Ethnic groups and language contact in Lycia (I): the "Maritime Interface"

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Leiden University / Center for Hellenic Studies, Harvard University

Ethnic groups and language contact in Lycia (I): the “Maritime Interface”

Rostislav Oreshko

Annotation

The paper offers an overview of the ethnolinguistic and sociolinguistic contact in Lycia in the Late Bronze and the Early Iron Age (ca. 1400-330 BC) resulting from the sea-borne connections of the region. Following a brief sketch of the Lycian geography and definition of its `ethnocultural interfaces' (§1), the discussion concentrates in turn on the southern coasts of Caria and Rhodos, also touching upon the question of the ethnic names of the Lycians, Lukka/Auklol and Trmmile/i (§2), Pamphylia (§3), Rough Cilicia (§4), the Levant (§5) and the Aegean (§6). The section on the Aegean offers a revision of the evidence on Greek-Lycian contacts and suggests a new explanatory scenario accounting for the paradoxical situation where an insignificant number of lexical borrowings contrasts with evidence for a deep structural influence of Greek on Lycian.

Keywords: Greek-Anatolian contact; language contact; ethnolinguistics; sociolinguistics; Aegean migrations; Anatolian languages; Lycian language; Luwian language; Greek language.

Аннотация

Р. Н. Орешко. Этнические группы и языковой контакт в Ликии (I): «морская контактная зона»

В статье предлагается обзор проблемы языковых контактов в Ликии в эпоху Поздней Бронзы и Раннего Железа (ок. 1400-330 до н.э.), обусловленных морскими связями этого региона с другими частями Восточного Средиземноморья. Вопрос рассматривается как с исторической, так и с этно- и социолинвистической точек зрения. Вслед за кратким очерком географии Ликии и определения ее «этнокультурных контактных зон» (§1) в статье последовательно обсуждается вопрос связей Ликии с южным побережьем Карии и Родосом (§2; там же параллельно затрагивается вопрос об этнических названиях ликийцев Lwfcfcд/AЬKioi и Trmmile/i); Памфилией (§3); побережьем (горной) Киликии (§4); Левантом (§5) и Эгеидой (§6). В части, посвященной Эгеиде, дается критический обзор материала, касающегося греческо-ликийских языковых контактов и предлагается новая модель, которая позволяет объяснить необычную картину сочетания незначительного числа прямых лексических заимствований с элементами, свидетельствующими о глубинном структурном влиянии греческого на ликийский.

Ключевые слова: греческо-анатолийские контакты; языковые контакты; этнолингвистика; социолингвистика; эгейские миграции; анатолийские языки; ликийский язык; лувий- ский язык; греческий язык.

The main text

Seen from the perspective of language contact, Lycia has received a fair amount of scholarly attention in recent years, at least in comparison to other regions of ancient Anatolia Cf. Le Roy 1989, Brixhe 1999, Rutherford 2002, Schurr 2007, Molina Valero 2009, Melchert 2014, Dardano 2015. To this one may add the recent PhD thesis by Florian Reveilhac (2018) which pays a lot of attention to the effects of language contact in the domain of onomastics.. As is often the case, this is due first and foremost to the nature of the available evidence. Not only is the Lycian corpus, comprising at present more than 200 inscriptions, some of which are quite long and elaborate For a recent overview of the Lycian corpus and recent additions to it see Christiansen 2020. Besides that, there is a number of coin legends, important both for Lycian onomastics and especially the reconstruction of the political history of the region., more substantial than those available for other `alphabetic languages' of the early 1<sup>st</sup> millennium BC Anatolia, such as Carian, Lydian or Phrygian, but the level of understanding of Lycian texts is in general also higher, allowing to focus even on minor details. The fact that Lycian is a close relative of Luwian -- the `Asian Tiger' of Anatolian studies of the last two decades -- plays no small part in it. Moreover, the Lycian corpus includes a number of bilingual and trilingual texts, which present one of the most convenient starting points for approaching the problem of language contact, and numerous Greek inscriptions, in part belonging to the same genre as Lycian texts (funerary inscriptions), also present an excellent opportunity for a comparative analysis of Greek and Lycian texts, a subject still quite far from being exhausted One can identify 20 inscriptions combining Greek and Lycian text only, some of which are bilinguals (more or less exact renderings of the same text), some quasi-bilinguals (approximate correspondences) and some contain only names additionally rendered in Greek; besides that there are two Lycian-Aramaic bilinguals (for details see Rutherford 2002: 200-201; to the table on p. 200 one should add TL 115 and TL 139, both from Limyra). Trilingual texts include Xanthos Trilingual (Greek-Lycian-`Lycian B') and Letoon Trilingual (Greek-Lycian- Aramaic). A major corpus of Greek inscriptions from Lycia is presented in the second volume of Tituli Asiae Minoris (TAM II), published in three parts between 1920 and 1944, now supplemented by numerous separate publications of inscriptions found more recently.. Given the epigraphical situation, it is quite natural that scholars hitherto concentrated almost entirely on the Lycian-Greek contact. However, the resulting picture is neither complete nor a balanced one, nor, one could say, even fair to the people who inhabited the region. It is quite obvious that the binary model (`Greeks' vs. `Orient' or the like), rooted in the traditional Hellenocentric perspective, very inadequately describes the real cultural and ethnic complexity of practically every corner of the ancient Mediterranean, but in the case of Lycia it proves to be especially misleading. The evidence of Greek literary texts, supported by numerous archaeological, epigraphic and onomastic indications, implies that this part of Anatolia was one of the most culturally complex and dynamic regions of the ancient Mediterranean, and that the name nap^uAia -- `(the land) of mingled tribes' -- would be as appropriate for the whole region from Side in the East to Kaunos in the West and from Aperlae in the South to Kibyra in the North, as it is for the alluvial coastal plain to the East of Lycia. There can be little doubt that before the extensive Hellenization of the region started after the Macedonian conquest in 334/333 BC, linguistic contact in Lycia was both multidirectional and multidimensional. The aim of the present contribution, conceived in two parts, is to give an overview of the ethnolinguistic and sociolinguistic situation in and around Lycia as can be glimpsed from historical evidence, as well as to present, whenever possible, linguistic exponents of this ethnocultural contact. The present first part will focus on the `Maritime Interface' (for definition see below).

§1. Geography of Lycia, Lycian ethnolinguistic area and `Ethnocultural Interfaces'

It is appropriate to start with the physical geography of Lycia, which is quite specific and largely predefines the framework for the unique ethnolinguistic situation there For a more detailed overview, including a discussion of the routes, see Keen 1998: 13-21 and §ahin-Adak 2007: 95-115.. Strabo (14.3.1) wrote that Lycia is the county lying between the Daidala Mountains, which marks the eastern limit of the Rhodian Peraia (i.e. the southern coastal regions of Caria), in the West and Pamphylia in the East. Neither Strabo nor any other Greek author offers any clear definition for the northern borders of Lycia, and this is probably not quite accidental, since Lycia is first and foremost a country immediately connected to the sea. In any case, Lycia, as a linguistic and cultural phenomenon, is not simply the Teke Peninsula -- the land protrusion between the Bay of Telmessos and the Pamphylian Sea (the Gulf of Antalya) -- as many modern maps tend to represent it.

The eastern part of the Teke peninsula is formed by a steep mountain range stretching roughly from south to north and subdivided into three main parts: Sariginar Dagi in the North, Tahtali Dagi, the highest point of the range (2366 m) probably called in Antiquity 'OAupuoc; or OoiviKoug (Str. 14.3.8) For an alternative identification of Olympos with Musa Dagi, a small south-western spur of the range in the region of the cities Olympos and Korykos, see Adak 2004., in the middle, and Gorece Dagi in the South. The mountain range virtually cuts off the narrow eastern coastal strip from the rest of the peninsula: even today there are only two roads leading from here to the West, the main one (Kemer- Kumluca), which was probably used already in Antiquity, in the southern part, and much smaller one (Kemer-Ovacik) traversing the range in its middle part. The eastern coast of the peninsula probably never was a part of Lycia in either linguistic or cultural sense, since one finds here neither Lycian inscriptions nor tombs typical of Lycia, and the fact that the Rhodians were able to establish here a colony at an early date (Phaselis, founded from Lindos in 691/90 BC) also indicates that the situation in the region was different from that in Lycia For Phaselis cf. Hansen-Nielsen 2004: 1140-41 and for further discussion of the Greek colonisation of the region cf. Adak 2007 and 2013.. Geographically and probably also culturally this easternmost part of the peninsula belonged rather with Pamphylia, to which it was in fact sometimes ascribed Phaselis is defined as noAig nap^uAiag by Aristodemos (FGrHist 104, Fr. 1, 13.2) and Stephen of Byzantium (s.v. ®dor|Aig). Contra Hansen-Nielsen 2004: 1140-41, Suda (121 ®dor|Aig) says nothing to the point, and the Lindos Temple Chronicle C, XXIV (= FGrHist 532 Fr. 3) does not actually locate it `in Solyma', since `drco ZoAupwv' of the passage refers obviously to the battle with the Solymi in which the helmets and sickle-swords mentioned in the passage were taken..

Fig. 1 Map of Lycia after Tьbinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients (TAVO), B V 15.2: Lykien und Pamphylien, von Kai Buschmann und Katja Sommer, 1992. Copyright Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, Wiesbaden

The central part of the Teke Peninsula is almost entirely occupied by mountains. The two main ranges are Bey Daglari (with the highest point 3086 m) stretching from the SW to the NE in the central-eastern part and Ak Daglari (with the highest point 3024 m) in the western part, which goes from the coast first to the North and then curves in the NE direction. The two lesser ones are Susuz Dagi, which virtually continues Bey Daglari down to the coast, and Alaca Dagi, a relatively compact massif between Bey Daglari and the coast. The ancient name Maoixuxog probably referred generally to the mountains rising from the southern coast, i.e. collectively to Susuz Dagi, Alaca Dagi and Bey Daglari Thus with Sahin-Adak 2007: 97-100 and contra Barrington Atlas (map 65), which identifies Masikytos with Alaca Dagi alone.. The mountains leave only two small patches of flat land near the coast: a somewhat larger plain between Gorece Dagi and Alaca Dagi, where Rhodiapolis, Gagai and Limyra were situated, and a smaller plain of Myra to the south-west of Alaca Dagi. Other settlements, which are surprisingly numerous (no less than three dozens), were situated either directly on the coast (Andriake, Simena, Aperlai, Antiphellos/Habessos etc.) or on the slopes and in the small valleys usually no more than 15 km from the coast. Only a few settlements (as Arykanda, Kandyba, Arneai, Nisa and Komba) are situated further inland. This quite compact group of settlements close to the southern coast builds one of two principal zones of Lycian ethnocultural area, as suggested by the joint evidence of Lycian inscriptions and tomb architecture. It is noteworthy that it was isolated to a degree from the second zone, the Xanthos valley (cf. below), since the southern sections of Ak Daglari and Susuz Dagi, which rise directly from the coast, made communication by land rather difficult.

The region to the North was, however, not sheer rough terrain: between Ak Daglari and Bey Daglari lies the fertile highland plateau of Elmali, which is connected to the southern coastal regions by two roads passing respectively to the West and to the East of Susuz Dagi. The Elmali Plateau corresponds to the ancient region of MiAudg. There is only one Lycian inscription found in this region (at Kizilca), and both its name, connected with ethnic name MtAuai, and the general character of material culture suggest that MiAudg was a region distinct from Lycia both linguistically and culturally.

To the west of Ak Daglari lies the fertile valley of the Xanthos River (now E§en). It is rather long (about 50 km) and narrow, being confined on the West by yet another mountain range, Baba Dag (with the highest point 1969 m), which goes roughly parallel to the southern portion of Ak Daglari. The ancient name of Ak Daglari was probably Kpdyog and that of Baba Dag AvxiKpayog The identification by Ruge (1921) of Kpdyog with Avdancik/Sandak Dag, a rather inconspicuous (the highest point 1009 m) continuation of the Baba Dag range in the southern direction, still followed in Barrington Atlas (map 65; cf. also Hailer in DNP: s.v. Cragus) is clearly obsolete, see the discussion by Sahin-Adak 2007: 97100 (cf. Hild-Hellenkemper 2008: s.v. Kragos). Indeed, there can be little doubt that Kpdyog was considered first of all as the mountain range culminating in the Mount Ak Dagi (3024 m) which dominates the eastern part of the Xanthos Valley. The prominence of the mount is reflected, inter alia, in the legendary tradition which makes Kragos a son of TepulAnc, the eponym of the Lycians/TepulAai, and the second husband of MiAun, the eponym of the Milyans, who lived on the eastern side of Ak Dagi (cf. St. Byz., s.v.v. MiAuai, Kpayoc (citing Alexander Polyhistor = FGrH 273 F5) and TAM II 174 (= FGrHist 770 F5)). In contrast, a more likely identification for AvxLKpayoc still appears to be Baba Dag, as in Ruge 1921, and not Boncuk Daglari, as suggested by §ahin-Adak 2007: 97-99. This is implied first of all by the semantics of dvxi `over against, opposite' which presupposes a clear spacial/visual contrast between Kragos and Antikragos (cf. Tauros vs. Anti-Tauros or Lebanon vs. Anti-Lebanon). This makes a very good sense with Ak Daglari vs. Baba Dag which face each other across the Xanthos valley, but is by far not obvious with Ak Daglari and Boncuk Daglari. This identification also agrees well with Strabo's description (14.3.4-5) which in essence presents the Lycian shoreline and associates Antikragos with Telmessos and Karmylessos. It is further auite possible that one could use `Kragos' as a shorthand for `Antikragos' (cf. Mela's (1.82) mons Gracius and the association of Pinara and Sidyma with Kragos). It seems dubious that Kragos ever included Boncuk Daglari, and Ptolemy's (Geogr. 5.3) extension of the area of Kragos onto three cities located at Boncuk Daglari (Kydna, Symbra and Oktapolis, for their possible locations see Hild-Hellenkemper 2008: s.v.v.) reflects probably an imprecise use of the term for `western Lycia'.. As mentioned, the Xanthos Valley was the second principal zone of the Ly- cian ethnocultural area, which included four of the most powerful Lycian cities: Tlos, Pinara, Xanthos and Patara. The valley was confined in the North by the mountain range of Boncuk Daglari, which, together with Ak Daglari, geographically separated Lycia from Kibyratis/ Ka- balis situated in the highland region further north. However, the Xanthos valley had in its upper part an easy access to the region of the Telmessos Bay (Fethiye), the westernmost part of Lycia. Besides Telmessos, the principal city of the region, Lycian inscriptions were found in Karmysessos to the South of it and Kadyanda to the North-East. The region to the East of Telmessos likely was a transitional zone between Lycian and Carian ethnolinguistic areas, since neither Daidala Mountains nor the River Indus (Dalaman ^ayi), sometimes mentioned as a frontier between Lycia and Caria, constituted a considerable geographical barrier.

The geographical realities of Lycia sketched out above allow one to identify four principal `ethnocultural interfaces': the lines of contact along which linguistic and cultural interaction between the Lycians and other peoples took place:

I. Maritime Interface: obviously the most important interface for the entire Lycia from the plain of Limyra in the East to the Xanthos Valley and the Bay of Telmessos in the West. The geographical sphere of the `Maritime Interface' of Lycia could embrace in theory the entire Mediterranean basin (and beyond), but the extant evidence allows one to practically confine it to the eastern part, from the Aegean in the West to the Levant in the East and Egypt and Libya in the South.

II. North-Eastern Interface: the `mountain interface' of the southern ethnocultural zone. It includes first and foremost interconnections with Milyas, but also more dispersed ties which should have existed between the southern coastal settlements of Lycia and its northern and eastern mountainous hinterland.

III. Western Interface: the interconnection between the region of Telmessos and its western (and north-western) neighbours inhabiting eastern Caria.

IV. Northern Interface: the interconnection between the northern part of the Xanthos Valley and the regions to the North and North-West of it, Kabalis and Kibyratis.

To these four geographical interaction zones may be added a further source of linguistic/ cultural influences in Lycia, which lies rather in sociolinguistic dimension: the foreign presence correlating with military/political control over Lycia at some periods of its history. The main factor was doubtless the Achaemenid control of Lycia in the 6th-4th centuries BC.

§2. Southern coasts of Caria and Rhodos

The first point worth noting is that contact between the two main ethnocultural zones of Lycia, the South and the Xanthos Valley, went apparently first of all by sea: it is arguably much easier to set sail from almost any Lycian city of the southern coast to Patara and then move up the valley than to take the precipitous route along the southern slopes of Susuz Daglari, especially if one brings along some goods. Given the fact that the sea route from the plain of Limyra to Patara is practically as long as the one from Patara to Kaunos or to Rhodos (and actually less dangerous), it is clear that the maritime communication between western Lycia and the southern coasts of Caria and the neighboring islands should have played a major role. Moreover, seen from a geographical point of view, the spatial arrangement of the shorelines around the Lycian Sea practically inevitably suggests an idea that Lycia, southern Caria and Rhodos might have built a sort of maritime koine, at least cultural, but possibly also ethnolinguistic. This perspective raises several important questions: when and why the ethno- linguistic distinction between the Lycians and the (southern) Carians has arisen; is it possible that the `proto-Lycian' ethnolinguistic sphere was originally wider, and whether Rhodos, before the Greek colonization, might belong to it as well? It is clearly impossible to discuss all these questions here in full, but several considerations bearing on the problem are in order.

It is generally agreed that the geographical name Lukka found in Hittite cuneiform texts and in several Hieroglyphic-Luwian inscriptions (lu-ka(REGIO)) is associated with the region of Lycia¹⁰. However, the precise geographical or ethnolinguistic content of the term is quite unclear. There is little doubt that Pinale, Awarna and Tlawa, which appear as a more or less coherent group of toponyms in YALBURT (blocks 12-14), the EMiRGAZi block and several cuneiform texts (`Milawata Letter' and KUB 23.83), correspond to Lycian names Pinale (= Pinara), Arnna (Aram. 'wrn = Xanthos) and Tlawa (= Tlos) respectively¹¹. It is, however, by far not obvious that these cities made a part of Lukka rather than being simply its neighbors. Several other toponyms, such as K(u)walabassa (cf. Telmessos and Kolbassa) or Hinduwa (cf. Kandyba and Kindye), may be generally associated with south-western Anatolia, but their relation to Lukka is even less clear.

However it is, there are several pieces of evidence found both in Hittite and in Greek texts which seem to imply that the original ethnolinguistic area of the Lukka people was not confined to Classical Lycia. The first clue comes from the spelling of the name in the Annals of Hattusilis III (KUB 21.6+): the plural `lands of Lukka' (KUR.KUR<sup>MEg URU</sup>Lukka). As Lycia is a rather compact geographical area, it would be strange to apply to it the term `lands', which is otherwise used for extensive and rather loosely defined geographical entities (cf. KUR.KUR^{MEg URU}Arzawa and KUR.KUR^{MEg URU}Kaska)¹². The fragmentary character of the text leaves it not quite clear which, if any, of other toponyms mentioned in the Annals of Hattusilis III belonged to the lands of Lukka. However, it is not impossible that the lands listed after KUR.KUR^{MEg URU-} For an overview of relevant evidence see Gander 2010. It is noteworthy that there was in all probability also another, northern Lukka (spelled with a short final a) which can be localized in the eastern Troad, in the region of Zeleia (see Oreshko 2019: 156-159, cf. Simon 2006: 321-22). It is not clear if there is any direct etymological connection between these two names. To these one usually adds an identification of (MONS)pa-tara/i mentioned in YALBURT block 4, §1a with Lycian Patara. However, (MONS)pa-tara/i is a mountain, and the immediate context of attestation does not necessarily support this, suggesting rather that the name refers to the site of YALBURT itself. The issue will be addressed in detail elsewhere. For attestations see del Monte-Tischler 1978: s.v.v.

Lukka in KUB 21.6a rev. 4' (although after a paragraph divider) were counted among the Lukka lands. These toponyms can generally be localized along the coasts of southern Anatolia, especially in Rough Cilicia and possibly Pamphylia, but not in Lycia The list includes: Walma, Watta-, Nahita, Sallusa, Sanhata, Swri[mma], Walwara, Hawaii, Inassara (KUB 21.6a rev. 5'-9'), see Gurney 1997: 130-135 and Forlanini 2013: 25-27. From this list only Nahita finds a straightforward correspondence in NdyiSog, located in the central part of the coast of Rough Cilicia. This Cilician connection suggests that Walma may refer to Holmoi located in the central-eastern part of the same region. Other cities can be tentatively localized in Pamphylia (Hawali) and Rough Cilicia on the basis of other indications of Hittite texts, found notably in the Bronze Tablet. K(u)walabassa mentioned in the next line (10') is very likely Tel(e)messos (Lyc. Telebehi) and not Kolbasa..

The second piece of evidence is found in the so-called `Tawagalawa Letter'. The initial preserved lines of the text report that, when the city Attarimma had been destroyed (by an unknown enemy), it was the Lukka people who notified both the Hittite King (probably Hattusilis III), the sender of the letter, and Tawagalawa, apparently a Mycenaean Greek ruler, about this event For the full text of the letter see Hoffner 2009: 296-313.. The context clearly suggests that the Lukka people had some interest in Attarimma, but leaves the question open whether they really inhabited Attarimma or these were, for instance, some trade or military dealings. And yet, the most straightforward assumption would be that the Lukka people lived if not in Attarimma itself, then in the region immediately adjoining it. Now, the joint evidence of the `Tawagalawa Letter' and the Annals of Mursili II allows one to identify Attarimma with Awpuqa located on the southernmost tip of the Carian Chersonesos, and the two cities mentioned in conjunction with Attarimma, Hu(wa)rsanassa and Suruda, with Xepoovqoog (XeQQOvqoog) and Eupva respectively, which are located somewhat further north in the same micro-region (see Oreshko 2019: 171-175). The identification of this geographical cluster is further supported by the possibility to identify Puranda, mentioned in the Annals of Mursili II as a refuge place of the people from these three cities, with nupivSoQ which appears to be the old Carian settlement on the westernmost tip of Knidian Peninsula, where the polis of Knidos has been moved in the mid-4th century BC (see Oreshko 2020).

There are two further pieces of evidence confirming the presence of the early Lycians in the region of Carian Chersonesos and Rhodos. First, quite a number of Greek inscriptions from the city of Rhodos and at least one from Kamiros attest an ethnic TAweug or TAu>iog/TAu>ia See, e.g., IG XII, 1, Nrs. 4 II 47 and III 38; 184; 309-316; 1449, 1453 (Rhodos) and 697, 4 and 5 (Kamiros).. The ethnic, as it seems, is based on TAu>q but, given the geographical context, it clearly cannot refer to the Lycian city. Hiller von Gartringen (1902) suggested that this TAh>g should be sought in the Rhodian Peraia, assuming that TAu>Јug/TAh>iog may be an ethnic referring to the inhabitants of Phoinix located to the NE of Loryma Meritt et al. 1939-1953: 512 further suggested that Gelos attested by Mela (I, 84) as a port in Rhodian Peraia (not far from Thyssanusa) may correspond to TAwg (which is tentatively followed also by Fraser 1954: 58-59). From a linguistic point of view, this is rather incredible.. The idea is quite arbitrary, and now virtually refuted by the fact that there is still no attestation of the ethnic in the inscriptions from Rhodian Peraia itself (cf. Blumel 1991). Judging from the available evidence, TAh>g should be a Kxoiva (`tribe') located in the northern part of the island, quite probably between Rhodos and Kamiros. This curious toponymic correspondence between Rhodos and the Xanthos Valley suggests, at the least, that both regions once belonged to the same ethnolinguistic area; more specifically, it may be interpreted as a clue for the existence of an old colony established on the island from the Lycian Tlos.

Whatever is the case, this evidence finds curious support in a further Hittite text (possibly a letter), KBo 18.86, which mentions T(a)lawa, Huwarsanassi and Annassara. The broken context leaves relative distances between the places and the course of events unclear, but the text in any case implies some connection between Huwarsanassi-Chersonesos and Tlawa (which, in theory, might refer not to the Lycian, but to the Rhodian Tlos). As for Annassara, which is attested elsewhere also as Innassara (e.g. in KUB 21.6a, cf. fn. 13), it is reminiscent of Nioupoq, the name of the island located to the SW of the tip of the Knidian Peninsula Cf. Oreshko 2020: 557-558, fn. 24. For the reading Ijalusas (contra *Ijaeusas) see Oreshko forthcoming §1 with fn. 5 and §9. I interpret the form as a derivative from the toponym Ijalusa (= laAuoog) with the ethnic suffix -s, which is seen also in Arnna-s (N320: 31-32), Zemuri-s (N312: 5), KerQQi-s (TL 82), Ijani-s-n (TL 44b: 27, acc.), cf. Eichner 2016: 63.. Seen in this perspective, it is probably no accident that in a later text, the Lycian Xanthos Trilingual, one finds references to locations situated in exactly the same region: lines 44a: 52-53 mention a military encounter with the Greeks from Ialysos (Ijana Ijalusas)¹⁸ near the Carian Chersonesos (Krzz[a]nase). Besides Mycale (Mukale), Sama (Samos) and the Mount Thorax (Turaxssi), mentioned in the following lines, these are the only non-Lycian locations found in Lycian texts.

In this context it is appropriate to touch upon the question of ethnic names of the Ly- cians. No term which could be linguistically connected with Hitt. Lukka and Greek Aukioi is found in the Lycian texts. Instead, one finds the term Trmmile/i, which is also attested in Near Eastern sources (Akk. Tarmilaya, Elamite Turmila- with numerous spelling variants) and was known also in the Greek scholarly tradition as TeppiAai (e.g., Hdt. 1.173) See Bryce 1986: 21-22 and Tavernier 2015 respectively.. The former ethnic name is attested also in Egyptian sources dating to the 13th century BC as rw-k3 or rw-k-w and in an Amarna letter (EA 38) as Lukki (cf. below). The origin of either ethnic name remains unclear, since none of the explanations proposed so far seems quite convincing (see Eichner 2016 with further refs.). A direct connection of Trmmile/i with Attarimma now proves to be rather unlikely in view of the probable location of the city far from Lycia (cf. above); at best, the two names might go back to the same root. A connection with tarma/i- `nail, peg' (CLuw. and Hitt.), with an assumption of a semantic shift to `mountain summit', does not seem credible either: the idea to call mountains `nails/pegs' may appear plausible only to an armchair mountaineer, and in any case the Lycians are actually not `mountain dwellers' It is, however, not impossible that the name is connected with the root tarma/i- in some other way. For instance, the name might be based on the verb tarmai- `nail down, fix' and refer to `fixed', i.e. `settled' population. Or the root might have some more technical meaning in Lycian, for instance, `to fix > moor a ship' or `to found a settlement'. Alternatively, one may ponder a connection with Lycian tri- `three', seeing in *trmmi- something like `threefold' or `tripled', which might refer to some old confederation of three tribes or cities (e.g., three main cities of the Xanthos Valley: Tlos, Xanthos and Pinara). It is noteworthy that many Lycian coins demonstrate a three- partite symbol of the triskeles type, which may or may not have a connection with the ethnic name of the Lycians. Needless to say, this all remains entirely speculative without more tangible evidence.. As for Lukka/Aukioi, Eichner (2016) recently argued that it is an exonym and defended its connection with the word for `wolf' (PIE *ulk<sup>u</sup>-o-). This does not seem quite plausible either: no Greek source gives any hints on wolfish associations of the Lycians, and Hittite word for `wolf' is actually ulip(pa)na-, usually hidden behind the Sumerogram UR.BAR.RA, apparently corresponding to Luw. walipna/i-/ulipna/i- (cf. Tischler 2010: s.v.); a borrowing of the ethnic term from Greek to Anatolian is clearly unlikely. In Lycia itself, there is absolutely no evidence which might lend support to the association of the Lycians with wolves, which one would expect, if there were one (e.g., such as a representation on coins). In fact, a connection with PIE root *leuk- `white' is a far more obvious possibility. Color terms, especially `black' and `white', are often indeed figure in names for different ethnic or ethnocultural groups, cf., e.g., Sumerian self-designation sag-gig- ga `Black Heads', Italic Lucani (AeuKavoi), north-Anatolian Acukoouqoi `White Syrians', White

Croatians, Kara-kalpaks `Black-hats', the Algonquin Siksikawa (Blackfoot Nation) etc. Cf. Simon 2006: 315 and Oreshko 2019: 159. Whatever the etymology, there is actually nothing which could confirm the idea that the name Lukka/Aukioi is an exonym: the term does not have a transparent etymology in either Greek or Hittite or any other language of the eastern Mediterranean. The question, then, is what could be the distinction between the endonyms Lukka/Aukioi and Trmmile/i. One possible answer is to connect it with the changes in the borders and the structure of the Lycian ethnocultural area between Bronze and Iron Age. The name Lukka/Aukioi, which is clearly older, refers probably first of all to the maritime population of the western section of the south-Anatolian coast (which might extend even up to Cilicia, cf. below) which was the first region to come into contact with Greeks, Egypt, Levant and Cilicia (whence the term most probably came into Hittite). In other words, the term is probably not an ethnic strictu sensu but rather an ethnocultural term connected first of all with the maritime way of life (sea trade and piracy) and then with an only loosely defined geographical region. The term Trmmile/i, so far not attested in the Bronze Age, probably originates in the realities of the 1st millennium BC and is connected with the formation of the Lycian ethnolinguistic area centered on Lycia as we know it (for which cf. below, 6.7). Thus, the region to the west of Lycia can be defined as the region most immediately connected with Lycia, not merely its neighbor, but, in a way, a `Lycia Major'.

§3. Pamphylia

The considerations put forward above may well apply to the region to the East of Lycia, equally open for maritime connections. There are, however, some nuances in the geographical organization of the region which preclude it from being regarded simply as a mirror image of the situation in the Lycian Sea. The Gulf of Antalya (Pamphylian Sea) is quite literally a sinus: a rather deep recess in the South-Anatolian shoreline. Unlike Rhodos or southern Caria, which lie directly on the bustling sea route from Lycia (and Levant) to the Aegean, Pamphylia, situated at the back of the Gulf of Antalya, appears to be almost a backwater. While it seems very probable that the people from Pamphylia could have visited Lycia simply because it lies on the way to the Aegean, the region probably played a much less prominent role in the Lycian agenda. The differences in the trajectories of ethnolinguistic development of the two regions are remarkable: in contrast with Lycia, which retained its Anatolian linguistic identity until at least ca. 330 BC, the Pamphylian Plain has been colonized by the Greeks and, probably, other peoples from the Aegean, already quite early (the end of the 1st millennium BC), retaining only pockets of older Anatolian population (Sidetic); only its northern mountain hinterland remained largely Anatolian (Pisidians). Neither Hittite nor Greek texts seem to present evidence implying some special ties between Lukka/Lycia and Pamphylia. There is, however, a curious piece of evidence found in a Lycian text which shows that there existed some sort of exchange between the two regions.

It is found in the funerary monument of Pajawa once located at Xanthos (now in the British Museum), which is provided with a set of short inscriptions on its four sides (TL 40a-d) For a discussion of the monument see Schьrr 2012: 29-32 with further refs.. From the text 40d one can conclude that Pajawa was at the military service of the Persian satrap Auxo^QaSaxqg (Wat[aprd]ata: xssadrapa: pa[rz]a) in the first half of the 4th century BC, who has apparently granted Pajawa the monument (or means to construct it) in recognition of his service. What makes the story of Pajawa even more interesting, is the fact that he was in all probability not a Lycian. This is suggested by his name, which is not found elsewhere in Lycia and structurally does not look as such. The same name is, however, attested twice (on the same stele) in Aspendos as naidpag and naianac,, and can be probably interpreted as a specifically Pamphylian name related to *naidpu>v, seen as naipwv in Homeric Greek, naid>v in Attic-Ionic and naiav in West-Greek and ndu>v in Aeolic Cf. Brixhe 1976: 235 and Schurr 2012: 32. It is not excluded that the same name is attested in Pamphylian alphabet as Pojaw, as suggested by Perez Orozco (2003: esp. 105 and 108), although the reading of the last letter as /w/ is quite uncertain and the o in the first syllable is unexpected. There are also reasons to identify a very close

name (Pajafus) in Lydia, which will be discussed in detail elsewhere.. Two further features in the Lycian text support the identification of Pajawa as a Pamphylian. First, the second clause of TL 40d makes a mention of `Lycian troops': pdde: telezi: epatte: Trmmilise: `He took before/with the Lycian troops...'. A slightly strange -- given that the monument is erected in Xanthos -- emphasis on the ethnic `Lycian' makes good sense in view of the probable non-Lycian origin of Pajawa. Second, the term manaxine (40a: 1 and 40b: 1) is not attested elsewhere in the Lycian corpus, and it is not excluded that it is a foreign word in a way connected with the origin of Pajawa, although it is difficult to be quite sure For an overview of interpretations proposed so far see Neumann 2007: s.v. The idea to interpret manaxine as a rendering of Greek povoyevqg does not seem especially illuminating, and a connection with Luwic root mana- `see' suggested by Schurr (2012: 32) is not impossible, but hardly leads any further. Most probably, manaxine somehow indicates the origin of Pajawa, and, since it is not a usual patronymic (at least from a Lycian point of view), one may see in it rather an ethnic or a sort of toponymic adjective.. This piece of evidence, singular so far, shows that there existed some channels of communication between Lycia and Pamphylia, which might have left some traces on the level of language as well.

§4. Rough Cilicia

In contrast with Pamphylia, Rough Cilicia is situated directly on the way from Lycia to the Levant, although somewhat further than Caria and Rhodos. In geographical terms, the coast of Rough Cilicia is quite similar to that of southern Lycia: a narrow coastal strip with mountains steeply rising in the background. The population of the two regions, both in its maritime way of life and in ethnic terms was probably also quite similar, as is demonstrated, inter alia, by numerous parallels in onomastics (cf. Houwink ten Cate 1961) There are also some toponymic correspondences: for instance, in the western part of Rough Cilicia, to the east of Selinous, there was another Mount Kragos (for the Lycian Kragos see above).. No inscriptions in epichoric language (or languages) of Rough Cilicia are known, but it is clear that it was not identical to Lycian, being probably closer to the Luwian dialect of Plain Cilicia.

The two regions might have been even closer in the 2nd millennium BC. As mentioned above, the evidence of the Annals of Hattusilis III may be interpreted in the sense that the western part of Rough Cilicia was also covered by the umbrella term `the Lukka lands'. There are two further pieces of evidence which would be not incompatible with such a broader definition of `the Lukka lands'. In the famous Amarna letter EA 38, sent by a king of Alasiya (Cyprus) to an Egyptian pharaoh (possibly Akhenaten) around 1350-40 BC, the former reports that `The men of Lukki, year by year, seize villages in my own country' (cf. Moran 1992: 111). The context seems to imply that the king of Alasiya responds to an accusation by the Egyptian pharaoh that the men of Alasiya allied with the `Lukki people' to undertake similar raids on the Egyptian territories (either Egypt itself or the southern Levant). This is immediately reminiscent of the fact that the Lukku (rw-k-w) figure together with the `Sea Peoples' as allies of the

Libyans whom Merneptah fought in the region of the Nile Delta in his 5th regnal year (ca. 1207 BC); besides that, Lukka (rw-k3) were known to the Egyptians as `allies' (or rather mercenary troops) of the Hittites in the Battle of Kadesh in the 5th year of Ramesses II (ca. 1274 BC) For refs. see Adams-Cohen 2013: 646-47.. Now, a rather similar piece of evidence about piratic activities of Lukka around Alasiya cropped out in a letter form Ortakoy (Sapinuwa) Or. 90/1511. In it, a Hittite official Tattamaru reports that `Ships of Alasiya were attacked in the sea (aruni anda) by the people of the cities ^URUItrura(?) and ^URUHahhada of the land Lukka¹ (obv. 11'-15') The letter has been presented by A. Suel in a talk at the 9th Congress of Hittitology in Corum (2014), cf. Eichner 2016: 61, fn. 10. The name of the second city is spelled Ha-ah-ha-da (thus with a non-geminate dental, contra Eichner) and the first name was given as ^URUI-it(?)-ru-u-ra(?). The name Hahhada is reminiscent of rdyai in eastern Lycia, but their identity cannot be proven.. Of course, it is quite possible that both EA 38 and the letter from Ortakoy refer to the sea raids involving specifically the people from Lycia. However, the geographical context, the regular character of the raids and the later fame of Rough Cilicia as a land of pirates par excellence -- explicitly contrasted by Strabo (14.3.2) with the civilized character of Lycia, `inhabited by reasonable people' (uno dv0QU>nmv ouvoiKouqevog om^Qovwv) -- make one wonder if the raids did not originate in a closer section of the south-Anatolian coast directly opposite Cyprus. A probable alliance between the Cypriots and the Lukki people, alleged by the Egyptian king, would well agree with it. In this context one may also note that the following lines of the Ortakoy letter (rev. 19ff.) mention an agreement (taksul) between a ruler of Alasiya (LU <sup>KUR</sup>Alasiya) and the city of Ura(si), which is quite probably identical with Ura located in the eastern part of Rough Cilicia (possibly = 'Tpia/Seleukia) Cf. Forlanini 2013: 25 with further refs. The form Urasi may be tentatively interpreted as Luwian genitival adjective based on Ura standing in agreement with the preceding LU<sup>ME§</sup>.. The context may imply that the raids of the people of the two cities of Lukka infringed the terms of this agreement, which would support their location in Rough Cilicia. If the perception that `the Lukka lands' embraced the entire south-Anatolian coastal zones from south-western Caria to the western part of Rough Cilicia (i.e. the part beyond the western limits of Kizzuwadna) is correct, then there are good chances that this region represented in the Late Bronze Age also a relatively unitary ethnolinguistic zone.

§5. The Levant

Regardless of whether western Rough Cilicia was a part of the `Lukka lands' or not, there can be little doubt that both the Lukka people were in a regular communication with the more eastern parts of Mediterranean and that at least some bigger ports of Lycia, such as Telmessos or Patara, were frequented by the ships from the East. In addition to the texts mentioned above, which testify for less sophisticated methods of interaction, there is also evidence reflecting more peaceful aspects of the ethnocultural contact in the region, such as trade. These are first of all three letters from Ugarit For the texts see Lackenbacher 2002: 193-194 (RS 20.238) and Malbran-Labat-Lackenbacher 2005 or Beckman-Bryce-Cline 2009: 253-262 (RS 94.2523 and RS 94.2530), for an important discussion of the latter see Singer 2006. In contrast, the evidence of the so-called Abishemu Obelisk, found in Byblos and dating to ca. 1800 BC, which is sometimes adduced to the problem of early presence of the Lycians in the Levant (e.g., Bryce 1974: 395-396), is problematic and most probably irrelevant. Albright (1959) read the name of the seal-bearer mentioned in the inscription as Kwkwn s3 Rwaa and saw in Rwaa (= Rwkk) personal name based on the ethnic `Lycian'. This interpretation of Rwkk is in itself problematic, since the normal Egyptian spelling for Lycia/Lycians is different: rw-k3, rw-k-w (cf. above) or rw-k-3/j (the Onomastikon of Amenemope). In fact, even the reading of the name may be false: Bietak (2019: 178) reads the name as Rwtt, and this seems not impossible, since at least the left of the two small signs has a clear curving right side incompatible with k (although the signs seem to be too high for t). As for Kwkwn, it is quite probably neither Phoenician nor Egyptian, and may be connected with Kukunni and/or Kpkvoc, as assumed by Albright. However, it can hardly be Lycian: the phonetically similar, but apparently unrelated Lycian feminine name Xuxune (TL 139: 2) would be rendered in Egyptian with fe-signs.. A passage from a letter of the last known king of Ugarit

Ammurapi (ca. 1215-1180 BC) addressed to a king of Alasiya (RS 20.238: 22-24) mentions that all ships of Ugarit are in the land of Lukka, which makes the city vulnerable to the sea-born attacks of some enemy (possibly `Sea Peoples'). A light on the puzzling absence of the Ugaritic fleet is shed by two closely connected letters, sent to the same Ammurapi by Suppiluliuma II (RS 94.2523) and a Hittite official Penti-Sarruma (RS 94.2530) respectively. Both make a reference to the fact that the Hiyaw(i) people -- apparently the Mycenaean Greeks -- who stay in the land of Lukka are waiting from Ugarit for a consignment which is termed PAD<sup>MES</sup> and should be dispatched there with a certain Satalli (a Hittite, judging by name). The term PAD<sup>MES</sup> probably refers to `ingots', whether copper or tin, and the consignment expected from Ugarit is thus immediately reminiscent of the cargo of the Uluburun and Gelidoniya ships sunken not far from the Lycian shores. In all probability, the absence of the Ugaritic ships referred to in RS 20.238 is due to a similar trade expedition to Lycia. The evidence, however terse it is, excellently highlights the complexity of ethnocultural contact in Lycia: not only does it imply a regular communication between Ugaritic and Mycenaean merchants with the Lycians, but also shows that at least sporadically also the central-Anatolian Hittites participated in it.

It is quite possible that Lycia continued to participate in the trade between the Levant and the Aegean also in the Early Iron Age, although due to the changes in the ethnic and political map of the region its role might have changed more or less significantly. There is no direct textual evidence for the connection of Lycia with the East in the 1st millennium BC. There are, however, some indirect clues. These are first of all quite numerous toponyms attested in Lycia which call into mind the Phoenicians: OoiviKq (Thuc. 2.69.2) probably corresponding to modern Finike and a river Ooivii, nearby (Const.Porph. De Them. 1.14), Phoenicus (Liv. 37.16.6) possibly located in the region of modern Kalkan, and the Mount Ooivikou^, another name for the Lycian Olympus (Str. 14.3.8) For details cf. Keen 1998: 225-227.. Their connection with the Phoenicians is everything but certain: judging from the absence of Greek colonies in the region and the density of the local Lycian settlements, it seems hardly possible that the Phoenicians could establish here a full-fledged independent colony. On the other hand, these names might be connected simply with ^oivii, `date-palm', which are indeed found in the region, or `purple/crimson', if they are not corruptions of some local names.

And yet, the existence of a `Phoenician quarter' in a Lycian port does not seem improbable, and there is a curious piece of evidence which might support this possibility. A short Greek epigraph following the Lycian inscription TL 115 originating from Limyra located several kilometers to the NE of OoiviKq -- which was probably its port -- attests a person named OoiviKog TuQirn. The Greek inscription is apparently somewhat later that the Lycian text, and represents probably the name of a later `tenant' of the tomb (the practice of `leasing' of burial grounds being normal for Lycia). The form Tupim is strange, but given that the first name is apparently a gen.sg. of OolviG attested elsewhere as a PN, there is hardly any other option than to see in it a corrupt form of gen. *Tuqlou. It can be interpreted either as patronymic or, which is likelier, simply as an ethnic agreed with Ooivlkoq i.e. `(the tomb) of Phoinix (`Phoenician'), the Tyrian'. In any case the Phoenician ancestry of the person buried in the tomb is very likely, and then there are good reasons to see in him a Phoenician `naturalized' in Lycia -- which also explains the problems he had with Greek inflection. An attestation of a Phoenician just in the city whose port was called `Фотк^' can hardly be quite accidental, and one can tentatively conclude that there indeed existed a small Phoenician community at least in the region of Limyra Worth mentioning in this context is also a Lycian pottery graffito from Xanthos (N313a) which reads Pinike. The context makes it likely that it is a personal name. Its ethnic identity is, however, not quite certain. The name may well be an aphaeretic form of Greek 'ErciviKiog, as suggested by Neumann (cf. Neumann 2007: s.v.). The latter name is indeed once attested in Xanthos, which is its only attestation in Lycia, contrasting with rather numerous attestations in Caria (22 tags registered in LGPN V.B.: s.v.). In view of its popularity in Caria, Pinike may even be a Caro-Greek name in Xanthos. On the other hand, an interpretation of the name as reflecting Greek Ooivil, as suggested by Metzger (see ref. in Neumann 2007: s.v.) is unlikely, due to the phonetic discrepancies. Nevertheless, since the Lycian form of the ethnic name for the Phoenicians is unknown, there are still chances, albeit rather slim, that Pinike is a Lycian `Phoenician'..