Talk:Anatolian hieroglyphs

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Writing systems High‑importance

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is unclear

I have problems in the understanding of this article. Are Anatolian Hieroglyphs and Luwian Hieroglyphs identical or not?

If they are identical, then the article should be renamend in Luwian Hieroglyphs, because this article declares all texts written with Anatolian Hieroglyphs have shown to be in Luwian Language. If this is not true, then there should be the other assumed or proven language(s) added, in which the texts were written besides the Luwian Language.

If they are not, then there should be the assumed or proven differences between the different hieroglyphic alphabet systems made clear.--MBelzer (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relation between different non-egyptian Hieroglyphic Systems

What is the relation between Anatolian Hieroglyphs, Luwian Hieroglyphs, Phaistos Hieroglyphs (Phaistos Disk) and Cretan Hieroglyphs? Is there anything known. I am familiar that the Phaistos Hieroglyphs are not or only partial deciphered.--MBelzer (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be renamed

Here's why... We'll be encoding the script in the UCS, and it is pretty likely that we will name it Anatolian hieroglyphs. The thing is, the script isn't only used for Luwian, though it is chiefly used for that; there are names and other texts in other languages, even if in the minority. So... I'm going to be bold and merge Cuneiform Luwian and the language parts of Hieroglyphic Luwian. That's where the discussion of the language forms should be. Then to discuss the writing systems, there will be Cuneiform and Anatolian hieroglyph respectively. Evertype 15:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved and lots of confusing redirects have been sorted out. Now.. .this article does need improvement, illustrations, and so on. I'll be doing what I can to improve it as I prepare the Unicode proposal for this script. Evertype 15:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I moved it back before reading this. However, we cannot just move the article because you (Unicode?) decided to name the script that way. At best, we can have Anatolian Hieroglyphs (Unicode) to list the character chart (once it is published). The language is called Hieroglyphic Luwian, and the script is called Luwian hieroglyphics, even if other languages are written in it (which ones?). This article should contain a discussion of both the writing system and the dialect encoded, since it is impossible to separate these aspects. I'll be very glad to see a Unicode standard for the script, but I imagine it will be at least 2 or 3 years until then, and until that time, there is no reason to refer to this on Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 15:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welll, you're not correct. The script has been called Hittite Hieroglyphic, and it has been called Luwian Hieroglyphic, but both are inaccurate. I met with Anna Morpurgo Davies (one of the world's experts on it) and we discussed this very point. Anatolian Hieroglyphs is the best and most accurate name, because the script is used for a number of Anatolian languages. It avoids the constant problem of Luwian/Luvian too. You should not have moved this back. Evertype 20:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bah. OK, now we're at [[Anatolian Hieroglyphs}] but it ought to be Anatolian hieroglyph. So that's a bit of a mess which we can sort out in due course. What we need to do with this article, though, is to separate two things. On the one hand, we have the writing system, used for several languages (even if chiefly Luwian). This page should be about the former. The Luwian language page, however, should talk about Cuneiform Luwian and Hieroglyphic Luwian. Can we make these distinctions and clean up the links? Evertype 21:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry: I know it has been called "Hittite hieroglyphs". That was before 1973 when it was recognized that the language encoded is Luwian. The name has been recognized as mistaken, and is now deprecated. As for other languages, I honestly don't know: what other languages are encoded by the hieroglyphs? It is utterly pointless to discuss the writing system seperately from the language at this stage. Maybe later, when this has evolved into a huge article, a sub-article listing the glyphs or something may be branched out. I recognize Morpurgo-Davies is an expert, of course, and I am glad you met with her, but I am also sure that you are aware of WP:NOR? If Morpurgo-Davies is convinved the script should be referred to thusly, surely she has voiced this opinion somewhere public? Or is going to? If she has, the name may certainly be mentioned as her suggestion, but until it catches on, Luwian hieroglyphics remains the most commonly used. This is not 1970 ('Hittite hieroglyphs') nor 2015 ('Anatolian hieroglyphs'?), but still 2006 ('Luwian hieroglyphs'). dab (ᛏ) 09:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it appears that indeed some people have recommended the term recently. I am still looking for references, though. And note that it would be your job to provide such a reference. So if we have an article on the script separate from the article on the language, I do not object to the title. I would still like to know what 'other languages' may have been encoded with it. I will continue to develop tha article on the language, obviously closely tied to a discussion of the script, at Hieroglyphic Luwian, but if you want to do an article on the script proper and its Unicode encoding here, I will not interfere. dab (ᛏ) 09:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found references now. One saying that "Anatolian hieroglyphs" is commonly used in Italian publications, and one expressedly stating that no non-Luwian texts are known. If you still disagree, I suppose it's your turn to throw some quotes at me :) dab (ᛏ) 10:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! You're just racing on ahead and it's not making much sense the way that things are developing. There should be two articles. One, dealing with the Luwian language, where some discussion of its Cuneiform variety and its Hieroglyphic variety is relevant. The other should be dealing with the writing system, best called Anatolian hieroglyphs. Right now it looks like there will be three articles, which just doesn't make sense. There are some glosses in Urartian and some divine names in Hurrian known to be written in this script. Evertype 10:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll get the reference. Evertype 11:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuneiform Luwian and Hieroglyphic Luwian are two rather separate fields, and while Luwian language should refer to both, they should be treated in separate articles. I think it is pointless to have another article dedicated to the script itself at this stage, but I won't stop you. I'm busy with Hieroglyphic Luwian (now containing a "Script" section), and do commend this article to your care. dab (ᛏ) 11:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

alright, I'll check the Melchert references; I think it is unneccessarily misleading to call them "Anatolian hieroglyphs" (inscrptions are also found in the Levant), as they only ever encode Luwian, but if the term is spreading (apparently due to Italian influence), I have no objections. dab (ᛏ) 14:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed for addition to the UCS

See http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n3236.pdf -- Evertype·✆ 16:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU for ordering the range by Laroche number (as opposed to some "alphabetization" as in the cuneiform case, which was a nightmare to make sense of). dab (𒁳) 18:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troy

Is it the same script that was used in Homeric Troy? "A single seal of a Luwian scribe has been found in one of the houses", says our article on Troy. What characters did the seal contain? --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Table display problem

Almost all of our readers will only see boxes in the table, not actual hieroglyphs, which means it's pretty useless at the moment.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anatolian hieroglyphs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge on the grounds that scripts and languages are different. Klbrain (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hieroglyphic Luwian and Anatolian hieroglyphs appear to cover the same topics. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this makes sense. The "Anatolian hieroglyphs" in question were never used for any language other than Luwian. "Hieroglyphic Luwian" refers to the language they encode, but, as far as I can tell, this is not a distinct form of Luwian from "Cuneiform Luwian". Rather, the differences are of time, place and genre not dialect. If, however, non-Luwian texts are ever found in hieroglyphic, then we will need to differentiate the writing system more clearly from the language(s) it encodes. So there is an argument to retain two pages, one on the text corpus itself ("Hieroglyphic Luwian") and another on the sign system ("Anatolian hieroglyphs"). But for now I say merge. Srnec (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. One's a script and the other is the language the script is written in. Emolu (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Scripts and languages are fundamentally different things, and in this case it's actually not clear what languages it was used for. Many inscriptions are just personal names and ideograms, which makes it hard to tell. Botterweg14 (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Hieroglyphic Luwian is a language, and Anatolian hieroglyph is a script. These are different things even if Anatolian hieroglyphs were the script used to write the hieroglyphic Luwian language. On the contrary, Hieroglyphic Luwian should instead be merged with the "Hieroglyphic Luwian" section of Luwian language. Antiquistik (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Hittite Communication" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Hittite Communication has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 6 § Hittite Communication until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 13:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]