Hieroglyphic Luwian: An Introduction with Original Texts, 3rd Revised Edition.
Hieroglyphic Luwian Studies have a growing importance not only in Hittitology, but also in ancient Near Eastern studies in general. Thus an introductory textbook to this writing system and dialect is clearly a must and the earlier editions of the book under review represent a widely used and acclaimed introduction. Nevertheless, not only this importance but also the rapid growth of our knowledge of Hieroglyphic Luwian necessitate continuous revisions of even this book, which is the goal of the third edition reviewed here, even though the adaptation of current research has not always been successful (see below), and while the observations of Giusfredi's review (2012) of the second edition have been taken into account, those of Janda's review (2011) have not.
The book has maintained its original structure: the preface and the abbreviations are followed by the introduction containing general information (pp. 1-11) and by a relatively detailed grammatical overview (phonology [meaning here, however, orthography], morphology, and syntax [pp. 13-42]), where all topics are amply illustrated by examples. References to secondary literature keep a healthy balance between general and specialized works, though there could have been more references to new readings of particular signs (p. 10), since this is a quite crucial matter.
The main part consists of twelve sample texts presented with a short introduction, original drawing of the inscription, transliteration (the first six texts provided with a sign-by-sign explanation), grammatical interpretation, translation with short commentary, and a recapitulation with consecutive transliteration and translation (pp. 43-142), thus enabling an easy step-by-step learning of Hieroglyphic Luwian and its writing system. The book closes with a glossary (pp. 143-60), a sign list with an index (pp. 161-206), and a bibliography (pp. 207-26).
Noteworthy is the caution of the author in not adopting (only accurately noting, if necessary) the new values of <t[a.sub.4]> and <t[a.sub.5]>. The only structural change is an unfortunate one: the map of the find-spots of Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions has been omitted, although it obviously would have been more useful than the one-page fictive Luwian poetry of unknown function at the end of the book (p. 217). Despite the complicated typesetting, misprints are rare (<a> has often not been italicized in Luwian words [a-sa-ta, p. 29; a-mu, a-sa-ta, p. 30; a-pa-na, p. 36; a-mi-ia-za, p. 134; "KOT~KALE" [p. 31]; "one postpositions" [p. 37]; "need be used" [p. 40]; "active participal" [p. 85]; "Old-Assyrian" [p. 135]).
While this book represents in general a trustworthy and up-to-date introduction and as an instructor I can only praise it from a pedagogical point of view, some inconsistencies and inaccuracies must nevertheless be pointed out:
P. 2: "Hattusa (modern Bogazkoy)": the village has been called Bogazkale since 1960.
P. 11: Meriggi 1953 is missing from the bibliography (since the first edition!).
P. 13: The signs <a> and <a> are not doublets, since they originally stood in complementary distribution until approximately the middle of the ninth century, and <a> is not used only word-initially (contra p. 19), although its non-initial usage is indeed highly restricted. For all this see Kloekhorst 2004: 27-35; Melchert 2010; and Simon 2013: 2-9.
P. 16: Payne shares the widespread view that Luwian aphaeresis was a common phenomenon. In fact, Melchert 2010 has already demonstrated that there was no aphaeresis in Luwian; see there for his explanation of Payne's alleged examples (pp. 24, 26).
P. 28: Although until now indeed only three numerals have been attested, as Payne herself later notes (p. 129); a fourth, namely 'one', can be partly reconstructed from the acrophonic sign UNUS <s[a.sub.8]>.
P. 30: The reading of INFRA-ta is not *kata, but zanta (Goedegebuure 2010).
P. 33: For a more precise rule governing agreement with cardinal numbers see Bauer 2011.
P. 36 n. 33: The preposed postpositions are not exceptions; they underwent fronting, a kind of topicalization; cf. Melchert 2003: 201.
P. 39: Regarding negatives, Hawkins and Morpurgo-Davies 2010 should now be cited.
Pp. 39, 56: For a more precise rule for the position of relative pronouns in subordinate clauses see Melchert 2003: 207-8.
P. 47: The appropriate form of the ethnic suffix is -wann(i)-, not "-wan-".
P. 59: Although Payne believes that "further excavations are no longer possible" in Karkemish, they have been resumed beginning in 2011.
Pp. 71, 77: The first syllable in the name of the Karkemishean Great King X-pazitis is no longer unknown: his name is Sapazitis as revealed by a new stela from Karkemish; see already Dincol et al. 2012: 145.
P. 135: That "the lead documents from Assur and Kululu are in fact the only surviving examples of hieroglyphic handwriting" is no longer correct. Add at least the KIRSEHIR-letter (Akdogan and Hawkins 2007-2008 / 2010; with or without a new fragment, Weeden 2013), if other texts that (may) reflect handwriting are not taken into consideration.
P. 216: The book of Yakubovich appears in the bibliography as a dissertation, but with the publication year of the revised, book version.
Finally, Yakubovich 2013, which argues for the existence of an analytical superlative (contra p. 23), and demonstrates (p. 62) that kumaza- does not mean 'priest' (contra p. 19), was probably published too late to be included.
Notwithstanding these minor quibbles, Payne's book is an excellent and enjoyable tool for both learning and teaching Hieroglyphic Luwian and the author deserves the gratitude of the scholarly community for continuously updating it.
Akdogan, R., and J. D. Hawkins. 2007-2008. Kir[section]ehir-Yassihoyuk'ten ele gecen luvi hiyeroglif yazih kur[section]un levha. Anadolu Medeniyetleri Muzesi'nin Yilligi 2007-2008: 7-14.
__. 2010. The Kir[section]ehir Letter: A New Hieroglyphic Luwian Text on a Lead Strip. In VII. Uluslararasi Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri, Corum 25-31 Agustos 2008, ed. Aygiil Siiel. Pp. 1-16. Ankara.
Bauer, A. 2011. Counting in Hieroglyphic Luwian. TPS 109: 220-31.
Dincol, A., et al. 2012. A New Inscribed Stela from Karkemish: At the Origins of the Suhi-Katuwa Dynasty. NEA 75: 145-47.
Giusfredi, F. 2012. Review of A. Payne, Hieroglyphic Luwian, 2nd Revised Edition. WZKM 102: 367-69.
Goedegebuure, P. 2010. The Luwian Adverbs zanta 'down' and *anni- 'with, for against'. In VII. Uluslararasi Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri, Chorum 25-31 Agustos 2008, ed. Aygiil Sttel. Pp. 299-318. Ankara.
Hawkins, J. D., and A. Morpurgo-Davies. 2010. More Negatives and Disjunctives in Hieroglyphic Luwian. In Ex Anatolia Lux: Anatolian and Indo-European Studies in Honor ofH. Craig Melchert on the Occasion of His Sixty-fifth Birthday, ed. Ronald Kim et al. Pp. 98-128. Ann Arbor.
Janda, M. 2011. Review of A. Payne, Hieroglyphic Luwian, 2nd Revised Edition. OLZ 106: 180-81.
Kloekhorst, A. 2004. The Preservation of *[h.sub.1] in Hieroglyphic Luwian: Two Separate a-Signs. HS 117: 26-49.
Melchert, H. C. 2003. Language. In The Luwians, ed. id. Pp. 170-210. Leiden.
__ 2010. Spelling of Initial /a-/ in Hieroglyphic Luwian. In ipamati kistamati pari tumatimis: Luwian and Hittite Studies Presented to J. David Hawkins on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, ed. Itamar Singer. Pp. 147-58. Tel Aviv.
Simon, Zs. 2013. Once Again on the Hieroglyphic Luwian Sign *19 <a>. IF 118: 1-21.
Weeden, M. 2013. A Probable Join to the "Kirsehir Letter." AAS 18: 15-17.
Yakubovich, I. 2013. The Degree of Comparison in Luwian. IF 118: 155-68.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||The Journal of the American Oriental Society|
|Article Type:||Book review|
|Date:||Apr 1, 2017|
|Previous Article:||Ugaritische Grammatik.|
|Next Article:||Babylonian Poems of Righteous Sufferers: Ludlul Bel Nemeqi and the Babylonian Theodicy.|