 Well, before I start, let me thank Luvian scholars as well for inviting me and funding my research. Now, ladies and gentlemen, for quite some time, Anatolian hieroglyphs were considered to be hittite. And it was only in the 1970s that the close relationship to the Luvian languages was emphasised by the redefinition of some sound values and the writing system could finally be called deciphered. Today we speak of hieroglyphic Luvian in contrast to cuneiform Luvian. Recently, however, the cultural proximity to the Luvians was put into doubt again. The reason for doing so is an attempt to solve an old dilemma, the relationship between those two forms of language and writing. The question still is, how exactly do hieroglyphic and cuneiform Luvian differ from each other linguistically, and above all, why is this the case? One variety is written with pictorial signs, that is hieroglyphs, the other in an Anatolian version of the cuneiform script. The details in terms of linguistics have long been well known. There are nine points including phonetics, morphology and syntax or lexicon. I will not go into detail here for lack of time. However, the crucial aspect still is unsolved. How are these differences to be assessed? The difficulty here lies in the very fact that there is neither a spatial nor a temporal sequence or dichotomy between hieroglyphic and cuneiform Luvian. In other words, they are neither two different dialects nor two different historical stages such as, let's imagine, old Luvian versus middle Luvian. So far, there have been surprisingly few concrete attempts to solve this problem. One way of doing so could be to postulate different registers or varieties. Alas, no coherent scenario arises. Frank Starke, for example, suggested that hieroglyphic and cuneiform Luvian could be different social acts, since the texts written with them belong to different texts. While the Luvian texts in cuneiform script are religious in content, those written in hieroglyphs can be assigned to the sphere of state, kingship, propaganda, etc. However, this view already fails because of the very fact that in ancient times there was no such thing as a separation between religion and state, and Anatolian Egypt minor is no exception here. Those who produced the two corpora of texts did not come from different parts of society, but all from a very small circle which formed the elite of the Hittite Empire. Another argument against different registers is that cuneiform letters, that is everyday texts, and the rituals share the very same characteristics. Now, it has often been said that the main reason why two different systems of writing Luvian exist are first, the pictorial nature or display character of the hieroglyphic script, and second, language independence. Annick Payne has recently addressed the issue of whether the use of several writing systems in Anatolia should be regarded as necessity or rather as virtue. In a multi-ethnic state, a pictorial script is particularly well suited to the representation of topics connected to the royal sphere, which is why it is used in monumental form or royal seals and only exceptionally on plate tablets. This may be true, and it does explain why there are two different scripts, but it does not explain the linguistic differences between the two corpora. Payne has also dealt with the relationship between writing system and identity, but this can also contribute rather little to solving the question at issue here. Even Ilya Yakubovich, who recently published a book on social linguistics of Luvian, cannot come up with any explanation. In his opinion, hieroglyphic writing was not developed for Luvian. This had been thought for a long time, and I myself have explained this in more detail. Yakubovich, however, thinks it was developed for Hittite. By postulating a later adaption to Luvian, he tries to explain the discrepancies without, however, justifying or even investigating them thoroughly. Strictly speaking, Yakubovich did not even prove that hieroglyphic writing was developed for Hittite, but only that it does not necessarily have to be developed for Luvians only, by whom and for whom were the Luvian hieroglyphs invented? Without going into more detail here, I think that Yakubovich's arguments are very weak indeed, as the rebus words behind some sign values, for example, the classical bores shows, Anatolian hieroglyphs were developed in a Luvian setting from the very beginning. Numerous very specific aspects, such as the sign Minus or the addition of phonetic indicators like plus me or plus lali, clearly show that the hieroglyphic Luvian writing system was invented not depending on models from the ancient Near East. We do not need to know who was responsible for doing so, Luvians or Hittites. The point is obviously those people felt some need for creating another script and this script is connected not primarily to the language of the ruling Hittite elite, but on the contrary to the periphery of the empire. This can only mean that there is a connection between linguistic diversity and the use of several writing systems. The same problem, as in Anatolian studies, arises in German linguistics, with the language of courtly literature in middle-high German. There it can be observed that the courtly literature and the accompanying form of language were not only cultivated by persons of the higher rank, but by travelling singers such as Walter von der Vogelweide as well, but also lay common people such as Gottfried von Straßburg were among their authors, as were ministerials, just think of Hartmann von Aue. And it goes without saying that the high nobility above all the emperor not only appeared as an audience and promoters, but also as poets themselves, such as Emperor Henry IV. The poets do not form one social group, but the language they use has specific features in common, and these are used in literary communication only. Every day German was different. The Minnesang does not reflect the language actually spoken during the early 12th century. One aspect must be of greatest importance for us here, the effort to ensure that all the songs can be understood throughout the whole German-speaking world, although the language of the 12th century is called Middle High German, we cannot speak of a uniform German language at that time, especially not a high variety. The term high in Middle High German has a geographical meaning. It is used in opposition to Middle Low German, which is Northern German, the lingua franca of the Hanseatic League. It can even be assumed that the aristocracy, who was living together for many years during the crusade, found some form of common understanding, but what appears to us in the manuscripts still is based on the old tribal dialects, that is Bavarian Saxon or Franconian. If, for example, Hartmann von Aue still rhymes kam nam and gan han, in the early days he avoided such rhymes more and more, quite simply because the corresponding forms did not produce any rhyme for some run from Bavaria. The reason is that in some areas, certain long vowels shifted to diphthongs, like in house as opposed to Swiss German hoose. As a consequence, poets were endeavored to use only rhymes that function in most of the other regional dialects as well. Due to the equalization resulting from this habit, past scholars thought that Middle High German was quite a consistent language. They even went one step further and normalized the other texts that showed dialectal features, that is they published them in a standard which never existed. It was only during the 20th century that this way of dealing with medieval German texts was abandoned and a common and uniform Middle High German as such was revealed as being scholarly fiction. Why am I telling you this? The reason is that German linguists invented a term for the linguistic feature medieval poets made use of, funkze lekt, funksche lekt. In contrast to a social lekt, a funksche lekt is not necessarily linked to a specific social group and even more important for us here, it is a phenomenon of the written word. Funksche lekts assure supra-regional understanding and strengthen the communal sense alike. It is precisely this mediating function between regional forms of language and representation or self indoctrination that we find in Hittite Anatolia. What I am trying to say is in my opinion, hieroglyphic luvian is a funksche lekt of luvian as commonly represented in either cuneiforms or on wooden tablets. But now the question remains which aspect is more important, the Hittite kingdom as a multilingual unity or hieroglyphs as emblematic signs of power. The thing is that even the cuneiform writing system is capable of fulfilling the first function. We must not forget that Anatolian scribes make constant use of cuneiform logograms. In a recent study I have coined the term scretura franca for this phenomenon. But now, but how can we then explain that the great kings, whose mother tongue probably was Hittite, erected monuments in the Luvian scripted language and not in Hittite? The answer is simple because the majority of people in the Hittite empire did not speak Hittite. To cut a long story short, we have reasons to believe that the Anatolian hieroglyphs were probably developed in order to have a representational form of communication in a multi-ethnic state. And that as a result of this special multilingual situation, a functional style began to develop which led to the well-known differences between cuneiform and hieroglyphic Luvian. Thank you very much.