Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T05:25:53.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Groups of Ancient Anatolian Proper Names

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

Albrecht Goetze
Albrecht Goetze*
Affiliation:
Yale University
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Ever since it was discovered that Hittite, the language in which the bulk of the cuneiform tablets from Boğazköy is composed, is an Indo-European language or a language related to Indo-European, historians and linguists alike have been interested in the question as to the time when these people entered Asia Minor. The tablets were mostly written between 1400 and 1200 b.c., but the history of the Hittite state can be traced back to about 1900 b.c.; at that time, at the latest, Hittites must have been present in Anatolia. The problem of their origin has been complicated by the fact that the Hittite language is not isolated in the peninsula, but forms part of an ‘Anatolian’ group of languages to which Luwian and Palaic—likewise attested in the Boğazköy material—and furthermore the language of the inscriptions written in Hittite hieroglyphs also belong. The latter can at present be traced back to the middle of the 2nd millennium but for the most part cover the early centuries of the 1st millennium.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 30 , Issue 3: July-September , September 1954, pp. 349 - 359
Copyright
Copyright © 1954 by the Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

In this article the following abbreviations are employed :

(1) Periodicals: AfO = Archiv für Orientforschung; AHDO = Archives d'histoire du droit oriental; AJA = American journal of archaeology; Arch. Or. = Archiv Orientální; BASOR = Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research; Bibl. Or. = Bibliotheca orientalis; Dergi = Ankara Universitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi; IF = Indogermanische Forschungen; JAOS = Journal of the American Oriental Society; JCS = Journal of cuneiform studies ;JHS — Journal of Hellenic studies; JKF = Jahrbuch für kleinasiatische Forschung; KlF = Kleinasiatische Forschungen; MDOG = Mitteilungen der DeutschenOrient-Gesellschaft; Orient. = Orientalia; PSBA = Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology; RA = Revue d'assyriologie; RHA = Revue hittite et asianique; ZA = Zeitschrift für Assyriologie; ZDMG = Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft.

(2) Publications of Boğazköy texts: ABoT = Kemal Balkan, Ankara Arkeoloji Müzesinde bulunan Boğazköy tabletleri; BoTU = E. Forrer, Boghazköi Texte in Umschrift; HT = Hittite texts in the cuneiform character from tablets in the British Museum; IBoT = Bozkurt-Çîğ-Güterbock, Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzelerinde bulunan Boğazköy tabletleri; KBo = Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi; KUB = Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi; VBoT = A. Götze, Verstreute Boghazköi Texte. Furthermore Bo (with following number) = unpublished Boğazköy tablet (quoted by museum number). CH = F. Hrozný, Code hittite.

(3) Publications of Kültepe texts: BIN = Babylonian inscriptions in the collection of James B. Nies; CCT = Cuneiform texts from Cappadocian tablets in the British Museum; Chantre = E. Chantre, Mission en Cappadoce; Cont. = G. Contenau, Trente tablettes cappa-dociennes; Gol. = W. Golénischeff, Vingt-quatre tablettes cappadociennes; Hahn = J. Lewy, Die Kültepetexte aus der Sammlung Frida Hahn; ICK = Inscriptions cunéiformes du Kultépé; KTP = F. J. Stephens, The Cappadocian tablets in the University of Pennsylvania Museum, Journal of the Soc. of Oriental Res. 11.101-36 (1927); KTS = J. Lewy, Die altassyrischen Texte von Kültepe bei Kaisarije (Keilschrifttexte in den Antiken Museen zu Stambul); Liv. = T. G. Pinches, Liverpool annals of arch. and anthrop. 1.49-80 (1908); OIP = Oriental Institute publications; TCL = Musée du Louvre, Textes cunéiformes; TMH = Texte und Materialien der Frau Professor Hilprecht Collection of Babylonian Antiquities im Eigentum der Universität Jena. Furthermore EL = Eisser-Lewy, Die Altassyrischen Rechtsurkunden vom Kültepe.

(4) Unpublished tablets: NBC = Nies Babylonian Collection (Yale University); VAT = Vorderasiatische Abteilung (der Staatlichen Museen in Berlin) Tontafel.

(5) More frequently quoted publications: Laroche, Rec. = E. Laroche, Recueil d'onomastique hittite; Laroche, Rech. = E. Laroche, Recherches sur les noms de dieux hittites; Sommer, AU = F. Sommer, Die Aḫḫijavā-Urkunden; Sommer, Bil. = F. Sommer (and A. Falkenstein) , Die hethitisch-akkadische Bilingue des Ḫattušli I.

References

1 This is the opinion of the majority of scholars. See most recently Holger Pedersen, Hittitisch und die anderen indoeuropäischen Sprachen (Copenhagen, 1938), and F. Sommer, Hethiter und Hethitisch (1947).

2 This view has been advocated by E. H. Sturtevant. See his Comparative grammar of the Hittite languaae, revised edition (New Haven, 1951).

3 Cf. Sturtevant, l.c.5 ff.

4 For a resumé see A. Götze, Kleinasien in Kulturgeschichte des Alten Orients 3:1.61 ff. (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 3:1.3, 1933). The more recent literature is quoted by E. Bilgiç, AfO 15.1 (1950).

5 See Bilgiç, l.c. 2 ff.

6 Belleten 3.214 f. fn. 17 (1939); Arch. Or. 18:1/2.341 f. fn. 67 (1950). He has recently (JCS, Vol. 8, in press) changed his opinion and terminology and distinguishes now between a ‘muwa-language’ and an ‘aḫšu-language’. To the latter—now classified as Indo-European—he assigns the names treated here as groups 1, 2, and 3.

7 Arch. Or. 18:3.318 ff. (1950), particularly 381 f. fn. 73. Lewy posits his term ‘mainly for the sake of convenience’, but proceeds immediately to apply to the material rules of Ḫurrian phonology and grammar as he understands it, i.e. to take his term at face value.

8 JKF 2.23 ff. (1951). Though Gelb is closer in substance to my own position, I cannot approve of his ranging far and wide from the columns of Hercules to the eastern borders of Iran, or of the use he makes simultaneously of cuneiform texts and of the Gazetteer to the Times Survey Atlas of the World.

9 The occurrences can be found in Bilgiç's article. Add for Išpunuman TCL XXI 254 5, 11; 255 5, 10, for Šakriuman TCL XIX 48b 17; 97 18 ff.; XXI 253 9; BIN VI 226 7; ICK I 30 pass.; 604, for Šuppiuman ICK I 115 5. With Liḫšuman compare now ḪUR.SAGLi-iḫ-ša-aš IBoT II 131 obv. 21. Besides Tù-nu-um-na with a thematic vowel, BIN IV 208 3 offers Tù-nu-um-na-aš with an additional Luwian or Hittite nominative -š.

10 The notation ‘Bilgiç‘ refers to unpublished material quoted by Bilgiç in his article in AfO 15.1 ff. (1951).

11 ḫašši- (probably i-stem) should be a color, cf. the common ÍD.SA6 ‘Red River’, ÍD.SIG7 ‘Yellow River’.

12 Cf. Otten, JCS 4.130.

13 With assimilation mn > mm, e.g. LÚ URUZa-al-pu-u-ma-aš (2BoTU 10β 28), LÚ URUḪa-aš-šu-u-ma-aš (ibid. 29), LÚ URUḪal-pu-u-ma-aš (ibid. 30). This explains the name Šup-pluliumaš and his relationship to the river and the town Šuppiluliyaš (KUB XVII 20 III 14 and XXII 51 obv. 11, the latter now also BIN VI 215 10). Note also LÚḫé-eš-tu-u-um-ni (dat.) Bo 2866 (JCS 4.130 fn. 31).

14 I cannot understand what moves Sommer, Hethiter und Hethitisch 85 (1947) to claim the suffix for Ḫattic.

15 See already ZA NF 6.263 (1931); Haverjord symposium 147 (1938). Landsberger, Belleten 3.220 fn. 4 (1939), maintains the pre-Indo-European character of the suffix, and this view is reaffirmed Arch. Or. 17:1/2.341 f. fn. 67 (1950), and also reflected by E. Bilgiç, AfO 15.1 ff. (1951). A different opinion is now offered in JCS, Vol. 8 (in press).

16 Recueil 105. He states that they are neither Ḫattic nor Neshite, but probably belong to a Luwian dialect. He emphasizes the neat point that the adverb nešumn-ili appears in the second Arzawa letter and contrasts with Hitt. naš-ili. But we have also palaumn-ili.

17 Already E. Forrer, MDOG 63.4 (1924).

18 Hitt. *Kataumna- is unknown; but an utne hatera (ideogr. KUR ŠAPLĪTU) ‘Lower Country’ exists.

19 Cf. P. Kretschmer, KlF 1.1 ff.

20 J. Lewy, AHDO 2.136 (1938).

21 In the latter passage the name ends in -kán, which makes it look like an accusative.

22 The structure recalls -šepa, -zipa (cf. Laroche, RHA 7.4 ff.); DḪilanzipaš of the Palaic passage to be quoted presently makes this reference very pertinent. This has wider implications since the well-known Anatolian god Κακασβος (see L. Robert, Hellenica 3.66) also belongs here.

23 Situated in Kizzuwatna; cf. ZA NF 12.92 (1940).

24 This is suggested by the Hittite occurrence; the Cappadocian tablets do not indicate double consonants.

25 See A. Goetze, Tunnawi 58 ff.; J. Friedrich, JCS 1.288 (1947). One obtains here a strong argument in favor of the reading gulš- to which I have adhered all along. The pertinence of Kültepe Kulšan etc. is also brought into sharper focus.

26 For occurrences see BASOR 122.21 ff.

27 Both times genitive ending in -ší.

28 Compare the name of the Cilician queen Έπυαξα (Xenophon).

29 For the reading see Kraus apud Bossert, Asia 169.

30 Probably from *Tarawaḫsu-.

31 Note the final thematic a.

32 Hethiter und Hethitisch 85 f. But that Kültepe is ‘vorhethitisch’ is merely petitio principii; the historical situation does not recommend Sommer's interpretation, nor is it borne out by the archeological results of the excavations at Kültepe.

33 Asia 155 ff.

34 Recueil 104 f.

35 ZA NF 9.184 ff.; he quotes in addition the name of the goddesses DŠa-ḫa-aš-ša-ra-aš (KUB VI 46 II 58).

36 Which has a good etymon in Lat. erus.

37 Cf. the Kültepe name Ḫa-šu-šar (EL No. 36 2).

38 I. J. Gelb, Hitt. hieroglyphs 3.18 (1942); H. Th. Bossert, Asia 150 ff., 171 f. (1946); P. Meriggi (correct Glossar 164 in accordance with Athenaeum NS 29.32 [1951]); J. Friedrich, Heth. Wörterbuch 64 (1952).

39 IF 54.291 f. (1936); see also Sturtevant, Lg. 25.343 ff. (1949).

40 Which was endorsed by Laroche, Rec. 105.

41 K. Brugmann, Grundriss 2 2:1.176 ff.; H. Hirt, IF 32.283 f. (1914); Benveniste, Origines de la formation des noms 52 ff.

42 Cf. E. Laroche, Rech. 74; the name is explicable from Hittite.

43 Ibid. 82 f. It is now clear—see JCS 4.125 (1950)—that Inara is indeed the (or one) reading of DKAL (LAMA). Moreover the DKAL is worshipped by the ‘singer of Kaniš‘ (Forrer, ZDMG NF 1.197; Bossert, Königssiegel 28 and passim). Cf. H. G. Güterbock, Hittite religion 93 (in V. Ferm, Forgotten religions).

44 Cf. Išpanza ibid. 75; DIš-pu-da-aš-I-na-ra-aš 2BoTU 12A II 15. On the name see presently.

45 Ibid. 87; see particularly Otten, JKF 2.62 ff. (1951); worshipped kanišumnili or luwili.

46 This need not be Šanda- (ibid. 88). In view of the doublet Niwaḫšušar and Naḫšušar the assumption is possible and seems quite likely that Šat(a)- is for Šiwat(a)-.

47 Besides (Ḫattic) Taru (ibid. 32 f.) note also Hittite-Luwian Tarawaš (F. Sommer, AU 294) and particularly the Luwian proper name Piyama-Tarawaš (KBo II 1 II 19).

48 Note Hittite niwalli-. Ni-wa occurs as a proper name on OIP XXVII 1 2 according to Lewy, Orient. 21.405 fn. 3 (1952).

49 This word will be treated elsewhere. Cf. also Ḫa-pu-(w)a-la (Gol. 13 6; TCL IV 87 30, 55; ICK 13 6, 13; 19 pass.; 83 24; 93 4; 106 3; 181 22) and ḫa-pu-a-šu (see presently).

50 To be assumed on the basis of the equation ḫašaliyatar = UR.SAG-tar (Otten, KUB XXXIV 105, p. III). Hence, UR.SAG-iš (KUB V 12 rev. 5) must be read ḫašališ and equated with the Kültepe name Ḫa-áš-ta-li (TCL XX 191 3). The same word stem yields—besides Ḫišuman and ḫa/ištaḫšu—also (this time attested at Boğazköy) Ḫa-aš-ta-ia-ar (f.) (2BoTU 8 III 64), Ḫé-eš-ta-ia[-ra] (f.) (VBoT 33 8), Ḫi-iš-ta-i-ia-ra (f.) (2BoTU 12A II 2). The last quoted names are more closely related to ḫa/eštai- ‘strength’ (see Ehelolf apud Sommer, AU 181). Note also URUḪa-aš-du-ri-ia (HT 2 I 11).

51 F. Sommer, Bil. 75, 77. Cf. furthermore Wa-at-ni-iš-du-a-an TCL XX 191 27.

52 VAT 13465 (transliterated EL 102) 19. Is Lewy's Is-bu-a (with s and not š) correct?

53 Also SALIš-pu-un-na-la-aš KBo II12 V 11.

54 Note in particular Hitt. (KBo VI 28 rev. 30; KUB XVI 27 3; VBoT 11011) and (KUB XVI 42 rev. 1) where the meaning of ḫekur ‘mountain, summit’ indicates the semantic field in which pirwa must fall (cf. F. Sommer, AU 318; Otten, JKF 2.72 fn. 18).

55 Šupu- may or may not have anything to do with šuppi-.

56 Lg. 27.473 ff. (1951).

57 Occurrences in Laroche's Recueil.

58 For occurrences see Gelb-Purves-McRae, Nuzi personal names. The names are isolated at Nuzu.

59 See E. Laroche, Rech. 73. Ḫalkiš is the Hittite form of the Ḫattic grain deity Kait.

60 Cf. in last place J. Friedrich, Heth. Wörterbuch 36 (1952) and the literature quoted there.

61 Cf. naḫ- ‘fear, venerate’.

62 See A. Goetze, KlF 1.228 f.

63 One may ask whether dam(ma)na- might be related to dammara-, which may stand for *damnara-. The dammara- women are well known (KUB V 6 II 16, 36, 46; XVI 16 obv. 13, 18, 23, 26, rev. 19; XVIII 37) and once (KUB V 6 II 16) paralleled by d.-man. The word appears twice with the Luwian plural suffix: SALdam-ma-ra-a-an-zi nom. (KUB XVIII 37) and SAL.MEŠdam-ma-ra-an-za acc. (KUB V 6 II 46).

64 Its existence is assured because of Ni-ga (TCL XX 158 17), Ni-ga-at (TCL XX 158 5) and Ni-ga-an (Bilgiç); compare Hittite DNi-in-ga-aš (see Goetze, Mádduwattaš 118 and KlF 1.405).

65 I have omitted Ší-a-at (KTS 47b 1, 3) since it probably belongs to the River Šiyanta of the Hittite texts.

66 The variant Ku-li-a-et (ibid. 26) is faulty (thus also Güterbock, ZA NF 10.127 f.), but perhaps influenced by an older *Ku-li-a-at.

67 Cf. Pí-im-pí-ra-aš (2BoTU 9 IV 11; etc.) and Pí-pí-ri-ri-ia-an acc. KUB XXIII 87 16.

68 I.e. Aššiyat+s; cf. H. Th. Bossert, Asia 119. According to the same author, Königssiegel 70, E. Bilgiç rendered the name by ‘Liebling’. The name of the deity is however in most cases spelled without the n of the participle, and the n may not be genuine to the form.

69 Cf. A. Götze, Neue Bruchstücke 58; F. Sommer, Bil. 126 fn. 5.

70 With the variant Ša-lu-wa-an-ta for which Ša-lu-a-ta (f.) (ICK I 35 b 1, with the variant Ša-lu-a-ta-at a 10) and Ša-lu-wa-ta (f. ?) (TCL IV 99 3) must be compared.

71 Kulittaš is generally considered as Ḫurrian of origin. However, her name, like that of her constant companion Ninattaš, betrays no Ḫurrian characteristics. Neither of them—nor, for that matter, Sauška, their mistress—ever occurs in Nuzu. Just as there are Ḫuman elements in the Hittite pantheon, we will have to acknowledge the presence of Hittite (or ‘Anatolian‘) elements in the Ḫuman pantheon. The existence of a Ḫurrian noun ku-u/ú-li can of course be purely accidental (KUB XII 11 IV 27 f.; XXVII 1 II 67); kulaḫena (see Laroche, JCS 2.121) is probably derived from it. That a homonymous Luwian stem exists is proved by ku-li-wi KBo IV 14 IV 34 and ku-la-ni-wi KUB XXI 20 3.

72 Goetze, JCS 1.176 f. (1947).

73 Previously quoted by Hrozný, ZA NF 4.183. The name has the variant Ku-ul-ša-an. Both belong with Hrozný to Hitt. g/kulš- ‘impress, inscribe’.

74 Here the well-attested Cappadocian name Ši-wa-áš-me-i (KTS 52 a 11; BIN IV 31 2; 203 17; 209 2; cf. H. Th. Bossert, Asia 81, 89) may also be mentioned. One cannot help but compare the other Cappadocian names Ši-wa-na-lá (OIP XXVII 7 10) and Ší-nu-na-la (KTS 58 a 11); cf. Ḫa-pu-a-la, Ta-ar-ḫu-a-la on the one hand, and Hittite šiu-, šiwan- ‘god’ on the other. One is reminded particularly of the name given to the god of Neša in the Anittaš text (2BoTU 7, 2 BoTU 30 and duplicates), namely DŠi-ú-šum-mi -in (ace.), DŠi-u-na-šum-mi-iš (gen.), to be analyzed either as šiuš-miš, šiunaš-miš (?), literally ‘my god’ or as šiuš-šmiš, šiunaš-šmiš ‘their/your god’. The occurrence of this god as a proper name in the Kültepe tablets—just like Inaraš, Pirwaš and others—makes it in my opinion impossible to regard the name of the god of Neša in the Anittaš text as a later addition, as has been asserted (Güterbock, ZA NF 10.139 ff.; Landsberger, Arch. Or. 18:1/2.341 fn. 66).

75 Note the adverb kanišumnili ‘in the fashion of a Kaneshite’ Bo 6222 (JKF 2.67).