Hieroglyphic Hittite: Some New Readings and Their Consequences
Author(s): J. D. Hawkins and A. Morpurgo-Davies
Source: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, No. 2 (1975), pp.
121-133
Published by: Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25203651
Accessed: 07-08-2014 19:12 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 129.67.173.155 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:12:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HIEROGLYPHICHITTITE: SOMENEW READINGS
AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES1
J. D.
By
Hawkins
and A. Morpurgo-Davies
1. This paper is concerned with the phonetic values of four important Hieroglyphic signs:
376, 377) and fl jj (HH, Nos. 209, 210). To f and fl the values i and a
t ? (HH, Nos.
were ascribed long before the discovery of theKaratepe bilingual in 1948. On the other hand
the differentiation of the second sign of each pair, viz. and j, by the double stroke has
J
never been fully explained.8 Conventionally the signs were transcribed as /and ?, and this
transcription has now become canonical, though there is no reason to believe that the
distinction between, e.g., \ and ? is one of length.
In an article published posthumously Bossert3 suggested the readings zi and za for \
on the ground of certain correspondences between Hieroglyphic and Cuneiform
and
J
Luwian: cf. for instance the Hieroglyphic demonstrative J with the Cun. Luwian za-, the
endings of Nom.-Acc.
Hieroglyphic
plural and Dat. plural -f and -J with the Cun.
Luwian
-nzi
endings
and
-nza.
Unfortunately
some
of
Bosserfs
suggestions
were
unac
ceptable and the whole argument was supported by a number of doubtful readings and
He
interpretations.
also
attempted
to retain
the previous
values
and
thus
produced
a system
characterized by arbitrary polyphony. The whole hypothesis was rejected or ignored, though
the attraction
of
some
of
the correspondences
suggested
remained.
A new piece of evidence can now revive the argument. Urartian pithoi frequently have
two measures written on them in cuneiform. Jeffery Klein has pointed out (verbally) that
the recently published Altmtepe pithoi have the same measures written in Hieroglyphic.4
We gain the following correspondences :
Cun.
a-qar-qi
(?/f?-ru-si
=
=
Hier,
?-h?+ra-ku
tu-ru-%
/ tu+ra-%
1
This is a summary of the joint paper read by the authors at the 1973 Symposium;
a fuller, but somewhat
modified
version of that paper with the title "Hittite Hieroglyphs
and Luwian: New evidence for the
connection'*
has been published by the authors,
in collaboration
with Professor G. Neumann,
in the
der Akademie der Wissenschaften
Nachrichten
in G?ttingen,
I. Phil.-Hist. Klasse,
1973, 145-197, here
as HHL. See below, the beginning of our Appendix,
abbreviated
124.
p.
As
in HHL, we have used Latin transcriptions
for the logograms and have indicated with an
obelos (t) those transliterations of Hieroglyphic
signs and forms which we quote from other authors but
do not ourselves
accept. For most signs we have followed the transliterations suggested in E. Laroche,
Les hi?roglyphes
hittites. Premi?re partie: V ?criture (Paris, 1960) (henceforth H H). Normally we have
word quoted, but in some cases we have preferred to refer
given exact references for each Hieroglyphic
to P. Meriggi,
Glossar (Wiesbaden,
Hieroglyphisch-hethitisches
1962*) (henceforth Glossar).
3
This was our view at the time of the RAS Symposium. We now find a very
satisfactory explanation based
on the observation
of Gelb, who pointed out (HH% III, 2) that the forms with the double strokes were
written originally
(and later by archaism) with the sign ? (e for him) in place of the double stroke. Thus
the double
stroke is merely a cursive development
of ? written in ligature, and the -a-vocalization
im
it to the original zifa and ifia, can be clearly understood.
a parted by
H. Th. Bossert,
"1st die B-L Schrift im wesentlichen
entziffert?", Orientalin XXIX,
ibid.,
1960,423-42;
des Luwischen",
1961, 110-8. Cf. also "Zur Vokalisation
ibid., XXX,
1961, 314-22.
* XXX,
cf. T. ?zg?c,
now
E.
//(Ankara,
Altmtepe
1969), Pl. LIII-LIV.
55
[Cf.
Laroche, Anatolia, XV, 1971,
ff.;
J. Klein,
An. St., XXIV,
1974, 77 ff.]
This content downloaded from 129.67.173.155 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:12:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HIEROGLYPHIC
122
HrTTTTE : SOME NEW READINGS
AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES
This gives us a cuneiform equivalent of si for J, but the lack of exact consonantal and
vocalic correspondence between Cuneiform and Hieroglyphic prevents us from simply
in
assigning this value to J. Nevertheless the equivalence creates a very strong presumption
favour of an approximate value sibilant + vowel for f.
In considering the distribution of f and J we note that the distinction between the
two signs was only introduced in the later period; in inscriptions of the Hittite Empire only
was used, sometimes demonstrably in a context where later inscriptions use J. In other
f
words Empire f was later differentiated into f and J. Since J appears to have the value
sibilant + vowel and is a form of Empire f, we can attribute the same value to Empire |
and to late \. The nature of the sibilant remains doubtful; we shall transcribe it with z
syllabary and partly
partly because a z-series is largely missing from the Hieroglyphic
because of the correspondences with Luwian z pointed out by Bossert. We therefore assign
the value z + vowel to both ^ and J.
The pair (| Q is graphically related to ? J and shows a parallel development.
|| only
is attested in the Empire inscriptions, but later on this sign is differentiated into f)and J.
Empire H can be shown to be used mostly in vocalic function, and for it both i and a
=
= i, and
/?/-()- pila- i.e. later
equivalences have been quoted (cf. (| -ni-?teSub with (|
n.
an
124
has
a-vocalism
later
The
(see below, p.
10); this leaves for fl
sign j certainly
pi-J-).
the value iwhich otherwise would not be represented in the Hieroglyphic syllabary (since we
now read \ as z+vowel). In other words, one sign (0), with an originally undifferentiated
a
an z-vocalism (fl)
//a-vocalism, was in the post-Empire period differentiated into sign with
and a sign with an a-vocalism (??).
It is then possible to suggest that a similar differentiation of Empire t = z + i/a took
= zi and = za.
place so that in the later period f
J
A thorough examination of the correspondences on which the traditional equations
were
reveals
based
that none
them
of
rested
on
sufficiently
bases;
strong
in one
case
at
least
(the name of Hamath, spelled in Hieroglyphic with an initial 0) it can be shown that i
is a possible, indeed a better equivalence for the Semitic vowel. Archaic spellings of the type
viR-f \ for ziti- "man" (later written vir-?/-) can be understood on the model of (mons) tu,
if f = i.
the traditional spelling of Tudhaliyas, if \ = zi, but remain incomprehensible
Similarly
max-lt-zi
(urbs)
a far better
offers
for
correspondence
UTUmi-li-di-a
the Cuneiform
and the Aramaic mlz (the name of modern Malatya) than the form twax-/w.5
One correspondence, that between Hier. fl f (|-/fl f J)- and Cun. Luwian ?/?-, has
to be dropped because of the new values; here it is sufficient to observe that the verb is
written with not one but two of the reinterpreted signs.6
From an orthographic point of view the reading of ||, f, J as i, zi, za helps to make
sense
of numerous
examples
of
scriptio
plena.
According
syllabograms of the type Ci were frequently?but
to our
Thanks
plena
-//-/,
of
u (-mu-u,
t?-ti-i-sa,
tBONUS-/w/-a-na,
8
values
we
-tu-u,
now
tara-pi-tu-u,
BONUS-mi-i-TJff,
etc.).
acquire,
etc.;
In this context
cf.
to
the current
unpredictably?followed
by an o-vowel.
the well-known
with
in parallel
examples
x
of scriptio
plena
examples
tc.) numerous
the earlier
transliterations
it is possible
to embrace
For the reading of the first two signs cf. Meriggi,
See below, Append?,
p. 128, n. on 359.
Glossar,
238 and HH,
^-mi-a,
the
No.
readings,
the
transliteration
^-ti-a,
of
of
scriptio
i (-mi-i,
^t?-ti-a-sa,
long
125.
This content downloaded from 129.67.173.155 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:12:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
proposed
HITTITE:SOME
NEWREADINGSAND THEIRCONSEQUENCES
HIEROGLYPHIC
123
by some decipherers and now conveniently summarized and demonstrated by Mittel berger,7
of
(HH, No. 214) as ni, C (HH, No. 411) as ni, and \JJf (HH, No. 174) as si. The dual
^
vocalization of the "thorn" (HH, No. 383) as ra/i and of ?f?(HH, No. 439) as wa/i is implicit
in our proposal.8 Finally, we should point out that the numerous plene writings of the type
-
f (|, i.e. -Z?-/, give
internal
to our
consistence
view.
2. The values proposed have considerable bearing on our understanding of the grammar
and the lexicon of the language. Here we shall summarize some basic points.
In the nominal declension some stems which seemed to alternate between -ia- or even
-a- forms and -/- forms are now seen to be clear -i- stems written with or without scriptio
plena
Cun.
(hence
Luwian
The
ovis
i.e. hawis,
ha-w?/i-i-sa,
cf. Cun.
Luwian
t?-ti-i-sa
fia-?-i-iS;
cf.
"father",
tatiS, etc.).
Nom.-Acc.
plural
is -(n)zi
ending
in t?-ti-i-zi
(e.g.
and
"fathers"),
the Dat.
plural
ending -(n)za (e.g. in t?-ti-z?): Cun. Luwian has -nzi and -nza endings for the plural. More
we can now explain
the Nom.-Acc.
important,
etc.
?-ti-ma-za
?-ma-za
"name",
"my",
dom",
singular
of
neuter
(rex-A?-?o,
the
}?-tl-ma-i,
J X-hi-sa
type
in the
^?-ma-?
"king
current
transliteration): the final -so or -za corresponds to the identical particle which in Cun.
Luwian is added to the ending of theNom.-Acc. neuter singular (cf. f?uitwalahi-Sa "life",
utar-Sa
adduwal-za
nsx-hi-sa
"bad",
"word",
etc.). Thus
-sa is added,
-hi to which
and d-ti-ma-za
must
and ?-ma-za
i.e. as
the normal
the Nom.
(cf.
neuter
singular
of an -n- stem (cf.
singulars
and the neuter
?-mi-i-sa
plural
is the
be read
the
form
?-ma).
normal
neuter
as atiman-za
?-t\-ma-n?)
As
in Cun.
abstract
and
and
an
Luwian
in
aman-za,
-/- stem
the
s\z
alternation is determined by the phoneme which precedes the sibilant.
za- demonstrative,
we may
Here
The
mentioned.
REL-i-ia
and
can be compared
the relative,
quote
with
which
Cun.
now
Luwian
za-,
as
appears
enclitic
forms
has
an
been
already
-/- stem
(i.e.
the personal
Luwian
and
the
of
1[XEL-a-sa; cf. Cun.
kuiS),
the first person
a possessive
plural we have
-(C)a-za
(i.e. -anza) with
adjective
anzacf. Cun.
Luwian
and Hitt.
anzaS.
are attested
Similar
forms
for the
anzi-):
see Hieroglyphic
u-zi- "your"
and cf. Cun.
Luwian
person
plural:
unza-juzaS.
pronouns.
?-zi- (i.e.
second
not
which
also
For
In the verbal conjugation the /-reading of fl considerably clarifies our understanding
of the personal endings. Scriptio plena now guarantees the endings -wi(i) and -ti(i) for the
1st and 3rd persons
active
-wi and -//). More
the so-called
(cf. Cun. Luw.
singular
important,
forms
in "\-a (\t?-a,
seen to be 3rd persons
indicative
subjunctive
etc.) are now
sing, present
with an -i ending
to the forms
of Cun.
Luwian
(t?-i, etc.) in all respects
parallel
etc.)
(muwai,
and Hittite (d?i, etc.).
Two
of word
formation
should
also be stressed.
etc. now
First,
scriptio
plena,
end
in -Ca-si(-i)not
and
in ^-Ca-s?(-a)genitival
adjectives
(cf. Cun.
Luwian
the ethnics
in -wa/i-nt/ni(-i)end
not
and
in 1[-wa-na/n?(-a)-assi-),
(cf. Cun.
Luwian
and the participles
end in -mi(-i)and not
in ^-mi(-a)-wanni-),
Luwian
(cf. Cun.
we acquire
a series of nominal
are partly
in -za-, which
-mi-). Secondly
formations
paralleled
shows
points
that the
7
cf. especially H. Mittelberger,
zu Meriggis
Die
"Bemerkungen
hieroglyphisch-hethitischem
Glossar'*,
Sprache, IX, 1963, 68-107; "Zur Schreibung und Lautung des Hieroglyphenhethitisch",
ibid., X, 1964,
50-98.
8
It is also possible to show that internally and finally the
ligature Qs stands for ri+i and not for i+rafi, or
td+rfl (the traditional transcription).
This content downloaded from 129.67.173.155 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:12:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HIEROGLYPHIC
124
by Cun.
Luwian
formations
SOME NEW READINGS
AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES
In some
(cf. urazzaS,
TauriSizzaS).
to show
that -nza- derives
from
it is possible
Tarhunzas,
god
HITTITE:
shares with Cun. Luwian
the assibilation
cases,
*-ntya-,
for
e.g.
i.e.
the name
of
the
that Hieroglyphic
of a dental before a cluster of consonantal
vowel.
+
Finally we select for mention here a few lexical items which we quote first in the tradi
tional transcription and then in our transliteration:
: i-s?-tari-i
"hand"
^a-s?-tar-a
(Dat.
sing.)
(i.e.
:
"I
cf.
Cun.
Luwian
"\a-wa
(i.e. nvi),
i-wa/i
go"
rev. 3; cf. Empire
in Cekke
sing,
Pi-i-?
(Dat.
-\i-la adverb:
f4-i "four":
t9-i
"nine"
3. To
cf. Cun.
zi-la;
4-zi,
: 9-za,
conclude:
cf. Cun.
cf. Cun.
our
Luwian
Luwian
Luwian
proposals
are
istari
/- "to
"fi-i-?*),
or
istri),
cf. Cun.
Luwian
name:
lza-za-.
iSSari-,
go".
personal
zila.
4-zi.
9-(un-)za.
based
on
phonetic
correspondences
and
on
orthographi
cal rules rather than on the identification of grammatical elements. Yet it seems that gram
mar and lexicon confirm rather than oppose them. What we gain is a solution to some of the
problems posed by the grammatical oddities of Hieroglyphic (\a-ti-ma-i, etc.) and at the
same time a better understanding of the close relationship between Hieroglyphic and Cunei
form
Luwian.
Appendix
THE END OF THE KARATEPE BILINGUAL
1. Above we have summarized the reasons which first induced us to question the values of
some Hieroglyphic signs. After the 1973 Symposium at which our paper was read, further
discussion with Professor Neumann and between ourselves led us to a partial modification
of our views.10 The final conclusions are incorporated in a joint paper by Hawkins,
Morpurgo-Davies, and Neumann published in the 1973Nachrichten of theG?ttingen Akademie
(HHL, see above, p. 121 n. 1). There we collected the epigraphic and grammatical evidence
on which the sign values listed in Table I are based. Here we propose to test the same values
in the concrete work of textual transliteration and interpretation. We have chosen this
particular text, on the one hand because it is relatively new (at least in its definitive version),
on the other hand because it can be interpreted with some confidence owing to the Phoeni
cian version which has been known for some time and accurately studied on more than one
occasion.
It iswell known that his sudden death prevented Bossert from completing his edition
of the Karatepe bilingual. However, some photographs of the final part of the text became
available, mainly through archaeological publications. As early as 1967Meriggi was able to
exploit this evidence with his customary skill and to give a preliminary, though necessarily
incomplete, edition qf the whole text.11 We are now fortunate in that in 1974 an excellent
edition by the late F. Steinherr, based both on new photographs and on Bossert's old notes
*
in Cekke see HHL,
For the reading pl-l-?
[471 n. 165; for the name V-i-a which appears on a clay bulla
cf. G?terbock,
from Korucutepe,
1973, 143, Figs. 3-4.
JNES, XXXII,
10
as a in favour of Neumann's
our reading of
?a.
In particular we have abandoned
^
11 cf. P.
di eteo geroglifico,
1966, 1967), II, 87 ff.; see ibid., 95 f. for a list of the
(Roma,
Meriggi, Manuale
on which Meriggi's
edition
is based.
photographs
This content downloaded from 129.67.173.155 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:12:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
i
AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES
SOME NEW READINGS
HITTITE:
HIEROGLYPHIC
125
and drawings, has come to give us a fuller account of both versions (Hu and Ho) of the
Hieroglyphic text.12 At the time of the London Symposium Steinherr's paper was not yet
available, and it now seems suitable to use this part of the Karatepe inscription as a testing
ground for our hypotheses.
follows
In what
we
shall
a new
give
of Karatepe
transliteration
331
if., a translation,
and
a series of notes on the text. The transliteration is largely based on Steinherr's edition and on
the photographs which were available even before it.A number of doubtful points have been
checked directly on the stone by Professor Halet ?ambel, for whose assistance we are most
grateful.13 The commentary does not aim at completeness and itwill always be necessary to
refer back to Meriggi and Steinherr. We have concentrated on the points where we differ
from
than
the compre
we
that our readings
think
and where
editors
may
help towards
and rather
in
HHL
have
discussed
text. Many
been
of
grammar
already
points
to that paper.
referred
made
in print we have often
statements
already
the earlier
of
hension
repeat
the
Because of the lapse of time which has preceded the publication of this article, we have
decided in transliterating to follow the system suggested in An. St., XXV, 1975, 153 ff.,
172 and 319 (ti, ti), discussed below inAddendum I.
with the exception of HH, Nos.
2. Transliteration
LIX
(331-332)
tcAPUT-ti-s?
(333-334)
n?-pa-wa/i-sa
LXI
(335-337)
lCAV\n-ti-ia-za-ha-wali-tu-ta
LXII
(338-339)
LXIII
(340-344)
us"
"man
ARHA-wa/i-ta
(345-349)
wa/i-mu-ta
(350-353-)
ni-pa-wa/i-s?
?-ta
wa/i-ta
i-ti-wa/i
?-ta
?-t?-ma-za
?-l?-na-za-ia
("vas")
AEDincARE-f
Mi-i
REL-ia
(360-362)
LXIX
(363-365)
LXX
(366-369)
LXXI
(370-373)
n?-wa/i-ta
("vas")
LXXII
(374-381)
ni-pa-wa/i
MALUS-ti-sa-tara/i-ri+i
?-ta
| AEDiFiCARE-fA/z-n-H
LXXIII
(382-395)
wa/i-ta
| ?-wa/i za-ri+i
|?-sa^-za-ia
"PORTA"-/a-/ia
wa/i+ra/i-la-[a-wa/i
?-t?-ma-za-a
| ?-ma-zil-h?-wa/i-mu-ta
tara/i-ti
arha
za-ti
za-ia
i-zi-tl
(357-359)
LXVIII
?-\-x-za-ti-wa/i-ta-sa
tu-pi-wa/i
CASTRVM-ni-si
"PORTA"-/a-/ia
LXVII
?-l?-na-ma-ti
?-ta
i-zi-i-wa/i
?-ta
tu-pi-wa/i
AEDlFlCA?E+A//-ri+i-/
n?-i-pa-wa/i
| za-ia
ha-n?-ia-ta-sa
(malus)
"PORTA"-/a-/?a
manus
i-ti-tu
TONiTRUS-/w-za-.ya'
deus)
(caelum
i-ia-s? ObiMS.Ml-zi-haDEVS-n?-zi
?-pa
(deus)
"REx"-?a
\ CAPVT-ti-na
| ?-pa-h?-wa/i
ta-za-tu
arha
("crus")
|ara/i-ziOMUiSMi-zi?+x-za-ti-wa/i
saL-za-s?
deus)
| ?-pa-h?
porta
?-tl-ma-za
?-\-x-za-ti-wa/i-ta-s?
zi-na
?-ma-za
LXIV
LXV
(-353-356)
?-ti-ma-za
| za \?-sab-za-ia
la-na-ri-\-i
LXVI
REL-sa-h?
REL-ra/i
REX-ta-ti-i-pa-wa/i
LX
LXXIV
(396-402)
vosT-na-waji
tasa
| ?-ti-ma-za
LXXV
(403-407)
(deus)
LUNA+Afi-sa-wa/i
(deus)
soL-/ia
REL-rZ-fi
?-ti-ma-za
(caelum
| REX-hi-s?
"crus"-/
12F.
vom Karatepe", MSS,
"Die ph?nizisch-hethitischen
1974, 103-48.
XXXII,
Steinherr,
Bilinguen
13We have
Since our
only given the text of the Hu version; Ho, when relevant, is quoted in the commentary.
to alter the
we
have been obliged
from that of Steinherr
into sentences differs considerably
division
though some
however, we have kept the same Arabic numbers for the individual words,
numeration;
times this is inconsistent with
the word division which we have adopted.
11
JRAS, 1975, 2
This content downloaded from 129.67.173.155 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:12:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HIEROGLYPHIC
126
3.
SOME NEW READINGS AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES
HITTITE:
Translation
If anyone from (among) kings?
LIX
or (if) he (is) a man,
LX
and to him (there is) a manly name?
LXI
LXII
proclaims this:
"I shall delete the name of Azatiwatas from the gates
LXIII
and I shall incise my name";
LXIV
or (if) he covets this fortress
LXV
and blocks up(?) these gates,
LXVI
LXVII which Azatiwatas made,
LXVIII and proclaims thus:
"I shall make the gates my own( ?)
LXIX
and I shall incise my name for myself" ;
LXX
or (if) from covetousness he shall block (them) up( ?),
LXXI
or from badness or from evil shall block up( ?) these gates,
LXXII
LXXIII may Tarhunzas of Heaven, the Sun of Heaven, Ea and all the Gods delete that
kingdom and that king and that man.
the name
of Azatiwatas
LXX1V
Hereafter
LXXV
as the name of the Moon
may
to stand
continue
for all
ages
and the Sun stands.
4. Notes
331
We
tLUGAL-ra4-?-f/-.
thus:
IfLVGAL-ta^ti-a-,
signs
REX-ti-. The
for king,
the word
has
f. Steinherr
ment
of
the
of
singular)
states with
cian
read
after
(], and
collation
the
i.e. REX-ta-ti-i-,
is sufficient
ablative
a re-arrange
suggest
expected
to express
Ablative
plural
(or
the Phoeni
what
b-mlkm.
REL+ra/i REL-sa-h?: an examination of the photograph (Akurgal, Art of the Hittites,
PI. 147) suggests that a reading in this order is possible. This would be much easier to inter
that
than
pret
completely
of
(*lkwati),
1.2,
(Karaburun,
seems
eminently
We
translate
thus
Thus
at
twice).
least
the
reverse
we
take
one
clear
satisfactory.
"if anyone
sentence
if. The
division
as
rel+ra/i-sa-h?,
a rhotacized
is the usual
as
note
a
parallel
REL(-?)-ti
"if"
translated
interpretation
(* Ikwisha).
to this phrase
(cf. An.St., XXV,
Kargamis
1975,144).
a series
The
creates
of problems.
to Stein
but, according
(is) a man",
followed
CAFVT-tiiatiza
(in our transcription)
by Steinherr
"or (if) he
caput-/w,
a dative
of
RKL-sa-ha
indefinite
be
would
which
form
can
be
confidently
the Phoenician
'm, this
with
"if to any king..."
suggested
is clear:
ni-pa-\va-(a)s
beginning
with
the clause
continues
herr,
rel
order,
REL+ra/i
context
it corresponds
What
remains
. ..". We
may
Since
| REL-d-fi REL-/W-/Wrex-//,
A 6,1.8,
333
in
Steinherr
unparalleled.
which
in
plural
by the enclitic -ha. Both the dative plural, which would be in contrast with the ablative used
in the previous
following
translation
Mensch
suggest
sentence,
sentence,
shows
and
the enclitic
which
would
this
uneasiness:
"Wenn
separation
unexpected.
wa-tu-ta,
aber
At
remains
von
den
einer, und ihm ein Name
und unter den Menschen
a different
are
start with
into
clauses.
After
capvt-?
the same
time
the
syntax
incomprehensible.
K?nigen
of
the
Steinherr's
irgendeiner
oder
ein
so/dies seiend." It is easier to
is a new
clause
starts
This content downloaded from 129.67.173.155 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:12:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
caput
NEWREADINGS
HITTITE:SOME
ANDTHEIRCONSEQUENCES
HIEROGLYPHIC
which
atamanza,
tilanza-ha-wa-tu-ta
Nom.-Acc.
neuter
sing,
adjective
must
be
(cAPUT-tiianza)
as a nominal
taken
which
agrees
sentence
in gender,
127
formed
an
by
case
and
number,
with atamanza "name".14 The whole clause can be translated (as literally as possible):
"?or if he is a man and to him (-tu) is a manly name?". This on the one hand allows a
closer correspondence with the Phoenician version Cm 'dm7 'dm Sm, "wenn ein Mensch,
der ein angesehener Mann ist"), on the other hand helps to clarify the syntax of what follows
(see below).
is a normal
CAV\n-tiianza
neuter
derived
adjective
from
an -/- stem
Parallels
(caput-?/-).
are not difficult to find: an obvious one isBoybeypinari IV 3 B, ?-ma-za t?-ti-ia-za l?-mi-za
father A.".
of-Amizas
i.e. "the name of my
From
the
name",
paternal
was derived
was
tatiian-za
the neuter
just as CAVin-tiian-za
adjective
a stem tati- can yield an adjective
neuter
caput-//-.
In other words
Nom.-Acc.
sa ?-ti-ma-za
noun
"my
tati-
"father"
from
derived
to which
tatiian-
sing,
the normal
-saj-za
particle
of neuters
is added
(see above
p.
123 and
cf.
HHL, p. [31] ff.).16
338 f. Steinherr treats these two words as part of the previous clause and offers two different
translations: "und ihm ein Name so/dies seiend" (p. 107) and "und ihm ein(en) Namen so
In fact
(p. 123).
sprechend"
to say", opens
speak,
own
Steinherr's
the way
to a clearer
that
finding,
The previous
important
interpretation.
asa(n)za-
means
"to
clause,
as we
have
seen, is complete in itself, but za asa(n)zaia is connected with the first clause, "If anyone from
(among) kings?", which in this way is completed by a verb added after two parenthetic
"If
clauses:
Addendum
is the
za
. . .
this."
kings
proclaims
of
verb
the
person
(for which
present
asa(n)zasing,
to that of, e.g., taia, 3rd person
is in all respects
parallel
(among)
third
the ending
II);
(cf.HHL,
from
anyone
asa(n)zaia
see below
of
sing,
ta
p. [38]).
is the Accusative
neuter
sing,
of
zas
the demonstrative
(cf. HHL,
p.
[35])
is
here
and
the direct object of the verb. Semantically it corresponds to the dative or ablative zati which
later on in this inscription (361) and in Sultanhan d occurs before the same verb, presumably
with
a semi-adverbial
meaning
"thus,
in this way".
340 ff. itiwi must be 1st person sing, present; it is part of what the ill-intentioned man may
say, just as the tupiwi which follows (349).
The
reading
portA-la-na-ri+i
zi-na
is assured
by
collation.
We
have
an
("from the gates") followed by the particle zin which occurs elsewhere inKaratepe
in the
sequence
though
admittedly
not repeated
cf. Sultanhan
4 (Meriggi's
be due to a misprint).16
117) must
27),
and
350 IT.Direct
narrative
governs
zin
. . . zin
. . . For
transliteration
an example
of
than
\i-n rather
zin used
f/-/i
ablative
(24 and
by
(Manuale
itself
II,
speech ends with 349 and here the text goes back to the usual third person
style, alanazaia
the Dat.
sing,
and
is again a third person
in -/a (cf. above
sing, present
asa(n)zaia)
as
to take the latter word
castrum-w's/.
It does not seem possible
14
transliterated
For the form of this word see HHL, pp. [31, 34]; for our reading of the signs normally
tifti
see below, Addendum
I.
15The
is surprising but it is not easy to see how it should be
which precedes caput
personal determinative
18 explained.
see HHL,
For our reading of the name of Azatiwatas
p. [20 f.].
This content downloaded from 129.67.173.155 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:12:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HITTITE:
HIEROGLYPHIC
128
Acc.
neuter
plural
with
SOME NEW READINGS
because
Steinherr,
AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES
(?7) the Nom.-Acc.
should
plural
syntax
of
the sentence.
dative
of
CASTRVM-nisanza,
can
demonstrative
Since
is the normal
zati
are
there
follow
the noun,
no
and
this
Friedrich, Staatsvertr?ge I, 122, ?15, C.
m hi. Here,
AEDiFiCARE-f
as
etc.
tai, piiai,
we
cases
as
latter
where
instance,
covet"
from
Hittite
ilaliia-,
cf.
the
since
-\-mi,
the normal
The
interpretation.
in 356 (roRTA-lana
a dative.
governing
can point
we
out
by the reflexive
particle
and without
the -za particle
(cf.
is in ligature with
the mi
be part of the logogram
i.e. tanima).
OMNis-hA/7-ma,
plural
it could be compared with the endings of
below
373
and
379,
aedificare4-A//-n-f
/(-/),
ending.
Steinherr has discussed the semantic problems which arise from the assumption
means
AEDiFiCARE+A//-
ns* "to
Phoenician
pull
a contradiction
is there
"to
anta
while
build",
destroy",
these
between
in Karatepe
but
passages,
two
alter the meaning of a verb in this way
easier
be
that
to understand).
Our
anta aedificare-j-a/y-
translation
also
hints
at a possible,
"to build
it is not
clear
anta
why
that
to
the
only
should
shift after arha would be far
doubtful
though
in",
corresponds
"to build".
Not
to bnh
123-4
(a similar semantic
means
really
here
aedificare+mi-
but
down,
that
-za),
logogram
it may
well
the neuter
e.g.,
(cf.,
p.
[37 f.]), but
(see HHL,
to have
the normal
-tij-ri
seem
our
"to
is accompanied
da-me-e-ta-ni
-i is the ending of the third person sing, present;
where
castrum-/7/j7
to
for
case,
To take zati as
complicates the
16-7).
in other
to transliterate
the
sign, we prefer
rather
than a phonetic
complement
is the
(and
Dat.
and
objections
a verb meaning
to Cun.
related
to prevent
there is nothing
zaia). A priori
is
alanazaIf, as suggested
by Steinherr,
the accusative
ilaliiagoverns
normally
the
but in one case at least is found with
355.
of za-
dative
obvious
in -sa and
end
not in -si; (b) it is followed by the Dat. (or Abl.) zati of the demonstrative.
the first word of the next clause (as Steinherr is obliged to do) unnecessarily
solution.
case
the
in
i.e.,
of
it
Could
gates,
"to
block up"?
356. VORTA-Ianazaia. As in 353 f. we have here a noun followed by the demonstrative which
with
agrees
359.
may
it. Both
For
i-zi-ti.
add
Luwian
Meriggi's
we
which
here
aia-,
are Acc.
neuter
"to make"
and
words
the verb
that, though
it is possible
we
assume
that
the
za(a
cf. HHL,
latter
has
a 3rd person
(p. 14) registers
and could well mean
read a-ia-ti-i
p.
[35 f.].
see HHL,
its reading
in Hieroglyphic
cannot
that
i-zi-i-ji-zi-ia-
Glossar
now
for
plural;
be
identified
p. [44]. We
with
Cun.
an
exact
in Hieroglyphic.
correspondence
6 C),
present
(Sultanhan
singular
"\a-a-ti-a
"he makes".
More
in the same
important,
inscription we find once cum-/!/-' ?-taJ (4 B), which seems to have a sense strictly parallel to
Karatepe
In both
equivalent
For
once
"to do
cvM-ni
for someone",
and
?-ta
i-zi-i-,
(base,
(good)
10).17
we expect
once more
an
the preterite
3rd person
of a verb:
sing,
examples
a-ta (or a-ia-ta)
sense.
make
of Cun. Luwian
would
a preterite
form Steinherr
that the sense
this particular
observes,
rightly,
requires
79-80
these
a -ta rather
consequently
and
read as ta by Bossert
I.
Addendum
below,
and
than
was
others.
a -// ending;
This
point
17Sultanhan must now be read
together with
1971, 122 f. and PI. XII.
he
then
is worth
the new fragment
recalls
that
pursuing
published
the
and
by Dr.
we
No.
172,
sign HH,
it
have discussed
K. Emre
in Anatolia,
This content downloaded from 129.67.173.155 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:12:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
XV,
f. zar i asa(n)zaia
361
SOME NEW READINGS
HITTITE:
HIEROGLYPHIC
"thus
see above
speaks";
AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES
of
apropos
338
f. Here
129
an Ace.
of
instead
neuter sing, we have a dative or ablative sing, probably with semi-adverbial meaning;
of
ri-\-i,
reading,
the
ligature
of/
and
see HHL,
"thorn",
for our
[29] f.
p.
363 ff. Steinherr is certainly right in recognizing in the final sign of wa/i+ra/i-la-ia-wa/i
direct
than
A
-wa, but we
particle
the neuter
since
sing,
speech
sing.),
waralaia
1.). Perhaps
may
be
would
end
the following
compared
translations:
in -za
as Ace.
portA-lana
neuter
in Tell
(cf. wa?i-\-ra/i-la-za
Luwian
waralliand
van Brock, RHA, LXX1,
"own,
waralli-,
4
proper",
the
(rather
VI1
Tayinat
the negative
plural
the Cun.
with
compound ?- niwaralli-, for which cf. N.
suggest
and
take waralaia
1962, 116 f. If so we
niwaralli-,
hostile".
"alien,
Thus here in the Hieroglyphic text the ill-intentioned man says that he will make the gates
subject to himself or his own (waralaia izi-), that is to say that he will appropriate them,
although in the Phoenician text it is stated that he will make the gates alien (ypH 1-S*rzr),
i.e. that he will alienate them from 'ztwd.The neuter plural form in -aia is interesting, but
not much can be made of it until we know whether inHieroglyphic the adjective was an
-/- stem as in Cun. Luwian (for these neuters cf. HHL, p. [30]).
iziwi: for the first person present ending see above 340 ff.; for the verb, 359. The same
phrase waralan(za) izi- occurs inTell Tayinat VII A 1.
366
ff.
amanzi1
surprising.
the second
373.
atamanza
-ha-wa-mu-ta
The
neuter
Nom.-Acc.
of
"name"
sign
adjectives
the word
for
Here
AEDiFiCAR?-rA//-n-j-/-/.
anta
end
sing, always
see below
Addendum
the two
versions
offer
correct
is the
?-ma-zi
tupiwi:
but
reading,
mistake?
in -za: mason's
is
For
I.
yet another
the alterna
of
example
tion between -ri-f i(-i) (Hu) and -ti-i (Ho) (cf. HHL, p. [29 f.]); for the verb see above 355.
380-381.
zaia
portA-lana
and
the demonstrative
"these
noun;
gates"
see above
is the neuter
portA-lana
plural Ace.
zaia (356).
with
of
forms
the expected
382 ff. We have already discussed this sentence inHHL, p. [31] f., where we concentrated
on
the phrase
apa REX-hisa "that kingdom",
REX-hisa
noun
is a neuter
abstract
derived
particular
sing, and
apa
from
is the demonstrative
REX-ti-
with
the
and
-alii-
suffix
in
neuter
Ace.
followed in theNom.-Acc. by the particle -sa (cf. above p. 123).Ho now provides a slightly
different version with the fuller writing REX-tahisa; it isworth pointing out that this proves
an
-/- stem
-ahi(ty.18
Exactly
that
REX-ti-
like
the
same
yields
an
phenomenon
-ahi-
i.e.
abstract,
occurs
in Cun.
that
the
is not
suffix
Luwian:
cf.,
e.g.,
but
-hi(t)zi-da-a-hi-Sa
1973,
"virility" built on ziti- "man" (for the origin of the suffix see Eichner, MSS, XXXI,
59 f.; Watkins, Akten der V. Fachtagung der idg. Gesellschaft, Wiesbaden,
1975, 358 ff.).
apas
apa
vs. apa
of Ho
is the Nom-Acc.
the same
For
pronoun,
Tarhunzas
396 ff. For
a complete
a more
offers
between
important
divergence
of the demonstrative,
while
apas must
sing, neuter
a possessive
of him",
used with
"the kingdom
value:
see HHL,
and Tiwazas
p. [39 f.].
of Hu
analysis
of
this sentence
cf. HHL,
p.
[43 f.]. The
the
be
two
versions;
the Gen.
i.e. "his
reading
sing,
of
kingdom".
offered
there
,MIt seems
is attested in Aleppo 2, 2 where we read
likely that another form of the same abstract REX-/o/i/7which may well be one of those -a forms mentioned
below, p. 131 (g) (see the forth
REX-rt??'1-hi-t?,
coming edition of this inscription by Hawkins).
This content downloaded from 129.67.173.155 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:12:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HIEROGLYPHIC
130
HITTITE:
SOME NEW READINGS
AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES
and repeated here is based on collation and differs but slightly from that of Steinherr. The
one
concerns
the word
divergence
iterative
verb
of the well-known
we
398 which
ta- "to
as
read
stand"
tazatu
(crus)
has
(Steinherr
as a -za
interpret
a s-f-t a ^-tu where
he
and
1[g\r/t
recognizes the same signs but reads the second and third signs in a different order). The pair
(crus) tazatu/CRUS-i (i.e. tai) is formed by (a) an imperative from the deverbative taza
built
on
the root
ta-, and
(b) a regular
third
person
sing,
semantic
contrast
by using
an
both
iterative
tazatu
arinzi
continue to stand for all ages (?)" offers a close correspondence
l-lm,
in Ewigkeit".
bestehen
"m?ge
For
5. Addendum I: The signs HH, Nos.
-za-
suffix
ending
cf. HHL,
ta-.
root
text stresses the
taniminzi,
..
"may
.
to the Phoenician jkn
loc.
cit.
172 (ti) and 319 (//).
as a
by Steinherr
had been
previously
is correctly
359, i-zi-ti,
interpreted
a view which
in -ta. This
confirms
Karatepe
terite
the
same
the
the Hieroglyphic
a simplex,
and
tai from
present
The Phoenician has a single verb for both clauses, while
third
person
held
sing,
e.g.,
by,
pre
Bossert,
Friedrich, and Mittelberger:19 172 has or may have the value ta. Since 172 constantly
interchanges with 319 any conclusion we reach for one of these two signs must be valid for
the other;
be useful
little help
very
to rehearse
here
1. Evidence
in favour
comes
from
the evidence
of an
-a-vocalism
the
rare
for
or against
alternations
an
with
seen Karatepe
to be
have
is likely
i-zi-ti,
359,
loc. cit., has also argued
that pedes
taraji-pa-ti
as a preterite
than as a present.
(a) As
understand
(b) Karatepe
in the Ho
version.
120 appears
dental
of
the
signs.
It may
signs.
:
we
Mittelberger,
other
-a-vocalism
as terra-?/-ra-za-'
in the Hu
a preterite
with
(Kargamis
A
version,
but
6.4)
a -ta ending.
is easier
to
as TERRA-/a-//-za
(c) The word terra-//-///-, "place", is regularly written with 172 or 319. At first sight the
declension seems irregular, but we could put some order in the various forms ifwe assumed
that
a neuter
noun
which
alongside
there was an extended
form
TERRA-za,
//-//,
i.e. -tanti)
possible?and
KI):
if so we
and
a Dat.
plur.
read
the neuter
in
in -ant-,
in -ant-anza
indeed likely?that
should
ended
-an-za
which
and
was
(terra-ti-ta-za,
written
a Dat.
yielded
i.e.
sing,
terra-///ti-za
in -anti
-tantanza).20
the form is related to Cun. Hittite pedan
Nom.-Acc.
aspedan-za
and
the other
or
(terra
It is of course
(Sumerogram
forms
as built
on
pedant-.21
" For the
earlier proposals cf. Laroche, HH,
165 ; for Mittelberger's
views see Die Sprache,
IX, 1963, 82 n. 36.
10
Sultanhan 9 has a form terra-//-z?
to it or to the word that
followed by a small i sign which could belong
would be unique and it seems better not to give it too much importance,
follows; a spelling terra-//-i-z<i
in
found by Meriggi
given the uncertainty of the reading. The Norn, plural terra-//-/-*/
(tKi-fwi-i)
Palanga, 2 is a reading far too dubious to serve as evidence.
21That
some
an
at
stage
equivalent of Hitt. pedan existed in the "Luwian
group*' is shown by Lycian. The
.pdd?nehmmis,
new Greek-Aramaic-Lycian
trilingual has a phrase pdd?had?..
Kcntanyoi fipxovTa?
a
in which Laroche, CKAIBL,
has
verb
derived from the
1974, 120,
recognized
preterite
pdd?had?
same root as pedan and comparable
was available
with Hittite pedassah-.
Before
the new evidence
in the Xanthos
and a genitival
stele a dative pddat-i
Laroche, BSL, LXII, 1967, 61 f. had identified
which he had compared
with Hittite pitta or rather
"t?menos",
adjective pdd?t-ahi with the meaning
we may now wonder
with a supposed "Luwian" extension of pitta, pitanh. However,
whether pdd?t-i
and pdd?t-ahi should also be compared with pedan or with an extension
(cf. also O. Carruba,
*pedant-,
Die satzeinleitende Partikeln in den idg. Sprachen Anatoliens,
(Roma,
1969), 81 n. 77.)
This content downloaded from 129.67.173.155 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:12:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HIEROGLYPHIC
: SOME NEW READINGS
HITTITE
AND THEIR
(d) Some ablatives end in -ti/ti-ti: MALVS-t(-ti(-i-') (see Meriggi,
references,
in Sultanhan
cf. MALUS-t?-ti-i
and
ibid.
s?-pi-sa-arali-ri+i,
Ho),
(via)
5),
sa-pi-s?-ti-ri+i
181 for the
Glossar,
276
(Karatepe
ha+rali-wa/i-ta-hi-tl-ti-i
131
CONSEQUENCES
A
(Kargamis
cf.
Hu;
15 b
4).22
Since in Hieroglyphic, just as in Cun. Luwian, an -ati ending for the ablative is far more
normal than an -/// ending (and is probably compulsory in the case of consonantal stems),
a reading ta of 172 and 319 would simplify the grammar.
(e) Mittelberger, loc. cit., has already pointed out that in Kargamis A 6.2 it seems
impossible to give an -/-value to the last sign of the sequence waji-ma-tl; the following clause,
which ends with the same verb and which starts with zi-pa-wa/i+ra/i,
wants
to recognize
it seems preferable
Mittelberger
clauses
both
and
at the
end
-ata
the pronoun
a ta value
of ti.
for
this calls
if so,
zin=pa=wa?ata);
anta
the preposition
to identify
of
supports this view.
the particle
but
chains,
in
\va=mu?ata
(hence
"they"
(f) The signs 172 and 319 regularly occur in the word for "name" and its compounds.
is little doubt
There
If so a reading
etc.
that
is etymologically
all
solving
?-t?/ti-ma-za
while
not
ataman-za,
related
the
phonetic
to Hitt.
Lat.
laman,
problems,
nomen,
at
would
least
clarify the vocalism.
(g) The new Sultanhan fragment (see above, n. 17) supplies us with a dative-locative (?)
**
2, ("pes")
("pes") pa-t? "at the foot". With this we can compare Kargamis A 15 b
In both cases the phrase
pa-ti-'.
-a case requires
or goddess.
The
some examples
texts
have
glyphic
2.
(a)
plural),
of
in favour
Evidence
while
an
of
the Ho
something
which
investigation,
but
of a god
"at the foot"
happens
that the Hiero
is no doubt
there
it.
-/-vocalism.
102 the Hu
In Karatepe
to
refers
further
version
has
version
has
malus-//-zj.
(malus)
We
?-tu-wa/i-ri-\-i-zi,
read
could
i.e. aduwarinzi
latter
the
form
as
(Nom.
malus
tanzi only at the cost of assuming either that Ho and Hu use different adjectives (which
seems unlikely) or (somewhat more probable) that Ho has an (athematic?) ending of Norn,
plural
(-anzi),
while
Hu
has
the
normal
ending
of
the
-/-
stems.23
Our
reading
ri-\-i
of
|}\
seems too well established to be called in doubt on the strength of this instance (cf. HHL,
P- [29] f.)
(b) The
well-known
word
mi-tijti-sa
"servant"
is written
three
times
(according
to
Meriggi, Glossar, 84) with a fourth sign, m?-t?-i-sa (Kargamis A 17 b 1,A 29 c 2; ?iftlik
B 2). A clear example of this spelling also occurs inAleppo 2.1 (see the forthcoming edition
by Hawkins). We are thus placed in some difficulty by assigning a value ta to 172 and 319.
*mitais is a possible nominative, but how do we explain the absence of the /-vowel in the
normal spellings of the word?24 On the other hand if the i sign is used only as a form of
" For the word for
"bad" see Hawkins,
An.St.. XX,
1970, 88-9. It seems likely that the form quoted above is
in 2. (a), (cf. also n. 23). (via) ha + rali-wa/
below
related to the forms of Karatepe
102, discussed
is the ablative of an abstract noun
a
b**4: the word
new
15
is
A
i-ta-hi-ti-ti'i
reading in Kargamis
Die
cf. Mittelberger,
"road" (the exact form of this stem is still obscure:
derived from harwa(n)t(a)VIII,
-3 Sprache, n. Not 1962, 185).
an
abstract
the ablative of
See above
2.
much can be made of Karatepe
375, MALVS-ti-sa-tara/'i-ri-f1,
the abstract
noun built on the same adjective; even if the adjective had an -/"- stem the vowel preceding
suffix could be an a.
-4 In
this speak against an -a
Sultanhan 4 C we expect the dative of mi-ti-sa and we find a form mi-ti-i. Does
is written ?-ti\ could it be that
value of ti'i On the other hand the dative sing, of the obscure word a-ti-sa
p. [28].
the word lias an -a- ending for the dative? For the dative sing, ending of the -a- stems, cf. HHL,
This content downloaded from 129.67.173.155 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:12:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
hieroglyphic
132
scriptio
-sa
the
plena,
and
previous
-i-sa
could
be
think
readings
an
have
and
their
consequences
-/- vocalism.
It
is conceivable?but
not
From
the
phonetic
this
more,
evidence
an
than
to
the
of
complements
is too desperate
a word
whose
a solution
value would
phonetic
to carry conviction.25
172 and 319 occur in other words but in all cases the interpretation is not
HH, Nos.
satisfactory
a ta value
new
should
sign
once
unclear?but,
certain.
some
here 387 (mi) and 319 (ti) form a whole with a purely logographic value; if so,
likely?that
remain
hittite:
two
the
listed
-/-vocalism.
it appears
that in most
it is not clear whether
However,
in a few instances
or
signs
above
a // value
could
cases
an
we
be
always
like wa/i,
conclusion
is sufficient
signs
etc.). Yet neither
ra/i,
is it that some words
lem: why
"bad",
("name",
"place",
"servant")
attribute
(if so, one
retained
of
is more
-a-vocalism
should
to solve
are
another
regularly
could
prob
written
with either 172 or 319 and are never written with the normal dental signs? The vocalic value
of 172 and 319 cannot account for this phenomenon. Could it then be that the special
character of these two signs is to be found in the value of their consonant? It seems likely
that
in most
of
the
at
least?this
the moment,
(a)
the
is not
syllabary
cases
clear
was
but?at
voiced,
(etymologically)
to explain
the use of these two signs,
since
a contrast
of voiced
and voiceless
consonants,
the consonant
can
be
involved
sufficient
hardly
to expressing
geared
and (b) the normal ta/ti signs are certainly used to express originally voiced consonants. On
the other hand two of the words which are regularly written with either 172 or 319 have a
remarkable phonetic history; the first consonant of the word for "name" was etymologically
an n, but was dissimilated (?) to / inCun. Hittite. It is conceivable that the phenomenon was
shared
nant
of
by Cun.
the word
Luwian,
for
we
though
"bad"
In these two cases Hieroglyphic
or
lateral
possible
we
do
consonant?but
retroflex
no
evidence
this.
about
idalu and
Hittite
has t?or ti; no doubt we must
to
need
have
as /in Cun.
appears
think
phonemes
of
a normal
but do not
dental
have
stop
sufficient
the final conso
Similarly
in Cun. Luwian
adduwal(iS).
think in terms of a voiced
? We
data
could
about
speculate
to proceed.26
Whatever
the original value of these signs is, we must accept that at some stage they could be used in
the place of normal dental signs as in the preterites listed above in 1(a).
At this stage we must simply suspend judgement; one point is worth stressing: while
the -a-vocalism
well
tion
of
the sign is certain,
the -/-vocalism
we have preserved
transliteration
attested.
In our
tax and
tay would
6. Addendum
II:
The
seem
more
verb
?-sa5-za-
is possible
in some cases,
the traditional
values,
but not equally
but a transcrip
appropriate.
(\?-sa5-?-),
"to
speak".
Steinherr has at long last found the solution for a complicated problem, themeaning of
Hieroglyphic a-sa5-za-, and has at the same time provided an analysis of the passages inwhich
occurs.
the verb
The
(a) 3rd person
above).
?-sa5-za-i
MALUS-za
REL-sa
yard".
The
forms
attested
occurs
once
?-pa+ra/i-ta
distinction
between
t?-ia and t?-i, etc. (cf. HHL,
25
Meriggi's
"
are:
sing, present; ?-sa5-za-ia is found twice in Karatepe
in Sultanhan
d where
we
(339 and 362; see
za-ti-i
?-wa/i
tu-wa/i+ra/i-si-i
in future will
"whoever
evil for
this vine
?-sab-za-i,
speak
to that, e.g., between
and ?-sa5-za-i
is parallel
?-sab-za-ia
read
[38]).
lists three forms which would seem to speak in favour of an -/-value of // (?-mi-tl, p. 26;
p. 38); in all cases the correct reading is ff/4 instead of t?.
p. 36; and }a-s3-tar-ti-a,
f?+sA-i-tl-w?-ta-a,
to observe
in their vocalism:
It is interesting
that the liquid signs seem to show some oscillations
cf. H H,
No. 383: raji and HH, No. 445: Id/i/u.
Glossar
This content downloaded from 129.67.173.155 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:12:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HIEROGLYPHIC
to be
broken
AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES
133
sing, preterite; ?-sah-za-ta- occurs inKargamis A 19 j 1. 2; the text is
(b) 3rd person
too
HITTITE : SOME NEW READINGS
easily
but
understandable,
za-'-ti
the phrase
seems
?-sab-za-ta-'
to be
the
exact equivalent (in the past) ofza-ri+i ?-sab-za-ia found inKaratepe 361-362.
(c) 2nd person imperative; ?-sa^-za "speak" regularly occurs at the beginning of the
Assur letters and is regularly followed by a dative (see Meriggi, Glossar, 36 for the
references).
(d) Participle Nom. singular; ?-sab-za-mi-i-s? is attested inKargamis A 7 j 2 . Steinherr
is certainly right in translating "gesprochene";
it must mean something like "famous",
"well-known".
The
we
entry
a verb
have
which means
asi-
On
the one hand
36 can now be drastically
altered.
Glossar,
means
to say", on the other hand a verb a-fx-za
"to speak,
in Meriggi,
?-sab-za-
which
"to love" and which occurs either by itself or in compounds
must
?+x-zati-wa/i-t?-sa).
or Luwian
Hittite
equivalent
to Hittite
correspond
for ?-sah-za-
"to
aSSiia-
speak"
(cf. HHL,
[20]);
(e.g. ?+x-za
do we
have
an
?
We owe to Mr. Alan Nussbaum the suggestion that the verb could be connected with
the root of Hittite aiS "mouth". This is semantically plausible, but at first sight appears to
create insurmountable difficulties of a phonetic and morphological nature. However, (a) we
now
a Luwian
to have a by-form
of aiS in the form aSSa, and this appears
equivalent
-nt- suffix;27
new
the omnipresent
the
than
(rather
(b)
reading
?-sa5-zaus
to
on
allows
assautstem
well
the
is
built
with
the
formation.
"\?-sa5-?-)
clarify
?-sab-zaknown
to form verbal
suffix
stems from nouns:
the change
-ya- used
-ntya- > -nza- has been
know
redetermined
with
discussed elsewhere
conclude
to
say"
that
or
[40] ff. and [43]) and creates no difficulties. It seems right to
(cf. HHL,
can
?-sah-za-
be
transcribed
as asanza-
(<
by G?nter
Neumann
*asantya-)
and means
"to
speak,
"to mouth".
(etymologically)
note
Additional
Im folgenden gebe ich nur ein kurzes Res?mee meines Londoner Vortrages, da seine
und Herrn
Ergebnisse in wesentlichen Teilen mit denen von Frau Morpurgo-Davies
Hawkins
?bereinstimmten.
Siehe
oben,
S.
121 n.
1, 124.
F?r drei (ziemlich h?ufige) Zeichen der sogenannten "hethitischen Hieroglyphen
schrift" habe ich neue Silbenwerte vorgeschlagen: f?r ^ den Wert ya (vgl. schon meinen
Beitrag in der Festschrift Heinrich Otten, Wiesbaden,
1973, S. 243 ff.), f?r \ den Wert zi, und
f?r za (wie das schon H.Th. Bossert in Orientalia, XXIX, 1960, 423 ff. erwogen hatte).
\
Ausgegangen wird dabei jeweils von Hinweisen, die die ph?nikischen Entsprechungen von
hieroglyphischen Namen (in der Bilingue von Karatepe) geben; erst sekund?r sind dann
sprachvergleichende
Argumente
hinzugezogen
worden.
Es
zeigt
sich,
da?
durch
diese
neuen Lesungen die Sprache der Hieroglyphentexte dem ?lteren Keilschrift-Luwischen
in
Wortschatz und Morphologie
sehr ?hnlich wird. Es bleiben nur noch wenige (dialektale und
diachronische)
13. Jahrhunderts
Unterschiede
vor
Chr.
und Neuerungen,
trennen.
welche
die
j?ngere
Sprachform
von
der
des
Geb.
-7 For
to asSa-, assaut- inCun. Luwian see Laroche, Dictionnaire
references
de la langue louvite (Paris,
33 with the corrections
printed in Laroche, RHA, LXXV?,
1965, 45; and the references mentioned
to Bossert, Meriggi,
and Carruba.
This content downloaded from 129.67.173.155 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:12:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1959),
there