Home Page Issues Order Form Links Contact Türkçe
Advanced Search  
Click here to visit web site of Kaleici Museum
If you would like to get announcement mails about Akmed activities, please subcribe to our mailling list.
First name:
Last name:
ANMED Issue: 2006-4
Corpus Project for Inscriptions in the Pamphylian Dialect, and the Sidetian and Pisidian Languages in the Antalya and Side Museums: 2005

Since 2003, I have been conducting a corpus project for the inscriptions covering the Pamphylian dialect and the Sidetian and Pisidian languages kept at the Antalya and Side museums with the permission issued by the Directorate General of Museums and Cultural Heritage of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism. I would like to Express my thanks to A. Atilla and A. Dedeoğlu, who have supported my work at these museums.

The first stage of the project is dedicated to inscriptions in the Pamphylian dialect, which had already attracted the attention of travellers visiting the region in the 1840’s. The monument carrying the long inscription in the Pamphylian dialect in the city of Syllion was also discovered during this period. Individual publications about the region came from scholars such as Lanckoronski, L. Robert and G. Bean until the 1960s. Then Cl. Brixhe started a systematic survey of the region and published about 178 inscriptions in his Le dialecte grec de Pamphylie (=DGP). Documents et grammaire. BIFEA 26, Paris in 1976. This publication was followed by five more, in the last of which I also participated:
1) DGP 179-192: Suppl. I, Études d’archéologie classique (= EAC ) V (1979), 9-16
2) DGP 193-225: Suppl. II, L’Asie Mineure du nord au sud, EAC VI (1988), 167-234
3) DGP 226-242: Suppl. III, Hellènika Symmikta, EAC VII (1991), 15-27
4) DGP 243-257: Suppl. IV, Kadmos XXXV (1996), 72 86
5) DGP 258-276: Suppl. V, Kadmos XXXIX (2000), 1-56

My personal interest in the Pamphylian dialect arose from my doctoral studies in ancient Anatolian languages. Studies in ancient Anatolian languages have two aspects: the first focuses on the question ‘what are the language areas of Anatolia itself?’ and the second on ‘what are the language areas that came to Anatolia from outside and partook in the formation of various historical phases in Anatolia?’.

The language areas of Anatolia can be grouped into two as per their origins: the first group is led by the Indo-European languages including Hittite (Nesite), Luwian, Palaic, Termilian (known as Lycian by a wider audience), Sfardian (known as the Lydian by a wider audience) and Carian (its local name is unknown). The second group includes Hattic, Hurrian and Urartian languages of Caucasian origins. All these languages retained their existence in Anatolia as of the time they were recorded in a script; thus, they have been the basic fields of research in ancient Anatolian languages. Among the language areas in Anatolia that are discussed more often are those that assumed a new form following their arrival in Anatolia. For example, Accadian is noteworthy as it is an important element of acculturation: the language of the clay tablets uncovered at Kanesh karum (Kültepe) in Anatolia reflects a form of Accadian peculiar to Anatolia.

Similarly, ancient Greek, i.e. Hellenic language, is another language area foreign to Anatolia. The term ‘Hellenic language’ is, for me, both an ethnical and a linguistic naming. Just as we don’t mean only Anatolian Turkish when we say ‘Turkish’, we need to mention the Turkish of Turkey, the Turkish of Azerbaijan, the Turkish of the Kazakhs, etc, the same is valid for the Hellenic language. In Anatolia there were Ionians during and before the period corresponding to the Classical Athenian period. Their language identity was lost during the Hellenistic and Roman periods. To say that the Ionians lived here in the Byzantine and Modern periods is not correct in regard to both historical and linguistic points. The fact that the term ‘Yunan’ for Ionians has passed onto us from the Persian or Semitic tradition does not reflect a political or linguistic nor a scientific point today. The Ionian, Aeolian, Dorian and Pamphylian dialects of ancient Greek have special forms peculiar to Anatolia. However, it must be stressed that the dialects other than the Pamphylian one were isolated in Anatolia. For all these three dialects it must be mentioned that their contacts with the native Anatolian peoples remained very weak.

Study of the Pamphylian dialect has two important aspects for our research: the first is that it sets a typical example for the research field termed ‘language change’. The Pamphylian dialect is indeed a tomography for linguistic research as it is possible to follow up the changes to it from its origin down to the Roman period when it began to be assimilated. Indeed, it can be considered the only Anatolian dialect of the Hellenic language and it provides us with strong foundations to discuss and compare the Hellenic dialects in Anatolia. Putting aside the internal dynamics of the Pamphylian dialect, it is possible to discuss the following in terms of language change: it is said that there existed various Hellenic dialects in Anatolia appearing possibly in the early or later part of the Iron Age, e.g. the Ionian dialect of Anatolia, the Aeolian dialect of Anatolia-Aegean, the Dorian dialect of Asia etc. From the linguistic point of view it is difficult to claim that there exists an Anatolism in these dialects. Through a variety of interpretations some scholars wish to see some sort of Anatolism, for example by looking at the similarity of suffixes in the names of localities; however, there are a variety and systematic aspects to the relationship of one language to another with which the former is a relative or the former has interacted. Nouns, names of various cultural objects, measurement units, weight units, proper names and various phonetic and morphological points are included here. Considering a single deity name or a single locality name as the point of interaction or heritage frankly means that the results obtained in linguistic researches are not eighed properly. When we look at the Ionian and Aeolian dialects from this angle, we see that there exists no area of systematic interaction. Then, why is such interaction not observed in these dialects? This may be answered in two ways: firstly, these dialects remained isolated from the crowded language areas in Anatolia; and secondly, these linguistic beings perhaps do not belong to the early phases of the first millennium of Anatolia as has been thought to be the case. However, we are not interested in the state of the dialects here; therefore, we will be content with only saying that it is not a good method to see the other Anatolian dialects as independent topics without considering the model of the Pamphylian dialect. Why does the Pamphylian dialect set a model? It sets a model because there are numerous examples revealing its interaction with native Anatolian peoples. As a matter of fact, the name of the native people living in Pamphylia is not even known to us. It is possible to reach a language area displaying Luwian or Luwism. The people of Side using a native script and language are called ‘Sidetians’ by us since we do not even know the name of the historical people, who actually lived here. Who were the Sidetians? The Sidetians were a native Anatolian people speaking a language related to the Luwian. Thus, we have to acknowledge the presence of a native people in Pamphylia, as exemplified by the Sidetians, speaking Luwian or a related language in the Classical period. When we look at the Ionian and Aeolian dialects, we see that they were surrounded with crowded and large populations of Sfardia (=Lydia), Caria and Phrygia, and we infer that these Hellenic dialects did not have any contacts with these bigger civilisations in the ‘language field’.

The Pamphylian dialect not only reflects these native Anatolia substrates but also contains diachronic and synchronic elements. For the diachronic example, we may propose the words in common denominator with the Mycenean and Cypriot dialects or those reflecting the early Dorian pronunciation. For the synchronic example, it is possible to follow the presence of the Aeolians in Pamphylia and the inşuence of koines. Thus, we can say that the Pamphylian dialect is a model because it allows us to test why ‘language change’ is or is not observed in another language. Indeed, this is valid not only for the Pamphylian dialect but also for instance for Termilian (Lycian), Carian and Sfardian languages. The Termilians took various titles and cultural objects from the Persians and Hellenes while they took the sikla (=shekel), their weight unit, from the Semites. Naturally, each language, modern or ancient, contains elements that reflect interaction.

The other point that makes the study of the Pamphylian dialect important for my research is that it allows for the discussion of a historical perspective. Today, the studies in the 1st millennium Anatolian linguistic field of research has been stuck, like a pan, between two points: the upper part that forms the lid is the Hittite pressure while there is a Hellenic fire burning on a hearth underneath.

The Anatolian linguistic field of research continues like a battle between these two sides, each trying to convince the other. Indeed, the situation is entirely different. Almost a new understanding has been born: each Hittitological concept has to have a corresponding one in the Athenian Classical period or the western Anatolian epichoric age. The more the scholars on the 2nd millennium push forth, the more the ‘Romanists’ studying Anatolia reject. The same is valid for both topographic and cultural studies. However, now it is time to take a break. There still exist undeciphered languages from the Classical, Hellenistic and Roman periods in Anatolia and there exist examples that show that isolations of languages were possible in Anatolia in all periods, for example, the language of the Sofular-Timbriada inscriptions known as Pisidian and Late Phrygian inscriptions. However, there does not exist any rule stating that various languages in Anatolia have to be identified with certain archaeological cultures. There exist languages, whose linguistic beings are known to us, but which are not represented epigraphically, for example, the Cappadocian and Lycaonian languages. Thus, the condition that a linguistic being be identified epigraphically does not hold a priority. What I would like to say is the following: in historical studies of Anatolia, unfortunately the results of linguistic phenomena have not been taken into consideration as much as the ceramics or the family trees of the evergetes have been; and this definitely has to be reconsidered. I comprehend this as the handling of various linguistic research fields together with historical-comparative-descriptive methodology, and this has been my start point and the direction of research in this project.

In the initial stage, the materials in the depots of the museums were identified, a list of which will be given below. The second stage has not technically started yet. Numerous monuments of the Pamphylian dialect are still buried under earth. It is extremely necessary to initiate excavations at a site like Aspendos. Excavations in this ancient city will yield not only linguistic materials but possibly also ceramics of earlier periods. More than a thousand legends on potshards have been uncovered in Aspendia near Alexandria, Egypt. I have the information thanks to Prof. Brixhe that this unpublished material contains very interesting and new evidence for Anatolian onomastics. A kiln or a similar structure, where these materials were produced in Pamphylia before exporting to Egypt, may be looked for. The inscriptions in the Pamphylian dialect are small in dimensions and they are generally all alike. These may have a façade crowned with a triangular pediment on top and they are generally devoid of decoration. Only some inscriptions are decorated with ribbons or rosettes. Apart from a single example in Side Museum, examples in relief are almost non-existent. This inscription at Side Museum was published incorrectly by Bean (see G.E. Bean, Side Kitabeleri, Ankara 1965, pp.56-57, no. 153); however, its correct interpretation can be found in Suppl. V no. 259. Only a few examples are not funerary inscriptions. Syllion (DGP 3) and Aspendos (DGP 276) are the longest texts in this dialect known to date.

Looking at the geography, it is seen that the inscriptions come from Perge, Syllion, Aspendos and its environs. Inscriptions recovered at Perge and Syllion are very few in number and do not form an argument strong enough to claim there was a population there speaking the Pamphylian dialect. This people mainly settled at Aspendos and beside the city itself, inscriptions from settlements, harbours and dockyards (I personally do not know of the presence of such structures; however, epigraphic evidence suggests that such structures might have existed near Boğazak/Boğazkent) along the Eurymedon towards the sea have been uncovered. An important portion of all the published inscriptions were found at homes across the region; thus, it is not known what happened to some. During the course of our work, we tried to document as many inscriptions as possible using photography and typing copy. Yet not all the inscriptions have been covered.

In the work carried out at the museums, we have reached most of the materials catalogued so far and one inscription was identified as unpublished. This unpublished one is in print with Suppl. VI, and consequently we are unable to provide any images here. The inscription is on limestone and does not have a pediment. It measures 50 x 27.5 x 15.5 cm., the height of the letters being 2 cm.:
Translation: Orumnew(s), son of Apelonis.
The final case ending in -s of Oromnew(w), nom. sing., must have been skipped as it did not fit unto the block. Various phonetic divergences and cases attested are as follows: OromneÊw (96, 254), OrumneÊw (90, 123, 152, 177c), OroumneÊw (146), Oromnıfouw (91, 107), [O]roumneıfuw (36), Oroumnıfouw (60, 189), Oroumnıfuw (117), Oroumneıfouw (104, 128, 154, 211), Orumneıfouw (123), Orumnıfuw (81, 159), Oromnıfow (254), Orumn[eÇfuw] (276) and [Or]oumhne(Ê)w (227). It is a known issue that the –eu diphthong is spelled as –ew and sets a criterium for a dating to the early period. We are of the opinion that a dating to the 3rd-2nd centuries BC is appropriate. ÉApelÒniiu is the common gen.sing. of ÉApelÒniw (nom. sing., DGP 237).

The following is a list of the inscriptions in the Pamphylian dialect kept at the Antalya Museum and their publications:
DGP inscription and inv. nr. Present inv. nr.
1) DGP 66 = 458 405
2) DGP 67 = 459 406
3) DGP 68 = 461 408
4) DGP 69 = 460 407
5) DGP 70 = 463 463
6) DGP 74 = 466 (non vidi)
7) DGP 75 = 441 (non vidi)
8) DGP 76 = 442 389
9) DGP 77 = 445 392
10) DGP 78 = 444 391
11) DGP 79 = 323 279
12) DGP 81 = no inv.nr. 389
13) DGP 84 = no.inv.nr. 3620
14) DGP 86 = 464 411
15) DGP 87 = 465 412
16) DGP 88 = 471 (413) (non vidi)
17) DGP 89 = 467 414
18) DGP 90 = no.inv.nr. 3622
19) DGP 91 = no.inv.nr. 3621
20) DGP 113= no.inv.nr. (non vidi)
21) DGP 114= no.inv.nr. (non vidi)
22) DGP 192= purchased from 2.4.2001 Ali Yılmaz
23) DGP 204= purchased from 3.15.90 Süleyman Cengiz
24) DGP 205= purchased from 1.15.89 Süleyman Cengiz
25) DGP 244= purchased from 2001.14 Durmuş Yılmaz
26) In the museum depot 1.13.87 (unpublished)

The second stage of the museum work was dedicated to the inscriptions in the Sidetian language, which are few in number and do not provide us with a novelty to publish. The Sidetian inscriptions have been published as a corpus by J. Nollé, Side im Altertum. Geschichte und Zeugnisse, I, IK 43, Bonn 1993; however, as they are not handled with a linguistic methodology, it is possible to enhance them through analysis in literature. This work is intended to be published as: ‘the Sidetian Language’. Nothing much could have been done with inscriptions in Pisidian as they are either kept at the Isparta Museum or are still in the field. As our work progresses, Isparta Museum will also be contacted for research. This language is generally known as Pisidian in the literature; however, we call it so from the geographic name of the region. Indeed, the inscriptions in Pisidian are recovered only from Sofular near Aksu, Isparta, not overall from the region of Pisidia. Near Sofular is the ancient city of Timbriada and the connection of these inscriptions with the people of Timbriada must be investigated. The name of this people is not known to us. Undoubtedly this shows that the linguistic isolations could be possible even during the Roman period.

Back Open as PDF Print Article