Rich McQuillen
re: A new (modern?) hieroglyphic Luwian stone inscription
Mon Oct 16, 2017 20:12

"I would like to see the views of academic scholars"
"as I already mentioned in Jorrit's post, I have absolutely no doubts that it is a Mellart's concoction. against the background of the Luwian texts we have, this piece looks quite nonsensical from every point of view. even a brief glance will suffice to see that the text contains almost no narrative which means almost no verbs, prepositions, nouns etc. but huge amounts of names. no such Luwian texts are known. but it is obviously easy to compose, as one needs practically no knowledge of grammar etc., one need only to transcribe names known from cuneiform into hieroglyphic. but the point is, it is immediately obvious what 'manual' the 'scribe' of Kubanta-Kurunta used to write the text: it is Laroche 1960. The text simply repeats all mistakes and misconceptions of the book. to give only a few: the name of Mashuitta is written with the signs ma-sa-AVUS-ti, which makes sense only if one consults Laroche 1960: the sign was still thought to render ta/da and one thought that AVUS has a phonetic value h (worse of that, Mellaart stupidly took the form of the sign from Laroche 1960 which is in all appearances mistaken or extremely rare cursive variant ) In fact, the latter is used only as a logogram for 'grand-father'/ancestor' and can be read only as /ti/. what is especially ridiculous, the same sign was taken to render verbal endings, as e.g. ARHA DELERE-ti. this supposedly meant to render preterit in -ta, which would be normal, but -ti is present! on the other hand, the text does not use the rule dubbed as 'initial-a-final', i.e. writing of sign rendering the first element of a particle chain (as a-wa-mu) *after* the following elements (i.e. graphically wa-mu-a). this rule was recognized only in late 90s and such early texts as YALBURT use it. well, that's only to give an idea of the 'composition'... I'm afraid I'll have to write an official rebuttal of this rubbish after the paper is out... which does not promise to to such a fun..." -- Rostislav Oreschko

"I fully agree with your analysis. I explained to Gojko yesterday that the text does not show initial-a-final, and that the text shows an extremely simple structure. You do not need to know Luwian grammar to be able to do this. And Gojko -who checked the Yale archives- mentioned that Mellaart was corresponding with Goetze about Luwian, so he was clearly learning about the language. It can no longer be claimed that he did not know anything about Luwian." -- Petra Goedegebuure

"The answer to all 8 questions is obviously "fake". On 8., I guess that's right: the king of Mira is supposed to claim credit for what T4 asked him to do. Incidentally, doesn't the ref. to Walmu help date the forgery to post Hoffner.1982?" -- Ian Rutherford

"A few more thoughts about this being a forgery. The physical make-up of this inscription is quite unusual. Being roughly 30 meters(!) in length would make this the longest and best preserved hieroglyphic Luwian inscription from the empire period! Most empire period monumental hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions are short (or fragmentary) and poorly preserved! But in addition to its length, the height of the stones appears, at most, to be only 30 cm (less than a foot) in height (based on the drawing). This is truly an odd shape for a stone inscription. How was it displayed and where? Finally, most lengthy Luwian inscriptions were written in boustrophedon, and this inscription clearly was not. So, along with the doubts raised by Eric Cline and others above, I seriously doubt the authenticity of this inscription." -- Lawson Younger

  • Hi All Reports on the net mention that Fred Woudhuizen and Eberhard Zangger are about to publish a major Luwian inscription having very significant historical information. See for example... more
    • re: A new (modern?) hieroglyphic Luwian stone inscription — Rich McQuillen, Mon Oct 16 20:12
Click here to receive daily updates