
E.AS 9
sm [?
E.Bu = Buhen
E.Bu 1
[--]msal | ar-
[]i | psma-
k | urm | an-
kbu | trel
kdou
E.Bu 2
euml
?
bna-
sal | ari
pdtom
urom | an-
kbu
E.Bu 3
[-]tmai[--]
E.Bu 4
psmak
ibrsi
E.Bu 5
psmak
E.Bu 6
eypsal
puor | aor | urseak i
E.SS = Gebel Sheik Suleiman
E.SS 1
nn[-]s|aruol
pneit|in
pard
E.xx = Unknown origin
E.xx 1
qorb | isor i | ugli
E.xx 2
wliat
E.xx 3
ionel
E.xx 4
pduba
E.xx 5
owmebt
E.xx 6
arnajs | sb taqbos
E.xx 7
ntros : pridas
ora
nu mdane : uksi wrm
C = C.ni. (.xr +n.xsi+iox.r xrionnonixo .nr.s or Lvri. .xr Lvci.)
Tr = Tralles (Lydia-Caria)
Al = Alabanda (-Eski ine)
Hy = Hyllarima
Eu = Euromos
St = Stratonikeia
My = Mylasa
Si = Sanctuary of god Sinuri near
Mylasa
452 .rrrxrix .
Kn = Kindye
Ki = Kildara
Ha = Halikarnassos
Di = Didyma (Ionia)
Ia = Iasos
Ke = keramos
Ka = Kaunos
Kr = Krya (Lycia)
xx = Unknown origin
C.Tr = Tralles (Lydia-Caria border)
C.Tr 1
sdi amt[
pau
art{ }mon
C.Tr 2
an sidi a-
rtmi pau
paraq
?
C.Al = Alabanda and surroundings
C.Al 1 (Eski ine)
sdi a[-]mob[
C.Eu = Euromos
C.Eu 1
as : ktais idyri : mn[os
?
]
C.Eu 2
omob i : temazi
dun : oniabkol
armon qyrbmudolo
manon
C.Kn = Kindye
C.Kn 1
pares
C.Hy = Hyllarima
C.Hy 1
(a) asqariod dymda
muot armotrqdosq
brsi ari brsi
mane : uol
rtim uol pur
?
i
ubzol tu brsi
pau mane ybr-
s
(b) kduopizipususot
mol msot ylarmit
C.My = Mylasa
C.My 1
idrayridsemdbq mol ty[
tsial tusol : moi m[-]sao[
banol paruos : p
?
au paryri
qzali obrbi : tsial obrbi
banol yrqso : paryri psoir
[-]bdo pnuo : myze trdy
arkbiom qzali : umo kbdmu
skdubrotoz : pau toi
[-]qo idyri : ksbo iduol
[-]obiokli : toi yrqso
C.Si = Sancutary of Sinuri near
Mylasa
C.Si 1
adymd : yri : t[-]rsi : [. . .?]
tbe
(vacat)
yri : binq : saidlo
C.Si 2
(a) [--]ryin tmo : sb ada tmo
eri : pisoi mda : pmnn : pda-
mu i aoyrri mtel
mailo mda lrH : stsp vacat
sms[--5--] sb amssi mda
sm[--7--]ae[
[--8--]tud[
e-?-[
453
(b) pim[. . .]
Ha
?
[. . .]
C.Ki = Kildara
C.Ki 1
[. . . . . . .(.)]zolbaa[. . (.)] kil[
[. . .]uda[. . .] trqdimr qrds tazomd[
kilarad[-]ybzsdmHnmkda[-]aHuq[
iasoum
C.St = Stratonikeia
C.St 1
]sel a[--]a[----]om
]som[n
?
]e brsi ula[----]ol
]latmne ysal[
] ari maqly[
]sel piks[
]sel p[
C.St 2
uol uodrou u[
mute ymezus[
diye uodryia[
uliade pidaru[
maqaraHrl-?-[
darqemorms[
Hdaqedorms[
C.Ha = Halikarnassos
C.Ha 1
smdbrs | psnlo | md orkn tn | snn
C.Di = Didyma (Ionia)
C.Di 1
]ub
C.Ia = Iasos
C.Ia 1
]la
limtaoa | [
om
C.Ia 2
]uel | ob[
C.Ia 3
?] are | anne mlne | siyklo | ann
| trqude | lmud [?
C.Ia 4
n[. . .]
pr[. . .]
is[. . .]
C.Ia 5
baqgk[. . .]
C.Ia 6
[. . .]b
?
e
C.Ke = Keramos
C.Ke 1
uso-
t
C.Ke 2
uso-
t
C.Ka = Kaunos
C.Ka 1
sis : sdisa-
s : psuol
mal : mno
C.Ka 2
[ui
?
]oml qrds grdso[-]i[
[-]r sb amnnartnyr obsmns[
[-]arlano sb zarios i[
[-]nudrma yrpai sarni sb u[
[-]aH punot
2
otr bi sb atmsk[m
c.ni.x ixscnir+ioxs ix +n.xscnir+iox
454 .rrrxrix .
[-]d bi 1aitk ouor gdbla1_i[-]
[-] sarni sb1orsol sb uHbit
[-]bi qrdsol ait 1_mali Hit
[-]intnor yrapai umot
2
oba
[-]diurt obsmsm1 ouor mt1 yr
[--]abrunur[-]ynHynn sb vacat
[------------------]tbsms 1mali [
[-------------------]maH sb an[
[. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .]ba vacat
C.Ka 3
oru
ann ibrs
C.Ka 4
[. . .]uou ibrsdr[-]
[. . .]a yomln1 r_i
[. . .]dar1_ idym
C.Ka 5
kbidn uiomln i[---]
inis drual nik[--]
lan lysiklas[-
?
]
otonosn sb lys[ikl]
an lysikratas[-
?
]
otonosn sarni[]
mdot
2
un sb undo[--]
tl kbdyn sb b
2
o[--]
ol otr sb at[ms]-
kmt absims sb [---]
yt
2
oru sb at[----]
buy[-----]i[-----]i
[--] un moa[-]lboror
[--]Hlsasot
2
ort
tab sb ort[-] sb Hor-
ouo bi mslmnlia
purmoruos mnos
aitusi
C.Ka 6
or
C.Ka 7
]no
?
(or rather: ]no?)
C.Ka 8
potkol
?
aba
?
d
?
ya
C.Ka 9
[. . .]ois
?
ur
?
mlo
C.Kr = Krya (Lycia)
C.Kr 1
qot
2
omu sdisa
m
?
n odubr or rather: sn odubr?
sb mno knor
noril
?
ams or rather: norimams?
C.xx = Unknown origin (presumably
from Caria)
C.xx 1
rquq | qtblem | bt | snn | orkn
| ntro | pjdl
?
C.xx 2
biks not : alosd arnosd : jzpe mdane
C.xx 3
akymydueryl[vacat]d
C.xx 4
kduol
C.xx 5
kduol
G = Greece
G 1 (Athens)
jas | san tur[
G 2 (Thessalonike)
qlali | k
?
[
la horse
bnda victory
Stephan of Byzantium, s. v. Albanda:
Albanda, pliw Karaw (. . .) ktsma
d Karw n, p to paidw ato
klhye sa to gennhyntow p
Kallirrhw tw Maindrou, met nkhn
ppomaxikn, ka klhyntow Alabndou,
sti kat tn Karn fvnn ppnikow.
la gr tn ppon, bnda
1
d tn nkhn
kalosin.
Stephan of Byzantium, s. v. Ulloala:
Ulloala, dmow Karaw (. . .) la
gr o Krew tn ppon legon, w ka
prteron erhtai.
gla king
soa or soan tomb
Stephan of Byzantium, s. v. Souggela:
Souggela, pliw Karaw, nya
tfow n to Karw, w dhlo ka
tonoma. kalosi gr o Krew soan
tn tfon, glan d tn basila.
gssa stone
Stephan of Byzantium, s. v. Mongisa
Mongisa, <pliw Karaw> (. . .)
gssa gr t Karn fvn lyow rmh-
neetai. ka nn tow plakdeiw ka
malakdeiw lyouw gssa lgousi.
kon sheep
Scholia ad Il. XIV, 255: t d prbaton
kon (ms. koon) o Krew nomzousin,
yen Kw poluyrmmvn.
Cf. Eustathius, ad. Hom. Il. XIV,
255: Kw (. . .) fas d tow Kraw
otv kalen t prbata, yen ka
nsow Kw w poluyrmmvn.
1
Reading mnda in the two best manuscripts of Stephan.
APPENDIX B
CARIAN GLOSSES
APPENDIX C
CARIAN NAMES IN GREEK SOURCES
A. Pr.cr N.vrs (: Zots+. KON)
Aba 21.
Agan/a/ 8.
Aggvr/a/ 65
Agorhsow 10.
Adhssow 173.
Ayumbra 25.
Alabanda 374.
Alikarnassow 447.
Alinda 4411.
Alkizv 45.
Allianoi 444.
Allvss/ow/ 502
Amnist/ow/ cf. 820, Blmel
KarON:165.
Amow 60.
Amuzvn, Amuzvn/a/ 611.
Amunand/a/ 612.
Andanow 663.
Anyemi 71.
Apodes[ Blmel KarON:165.
Arara 8516.
Ardur/a/ 906.
Arissoullh Blmel KarON:165.
Arlai/a/ 951.
Arlissow 952.
Armel/a/ Blmel KarON:165.
Armokodvka 961.
Arnaso/w/ 973.
Arpasa Lat. Harpasa 98.
Artoub/a/ 1002.
Asshsow 1083.
Babein 1223.
Bargasa (var. Pargasa, Bargaza)
1351.
Bargulia (later var. Barbulia) 1352.
Barkokmh Blmel (KarON:166).
Boll- 158.
Bridaw 173.
Bubassow, Boubassow, Bubastow,
Boubastow 177.
Bvnitv 1592.
Bvrand/a/ 181.
Gerga 2021.
Gordio/n/ 2153.
Ddmasa 250.
Didassai 263.
Dundason 281.
Enn/a/ 297.
Eorma 298.
Erezow 3021.
Ermapilow 3051.
Yaruai 335.
Yasyar/a/ 336.
Yembrihmow, Yembrimow 338.
Yemhs(s)ow, Yemissow 3391.
Yigrow 343.
Yudonow 351.
Yuhssow 3521.
Yumbria 3533.
Yussanouw 355.
Yvdasa Blmel (KarON:167).
Iasow 358.
Idriaw 363.
Iduma 3641.
Imbrow 3731.
Io.d- 378.
Kaduih 4032.
Kalbisso/w/ 413.
Kalunda 4142.
Kandasa 4262.
Kandhb/a/, Kendhb/a/ 428 (s. v.
Kanduba).
Kanhbion 430.
Kaprima 436.
c.ni.x x.vrs ix onrrk sotncrs 457
Karbasuand/a/, Karpasuand/a/
4395.
Karoura 4522.
Karu/a/ 4543.
Karuanda 4541.
Kasa 4552 (s. v. Kasaio/n/).
Kasar/a/ 4557.
Kastabo/w/ 4581.
Kasvk/a/ 4611.
Kasvlaba 4612.
Kasvsso/w/ 4614.
Ka.nar/a/ 4236.
Kebialea 471.
Kelimara Blmel (KarON:169).
Kemhsso/w/ Blmel (KarON:169).
Kendhbocorow 477.
Kenendvlab/a/ 479.
Keni- 480.
Kepranow 481.
Keraskord/a/ 486.
Kecaro/w/ 4961.
Kdram/a/ 501.
Kildar/a/, Killar/a/ 510.
Kinduh, later var. Kunduh 5181.
Kisariw 522.
Koarbvnd/a/ 5381.
Koar(r)end/a/, Koarenz/a/
Koaranz/a/, Kvra(n)z/a/ 5382.
Kodap/a/ 541.
Kodouvka 544.
Kozanata 547.
Koliorg/a/, Kolierg/a/ 552.
Koloura 5581 (not in Blmel!).
Komurion 658.
Komvond/a/ 568.
Kond- Blmel (KarON:170).
Konodvrkond/a/ 575.
Korell/a/ 581.
Kormoskvn/a/ 5834.
Korrit/a/ 589.
Kostobalo/w/, Kvstobalo/w/ 662.
Kot- Blmel (KarON:171).
Kot/a/ 5931.
Kourb/a/ 607.
Crusa 631.
Kruassow 6322.
Kuarda 635.
Kubassow 636.
Kubim/a/ 6391.
Kubisyih 6392.
Kubliss/ow/, hublis/ow/ 1396.
Kullandow 6451.
Kumniss/ow/ 646.
Kumvr/a/ 6472.
Kuogrissiw 649.
Kuon 6522.
Kuprand/a/ Blmel (KarON:172).
Kurbasa 6512.
Kuw 6521.
Kushr/a/ 6531.
Kusshliw 6532.
Kvrai/vn/ 659.
Labara 665.
Labraunda (var. Larabiunda,
Labranda, Labrainda, Labrauunda,
Labrenda, Lambraunda Labraenda)
666.
Lagina, Lageina 670
Lagnvk/a/ 671.
Laras/a/ 6882.
Larb/a/ 689.
Latmow 696.
Leibo/w/ (rather a person or god name)
704.
Leukoid/a/ Blmel (KarON:173).
Lec- (epiclesis Zew Lecunow, Lecinow.
cf. also Lepsia, a Carian island) 706.
Lhcimandow (dierent variants for the
inhabitants name: Lefsimnioi,
Lefsmandoi, Lefsimand ew,
Lefsumand ew, Lhcimandew) 707.
Lidh 7121.
Lobold/a/ 716.
Lor.os/a/ 720.
Lurisso/w/ 731.
Lvm/a/ 736.
Lvndarg/a/ 737.
Lvndokvmh Blmel (KarON:173).
Lvr/a/ 738.
Lvruma 739.
Lvsso/w/ 740.
Madnas/a/, Mdmasow, Medmassa/
Mednassa 748.
Mali/a/ 7562.
458 .rrrxrix c
Masanvrada 782.
Massvn/a/ 787.
Mastaura 788.
Maunn/a/, Maiunn/a/ 793.
Messaba 8041.
Mhyasai 806.
Milhtow 809.
Mniesu/a/ 819.
Mboll/a/, Mogola, Mvgla 822.
Mokold/a/ 828.
Monnara pl 832.
Monogissa 833.
Mosoun/a/ 8421.
Mugissow 858.
Mudon- 859.
Muhss/ow/ 863.
Mulas(s)a (very late form: Milasa)
8611.
Mundow 862.
Murshl/a/ 8661.
Mursileia 8662.
Mvss/on/ 871.
Naras/a/ 8853.
Narisbar/a/ 886.
Naruandow 888.
Ninh 8981.
Nouik/a/ Blmel (KarON:175).
Jerasso/w/ 907.
Ogond/a/ 912.
Ol/a/, Oul/a/ 925.
Oloss/iw/ 9302.
Olumo/w/ 932.
Omb/a/ 934.
Ondoura 935.
Orbhla 9384.
Oryondouvk/a/ 941.
Orsubli/a/ Blmel (KarON:176).
Orsvll/a/ 950.
Otvrkond/a/ 958.
Ouasso/w/ 966.
Palgosvlda 996.
Panamara 1000.
Pandaj/a/ 10012.
Parableia (Parablia?) 1005.
Parembvrd/a/ 1007.
Parkall/a/ 1009.
Parpar- 1012.
Pasand/a/, Pasada 1015.
Passala 1018.
Patarous/a/ 10223.
Pedanass/ow/, Pedanass/ow/ 1028,
10592.
Peiglasow 1031.
Peldek-t- 1035.
Phgasa 10531.
Phdasa, Pidasa 10541.
Piginda 10581.
Pidvssow, Pidossus 10592.
Pisymoi 1065.
Pisiliw 10661.
Pisuh 10664.
Pitaon, Pitaium 10673.
Pladas/a/, Platas/a/ 1068, 1072.
Plamow 1070.
Plarasa 1071.
Pluar/a/ 1080.
Poluara 10831.
Pounomou/a/ 10931.
Prinassow 11011.
Proposs/ow/ Blmel (KarON:178).
Pruondr- Blmel (KarON:178).
Purindow 11141.
Purnow 11142.
Pustow 1116.
Salei/a/ 11482.
Salmakiw 11501.
Samn/h/ 1153.
Samulia 11522.
Saranso/w/ 11652.
Sasanda 11762.
Siana 12611.
Sikim/a/ Blmel (KarON:178).
Sind/a/ 12192.
Sindhssow 12194
Sinuri 1222.
Solo/a/ 12441.
Solvn/a/ 12443.
Sparz/a/ 1255.
Suana 12611.
Suaggela, Souaggela, Sfaggela (later
Yeaggela, Theangela) 12612.
Suarbeu[ 1262.
Suista 1267.
Surna 1272.
c.ni.x x.vrs ix onrrk sotncrs 459
Svbala 1274.
Svssow Blmel (KarON:179).
Tabai 12771.
Tabarniw 12775.
Talagr/a/ 1284.
Tapass/oi/ 1294.
Taramptow 1295.
Tarban/a/ 12971.
Tarbetv (?, or rather a personal name?)
Blmel (KarON:179).
Tarkondar/a/ 1299.
Tarm/ow/ (?, or rather a personal
name?) 1300.
Tezhra (?, or rather a personal name?)
1310.
Teleseitiw 1312.
Telmhssow, Telmessow, Telmissow,
Telemessow, Telmisum 1314.
Temoesso/ow/ Blmel (KarON:180).
Tendhba 1318.
Termera, Telmera, Termera 13202.
Terssvgass/ow/ Blmel (KarON:181).
Tnussow 1347.
Traldeiw, Tralleiw, Trallis 13611.
Trara 1362.
Trobaliss/ow/ 1368.
Truban/a/ 1374.
Tuennesso/w/ 1379.
Tumnhssow 13845.
Tumnow 13844.
Ualvka 1393.
Uarbesu/a/ 1394.
Ubliss/ow/ 1396.
Ugas(s)ow 1397.
Udai, Kudai 13982.
Udis(s)ow 13984.
Uyubir/a/ 1400.
Uissow 1402.
Ulim/a/ 14041.
Ullarima 14042.
Ullouala 14043.
Umess/ow/ 1405.
Urvmow, Kurvmow, Eurvmow, Eurvpow
1412.
Usarbid/a/ 1414.
Ussome[ Blmel (KarON:182).
Utarm/ow/ Blmel (KarON:182).
Xalkhtvr, Xalkhetorew Blmel
(KarON:182).
Vlasha 1443.
Vndr/a/ 1444.
Vnzvssuaso/w/ 1445.
Vspraonno/w/ 1447.
]akondia Blmel (KarON:182).
]eadovka 1450.
]erra Blmel (KarON:182).
]hvka 1457.
]kermu.ion Blmel (KarON:182).
]nirea Blmel (KarON:182).
B. Prnsox.r N.vrs (; Zots+. KPN)
Aba, Abaw, Abbaw 11/2/3/5.
Abersi 5.
Ada 151.
Ayuasiw 128.
Akarmomeldvw 27.
Aktadhmow 381.
Aktauassiw 382.
Aktaussvllow 383.
Alasta 421.
Alganiw 44.
Alleaw 523.
Amiaw, Ammiaow, Ammh, Ammin, Ammeiaw,
etc. 57.
Andarsvw 594.
Appa, Apfia, Apfiaw, Apfion, Apfianow,
Afia, Afion, Affion, etc. 66.
Apoukvw 79.
Arbhs(s)iw 852/3.
Arduberow 866.
Ariauow 892.
Aridvliw 894.
Arlissiw 951/2.
Arlivmow 953.
Arris(s)iw 1061/2.
Arshliw 10712.
Artaow Blmel (KarPN:11).
460 .rrrxrix c
Arthumow 109.
Artimhw Arteimhw 1084/6.
Artuassiw, Aryuassiw 1101/2.
Aruassiw 111.
Arvsiw Blmel (KarPN:11).
Atthw 11910.
Beryaw 1621.
Berrablviow Blmel (KarPN:11).
Boivmow 1784.
Bruajiw, Bruassiw 1961/2.
Brvlvw 197.
Geiw 2103.
Glouw 224.
Gugow Blmel (KarPN:12).
Dandvmow 251.
Daru . . . ow 254.
Deibow 264.
Dersvmanhw Blmel (KarPN:12).
Dersvw Blmel (KarPN:12).
Dersv . . . tiw 275.
Ekamuhw Blmel (KarPN:12).
Ekatomnvw (more recent variants:
Ekatomnvn, Ekatomnow) 3251/2/3.
Ejamuhw 3402.
Ermapiw 35521.
Zermeduberow (var. Jermedu<be>row)
Blmel (KarPN:13).
Zonzolow 390.
Yekuilow 417.
Youw Blmel (KarPN:14).
Yualdiw 438.
Yussow 4451
Ibanvlliw 450.
Idagugow 4514.
Idakow 4515.
Idbelaw Blmel (KarPN:14).
Ideghbow Blmel (KarPN:14).
Idmamu . . . ow 4526.
Idriew 453.
Idubl[ 454.
Idussvllow Blmel (KarPN:15).
Il[.]uthw 1678.
Imbarhldow 467.
Imbarsiw, Imbras(s)iw 4693/4/5.
Imbrhw 4699.
Innivn 4718.
Indow 4731.
Isedum.xow 485.
Isemenda . . . ow 486.
Iublhsiw 494.
I . . . uagow 1679.
Kay.divn 1680.
Kakraw 5091.
Kalbalaw 512.
Karama . . . ow 531.
Karjaw 539.
Karreiw 5403.
Karusvldow 544.
Kasballiw 546.
Kasbvlliw 545.
Kashsiw 5471.
Kaifenh 558.
Kbondiassiw 566.
Kbvdhw 5671.
Kebivmow Blmel (KarPN:16).
Keldnassiw 573.
Kemptuw 575.
*Kendhbhw 5769.
Ketambissiw 593.
Kindacow (KarPN:16).
Kinjimow 617.
Kit.essvw (KarPN:16).
Koboldvow (KarPN:16).
Koibilow 6521.
Koidvw 653.
Kolaldiw, Kulaldiw (KarPN:17).
Koldobaw 660.
Kolvldow 661.
Kondalow 6761.
Kondmalaw 6762.
Kondo[ 6765.
Korollow (KarPN:17).
Korriw 6863.
Koshtiow (KarPN:17).
Kosinaw 703.
Kostvlliw 705.
Kotbelhmow (KarPN:17) cf. Kutbelhmiw.
Kotobalvw (KarPN:17).
Kouldoiw 727.
Kourvn 7375.
Ktouboldow 761.
Kuaremow 764.
Kuatbhw 765.
Kulaldiw (KarPN 18) cf. Kolaldiw.
c.ni.x x.vrs ix onrrk sotncrs 461
Kutbelhmiw 771.
Kutpiw 772.
Kvbhw 7741.
Kvglvw 775.
Latarshw 799.
Lugdamiw 834.
Lujhw 836.
Makow 8481.
Malosvow (KarPN:18).
Manhw 8581.
Manitaw 8641.
Mareuw 8736.
Marow 87313.
Massarabiw 8802.
Matiw 8826.
Mausvllow 88516.
Memakow Blmel (KarPN:19).
Metebiw Blmel (KarPN:19).
Mindrvn 921.
Minnaw, Minnion, Minniw, Minnh,
Minnivn, Minnow, etc. 922.
Miskow/Miskvw 9292.
Mohnnow 941.
Moiw 942.
Mokollhw 9441.
Molhw 9461.
Monnhw 959.
Mosraiow Blmel (KarPN:19).
Mouzeaw 9802.
Naduw 1008a.
Nana, Nanh, Nanaw, Nannh, Nannion,
Nanniw, Nannixow, Nannow, Nannv, etc.
Narbaw 1013.
Neterbimow Blmel (KarPN:20).
Nonnh, Nonnow, etc.
Nutar Blmel (KarPN:20).
Nvtrassiw Blmel (KarPN:20).
Oaloalow 11342 (cf. Adiego 1993b).
Oa3a3iw 11458.
Obrokaw Blmel (KarPN:20).
Oletaw 10851.
Oliatow 10852
Olohtow Blmel (KarPN:20).
Opinaw 10962.
Ordomaw 11043.
Oridhumiw Blmel (KarPN:20).
Ortassiw 11142.
O(?sa)rthumow 11143.
Oseaw 1121.
Ouvkhw 1180.
Pagadow 1186.
Paktuhw 1193.
Patkuvlliw Blmel (KarPN:21).
Paktuiskow Blmel (KarPN:21).
Panablhmiw 11973.
Panamuhw 11976.
Panuassiw 1198.
Paow Blmel (KarPN:21).
Papaw, Papiaw, Papow, etc. 1199.
Paparivn 12002.
Paraskvw 12033.
Paraudigow 12035.
Paraussvllow, Paraussvldow,
Parussvldow 12036/8.
Pargistaw 1205.
Parmumiw Blmel (KarPN:22).
Parnow 1207.
Paruv 12122.
Paruinna 12121.
Passidhrow 1219.
Pedvldow 1232.
Pelaow Blmel (KarPN:22).
Peldemiw, Peldemvw
12341.
Peldhkow 12342.
Pel(l)ekvw 12343/4.
Pelkisiw 1235.
Perbilaw 1239.
Perignaw/Petignaw 1241.
Phdisaw 1249.
Pigassvw Blmel (KarPN:22).
Pigrhw 12556.
Pijvdarow 12633.
Pirvmiw 1266.
Pisindhliw 1268.
Pisku[ Blmel (KarPN:23).
Pis.nvw Blmel (KarPN:23).
Pitakolow (not Gitakolow, Zgusta
221!) Blmel (KarPN:23).
Pittaw 12701.
Plouw 12771.
Ponmoonnow Blmel (KarPN:23).
Ponusvllow 1189.
Pormounow Blmel (KarPN:23).
462 .rrrxrix c
Purkeaw/Purkehw
Saggotbhriw Blmel (KarPN:23).
Saggvw 1369.
Samassiw 1361.
Sampaktuhw, Sambaktuw 13641.
Samvow 13671.
Samvuow 13672.
Sanamvw Blmel (KarPN:24).
Sanortow 1371.
Sarow 1377.
Saruassiw Blmel (KarPN:24).
Sarussvllow 13781/2.
Saskow/Saskvw 1381.
Sassvmow 13796.
Saurigow Blmel (KarPN:24).
Sausvllow Blmel (KarPN:24).
Seikilow 1390.
Semeuritow Blmel (KarPN:25).
Senurigow Blmel (KarPN:25).
Seskvw 14101.
Sesvlhw 1411.
Sibilvw 14161.
Siduatow Blmel (KarPN:25).
Sidulhmiw 1422.
Silbow 1426.
Skoaranow Blmel (KarPN:25).
Spareudigow 1466.
Sueskurebow 1477.
S[u]s[k]h[w] (?)Blmel (KarPN:25).
Suskvw 1486.
Svmnhw Blmel (KarPN:25).
Tarmow Blmel (KarPN:25).
Tarv 15152.
Tata, Tatarion, Tataw, Tateiw, Tath,
Tatia, Tatiaw, Tation, etc. 1517.
Tausaw 1520.
Tendessiw 1534.
Territow 1538.
Tiaimow 1533.
Tobororow 1577.
Tounobow 1592.
Totoliw 1598.
Trus(s)hw 1608.
Truvlhw/Truvlow 1609.
Tumnhw/Tumnow 1615.
Uarkelaw Blmel (KarPN:26).
Uyesmaw Blmel (KarPN:26).
Uyhw Blmel (KarPN:26).
Uliatow 1627.
Urgaw Blmel (KarPN:26).
Urgilow Blmel (KarPN:26).
Urgosvw Blmel (KarPN:26).
Ussaldow Blmel (KarPN:26).
Ussaldvmow/Usseldvmow 16294/6.
Ussiw 16291.
Ussisiw 16292.
Ussvihw/Ussviow 16293.
Ussvldow, Ussvllow, Ussvlow
16297/8.
Xasbvw Blmel (KarPN:27).
Xhramuhw (cf. 1639).
Acephalic Forms (Blmel KarPN 2728)
]alvldow
]anvrremow
]ketaw
]kokvw
]ldoudhw
]llv[do]w
]omvliw
]ramow
]rgigougou
]rouessiw
]ruassiw
]teieow
]toldiw
]uassiw
]ujki
]vldow
]vllow
]vrlemiw
c.ni.x x.vrs ix onrrk sotncrs 463
Idumow Tischler (1977:66).
Indos, (var.) Lindow (an erroneus
form?) Tischler (1977:67) cf. KON
375.
Kalbiw Tischler (1977:69).
Kenivw (var. Kinevw) Tischler (1977:78).
Kitvn (var. Keitvn) Tischler
(1977:8081)
Kubersow Tischler (1977:8586), KON
6394).
Maiandrow Tischler (1977:9394), Cf.
KON 752.
Marsuaw Tischler (1977:9697).
Morsunow Tischler (1977:102).
Salmakiw (a source) Tischler (1977:128).
Telmedius(?) Tischler (1977:143144)
Timelhw, Teimelhw Tischler (1977:143,
148). Cf. KON 1338.
Ubando/w/ Tischler (1977:64) Cf. KON
1395.
Imbramow, var. Imbrasow (= Hermes;
St. Byz. s. v. Imbrow, Scholia vetera in
Theogoniam v. 338, and Eustathius,
Commentarii ad Iliadem XIV, 281)
Msariw (= Dyonisus; St. Byz. s. v.
Mstaura)
Osoga (= Zenoposeidon; Strabo XIV,
659, Pausanias VIII; 10, 4).
Ri\rn N.vrs
Gor N.vrs ix Li+rn.nv Sotncrs
Sais
E.Sa 1 MY L
E.Sa 2 MY M
Memphis
E.Me 1 MY A
E.Me 2 MY B
E.Me 3 MY D
E.Me 4 MY E
E.Me 5 MY F
E.Me 6 MY G
E.Me 7 MY H
E.Me 8 MY K
E.Me 9 M 1
E.Me 10 M 2
E.Me 11 M 3
E.Me 12 M 4
E.Me 13 M 5
E.Me 14 M 6
E.Me 15 M 7
E.Me 16 M 8
E.Me 17 M 9
E.Me 18 M 10
E.Me 19 M 11
E.Me 20 M 12
E.Me 21 M 13
E.Me 22 M 14
E.Me 23 M 15
E.Me 24 M 16
E.Me 25 M 17
E.Me 26 M 18
E.Me 27 M 19
E.Me 28 M 20
E.Me 29 M 21
E.Me 30 M 22
E.Me 31 M 23
E.Me 32 M 24
E.Me 33 M 25
E.Me 34 M 26
E.Me 35 M 27
E.Me 36 M 28
E.Me 37 M 29
E.Me 38 M 30
E.Me 39 M 31
E.Me 40 M 32
E.Me 41 M 33
E.Me 42 M 34
E.Me 43 M 35
E.Me 44 M 36
E.Me 45 M 37
E.Me 46 M 38
E.Me 47 M 39
E.Me 48 M 40
E.Me 49 M 41
E.Me 50 M 42
E.Me 51 M 43
E.Me 52 M 44
E.Me 53 M 45
E.Me 54 M 45a
E.Me 55 M 46
E.Me 56 M 47
E.Me 57 M 47a
E.Me 58 M 47b
E.Me 59 M 48
E.Me 60 M 48a
E.Me 61 M 48b
E.Me 62 M 48c
E.Me 63 M 48d
E.Me 64 M 49
E.Me 65 Abusir
E.Me 66 Kammerzell
*180
APPENDIX D
CONCORDANCES
A. Pnrsrx+ nook Fonvrn rri+ioxs
EGYPT
coxconr.xcrs 465
Abydos
E.Ab 1 Ab 1 F
E.Ab 2 Ab 2a F
E.Ab 3 Ab 2b F
E.Ab 4 Ab 3b F
E.Ab 5 Ab 3c F
E.Ab 6 Ab 4 F
E.Ab 7 Ab 5a F
E.Ab 8 Ab 5b F
E.Ab 9 Ab 5c F
E.Ab 10 Ab 6 F
E.Ab 11 Ab 7 F
E.Ab 12 Ab 8a F
E.Ab 13 Ab 8b F
E.Ab 14 Ab 9 F
E.Ab 15 Ab 10 F
E.Ab 16 Ab 11 F
E.Ab 17 Ab 12 F
E.Ab 18 Ab 13a F
E.Ab 19 Ab 13b F
E.Ab 20 Ab 14 F
E.Ab 21 Ab 15 F
E.Ab 22 Ab 16 F
E.Ab 23 Ab 17 F
E.Ab 24 Ab 18 F
E.Ab 25 Ab 19 F
E.Ab 26 Ab 20 F
E.Ab 20 Ab 14 F
E.Ab 21 Ab 15 F
E.Ab 22 Ab 16 F
E.Ab 23 Ab 17 F
E.Ab 27 Ab 21 F
E.Ab 28 Ab 22 F
E.Ab 29 Ab 24 F
E.Ab 30 Ab 25 F
E.Ab 31 Ab 26a F
E.Ab 32 Ab 26b F
E.Ab 33 Ab 27 F
E.Ab 34 Ab 28 F
E.Ab 35 Ab 29 F
E.Ab 36 Ab 8 Y
E.Ab 37 Ab 9 Y
E.Ab 38 Ab 15 Y
E.Ab 39 Ab 26 Y
E.Ab 40 Ab 27 Y
E.Ab 41 Ab 28 Y
E.Ab 42 Ab 29 Y
E.Ab 43 Ab 34 Y
Thebas
E.Th 1 Th 47
E.Th 2 Th 48
E.Th 3 Th 49
E.Th 4 Th 50
E.Th 5 Th 51
E.Th 6 Th 52
E.Th 7 Th 53
E.Th 8 Th 54
E.Th 9 Th 55
E.Th 10 Th 56
E.Th 11 Th 57+58
E.Th 12 Th 59
E.Th 13 Th 60
Luxor
E.Lu 1 G 19
E.Lu 2 G 21
E.Lu 3 G 22
E.Lu 4 G 23
E.Lu 5 G 24
E.Lu 6 G 25
E.Lu 7 G 26
Murww
E.Mu 1 aba (1971), n 196
Silsilis
E.Si 1 Si 39 F
E.Si 2 Si 53 F
E.Si 3 Si 54 F
E.Si 4 Si 55 F
E.Si 5 Si 56 F
E.Si 6 Si 57 F
E.Si 7 Si 58 F
E.Si 8 Si 59 F
E.Si 9 Si 60 F
E.Si 10 Si 61 F
E.Si 11 Si 62 F
Abu Simbel
E.AS 1 AS 1
E.AS 2 AS 2
E.AS 3 AS 3
E.AS 4 AS 4 + Lepsius
Kar 4
E.AS 5 AS 5
466 .rrrxrix r
E.AS 6 AS 6
E.AS 7 AS 7
E.AS 8 AS 8
E.AS 9 Lepsius Kar 2
Buhen
E.Bu 1 M 50
E.Bu 2 M 51
E.Bu 3 M 52
E.Bu 4 M 53
E.Bu 5 M 54
E.Bu 6 M 55
Gebel Sheik Suleiman
E.SS 1 72 F
Unknown origin, likely to be from
Egypt
E.xx 1 MY C
E.xx 2 MY I
E.xx 3 MY a
E.xx 4 MY b
E.xx 5 MY c
E.xx 6 4
E.xx 7 Lion
CARIA
Tralles
C.Tr 1 D 1
C.Tr 2 D 2
Alabanda and surroundings
C.Al 1 D 13
Euromos
C.Eu 1 D 3
C.Eu 2 D 8
Kindye
C.Kn 1 D 6
Hyllarima
C.Hy 1 D 7 +
Adiego-
Debord-
Varinlio<lu 2005
Mylasa
C.My 1 Blmel-Kzl 2004
Sinuri
C.Si 1 D 9
C.Si 2 D 10
Kildara
C.Ki 1 D 11
Stratonikeia
C.St 1 D 12
C.St 2 36*
Halikarnassos
C.Ha 1 33*
Didyma
C.Di 1 21*
Iasos
C.Ia 1 20a*
C.Ia 2 20b*
C.Ia 3 38a*
C.Ia 4 38b*
C.Ia 5 47*
C.Ia 6 48*
C.Ia 7 Berti-Innocente 2005
Keramos
C.Ke 1 39a*
C.Ke 2 39b*
Kaunos
C.Ka 1 D 14
C.Ka 2 D 16
C.Ka 3 28*
C.Ka 4 30*
C.Ka 5 44*
C.Ka 6 45*
coxconr.xcrs 467
C.Ka 7 46*
C.Ka 8 49*
C.Ka 9 50*
Lycia
C.Kr 1 D15
Unknown origin, likely to be from
Caria
C.xx 1 34*
C.xx 2 35*
C.xx 3 40*
C.xx 4 41a*
C.xx 5 41b*
Greece
G.1 D 19
G.2 42*
B. Fonvrn rri+ioxs Pnrsrx+ nook
For the Egyptian inscriptions the order adopted in Meier-Brgger
(1979b) is followed here.
EGYPT
Abu Simbel
(Masson 1979)
AS 1 E.AS 1
AS 2 E.AS 2
AS 3 E.AS 3
AS 4 E.AS 4 (+ Lepsius
Kar 4)
AS 5 E.AS 5
AS 6 E.AS 6
AS 7 E.AS 7
AS 8 E.AS 8
Buhen
(M = Masson 1978)
M 50 E.Bu 1
M 51 E.Bu 2
M 52 E.Bu 3
M 53 E.Bu 4
M 54 E.Bu 5
M 55 E.Bu 6
Gebel Sheik Suleiman
(F = Friedrich 1932)
GSS 72 F E.SS 1
Pharaonic objects
(MY = Masson-Yoyotte 1956)
MY A E.Me 1
MY B E.Me 2
MY C E.xx 1
MY D E.Me 3
MY a E.xx 3
MY b E.xx 4
MY c E.xx 5
MY E E.Me 4
MY F E.Me 5
MY G E.Me 6
MY H E.Me 7
MY I E.xx 2
MY K E.Me 8
MY L E.Sa 1
MY M E.Sa 2
Leningrad Isis
( = evorokin 1965)
4 E.xx 6
Lion
(Masson 1976)
Lion E.xx 7
Memphis-Saqqara
(M = Masson 1978)
M 1 E.Me 9
M 2 E.Me 10
M 3 E.Me 11
M 4 E.Me 12
M 5 E.Me 13
468 .rrrxrix r
M 6 E.Me 14
M 7 E.Me 15
M 8 E.Me 16
M 9 E.Me 17
M 10 E.Me 18
M 11 E.Me 19
M 12 E.Me 20
M 13 E.Me 21
M 14 E.Me 22
M 15 E.Me 23
M 16 E.Me 24
M 17 E.Me 25
M 18 E.Me 26
M 19 E.Me 27
M 20 E.Me 28
M 21 E.Me 29
M 22 E.Me 30
M 23 E.Me 31
M 24 E.Me 32
M 25 E.Me 33
M 26 E.Me 34
M 27 E.Me 35
M 28 E.Me 36
M 29 E.Me 37
M 30 E.Me 38
M 31 E.Me 39
M 32 E.Me 40
M 33 E.Me 41
M 34 E.Me 42
M 35 E.Me 43
M 36 E.Me 44
M 37 E.Me 45
M 38 E.Me 46
M 39 E.Me 47
M 40 E.Me 48
M 41 E.Me 49
M 42 E.Me 50
M 43 E.Me 51
M 44 E.Me 52
M 45 E.Me 53
M 45a E.Me 54
M 46 E.Me 55
M 47 E.Me 56
M 47a E.Me 57
M 47b E.Me 58
M 48 E.Me 59
M 48a E.Me 60
M 48b E.Me 61
M 48c E.Me 62
M 48d E.Me 63
M 49 E.Me 64
Abusir E.Me 65
Kammerzell (1993)
*180 E.Me 66
Silsilis
(F = Friedrich 1932)
Si 39 F E.Si 1
Si 53 F E.Si 2
Si 54 F E.Si 3
Si 55 F E.Si 4
Si 56 F E.Si 5
Si 57 F E.Si 6
Si 58 F E.Si 7
Si 59 F E.Si 8
Si 60 F E.Si 9
Si 61 F E.Si 10
Si 62 F E.Si 11
Thebes
( = evorokin 1965)
Th 47 E.Th 1
Th 48 E.Th 2
Th 49 E.Th 3
Th 50 E.Th 4
Th 51 E.Th 5
Th 52 E.Th 6
Th 53 E.Th 7
Th 54 E.Th 8
Th 55 E.Th 9
Th 56 E.Th 10
Th 5758 E.Th 11
Th 59 E.Th 12
Th 60 E.Th 13
Abydos
(F = Friedrich 1932)
(Y = Yoyotte apud Meier-Brgger
1979)
Ab 1 F E.Ab 1
Ab 2a F E.Ab 2
Ab 2b F E.Ab 3
Ab 3a F excluded
coxconr.xcrs 469
Ab 3b F E.Ab 4
Ab 3c F E.Ab 5
Ab 4 F E.Ab 6
Ab 5a F E.Ab 7
Ab 5b F E.Ab 8
Ab 5c F E.Ab 9
Ab 6 F E.Ab 10
Ab 7 F E.Ab 11
Ab 8a F E.Ab 12
Ab 8b F E.Ab 13
Ab 9 F E.Ab 14
Ab 10 F E.Ab 15
Ab 11 F E.Ab 16
Ab 12 F E.Ab 17
Ab 13a F E.Ab 18
Ab 13b F E.Ab 19
Ab 14 F E.Ab 20
Ab 15 F E.Ab 21
Ab 16 F E.Ab 22
Ab 17 F E.Ab 23
Ab 18 F E.Ab 24
Ab 19 F E.Ab 25
Ab 20 F E.Ab 26
Ab 14 F E.Ab 20
Ab 15 F E.Ab 21
Ab 16 F E.Ab 22
Ab 17 F E.Ab 23
Ab 21 F E.Ab 27
Ab 22 F E.Ab 28
Ab 23 F excluded
Ab 24 F E.Ab 29
Ab 25 F E.Ab 30
Ab 26a F E.Ab 31
Ab 26b F E.Ab 32
Ab 27 F E.Ab 33
Ab 28 F E.Ab 34
Ab 29 F E.Ab 35
Ab 30 F excluded
Ab 8 Y E.Ab 36
Ab 9 Y E.Ab 37
Ab 15 Y E.Ab 38
Ab 26 Y E.Ab 39
Ab 27 Y E.Ab 40
Ab 28 Y E.Ab 41
Ab 29 Y E.Ab 42
Ab 34 Y E.Ab 43
Luxor
(ESS 1998)
G 19 E.Lu 1
G 21 E.Lu 2
G 22 E.Lu 3
G 23 E.Lu 4
G 24 E.Lu 5
G 25 E.Lu 6
G 26 E.Lu 7
Caria and other Locations
D 1 C.Tr 1
D 2 C.Tr 2
D 3 C.Eu 1
D 4 excluded
D 5 excluded
D 6 C.Kn 1
D 7 C.Hy 1
D 8 C.Eu 2
D 9 C.Si 1
D 10 C.Si 2
D 11 C.Ki 1
D 12 C.St 1
D 13 C.Al 1
D 14 C.Ka 1
D 15 C.Kr 1
D 16 C.Ka 2
D 17 excluded
D 18 coin legends
D 19 G.1
20a* C.Ia 1
20b* C.Ia 2
21* C.Di 1
22* excluded
23* excluded
24* excluded
25* excluded
26* excluded
27* excluded
28* C.Ka 3
29* excluded
30* C.Ka 4
31* excluded
32* excluded
33* C.Ha 1
34* C.xx 1
470 .rrrxrix r
35* C.xx 2
36* C.St 2
37* excluded
38a* C.Ia 3
38b* C.Ia 4
39a* C.Ke 1
39b* C.Ke 2
40* C.xx 3
41a* C.xx 4
41b* C.xx 5
42* G.2
43* excluded
44* C.Ka 5
45* C.Ka 6
46* C.Ka 7
47* C.Ia 5
48* C.Ia 6
49* C.Ka 8
50* C.Ka 9
51* excluded
Belli-
Gusmani 2001
[rock inscription
from Labraunda] excluded
Innocente 2002
[tegola di Iasos] excluded
Blmel-
Kzl 2004 C.My 1
Berti-
Innocente 2005 C.Ia 7
Adiego-Debord-
Varinlio<lu 2005 C.Hy 1[+D 7]
The following catalogue aims to include all known coins bearing let-
ters in the Carian script.
1
These coins form an integral part of the writ-
ten record, and, in spite of their small size, they are of great importance,
as they throw light on various aspects of Carian society and its lan-
guage in particular. The material, collected over several years, comes
from a variety of sources.
2
While many coins are without a provenance,
some have been found locally and are today housed near their nd
spots in museums and private collections. This may provide useful infor-
mation for their attribution which in many cases remains a dicult
matter. Our purpose here, however, is to focus on the legends and
questions of attributions are only very briey discussed, especially when
specic studies are available. The catalogue presents rst coins which can
be ascribed to a mint, then coins whose attribution remains uncertain.
Coin legends are obviously related to inscriptions, but there are
signicant dierences between them. Each coin issue was produced in
thousands of specimens, even if today only a handful, in some cases
one or two specimens, are extant. They were struck with dies which
had to be individually engraved in negative. The engraver cut the mir-
ror-like image of the design (type) and the letters on the die which,
when struck on a piece of metal, appeared in positive. Working in neg-
ative could result in confusion in the direction and position of the let-
ters. Carian was inscribed in either direction, though more often from
APPENDIX E
COIN LEGENDS IN CARIAN
Koray Konuk
1
Much of the discussion and many of the attributions presented here and elsewhere
were rst made public in a paper read at the Royal Numismatic Society in January
1996 and entitled Carian Coin Legends (hereafter 1996 RNS paper), of which this
is an extended and updated version. I am very grateful to Professor Ignacio Adiego
for kindly including this appendix in his book and for his useful comments, and to
Richard Ashton for improving my text.
2
For nearly 70 years, Robinson 1939 remained the only comprehensive study of
coin legends in Carian (listing fewer than a dozen examples). Not only has our under-
standing of Carian dramatically increased, but our documentation has also quadrupled.
472 .rrrxrix r
left to right, especially on later inscriptions, and it is not always clear
whether on coins the right-to-left direction was meant or was simply
the result of the engravers confusion. In the description of the obverse
and reverse of each coin, legends are rst transcribed between brack-
ets as they appear on the coin. When needed, questions pertaining to
the direction and reading of the legends are discussed.
One specimen has been cited to illustrate each variety. I have tried
to select the best preserved specimen, which is not necessarily the one
illustrated in standard catalogues. The weight is followed, when known,
by the die-axis. All coins are silver unless otherwise indicated.
I. Mix+s
Mylasa
For detailed discussion and attribution to Mylasa, see Konuk (forth-
coming [a]). The mint of Mylasa was rst suggested in my 1996 RNS
paper and appeared in print in Konuk (1998a:2226) in which the last
two letters of M5 (my) were read as the beginning of the ethnic of
Mylasa in Carian. See also SNG Kayhan, 833840. All silver fractions
are on the Milesian standard.
M1 M
Obv. Forepart of lion left; on its shoulder, O; below, one foreleg left.
Rev. Two rectangular punches applied separately, one of which has
M1 (m).
Lydian (Persic) standard stater; c. 500 B.C.
Weber, 6448 (11.13g) = Naville 14 (1929), 378.
The Lydian-weight lion forepart issues were quite prolic and rank
among the earliest coinages of Caria. Their attribution is debated,
Kaunos and Mylasa have been suggested (for an overview, see
Konuk 2000a:172 and Konuk forthcoming [a]). Several phases
can be observed which span the second half of the sixth century
B.C. M1 comes late in the sequence of minting and is linked to
the issues which have various signs on the shoulder of the lion.
These are not letters but linear devices. M1 (m), engraved in one
of the two rectangular punches, is attested on a few dies and,
although the possibility cannot be entirely ruled out, it does not
coix rrorxrs ix c.ni.x 473
appear to be a random mark. Subsequent issues attributed to
Mylasa carry letters only sporadically (see below), and most of its
early coinage is uninscribed. If M was intended as a Carian let-
ter, it would represent the earliest occurrence of the initial of the
Carian ethnic of Mylasa.
M2 M
Obv. Head of lion left; below, one foreleg left; dotted circle.
Rev. Bird standing left, wings open; below left, M2 (m); all within incuse
square.
Tetartemorion; c. 500450 B.C.
Klein (1999:n
o
499) (0.24g) = Hauck & Aufhuser 18 (2004), 250
= Hirsch 187 (1995), 423.
This issue, of which three specimens are known to me (one is a
probable die duplicate in the Bodrum Museum of Underwater
Archaeology, 12078 [0.24g, 12H], the other is in Oxford,
Ashmolean Museum [0.29g; 12H]; for a similar but anepigraphic
early example, see SNG Kayhan, 939), is to be linked to a sub-
stantial series of Milesian-weight tetartemoria of the same type but
later style (e.g. SNG Kayhan, 940948; many are housed in the
archaeological museums of Mils and Bodrum). These have been
traditionally attributed to Miletos on the basis of the weight stan-
dard and obverse type. This early issue, however, depicts the lion
in a very dierent way. Here, as on the Kayhan specimen, the
lions head has a straightforward posture (as on M1), whereas on
Milesian issues, the lion is depicted as a forepart with its head
turned back and the foreleg reversed. The lions forepart evolved
on later issues and came to be modelled on the Milesian type. In
this case there is no doubt that M2 (m) represents the initial of
the Carian ethnic of Mylasa.
M3 M
Obv. Forepart of roaring lion right, head turned back; below, reversed
foreleg; linear outline of its back between jaws.
Rev. Facing head of a lion with its forelegs on either side, in upper
right corner, M3 (m); all within incuse square.
Tetartemorion; c. 450420 B.C.
Bodrum Museum of Underwater Archaeology, 32691 (0.35g;
07H).
474 .rrrxrix r
Also part of an extensive series, only a handful of inscribed spec-
imens is known. Among these a variety of the same early style
has with a smaller M standing next to the middle of the right
foreleg of the lion (Bodrum Museum of Underwater Archaeology,
10791 [0.45g; 06H]). As on the previous example, M3 (m) stands
for the initial of the Carian ethnic of Mylasa.
M4 m
Obv. As last.
Rev. Young male head (Apollo?) facing; in right eld, M4 (m); all within
shallow round incuse.
Tetartemorion; c. 420390 B.C.
Knker 62 (2001), 129 (0.20g).
A variety features the letter in the left eld (Oxford, Ashmolean
Museum (0.28g; 06H). For later issues, see M9 and M10 below.
M4 is the early phase of a coinage which ends with the tetarte-
moria in the name of the satrap Hekatomnos inscribed EK and
EKA (see below).
M5 V mW
Obv. As last.
Rev. Facing head of a lion with its forelegs on either side; below, M5
(w my); all within incuse square.
Hemiobol; c. 420390 B.C.
SNG von Aulock, 7807 (0.42g) = Troxell (1984:n 1A).
The style of this coin looks later than M3 (same type). M, m and
m are the same letter in the Carian alphabet (m). The next letter
is somewhat problematic. Adiego suggests that W was V in the
alphabet of Mylasa. If that is the case, the occurrence of both let-
ters in the same legend calls for an explanation. Even though the
new inscription found near Mylasa (Krca<z) does not include the
letter W, M5 proves that it was part of the citys alphabet. Two
explanations spring to mind: either these letters are not the same
and therefore have dierent values, or V is not a letter but a tri-
dent as suggested by Troxell (1984:250). When the trident expla-
nation was proposed (Troxell considered mW to be Greek letters),
it seemed the most likely solution, as the Carian letter V was
unknown in that shape (apart from the rare occurrence of V at
Sinuri and Kildara) and no evidence existed at that time that it
coix rrorxrs ix c.ni.x 475
was part of the alphabet of Mylasa. However, tridents are not
normally depicted on coins in such a simple way with mere strokes
(as with a letter): there is usually some ornamentation (arrow-like
tips of the tines, often volutes departing from the base of the shaft)
even when the size is minute. Moreover, the occurrence of and
V on M6M10 below in the same position on the reverse strongly
suggests that V is a letter, for is denitely a Carian letter, even
though it is not attested on the new inscription from Krca<z. I
would be tempted to suggest that is a variant of V, the former
being perhaps an earlier form of the latter. If so, the value of
(w) would represent the same value for V. Finally, what is the
value of W which is also absent from the new inscription? The
suggestion that W and V are the same letters cannot be main-
tained on the basis of M5. Adiego gives W, a rather common let-
ter, the value y. The two letters mW (my) would thus plausibly
represent the rst two letters of the Carian ethnic of Mylasa
(Konuk 1998a:23). For a discussion of V and a possible attribu-
tion to Hyssaldomos, see M9 below.
M6 V
Obv. As last.
Rev. As last but M6 (w); the incuse is round.
Hemiobol; c. 420390 B.C.
Pfeiler (1962:20, 2) = Konuk (1998:223, 130).
M7
Obv. As last.
Rev. As last but M7 (w).
Hemiobol; c. 420390 B.C.
Private collection (0.51g; 09H).
M8
Obv. As last but M8 (w) on lions muzzle.
Rev. As last but anepigraphic.
Hemiobol; c. 420390 B.C.
Muharrem Kayhan collection, MK1231 (0.50g; 03H).
The position of on the lions muzzle reminds one of the Milesian-
type tetrobols, diobols and obols of the Carian satrap Hekatomnos
which have on the lions muzzle the Greek letters EKA, EK and
E respectively. For a possible attribution to Hyssaldomos, see M9.
476 .rrrxrix r
M9
Obv. As last.
Rev. Young male head (Apollo?) facing; in the lower right eld, M9
(w); all within shallow round incuse.
Tetartemorion; c. 420390 B.C.
Private collection (0.23g; 12H).
The letter is sometimes placed just below the facing head (e.g.
New York, ANS, 1980.23.5 [0.22g] = Troxell [1984:n
o
2A], M9
misdiscribed as a trident). These tetartemoria are distinguished by
a dierent reverse type. Tetartemoria of the same types but later
style were struck by Hekatomnos who put the Greek letters EKA
or EK in place of or V. In Konuk 1998a: 2226, I suggested
that and (M5M6 and M10) V (w) might also be the initial of
the name of a Carian dynast preceding Hekatomnos. His fathers
name is Hyssaldomos and an attribution to him is quite likely.
M10 V
Obv. As last.
Rev. Young male head (Apollo?) facing, turned slightly left; in the lower
left eld, M10 (w); all within round incuse.
Tetartemorion; c. 420390 B.C.
New York, ANS, 1983.53.464 (0.23g; 12H)
M11
Obv. As last.
Rev. Male head (Apollo?) right; in the lower left eld, M11 (w); all
within shallow round incuse.
Hemitetartemorion; c. 420390 B.C.
Private collection (0.14g; 10H).
Kasolaba?
For a likely attribution to the mint of Kasolaba, see Konuk (forth-
coming [b]). Given the wide time-span during which these coins were
issued, probably over a century, the legend is bound to refer to an eth-
nic rather than a dynast. M20 and M21 bear three letters: a9o (azo),
which at rst glance are dicult to match with an ethnic. A large num-
ber of these coins occur in the collections of the archaeological muse-
ums of Mils and Bodrum, and several nd spots have been recorded,
which fall in the area between Mylasa and Halikarnassos. By studying
coix rrorxrs ix c.ni.x 477
the Athenian Tribute Lists and the recently discovered inscription from
Sekky, Descat (1994:6668) demonstrates that the city of Kasolaba
ought to be located in that area. The reading azo shows a remarkable
similarity to the Greek ethnic of Kasolaba. The omission of a guttural
initial in the Carian legend should not be surprising since examples of
ethnics like Kyromos / Hyromos / Euromos, Kydai / Hydai and
Kyblissos / Hyblissos in the same district testify that such variations
were frequent. Kasolaba is the Greek transcription of a Carian ethnic
whose native spelling remains uncertain. It has been suggested, how-
ever, that ksolbz (ksolb ) found in an inscription from Egypt (E.Me
43) may have been the genitive form of Kasolaba in Carian. Whether
or not this is the case, the coins suggest that the Carian ethnic started
with azo. It would not be far-fetched to expect that a new Greek inscrip-
tion with the form Hasolaba may one day come to light. All coins are
Milesian-standard hemiobols.
M12 3
6
Obv. Head of ram right.
Rev. Young male head left; to the left, M12 (az); all within incuse
square.
Private collection (0.43g; 09H); c. 450400 B.C.
M12 and M13 show a distinctive archaic style; the deep incuse
square of the reverse also indicates an early issue. The initial let-
ter, a on later issues, takes a rather odd shape on these early
examples.
M13 4
5
Obv. As last.
Rev. Young male head right; to the right, M13 (az); all within incuse
square.
SNG Keckman, 865 (0.29g; 06H) = Troxell (1984:n
o
8); c. 450400 B.C.
M14 3

Obv. As last.
Rev. Young male head right; to the right, M14 (az); all within incuse
square
Hauck & Aufhuser 15 (2000), 206 (0.52g); c. 450400 B.C.
478 .rrrxrix r
The shape of the initial letter establishes a link between the rst
phase of this coinage and the later issues (M15 onwards).
Same types from the next coin onwards unless otherwise indicated:
Obv. Head of ram right.
Rev. Young male head right; on either side, M15 (za); M16 (za); M17
(za); M18 (az); M19 (az); M20 (azo); M21 (azo); all within square
or round incuse.
M15 8 A
Bodrum Museum of Underwater Archaeology, 31985 (0.42g;
01H).
Only the incuse square variety is known. The letter on the right
also has the shape M on a specimen in Oxford, Ashmolean Museum
(0.43g; 12H). There is also a specimen with Q in the Bodrum
Museum of Underwater Archaeology, 91991 (0.51g; 12H).
M16 8 l
Private collection (0.34g; 02H).
This specimen has a round incuse. The letter on the right also
has the shape on a specimen in SNG Keckman, 870 (0.46g; 09H;
a die-duplicate is in the Ashmolean, Oxford).
M17 9 a
Muharrem Kayhan collection, MK 1236 (0.49g; 06H).
The incuse on the Kayhan specimen is square; the round variety
is also attested (e.g. SNG Keckman, 869 [0.46g; 09H]). A variety
with 8 is known (SNG Keckman, 877 [0.39g; 03H]).
M18 a 9
New York, ANS (0.41g; 06H) = Troxell (1984:n
o
9B).
On M18M21, when the shape of the incuse can be determined,
it is circular, and on some very shallow.
M19 a (obv.)
a 9 (rev.)
Obv. Head of ram right; below, M19 (a).
Private collection (0.36g; 10H).
coix rrorxrs ix c.ni.x 479
M20 a 9o
SNG Kayhan, 997 (0.38g; 12H).
M21 a 9o
Obv. Persian hero-king right, in running-kneeling position, holding dag-
ger in the right hand and bow in the left; groundline.
London (BM), CM 19991071 (0.34g; 6H).
Keramos
For the attribution to Keramos, see Konuk (2000), based on the con-
vincing attribution to Keramos by Ashton (1998) of a slightly earlier
coinage of the same types bearing the Greek letters KE.
M22 kBo
Obv. Bull standing right.
Rev. Dolphin leaping right; below, M22 (kbo).
AE chalkous; c. 400 B.C.
Private collection (1.05g; 04H) = Konuk (2000: n
o
2).
An obverse variety of this type has the forepart of the bull (Konuk
2000: n
o
1). M22 (kbo) is the beginning of the Carian ethnic of
Keramos.
M23 _NW (obv.)
luo (rev.)
Obv. Bull standing right; in front, M23 ( jy or kse).
Rev. Dolphin leaping right; underneath, M23 (kbo).
AE chalkous; c. 400 B.C.
SNG Kayhan, 804 (0.91g; 09H) = Konuk (2003:n
o
74) = Konuk
(2000:n
o
5).
The reverse legend of M23 is upside-down. In the present form,
the letters resemble a Greek delta, an upsilon and an omicron.
The most likely explanation is a mistake made by a Greek die-
cutter who, working in negative on the die, was led into error by
his mother-tongue. The variety with the obverse legend (which
might be Greek) appears to fall at the end of the series after which
Carian legend chalkoi were superseded by Greek legend chalkoi.
480 .rrrxrix r
Kaunos
For a detailed discussion of this coinage, see Konuk (1998b). The denite
attribution to Kaunos was rst presented in my 1996 RNS paper. It
was based on the reading of the coin legends with the new values given
to the Carian script. The initial of the ethnic on M24 and M25 (k)
and the subsequent legends (M26M28) giving a second letter (b),
resulted in kb which is the beginning of the native name of Kaunos:
Kbid-, known from the Lycian version of the trilingual inscription of
the Leton. In summer 1997, the discovery of a bilingual inscription
in Kaunos (C.Ka 5) gave for the rst time the ethnic of Kaunos in
Carian and the rst two letters on the new inscription were the same
as on the coin legends.
The earliest coinage of Kaunos is anepigraphic and spans the period
c. 490450 B.C. M24 (k), the rst occurrence of the beginning of the
Carian ethnic of Kaunos, appears towards the middle of the fth cen-
tury B.C. The use of Carian ends with the chalkoi in c. 370 B.C.; these
are followed by chalkoi bearing the rst three letters the ethnic of
Kaunos in Greek.
The following coins are Aeginetic standard staters unless otherwise
indicated.
M24 k
Obv. Female deity (Iris?) with curved wings and outstretched hands
ying left, looking right; holding a kerykeion in right hand and a
wreath in left.
Rev. Granulated patterns on either side of triangular baetyl; above left,
M24 (k); all within incuse square.
Paris, BN, 703 (11.76g; 09H) = Konuk (1998b:n
o
90a) (c. 450430
B.C.).
Variants with the granulated patterns in the shape of stylised birds
(Konuk 1998b:n
o
95 [c. 430410 B.C.]) or bunches of grapes are
known (Konuk 1998b:n
o
96 [c. 430410 B.C.]).
M25 k
n
Obv. As last.
Rev. Bunch of grapes on either side of triangular baetyl with M25 (n)
in its centre; above left, M25 (k); all within incuse square.
coix rrorxrs ix c.ni.x 481
London, BM (11.27g; 12H) = Konuk (1998b:n
o
99bisx) (c. 430410
B.C.).
n (n) is added to a die in whose original state the baetyl was
anepigraphic.
M26 k 5
Obv. As last.
Rev. M26 (kb) anking triangular baetyl; all within incuse square.
Sotheby 27 Oct. 1993 (Zrich), 694 (11.57g) = (Konuk 1998b:n
o
100h) (c. 410390 B.C.).
Variants with the granulated patterns in the shape of stylised birds
(Konuk 1998b:n
o
95 [c. 430410 B.C.]) or bunches of grapes are
known (Konuk 1998b:n
o
96 [c. 430410 B.C.]).
M27 k 5
J
Obv. As last.
Rev. M27 (kb J ) anking triangular baetyl; all within incuse square.
Lanz 38 (1984), 272 (11.56g; 07H) = Konuk (1998b:n
o
110c)
(c. 410390 B.C.).
It is uncertain whether the third and nal sign ( J ) is an actual let-
ter. The use of this sign as a letter is not attested in Carian inscrip-
tions where it is sometimes used as a dividing stroke. There is
however another coin legend (M33) which includes the same sign.
As with M33, its nal position in the legend raises the possibility
that it was used as a letter and not as a separation mark. For
further discussion, see M33 below.
M28 k 5
Obv. Head of Apollo three-quarter facing right or left, with on some
dies, chlamys fastened at neck.
Rev. M28 (kb) anking sphinx seated left.
AE chalkous.
Knker 61 (2001), 67 (1,27g); Konuk (1998b:n
o
118) (c. 390370
B.C.).
M29M30 have been tentatively attributed to Kaunos: see Ashton
(2003:3940).
482 .rrrxrix r
M29 k
Obv. Bunch of grapes.
Rev. M29 (k) within circle of dots.
1/16th (?) Aeginetic stater; c. 400350 B.C.
Terzian collection (0.48g; 02H) = Ashton (2003:39, 1).
M30 k
Obv. Corngrain within circle of dots.
Rev. M30 (k) within circle of dots.
1/32nd Aeginetic stater; c. 400350 B.C.
Ashton collection (0.35g; 02H) = Ashton (2003:39, 2b).
Telmessos
M31 i F
Obv. Head of Athena left in Attic helmet; in front, linear device l;
dotted circle.
Rev. Heracles ghting left with club, left foot placed on rock; along
the right edge, erbbinna in Lycian characters; on either side of
Herakles, M31 (i t) all in incuse square with dotted border.
Light Lycian standard stater; c. 420 B.C.
Munich, Staatliche Mnzsammlung (7.87g) = Babelon 1910:n
385.
This stater of the Lycian dynast Erbbina, part of his regular issues
from Telmessos, is the only example to bear a legend in Carian.
Various readings based on the changing values given through the
years to the letters have been proposed (er, ir, i and nally it).
New evidence from the bilingual inscription from Kaunos has led
Adiego (1998b:5860) and Meier-Brgger (1998:45) to give F the
value t. They wonder whether i might not stand for the initial of
Erbbina in Carian and t for the initial of Telmessos (Telebehi in
Lycian). But the legend may also be transliterated as ti and stand
for the rst two letters of the same ethnic.
coix rrorxrs ix c.ni.x 483
II. Uxcrn+.ix Mix+s
Mint A
M32 c
Bg
Obv. Naked male gure, with wings at shoulder and heel, in the kneel-
ing-running position advancing left, head and legs left, trunk frontal,
left arm raised and right arm lowered; groundline.
Rev. Bull standing right; above and below, in two lines, M32 (dta /
ibr); all within incuse square.
Aeginetic standard stater; c. 450400 B.C.
London, BM, CM 193406114 (11.62g; 09H).
For a detailed discussion of M32, see Konuk forthcoming (c). Only
one specimen of this type is known and, according to Robinson
(1939:270), was reportedly obtained near Fethiye (Telmessos). The
orientation of letters suggests a reading from right to left. The last
letter, partly erased, is () rather than z (), even though the
latter is a more common ending used for indicating the genitive
form. The transliteration should thus be atd / rbi. As an inde-
pendent word, rbi shows a striking similarity with Erbbina, the
Lycian dynast who minted at Telmessos c. 420400 B.C. (see pre-
vious coin).
Mint B
All the following coins are Aeginetic standard staters unless otherwise
indicated.
M33 J P sN
Obv. Naked male gure, with wings at shoulder and heel, in kneeling-
running position advancing left, head and legs left, right arm raised
and left arm lowered; above right wing, {; dotted groundline.
Rev. Lion standing left with head turned back; above its back, { divid-
ing M33 (J
?
psg); dotted groundline; all within incuse square.
London, BM (11.68g; 09H) = Robinson (1936:pl. 14, 8); c. 450
B.C.
484 .rrrxrix r
There is an obverse variant with the winged male gure advanc-
ing right (Robinson 1936: n
o
11). I consider { to be a linear
device, perhaps even an object rather than a monogram of the
letters Uo or z. On some contemporary issues from a dierent
mint (Troxell 1979:pl. 31, 35), { is depicted much like an object
decorated with dots. J is omitted on the following examples, sug-
gesting that it is the last sign of the legend which, therefore, is
read from right to left (gsp J
?
). The meaning of the last sign ( J ) is
problematic. Its sole function on Carian inscriptions is to separate
words, and it is never used as a letter. The two other legends in
which J appears are M36M37 and M27. In the case of M36M37,
our sign may well have served its normal function of separating
words, but for M27, this explanation can hardly be valid since it
is the last sign of the legend, as it is in the present example. For
M27 it is tempting to consider J as the equivalent of a Greek iota
because this is the very sound which comes after kb (for kbid ),
although it must be admitted that I is used as the third letter of
kbi in the bilingual inscription from Kaunos. To sum up, M27
and M33 compel us to accept J as a letter even though its absence
as a letter from inscriptions remains puzzling. As the sign J only
appears on coin legends, it may well be a direct inuence of coin
engravers being more familiar with engraving Greek legends (see
also M23). It is worth noting here that the letter P was known
solely on coins until 2004, when a new inscription found at
Hyllarima revealed for the rst time the letter B on an inscription
from Caria, albeit with a dierent value.
M34 s0
Obv. Naked male gure, with wings at shoulder and heel, in kneeling-
running position advancing right, head and legs right, left arm
raised and right arm lowered; above left wing,
{
; groundline.
Rev. Lion standing left with head turned back, right forepaw raised;
above its back, M34 ( psg); underneath legend, small {; dotted
groundline; all within incuse square.
Paris, BN (11.64g; 11H); c. 450 B.C.
The more angular shape of is further conrmation that this let-
ter is a variant of p with a 90 rotation. There is a reverse vari-
ant which shows the lion with both forepaws standing on the
goundline (Robinson 1936:4, 9ter).
coix rrorxrs ix c.ni.x 485
M35 s0
P
Obv. Naked male gure, with wings at shoulder and heel, in kneeling-
running position advancing right, head and legs right, left arm
raised and right arm lowered; above left wing,
{
; groundline.
Rev. Lion standing left with head turned back, right forepaw raised;
above its back, { and M35 (sg / p) whose third letter is in the
lower left corner; all within incuse square with dotted frame.
New York, ANS, 67.152.457 (11.78g; 09H); c. 450 B.C.
M36 ? s N_ J s?d
Obv. Naked male gure, with wings at shoulder and heel, in the kneeling-
running position advancing right, head and legs right, trunk frontal,
left arm raised and right arm lowered; above left wing, {; dotted
groundline.
Rev. Lion standing left with head turned back, right forepaw raised;
above its back, { dividing M36 (bsj|sbd); all within incuse square
with dotted frame.
Paris, BN (11.72g; 12H); c. 450 B.C.
There is an obverse variety with the male gure advancing left
(Robinson 1936:pl. 14, 16). M36 links the old winged male / lion
type to the new issues with lion forepart / male head type with
a dierent legend. The right-to-left direction proposed for previ-
ous coins is also suggested for this coin by the orientation of the
two instances of ?; hence M36 should be transliterated as dbs|jsb.
The orientation of d does not help much since it is inconsistent
between M36 and M37.
M37 Hs J N_sH
Obv. Forepart of lion right, jaws open; both forelegs visible.
Rev. M37 (dbs|jsb) vertically in front of wreathed male head left; behind
neck, {; all within incuse square.
Stater: New York, ANS, 63.35.1 (11.18g; 07H); triobol: SNG Kayhan,
979 (2.93g; 11H); obol or corroded diobol?: Peus 212 (2000), 276
(1.29g). c. 430400 B.C.
On the New York stater, rst published by Thompson (1966:8),
the rst and penultimate letters are clearly H, not (as on M36) ?.
All recorded triobols are die-duplicates and feature H as the rst
letter and ? as the penultimate. M37 must of course be the same
486 .rrrxrix r
legend as M36. Perhaps the coin engraver was confused by the
orientation of these letters and turned ? into H, which would make
it readable in both directions, although it remains puzzling that
? was not rendered { to be consistent with M36. For a similar
confusion, see M23 above.
Mint C
M38 7
Obv. Head of lion three-quarter facing left, within linear circle.
Rev. Head of bull left; behind neck truncation, M38 (z or symbol); all
within round incuse.
Milesian standard hemiobol; c. 400350 B.C.
Muharrem Kayhan collection (0.42g; 10H).
It is uncertain whether the sign on the bulls neck is a character
or a symbol (linear device), because a variety of the same series
(Hirsch 221 [2002], 267; another specimen from dierent dies:
Hirsch 226 [2003], 1421) carries another sign (h) which is clearly
a linear device of a type encountered on other non-Carian issues
(e.g. SNG Kayhan, 744). There is also a variety of M38 without
any letter or symbol (SNG Kayhan, 990).
put
1 L
M39 z
Obv. Head of lion three-quarter facing left, within linear circle.
Rev. Head of bull three-quarter facing left; above, put ( put); behind
neck truncation, L (); below, z ( ); on the neck, 1 (z or sym-
bol); all within shallow round incuse.
Milesian standard hemiobol; c. 400350 B.C.
Muharrem Kayhan collection (0.49g; 03H).
All known specimens of M39 are o-an and lack the letter on
the right edge of the coin (e.g. SNG Keckman, 862; Klein 1999:
n 503). The Kayhan specimen is the only one known to me with
a full legend. The direction of the legend follows the shape of the
coin: put. The last letter ( ) is used in Carian to indicate the
genitive form. We may interpret the legend as (the coin of ) putl,
most probably the name of a local dynast. The reverse is at
coix rrorxrs ix c.ni.x 487
without any trace of an incuse; this would place M39 after M38
in the sequence of issues.
Mint D
Types as follows unless otherwise indicated.
Obv. Forepart of bull left.
Rev. Forepart of bull left; below its head, M40 ( p); M41 (s); M42 (db);
M43 (); M44 (); all within incuse square.
All coins are Milesian standard diobols, apart from M46 which
is a Milesian standard obol.
M40 p
Paris, BN, fonds gnral 3292 (2.14g) = Babelon (1910:n
o
1789
[listed under Samos]), pl. CL, 12 = Troxell 1984:n
o
12A.
M41 s
Hirsch 55 (1967), 2175 (2.19g) = Cancio (1989:83).
M42 }_
Cahn 60 (1928), 858 (2.01g) = Troxell (1984:256, 12B).
_ is another example of a Carian letter used on a coin which is
otherwise only attested in inscriptions from Egypt (see above, M32).
The orientation of letters suggests a right-to-left reading which
would give the transcription bd.
M43 x
Private collection (2.16g; 12H).
The style of M43 is later than the preceding examples.
M44 X
Obv. Confronted foreparts of two bulls, their horns crossed.
Rev. As last, M44 ().
SNG Kayhan, 958 (2.10g; 12H).
488 .rrrxrix r
M45 ux
Obv. As last, but later style; heads of bulls three-quarter facing, horns
not crossed.
Rev. Forepart of bull left; above its head, M45 (u ); all within incuse
square.
London, BM (2.12g; 08H) = Six (1890:239, 42; pl. 17, 9).
The transcription u is conrmed by M43 and M44 where is
the initial. The variety with the two bull foreparts was a prolic
coinage, especially in its early phase which is anepigraphic and
features the bull foreparts in prole with their horns crossed as if
the letter x was meant. Since other letters are attested (see above),
it is uncertain whether X, x or ux should be regarded as the
rst letters of an ethnic. But if the letter x can be construed from
the crossed horns, a Carian ethnic beginning with and u such
as Kydai / Hydai and Kyblissos / Hyblissos is an attractive pos-
sibility; see Konuk (2003:n 69).
M46 ^
Obv. Forepart of bull left.
Rev. Head of bull left; below, M46; all within incuse square.
Milesian standard obol.
SNG Kayhan, 974 (1.14g; 03H).
It is uncertain whether ^ is a character or a linear device (sym-
bol). It is otherwise unknown.
Mint E
M47
Obv. Bearded head right.
Rev. Forepart of bull left; on its shoulder, M47 ( y); all within incuse
square.
Private collection (1.24g; 12H); c. 400 B.C.
M48 !
Obv. As last.
Rev. Forepart of bull left; in lower left corner, M48 ( y); all within
incuse square.
Paris, BN (1.59g; 12H) = Babelon (1910:n 2494); c. 400 B.C.
coix rrorxrs ix c.ni.x 489
M49
Obv. Male head right; wreathed?
Rev. Forepart of bull left; on its neck, M49 ( y).
Berlin, Staatliche MuseenMnzkabinett, gift T. Wiegand 1354/
1931 (1.10g; 04H); c. 400 B.C.
Winzers attribution of this series to the mint of Mylasa under
Hekatomnos by interpreting M48 and M49 as the Greek initial
of his name and taking the bearded head on the obverse as his
portrait is speculative (Winzer 2005:13.1). The dierent orienta-
tions of the letter, especially M47, suggest Carian and not Greek.
There is also an early variety with the same type without letter
(private collection, 0.68g; 09H). The length of time needed for
the stylistic change from the early issue to M49 suggests a civic
coinage rather than a dynastic.
Mint F
M50 oul or luo
Obv. Forepart of lion right, head turned back; to the right, M50 (oul
or luo).
Rev. Square punch mark.
Aeginetic standard stater; c. 500 B.C.
Paris, BN (11.71g).
The legend on this series has been long regarded as Greek. It has
usually been read as ouB (BMC Ionia, xxxiv) or oBu (Six 1890:
223). The former reading prompted an attribution to a dynast of
Miletos, the latter to the town of Olymos in Caria. Either read-
ing depends upon whether the legend is meant to be read from
the inside or the outside. As Head rightly points out in BMC Ionia,
a reading from the outside is extremely rare on archaic coins,
which undermines Sixs attribution to Olymos. However, Heads
attribution to a dynast of Miletos is no longer satisfactory in view
of the recorded provenances which clearly point to a mint fur-
ther south in Caria. In my 1996 RNS paper, I suggested that the
legend should be regarded as Carian. The occurrence of this series
in early hoards such as the Santorini nd (IGCH 7) points to a
date of c. 500 B.C. When Carian staters of Aeginetic standard
bear a legend in the fth century B.C., it is usually in the Carian
490 .rrrxrix r
script. My reading of the third letter (the lowest on the coin) is
l, not B; the horizontal stroke, even though a little erased, being
clearly visible. We would thus have oul for oul. This conclusion
has also been reached by I{k (2003:124126) who proposes the
same reading. oul may be linked to personal names like Ouliades
(Herodotos 5, 37 mentions one Oliatos ruler of Mylasa, c. 500 B.C.)
or Oulios. When the legend is read from the outside, there is a puz-
zling similarity with M22 and M23 which give the beginning of the
ethnic of Keramos in Carian. At this stage, an attribution to Keramos
would be premature, but this may change with future nds. One
should not exclude, however, a retrograde reading which is rather
common on early Carian coins. We would have luo (luo).
Mint G
M51 orou
Obv. Forepart of winged human-headed bull right.
Rev. Female head right; behind, M51 (orou); all within incuse square
with dotted frame.
Aeginetic standard hemidrachm (triobol) and trihemiobol; c. 450400
B.C.
Oxford, Ashmolean Museum (2.87g; 06H); trihemiobol: private
collection (1.25g).
M52 orou
Obv. Sphinx seated right.
Rev. Female head right; behind, M52 (orou); all within incuse square
with dotted frame.
Aeginetic standard; obol; c. 450400 B.C.
For a detailed discussion of Mint G, see Konuk (forthcoming [d]).
The legends of M51 and M52 are usually regarded as Lycian and
are attributed to a dynast by the name of Uvug or Uwug. A
Lycian origin, however, is far from certain. First, the weight stan-
dard is clearly Aeginetic with half staters (same type as M51 but
anepigraphic) weighing c. 5.80g. That standard was quite wide-
spread among Carian mints active in the fth century B.C. Lycia,
on the other hand, had its own weight systems and is not known
to have ever used the Aeginetic standard. Another argument against
a Lycian origin is the obverse type of a winged human-headed
bull, a very unusual iconography for Lycia. On the other hand,
Oxford, Ashmolean Museum (1.00g; 06H).
coix rrorxrs ix c.ni.x 491
the depiction of the sphinx on M52 is very close to that of the
contemporary coins of Kaunos, see Konuk (1998b:119). The style
and the particular care given to the striking are also features not
typical of Lycian mints. A further important piece of evidence to
support a Carian origin is the occurrence of several of the half
staters (mentioned above) in an unpublished hoard from Caria
dating to the middle of the fth century B.C. which included a
variety of Carian coins (e.g. from Kaunos, Knidos, uncertain mints).
Coins of Caria and Lycia did not usually circulate together and
it is no surprise therefore that not a single coin from Lycia is
reported in the hoard. All in all, the cumulative weight of evi-
dence points to a mint in Caria, orou being the name of a Carian
dynast of the second half of the fth century B.C.
Mint H
M53 i
Obv. Persian hero-king right, in kneeling-running position, holding
transverse spear and bow.
Rev. Ships prow left; on its rail, M53 (i ).
AV Persian daric, c. 450400 B.C.
Paris, BN, collection de Luynes (8.25g) = Six (1890:pl. 17, 13) =
Babelon (1910:pl. 97, 24).
For a brief discussion of this unique daric, see Konuk (2000a:179).
The tentative attribution to Salmakis near Halikarnassos, rst sug-
gested by Six and followed by myself, appears now to be unfounded.
It was based on an incorrect association with bronze coins which
turned out to be from the Cypriot mint of Salamis. According to
the typology established for darics and sigloi, the Persian hero-
king holding spear and bow is type IIIb which ends c. 400 B.C.
Mint I
M54
M54
Obv. Boar advancing left; above, M54; double groundline; dotted border.
Rev. Triskeles ending with ducks heads; oral ornament growing from
central ring; around, kuprlli in Lycian; all within dotted border
incuse square.
Lydian (Persic) standard stater; c. 450 B.C.
Paris, BN (10.85g) = Babelon (1910:n
o
253).
The reverse legend is clearly Lycian and names the dynast Kuprlli
as the issuer. The ve-character legend of the obverse is, on the
other hand, quite problematic. It has been variously transcribed
but a better preserved specimen from the same pair of dies (SNG
von Aulock, 4156; 10.70g) has allowed some precision in the read-
ing of the legend. The right-to-left direction is suggested by the
orientation of the letters. Mrkholm-Neumann (1978:n
o
M 301a)
described the obverse as Carian with a question mark, while oth-
ers have not hesitated in recognising Carian: e.g. Durnford (1991)
(his reading of M54 as the Carian ethnic of Xanthos is no longer
tenable as some of the letter values he used are not accepted
today), Cau (1999). The only other instance of Carian being used
on a Lycian issue is M31 listed above. On close examination the
rst character cannot be o as previously thought but is probably
d (g) a character form already encountered on some varieties of
M33. The second letter S may be as seen on the alphabet of
Hyllarima. The letter _ is not attested in the Carian alphabet, but
it may be a form of g (r). the letter K is quite dicult to inter-
pret; it may be a form of k (k) or l (l )? The last letter may be
(a). All in all, there are far too many uncertainties over M54
to even describe it as Carian, and at this stage, I prefer not to
speculate on the various ways of transcribing it. The weight stan-
dard appears to be Lydian (Persic), which has as its stater a dou-
ble siglos weighing slightly less than 11.00g. This is exceptional
for Kuprlli and Lycian mints in general which struck coins in
their own local standards. The decision to use the Lydian stan-
dard may well have something to do with the obverse legend.
492 .rrrxrix r
ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Annnr\i.+ioxs
ABSA = The Annual of the Britisch School at Athens.
AArch = Acta Archeologica
Acta Ant. Hung. = Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae.
AC = LAntiquit Classique.
AfO = Archiv fr Orientforschung.
ANSMN = American Numismatic Society Museum Notes.
ArOr = Archiv Orientln.
ASBW = Archiv fr Schreib- und Buchwesen.
ASNP = Annali della Scuola Superiore Normale di Pisa.
BB = Beitrge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen.
BCH = Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique.
BiOr = Bibliotheca Orientalis.
BMC Caria = B. V. Head, Catalogue of the Greek Coins in The British Museum, Greek Coins
of Caria, Cos, Rhodes, & c., London, 1897.
BMC Ionia = B. V. Head, Catalogue of the Greek Coins in The British Museum, Greek Coins
of Ionia, London, 1892.
BSL = Bulletin de la Socit Linguistique de Paris.
BzN = Beitrge zur Namenforschung.
Cahn = Adolph E. Cahn, Frankfurt a. M.
CFC = Cuadernos de Filologa Clsica.
CNG = Classical Numismatic Group, Lancaster, Pa (USA)London (UK).
Colloquium Caricum = W. Blmel P. Frei C. Marek (eds.), Colloquium Caricum. Akten
der internationalen Tagung ber die karisch-griechische Bilingue von Kaunos 31.101.11.1997
in Feusisberg bei Zrich = Kadmos 37 (1998).
Decifrazione del cario = M. E. Giannotta et alii (eds.), La decifrazione del cario, Roma, 1994.
Eothen = F. Imparati (ed.), Eothen. Studi di storia e di lologia anatolica dedicati a Giovanni
Pugliese Carratelli, Firenze, 1988.
EpAnat = Epigraphica Anatolica. Zeitschrift fr Epigraphik und historische Geographie Anatoliens.
Fs. Bloesch = Zur griechischen Kunst. Hansjrg Bloesch zum 60. Geburtstag am 5. Juli 1972,
Bern, 1973.
Fs. Friedrich = R. von Kienle et alii (eds.), Festschrift Johannes Friedrich zum 65. Geburtstag
am 27. August 1958 gewidmet, Heidelberg, 1959.
Fs. Grumach = W. Brice (ed.), Europa: Studien zur Geschichte und Epigraphik der frhen Agais.
Festschrift fr Ernst Grumach, Berlin, 1968.
Fs. Neumann I = J. Tischler (ed.), Serta Indogermanica. Festschrift G. Neumann, Innsbruck,
1982.
Fs. Neumann II = M. Fritz S. Zeilfelder (eds.), Novalis Indogermanica. Festschrift fr
G. Neumann zum 80. Geburtstag, Graz, 2002.
zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet, Innsbruck, 1986.
Gs. Kretschmer = H. Kronasser (ed.), MNHMHS XARIN. Gedenkschrift Paul Kretschmer, Wien,
19561957 (III).
Hauck & Aufhuser = Hauck & Aufhuser Privatbankiers, Munich.
AGI = Archivio Glottologico Italiano.
Demotisches Namenbuch
Fs. Oberhuber = W. Meid H. Trenkwalder (eds.), Im Bannkreis des Alten Orients, K. Oberhuber
DNb = E. Lddeckens H. J. Thissen (eds.), , Wiesbaden, 1980.
494 .nnnr\i.+ioxs .xr ninrioon.rnv
Hirsch = Mnzhandlung Gerhard Hirsch Nachfolger, Munich.
HS = Historische Sprachforschung.
IF = Indogermanische Forschungen.
IGCH = M. Thompson O. Mrkholm C. M. Kraay (eds.), An Inventory of Greek
Coin Hoards, New York, 1973.
InL = Incontri Linguistici.
IstMitt = Istanbuler Mitteilungen.
JAOS = Journal of the American Oriental Society.
JCS = Journal of Cuneiform Studies.
JEA = Journal of Egyptian Archaeology.
JHS = Journal of Hellenic Studies.
KarON see Blmel (1998a).
KarPN see Blmel (1992).
KlF = Kleinasiatische Forschungen, Weimar, 19271930.
KON see Zgusta (1984).
KPN see Zgusta (1964).
Knker = Fritz Rudolph Knker Mnzenhandlung, Osnabrck.
KZ = Zeitschrift fr vergleichende Sprachforschung.
Lanz = Numismatik Lanz, Munich.
LNH see Laroche (1966).
MH = Museum Helveticum.
MM = Mnzen und Medaillen AG, Basel.
MSS = Mnchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft.
Naville = Naville & Ars Classica, Lucerne.
NC = Numismatic Chronicle.
NDH see Laroche (1947).
OLZ = Orientalische Literaturzeitung.
Or = Orientalia. Commentarii periodici Ponticii Instituti Biblici Nova Series.
Jh = Jahreshefte des sterreichischen Archologischen Institutes.
Peus = Dr. Busso Peus Nachf., Mnzhandlung, Frankfurt a. M.
PP = Parola del Passato.
PSBA = Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology.
RALinc = Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rendiconti della Classe di Scienze morali,
storiche e lologiche, Serie VIII.
RE = Paulys Real-Encyclopdie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft: neue Bearbeitung unter
Mitwirkung zahlreicher Fachgenossen; herausgegeben von Georg Wissowa, Stuttgart, 18941963.
REA = Revue des tudes Anciennes.
REG = Revue des tudes Grecques.
RHA = Revue Hittite et Asianique.
RPh = Revue de Philologie.
SEAP = Studi di Eggitologia e di Antichit Puniche.
SM = Schweizer Mnzbltter.
SMEA = Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici.
SNG Kayhan = Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Turkey 1, The Muharrem Kayhan Collection,
Istanbul-Bordeaux, 2002.
SNG Keckman = Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Finland, The Erkki Keckman Collection in the
Skopbank, Helsinki, part I Karia, Helsinki, 1994.
SNG von Aulock = Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Deutschland: Sammlung von Aulock, 18 fasci-
cules, Berlin 19571981.
TA1 see Laroche (1957).
TA2 see Laroche (1961).
TSBA = Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology.
VJa = Voprosy Jazykoznanija.
Weber = L. Forrer, Descriptive Catalogue of the Collection of Greek Coins formed by Sir Hermann
Weber M.D., vol. 3, London, 1929.
.nnnr\i.+ioxs .xr ninrioon.rnv 495
WO = Die Welt des Orients: wissenschaftliche Beitrge zur Kunde des Morgenlandes.
ZDMG = Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlndischen Gesellschaft.
ZPE = Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik.
Binrioon.rnv
(1990a) Deux notes sur la langue et lcriture cariennes, Kadmos 29, 133138.
(1990b) Studia Carica. Investigaciones sobre la escritura y lengua carias, y su relacin con la familia
lingstica anataolia indoeuropea, Doctoral dissertation, Barcelona. (published as microlm).
(1992a) Recherches cariennes: essai damlioration du systme de J. D. Ray, Kadmos
31, 2539.
Senmart (eds.), Homenatge a Josep Alsina. Actes del X

Simposi dEstudis Clssics, Tarragona

2830 de novembre del 1990, I, Tarragona, 5154.
(1993a) Studia Carica. Investigaciones sobre la escritura y lengua carias, Barcelona.
(1993b) Sobre OALOALON SGDI 5727.d30, Kadmos 32 (1993), 173174.
(1994a) Les identications onomastiques dans le dchirement du carien, Decifrazione
del cario, 2763, Considerazioni conclusive, ibid. 239240.
(1994b) El nombre cario Hecatomno, CFC (Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos) n. s. 4,
247256.
(1994c) Genitiu singular en lici i protoluvi, Anuari de Filologia. Studia Graeca et Latina
17, 1133.
(1995) Contribuciones al desciframiento del cario, Kadmos 34, 1834.
(1996) Comentarios a la nueva lectura de la inscripcin caria 28*, Kadmos 35, 160163.
(1998a) La nueva bilinge greco-caria de Cauno y el desciframiento del cario, Aula
Orientalis 16 (1998), 526.
(1998b) Die neue Bilingue von Kaunos und das Problem des karischen Alphabets,
Colloquium Caricum, 5779.
(2000) La inscripcin greco-caria de los Hecatmnidas en el santuario de Sinuri,
Kadmos 39, 133157.
(2002) Cario de Cauno punoO, Aula Orientalis 20, 1320.
S. Torallas Tovar E. R. Lujn M. . Gallego (eds.), Lenguas en contacto: El testi-
monio escrito, Madrid, 299320.
Adiego, I.-J. Debord, P. Varinlio<lu, E.
(2005) La stle caro-grecque dHyllarima, REA 107 n 2, 601653.
Ashton, R.
NC 158, 4649.
(2003) (vi) Kaunian Notes, in: R. Ashton P. Kinns, Opuscula Anatolica II, NC
Avishur, Y. Heltzer, M.
(2003) Carians as skilled masons in Israel and mercenaries in Judah in the early I
millennium B.C.E., Kadmos 42, 8790.
Babelon, E.
(1910) Trait des monnaies grecques et romaines. Deuxime partie, description historique, t. 2, Paris.
Bean, G. F.
(1953) Notes and inscriptions from Caunus, JHS 73, 1035.
(1954) Notes and inscriptions from Caunus (continued), JHS 74, 85110.
163, 3640.
Adiego, I.-J.
(1992b) Glosses i pseudoglosses cries en fonts gregues, in: J. Zaragoza A. Gonzlez
(2005) La nueva inscripcin caria de Milasa, Kadmos 44, 8194.
(2004) Los alfabetos epicricos anhelnicos de Asia Menor, in: P. Bdenas de la Pea
(1998) Keramos, in: R. Ashton et alii., Some Greek Coins in the British Museum,
496 .nnnr\i.+ioxs .xr ninrioon.rnv
Belli, P. Gusmani, R.
(2001) Una nuova iscrizione rupestre presso il Santuario di Labraunda in Caria, PP
56, 3341.
Bengston, H.
(195455) Skylax von Karyanda und Herakleides von Mylasa, Historia 3, 302305.
Benveniste, E.
(1931) Noms cariens, RHA I. 2, 5257.
Bernand, A. Aly, A.
(1959?) Abou-Simbel, inscriptions grecques, cariennes et smitiques des statues de la faade, Le
Caire, Centre de documentation gyptologique, Collection scientique.
Bernand, A. Masson, O.
(1957) Les inscriptions grecques dAbu Simbel, REG 70, 146.
Berti, F. Innocente, L.
(1998) Due nuovi grati in alfabeto cario da Iasos, Colloquium Caricum, 137142.
(2005) Grato cario su piede di coppa attica, Bollettino dellAssociazione Iasos di Caria,
11, 2021.
Bertoldi, V.
(1948) Souangela, Tomba del Re, PP 3, 511.
Blmel, W.
KarON: see (1998a).
KarPN: see (1992).
Toplants, Ankara 2327 Mays 1988, 261264.
(1990) Zwei neue Inschriften aus Mylasa aus der Zeit des Maussollos, EpAnat 16,
2943 Taf. 12.
(1992) Einheimische Personennamen in griechischen Inschriften aus Karien, EpAnat
20, 734.
(1994) ber die chronologische und geographische Verteilung einheimischer Personen-
namen in griechischen Inschriften aus Karien, Decifrazione del cario, 6586.
(1996) Epigraphische Forschungen im Westen Kariens 1994, in: XIII Ara{trma Sonular
Toplants, Ankara, 261264.
(1998a) Einheimische Ortsnamen in Karien, EpAnat 30 (1998), 163184.
(1998b) Karien, die Karer und ihre Nachbarn in Kleinasien, Colloquium Caricum,
163173.
(2005) Problematische Lesungen in der karischen Inschrift aus der Region von Mylasa,
Kadmos 44, 188.
Blmel, W. Adiego, I.-J.
(1993) Die karische Inschrift von Kildara, Kadmos 32, 8795.
Blmel, W. Kzl, A.
(2004) Eine neue karische Inschrift aus der Region von Mylasa, Kadmos 43, 131138.
Bockisch, G.
(1969) Die Karer und ihre Dynasten, Klio 51, 117175.
Bohl, F. M.
(193233) Inschriften mit unbekannter Schrift aus der Leidener Sammlung, AfO 8,
173174.
Boisson, C.
Decifrazione del cario, 207232.
(1988) Epigraphische Forschungen in der Region von Mylasa, in: VI Ara{trma Sonular
(1993) SGDI 5727 (Halikarnassos): eine Revision, Kadmos 32, 118.
(1994) Consquences phontiques de certaines hypothses de dchirement du carien,
.nnnr\i.+ioxs .xr ninrioon.rnv 497
Bork, F.
(1930) Die Schrift der Karer, ASBW 4, 1830.
(1931) Die Sprache der Karer, AfO 7, 1423.
Brandenstein, W.
(1934a) J F X C in den epichorischen Alphabeten Kleinasiens, Klio 27, 6973.
(1935a) Karische Sprache in: Pauly-Wissowa, RE Supplementband VI, col. 140146.
(1936) Streifzge . . . Zwei Karische Ortsnamen, Glotta 25, 3235.
Brixhe, C.
(1996) Review of Decifrazione del cario in: BSL 91/2, 214221.
Cancio, L.
(1989) A New Satrapal Coin of the KIMEKA Series, SM 156, 83.
Carruba, O.
(1998) Zum Stand der Entzierung des Karischen, Colloquium Caricum, 4756.
(1999a) Bildungen karischer Ethnika, SMEA 41/2 (1999), 175180.
(1999b) Ar/
w
/
w
azuma, Kadmos 38, 5058.
(2000) Der Name der Karer, Athenaeum 88, 4957.
Cau, N.
(1999a) La legenda caria su una serie monetale del dinasta Kuprlli, Studi Ellenistici
12, 917.
(1999b) Una nuova lettura di alcune leggende monetali carie, Kadmos 38, 4349.
(2003) Nuovi antroponimi indigeni nelle iscrizioni greche della Licia di et ellenistico-
romana, Studi Ellenistici 15, 297340.
Deroy, L.
(1955) Les inscriptions cariennes de Carie, AC 24, 305335.
(1959) Review of Masson-Yoyotte (1956) in: Or 28, 101102.
Descat, R.
(1994) La gographie dans les listes de tributs attiques: Lepsimandos et Kaslaba en
Carie, ZPE 104, 6168.
(1998) La carrire dEupolemos, Stratge macdonien en Asie Mineure. Appendice:
Note sur une inscription caro-grecque de Caunos, REA 100, 167190.
Dorsi, P.
(1979) Le glosse carie, InL 5, 2735.
Dressler, W.
(196667[68]) Karoide Inschriften im Steinbruch von Belevi, Jh 48, 7376.
Durnford, S.
(1991) An instance of the Lycian name for Xanthos in Carian script, Kadmos 30, 9092.
Eilers, W.
(1935) Das Volk der karka in den epichorischen Alphabeten Kleinasiens, OLZ 38,
201213.
(1940) Kleinasiatisches, ZDMG 94, 189233.
Eichner, H.
(1994) Zur Entzierung des Karischen, Decifrazione del cario, 167170.
Erbse, H.
(1986) Zu der Ilias-Scholien (Curae secundae II), Hermes 114.4, 385398.
ESS (= Epigrahic Survey Sta ).
(1988) Reliefs and Inscriptions at Luxor Temple, volume 2: The Facade, Portals, Upper Register
Scenes, Columns Marginalia, and Statuary in the Colonnade Hall (University of Chicago
Oriental Institute Publications).
498 .nnnr\i.+ioxs .xr ninrioon.rnv
Faucounau, J.
(1980) Rexions sur le dchirement des inscriptions cariennes, Klio 62.2, 289305.
(1984) A propos de rcents progrs dans le dchirement de lcriture carienne, BSL
79/1, 229238.
(1994) Remarks on the Carian Alphabet of Sinuri, Decifrazione del cario, 233236.
Franklin, N.
(2001) Masons Marks from the Ninth Century B.C.E. Northern Kingdom of Israel.
Evidence of the Nascent Carian Alphabet?, Kadmos 40, 107116.
Frei, P. Marek, C.
(1997) Die karisch-griechische Bilingue von Kaunos. Eine zweisprachige Staatsurkunde
(1998) Die karisch-griechische Bilingue von Kaunos. Ein neues Textfragment, Colloquium
Caricum, 118.
(2000) Neues zu den karischen Inschriften von Kaunos, Kadmos 39, 83132.
Friedrich, J.
(1931) Zu den kleinasiatischen Personennamen mit dem Element muwa, Kleinasiatische
Forschungen I, 359378.
(1932) Kleinasiatische Sprachdenkmler, Berlin.
(1952) Karer in Numidien?, Or 21, 231233.
(1965) Ein wohl kleinasiatisches Tontfelchen mit unbekannter Schrift, Kadmos 3,
156169.
Georgiev, V. I.
(1960) Der indoeuropische Charakter der karischen Sprache, ArOr 28, 607619.
(1966) Introduzione alla storia delle lingue indoeuropee (= Incunabula graeca 9), Roma.
(1975) Ein Versuch zur Deutung der griechisch-karischen bilinguis, Kadmos 14, 6467.
(1981) Introduction to the History of the Indo-European Languages, Soa. [210214].
Grard, R.
(2005) Phontique et morphologie de la langue lydienne, Louvain-la-Neuve.
Goetze, A.
7481.
Gosline, S. L.
(1992) Carian quarry markings on Elephantine Island, Kadmos 31, 4350.
(1998) Quarry, Setting and Team Marks: the Carian Connection, Journal of Ancient
Civilizations, 13, 5982.
Gusmani, R.
(1967) Review of evorokin (1965) in: AGI 52, 7984.
(1975) Neue epichorische Schriftzeugnisse aus Sardis (19581971) = Archaeological Exploration
of Sardis, Monograph 3, Cambridge, Mass.
(1978) Zwei neue Gefssinschriften in karischer Sprache, Kadmos 17, 6775.
(1979a) Review of Masson (1978) in: Paideia 34, 220223.
(1979b) Spunti per la decrittazione di segni carii, InL 5, 193197.
(1982) Zum Karischen, Fs. Neumann I, 193197.
(1986) Die Erforschung des Karischen, Fs. Oberhuber, 5567.
(1988) Karische Beitrge, Kadmos 27.2, 139149.
(1990) Karische Beitrge II, Kadmos 29.1, 4753.
(1994) Kritisches und Autokritisches zu den Entzierungsversuchen, Decifrazione del
cario, 115120.
(1989) A propos de la lecture des inscriptions cariennes, Kadmos 28, 174175.
des 4. Jh.s v. Chr., Kadmos 36, 189.
(1954) The Linguistic Continuity of Anatolia as shown by its Proper Names, JCS 8,
.nnnr\i.+ioxs .xr ninrioon.rnv 499
Hajnal, I.
(1996) Die Entzierung unbekannter Schriften: Drei Fallstudienein Szenario?, Bern.
(1995[97]) Das Vokalsystem des Karischen: Eine provisorische Bestandsaufnahme,
Die Sprache 37, 1230.
(1997a) Indogermanische Syntax in einer neuerschlossenen anatolischen Sprache:
Die karische Partikel -xi, in: E. Crespo J. L. Garca Ramn (eds.), Berthold Delbrck
y la sintaxis indoeuropea hoy, Madrid-Wiesbaden, 193217.
(1997b) Die karisch-griechische Bilingue 44* aus Kaunos: ein erster Augenschein,
Kadmos 36, 141166.
(1997c) Denite nominale Determination im Indogermanischen, IF 102, 3873.
(1998) , Jungluwisches *s und die karische Evidenz: Versucheiner dialektologischen
Klrung, Colloquium Caricum, 80108.
Hanfmann, G. M. A Masson, O.
(1967) Carian Inscriptions from Sardis and Stratonikeia, Kadmos 6, 123134.
Hegyi, D.
(1998) The Cult of Sinuri in Caria, Acta Ant. Hung. 38, 157163.
Heubeck, A.
(1959a) Review of Masson-Yoyotte (1956) in: Gnomon 31, 332336.
(196768) Review of Otkupikov (1966) in: IF 72, 331333.
(1974) Review of Zauzich (1972) in: BiOr 31, 9597.
Hornblower, S.
(1982) Mausolus, Oxford.
Houwink Ten Cate, Ph. H. J.
(1961) The Luwian Population Groups of Lycia and Cilicia Aspera during the Hellenistic Period
(= Documenta et monumenta orientis antiqui 10), Leiden.
de Hoz, J.
(2004) De cmo los protogriegos crearon el griego y los pregriegos lo aprendieron,
in: P. Bdenas de la Pea S. Torallas Tovar E. R. Lujn M. . Gallego
(eds.), Lenguas en contacto: El testimonio escrito, Madrid, 3556.
Innocente, L.
(1995) The Oxford Paracarian Inscription, Kadmos 34, 149154.
(1997) Review of Adiego (1993) in: Or 66, 116117.
(2002) Tegola di Iasos, Kadmos 41, 179180.
I{k, C.
(1998) Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in Kaunos bis zur Entdeckung der Bilingue,
Colloquium Caricum, 183202.
Ik, E.
(2003) Frhe Silberprgungen in Stdten Westkleinasiens, Saarbrcken.
Janda, M.
(1994) Beitrge zum Karischen, Decifrazione del cario, 171190.
Jeery, L. H.
(1961) The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, Oxford.
(1964[65]) Old Smyrna: Inscriptions on sherds and small objects, ABSA 59, 3949,
pl. 58.
Jordan, H.
(1968) Review of Otkupikov (1966) in: OLZ 63, 125130.
(1992) Stato delle ricerche sul cario, Vicino Oriente 8/2, 213222.
(1994) Note epigrache, Decifrazione del cario, 101110.
(1992a) Concordanze delle iscrizioni carie, SMEA 30, 2587.
500
Jucker, H. Meier, M.
(1978) Eine Bronzephiale mit karischer Inschrift, MH 35, 104115.
Kalinka, E.
(1901) Tituli Asiae Minoris, vol. I Tituli Linguae Lyciae lingua lycia conscripti, Wien.
Kammenhuber, A.
(1969b) Karer, Karia, Karische Sprache, K. Ziegler W. Sontheimer (eds.), Der
Kleine Pauly III, Stuttgart, col. 118121.
Kammerzell, F.
(1990) Studien zu Sprache und Geschichte der Karer in gypten, Diss. Gttingen.
(1993) Studien zu Sprache und Geschichte der Karer in gypten, Wiesbaden.
Klein, D.
(1999) Sammlung von griechischen Kleinsilbermzen und Bronzen, Nomismata 3, Milan.
Konuk, K.
(1998a) The Coinage of the Hekatomnids of Caria (unpublished Oxford University D. Phil.
Diss.).
(1998b) The Early Coinage of Kaunos, in: R. Ashton S. Hurter (eds.), Studies in
(2000a) Inuences et lments achmnides dans le monnayage de la Carie, in:
O. Casabonne (ed.), Mcanismes et innovations montaires dans lAnatolie achmnide. Numismatique
et histoire, Istanbul, 171183.
(2003) Karundan Kariaya, Muharrem Kayhan Koleksiyonundan Erken Anadolu Sikkeleri. From
Kroisos to Karia, Early Anatolian Coins from the Muharrem Kayhan Collection, Istanbul.
(forthcoming [a]) The Early Coinage of Mylasa, NC.
Essays in Honour of Ioannis Touratsoglou, Athens.
Tony Hackens, Louvain-la-Neuve.
(forthcoming [d]) Orou, dynaste de Carie, in: P. Brun (ed.) Anatolica, mlanges en lhon-
neur de Pierre Debord, Bordeaux.
Kowalski, Th.
(1975) Lettres cariennes: essai de dchirement de lcriture carienne, Kadmos 14,
7393.
Kretschmer, P.
(1896) Einleitung in der Geschichte der griech. Sprachen, Gttingen.
160.
Laroche, E.
LNH see (1966).
NDH see (1947).
TA1 see (1957).
TA2 see (1961).
(1947) Recherches sur les noms des dieux hittites, Paris.
(1957) Notes de toponymie anatolienne, Gs. Kretschmer II, 17.
(1961) Etudes de toponymie anatolienne, RHA XIX.69, 5798.
(1966) Les noms des hittites, Paris.
Laumonier, A.
(1933) Notes sur un voyage en Carie, Revue archologique II, 3155.
(1934) Inscriptions de Carie, BCH 58, 291380.
(1958) Les Cultes indignes de Carie, Paris.
Greek Numismatics in Memory of Martin Jessop Price, London, 197223, pl. 4750.
(2000b) Coin evidence for the Carian Name of Keramos, Kadmos 39, 159164.
.nnnr\i.+ioxs .xr ninrioon.rnv
(forthcoming [b]) Kasolaba, a New Mint in Karia?, in: S. Drougou E. Ralli (eds.),
(forthcoming [c]) Erbbina en Carie?, in: F. de Callatay et alii (eds.), Liber amicorum
(1929) Eine neue karische Inschrift, KlF 1, 318320.
(1954) Zu der karischen Zeile der Sma-Inschrift aus Athen oben S. 67, Glotta 34,
.nnnr\i.+ioxs .xr ninrioon.rnv 501
Leclant, J.
(1951) Fouilles et travaux en Egypte, 19501951, Or 20, p. 474; pl. LXIV, 3738.
(1960) Review of Masson-Yoyotte (1956) in: RPh, 339340.
Legrain, G.
(1905) Inscriptions from Gebel Abou Gorb, PSBA 27, 129.
Levi, D. Pugliese Carratelli, G.
(196162 [1963]) Nuove Iscrizioni di Iasos, Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene
vol. 3940, 573632.
Loprieno, A.
(1995) Ancient Egyptian, Cambridge.
Martin Cary, J.
(1991) Carian in Egypt: the Demotic evidence, Kadmos 30.2, 173174.
Masson, O.
(1953) Textes cariens dEgypte I, RHA XII (55) 3238 and pl. XIIXIV.
(1954) Epigraphie asianique . . . Lpigraphie carienne, Or 23, 439441.
(1959a) Notes danthroponymie grecque et asianique, BzN 10, 159170.
(1959b) Documents nigmatiques inscription pseudo-chypriote et pseudo-carienne,
Fs. Friedrich, 315321
(1967) Lostrakon carien de Hou-Diospolis Parva (38 Friedrich), Fs. Grumach, 211217,
pl. XX.
2536.
(1973) Que savons-nous de lcriture et de la langue des Cariens?, BSL 68/1, 187213
(1973[74]) Review of Zauzich (1972) in: Kratylos 18, 3843.
(1974) Notes dpigraphie carienne, Kadmos 13, 124132.
(1973[75]) Un nouveau fragment dinscription carienne de Kaunos, Anadolu 17,
123131.
oerts E. Benveniste, Paris, 407414.
(1976) Un lion de bronze de provenance gyptienne avec inscription carienne, Kadmos
15.1, 8083.
(1977) Notes dpigraphie carienne IIIV, Kadmos 16, 8794.
(1977[78]) Karer in gypten, Lexikon der gyptologie III, col. 333337.
(1978) Carian Inscriptions from North Saqqra and Buhen, Egypt Exploration Society, London.
(1979) Remarques sur les graftes cariens dAbou Simbel, Hommages la mmoire de
S. Sauneron II, Le Caire, 3549.
(1988a) Noms cariens Iasos, in: Eothen, Firenze, 155157.
(1988b) Le culte ionien dApollon Oulios daprs des donnes onomastiques nouvelles,
Journal des Savants, JuilletDcembre 1988, 173183.
The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and other States of the Near East, from the
Eighth to the Sixth Centuries B. C., Cambridge. 666676, Bibl.: 855860.
del cario, 191194.
(1994b) La grande inscription grecque dAbou-Simbel et le nom probablement carien
Peleqos, SMEA 34, 137140.
(1994c) Review of Adiego (1993a) in: BSL 89/2, 185186.
(1995) Review of Kammerzell (1993) in: Kratylos 40, 172177.
(unpublished [1994]) Le carien: tat de la question, Communication du 18 juin 1994,
Socit de Linguistique de Paris.
(1975) Le nom des Cariens dans quelques langues de lantiquit, Mlanges linguistiques
(1969) Les Cariens en Egypte , Bulletin de la Socit Franaise dEgyptologie 56, nov. 1969,

(1991) Anatolian Languages, in: The Cambridge Ancient History 2a ed. vol III, Part 2:
(1994a) Les inscriptions cariennes du tombeau de Montuemhat (Thbes), Decifrazione
502 .nnnr\i.+ioxs .xr ninrioon.rnv
Masson, O. Yoyotte, J.
(1956) Objets pharaoniques inscription carienne, Le Caire.
Meier-Brgger, M.
(1976) Zum karischen Namen von Kaunos, MSS 34, 95100.
(1978) Karika, Kadmos 17, 7684.
(1979a) Karika IIIII, Kadmos 18, 8088.
(1979b) Ein Buchstabenindex zu den karischen Schriftdenkmlern aus gypten, Kadmos
18, 130177.
(1980a) Review of Masson (1978) in: Gnomon 52, 383384.
(1980b) Karisch. Eine Bestandsaufnahme, XX. Deutscher Orientalistentag 1977 in Erlangen
(= ZDMG Suppl. IV), 8890.
(1981) Eine weitere ,parakarische Inschrift?, Kadmos 20, 7678, pl. IIII).
(1983) Die Karischen Inschriften, in: Labraunda, Swedish Excavations and Researches II,
Part 4, Stockholm.
(1994) Ein neuer Blick nach zehn Jahren, Decifrazione del cario, 111114.
(1998) Zu den Mnzlegenden von Kaunos, Colloquium Caricum, 4246.
Melchert, H. C.
CLL = Melchert (1993b).
DLL = Melchert (2004).
(1993) Some remarks on new readings in Carian, Kadmos 32.2 (1993), 7786.
(1993b) Cuneiform Luvian Lexicon, Chapel Hill.
(1994) Anatolian Historical Phonology, Amsterdam-Atlanta.
(1998) Carian mdoVun we have established, Colloquium Caricum, 3341.
(2002) Sibilants in Carian, in: Fs. Neumann II, 305313.
(2003) Chapters 1, 2, 5 of H. C. Melchert (ed.), The Luwians, Leiden-Boston.
(2004) A Dictionary of the Lycian Language, Ann Arbor.
(mdane) Carian mdane, unpublished paper (1999).
Mentz, A.
(1940) Schrift und Sprache der Karer, IF 57, 265280.
Meriggi, P.
(1978) Sulla scrittura caria, ASNP, Cl. di Lett. e Fil. serie III, vol. VIII, 3, 791803.
(1980) Review of Masson (1978) in: BiOr 37, 3337.
Metzger, I. R.
Meyer, G.
(1886) Die karier. Eine ethnographisch-linguistische untersuchung, BB 10, 147202.
Mrkholm, O. Neumann, G.
(1978) Die lykischen Mnzlegenden, Gttingen.
Mrkholm, O. Zahle, J.
(1976) The Coinages of the Lycian Dynasts Kheriga, Kheri and Erbbina. A Numismatic
and Archaeological Study, AArch 47, 4790.
Murray, M. A.
(1904) The Osireion at Abydos, London.
Nahm, W.
Naumann, R. Tuchelt, K.
13/14, 16 ss. [pl. 25: Carian grafti from Didyma].
(1963) Karisch Itana, hier. het. itapana-, Kadmos 2, 73.
(1967) Zum Karischen, Fs Grumach, 218228.
(1973) Eine geometrische Amphora im Rtischen Museum in Chur, Fs. Bloesch, 7477
(1966) Zur neuen para-karischen Schrift, Kadmos 5, 61102.
(1969) Neue Lesungsvorschlge zur Grotthus-Tafel, Kadmos 8, 5873.
(1963/1964) Die Ausgrabung in Sdwesten des Tempels von Didyma 1962, IstMitt
.nnnr\i.+ioxs .xr ninrioon.rnv 503
Neumann, G.
(1961) Untersuchungen zum Weiterleben hethitischen und luwischen Sprachgutes in hellenistischer und
rmischer Zeit, Wiesbaden.
(1969a) Eine neue karische Inschrift aus Chalketor, Kadmos 8, 152157.
1 Abt., 2. Bd. 12 Abschn., Lief. 2,
358396.
(1978) Sptluwische Namen, KZ 92, 126131.
(1984) Zum Namen des Cheramyes von Samos, Wrzburger Jahrbcher fr die Altertums-
wissenschaft Neue Folge, Band 10, 4143.
(1988) Beobachtungen an karischen Ortsnamen, in: Eothen 183191.
(1993) Zu den epichorischen Sprachen Kleinasiens, in: G. Dobesch G. Rehrenbck
(eds.), Die epigraphische und altertumskundliche Erforschung Kleinasiens: Hundert Jahre Kleinaisatische
Kommission der sterreichichesn Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien, 289296.
(1994) Zur Nebenlieferung des Karischen, Decifrazione del cario, 1525.
(1998) Sprachvergleichendes zur Kaunos-Bilingue, Colloquium Caricum, 1932.
Nicholls, R. V.
<n, B.
(1998) Warum Kaunos?, Colloquium Caricum, 175182.
Otkupikov, J. V. [O, . .]
(1966) Kapucue nucu Apuu. ppumee pymam eupu. [Carian
Inscriptions of Africa. Preliminary results of a decipherment], Leningrad.
(1968) O e apc aaa p-ecy pcy caap
[On the connection of the Carian alphabet with the Creto-Mycenaean and Cypriot
syllabary], Atti e Memorie del I Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia-1967, Roma,
426432 and 433437 [abstract in Italian: Sul rapporto dellalfabeto cario con il
sillabario cretese-miceneo e cipriota].
(1989) Kpc pec . eece -yyp [Carian
Paribeni, R.
(1936) Etimologie dalla lingua dei Cari (?), Rivista di Fiologia Classica 64, 292293.
Pedley, J. G.
(1974) Carians in Sardis, JHS 94, 9699.
Petrie, W. M. F.
(1901) Diospolis Parva. The Cemeteries of Abadiyeh and Hu, 18981899, London.
Pfeiler, B.
(1962) Zur Mnzkunde von Milet, SM 46, 2022.
Pisani, V.
(1967) Review of evorokin (1965) in: Paideia 22, 420424.
Poetto, M.
Pugliese Carratelli, G.
(1948) Cari in Libia, PP 3, 1519.
(1974) Unepigrafe caria in Persia, Gururjamajarik (Studi in onore di Giuseppe Tucci) I,
Napoli, 163166.
(1985[86]) Cari in Iasos, RALinc vol. XI, fasc. 56, 149155.
Ray, J. D.
(1981) An approach to the Carian script, Kadmos 20.2, 150162.
(1982a) The Carian Script, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 208, 7790.
for 197071, 7576, no 26, g. 16.
(1969b) Lykisch, in: Handbuch der Orientalistik
(1971) Recent Acquisitions by the Fitzwillian Museum, Cambridge, Archaeological Reports
and Greek language. Genetic and ethno-cultural connections], Klio 71, 6669.
(1984) Nuove monete carie, Kadmos 23, 7475.
504 .nnnr\i.+ioxs .xr ninrioon.rnv
(1982b) The Carian inscriptions from Egypt, JEA 68, 181198.
(1983) Review of Masson (1978) in: JEA 69, 194195.
(1985) The Carian coins from Aphrodisias, Kadmos 24.1, 8688.
(1987) The Egyptian approach to Carian, Kadmos 26.1, 98103.
(1988) Ussollos in Caria, Kadmos 27.2, 15054.
(1990a) An Outline of Carian Grammar, Kadmos 29, 5483.
(1990b) A Carian Text: The Longer Inscription from Sinuri, Kadmos 29, 126132.
(1990c) The names Psammetichus and Takheta, JEA 76, 196199.
(1994) New Egyptian Names in Carian, Decifrazione del cario, 195206.
(1998) Aegypto-Carica, Colloquium Caricum, 125136.
Robert, L.
Premire partie: les inscriptions grecques,
Paris.
VII, 5968.
I, 522, g. 12, pl. IVI, VIIX, XXVIIIXXX.
Hellenica VIII, section I, 2338.
(1957) Deux inscriptions dIasos, REG 70, 362375.
Robinson, E. S. G.
(1936) A Find of Archaic Coins from South-West Asia Minor, NC 5/16, 116.
(1939) Coin-Legends in Carian Script, Anatolian Studies presented to W. H. Buckler,
Manchester, 269275.
Rochette, B.
(199798) La langue des Cariens propos de B 867, Glotta 74, 227236.
Roos, P.
(1972) The Rock-Tombs of Caunus, I The Architecture (= Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology
34; 1), Gteborg.
(1985) Survey of rock-cut chamber-tombs in Caria, Part 1: South-eastern Caria and the Lyco-Carian
borderland, 9, Gteborg.
}ahin, M. .
(1973[75]) Laginadan (Koranza) iki yeni yazt / Two New Inscriptions from Lagina
(Koranza), Anadolu 17, 178185 (Turkish) / 187195 (English).
(1976) The political and religious structure in the territory of Stratonikeia in Caria, Ankara.
(1980) A Carian and three Greek inscriptions from Stratonikeia, ZPE 39, 205213.
Salmeri, G.
(1994) I Greci e le lingue indigene dAsia Minore: il caso del cario, Decifrazione del
cario, 8799.
Sapir, E.
(1936) kbda a Carian Gloss, JAOS 56, 85.
Sayce, A. H.
(1874) The Karian Inscriptions, Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, second
series, 10, 546564.
(1887[92] = 1893) The Karian language and inscriptions, TSBA 9.1, 112154.
28,
171177
(1910) Karian, Egyptian and Nubian-Greek inscriptions from the Sudan, PSBA 32,
261268.
(1945) Le sanctuaire de Sinuri prs de Mylasa
(1949) Dcret dune syngeneia carienne au sanctuaire de Sinuri, in: L. Robert, Hellenica
(1950) Inscriptions indites en langue carienne, in: L. Robert, Hellenica VIII, section
(1950b) Le carien Mys et loracle du Pton (Hrodote, VIII, 135), in: L. Robert,
(1895) The Karian and Lydian inscriptions, PSBA 17, 3943.
(1906) An inscription of S-ankh-ka-ra. Karian and other inscriptions, PSBA
(1908) Karian, Aramaic, and Greek grafti from Heshn, PSBA 30, 2829.
(1905) Lydian and Karian inscriptions, PSBA 27, 123128 Lm. III.
.nnnr\i.+ioxs .xr ninrioon.rnv 505
Sund, G.
Schweyer, A.-V.
(2002) Les Lyciens et la mort. Une tude dhistoire sociale, Paris.
Schmaltz, B.
(1998) Vorhellenistische Keramikimporte in KaunosVersuch einer Perspektive,
Colloquium Caricum, 203210.
Schmitt, R.
(1978[79]) Review of Masson (1978) in: Kratylos 23, 98104.
Schrr, D.
(1992) Zur Bestimmung der Lautwerte des karischen Alphabets, Kadmos 31, 127156
(19911993) Imbr- in lykischer und karischer Schrift, Die Sprache 35.2, 163175.
(1993) Zu ]NAPOUKV SGDI 5727.b4, Kadmos 32, 172173.
(1996a) Bastet-Namen in karischen Inschriften gyptens, Kadmos 35, 5571.
(1996b) Zur karischen Felschinschrift Si. 62 F, Kadmos 25, 149156
(1996c) Zur karischen Felsgrabinschrift von Kaunos (28*), Kadmos 25, 157159.
(1996[98]) Karisch Mutter und Vater, Sprache 38, 9398.
(1998) Kaunos in lykischen Inschriften, Colloquium Caricum, 143162.
(2000) Lydisches III: Rund um lydisch ,Hund, Kadmos 39, 165176.
(2001a) Zur Inschrift nr. 50 von Kaunos und zum karischen Namen von Keramos,
Kadmos 40, 6164.
(2001b) Karische und lykische Sibilanten, IF 106, 94121.
(2001c) Zur karischen Inschrift auf dem Genfer Kultgegenstand, Kadmos 40, 117126.
(2002) Karische Parallelen zu zwei Arzawa-Namen, Kadmos 41, 163167.
(2003a) Zur karischen Inschrift der Stele von Abusir, Kadmos 42, 91103.
(2003b) Zum Namen des Flusses Kalbis bei Kaunos in Karien, HS 116, 6974.
evorokin, V. I. [, . .]
(1962) [The Carian problem], VJa 1962.5, 93100.
(1963) O - [On the Hittite-Luwian charac-
ter of the Carian Language], VJa 1963.3, 8384.
(1964a) On Karian, RHA XXII 74, 155.
(1964b) Aegyptisch-karische Inschrift am Sockel einer Isisstatuette (Leningrader Staats-
ermitage), RHA XXII 74, 5765 and pl. IIV.
(1964c) Zur karischen Schrift und Sprache, Kadmos 3, 7287.
(1964d) Karijskij jazyk; sovremennoe sostojanie deifrovki i izuenija [La lengua caria;
el estado actual del desciframiento y la investigacin] Problemy indoevropejskogo jazykoz-
nanija, Moskva, 1839.
(1965) [Studies on the decipherment
of the Carian inscriptions], Moskva.
(1968a) Zur Entstehung und Entwicklung der kleinasiatischen Buchstabenschriften,
Kadmos 7, 150173.
(1968b) Karisch und Lykisch, Atti e Memorie del I Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia-
1967, Roma, 462472.
(1968c) Karisch, Lydish, Lykisch, Klio 50, 5369.
(1969a) Zu den spthethitischen Sprachen, XVII. Deutscher Orientalistentag-1968, Wrzburg
= ZDMG Supplem. I. Wiesbaden, 250271.
(1969b) Zur Erforschung der kleinasiatischen Onomastik, 10. Internationaler Kongress fr
Namenforschung II, Vienna, 341350.
(1977) Zu einigen karischen Wrtern, MSS 35 117130.
(198283) ber den Lautwert des karischen Buchstaben y, InL 8, 7178.
(1984[86]) Verbesserte Lesungen von karischen Wrtern, InL 9, 199200.
(1988) Carian proper names, Onomata 12, 497505.
(1953) Karische Inschriften aus Labranda, Opuscula Atheniensia I, 199205.
(1980) Karer, in: Reallexikon der Assyrologie und vorderasiatischen Archeologie V, 423425.
506 .nnnr\i.+ioxs .xr ninrioon.rnv
(1991) On Carian Language and Writing, Perspectives on Indo-European Language Culture
and Religion. Studies in Honor of Edgard C. Polom. vol. I (= Journal of Indo-European
Studies. Monograph Number 7). 116135.
(1992) On Carian Language and Writing, Newsletter for Anatolian Studies Vol. 8/1, 3.
Shafer, R.
(1961) Review of Masson-Yoyotte (1956) in: RHA XIX. 68, 3940.
(1965) A break in the Carian Dam, AC 34, 398424.
Six, J. P.
(1890) Monnaies grecques indites et incertaines, NC, 185259.
Snodgrass, A. M.
(1964) Carian armoures. The Growth of a Tradition, JHS 84, 107118.
Spiegelberg, W.
(1928) Eine Ichneumonbronze mit hieroglyphischer und karischer Inschrift, OLZ 21,
545548.
Steinherr, F.
(195051) Zu den neuen karischen Inschriften, Jahrbuch der kleinasiatische Forschung 1,
328336
(1955) Der karische Apollon, WO 2, 184192.
(1957) Der Stand der Erforschung des Karischen, Proceedings of the twenty-second Congress
of Orientalists . . ., Istanbul, 1951, Leyde, 4449.
Stoltenberg, H. L.
(1958a) Neue Lesung der karischen Schrift, Die Sprache 4, 139151.
(1958b) Die karische Grabinschrift von Kaunos, AC 27, 108109.
(1959) Deutung karischer Inschriften, ArOr 27, 14.
Sundwall, J.
(1911) Zu den karischen Inschriften und den darin vorkommenden Namen, Klio 11,
464480.
(1913) Die einheimischen Namen der Lykier nebst einem Verzeichnisse kleinasiatischer Namenstmme
[= Klio 11, Beiheft], Leipzig.
Thompson, M.
(1966) Some Noteworthy Greek Accessions, ANSMN 12, 118.
Tischler, J.
(1977) Kleinasiatische Hydronimie. Semantische und morphologische Analyse der griechischen
Gewssernamen, Wiesbaden.
(2001) Hethitisches Handwrterbuch, Innsbruck.
Torp, A.
(1903) Die vorgriechische Inschrift von Lemnos = Christiania Videnskabs-Selskabs Skrifter,
hist.-l. Kl. 1903, 4.
Tremblay, X.
(1998) Controversa Carica, Colloquium Caricum, 109124.
Treu, M.
(1954) Eine griechisch-karische Bilingue und ihre Bedeutung fr die Geschichte der
karischen Schrift, Glotta 34, 6771.
Troxell, H.
(1979) Winged Carians, in: O. MrkholmN. M. Waggoner (eds.), Greek Numismatics
and Archaeology, Essays in Honor of Margaret Thompson, Wetteren, 257268.
(1994) Carian Three decades later, Decifrazione del cario, 131166.
.nnnr\i.+ioxs .xr ninrioon.rnv 507
Tuchelt, K.
Tzanavari, K. CHRISTIDIS, A.-Ph.
(1995) A Carian Grafto from the Lebet Table, Thessaloniki, Kadmos 34, 1317.
van den Hout, T.
(1999) -ms(-): a Carian Enclitic Pronoun?, Kadmos 38, 3142.
Varinlio<lu, E.
(1986) Die Inschriften von Keramos, Bonn.
Vittmann, G.
(1996) Zum Gebrauch des k3-Zeichens im Demotischen, SEAP 15, 112.
(2001) gyptisch-Karisches, Kadmos 40, 3959.
(2003) gypten und die Fremden im ersten vorchristlichen Jahrtausend, Mainz.
Waerzeggers, C.
(Borsippa) Carians in Borsippa, Iraq (forthcoming).
Winzer, A.
(2005), Antike Portraitmnzen der Perser und Greichen aus vor-hellenistischer Zeit (Zeitraum ca.
510322 v. Chr), March-Hugstetten.
ba, Z.
(1974[79]) The Rock Inscriptions of Lower Nubia, Czehoslovak Concession, Prague.
Zahlhaas, G. Neumann, G.
(1994) Zwei neue karische Inschriften aus Mnchen, Kadmos 33, 160168.
Zauzich, K.-Th.
(1972) Einige karische Inschriften aus gypten und Kleinasien und ihre Deutung nach der Entzierung
der karischen Schrift, Wiesbaden.
Zgusta, L.
KON: see (1984).
KPN: see (1964a).
(1964a) Kleinasiatische Personennamen, Prague.
(1964b) Anatolische Personennamensippen, Prague.
(1968) Review of evorokin (1965) in: ArOr 36, 153154
(1970) Neue Beitrge zur kleinasiatischen Anthroponymie, Prague.
(1984) Kleinasiatische Ortsnamen, Heidelberg.
(1984) Carians in Miniature, in: A. Houghton S. Hurter (eds.), Festschrift fr /
Studies in honor of Leo Mildenberg, Wetteren, 249257, pl. 40.
(1970) Die archaischen Skulpturen von Didyma (= Istanbuler Forschungen 27), Berlin.
TABLE I
THE CARIAN ALPHABET
N (Masson) Letters
1
Transcription Notes
1 a A ~ (E) a
3 d D G d
4 l l
5(+41) W V V y (formerly /)
6 r R r
7 L 2 L l
9 q Q q
10 b 5 B b
11 m M m
12 o o
14 t T t
15 f F S
_
T _
17 s s
18 H ?
19 u U u
20
21 x X (formerly x)
22 n N n
24(+2) p p () p
25 z Z
26(+8) I y Y I i
27 e e e
28 w (formerly w)
29+30 k K k
31 & d
32 v w (formerly )
33(+34) 0 8
?
g
35(+36) 1 9 9 z (formerly z)
37 %
38 j _ j (formerly )
39 _1 ?
40(+23?) c C / O
?
t / t
2
?
42 6
434445 4 B &
?
b
?
b
46 b
2
?
1
Note that, for the sake of simplicity, the letters are given in a left-to-right direc-
tionality, which in some cases is not actually documented (for example, is only
attested as in right-to-left directionality).
TABLE II
CARIAN SIGNS IN COIN LEGENDS
Lr++rns
6 5 [ A l (!) a M Q a M1221, M32
B u (!) 5 } H(!) b M2223, M2628, M32, M3637,
M41
d _ d M32, M3637, M42
g r r M32, M5152
l l M50
W y (or rather w?) M5, M23, M4748
L l M39
M m m M15
o o M2021, M5052
t F t M31, M39
s s M3337, M42
u u M39, M45, M5052
n n M25
M32
x X M4345
z M39
i i M3132, M53
p P p M3335, M3940
k l (!) k M2230
V w (or rather y?) M5M11, M49
N 0 g(?) M3335
T j M23, M3637
3 4 8 9 z M1221
7 1 (z or symbol?) M3839
c t M32
J letter or M27, M33, M3637
separation
mark
^ letter or symbol? M46
510 +.nrr ii
Lixr.n rr\icrs
o M1
l M31
{ M3335
h M38
7 1 (or letter?) M3839
^ (or letter?) M46
INDICES
1
1. Axcirx+ Pnorrn N.vrs
Carian Proper Names in Indirect Sources
In Egyptian
3rskr 19, 47, 194, 195, 243, 248, 250,
431
Jr3 42, 47, 194, 248
Jrym3 42, 194, 248
K3rr 33, 198, 244, 266, 409
Prjm 41, 188, 194, 195, 242, 248, 249
3rkbym 32, 191, 194, 195, 248, 250,
251, 416, 417
In Akkadian
Lu-uk-u 380
In Greek
Aba 340, 349
Abaw 340
Abbaw 340
Ada 13, 140, 236, 245, 340, 349
Adaw 340
Aktadhmow 330
Aktauassiw 242, 330, 338
Aktaussvllow 330, 378
Albanda 8, 11, 12
Alasta 349
Alikarnassow 255, 351
Amiaw 340
Ammiaow 340
Andarsvw 246, 262, 333, 363
Androsvw 246, 262
Appa 340
Arbhs(s)iw 334
Arduberow 245, 255, 283, 333, 353
Ardur/a/ 333
Ariauow 354
Aridvliw 354
Arlissiw 196, 248, 250, 255, 341,
354, 355, 356
Arlissow 355
Arlivmow 248, 343, 355
Arrissiw 135, 221, 248, 305, 354, 356
Artaow 255, 356
Arthumow 255, 356, 393
Artimhw 356, 410
Aryuassiw 356
Aryuassiw 356
Babein 246
Brgasa/Brgaza 246
Barglia 246
Beryaw 246
Berrablviow 246
Bolli.evn 246
Boivmow 246
Broula 246
Bridaw 246
Bruajiw/Bruassiw 246
Brvlow 246
Bubassw 246
Bvnitv 246
Bvrand/a/ 246
Gugow 198, 237, 244, 260, 326, 330,
334, 408, 419
Dandvmow 246
Daru..ow 246
Ddmasa 246
Deibow 246
Dersvmanhw 246
Dersvw 246, 363
Dersv . . . tiw 246
Didassai 246
Dduma 246
Dndason 246
Ekamuhw, Ejamuhw 330
Ekatomnvw 140, 237, 238, 243, 249,
255, 289, 375, 378
Ermapiw 255, 331, 339
Zermenduberow 413
Yuaggl/a/ 12
Yussvllow 330, 362
1
For Carian words, see Chapter 11.
512 ixricrs
Iasow 270, 433
Ibanvlliw 360
Idagugow 237, 238, 239, 244, 245, 330,
334, 361
Idriaw 308, 438
Iduma 367, 368
*Idurigow 368
Idussvllow 245, 330, 361, 362, 367,
368
Imbarhldow 198, 262, 330, 335, 393
Imbramow (var. Imbrasow) 8, 308, 335
Imbarsiw 236, 247, 250, 255, 262, 335,
360, 366
Imbras(s)iw 236, 247, 250, 255, 262,
335, 341, 360, 361, 366
Imbrow 8, 299, 335, 367
Karbasuand/a/ 406
Karusvldow 330
Kasbvlliw 334, 374
Kasvlba 237, 238, 243, 245, 375
Kbondiassiw 334
Kbvdhw 334, 371
Kebivmow 33, 236, 237, 238, 243, 245,
249, 330, 334, 343, 371, 416, 417
Kildar/a/, Killar/a/ 141, 236, 243,
248, 373
Kinduh 255, 269, 373
Koar(r)end/a/, Koarenz/a/
Koaranz/a/, Kvra(n)z/a/ 438
Kolaldiw 238, 239, 244, 256, 315, 407
Konodvrkond/a/ 332
Kostvlliw 251, 409
Kotobalvw 244, 408
Kotbelhmow 198, 236, 238, 244, 245,
255, 343, 408
Kuatbhw 309, 408
Kubliss/ow/, Kublissew 238, 245,
255, 269, 409
Kulaldiw 238, 239, 244, 248, 315,
407
Kurmew 338
Kutbelhmiw 160, 198, 236, 238, 244,
245, 255, 343, 408
Latmow 440
Lujhw 182, 248, 255, 380
Manhw 236, 381
Mareuw 335
Marow 335
Masanvrada 237, 238, 239, 245, 249,
250, 269, 307, 332, 333, 385
Masanvradow 333, 385
Massarabiw 332, 339
Massariw 332
Massvn/a/ 332
Mstaura 8
Maussvllow 330
Minnaw 340
Moiw 384
Mongissa 8
Mtulow 336
Mouzhaw 251, 336, 387
Mundow 386
Nana 13, 340
Nanaw 340
Nannixow 340
Nannow 340
Nannv 340
Naras/a/ 333, 387
Narasow 262
Narbaw 333
Narisbara 387
Naruandow 333, 387
Neterbimow 238, 332, 339, 343, 347
Nonnow 340
Nutar 332
Nvtrassiw 332
Jrmedu<be>row 255,
Oaloalow 339, 428
Oa3a3iw 242
Oliatow 237, 243, 330, 339, 428
Ordomaw 333
Osogva 8, 169
Otvrkond/a/ 332
Panablhmiw 330, 338
Panamara 335, 338
Panamuhw 330, 336, 338, 357
Panuassiw 242, 330, 338, 340
Paow 395, 419
Papaw 340
Papiaw 340
Prgasa 246
Par(a)ussvllow 236, 330, 340, 393,
394
Paraudigow 236, 238, 263, 330,
394
Parnow 417
Paruv 394
Parembvrda 333, 340
Pedanass/ow/ 336
Pedvldow 337
Peigelasow 337
Pel(l)ekvw, Peleqow 237, 238, 293,
399, 437
Peldhkow 236, 238, 400
Phdasa 336
Pigassvw 337
Piginda 337
Pigrhw, Pikrhw 31, 236, 243, 244, 248,
255, 337, 345, 397
Pidasa 336
ixricrs 513
Pidossus 337
Pijvdarow 337, 399
Ponmoonnow 140, 238, 239, 249, 255,
303, 330, 336, 338, 401
Ponussvllow 197, 237, 238, 243, 249,
330, 338, 401, 405
Pormounow 303, 336, 338
Pounomoua 336, 338
Samula 336
Samv(u)ow 141, 310, 416
Sanortow 419
*Sarkebivmow 33, 416, 417
Sarnoj 417
*Sar-oliatow 417
Sarow 419
Saruassiw 242, 330, 338, 340
*Sar-uliatow 417
Sarussvllow 196, 236, 250, 263, 330,
340, 418, 419
Saskvw 175
Saurigow 237, 263, 289, 308, 330,
340, 418
Saussvllow 263, 330, 340, 418
Semeuritow 263
Senurigow 263, 289, 330
Seskvw 175
Sinuri 434
Skoaranow 255
Souggela 8, 11, 20, 238, 251, 269,
277, 415
Spareudigow 255, 263
Svmnhw 236, 237, 249, 255, 409, 414
Tbai 9
Tarkonda[ 255
Tarkondar/a/ 332, 423
Tata 340
Tatarion 340
Tataw 340
Territow 357
Tonnouw 237, 238, 239, 243, 249, 250,
422
Trallew, Traldew 18
Tumnhw 440
Tumnhsw 9
Tur[ 164, 197, 288, 424
Uliatow 36, 237, 243, 330, 339,
428
`Ullrima 196, 200, 238, 240,
257
`Ulloala 8
Urgosvw 237, 244, 255, 434
hurmew 338
Urvmow 338
Ussaldvmow 240
Usseldvmow 240
Ussvllow, Ussvldow 135, 141, 183,
195, 196, 237, 305, 310, 330, 344,
362, 403, 424, 431
Xasbvw 326, 334, 374
Xeramuhw 330
In Greek
Arbasiw 334
Armadapimiw 339
Armapia 331
Armapiaw 331
Arpigramow 353
Arteimianow 410
Arteimaw 356, 410
Arteimow 356, 410
Arteimhw 410
Artimaw 410
Artimhw 356, 410
Gghw 334
Dada 13
Eida 334
Eidassala 334
Ermapiaw 331
Ida 334
Imbrasow 335
Imrougara 335
Kendebhw 373
Kendhbhw 373
Kendhbaw 373
Kouadapemiw 339
Kougaw 334
Ktibilaw 340
Mollisiw 341
Mousathw 336, 386
Moshta 336, 386
Moushta 336, 386
Moutaw 386
Janduberiw 222, 245, 255, 375, 419
Oliw 421
Oraw 338
Oualiw 421
Ouajamoaw 255, 336, 427
Ouajamvw 336, 427
Ouramoutaw 338
Panamuaw 336
Perpenduberiw 402
Pigramiw 337, 361, 397
Pigramow 337, 361, 397
Pigrassiw 337
Pijaw 399
Other Anatolian Proper Names
514 ixricrs
Pijedarow 399
Ponamoaw 405
Salaw 334
Sedeplemiw 338
Tabhnoi 9
Tarkumbiou (gen.) 339
Triendasiw 341
Trokoarbasiw 334
In cuneiform sources
la- 334
Arma- 306, 331, 347
Ayami/aimi 343
u-da-ar-l 406
u-du-ur-l 406
u-u-tar-li 406
u-ut-ra-la-(a) 406
u-ut-ra-li-i 406
Immaraziti 335
Lukka 342
Massanaura 338
Millawa(n)da 342
Mutamutassa 342
Muwatalli 336
Muwaziti 336, 386
Nattaura 338
Petassa 336
Piirim 337
*Piyama-
d
KAL 339
Piyamaradu 339, 385
Pitassa 336
Puna-A.A = *Punamuwa- 405
Runtiya- 333
Taru- 331, 347, 356, 423
Tarunt- 239, 247, 259, 260, 347, 356,
423
Tarhundapiya 339
Taruntaradu 385
Ura 338
Urawalkui 338
Walawala 428
Walawali 428
Wallarima 240
In Hieroglyphlic Luwian
Tarhu(n)t- (TONITRUS-hut-) 347
In Lycian
Erbbina 177
Esedeplemi 338
Hrixttbili 340
Idazzala 334
Ijna 369
Ipresidi 335
Katamla- 244
Mullijese/i- 341
Natr- 162, 332, 389
Natrbbijemi 238, 332, 339, 343, 347,
389
Punamuwe 405
SedeplMmi 338
Teleb(ehi) 177
Trijetezi- 341
Trqqt- (nom. Trqqas) 239, 247, 259,
260, 331, 347, 356, 423
Urebillaha (dat.) 318
Xbide- 203, 243, 245, 255, 297, 298,
371
Zzala 334
In Milyan
Kridesi 407
Trqqt- (nom. Trqqiz) 260, 331, 334
Xbadiz 261
In Greek
Aynai 237, 243, 259
Ayhnaow 155, 203, 237, 296
Apolldotow 332, 339, 389
Aristoklw 164
Artemiw 356
Artmvn 238, 357
Arxlaow 354
Bragxdai 20, 251, 285, 402
Brgxow 290
Ekataow 236, 238, 288, 375, 378
*Ekatmnhstow 378
Ellhnikn 2
Ermw 331
Ermaw 135, 305, 307
Zew 289, 375
Idriew 140, 255, 438
Ipposynhw 155, 203, 236, 296, 298,
316
Karikn 2
Kttouza 9
Kaunoi 155, 203, 296, 297, 299, 360
Koi 271
Kw 8
Lusiklw 155, 203, 236, 237, 243,
248, 296, 380
Lusikrthw 155, 203, 236, 237, 243,
248, 296, 380
Greek Proper Names
ixricrs 515
Mlhtow 342
Nikoklw 155, 203, 236, 249, 296,
380, 388
Olidhw 236, 245, 248, 428, 432
Orsiklw 431
Periklw 431
Pndarow 242, 396
Sklaj 164
Txh 308
Ubraw 432
Fnhw 135, 305
Crusaorw 416
In Lycian
Lustrah (gen.) 304
Perikle 431
In Egyptian
J(?)[ 47
J.r=w 369
Jr.t=w-r.r=w 370
J-r 353
Js.t 128
Jtm 32, 424
W3h-jb-r-nb-[ 38, 387
B3st.t 251, 398
P3j-Wsir 398
P3-whr 405
P3-n-jwjw 397
P3-n-Wsjr 398
P3-n-Nj.t 393
P3-sb3-j-m-njw.t 350
P3-dj-Jnp 404
P3-dj-Jtm 395
P3-dj-nq.t 404
P3-dj-B3st.t 245, 395
P3-dj-(p3)-nr 404
P3-dj-Njt 33, 198, 242, 243, 245, 266,
395
*P3-dj-nfr 404
P3-dj-r-sm3-t3wy 244, 250, 399
P3-dj-sm3-t3wy 244, 250, 399
P3-dj-st 39
*P3-dj-t3wy 404
Psmk 194, 242, 249, 250, 398,
403
Psmk-wj-Njt 38, 198, 403
Pt-ms 420
Nj.t 249
Nj.t-jqr 243, 248, 249, 389
Ny-k3w 244, 249, 388
Nfr-r 242, 388
Ns-r 369
3py 41
p-mn 353
r 391
T3-dj(t)-wsir 39
T3-dj(.t)b3st.t 245, 423
3j-jm=w, 3j-n.jm=w 251, 194, 195,
416, 424
3j-p-jm=w 424
3[ = *3-n-n3-jw 194, 425
In Akkadian
Tamai 420
In Greek
Amasiw 293
Apimenhw 353
Avw 353
Esour 369
Esouriw 369
Yamvw 251, 424
Iyorvw 370
Nekw, Nexvw 244, 249, 388
Nefervw 242, 388
Nitvkriw 243, 248, 249, 315, 389
Panitiw 393
Peteyumiw 395
Petenaiyiw 395
Petenhyiw 395
Petenht 395
Petenoupiw 404
Petepnouyiw 404
Petetumiw 395
Petyubestiow 395
Petobastiw 245, 395
Petoubastow 395
Petoubestiw 245, 395
Pieuw 397
Pihow 397
Pih# 397
Pisiriw 398
Potasimto 244, 250, 293, 399
Pouvriw 405
Povriw 405
Samauw 251, 425
Samw#w 251, 425
Tamvw 251, 424
Tetobastiw 245, 423
Cammhtixow Cam(m)atixow 293, 398,
403
Cousennhw 350
Egyptians Proper Names
516 ixricrs
In Old Persian
Vitspa- 370
In Greek
Ustsphw 370
2. L.xot.ors
Carian glosses in Greek
la 8, 11
bnda 8, 11
gla 8, 11
gssa 8
koon, kon 8 10
soa(n) 8, 10, 415
tba 9
toussloi 9
tumna 9
Cuneiform Luwian (CLuw)
/ya- 327, 343
annara/i- 262, 333, 352, 387
nnari- 333
nna/i- 347, 259, 273, 364
apa- 359
*arada-,* aradu- 332, 333, 385
arpa- 333, 334
*aatt(i)-, aattaa/i- 334
aduna (Inf.) 299
-a 306
ant- 372
andawat(i)- 294
pa/i- 334
*api- 334
a- 334, 345
utarl- 248, 260, 406
im(ma)ra/i- 335, 346, 393, 422
im(ma)ralla/i- 335
im(ma)raa/i- 335
*im(ma)raiya- 335
kui- 243, 259, 320, 377
-mma/i- 339, 343, 347
man(i)- 260, 307, 327, 332, 347
manaa/i- 352
maait- 351
muwa- 260, 335
nana- 284, 321, 388
-ppa 302
par 340
pia- 337, 345, 397
piya- 282, 284, 304, 327, 339, 396
pna- 259, 337
pnata/i- 337
arra 340
arri 260, 261, 302, 340, 411, 416
tta/i- 259, 273, 347, 421
upatit- 433
ura- 338, 430
ua/i- 344
wallant- 338
walli( ya)- 339
-wanni- 257, 260, 346, 367, 369, 371
wayamman- 427
wu- 344
za- 259, 288, 346, 410
zariya- 411
Hieroglyphic Luwian (HLuw)
ataman- 355
atra/i- 258, 392
hasu- 334
nimuwiza- 383
pa- 359
para/i 340
piya- 282, 284, 339
tata/i- 347
ura/i- 338
wa/iliya 339
-wani- 346
za- 259, 288, 346, 410
Hittite (Hitt.)
anda 287
andan 254, 287, 363
anna- 259, 347
ak(k)- 350
ara 304
ard- 333
atta- 347
anna- 332
ant- 372
ua- 334
innar- 333, 387
ka- 288, 346, 410
kn(i) 259, 288
kappi- 352
katta 300, 351
kattan 300
gim(ma)ra- 335, 346
kui- 243, 259, 260, 320, 377
gurta- 407
mald- 323, 427
Old Persian Proper Names
ixricrs 517
malai- 427
mid(i)- 382
muwa- 335, 386
n(i)- 284, 321, 388
naru- 333
nu- 285, 390
pi-/piya- 282, 284, 304, 325, 339
peda- 304, 336
par 259, 260, 340
piyanni- 359
pulla- 401
ara 340
r 260, 340, 416
iu(n)- 332
-talla- 428
ura/i- 338
walli- 339
*walli- 338
walliwalli- 260, 338, 339, 428
wiyi- 427
Lycian (Lyc.)
a(i)- 299, 300, 301, 309, 321, 347, 349
arawa- 300, 363, 435
arMma 258, 347
atnaze/i- 259
atra/etli- 204, 258, 297, 392
-be 302
ebe- 290, 320, 359
ebeli 365
ehbi 348
ehbi( je)- 300
ene/i- 259, 273, 313, 347, 352, 364
epneni 352
erbbe- 333
eri- 304, 364
ese- 294
hri- 260, 261, 302, 340, 416
hrppi 302
ipre 335
kbatra- 258
maha(na)- 260, 307, 327, 332, 347, 352
mahanahe/i- 313, 352
maraza- 335
me 324
-me/i- 339, 343, 347
mere- 335, 422
mle- 307
Mmai- 304, 390
neni 352
nere/i- 292
-ni 204, 260, 346, 369, 371
te 254, 287, 319, 363
pdden- 247, 304, 336, 396
pije- 282, 284, 304, 325, 327, 339, 396
-ppi 302
pri 40
prnawa- 290
punma- 259, 337
rMmazata 254
se 347, 411
s=ee 309
senaite 413
sije- 259, 412
ttu (imperative) 349
tede/i- 245, 259, 260, 273, 346, 347,
421
ti 243, 259, 320, 377
tike 377
trMmili( je)- 270
tuwe-, tu-s- 325
ube- 201, 239, 245, 259, 282, 321, 327,
347, 432
uhe/i- 344
xahba 258, 261, 326, 334
xawa- 10
xbidene/i- 203
xtawa- 294
xtawat(i)- 10, 260, 294, 364
xuga- 260, 326, 334, 345
xupa- 290, 429
-za 294
-ze/zi- 270, 392
zeus- 288, 375
Milyan (Mil.)
ddxug[ 362
erbbe/i- 334
erbbesi 334
esetesi 334
ki 243, 259, 320, 377
-kike 377
masa- 260, 261, 237, 307, 332, 347
muwa- 260, 335
sebe 201, 239, 245, 327, 347, 411
-wni 204, 257, 260, 346, 371
xtaba 373
xtabasi 373
xruwasaz (nom.-acc. pl.) 261
xuga- 334
zri- 260, 261, 416
Lydian (Lyd.)
armta- 347
artimu- 356
bi- 359
bil-l 396
civ 332
518 ixricrs
ena- 346, 364
itubelm- 370
kn- 406
sareta 411
serli-/selli- 261
taada- 260, 346, 347, 421
-wn 298
Sidetic
artmon 357
maara (dat. pl.) 260, 332,
347
Pisidian
oudoun 426
Proto-Anatolian (PA)
*anna-s 259
*arm
-
258, 260
*/be:H/- 257
*dda-s 259
*emro- 262, 346
*Hwo- 10
*HuHo- 260
*o-/- 259, 410
*k
w
is 259, 266, 320, 377
*ob/i- 359
*pdon 336
pr/pr 259, 260
*THt- 259
Greek
ggelow 11
mbrotow 262
atow (acc. pl.) 392
autn (acc.) 392
doje (aor.) 426
ergtaw (acc. pl.) 428, 429
yew 11
kombow, kombion 352
plekuw 399
projnouw (acc. pl.) 382, 411
sma 288, 415
rxh 391
Latin
orca 391
urceus 391
urna 391
Old Persian
kka- 1
haya/taya 320
Proto-Indo-European (PIE)
*b
h
h
2
- 246, 257, 260, 337, 345, 361
*dyew- 332
*h
2
e/owo- 10
*h
2
ent- 260
*h
2
nr 387
*h
2
onsu- 261
*e 411
*ei- 259, 412
*o-/Keh
2
288, 410
*k
w
e 182
*k
w
i- 202, 259, 266, 320, 377
neyH- 284, 321, 388
*-mto- 262
*nu- 285
*pedo- 247, 336
*terh
2
- 331
*8elH- 339
*8elh
1
- 339
Akkadian
*nar 333
Egyptian
3 32
n 32, 41, 128
ym 33
wnwtj 278, 429
p3 wm 41, 355
p3 m-nr n Jmn 400
n 47
nr 32, 389
s3 47
snb 32
dj 32, 41, 128, 399
Coptic
eiom 33
PLATES
521
M
a
p

1
.

C
a
r
i
a
n

i
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
s

i
n

C
a
r
i
a
.
522
Map 2. Carian inscriptions in Egypt.
523
Plate 1
524
Plate 2
525
Plate 3
526
Plate 4