^{page 53 note 1} Originally delivered as a lecture before the Institute in London on 4th May, 1951. [For a brief account of the decipherment before 1922 and bibliography see Contenau, Eléments de la bibliographie hittite (1922), and Supplément aux éléments de la bibliographie hittie (1927); for bibliography since 1927 see Gelb, Hittite Hieroglyphics (1931) and Hittite hieroglyphic inscriptions (1939); and Friedrich, Entzifferungsgeschichte (1939) (see p. 7 below). In this summary survey I have mentioned only those points in the history of decipherment which seemed to me particularly to have been fruitful. Such a selection is, of course, bound to be a matter of subjective judgment, with which many may disagree. It does not represent a complete bibliography of the subject, nor is it intended to do duty for a detailed analysis of the script and language. That is a task which still awaits tackling. But since as recently as last year an authoritative scholar was able to describe the Hittite hieroglyphs as “unread” (Gurney, The Hittites, p. 41, but cf. p. 8), it is hoped that my Part II will help to dispel these illusions and show what has been done. In Part II I have ventured to include a few suggestions of my own, together with the review of those made by others—R. D. B.]

^{page 54 note 1} A. H. Sayce, Reminiscences, 1923, p. 474.

^{page 54 note 2} Travels in Syria, p. 146.

^{page 54 note 3} Drake, and Palmer, , Unexplored Syria, I, 335Google Scholar.

^{page 54 note 4} Wright, Empire of the Hittites, p. 140.

^{page 55 note 1} In a lecture read 2nd May, 1876 (P.S.B.A., 1877).

^{page 55 note 2} In this essay hieroglyphics for convenience are written only from left to right.

^{page 55 note 3} In a lecture read 6th May, 1880 (P.S.B.A., II, 1880, p. 76Google Scholar; T.S.B.A., VIII, 1882, p. 248Google Scholar).

^{page 55 note 4} The references are in Hogarth, , Carchemish, I, p. 6Google Scholar.

^{page 56 note 1} The inscriptions were published in T.S.B.A., VI and VII; they reappear in Woolley, and Barnett, , Carchemish, Vol. III (1952Google Scholar).

^{page 56 note 2} P.S.B.A., II, 1880Google Scholar; T.S.B.A., VII, 1882, p. 294Google Scholar.

^{page 56 note 3} Münzstudien, III, 1862, pp. 7–9Google Scholar (Leipzig), and Z.D.M.G., XXVI, 1872, pp. 3–4Google Scholar.

^{page 57 note 1} An example, said to come from Istanbul and acquired by the Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, is thought by Miss Hall, who publishes it (Archiv Orientalní, 1937, p. 307), to be the lost original. Sayce, The Hittites, the Story of a Forgotten Empire (1925), p. 174, says he had heard it was then in a private collection in England.

^{page 57 note 2} Ball, P.S.B.A., 1888, p. 429, first pointed out that the cuneiform text really began with Me-e. Sayce, in P.S.B.A., 1899, p. 204, eventually considered that the text meant “T., King of the Land of the City”. Albright, however, in A.F.O., 1927, 137, was the first to suggest that the name was really Tarqumuwa, a name corresponding to Greek Ταρκιμῶς. But mē is no known language for “I am”, and to the present writer it seems more likely that the word Mē-e (?) is the name of the city, as originally supposed by Sayce. A possible reading of the hieroglyphs could be Me-ra, a country known from Hittite imperial records, or Me-ta. Dr. H. H. Figulla plausibly suggests reading: Tar-ḳu-me-te šar mat alu me-dan.

^{page 58 note 1} P.S.B.A., 1903, p. 142.

^{page 58 note 2} P.S.B.A., 1884, p. 228 (M. XXXIX, 10).

^{page 58 note 3} P.S.B.A., 1885, p. 154. This bowl, now B.M. 125004, is published by Messerschmidt in his corpus as nos. 3–4 and described as from Babylon. The Guide to the Department of Assyrian and Babylonian Antiquities (British Museum), 1922, written by Sir Ernest Budge, describes it as found at Sippar (Abu Habbah). As stated by Gelb in H.H.M., p. 10, there was no information which could be given in 1939 to show where the bowl came from or how the confusion originated. Since then I have learnt the following: it was brought back from Mesopotamia in the eighties of the last century by H. Rassam. Subsequently, however, when Budge went out there a few years later, he claimed to have obtained proof that the object was not, as stated by Rassam, from Babylon but from Sippar. The bowl was exhibited in evidence in the case in which Rassam sued Budge for slander. But Budge's proof does not seem to have been very convincing, for Budge lost the case.

^{page 58 note 4} Ibid., 1883, p. 146; 1884, p. 132.

^{page 58 note 5} Ibid., 1887, p. 374.

^{page 59 note 1} Rev. C. J. Ball, Ibid., 1888, p. 439; 1887, p. 67; previously the view had been upheld by the Rev. Dunbar Heath and MrClarke, Hyde in the same journal and in T.S.B.A., VII, 253Google Scholar, Hyde Clarke endeavoured to see in it connexions with South Arabian.

^{page 59 note 2} Davis, T.S.B.A., 1876.

^{page 60 note 1} Published by Perrot in Rev. Arch., 1882.

^{page 60 note 2} Reminiscences, 1923, p. 172.

^{page 60 note 3} Humann and Puchstein, Reisen in Kleinasien u. Nord-Syrien, 1890.

^{page 60 note 4} At Yayla, Kölit-oǧlu (Städte Pamphyliens u. Pisidiens, Vienna, 1890Google Scholar).

^{page 60 note 5} Chantne, , Mission en Cappadoce, Paris, 1890Google Scholar.

^{page 60 note 6} Wolfe Expedition to Asia Minor, Princeton, 1888Google Scholar.

^{page 60 note 7} “Corpus Inscriptionum Hettiticarum,” M.V.A.G., 1900.

^{page 60 note 8} Ibid., 1902 and 1906.

^{page 60 note 9} Die hethitischen Inschriften, 1892.

^{page 60 note 10} Z.D.M.G., 1894; Hethiter und Armenier, Strassburg, 1898Google Scholar.

^{page 61 note 1} Ménant's, J. lectures, 1891–2 (“Eléments du syllabaire hétéen”, Memoires de l'Acad. des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, Vol. XXXIVGoogle Scholar), deserve mention, although his conjectures proved unfruitful.

^{page 61 note 2} Xen., , Cyrop., VII, p. 42Google Scholar.

^{page 61 note 3} See also Halévy, J., Introduction au déchiffrement des inscriptions pseudo-hittites, Paris, 1893Google Scholar.

^{page 61 note 4} Jensen, op. cit., p. 350.

^{page 61 note 5} Ibid., p. 323.

^{page 61 note 6} Ibid., p. 319. Jensen also guessed more or less correctly the values of two signs, and , as “s” and “t”, the latter from the word for Hamath.

^{page 62 note 1} “Bemerkung zu den hett. Inschriften,” M.V.A.G., 1895.

^{page 62 note 2} P.S.B.A., 1903, p. 141.

^{page 62 note 3} Ibid., 1899, p. 269, 6; 1901, p. 99.

^{page 62 note 4} Ibid., 1903.

^{page 63 note 1} e.g. Ibid., 1905, pp. 21, 191; 1906, pp. 91, 133; 1907, 207; 1908, p. 181; 1909, pp. 251, 329; 1911, pp. 43, 227; 1912, pp. 217, 279; 1913, pp. 6, 257; 1914, p. 233. By the time the Carchemish material (see below) was made available Sayce was too old to make any effective use of it to modify his system; consequently his articles, J.R.A.S., 1922, p. 537; 1925, p. 207; 1927, p. 699; 1930, p. 756, read like voices from a long-past age. Injustice, however, be it said that Sayce himself lamented that his work suffered for lack of colleagues who would or could aid or criticise it seriously.

^{page 63 note 2} The same Society had already conducted excavations in 1888–1891 at Zincirli, well within the Hittite region of influence in Northern Syria, but as it happens no written records in Hittite script were found. The only other excavations in Hittite regions were those of the British Museum, at Carchemish in 1878, but these could not well be called scientific.

^{page 63 note 3} Reminiscences, p. 220.

^{page 64 note 1} Ibid., 327.

^{page 64 note 2} Some seals and seal-stamps were found but not published until recently. See below, p. 78.

^{page 64 note 3} Peiser (1892) and Sayce (P.S.B.A., 1903, 283, 144) had already suggested this before the dig began on the strength of tablets similar to the present gleaned by Chantre in his visit to Boǧaz-köy in 1883.

^{page 64 note 4} Die Sprache der Hettiter, 1917. Sayce (J.R.A.S., 1920) unfortunately rejected Hrozný's views and interpretation.

^{page 64 note 5} The idea that the language was Indo-European was in itself not wholly new. The language of the few Hittite texts acquired by Chantre at Boǧaz-Köy had on comparison been found to be identical with two curious letters included in the famous hoard of tablets from Tell-el-Amarna. These letters, of which one is from Amenhotep III to Tarhundaraba, King of Arzawa, and another from an unspecified Hittite prince, were called “ the Arzawa letters”, and as early as 1902 Knudtzon, the editor of the Tell-el-Amarna texts, had declared that on internal evidence the “Arzawa letters” were in an Indo-European language. But it was one thing to make a suggestion, another to work out the meaning, as Hrozný began to do.

^{page 65 note 1} “Die Acht Sprachen der Boghaz-köi Inschriften,” S.P.A. W., 1919, M.D.O.G., p. 61.

^{page 65 note 2} See Speiser, , “Introduction to Hurrian,” A.A.S.O.R., Vol. XX (1940–1941Google Scholar), and review by Sidney Smith, in Antiquity, December 1942.

^{page 65 note 3} Sometimes called “proto-hittite” or “hattic”. See Güterbock, , K.U.B., XXVIIIGoogle Scholar, and E. Laroche, “Éitudes protohittites,” Rev. Ass., 1947, pp. 67–98.

^{page 65 note 4} See Rosenkranz, , “Die Stellung des Luwischen im Hatti-Reiche,” Indogerm. Forsch., LVI, 1938Google Scholar, and Bossert, Asia, pp. 90–114. According to Forrer it was people who worshipped the gods Tarhu and Sandon who spoke Luwian, and it was to Luwian that the numerous Anatolian and Greek place names in -assos and -anda were to be assigned (M.D.O.G., 61, p. 23).

^{page 65 note 5} See Otten, , “Zum Palaischen,” Z.A.(N.F.), 14, Vol. 48, 1944Google Scholar, and Bossert, Ein Hethitisches Königssiegel, Ch. III.

^{page 66 note 1} A. 11a. For report of this season see The Times, July and 9th October 1911; Hogarth, “Hittite Problems and the Excavations at Carchemish,” Proc. Br. Ac., December 1911.

^{page 66 note 2} Thompson, R. C., “A New Decipherment of the Hittite Hieroglyphs,” Archaeoiogia, XLIVGoogle Scholar.

^{page 66 note 3} P.S.B.A., 1903 (see above, p. 58).

^{page 67 note 1} Hogarth, Carchemish, Pt. I, 1914.

^{page 67 note 2} Cowley, The Hittites (Schweich Lectures), 1920, see also J.R.A.S., 1917.

^{page 67 note 3} op. cit., p. 72.

^{page 68 note 1} Halévy had already noticed that two of these signs were interchangeable, but assigned them a wrong value. Jensen had added a fourth equivalent, vid. supra.

^{page 68 note 2} Had he not ignored them he would almost certainly have been able to correct Thompson's gu-gu-am to gurgum.

^{page 68 note 3} “Die sogenannten hethitischen Hieroglypheninschriften,” Abh. f. d. Kunde des Morgenlandes, XVI.

^{page 69 note 1} He made one apt observation. The symbol had been considered to be simply the number 9. Frank pointed, out that it occurred so often than it must have some other value. It has, in fact, the value nu, perhaps the first syllable of some word such as nuwa, Indo-European for “nine”.

^{page 69 note 2} Z.A., 1930.

^{page 70 note 1} The correct group for “son” was curiously enough stumbled on almost simultaneously, apparently independently, by P. Jensen, who now returned to the contest after many years of retirement with a long and otherwise not very progressive article (“Weitere Beiträge zur graphischen EntzifFerung der sogenannten Hettitischen-hieroglyphen-inschriften”, Kleinasiatische Forschungen, I, 1930Google Scholar). Jensen here is still hampered by his obsession that each sign represents an ideogram for an entire word, not a phonetic syllable. Thus a group of signs which we now know to consist of syllables representing particles, case endings, etc., for him was a list of titles and honorifics. While his argument might be partially true of certain primitive or abbreviated forms of the script it was demonstrably false as a guiding maxim and led nowhere.

^{page 70 note 2} For this lecture see Actes du VIII Congrès Int. des Orientalistes, p. 47. This lecture formed the first part of his work and was fully published in A.J.S.L., XLVIII, 1931–1932, pp. 137 ffGoogle Scholar. The second part was delivered as a lecture in Geneva on 15th March 1932. Both appear together as Die hethitische Bilderschrift, Chicago, October 1932. Forrer asserts that he did, in fact, think out all the points in those articles as early as June 1923, but that time prevented him publishing them before. But this claim is quite irrelevant. What matters in any claim to priority of discovery is the date of publication. Meriggi, in a long article in R.H.A., IX, 1932Google Scholar, claims feelingly that Forrer had plagiarised Meriggi's idea from a lecture which he, Meriggi, gave to the Vth Congress of German Orientalists at Bonn in 1928.

^{page 71 note 1} Jensen has pointed most of this out many years before (see above, p. 61, § 10).

^{page 72 note 1} Or perhaps “altar”, as it is now thought.

^{page 72 note 2} In the case of the second name, Halparunda, Forrer, though alighting on the right word, attributed the values Hal-pa-runda to the wrong signs.

^{page 74 note 1} Andrae, “Hethitische Inschriften auf Bleistreifen aus Assur,” W.V.D.O.G., 1924. The latest edition is by Bossert, and Steinherr, , “Die Bleibriefe aus Assur,” in Bibliotheca Orientalis, VIII (1951Google Scholar).

^{page 74 note 2} It must be noted that this suggestion was published before him by Gelb, , Hittite Hieroglyphs, I, p. 72Google Scholar, in December 1937.

^{page 74 note 3} The idea had already been put forward by Sayce (J.R.A.S., 1917, p. 962) that this script was connected with the Moschi, a Phrygian people closely associated with the Tibareni, who settled in southern central Anatolia and called it Tabal. The evidence for this connexion of the script with the Moschi, as advanced by Sayce, was very slender, depending on a chance mention of that people in the Carchemish texts. But as this mentions them almost certayily as an outside, foreign power, so the script cannot be Tabalian, though a local form was current in Tabal in the 8th century (see below, p. 92). The fact that numerous inscriptions in hieroglyphs were soon found which belonged to the Hittite Imperial period, before the advent of the Phrygians, has since rendered the Tabalian argument pointless. Another wilder idea of Forrer's was that the inventors of the hieroglyphs were Pelasgian.

^{page 75 note 1} Published as The Hittite Hieroglyphs, I, Chicago, 1931Google Scholar.

^{page 75 note 2} “Santas and Kupapa,” M.A.O.G., VI, 3, 1932 (see Meriggi, O.L.Z., 1932, p. 657). Bossert, op. cit., p. 22 n., claims that his work was completed without use being made of either Forrer's or Gelb's results.

^{page 75 note 3} For an ancient mythological allusion to a settlement of Cretans in Pamphylia, see Barnett, “Mopsus,” Journ. Hellenic Studies, 1953. See also Scharff, A., “Ägyptologische Bemerkungen zur Frage der Lokalisierung des. Landes ‘Keftiu’,” Jahrb. f. Kleinas. Forschung, II, pp. 101 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 76 note 1} Bossert also observed the use of = Runda in one spelling of the name Halparunda; and showed that signified “temple”.

^{page 76 note 2} Les Inscriptions Hittites Hiéroglyphiques, 1933. The preface states that the substance was delivered in a lecture on 7th December 1932.

^{page 76 note 3} “Die längsten Bauinschriften in ‘Hethitischen’ Hieroglyphen,” M.V.A.G., 39 (1934Google Scholar).

^{page 76 note 4} Hittite Hieroglyphic Inscriptions, 1939.

^{page 76 note 5} Revue Hittite et Asianique, 27, 1937, pp. 76–96.

^{page 77 note 1} Entzifferungsgeschichte der Hethitischen Hieroglyphensckrift, Kohlhammer-Verlag, Stuttgart (Sonderheft 3 der Zeitschrift “Die Welt als Geschichte”). Reviewed by Meriggi, O.L.Z., 1941, PP. 159 ff.; Dhorme, , Syria, XXII, pp. 176 ff.Google Scholar; Thureau-Dangin, , R.Ass., XXXVII, 80Google Scholar.

^{page 78 note 1} For the account of the discovery see Bittel, , “Vorlaüfiger Berichfi über die Ausgrabungen in Boǧaz-köy, 1936,” M.D.O.G., 75, 1937, pp. 31–2, and p. 52Google Scholar (account of the sealings by Güterbock). For the publication of the seals see Güterbock, Siegel aus Bogazköy, Teil, Erster: “Die Königssiegel der Grabungen bis 1938” (Archiv für Orientforschung, Beiheft 5), Berlin, 1940Google Scholar; Teil, Zweiter: “Die Königssiegel von 1939 und die übrigen Hieroglyphensiegel” (Beiheft 7), Berlin, 1942Google Scholar.

^{page 78 note 2} But for a different explanation, see below, § 48, note 5.

^{page 78 note 3} Götze, , American Journal of Archaeology, XL, 1936, pp. 210 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 78 note 4} Barnett, “Notes on Inscribed Hittite Objects from Atchana,” Antiquaries Journal, 1939, PP. 33–5. Whether the “Indilimma” seal (Hogarth, Hittite Seals, No. 181), much discussed as a bilingual in the last century, contains any hieroglyphics at all is doubtful.

^{page 78 note 5} Bittel, , “Der Depotfund von Soloi-Pompeiopolis,” Z.A., 46, 1940Google Scholar. See, too, §42 below. [On this subject see now Bossert, “Wie lange wurden hethitische Hieroglyphen geschrieben ?” Die Welt des Orients, 1952. Here Bossert (i) quotes evidence that the script goes back to the end of the 3rd millennium B.C., (ii) finds the latest use of the script to be on coins of Antiochos IV of Commagene (A.D. 38–72). Unlike myself, he believes that the general language of the Hittite people was the Hittite hieroglyphic language, not Hittite cuneiform našili (see Belleten, XVI, 1952Google Scholar).—R. D. B.]

^{page 79 note 1} Putuhepa was read by Bossert, in O.L.Z., 1933, XXXVI, p. 86Google Scholar, and Gelb, , Hittite Hieroglyphs, II, p. 17Google Scholar.

^{page 79 note 2} Güterbock, II, p. 46. When we turn to examine the hieroglyphs which correspond to certain of these royal names on the seals we face a strange puzzle. Whereas some, such as Muwatalli and the queens Danuhepa, Putuhepa and perhaps Malnigal, are written phonetically, certain other royal names are demonstrably not. Thus Subbiluliuma is written TU.HA.ME. Hattušsili is written with a TRIDENT (normal value HA) transfixed with KNIFE (normal value LI). Tudhalia is represented by the figure of a mountain deity plus the sign TU.; while three more cannot be read at all. How are these unusual renderings to be explained ? Clearly one explanation will not cover them all. Thus Tudhalia, as Güterbock points out, bore the same name as a mountain, Mount Tudhalia, which he thus depicts to spell his name as a sort of rebus or type parlant. On the other hand, Hattušsili's name is obviously connected with the city Hattušsa (Boǧaz-köy). Is TRIDENT the ideogram for Hattuša? Hrozný thought so in 1937 (L.I.H.H., II, p. 8). Güterbock (op. cit., p. 3) suggests it is the symbol of a god, No. 41, at Yazili Kaya, and identifies him with the “Storm God of Hatti” of the cuneiform texts. It is possible; but it is odd that the symbol for “Storm-God” does not also accompany him on the Yazili Kaya sculpture. But if true, then HA + LI is read ideographically Hattuši-li. (In that case the value ha for TRIDENT is derived from Hattušsa on the acrophonic principle.)

Another very difficult case is the spelling of the name of Urhi-Tešub, said to be written: CITY-tag-LI! Normally in the hieroglyphs the word for “city“ is x-menas, which hardly suggests Urhi-Tešub, while the word Urhi appears to mean “firm, upright”, which hardly suggests ideograms for either city or knife. On the other hand, the same signs, differing only in that the knife transfixes the CITY sign, occur for Muršili at Sirkeli, in an inscription of Muwatalli, son of Muršili and father of Urhi-Tešub (Gelb, Hittite Hieroglyphic Inscriptions, No. 48). The correctness of the reading of this name as Muršili rather than Urhi-Tešub would seem to be confirmed by an unpublished inscription at Adana, on the reverse of the stele illustrated in Or. Inst. Comm. 8, Fig. 871 (now Adana 1721), where the name is written CITY + LI^-i-la. The same name CITY + LI (city transfixed with knife), also occurs on the inscription Karadaǧ V (Kízíldaǧ) (Güterbock, “Alte und neue heth. Denkmäler,” Halil Edhem Festschrift, 1947), apparently a dedication of someon described as the father of Hattušili, i.e. Mursili again. (That case suggests incidentally that Karadaǧ is Hattušili's kingdom of Hakpišša.) On the other hand, Karadaǧ VI bears the same name of Hattušili's (?) father, Muršili, written as Urhi-Tešub's name is usually supposed to be written, CITY-LI., with CITY not transfixed ! In fact, both forms of this name seem to represent not Urhi-Tesub, but Muršili. One despairing explanation of Güterbock and others is to give up attempting to read these in the form known to us from the cuneiform and to assume that they are “throne-names”, i.e. alternative or substitute names. Such names were de rigueur in Egypt and occurred in Assyria (see Sayce, , Cambridge Ancient History, II, p. 178Google Scholar). In some parts of Anatolia it seems to have been possible for a king to have two names; thus Kili-Tešub, king of Kutmuhi, “who is called “Irrupi“,” is mentioned by Tiglathpileser I (Luckenbill, Annals, §222). But there is no evidence at present, as far as I am aware, of this practice among the Hittites. Another alternative explanation seems possible—that these are riddling writings of kinds which we do not at present understand. Esarhaddon “wrote his name in the likeness of the stars” (Luckenbill, , Annals, II, p. 656Google Scholar), and the proof of it is the “black stone”, B.M. 91207 (B.M. Guide to the Bab. and Ass. Antiq., 1922, p. 228), and there is evidence of similar writing on the part of Sargon.

How does this fit the three royal seals which, as said above, cannot be read at all in the hieroglyphs? It happens that in all three cases we can guess them to be writings of the name of Muwatalli, since his name occurs in the cuneiform Beischrift in two, while in the third we have that of Danuhepa. This lady, who was concerned in some scandal, was as Güterbock shows not the mother of Muršili but most probably the queen of Muwatalli, and tavannanna, or High Priestess. As the latter office was independent of that of queen, she continued to figure as high priestess on the seals of her stepson Urhi-Tešub, the successor of her husband. But can we show that the hieroglyphs there represent Muwatalli? Now Muwatalli is not a name of a type usual among Hittite kings. It is an adjective meaning “vigorous”, “potent”, and by a significant word-play it is usually rendered into Hittite cuneiform by Sumerian ideograms as ^(m)NIR.GAL, which is itself read by the Akkadian word mutallu “heroic”. We know there was nothing unusual in Hatti for a mortal to bear the name of a deity; there are men called Hašameli, Iarri, Inara, and a woman called Kupapa. Muwatalli is in fact the description or epithet of a god, as Phoebos is that of Apollo. In fact the God Muwatalli is mentioned as a deity of Kizzuwatna, and Goetze accepts the identification of him with both ^GOD STORMGOD NIR.GAL and STORM-GOD MULTARRIHU (Kizzuwatna and Hittite Geography, pp. 67–8). The god Muwatalas is mentioned, too, in the hieroglyphs at Carchemish (Ala) and occurs at Til Barsip, as Mütalas. Thus the explanation of the epithet Muwatalli is that it really covered euphemistically that of the Storm-God NIR.GAL. This was a deity for whom both Muwatalli and his father Muršili had a special regard. The Storm-God NIR.GAL causes Hašameli to make Muršili invisible in battle, as Aphrodite does to Paris before the walls of Troy (KBo., V, 8, 3, 41). Muwatalli, in his Treaty with Alakšandu, speaks of his patrons, the Storm God pihaššaššis, the Protecting Deity of the King, ^GOD Lama and Storm God NIR.GAL. Now on seals nos. 38 and 39 (the two which belong to Muwatalli but bear inscrutable hieroglyphs) the king is shown cuddled by a bearded, i.e. elder Storm God, labelled GREAT-STORMGOD-BOWL. From Karatepe we know now that BOWL is the sign for Heaven. This thus reads “Great Storm-god of Heaven”. The accompanying Beischrift in cuneiform mentions the Sun-God (i.e. the king), Tešub hellipi (=Hurrian for Heaven?), ^GOD Šarruma, and ^GODLAMA (or protective god). Now ^GODLAMA, as Güterbock points out (II, p. 11) is the god of the stag (Runda or Karhuhas in hieroglyphs); and Karatepe, by translating Karhuhas-Runda as Reshef SPRM (Reshef of the birds ?) confirms that LAMA is a god of stormgod, bowman type. On the Haci Bekli relief (Bossert, Altanatolien, Fig. 817) we have an illustration of ^GODLAMA, as Brandenstein pointed out (“Heth. Götter nach Bilderbeschreibungen”, MVAG., 46, 2, P. 79). He is wearing a long garment, is a bearded bowman, and stands on a stag, whose head is lost but the tip of whose antlers can be seen. Above him is the symbol of the king or sun god whom he protects, as described in the Alakšandu Treaty. An unpublished cylinder seal at Aleppo shows ^D LAMA again followed by his stag and marching under the winged sun disc as before. Behind is the sign for “heaven” and a royal name which cannot be read, . This time he is still bearded but wears a kilt.

The third seal of Muwatalli from Bogaz-köy (No. 38), as we have said, shows the Storm God or Tešup of Heaven embracing the king, while in the “aedicula” containing the king's name according to custom, we have not Muwatalli but the signs STORMGOD— GREAT KING. Quite clearly this confirms the fact that Muwatalli is the name of one of the various STORM-GODs. But which is not so clear. If the signs are to be understood as STORMGOD (of) THE GREAT KING we get little further.. If, however, as is rather more likely, they mean “THE STORMGOD, GREAT KING”, one cannot entirely resist the suspicion that there is a play on the name of the god Šarruma, whose name is sometimes written in Hittite cuneiform with the Akkadian word ŠARRU “King” as ŠARRU-ma. If this identification is correct, it will explain the appearance of Šarruma on the Beischrift of no. 38. Šarruma is described in the Ulmi-Tešup treaty as “son of the STORM-god”, i.e. of the older, bearded STORM-god. From his appearance at Yazilikaya (no. 42) Šarruma too (see Güterbock, op. cit., II, pp. 21 fF. ) would also seem to be a form of younger (beardless) Storm-god. This last point is relevant because on seals 39–41 and 42–44, we find Muwatalli's name written in three or four hieroglyphs as x-x-ba. Sedat Alp, it would seem rightly, recognises in this sign group the values te-su-ba for the name of Tešub, “Bemerkungen zu den Hieroglyphen des het. Monuments von Imamkulu,” AOr., xviii, 1950, p 6Google Scholar.

^{page 81} (The Haci Bekli relief, now in Adana Museum, has a hieroglyphic inscription on the back. Unfortunately this is so covered with lime deposit that it is at present illegible. But it would seem that removal of this coating by chemical means might produce some useful information.)

^{page 81 note 1} Ein Hethitisches Königssiegel (Istanbuler Forschungen, 17, Berlin, 1944Google Scholar).

^{page 81 note 2} Les Inscriptions Hittites Hiéroglyphiques, p. 437.

^{page 81 note 3} There is now fair evidence that this principle of acrophony was used in evolving the hieroglyphic script. Thus TRIDENT, ha, is apparently derived from the word haššuš “king”; the sign value te apparently from the name of Tesup; value a, apparently from the našili aiš, a mouth. u from ulubatas, an ox; nu from the word ^*nuwa- “nine”. So, too, hi, apparently from the name of the goddess Hepat (see Bossert, “Die Göttin Hepat,” Belleten, 1951, p. 318, who considers this ideogram to represent a liver, Grk. ᾔπαρ, ἤπατος …).

^{page 81 note 4} There was, however, another word in Hittite as well for silver, namely KUBABBAR-ni-wa-, K. Bo., V, 2, iv, which if we knew it all, might save the argument of Bossert.

^{page 81 note 5} Gelb, I. G., Hittite Hieroglyphs, III (Oriental Institute of Chicago: Studies in Anc. Or. Civil., 21Google Scholar).

^{page 83 note 1} Bossert, and Çambel, , Karatepe, 1st Report, Istanbul, 1946Google Scholar; 2nd Report, 1947. The principal publications of the bilingual text are:

Phoenician Text.

Friedrich, J., “Eine Altphonizische Inschrift aus Kilikien,” Forschungen und Fortschritte, XXIV, 1947, 77–9.Google Scholar

A. Alt, “Die geschichtliche Bedeutung der neuen ph. Inschriften aus Kilikien,” Ibid., pp. 43–7.

Barnett, R. D., Leveen, J., Moss, C., “A Phoenician Inscription from Eastern Cilicia,” Iraq, X, 1948, pp. 56–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Honeyman, A. M., “Phoenician Inscriptions from Karatepe,” Muséon, LXI, 1948Google Scholar.

Oberman, J., Discoveries at Karatepe, American Oriental Society, 1948Google Scholar.

Dupont-Sommer, A., “Notes sur le texte Phénicien,” Oriens, I, pp. 193–7Google Scholar.

Marcus, R. and Gelb, I. J., “The Phoenician Stele Inscription from Cilicia,” J.N.E.S., VIII, 1949, pp. 116–120Google Scholar.

Dupont-Sommer, A., “Éitude du texte phénicien des inscriptions de Karatepe,” Oriens, II, pp. 121–6Google Scholar.

Dupont-Sommer, A., “Azitawadda, roi des Danouniens,” Révue d'Assyriologie, XLII, 1948, pp. 161–188.Google ScholarDupont-Sommer, A., ‘Éitude du texte phénicien des inscriptions de Karatepe” (Suite II), Archiv. Orientalni, XVIII, 1950, pp. 34–8Google Scholar.

O'Callaghan, R., “The Great Phoenician Portal Inscription from Karatepe,” Orientalia, XVIII, 1949, pp. 173–205Google Scholar.

Leveen, J. and Moss, C., “The Second Recension of the Karatepe Inscription,” Journal of Jewish Studies, IGoogle Scholar.

Phoenician and Hittite Hieroglyphic Text.

Bossert, H., “Die phönizisch-hethitischen Bilinguen vom Karatepe” (publishing lines I–X), Oriens, I, pp. 163–192Google Scholar, and Belleten, XII, 1928, pp. 515–531Google Scholar.

do., do., Erste Fortsetzung (publishing lines XI–XXIV), Oriens, II, pp. 73–120.

do., do., Zweite Fortsetzung (publishing lines XXV–XXXI), Symbolae Hrozný (Archiv. Orientalní), 1950.

Bossert, H., Dritte Fortsetzung (publishing lines XXII–XL), Jahrb. für Kleinasialische Forschung, I, pp. 264–295Google Scholar.

Güterbock, H., “Die Bedeutung der Bilinguis vom Karatepe fur die Entzifferung der heth. Hieroglyphen,” Eranos, XLVII, 1949Google Scholar.

Gelb, I. J., “The Contribution of the new Cilician Bilinguals to the decipherment of Hieroglyphic Hittite,” Chicago, 1950Google Scholar; and Bibliotheca Orientalis, VII, 1950, pp. 129–151Google Scholar.

^{page 84 note 1} Bossert, , Oriens, 1, 1948, p. 163Google Scholar. The curious thing is that the Hittite text runs from slab to slab, often jumping a sculpture orthostate to do so. Carch. Ai and 2 are doubtless similarly parts of a longer text dispersed over two or three slabs.

^{page 84 note 2} Now the remaining lines have been published by Bossert, , JKF., ii, 1953Google Scholar.

^{page 86 note 1} There were already isolated instances known of this practice, e.g. on the Babylon stele, “C.I.H.,” Pl. II, 1. 1, and at Topada.

^{page 87 note 1} This fact, however, is still disputed by Gelb and Meriggi.

^{page 87 note 2} An article on this subject entitled “Le iscrizioni storiche in eteo geroglifico”, in Studi classici e orientali (Pisa), II, 1952Google Scholar, is promised by P. Meriggi, whose return after long silence to the subject of hieroglyphs is an important event.

^{page 87 note 3} Asia, Istanbul, 1946Google Scholar. This elaborate discussion of the origin of the name of Asia produced incidentally the true meaning of the word “syennesis”, attempts to read which into the hieroglyphs had caused such trouble to the early decipherers. Bossert shows it most plausibly to mean “lover of the god ”.

^{page 87 note 4} This transition in this region from z to s is evidently (as Bossert, pointed out, Oriens, I, p. 92Google Scholar) a local feature. It explains why Tarsus should be represented on local coins with Aramaic inscriptions as Tarz, while in Assyrian it is Tarzi, once Tarsis (Luckenbill, , Annals, II, p. 710Google Scholar q.v.). There Tarsis (written erroneously Nusisi) is mentioned by Esarhaddon as a centre of “the kings of the sea from Iadanana (which is Javan) as far as Tarsisi”. In Hebrew it is Taršiš. The second s is, of course, the Hittite nominatival ending. Azitawadas or Azitawa(n)-das, according to Bossert, means “lover of (the sun-god) Wa(n)das”. There is as yet little evidence for this god, but such Anatolian Greek personal names as Ουανϒδαμός and Ουανϒδιβασσις, Ουανϒδανεσις (Sundwall, Namen der Lykier, p. 237) may be cited as including his name.

^{page 87 note 5} For a good summary of the historical data concerning the Dananiyim see O'Callaghan, , Orientalia, XVIII, pp. 193–9Google Scholar.

^{page 88 note 1} For an account of Mopsus, his relations to the Hittite kings and the Greek legends concerning him, see Barnett, R. D., “Mopsus,” Journal of Hellenic Studies, lxiii, 1953Google Scholar.

^{page 88 note 2} On the localisation of Kode or Kedy see Gardner, , Ancient Egyptian Onomastica, I, pp. 134 ffGoogle Scholar. On Kuwe/Kume see Albright, , Bull. Amer. Sch. Or. Res., 120/1950Google Scholar.

^{page 88 note 3} Luckenbill, op. cit., 1198.

^{page 89 note 1} The true explanation of this custom is discussed by Barnett, R. D., “The Phrygian Rock-Facades and the Hittite Monuments,” Bibliotheca Orientalis, X, 1953Google Scholar.

^{page 89 note 2} Bittel, (AfO., XIIIGoogle Scholar) has emphasized the presence of a second figure, cf. Bossert, Asia, 72.

^{page 89 note 3} Tudhalia is also the author of the inscription from Karakuyu, west of Malatya.

^{page 89 note 4} Hrozný, L.I.H.H., p. 432; 4, Ibid., p. 435; Gelb, , AJA., XLI, 289Google Scholar.

^{page 89 note 5} Bossert, Belleten, 1951, 320, reads the name of Lawazantiya, the city of Putuhepa, in a newly found inscription from Karahoyük, near Elbistan (Özgüçc, Karahöyük). Lewy, J., however (Orientalia, 21, 1952, p. 291Google Scholar), places Lawazantiya near the Beilan Pass and at Malatya.

^{page 89 note 6} Güterbock, op. cit., II, p. 22, and Belleten, VII, 1943, p. 308Google Scholar. Alp, however (Zur Lesung von manchen Personennamen … p. 38), while rightly taking the name as Tal-mi Šarruma, wishes to take the first sign, now much obliterated, as Meriggi 214. Gelb has shown some reasons (H.H., 3, p. 14, comparison of A 11 a 5 with M XI 5) why that should be ri, though I think it can also be read ka on the strength of the seal Sendschirli V, pl. 47, i (Barq-ka-ba-s = Barrakab). But after examining the original stone at Aleppo I think the first sign there is certainly not Meriggi 214, but a form of Meriggi 61, 2. This sign is used to begin the word read ta-na-me- “all” (Steinherr, “Hittite Hieroglyph for ‘all’, ‘every’, ‘whole’,” Oriens, II). It would thus support the reading of the name Talmi- as against Rimi-šarma in cuneiform and indicate that the sign could be read tal or ta. But that it can be Meriggi 214, and that this can be tel ri on the pattern of the cuneiform, as argued by Alp, I do not believe. Cf. Güterbock's, sketch, Siegel, II, Pl. 81, Figs. 259–261Google Scholar.

^{page 90 note 1} Bossert, Altanatolien, Fig. 768.

^{page 90 note 2} Sayce, , J.R.A.S., 1882, XXVIII IV 6Google Scholar.

^{page 90 note 3} Izolu inscription, Sayce, Ibid., LI.

^{page 90 note 4} Palu Inscription, Corpus Inscriptionum Chaldicarum, p. 31. In this dating it will be seen that I differ both from the dating of Akurgal in his Remarques stylistiques sur les Reliefs de Malatya, and Bossert Zur Chronologie der Skulpturen von Malatya. The former would date the sculpture of the gate 1050–900, the latter about 875.

^{page 90 note 5} Kululu Inscription Bossert, I, Jahrbuchf. Kleinasiatisclie Forchung, I (1951Google Scholar); Meriggi, , Rivista degli Studi Orientali, XXVII (1952Google Scholar).

^{page 90 note 6} An account of an important stele recently discovered and now in the Museum at Aleppo was read by Pere Tournay at the XXIInd Congress of Orientalists. It is inscribed with an account in cuneiform of the capturē of Lake by Tukulti-Ninurta II, and is to be shortly published by Tournay and Subhi Sawwaf.

^{page 91 note 1} Iraq, X, p. 128.

^{page 91 note 2} This exchange of t with s is also witnessed in reverse at Carchemish in the name of Atarluhas, which appears to be a rendering of Asari-luhi, a name of Marduk in Babylonia.

^{page 91 note 3} Akurgal, in his excellent study, Späthethitische Bildkunst, wishes to date Araras into the time of Sargon. The difference between us in dating is small.

^{page 91 note 4} Bossert promises a fresh publication of this text. [This is now available as “Zur Geschichte von Karkamis”, in Studi Classici e Orientali, University of Pisa, 1951Google Scholar. This translation is far ahead of anything yet made of this important text. I differ from Bossert, however, in believing that the ideogram THRONE + TABLE, which is described as being set up, is not a residence but a festival; cf. the Greek inscription from Nimrud Daǧ.—R.B.]

^{page 91 note 5} Bossert, , Archiv Orientalni, XVIII, 1950, p. 21Google Scholar.

^{page 92 note 1} Barnett, , “Hittite Hieroglyphic Inscriptions at Aleppo” (Iraq, X, 1948Google Scholar).

^{page 92 note 2} The text gives the actual ancient name of Nigde: Nahida (MXXXI, GI, see Gelb, Hittite Hieroglyphs, p. 17).

^{page 92 note 3} Hrozný, L.I.H.H., p. 267.

^{page 92 note 4} For s = z, see note 4, p. 87 above.

^{page 92 note 5} Luckenbill, Annals, § 802.

^{page 92 note 6} L.I.H.H., pp. 351 ff.

^{page 92 note 7} This name is read by Hrozný Wa-lu-Dattamimas. For Šarruma as the correct reading of the name of the god formerly read Dattamimas, see Güterbock, , Siegel, II, pp. 20–4Google Scholar. My reading of the present name involves taking the second sign, the triangle usually read lu, as aš (by polyphony). This triangle is often represented on Hittite seals in the hands of gods (see Güterbock, , op. cit., I, p. 46Google Scholar) and may be identified with the object referred to in Hittite cuneiform descriptions of the gods' images (Brandenstein, Bildbeschreibungen, p. 87, Das Heil-symbol …) as SIG₅ = aššu = “good” in Hittite. This derivation of the value of the sign, of course, produces yet another example of “acrophony” (see p. 81). The reading aš for this sign is confirmed by a fragment from Carchemish A 25 a, where -ha-x “Great Queen” is evidently to be read ha-aš-šar-. This tallies neatly with the word for queen ^*haššusaraš, postulated by Gurney in “Hittite Prayers of Muršiliš”, p. 45 (L.A.A.A., XXVII). It also involves accepting the sign Meriggi 346, as sa, as Bossert, Asia, p. 137, and I argued in Iraq, X., p. 131, rather than si as desired by Gelb, , H.H., III, p. 17Google Scholar.

Meriggi independently arrived at the identification of Uaššarme with the author of the Topada inscription, Athenaeum, XXIX, 1951, p. 45Google Scholar, while Landsberger, Samal, p. 20, n. 39, identified the city's name at Topada, Bar-x-ta, with Bit-Burutaš (as the lesser kingdom of Tabal was called by the Assyrians). Whether Bit-Burutaš is to be also connected with the Byzantine town of Barata, near Eregli, is obscure.

^{page 93 note 1} Bossert, , Archiv Orientalni, XVIII, 1950, p. 21Google Scholar.

^{page 93 note 2} For recent studies see Tritsch, , “Lycian, Luwian and Hittite,” Archiv Orientalni, XVIII, 1950Google Scholar; and Petersen, Lykisch and Hittitisch, 1945.

^{page 93 note 3} See Sundwall, Die Einheimischen Namen der Lykier.

^{page 93 note 4} See Keil, “Die Kulte Lydiens,” in Arch. Studies presented to Buckler.

^{page 93 note 5} For wooden tablets and scribes of wooden tablets see Güterbock, “Das Siegeln bei den Hettitern” (Symbolae Paulo Koschaker dedicatae 1939) also Bossert, “Schreibstoff und Schreibgerät der Hethiter,” Belleten, XVI, 1952Google Scholar. Bossert believes that the wooden tablets were sealed with the seals described above in § 30, and that their find spot was where the wooden tablets were kept.

^{page 93 note 6} Barnett, R. D., “Notes on Inscribed Hittite. Objects from Alalakh,” Ant. J., XIX, 1939Google Scholar.

^{page 94 note 1} M. XX ( = M.V.A.G., 1906, PI. XX). See Barnett, , J.H.S., LXVIII, p. 20Google Scholar. Bossert, Die Welt des Orients, 1952, dates it to the 8th century B.C.; see above § 30 and note 5.

^{page 94 note 2} An example of the influence on language seems to be the “barbarism”, called σολοικισμός, perpetrated by the inhabitants of Soloi, which consisted in splitting up a partitive genitive into a sort of parataxis: οι ἵπποι, πὰς κάτω βλεφαρίδας οὔ φασιν αὐτοὺς χεινἔ (Aelian), or αὐτοὺς χεινἔ “Ωρεῖται, χαλκαί μεν αὐτοῖς πέτραι (Philostratus)—see Bentley on Phalaris, p. 320. This is apparently a survival of such expressions as tada THRONE-asitar-da “(to), my father, on his throne” = “on my father's throne” (Karatepe, XVI). Parallels to this, however, also occur in Hittite cuneiform, so that this expression may be a common heritage of Anatolia from Hittite languages. Examples of survival of Hittite hieroglyphic influence on script seem to be (i) in the Pamphylian dialect of Greek, the use of double 1, to mark length, e.g. Ηιιαρος, for Attic ἱρός, where double 1 seems to reflect , now proved to represent a long i, indicated as doubled by the two strokes below it, (ii) the curious sign on coins of Caria shown by Mr. E. S. G. Robinson (Num. Chron., 1936, pp. 6–7) to be probably a survival of the hieroglyph for “mountain”. (iii) In Lycian, where Pedersen (Lykisch und Hittitisch, §16) notes that the occasional punctuation between syllables clearly derives from an originally syllabic system of writing, (iv) Other examples are quoted by Bossert, see above, § 30, n. 5.

^{page 95 note 1} Now published. See above, p. 84, n. 2.