Skip to main content

Full text of "The Hittites"

See other formats


13 Sfl? 




4- Isolated monuments. 

Sites with Hittite remains. 


The Hittites 

A. E. Cowley, M.A., D.Litt. 

Bodley's Librarian 

Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford 
Fellow of the British Academy 

The Schweich Lectures for 1918 


Published for the British Academy 

By Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press 

Amen Corner, E.G. 







THESE lectures were delivered in December 1918, but their 
publication has been delayed partly owing to difficulties about 
the strange characters, and partly owing to my other occupations. 
Nos. I and II now appear substantially as delivered ; No. Ill has 
been somewhat expanded, and gives the main results of my own 
attempts at the decipherment of the hieroglyphics. I am anxious 
that they should be regarded only as lectures, intended rather to 
arouse interest in the subject than to satisfy it. In three hours 
it was not possible to do more than touch on some of the problems 
involved, and in several cases statements have been made which 
in a larger work would require modification or justification. It 
would have been more satisfactory to write a book on the subject, 
but even if I were competent to do so, the time has hardly come 
for fuller treatment. The material is only beginning to be acces- 
sible, and while these lectures were being printed, work has been 
done l . which may modify some of my statements or arguments. 
This I have been obliged to leave out of consideration. 

Prof. Hrozny published Die Sprache der Hethiter (a full state- 
ment of his Indo-European theory) in 1917, and Hethitische 
Keilschrifitexte . . . mit Ubersetzung in 1919. He very kindly 
sent me these a short time ago, but it was then too late to incor- 
porate any discussion of them 2 . This matters the less, because 
an article was published in the JRAS (1920, p. 49) by Sayce, 
who, while giving full credit to Hrozny for his great acuteness 
and undeniable success in elucidating parts of the texts, at the 
same time rejects altogether the Indo-European theory. 

1 Especially the Kettsckrifttexte cms Bogliazkoi, i-iii, published by Figulla, 
Weidner, and Weber in 1916, 1919, but only recently received here. 

2 I must, however, withdraw my statement (on p. 44) that he has not trans- 
lated more than isolated sentences, though still holding that he is not helped 
by his Indo-European theory. 



I have to thank the Trustees of the British Museum for per- 
mission to reproduce plates from their publications, and the 
Council of the Palestine Exploration Fund for similar permission. 
Some illustrations of well-known objects have been taken from 
photographs which I have had by me for a long time, and of 
which I do not remember the precise origin. 

I also acknowledge most gratefully the help I have received 
from my learned friend Mr. T. W. Allen, with whom I have had 
the privilege of talking over problems connected with Asia 
Minor on many a genial evening ; from Prof. Sayce by his 
constant encouragement and stimulus even when we differed 
in our conclusions ; from Mr. Griffith in Egyptian matters ; 
from Prof. Langdon in Assyrian ; from the Controller of the 
Clarendon Press in the trouble he has taken over the printing. 


May, 1920. 





Discovery of the Hittites. The 'Hamath Stones'. First copies. 
Wright's account. Further discoveries. Situation of the monuments. 
Called Hittite by Sayce. Winckler's excavations at Boghaz-keui. 
Cuneiform tablets in Hittite language. The Hatti were the Kheta of 
the Egyptian monuments. Their history. The time of Abraham. 
Attack on Babylon. Relations with the Kassites. Wars with Egypt. 
The Tell-el-Ainarna letters. Growth of Hittite confederacy. The 
Boghaz-keui records. Subbiluliuma the first, Great King. En- 
croached on Syria. Kadesh taken by Seti I. Battle of Kadesh against 
Rameses IT. Treaty of Hattusil with Rameses II. Attacked Egypt 
under Rameses III. Rise of Assyria. End of Boghaz-keui records. 
Tiglath-Pileser I (about 1120 B.C.). The Moschi. Hittite raid on 
Babylon. The Exodus. 

Carchemish. Taken by Assurnazirpal (877 B.C.). The Aramaeans. 
Shalmaneser III and the Hittite states. Rise of the kingdom of Van. 
Tiglath-Pileser IV (743 B. c.). Sargon II. Final capture of Cavchemish 
(717 B.C.). 


Two centres, Boghaz-keui and Carchemish. Hittites a trading 
people and Carchemish a trade-centre. Their allied cities connect 
the two capitals. Peaceful penetration Southwards. They formed 
a barrier between Mesopotamia and the West. Forgotten when 
Greek history begins. A Northern and a Southern period. In the 
first period they spread from the Caucasus over Western Asia Minor 
to the sea. Traded with East and West. About 1300 B.C. began to 
withdraw Eastwards and Southwards. Loss of Syria. The Trojan 
war. Rise of states in West of Asia Minor. Their affinities. 
Portraits: art: religion. Argument from place-names. Allies in the 
second period. Two styles of writing correspond to the two periods. 
Possible affinities of language: (1) Phrygian, Lydian, Lycian ; (2) 
Mitanni, Kassite, Vannic. Cuneiform Hittite language. Hrozn^ says 
it is Indo-European. Aryan gods in Mitanni. Hittite names are not 
Indo-European: nor are the vocabularies. Summary. 





Difficulties of the problem. Bilingual seal of Tarkondemos. 
Reading of it. Deductions from it. Sayce's identifications. Names. 
Grouping of the inscriptions. They belong to the later period. 
Grouping of the signs. Names of Carchernish and Karduniash. The 
god Adad? Names of Marash, Masu, Moschians, Kue. Hana and 
Hattin ? Ligatures. Beginning formula. Mark of personal names. 
The title ' priest '. Kata sh and Kaclesh. Ideogram for ' son '. Names 
compounded with Adad or Tarku ? Sign for ' and '. 

Beginnings of the Carchemish inscriptions, Signs for 'sun ', 'great 
(king) ', ' lord ', 'my ', ' ilani '. 

Inscription from Babylon. Brought from the North. The name 
Kiakkish. ' Bel and Ea.' ' Burnaburiash.' ' Burnadakash. 1 Is 
the language Kassite? * Hani-rabbat.' ' Ubriash.' Attempt at 

Probable differences of dialect. Summary. 



The following abbreviations have been used : 

A = Copies of inscriptions in Hogarth's Carchemish (plates A 1 ). 

AJSL = American Journal of Semitic Languages. 

JAOS = Journal of the American Oriental Society. 

JHS = Journal of the Hellenic Society. 

JRAS = Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 

M = Copies of inscriptions in Messerschmidt's Corpus. 

MDOG = Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft. 

OLZ = Orientalistische Litteratur-Zeitung. 

PEF = Palestine Exploration Fund. 

PSBA = Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology. 

QS = Quarterly Statement (of the PEF). 

TA = Tell-el-Amarna letters. 

TSBA = Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology,- 

ZATW = Zeitschrift fur Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. 

ZDMG = Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenliindischen Gesellschaft. 

The copies of hieroglyphic inscriptions are taken from Hogarth's Carchemish 
(1914) and from Messerschmidt's Corpus Inscriptionum HettUicarum (Mitt. d. 
Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, 1900, 1902, 1906). 



UNTIL forty years ago, or less, the Hittites were still grouped 
with Hivites and Jebusites as an insignificant Syrian tribe 
unknown outside the Bible. It was only beginning to be 
suspected that they might be identified with the people called 
Kheta in the Egyptian records, and Khatti in the cuneiform 
texts of Assyria. The discovery of them began when attention 
was drawn to some curious engraved stones found at Hamath. 1 
The first mention of these ' Hamath stones ' apparently was by 
the French traveller La Roque 2 in 1722 : ' Vis-a-vis du Chateau il 
y a une belle Mosqude, accompagne d'un jardin, presque sur le 
bord de la riviere, au-devant de laquelle est une haute colonne de 
marbre orne'e de bas-reliefs d'une excellente sculpture, qui repre- 
sentent des figures humaines, plusieurs especes d'animaux, des 
oyseaux et des fleurs.' A century later (1822) Burckhardt 3 says : 
' I inquired in vain [at Hamah] for a piece of marble with figures 
in relief, which La Roque saw ; but in the corner of a house in 
the Bazar is a stone with a number of small figures and signs, 
which appears to be a kind of hieroglyphical writing, though it 
does not resemble that of Egypt.' In fact no pillar of marble 
with a Hittite inscription ever has been found at Hamath. All 
the inscriptions there are on basalt, so that either La Roque saw 
some monument which was not Hittite, or the marble pillar had 
disappeared in the interval. Every one read Burckhardt, but 
another half century elapsed before any serious attention was 
paid to the matter. In 1870 two Americans, Johnson and Jessup. 
succeeded in finding inscribed stones at Hamath, but were pre- 

1 A good account of their discovery is given by W. H. Rylands in TSBA, vii 
(1882), p. 429, with plates. 

2 Voyage de Syrie, i, p. 243. 3 Travels in Syria, p. 146. 



veatea : ;frcm ^copying them by the usual fanaticism of the natives. 
They did, however, obtain a very imperfect drawing, by a local 
artist, of the one known as Hamath V (= M vi). This was pub- 
lished in the first Quarterly Statement of the American Palestine 
Exploration Society (1871), which I have not been able to see. 
Their account was reproduced (without the drawing) in the QS 
of the PEF 1871, p. 173. The Fund then commissioned Tyrwhitt 
Drake to get copies of the texts, since they now were known to 
exist and could be localized. Thanks to his great experience in 


FIG. 1. 

dealing with the natives, he contrived to take photographs and 
squeezes (fig. 1), which were published in the QS 1872, pp. 74, 199, 
and his account, ibid., p. 11. 

By this time interest was thoroughly aroused. It was a time 
of archaeological discovery. The decipherment of the cuneiform 
texts was beginning to be accepted, and was producing wonders, 
the Moabite stone had been brought to light, the Cypriote 
syllabary was being discussed. The learned world was therefore 
ready to be interested in yet another strange system of writing. 
The imperfection of the copies (cf. fig. 2), however, made the study 
of them difficult, if not impossible. Similar signs could not be 
distinguished, and a list of them was out of the question. The 
well-known traveller Burton, who was then H.M. Consul at 


Damascus, saw the stones, and published revised plates (as in the 
Journal of the Anthrop. Inst. ii (1873), p. 41) of them in his 

FIG. 2 (PEF, QS 1872, p. 200). 


FIG. 3. 




'@i rf 

^ ^ 





, G"0 A aaao 


i ^ 

FIG 4. 

Unexplored Syria ^1872, vol. i, p. 335) (figs. 3, 4), but his account, 
though full, added little to what was already known, except as to 

B 2 


the positions of the stones. It was William Wright who really 
began the serious study of the subject. In 1872, being then 
a missionary at Damascus, he took advantage of an opportunity 
to visit Hamath in company with the newly appointed Turkish 
Governor. It was an opportunity not to be lost, for now, if 
ever, it would be possible to exert authority to overcome fanatical 
opposition. He gives an excellent account of the expedition in 
his Empire of the Hittites ' (1884). The result of it was that he 
obtained casts of the inscriptions, one set of which was sent to 
the British Museum, and another set to the PEF. 1 He also 
persuaded the Pasha to send the stones themselves to the museum 
at Constantinople, where squeezes were afterwards made for 
Berlin. Wright did far more than this, however, for in his book 
he dealt with the whole question of the authors of the inscrip- 
tions, and with the help of Sayce 2 supplied much of the pre- 
liminary research necessary for the study of them. It is largely 
due to his agreeable presentation of the material that general 
interest was aroused. A second edition of the book appeared in 
1886, and the study of ' Hittitology ', as some people have called 
it, was fairly started. 

I have dwelt at some length on these 'Hamath stones', not 
because they are intrinsically of greater interest than other 
Hittite remains, but because they were the starting-point of the 
whole inquiry. So unmistakable were they in character, that, 
when once attention was drawn to them, no one could fail to 
recognize a Hittite inscription. Travellers began to look out for 
more of them, and as further specimens of the writing, and also 
of the art connected with it, began to accumulate in various parts 
of Asia Minor, it became more and more evident that the question 
of their origin was a very important one. It is unnecessary to 
enumerate all the travellers who have brought home copies. The 
chief are : George Smith, who excavated at Jerabis (which is 
Carcheniish) in 1878; Hogarth and Headlam 3 in 1894 ; Humann 

1 See QS 1873, pp. 61, 74. 

2 Whose first article appeared in TSBA, v, p. 22 (read in 1876), using the 
name ' Hittite '. Other early articles need only a bibliographical mention : 
Hayes Ward in the second statement of the American Pal. Expl. Soc. 1873. and 
in JAOS, x (1880), p. 139 ; Heath in PEF, QS 1880, 1881, and in the Jonrn. of the 
Anthrop. Inst. 1880. The Aleppo inscription was published in Burton's Unex- 
plored Syria, ii, p. 186, and by Clermont-Ganneau in PEF, QS 1883, p. 172. Cf. 
also Journ. Asiatique, 1873, p. 373. 

3 Recueil de Tramux, xvii (1895), p. 25. 


and Puchstein 1 in 1882-3; Ramsay and Hogarth 2 in 1890; 
Anderson 3 in 1900; Olmstead and others in 1911. These were 
all (except the last) collected by Messerschmidt in his Corpus. 
The most recent and most important discoveries are those of 
Hogarth with Woolley and Lawrence in the - excavations at 
Carchemish in 1911 and after. But above all, the study is 
indebted to Sayce, who has never ceased from the beginning to 
forward it with all the resources of his wide learning and brilliant 

A glance at the map will show that remains of this peculiar 
t}- pe are found sporadically from the north of Asia Minor (Eyuk) 
to Jiamath in the south, and from the Euphrates in the east to 
the coast of Ionia in the west. You do not set up bulky monu- 
ments for fun. Evidently the people who did so were a wide- 
spread power. They must have occupied a large place in history. 
Who were they then ? and how did they so completely disappear 
that scarcely a trace of them is to be found in all Greek litera- 
ture ? We now call them Hittites, but it must not be supposed 
that the identification was self-evident, or that it is entirely 
satisfactory, or that we know much more when we have agreed 
to it, 

Wright claims (eel. i, p. 124) to have been the first 4 to apply 
the name, but it was Sayce who first 5 gave it currency. It did 
not meet with immediate acceptance, and even to-day one uses 
it with a half-apology. It is not the existence of a Hittite power 
which is in doubt. That is amply proved by the inscriptions of 
Egypt and Assyria. The question is whether the peculiar hiero- 
glyphic writing discovered in the last fifty years, and the art 
which accompanies it, are the product of that Hittite power. 
Wright's arguments are certainly not very convincing, though 
his conclusion is nearly correct. He says in effect: here was 
a people powerful enough to leave records of itself throughout 
Cappadocia. even in Ionia, and down to Syria and Carchemish. 
They were not Egyptian nor Babylonian. The only power we 
know which could have done this, and disappeared before Greek 
history begins, was that called Kheta in Egypt, Khatti in Assyria, 
and the sons of Heth in the Old Testament. I need not point 

1 Reisen in Kleinasien . . . (1890). 

3 Recueil, xiv (1892), p. 74, and xv (1893), p. 89. 

3 JHS 1901, p. 322. 

4 In the Brit, and Foreign Evang. Review, 1874. 

5 In TSBA 1876, as above. 



out the flaws in this argument, nor the large assumption on 
which it rests. Yet it has been justified. 

Since the publication of Wright's book, monuments have been 
discovered at Malatia, Marash, Tyan a, Ivriz, Babylon, Carchemish, 
and many less-known sites. But the next really important stage 
in the resurrection of this forgotten empire was when Hugo 
Winckler, in 1906 and after, excavated the mounds of Boghaz- 
keui. It had long been recognized that these must conceal the 
remains of an important city, sometimes thought to be the Pteria, 
beyond the Halys, which was taken by Croesus. 1 Here, as well 

as at Eyuk, some miles to the north, strange monuments had 
been discovered and drawings of them were published by Texier 2 
in 1839 (figs. 5, 6). Great things might therefore be expected 
from the excavation of the site. The results were beyond all 
hope. Winckler found what could be nothing less than the 
state archives, containing about 20,000 documents or fragments, 
written, after the Babylonian manner, in cuneiform on clay 
tablets. His deeply interesting and brilliant account of them 
was published in MDOG, no. 35, in Dec. 1907." Some of the 

1 Hdt. i. 76. But that was probably further north, Kara Strawy iro\iv . . . 
fiaXiora KTJ Kft/ieVr/. 

8 Desertion de VAsie Minenre, vol. i, p. 209, and plates. 


tablets were written in Semitic cuneiform the diplomatic and 
international language of the East at that time, as Aramaic was 
at a later date. These, of course, could be read with comparative 
ease. Many others, though written in cuneiform, were in what 
must have been the native language of the country, certainly not 
Semitic. This is not yet fully interpreted (see further in Lecture 
II). For the present the important point is that Winckler was 
able to establish beyond question the fact that the language 
was that of the Hatti, and the site of Boghaz-keui their capital. 
He also established the names and succession of the kings to 

FIG. 6. 

whom the archives belonged. Among them, by good fortune, 
wa s Hattusil. whose name had been read in Egyptian as Khetasira. 
This king made (about 1280 B.C.) a treaty with Rameses II of 
which the Egyptian text was already known. Fragments of 
a copy of it, in Babylonian cuneiform, were found in the Boghaz- 
keui archives. We thus arrive at the certainty that the Hatti 
were the Kheta of the Egyptian monuments, and also at a fixed 
date for the remains at Boghaz-keui. But further, the peculiar 
style of sculpture found there could only have been produced by 
the people whose city it was. Wright's or Sayce's conjecture 
was thus amply confirmed. The Hamath stones ' have the same 



origin as the Boghaz-keui sculptures as we see from the hiero- 
glyphics l which are common to both (fig. 7). They are,therefore, 
the work of the Hatti, who are the Kheta of the Egyptian monu- 
ments, who are the Hatti of Assyrian history, who are no doubt 
the Hittites of the Bible. 

The earliest tradition of them is preserved in the Book of 
Genesis. In 10 15 we are told that Canaan begat Zidon his 
first-born and Heth, which is only a way of saying that in the 
records on which this chapter is based Hittites jwere_described 
as settled in north Syria. They next appear at Hebron in 


Fia. 7. (From Messerschmidt, Corpus, pi. xxvii.) 

south Palestine, when Abraham bought from them the cave of 
Machpelah as a burial-place for Sarah (cap. 23). If the Amraphel 
of Gen. 14 1 was really the great Hammurapi, king of Babylon, 
whose date is approximately known, this transaction must have 
taken place somewhere about 2100 B. c. The account is, however, 
much later than the events, and is full of difficulties, which 
cannot be discussed here. The most we can say is that it seems 
to indicate that there was a Hittite settlement in south Palestine 
before the Tell-el-Amarna period and the Egyptian domination 

1 There are practically no inscriptions in hieroglyphics at Boghaz-keui, but 
isolated signs occur on the sculptures (see below), and these belong to the same 
svstem as those at Hamath. 


of Syria. 1 They had perhaps diverged there from the main bod}' 
in the course of a migration from north to south. That they were 
there for trade seems to be indicated by the phrase "ino^ -Qiy PJDD 
' current money with merchants ' 2 (Gen. S3 16 ). It was therefore a 
case of peaceful penetration. Their first appearance in a military 
enterprise is when, in the reign of Samsuditana (1956-26 B.C.) 
they ventured to attack Babylon itself Babyloii_the great 
which had been made powerful by Hammurapi and developed by 
his successors. The Chronicle 3 merely says that ' the men of the 
land of Hatti marched against the land of Accad'. There is 
nothing to show what they did at Babylon, nor how long they 
remained there. They must, at any rate, have captured the city 
aiid_phirif]prpr} it, for apparently they carried off the statue of 
Jiarduk. It is generally supposed that this invasion or raid 
weakened Babylon so much that it ended the dynasty and 
prepared the way for the Kassite occupation. It is hardly 
probable that the Hittites conducted their expedition against 
Babylon from so distant a base as Boghaz-keui ('the land of 
Hatti '). It is more likely that they had already begun tp_spread 
southwards, attracted by the wealth and trading possibilities of 
Mesopotamia. Their presence in south Palestine may then have 
been due to the same movement. But the chronology of these 
centuries is so obscure, and our information so scanty, that it is 
better to record only what is stated by the documents, and for 
the present to beware of'drawing conclusions. 

The Kassite dynasty had established itself in Babylon by 
1760 B. c. Who they were is another of the many problems of this 
dark period. They appear to. have been a non-literary people, 
and even of their language the only specimen we have is one 
short vocabulary. 4 The history of their rule in Babylon is very 
obscure. It is said (in the lists of kings) to have lasted 576 years. 
i.e. till 1185 B.C. One of the kings, Agum II (about 1650 B.C.), in 

1 The sources are not quite consistent. In 14 13 Mamre is Amorite ; in 23 15 
it is Hittite. 

2 In II Kings 12 5 "Oiy PJD3 alone is used. 1PID is properly a travelling 
trader. In Gen. 37 i8 the Midianites who bought Joseph are called so. In 37 3G 
their name is DTlEn. Is it possible that in one of the original sources they 
were so named and that they are Mitanni? The name would be altered to the 
more familiar DTID, but preserved here by an oversight of the Masoretes. 

3 King, Chronicles, ii, p. 22. 

4 See Delitzsch, Die Sprache tier Kossdet- (1884), p. 25. and Pinches in JRAS 
r.17. p. 101. 


an important inscription, 1 says that he sent an embassy to the 
land of Khani to bring back the statue of Marduk, which had 
been carried off by the men of Khani. This is taken to refer to 
the Hittite raid mentioned before, so that the men of Khani 
would be Hittites, or, at any rate, members of a Hittite confeder- 
acy. It is to be noted that he sent an embassy, a friendly 
mission. He did not attempt to take the statue by force, the 
more usual method in those days. The men of Khani were 
therefore powerful, and it was prudent to be on good terms with 
them. Khani is usually taken as* meaning Khana on the middle 
Euphrates, but it may mean Khani-rabbat, 2 which is Mitanni. 
If so, Hittites, Mitanni, and Kassites are here in close relation. 
This is merely a suggestion, but where all is so obscure the slight- 
est clue is worth noting. 

We do not know for certain on what terms the Hittites were 
with the early Kassite kings. It is evident, however, that their 
power, which was first shown in the invasion of Babylon, had 
not diminished in the next four centuries. Whether they gained 
by the goodwill of the Kassites, owing to alliance or racial 
connexion, or whether the temporary eclipse of Babylon gave 
them their opportunity, we cannot say. By about 1500 B.C. 
Egypt had become the dominant power in Asia. Thothmes I had 
conquered Palestine and marched as far as the frontiers of Mitanni, 
then a powerful state at the north of Mesopotamia. His grandson 
Thothmes III, early in the fifteenth century, completed the con- 
quest of Syria, defeated the Hittites there, and exacted tribute 
from them. Carchemish was taken, as well as Kadesh on the 
Orontes. There is no evidence to show whether either of these 
cities was at that time in Hittite possession, as they both were 
later. In a subsequent campaign Thothmes III developed his 
success. He broke up the confederacy of which Mitanni was the 
head, and thus the whole of western Asia from Mesopotamia to 
the sea became subject to Egypt including, of course, the 
Hittite states of Syria. This is the condition of things we find 
still existing when the Tell-el-Amarna letters begin. These are 
largely concerned with the intrigues of provincial governors in 
Asia and their difficulties in meeting the attacks of the Hittites. 
The main general fact which emerges with regard to the Hittites 
is that when the letters begin they are still settled in the north 

1 Jensen in Keilinsch. Bill. iii. 1, 139. 

2 As in an inscription of Shalmanezer I. See AJSL 28, p. 188. 



of Syria, and gradually extend southwards towards the end of the 
period. It was probably about the middle of the fourteenth cen- 
tury that they took possession of Kadesh on the Orontes. In the 
later letters, of the time of Amenophis IV (fig. 8), it is evident that 
the strength of Egypt is declining. Whether owing to troubles 
caused by that king's heresy, or for any other reason, troops were 
not sent when required to keep the unruly Syrian states in order. 
Partly in consequence of the disorganization of the country, the 
Hittite power began to grow as that of Egypt waned. The king 
of the Hatti (the dominant element) became the great king of 

FIG. 8. (From MDOG no. 50). 

a Hittite confederacy, with his capital at Boghaz-keui in the 
north, uniting the minor states represented by Hamath, Aleppo. 
Marash, Carchemish. Malatia. &c.. and probably with more or 
less control over the rest of Asia Minor. It was a very formidable 
combination, with the best of reasons for holding together, since 
they were all threatened by Egypt on the one side and Babylonia 
on the other. 

It is just at this point that the archives of Boghaz-keui l take 
up the story. The city must have been hitherto the head- quarters 
of one tribe or section of the confederacy. When the king of it - 
became the ' Great King ' of all the Hittites, his city became the 
capital of an empire and the repository of records of dealings 

1 See above, p. 6. 


with his widespread dependencies. So we find the earliest of 
the kings whose archives are preserved there is the first of the 
' Great Kings ', named Subbiluiiuma. His father Hattusil is 
called only ' King of the city of Kussar ', a name otherwise 
unknown. It is evident, therefore, that he was a king in a small 
way, one of the kings of the confederacy. His son Subbiluiiuma 
must have been a man of great force of character, since he suc- 
ceeded in uniting the Hittite tribes into a really powerful state, 
and founded a dynasty. His reign was long, and though we 
cannot yet date the beginning and end of it precisely, we know 
from Tell-el-Amarna that he lived in the reign of Amenopliis III 
and overlapped into that of Amenophis IV. He belongs, there- 
fore, to the early__parkja JJifi-lou^teeftthr century B.C. A TA 
letter l shows that the Hatti had been at war with Mitanni under 
Tushratta and had been defeated for Mitanni was then a power- 
ful state. But friendly relations must have been established 
since the Boghaz-keui records show that Subbiluiiuma, as a sort 
of suzerain, supported Tushratta' s son Mattiuaza on his accession 
after his father's death. 2 Having thus secured himself on the 
east,. Subbiluiiuma was strong enough to encroach on the Egyptian 
sphere of influence, and was acknowledged as overlord by the 
Amorites of Syria under Azir. 3 He contrived at the same time 
to remain on good terms with Egypt, but writes to Amenophis IV 
as an equal. The TA letters present a pathetic picture of the 
misery of the Egyptian provinces in Syria at this time, constantly 
subject to intrigue and war in which Hittites took a large part, 
much to their own advantage. It is not improbable that Carche- 
mish became Hittite about this time. 

Subbiluiiuma was succeeded by his son Arandas, of whom 
there are no records, and then by another son, Mursil, read as 
Maurasira in Egyptian. In an interesting chronicle he mentions 
his father's conquest of Mitanni, and speaks of his own relations 
with various allied or subject states, mostly not yet identified. 4 
He also maintained control over the Amorites of Syria. But 
Egypt had now recovered from its weakness and its new king. 
Seti I, regained possession of south Syria. This serious blow 
seems to have roused Mutallu (or Mutallis), who succeeded his 

1 To Amenophis III. Winckler no. 16. Of. PSBA 15, p. 120. 

2 Tushratta himself corresponded in TA with Amenophis IV. 

3 This would be the first time, one would think, that they could have occupied 
scuth Syria, but it is too late for the event related in Gen. 23. 

4 Arzawa (known from TA), Gasga, Tibia, Zihria, &c. 


father Mursil, to make a great effort to re-establish the Hittite 
power over unhappy Syria. He resumed the war with Egypt, 
i\nd fought l a great battle against Rameses II (the successor of 
Seti) near Kadesh on the Orontes, which was still a Hittite 
stronghold. The Egyptian account of this battle is a well-known 
piece of literature. Things were going badly for Pharaoh : * My 
warriors and my chariots had deserted me; not one of them 
stood by me. Then I prayed, "Where art thou, my father Amon ?. . . 
and Amon heard me and came at my prayer. He stretched out 
his hand to me and I shouted for joy ... I was changed. I be- 
came like a god . . . like a god in his strength, I slow the hosts 
of the enemy : not one escaped me. Alone I did it ! ' But apart 
from its Homeric setting, the account is historically important 
because it indicates the extent of the Hit'tite confederacy. To 
oppose Rarneses they had summoned contingents from Syria and 
Phoenicia, from Aleppo and Carchemish, Dardani, and Masu, 2 and 
others whose identity is uncertain. It was probably the greatest 
effort they ever made, and it nearly succeeded. Evidently both 
sides suffered severely, for Mutallu found it safer to shut himself 
up in Kadesh and Rameses did not follow up the victory he 
claimed. In consequence of his failure Mutallu appears to have 
been deposed, and no doubt murdered, by a military conspiracy 
after a short reign. 

His brother Hattusil, who followed him, had a long and , 
eventful reign, largely occupied by his dealings with Egypt. 
As most of the Boghaz-keui documents belong to him, we may 
hope for a good deal of information when the language of them 
is better understood. He was a powerful and resourceful king, 
a worthy grandson of Subbiluliuma. His policy was the same 
as that of his grandfather, and was in fact the only possible 
policy for a state situated as the Hittites were, with an equally 
powerful rival on either side. He maintained his friendship 
with Babylon (still Kassite) and his alliance with Mitanni, so 
protecting himself against the growing power of Assyria on the 
east, and at the same time kept a hold on the Amorites in the 
west. Hp was thus in a strong position to deal with Egypt. 

1 The name of the 'miserable king of the Kheta' is not mentioned in the 
Egyptian account, but the reference to Mutallu as having made war on Egypt, 
in the preamble of the treaty, is generally taken to mean that he was in com- 
mand at Kadesh. . 

2 Perhaps the Hebrew D'O (Gen. 10 23 ). Hardly Mysians, as generally ex- 


Kameses, in spite of his boastful record of the battle of Kadesh, 
was content in his twenty-first year (c. 1280 B.C.) to make a treaty 
leaving to them Syria and all western Asia from 

the Euphrates to the sea. The treaty was a great event. The 
.fragments found at Boghaz-keui evidently belong to a draft of 
it, and the terms were much discussed by letter before it was 
finally presented to Rameses for ratification. 

But in spite of Hattusil's diplomacy, the Hittite power from 
this time began steadily to decline. His reason for making the 
treaty with Egypt may have been that he foresaw danger from 
the increasing power of Assyria. At any rate it must have been 
soon after 1280 (the chronology is not quite certain) that Shal- 
maneser I in his great stone inscription l records with pride how 
he conquered the land of Khaiii(rabbat), or Mitanni, and 
' slaughtered the army of the Hittite and the Aramaeans, his 
allies, like sheep '. This was the end of Mitanni power, and of 
any help it might give to the Hittites in their struggle. 

The kings after Hattusil were his son Dudhalia, who mentions 
Carchemish as a vassal state under Eni-Tesup (a Hittite name). 
and his grandson Arnuaiita neither of them apparently of much 
importance. The Boghaz-keui records then cease about 1 200 B. c. 
It is probable that the city was losing its dominant position by 
this time (owing to pressure from the west ?) and that the Hittite 
centre was being gradually transferred to Carchemish in the south. 
Assyria was temporarily eclipsed after the death of Tukulti-ninib, 
and as Egypt was also weak, it was a time of unusual peace, 
with no power able to restrict the southward expansion of the 
Hittites and their trade. Unfortunately we have in consequence 
very little external information for the years just after Boghaz- 
keui stops. From Egyptian sources we learn that the Hittites 
took part in an invasion of Egypt from the sea in the reign of 
Rameses III (twelfth century). They were no longer, however, 
the leading power among the allies. They merely joined in an 
attack which was organized from the west. It failed, and this is 
the last time they came in contact with Egypt. 

It is from Tiglath-Pileser I, under whom Assyria again became 
powerful, that we next hear of changes in the Hatti state. He 
broke up their federation, about 1120 B.C., and was recognized by 
Egypt as the conqueror of Syria and north Palestine, wiiich the 
Assyrians called Hatti-land. He did not, however, take Carche- 

1 Translated by Luckenbill in AJSL 28, p. 188. 


misli, and this continued to be their chief centre, though we get 
110 more news of it for more than two centuries. In his time we 
begin to hear of the Muski (MoVxoi, Hebrew i&o), a powerful 
tribe who seem to take the place of the Hittites as head of the 

It has been suggested that the Kassite conquest of Babylon 
may have been facilitated by the Hittite invasion which 
preceded it. Whether or not the Hittites were racially con- 
nected with the Kassites, or had a particular interest in their 
fortunes, it is at least striking that we hear of them again at the 
end of the Kassite dynasty. That came to an end in 1181 B.C., 
and was succeeded by the Semitic dynasty of Isin, and some 
thirty years later the Hittites ventured to invade Babylon again. 
But this time they encountered Nebuchadrezzar I, a very different 
person from Samsuditana. They succeeded in taking the city, 
but not in holding it. In thirteen days Nebuchadrezzar drove 
them out and pursued them westward as far as__Syjja. ^t_3Eas 
merely a raid, which cannot have had any serious political effect, 
and never again did Hittites attack Babylon. In fact their glory 
was departed. 

In all this long story, largely concerning Syria since the 
time of Hammurapi, there has been no mention of the people 
with whom we naturally associate it the Israelites^ Indeed, 
their entry into the promised land can have happened only 
a short time before the events just narrated. The Hittite 
control of Syria had been broken, and the Amorites, who had 
shared their ascendancy, shared also their downfall. This does 
not mean that no Hittites or Amorites were left in the country. 
On the contrary the books of Joshua and Judges mention both 
specially. The population remained, but the land was without 
a government, and therefore an easier object of attack to the 
Israelites under Joshua. That the invaders amalgamated with 
the native population is stated in Judges 3 5 - 6 , and Ezekiel's 
taunt (16 3 - 45 ) of Jerusalem (some centuries later) is no doubt 
founded on historical fact : ' The Amorite was thy father, and 
thy mother was an Hittite.' The basis of the population must 
have remained largely Hittite. and when we can read the language 
we may find that their influence was fundamental. Indeed the 
Hittites were so closely associated with Syria that it continued 
to be called Hatti-land long after they had lost their hold on it. 
Similarly the name was applied vaguely to members of the con- 
federacy, irrespective of race. It was a great name, and the 


Assyrians did not forget it. After Tiglath-Pileser I there is 
a blank in our sources of information for about two centuries, 
during which Assyrian records give very little information at 
all. This interval must have witnessed the rise of Carchemish, 
and also the growth of Aramaean power. 

The rest of the story of the Hittites now centres round 
Carchemish, and is a record of continual struggle against Assyria, 
with varying success, but always tending to the inevitable end. 
The Assyrian accounts are very full, and I can only indicate here 
the main features of the history. Assurnazirpal x (884-858), in 
his campaigns to the north and north-west, to strengthen his hold 
on the provinces there, after savagely crushing many small states, 
received tribute from Milid and Kurhi, members of the Hittite 
confederacy. He had already subdued Kummuh. His constant 
attacks on the Aramaean states along the Euphrates show the 
importance which these had attained, probably at the expense of 
the Hittites. In 877 he took Carchemish. Owing to its position 
the city had become a rich commercial centre, under its king 
Sangara. It was for this reason that Assurnazirpal attacked it, 
and a large tribute was exacted. He then went on to the neigh- 
bouring and allied state of Hattin (capital Kunulua, under 
Labarna), through which the trade passed to the Orontes, and so 
on to the Lebanon and the sea. Here also a large tribute was 

His son Shalmaneser III (858-824) carried out the same plan 
still further. He again had to deal with the Aramaeans, but his 
main object was to crush the Hittite confederacy. There could 
in fact be no peace for Assyria until these troublesome states 
were reduced to Assyrian provinces. They must have rebelled 
again, for he took tribute (to name only places of interest here) 
from Carchemish (King Sangara), Kummuh (King Kundashpi), 
Milid (King Lulh), Hattin (King Kalparuda), Pitrti and Aleppo 
(whose god was Adad). He also fought a great battle at Karkar, 
near the Orontes, against an army of allies from Hamath (Irhu- 
leni), Damascus (Bir-idri), and Israel (Ahab), with others. 
Though he claims a great victory, he was unable to follow it up. 
The alliance was powerful, and if it could have held together it 
might have maintained its independence, but it had too many 
incompatible interests to last. Adadnirari IV (810-781) took 

1 See his inscriptions in Budge and King, Annals of the Kinjs of Assyria 
<1902), p. 155. 



tribute from Damascus and Syria, which was now only tradition- 
ally called Hatti-land. While the Hittite power was thus being 
gradually broken by Assyria, it also had to contend with the new 
kingdom of Van^ as we learn from the Vannic inscriptions. 
This kingdom had risen to importance soon after the death of 
Shalmaneser III. One of its kings, Sarduris III, about 750, 
overran north Syria and compelled the Hittite states of Milid 
(King Sulumal), Gurgum (Tarkhulara), Kummukh (Kushtashpi), 
and probably Carcheniish (Pisiris), to form an alliance with him 

FIG. 9. (From Hogarth, Carchemish.) 

against Assyria. This bold adventure was crushed by Tiglath- 
Pileser IV (746~727), who took tribute from all the allies, as well as 
(or including) Damascus (Eezin), Kue (Urikki), Hamath (Enilu), 
Sam'al (Panammu), Tabal (Uassurme), Tyana, and many others. 

The end of this ' strange eventful history ' came with Sargon II 
(722-705). Hamath had again become a centre of opposition to 
Assyria, under its king Yaubidi or Ilubidi (successor of Enilu), 
who is called a Hittite. He was killed and the city was taken. 
Carchemish had managed to remain independent, and its king, 
Pisiris, was called sar mat Haiti, as though his city was now the 
capital of Hatti-land. He now joined with Mita of Muski in an 



attempt to withstand Assyria. But the unity of the Hittite 
states had been broken and they were powerless except in a large 
combination. Pisiris was defeated and taken prisoner, together 
with large booty from the prosperous city. In order to guard 
against any trouble from it in the future, Sargon reduced 
Carchemish to the status of a province of the empire under an 
Assyrian governor in 717 B.C. Revolts of some minor states, 
such as Milid (Tarhunazi) and Gurgum (Mutallu), had to be 
suppressed in the next few years, but this may be said to be the 
ead of the Hittite power. Owing to its position Carchemish 
remained an important place for some centuries. It is now 
a mound whose identity has only recently been established by 
archaeological evidence (fig. 9). 


THE fall of Carchemish in 717 B.C. marks the end of the 
Hittite empire as such, though, after the central power was gone, 
the population in various Hittite centres must have remained 
much as it had been only paying tribute to Assyria instead of 
allegiance to its own Great King. Now, with the help of the 
map, let us review the history in the light of geography. The two 
Hittite capitals were Boghaz-keui in the north, and Carchemish4n 
the south. The latter must, from its position, always have been 
a great trading centre (just as Aleppo was in the seventeenth 
century), and its importance is shown by the fact that a special 
standard of weight used by the Assyrians was called after it, 
the mina of Carchemish. It was a natural point by which trade 
from Mesopotamia should pass the Euphrates on its way to the - 
west and north, and it is at Carchemish (Jerabis, 1 Jerablus) that 
the great Baghdad railway at this moment crosses the river. The 
city, no doubt, originated through the exigencies of trade. It is 
mentioned in Egyptian records as early as c.,.1480 B.C. Whether 
it was originally founded by Hittites we do not know, but it was 
certainly allied with them 200 years later. Like every other 
prosperous empire, that of the Hittites depended on trade, and 
it was more profitable to have a great centre at Carchemish, in 
touch with the resources of Mesopotamia, than to be shut off in 
Cappadocia behind the Halys, without ready access to important 
markets. The wealth of Mesopotamia was very great. Herodotus 
(i. 193) says that in corn alone it yielded two or even three hundred- 
fold, thanks to the elaborate system of irrigation maintained by the 
Babylonians. This has been entirely destroyed by neglect under 
the devastating rule of the Turk, but we may hope for the 
restoration of the country now that that tyranny is overpast. There 
were also oil-wells at Hit from which bitumen was obtained. It 
was in order to take advantage of these opportunities that the 
Hittites established themselves at Carchemish, and the position 

1 This identification has now been established beyond question. See Hogarth, 
Carchemish, p. 13. The origin of the modern (and ancient) name, however, is 
not certain. 

c 2 


of the Hittite sites shows the connexion which must have existed 
between the northern and southern capitals. These sites mark 
a very definite band of territory from Boghaz-keui in a straight 
line down to the sea, with an outpost at Bulgarmaden, where the 
silver mines were worked. In the north-east it included, in 
the later period, the kingdom of the Moschi ; and going south. 
Tabal, Malatiah, Kummuh (Commagene), Gamgum (or Gurgum), 
and Kue. 1 South of the Amanus mountains they took in Hattin, 
the great city of Aleppo, Kadesh on the Oroiites, and, at one time. 
Hamath. To the south-east there was Mash (? Mount Masius), Car- 
chemish itself, and, more or less dependent, Mitanni or Haiiirabbat. 
We know that many of these regions were, sometimes at least, 
under independent kings, whose allegiance to the suzerain at 
Boghaz-keui or Carchemish was more or less sincere at different 
times according to different circumstances. At its best it was a 
most formidable confederacy, and at its weakest it still formed 
a serious barrier to the extension of Mesopotamian power. The 
chief bonds which kept the allies together were the need of 
mutual protection against Assyria, and the advantage to be 
gained by facilities for trade passing through friendly territory. 
Trade follows where armies lead, and it was for both military 
and commercial purposes that the great high road from north to 
south was maintained. 

If the mention of Hittites at Hebron in the time of Abraham 
is really to be dated as early a,s gOOO Tin., that would seem to have 
been the time of their greatest expansion. After over-running 
most of Asia Minor they seem to have effected a peaceful 
penetration into south Palestine and even held land there. They 
were therefore not merely passing through but still less did 
they originate there. It looks as if this were part of a considered 
WeUpolitik, for it was about the same time that their first attack 
on Babylon occurred a bold scheme for securing the resources 
of Mesopotamia, and the control of the whole world as they knew 
it. The plan, if it was one, failed, and so Semitic civilization 
was, perhaps providentially, saved for the world. It would be 
interesting to consider what might have been the course of 
history if the Hittites had mastered Babylonia. 

"We have then this solid barrier blocking the way of the 
Mesopotamian powers on the north and west. As early as 
3800 B. c. we find Sargon of Accad making his way to the utter- 

1 i.e. Eastern Cilicia. The name probably occurs in I Kings 10 28 . 


most west as he conceived it, and washing his weapons in the 
Great Sea the Mediterranean in north Syria. This was a tour 
de force which canie to nothing permanent, but it does show what 
Babylonia and Assyria would have done if they could. At some 
time in the next 1.800 years Babylonian influence must have 
spread over Cappadocia, but it was checked before the time of 
Hamniurapi by the growth of Hittite power. If Hammurapi was 
the Amraphel of Gen. 14 and fought in Syria, the expedition can 
have been no more than a small raid, and one wonders why he 
made it. So great a king would not have been defeated in any 
serious purpose by the local potentates of south Palestine, even 
reinforced by Abraham's 318 trained men. Later on, the Kassite 
kings of Babylon had influence of some kind in north Syria, but 
they clearly found it prudent to remain on good terms with the 
central Hittite power. After the rise of Assyria we find campaign 
after campaign conducted against one or other member of the 
Hittite confederacy, or allied tribes. The Assyrians collected the 
tribute on which they lived, but there was never a break-through 
in the north. They did indeed conquer Syria after the Hittites 
had lost their hold upon it, but the country beyond the Taurus 
remained untouched by them. When, centuries later, Assur- 
banipal received an appeal from Gugu (or Gyges) of the im- 
portant and growing kingdom of Lydia, for help against the 
Cimmerians, he has to confess (or did he say it in scorn ?) that 
neither he nor his fathers had ever heard of such a place. 

It was not till two centuries after Sargon II Jhad_broken the 
Hittite power by the capture of Carchemish, when one by one 
the related kingdoms- had been reduced, when Nineveh was 
destroyed. Babylon captured, and Semitic civilization at an end, 
that the new^Persiau L _ej2. i, with an even larger ambition than 
its predecessors, could stretch out its hands over Asia Minor, 
constract_ih_great royal road from Susa. to ..Sardis, bridge the 
Hellespont, and even enter Europe to attack Greece. 

Now consider what all this means. It was because of that 
rampart against Semitic influence, and because the attention of 
the Hittite power was always inevitably directed in self-defence 
towards the east and south, that the west of Asia Minor and the 
Ionian states were left to self-determination, to develop in their 
own way. Yet such is the gratitude of the human mind, that by 
the time Greek history begins the very name of the Hittites was 
forgotten, and barely a reminiscence of their power is to be 


found even in Herodotus (i. 76), who himself belonged to 
Asia Minor. 

In their history, as sketched in the first lecture, we find two 
great periods, which might be called the Northern and the 

The Northern period was first revealed by the TA letters, 
when the Hittite head-quarters were in Cappadocia, with influence 
over Syria. The excavations at Boghaz-keui, which showed that 
to be the site of their capital, showed also that their leading 
position began with Subbiluliuma in the time of Amenophis III 
(say c. 14CO). But they were there much earlier, probably before 
2000 B.C., if only as one of several related or allied tribes. 1 It was 
during this earliest period that theixjnfluence (with our limited 
knowledge it is better not to use a more definite word) extended 
over all Cappadocia and westward to the sea, as we may infer 
from monuments to be mentioned presently. We have also 
direct evidence that this westward influence lasted on till 
1300 B. c. at least, since according to the Egyptian account they 
were aided in their war with E/ameses II by JDarclani 2 and 
people from other parts of Asia Minor. "We may then picture a 
group of peoples extending from eastern Cappadocia to the 
sea, able to combine for offensive and defensive purposes, pro- 
bably under the suzerainty of the strongest group settled at 
Boghaz-keui. As long as they held the coast they prevented 
colonization from the West, and effectually cut off the coast from 
Semitic influence from the East, but they also acted as a con- 
necting link. They were a trading people, and exchanged the 
goods of the mainland for the wares.ofjjae Aegean, since objects of 
Aegean workmanship have been found in Mesopotamia, where 
they could hardly have penetrated by any other means. But 
even at this early date (say c. 1400 B.C.) they were turning their 
attention to the south and south-east, and it was this tendency 
which ultimately prevailed. Some time in the fourteenth cen- 
tury they appear to have been established at Carchemish, and 
soon after that the archives at Boghaz-keui stop. It would seem 
then that as their attention was more and more diverted from 
the west, Boghaz-keui gradually lost its supremacy, or perhaps 

1 Many Cappadocian cuneiform tablets, in Semitic, are known. In the 
Philadelphia Museum Journal, 1918, p. 149, Sayce points out that some belong 
to c. 2500 B.C. They are native commercial documents, probably Hittite, 
though in the Babylonian language. 

2 Not so Petrie, History of Egypt, iii, p. 49. 


succumbed to hostile attacksTJlf we put the decline of it roughly 
at 1200 B. c. when the archives cease, this coincides in a remark- 
able way with other events, some of which at least must have 
been connected with it. Those were stirring times. The defence- 
less state of Palestine made possible the entry ot the Israelitish 
tribes. Soon afterwards, on the break-up of Cretan power, the 
south of Palestine was equally open to colonization by refugees 
from the island, 1 who eventually gave their name to the country 
(Philistines, D'nc^D, Pulasata, rUAaoryoi). In the north-west as 
the Hittite power gradually contracted, or was diverted^&om the 
sea, the allied states were left to take care of themselves. Their 
old allies the Dardani of the Troad were attacked by the Greeks 
and their city destroyed in the Trojan war (traditional date 1184). 2 

The object of the Trojan war was no doubt to promote coloniza- 
tion. At any rate it was soon afterwards that the lonians began 
to establish themselves on the coast. The same cause, the re- 
moval of the suzerain power, led to the rise of various states in 
Asia Minor as independent kingdoms. Thus while the Hittite 
power, in its earliest period, protected the west from Semitic 
intrusion, its ' withdrawal from tha wesL_gajra th_o_ppjiorijiinity 
for fresh developments there. 

What then can we discover as to the racial character of the 
people who played so great a part in the history of Asia Minor 
and indirectly of Europe ? The old view was that their original 
home was in_Sy_ria, along with the other tribes associated with 
them in the Old Testament, and that they radiated from that 
centre northwards to Cappadocia and eastwards to Carchemish, &c. 

1 The wars of Cyprus and Eclom are mentioned in the mediaeval "lE^n ISO 
(ed. Frankfurt a.M. 1706, fol. 106), where the Cypriote king is named D>W3N, 
but I do not know the source of the account. 

2 In Homer's catalogue of the Trojan allies, Sayce has pointed out that the 
name of the f AXcfi> (77. ii. 856) may be connected with that of the Halys, 
therefore Hittite. They came rrjXodev e 'AXvfys, odev apyvpov m ycve0\>i, ' far 
off from Alube, where there is a vein for the silver' (Bulgar-maden?). This 
name, though not the place, may be compared with Khalupu, Aleppo, and 
both with the XdXvfcs, cf. Lagarde, Beitr. zur laktr. Lexicog., p. 14. Themista- 
goras, quoted in the 'Emuepiafjioi, says that 'AXu/3/; was Lycia. In the Odyssey 
(xi. 521) there is a mention of the Kjjreioi, under their king Telephus, to the 
south of Troy opposite Lesbos. Sayce again identifies these with Hittites. 
The story was that Agamemnon, on his way to Troy, got lost, had to fight the 
Kqreiot, made an alliance with them, and was afterwards thrown over by them 
when they joined Troy. But Agamemnon probably knew what he was doing, 
and saw the necessity of removing a danger to his subsequent operations. The 
KjjTficn would then be relics of the former Hittite occupation. 


But the recent discoveries make this quite untenable. As far 
back as our records go we find the Hittites established in Cappa- 
docia, making their capital at Boghaz-keui, and evidently with 
a long history behind them there. Where they came from and 
what their racial character was can only be discovered, if ever, 
by a thorough examination of all the remains of their art, 
their religion, and their language. This of course cannot be done 
here, and in fact any conclusions reached now would be only 
provisional. I shall therefore only indicate very shortly those 
conclusions which for the present seem probable. 

It has been suggested lately that the race originally came down 
from the mountains of Armenia or the Caucasus. Jensen makes 
it the former, and identifies the language of the hieroglyphic 
inscriptions with modern Armenian without much success. 
Others, and I think Sayce was the first, propose the Caucasus. 
Sayce calls attention to the turned-up boots, 1 or snow-shoes, as 
indicating a mountainous origin. Prof. Eostovtseif, of Petrograd, 
the chief authority on south Russian archaeology, tells me that 
in studying the antiquities of the east end of the Black Sea, he 
finds that the earliest culture resembles that of Elam, and at a 
date which he roughly estimates at about 1500 B. c. he discovers 
a clear connexion with Hittite art; that is to say, the art 
developed in the same way as the Hittites developed it. Un- 
fortunately the proofs of this have not yet been published, but as 
one small instance compare the metal girdle on the figure at 
Boghaz-keui with the bronze girdle found in south Russia 2 
(fig. 10). If such a connexion is corroborated, it would be direct 
evidence of Caucasian 3 origin. 

V Coming then from the east, probably from the Caucasus, they 
first established themselves at Boghaz-keui, and then spread 
westward. There can be no doubt about this westward expansion, 
since monuments 4 manifestly Hittite are found on their path 
(see map), and right up to the coast, at Sipylos and Karabel (figs. 

1 These are characteristic and have a reason, in spite of the fact that modern 
oriental shoes are rather like them. 

2 See Farmakovski, ' Arkhaicheski period v' Rossii ', in Materiali po arkheologii 
Rossii, no. 34 (1914). 

3 Here was Colchis, or Aia, where the Argonauts went in their mysterious 
quest of the golden fleece, a very early legend, and near was Ashkenaz, which 
Jeremiah associates with Ararat and Minni, and which gave its name to the 
novros 'A|ei/os-. Hu'sing derives the name of the Caspian similarly from the 
Kassites with an Elamite formative (Memnon, iv, 1910, p. 22). 

4 Accounts of these are most accessible in Garstang. 


Fro. 10. 



11, 12), with hieroglyphic characters on them. "We have no his- 
torical evidence of this march to wards the sea. We may get it when 
the Boghaz-keui records are read. Meanwhile the very silence of 
history is an indication that the movement must have taken place 

FIG. 11. 

in the earlier, northern period before the Hittites were in contact 
with Mesopotamia, and this is corroborated by the meagreness and 
archaic character of the hieroglyphics on the monuments, as 
though the system of writing had not yet been developed. 

What we can gather from early monuments as to Hittite 


religion points to the same westward extension. The chief god 
,Sms_tp_ have been Addu, who is Hadad or Rammanu, Simmon. 
He was primarily Q, storm-god, and was represented with light- 
ning in his hand (fig. 13). But the place of honour belonged to a 

FIG. 12. 

goddess, whose Hittite name is unknown. She is probably re- 
presented in the figure at Sipylos, and is certainly found in the 
Boghaz-keui sculptures 1 in close relation to the god. Now it 
cannot be a mere coincidence that we find the worship of Cybele 
and Attys prevalent at a later date in Phrygia, and the mother 

1 See above, fig. 7. 


goddess at Ephesus. Sayce has referred l at length to the account 
(attributed to Lucian) of the worship at Bambyce (Membij), near 
Carchemish, which he takes to be a survival of the ancient Hittite 
religion. If so, there are some remarkable points in which it 

FIG. 13. (From Koldewey.) 

may have influenced Jewish ritual, or been influenced by it. 
But the account is late, and we must beware of relying 
implicitly upon it. 

The physical appearance of these people is shown by a number 

1 In TheHittitesdm), p 105. 


Fia. 14. 

FIG. 14 a. 



of portraits. For the early period we have those of the Egyptian 
monuments (figs. 14-16, thirteenth century B.C.). They are evi- 
dently faithful drawings from life, not merely conventional 

FIG. 16. 

representations of foreigners. Note the curiously Mongolian l 
type, no helmet, the pig-tail (?), the lack of hair on the face. 

1 One cannot help comparing them with some of the Etruscan types, and 
recalling Herodotus's story of the origin of Etruscans from Lydia. There is also 
the curious resemblance of Tarquinius to Tarku. 



We may reasonably assume that they do represent the pre- 
vailing Hittite type of the thirteenth century B.C., though it 
is also possible that the particular figures which happen to be pre- 
served are those of some of the many confederate peoples, or even 
caricatures. Now for the later period (say ninth century B.C.) 
we have the native portraits at Carchemish in a quite different 

FlG. 17. (From Hogarth, pi. B. 2.) 

style (figs. 17-19). The god at Ivriz (fig. 20) also belongs to this 
later style, and no doubt represents the general type of the 
Hittite population of Cilicia. The representations of Hittites 
from north Syria on Shalmaneser's bronze gates (figs. 21-23) 
give us little information, as they are evidently conventional. 
Thus we find two distinct types which would seem to represent 
different races. The Egyptian portraits look as if the people 
were dolichocephalic and probably of a Mediterranean stock. 
The native sculptures, so far as I know, never represent this 


type, but that of an apparently brachycephalic Armenoid 
stock. If then there were two races we might take the 
Egyptian pictures to represent an aboriginal race in Asia 
Minor, and the native sculptures to represent an intruding 
conquering race from the Caucasus, which ultimately dominated 
the aborigines. 1 The rank and file of the army at the battle of 

FIG. 18. (From Hogarth, pi. B. 4.) 

Kadesh would naturally belong to the native race. The king 
would, of course, be of the conquering race, and so it is not 
surprising to find that the portrait (if it is not merely conven- 
tional) of Hattusil bringing his daughter to Rameses II is 
quite unlike those of the warriors of Kadesh, and more like those 
of the later period (fig. 24). 

The peculiar style of Hittite art is due to the conquering race, 

1 But see Sergi, Origine e diffusione della Stirpe Meditermnea, p. 54. 



who brought it, and probably ^the rudiments of the hieroglyphic 
writing, 1 with them from the Caucasus. The monuments in the 
west also belong to the same race, and from their scattered situation 
and small numbers, we may assume, until further discoveries are 
made, that the expansion was in the nature of a conquest, not of 
a settlement, though no doubt trade settlements (as the K?jreioi ?) 
were made at some points. It is to be noted that no monuments 

FIG. 19. (From Hogarth, pi. B. 11.) 

of this kind have so far been found in Caria, Lycia, or western 
Cilicia, i.e. in the south-western corner of Asia Minor, which 
was directly connected with Crete via Rhodes and the islands. 
Even apart from this corner we have no evidence that the tribes 
in the rest of Asia Minor were all of the same race, and if the 
view I have put forward is correct, it is not probable that those 
tribes were of Hittite (i. e. the conquering) stock. 

In trying to clear up the ethnography valuable work has been 

1 Cf. the signs on a sceptre from Kedabeg, in Trans-Caucasia, PSBA 1899, 
p 238. 




done by Kretschmer, 1 Fick, 2 and Sundwall 3 on Asia Minor names, 
but for the present the arguments based on them are not fully 
convincing. The names require much sifting before we can be 
satisfied as to whether they belong to different strata of the 

FIG. 20. 

population. Language is not a proof of race, and the argument 
from names is largely linguistic. Hence we want to know the 

1 Einleitung in d. griechische Sprache (1896), p. 289. 

2 Vorgriecliische Ortsnamen (1905). He boldly assumes that all names in Asia 
Minor which do not look like Greek are Hittite, and since such names are also 
found in Crete and European Greece, he is forced to admit Hittites there also. 

3 Die einheimischen Namen der Lykier, u.s.w. (1913) [Klio, Beiheft 11]. 



meanings of the non-Greek names in Asia Minor, and we want 
to know more of the language or languages of the Hittites. 
Then if we find the names explicable from a Hittite language, 
we shall be justified in concluding that they were given to the 
places by Hittites who were there either as conquerors or as 
settlers. That is all. In proportion as such Hittite names prove 
to be few or many, we may argue as to the extent of their occu- 
pation. They may, of course, also have left traces of a Hittite 

FIG. 21. (From King-, Bronze Beliefs, pi. L.) 

language in some of the districts occupied. The question of 
language, to which I will return later, is therefore of exceptional 
interest, and concerns not only the Orientalist, but also the Greek 
scholar, since names of the Asia Minor type are found in Greece 
and the islands. All such names may therefore be Aegean, and 
the aborigines of Cappadocia (the Hittites represented by the 
Egyptian portraits) as well as some of the Asia Minor races may 
also belong to the Aegean stock. When the Cretan tablets are 
published, we ma} 7 hope to decipher them and get some light. 

Now when we come to the later period (which I called the 
Southern period) of Hittite history, we find them withdrawn 
from western Asia Minor, and tending south and east. I sug- 

D 2 



gested that this movement was due to the development of trade 
with Mesopotamia, which made the centre at Carchemish more 

FIG. 22. (From King, pi. XXXII.) 

FIG. 23. (From King, pi. LXXIV.) 

valuable than the older capital. Such a development of trade 
may well have been occasioned by the decline of the Cretan 


power (say about 1200) and the consequent loss of trade with the 
Aegean on the coast of Asia Minor. But the Hittite retirement 
eastward may have been hastened by pressure from the west, 
caused by the immigration of colonists from the Aegean. At 
any rate in this period they appear to have followed the same 
policy, absorbing the petty states of Muski, Tabal, Kue, Gamgum, 

FIG. 24. 

Mitanni, &c., on the east and south, as they had previously 
absorbed the tribes on the west. 

To these two periods the two kinds of Hittite writing roughly 
correspond namely, the cuneiform to the Northern and the hiero- 
glyphic to the Southern period. This can hardly be accidental. 
It may be argued that the hieroglyphic writing was suitable only 
for monuments, while cuneiform was more naturally used for 
literary purposes. That is no doubt true, yet at BoghazL-keui 


only one inscription 1 in hieroglyphics has been found, and on 
the important sculptures both there and at Eyuk there is not 
a single continuous line of hieroglyphic text. The same is true 
of the scattered monuments on the west, at Doghaiilu-keressi, 
Karabel, Sipylos, which we took to be of this period. All or 
most of these have small groups of hieroglyphic signs, placed 
like cartouches or monograms near figures of gods or persons, 
evidently to indicate their names, but there is never any descrip- 
tive text in hieroglyphics, as on the sculptures found on southern 
sites. On the other hand, at Carchemish for instance, where 
there are many hieroglyphic inscriptions accompanying sculp- 
tures, hardly any cuneiform has been found. It may be that 
cuneiform tablets have perished or that their hiding-place has 
not yet been discovered, but only the merest scraps 2 of cuneiform 
monuments have survived, though that form of writing is perfectly 
well suited for monumental purposes. We must therefore conclude 
that, as far as the Hittite language was concerned, the hieroglyphic 
system of writing eventually ousted the cuneiform, not vice versa, 
and the first beginnings of it are to be seen in the monograms at 
Boghaz-keui. These were no doubt originally symbols, such as 
we find on Sumerian seals, as it were coats of arms, but their com- 
ponent parts are identical with signs found in the hieroglyphic 
inscriptions elsewhere. The elements were already in existence 
in the fourteenth century B.C. (introduced by the conquering 
race?). The system of writing seems to have been developed 
later with the spread of Hittite power southwards. 

Does this difference of writing imply a difference of language ? 
We cannot yet answer the question conclusively and must inves- 
tigate both sets of texts independently. 

First with regard to the cuneiform language of the early 
period, this may be the language either of the conquering race, 
in which case it should be Caucasian, or (if my view is correct) 
more probably that of the aborigines, in which case we might 
hope for some light from one or other of the languages of western 
Asia Minor. It is a faint hope, however. Of the inscriptions in 
western Asia Minor now extant, all are nearly 1,000 years later 

1 So much defaced that it is not even certain that the writing is Hittite. 

2 I copied seven, but none contained a complete word. Prof. King thought, 
that the character was of the time of Nebuchadnezzar II. If so, they would 
date after his capture of Carchemish in 604, and would not affect the question. 
In one case a line of cuneiform had apparently been added to an earlier Hittite 


than the Boghaz-keui tablets, and much had happened in the 
meantime. The Phrygian l language is Indo-European of a 
barbarous kind, the new Phrygian inscriptions being more 
influenced by Greek than the old. They give the impression of 
an imported language (that of the Briges ?) grafted on to a 
native stock, which it finally killed, but the character of the 
original stock is very difficult to discover. Winckler suggested 
that it is Moschian (whatever that may have been), identifying 
Mita of Muski with the Phrygian Midas. At any rate, the 
Phrygian inscriptions, as we have them, are not likely to be of 
much value for comparison. 2 

The Lydian language has only lately become accessible, 
through the publication 3 of some of the inscriptions found 
at Sardis by the American expedition. Among them is a 
bilingual, Aramaic and Lydian, eight lines of each, which 
(though the Aramaic is difficult to translate) gives the mean- 
ing of about twenty words. It is dated in the tenth year of 
an Artaxerxes, therefore at least as late as 455 B.C., and the other 
inscriptions are apparently of the same period. They are all in 
a Greek alphabet, with some additional letters of which the 
values are not all ascertained. We know that Lydia and Ionia 
mutually influenced one another, and the use of the Greek 
alphabet is an instance of this. But there is no trace of the 
Greek language in Lydian, as there is in Phrygian. It seems to 
be quite un-Indo-European. 4 As Hittite monuments are found 
in Lydia, it is not impossible that the two languages may turn 
out to have some affinity when we have studied them more. 
Greek tradition always connected Lydia with the East. 

The Lycian language has long been accessible in inscriptions, 5 
though little is really known of it. The inscriptions are not much 
earlier than about the fifth century B.C., and are written in 
a Greek alphabet, with additions. There is no trace of Greek in 
the language, though there are Greek bilinguals. Though the 

1 See Calder in JHS 1911, p. 161, and references there to Rainsay. Also 
Arkwright on Lycian and Phrygian names in JHS 1918, p. 45. 

2 The fact that Phrygian inscriptions (in Greek characters, like all the rest) 
were found at Eyuk (Chantre, Mission en Cappadoce, p. 165) does not affect the 

3 By E. Littmann, Sardis, vol. vi, pt. i, of Publications of the American 
Society for the Excavation of Sardis (1916). 

4 There may perhaps be some connexion with Etruscan. Cf. Hdt. i. 94. 

5 In the excellent Corpus of Kalinka (Tituli Lyciae, Vienna, 1901). The best 
work on the language is that of Torp and Arkwright. 


language has not yet been satisfactorily assigned to any family, 
it is safe to say that au fond it is not Indo-European. 1 But no 
Hittite remains are known in Lycia, and probably the conquerors 
never penetrated into that mountainous and difficult country. 
Moreover, Lycia looks west, and is more naturally connected with 
Crete, via Rhodes, so that its language is likely to be Aegean and 
would have an affinity with (cuneiform) Hittite only if the latter 
is an aboriginal language of Asia Minor. In Homer's list of the 
Greek forces (II. ii. 654) Rhodes comes next to Crete, and Aegean 
remains have been found there. The elder Sarpedon of Lycia 
was a brother of Minos, though his grandson joined the Trojans, 
the former allies of the Hittites. When the linear tablets from 
Crete 2 have been published and deciphered, it may be possible to 
affirm or deny their linguistic connexion with Lycia, or other 
parts of Asia Minor. For the present, at any rate, the Lycian 
language is not likely to give much help in elucidating Hittite. 

Of other languages in western Asia Minor, we have only the 
slightest traces, which may be disregarded for practical purposes. 

- Thus the most probable affinity in the west with Hittite (the 
language of the conquering race) is to be sought in Lydian, 

, which has still to be deciphered. Or if cuneiform Hittite be an 
aboriginal language of Asia Minor, it may be connected with 
Lycian, and belong to the Aegean group. 

On the east the prospect is not much more promising. We 
may from the first exclude any comparison with Semitic. In 
the Northern period the Hittites used the Semitic-Babylonian 
language largely, and early ' Cappadocian ' tablets in Semitic are 
common, though the language and writing are peculiar. Even 
in writing the native language (in cuneiform) they used Semitic 
ideograms and words, and the same is true of hieroglyphic 
Hittite, if my decipherment is correct, but this did not affect the 
structure of the native language. We have to look elsewhere for 
a real linguistic connexion. The most obvious is with the people 
of Mitanni, with whom the Hittites were in close contact, as we 
know from the Boghaz-keui documents. It has long been recog- 
nized that the personal names 3 of the two peoples contain many 

1 Against Savelsberg, Beitriige zur Entzifferwig der lykischen Sprachdenkmaler 

2 See Evans, Scripta Minoa (1909), p. 38, &c. 

3 Collected by A. T. Clay in Personal Names . . . of the Cassite Period (1902), 
and Tallquist, Assyrian Personal Names (1914), in the Acta Soc. Sci. Fennicae, 
with a good introduction. 


elements in common, and this implies either a racial or linguistic 
connexion. Of the actual language of Mitanni we possess only 
one long letter in the Tell-el-Amarna collection, which has been 
very much discussed. The most recent treatment of it is by 
Bork, 1 who assigns the language to the Caucasian group 
(Georgian). It must be admitted that at first sight the language 
does not seem to bear much resemblance to cuneiform Hittite. 
Perhaps the ruling class (to which the extant names mostly 
belong) in Mitanni was racially and linguistically different from 
the bulk of the population, to which the language of the letter 
belonged (see below, p. 45). 

Another people with which the Hittites were in very close 
relations is the Kassite. 2 During all the Boghaz-keui period 
Kassite kings ruled Babylon, and at times had a ' sphere -of 
influence ' in north Syria. The Boghaz-keui records show that 
diplomatic communications passed between the two kingdoms, 
and it is generally assumed that the Hittites had a share in 
introducing the Kassite dynasty to Babylon, as they certainly - 
had in maintaining it there. Whether this implies any racial 
affinity is another matter. Of the Kassite language all we know 
is comprised in one short vocabulary, 3 compiled evidently with 
the object of explaining Kassite names to Semitic-speaking 
people. The value even of this has been questioned (I think 
too severely) by Husing. 4 There are also many Kassite names, 5 
but there is no native literature. The language is not Semitic - 
and may be connected with Elamite, but the opportunities for 
comparison are too few to be decisive. 

Finally there is Vannic. This is the language of the inscriptions, 
written in cuneiform, found round Lake Van. They belong to 
kings of that region in the ninth and eighth centuries B.C., so 
that they are contemporary with the southern Hittite period. 
The language was first deciphered, in a brilliant manner, by 
Sayce. and work has since been done on it by Belck. 7 It was 
certainly not Indo-European, nor Semitic, and was eventually 
supplanted by the Aryan language of modern Armenia. 

These are all the languages we know with which the Hittites 

1 'Die Mitannisprache ', in Mitteihuujen d. VAG (1909). 

2 See Delitzsch, Die Spraclie der Kosscier, 1884. 

3 Delitzsch, op. cit., p. 25, and Pinches in JBAS 1917, p. 101. 

4 In Memnon iv (1910), p. 22. 5 Clay, op. cit. 

6 JBAS, xiv (1882), p. 377. 

7 Die Kelischinstele. in Anatole i (1904). 


can have come in contact. They certainly are not very helpful. 
It remains to consider what is known of cuneiform Hittite itself. 
Among the Tell-el-Amarna letters there are two, from and to 
Arzawa, 1 written (in cuneiform like the rest) in a strange non- 
Semitic language. It is still quite uncertain where Arzawa was, 
but evidently this is its native language. In 1907 a tablet 
obtained at Yuzgat near Boghaz-keui was published by Sayce 
and Pinches, 2 and turned out to be in the same language. Some 
small fragments of a similar kind were found by Chantre. 3 The 
discovery of the archives at Boghaz-keui with their native docu- 
ments showed that the language of all these was really Hittite, i. e. 
the language of the head- quarters of the early Hittite confederacy. 
Many efforts have been made to elucidate the Arzawa letters. 
Owing to the use of ideograms and determinatives in cuneiform 
writing, the occurrence of some Semitic loan-words, and their 
formal style, it is possible to get some idea of the general sense 
of them. 4 In trying to go farther, Knudtzon, in his edition with 
Torp and Bugge, advanced the astonishing theory that the 
language was Indo-European, but afterwards gave up the view. 
It has since been revived by Hrozny with whom Ed. Meyer 
(rather doubtfully) agrees. 5 Independently (having heard of 
Hrozny's view but not seen his article) Holma 6 produced some 
remarkably ingenious comparisons. It is on the still unpublished 
texts from Boghaz-keui, which he has studied at Constantinople 
and Berlin, that Hrozny bases his argument, and until these are 
accessible, we cannot form a just judgement of his results. Yet 

1 Nos. 31, 32 in Knudtzon's ed. (1907). Also edited by him (Die zivei Arzawa- 
Briefe, 1902) with Torp and Bugge. Some corrections by 0. Schroder in OLZ 
1915, p. 231. 

2 E. Asiatic Soc. Monographs, vol. xi, 1907. 

3 Mission en Cappadoce (1898), p. 40. 

4 Especially of no. 31, from Amenophis to Tarhundaraba. No. 32, written 
from Arzawa, is more difficult, perhaps as being more idiomatic. 

5 MDOG, no. 56 (Dec. 1915). Hrozn has since published Die Sprache der 
Hethiter, pts. i, ii (1916-17). The theory has been approved by Cumont in 
Comptes-rendus de VAcad. des Inscr. 1917, p. 119; by E. Brandenburg in Frank- 
furter Zeitung for Jan. 20, 1916 ; by an anonymous writer in Bergen MorgenUadet, 
Oct. 21, 1916 ; and in Times Lit. Supp., Apr. 3, 1919 ; by S. J. Crawford in JRAS 
1919, p. 1 ; and C. J. S. Marstrander in Videnskapsselslcapets Skrifter (Christiania), 
1919. Bohl, in TheoL Tijdschrift, 1916, pp. 66 and 305, thinks the language is 
mixed. Weidner, Studien zurhethitischenSprachtviss., i (1917), p. 33, is against 
Hrozny : so Bork in OLZ 1916, p. 289 ; Herbig in Deutsche Lit.-ztcj. 1916, p. 421; 
King in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 1917, p. 190. 

6 ' Etudes sur les vocabulaires . . . de Delitzsch ', in Journal de la Soc. Finno- 
Ougrienne (1916). 


the question is too important to be dismissed without considera- 
tion. Although they lived surrounded by non-Indo-European 
peoples on all sides. Hrozny contends that the Hittites spoke not 
only an Indo-European language, but one belonging to the 
western branch, more akin to Latin than anything else. He 
begins by observing that Hittite has a present participle in 
-an or -anza, with oblique cases formed on a stem in -ant-, as 
da-a-an = 'giving', plural da-an-te-es. In Arzawa i (Knudtzon 
no. 31) he takes Mman(za) as nominative = f being complete', 
and finds elsewhere a genitive hiimandas (cf. ferentis), dative 
humandi (ferenti), accusative humandan (ferentem), ablative or 
instrumental hiimantid(-ed) (cf. Oscanpraisentid). There are six 
cases, at least in the singular, as above, with a locative in -az. 
Now if this declension were established, it would settle the 
question at once. But one naturally asks, is human a participle, 
and are the other words case-forms of it? We certainly want 
other instances of the form. In Arzawa i, as Knudtzon pointed 
out, according to analogy it should correspond to Bab. dannis, 
adverb, ' very much '. In a vocabulary (see below) it is rendered 
by the noun Icellatum ' entirety '. Of the alleged case-forms, none 
occur in the Arzawa letters, so that we must wait for more texts 
before deciding whether the explanation fits the facts. On the 
other hand the form Mmanda, which is not in Hrozny's scheme, 
does occur in Arz. i, 26, and terminations like -andu, -anta are 
common in Arzawa, but are not in the scheme. This series, or 
some of it, seems to suggest rather a connexion with the termina- 
tion -i^a, 1 &c., common in Asia Minor place-names (locative?, 
cf. Stamboul = cis r?/i> ir6\iv), and so to be not Indo-European. 

Very important, if correct, is his list of personal pronouns: 
1st person singular ug or uga = ego: dative ammitg 2 = e/xoiye; 

plural anzds = nos, uns. 

2nd person zig, ziga = vvyt ; accusative -dative tug = dich; plural 
sumds = Persian suma. 

No doubt the particle ye may be regarded as pronominal, but 
if it is to explain the g in tug as well as in zig, we have still to 
account for the change from nominative zi-g to the oblique case 
tu-g which should correspond to o-e'ye or o-otye (for rfiye). 3 We 
must then assume that tug is for tivig, and that phonetic decay was 

1 Cf. Kretschmer, Einhituny in die gnecli. Spr., p. 294. 

2 Why not make it plural and compare Aeolic a/i/ue? 

3 Not rfoi- as we used to be told. The <> merely represents the digamma 


more advanced in Hittite in 1400 B. c. than in Latin of classical 
times. Why too should the first letter be z in the nominative 
and t in the dative, when in each case it stands for original t ? 
The change may possibly be due to special phonetic laws in 
Hittite, but it requires corroboration. Further, since the Arzawa 
documents are letters, we should expect the 2nd person 1 of the 
pronoun- to occur, but neither zlg nor tug is found. 

The comparison of sumds with the modern Persian is unfor- 
tunate, for Ui is worn down from an original Indo-European 
iusme- (Sanskrit yusma). The essential part is yu- (as in Zend) 
which Hittite would thus have already lost in 1400 B. c. More- 
over, in a vocabulary (see below) ( for your benefit ', ana itikunu, 
is translated into Hittite as suras enzan Jcussan, where suras can 
hardly be a mistake for sumds. 

To each of these pronouns Hrozny finds a corresponding 
possessive : ammel = e/xo's ; tuel tuus ; anzel, our ; sumel, your. 
This regularity of formation would be very convincing, if it 
could be proved. Anzel occurs in the vocabulary for 'our' or 
' us ', but ' you ' or ' your ' is suras enzan, as already mentioned. 
Tuel occurs in Arzawa i, where it may perhaps mean ' thy'. 

Lastly, Hrozny makes out the present or future tense of the verb 
thus (from infinitive iauwar ' to make ', &c.) : iyami, iyasi, iyazi, 
iyaueni, iyatteni, iyanzi. Cf. for the formation ITJJUII, fys, 1770-1, &c. 
Here again if these can be shown to be all forms of a verb, we need 
no further evidence. Only two of them occur in the published 
texts (Yuzgat, obv. 7, rev. 39), where Dr. Pinches gives reasons 
for thinking them to be nouns. Moreover, the forms iya 
(Arzawa ii, 3, 23) and ias (Yuzgat, obv. 28) require explanation. 

These are only a few instances of Hrozny's arguments in 
support of his view, but they are crucial instances, and it must 
be admitted that they are not conclusive. At the same time it 
would be unfair to reject the view without having all the 
evidence before us. The Indo-European theory does not enable 
us to translate the Arzawa letters, nor has Hrozny translated 
more than isolated sentences from his texts. We must wait for 
the publication and explanation of continuous texts. 

He has been influenced evidently by a very remarkable dis- 
covery of Winckler's among the Boghaz-keui documents. A 
treaty was there found, between Hatti and Mitanni, in which 
both sides invoked their gods. On the Mitanni side these in- 

1 The 1st person is supplied by samSi, 'my majesty '. 


elude, according to Winckler's reading, 1 Mithra, Varuna, Indra,_ 
and the twins Xa.satya, pure Aryan gods among a number of 
strange names. This does not prove that either the Mitanni 
race or language was Aryan. No one would be bold enough to 
say that of their language. But it does show that in some way 
Mitanni was influenced by Aryans. Winckler conjectured that 
this influence was due to the Harri (a people mentioned in the 
Boghaz-keui documents) whose name he identified with Arya. 
Hrozny on the other hand has found traces of the Harri language, 
which he says is certainly not Aryan. If at this early date 
(1400 B. c.) Aryans were on the move, from the north perhaps, 
along the road which eventually brought them to India, they 
may in the course of their migrations have descended upon 
Mitanni and formed a ruling We might thus account 
for the Aryan appearance of some personal names in Mitanni. 

Another point may be mentioned. These god-names have two 
interesting suffixes : Hani mitrassil . . . Hani naSatiyanna. [Note 
also the admixture of Semitic.] Now farther east, in Turfan. 
Le Coq found some fragments of Brahmi writing, in an unknown 
language which has been called Tokharian. This has been de- 
ciphered by Sieg and Siegling, 2 who find that it is Indo-European 
with the same definitely western character as Hrozny now claims 
for Hittite. It is of course very much later. Among the peculiar 
terminations are -assal for the comitative case, and -an* for the 
plural. One cannot help comparing 3 these with the forms in the 
Boghaz-keui treaty. We should then translate 'the gods with 
Mithra . . . the gods Nasatya'. One cannot feel sure of this 
explanation, especially as the terminations 4 do not seem to occur 
elsewhere in the few published texts. It is a curious coincidence 
that the word for 'twin' (isuicanidicdtar) is given in the vocabu- 
laries, which were drawn up apparently for religious purposes, 
and the Nasatya were twins. 

Granting then that Indo-Europeans were in the air, in contact 
directly or indirectly with the Hittites, it would not be sur- 
prising to find traces of their influence on the Hittite language, 
just as we find evident traces of Semitic influence. We can 

1 Contested by W. E. Clark, in Amer. Journ. Sem. Lit. 1917, p. 261. But the 
names cannot be seriously questioned. 

2 Sitzungsb. d. Prenss. Akad. 1908, p. 915. 

8 So L. von Schroder independently in Vienna Or. Jown. 1908, p. 348. 
4 Or -asil may be connected with the suffix in such names as Hattusil, 
Biyassili (MDOG 35, p. 39). 


y detect the Semitic because we know the contemporary forms. 
We do not know the contemporary forms of Indo-European or 
Aryan. But even if we admit the possibility of such influence, it 
still seems unlikely that the fond of the language is Indo- 
European. What then is its fundamental character ? A few 
indications only can be noted here : 

Names in Hittite are often compounded with Tarlc(u), e.g. 
Tarkunazi, Tarkulara, Tarkundaraba, Tarkutimme. and this 
element is no doubt rightly assumed to be either a god-name, or 
the native word for ' god '. It is found in similar combinations, 
in Cilician names, as Tapfcv/u/3ioj, Ta/>Kw5/3e'/)pa?, TapKoV6?]juo?. The 
language of Cilicia is quite lost, but next to it is Lycia, where we 
have a large number of native inscriptions. In these the element 
Trie (Trq, Trh) is common, in words which must be names, as 
T/3o/co/;8as', and in others which are probably not. On the stele 
of Xanthus such a name occurs also on the western face, which 
seems to be in a non-Lycian language, perhaps Carian. Again, 
Hittite names occur in the form Hattusil, Mursil. 1 In the newly 
found Lydian inscriptions, patronymics (and adjectives) are 
formed with -I (as in Etruscan). Other names, like Arandas, 
Arnuanta (which Hrozny would call participial) would seem to 
be related in some way to place-names in -avba, -avO-, common in 
Asia Minor. On the evidence of the names then we should 
expect the original basis of Hittite (i. e. the cuneiform language 
of the early period) to be connected with one or more of the 
languages of Asia Minor, making allowance for difference of 
date. But each language, must be interpreted from itself before 
we compare them. 

For cuneiform Hittite we have some very important help, and 
we only await the publication of more, and more varied, texts in 
order to make use of it. Mention was made above of vocabu- 
laries. These are on tablets found at Boghaz-keui, and are com- 
piled in the same manner as those we know in Babylonian. 
They were published in 1914 by Delitzsch. 2 They are in three 
columns, Sumerian, Semitic, Hittite, all in cuneiform, but very 
fragmentary, so that frequently one or more columns are missing 
and the equivalents lost. Still they supply some (and, in fact, 
the only) positive evidence as to the nature of the language. 
Hrozny considers that they support his view, and Holma 

1 Cf. Mupo-i'Xos, the ' Greek ' name of K.avav\r]s, which Herodotus (i. 7) explains 
as meaning ' son of Mvpcros '. 

2 In the AWiandlungen d. Preuss. Akademw. 


examines them with great ingenuity in the same sense. Regarded 
without prejudice, they seem to me to show a language as uii- 
Indo-European as it is un-Semitic. 

To sum up : The name Hittite was vaguely applied by 
the Assyrians to peoples of various states at various times. 
The main stock appears to consist of two strata, which may 
imply two distinct races. The linguistic affinities of the 
earlier stratum may perhaps be sought in western Asia 
Minor, those of the later stratum more probably in the 
east and south. 

The problem of the hieroglyphic inscriptions is quite different 
from that of the cuneiform texts. In the nezt lecture I propose 
to show what little can be done in the way of deciphering them. 


BEFORE dealing with the decipherment of the Hittite hiero- 
glyphic inscriptions (as distinguished from cuneiform Hittite), 
I must beg you not to expect too much. We can only begin 
with a few steps, tentatively feeling the way. At first we must 
guess, and the results can only be convincing when they cor- 
roborate one another. You will remember that in reading the 
cuneiform writing Grotefend made his first conjectures, most of 
them correct, in 180.2, but it was more than thirty years before 
any real advance was made on them, and many years more before 
the whole system was established. So perhaps I need not apolo- 
gize for having but few results to offer. I cannot translate, with 
certainty, a single inscription, nor even show conclusively the 
nature of the language, but so much has been wrested from the 
unknown during the last century, that we need not despair of 
solving this greatest of linguistic puzzles. It may justly be called 
so, for this reason. In every decipherment two things have to 
be considered, first, the value of the signs, and secondly, the 
nature of the language. Now in deciphering Egyptian, Cunei- 
form, Cjrpriote, the values of the signs were unknown, but as 
soon as some of them were correctly established, a language 
began to emerge, which in each case was found to be allied to 
some well-known language or group. In Lycian, Lydian, Etrus- 
can, the alphabet was to a great extent known, but the language 
has not yet been satisfactorily proved to belong to any group. 
In hieroglyphic Hittite, so far, we have two unknown quantities, 
a system of signs which we cannot read, and a language which 
we do not recognize. It is, therefore, a problem worth solving, 
but it requires some optimism. 

Attempts at decipherment, differing entirely in their results, 
have been made by many scholars by Conder, Peiser, Jensen, 
Campbell Thompson, and others. Some of these failed owing to 
the inaccuracy of early copies of the inscriptions (see Lecture I), 
others owing to a fundamental defect of method. The only 
real advance so far is due to Sayce, who has worked indefatigably 
at the baffling problem for forty years. It is to his sagacity, his 


wide knowledge and keen interest in every branch of archaeology 
that we owe the recovery l of the first small bilingual inscription. 

This is generally called the boss of Tarkondemos, but is pro- 
bably a seal, of silver, with a cuneiform legend round the edge, 
and some Hittite signs and a figure in the middle (fig. 25). The 
help it gives is very small, and one could almost imagine that 
Tarkondemos was laughing at us when he had it made, so disap- 
pointing and elusive is it. First the cuneiform is a difficulty. 
It has been read Tar-ku-u-tim-me &AB, MAT ERI-me-e, and 
translated ' T. king of the land of Erime ', with various specu- 
lations as to the unknown name Erime. 

As a matter of fact, I believe that the legend begins with Me. 
A workman so skilful as the maker of this seal would not have 

FIG. 25. 

miscalculated his space, nor, if he had, would he have separated 
the Me from the word to which it belonged, and attached it to 
the beginning of the legend. We must, therefore, read Me-e 
Tar-ku-u-tim-me. This is good Sumerian. Dr. Langdon tells 
me the style of the writing is that of the Kassite period, probably 
of the thirteenth century B. c., though there is always a possibility 
that it is archaistic. (Note the sign for Urn or dim, a crucial 
character, and cf. Amiaud No. 6 4 ). This is also the opinion of 
Hilprecht; 2 who dates it 1300-1200 B.C., i.e. late Kassite period, 
though I do not accept his reading. Dr. Langdon has also shown 3 
that Kassite seals were often inscribed in Sumerian. Thus we 
are confirmed in reading Me-e m Tar-ku-u-dim-me LUGAL KUR 

1 The account is well worth reading in Wright's Empire, ed. ii, p. 163. It 
is not a forgery. 

2 Assyriaca, p. 114. * In Revue d'Assyriologie, 1919, p. 69. 




ERI * I am T. king of the land of the city '. The reason why 
this reading has not been settled before is that the strange ex- 
pression ' king of the land of the city ' was unknown, but the 
texts found at Boghaz-keui have shown that this is a characteristic 
expression in Hittite. 

Now take the central legend, which is written twice, once on 
either side of the figure. The only order in which they can be 
read the same on both sides is 

ins ^^ || ^ 

and the values, if they are the same as in the cuneiform, would be 


FIG. 26. (From Hogarth, pi. A. 11 &.) 
= Tar~ku, Tve = dim 1 1 |K = me s^~ = 'king' AA = 'country* 

A = ' city '. This gives the values of two common ideograms 

' country ' and ' city ', but we do not know in the least how they 
were pronounced. A single one of them spelt out would be far 
more useful. The only probable phonetic values are || ||s = me 

and $fr = tim (dim). The other two signs /^ TarJcu and 

s^~ * king ' are uncommon. 

The only other bilingual, called the seal of Indilimma, gives 
no help, as its reading is uncertain and its interpretation 

In addition, Sayce has pointed out the sign for ' god ', which 


in sculptures is found over figures evidently representing gods, 
and the usual sign for king, S , which is often confused with that 

for city A. 
If we look carefully at some of the inscriptions (figs. 26, 27), several 

FIG. 27. (From Hogarth, pi. A. 6.) 

facts are evident at once. The figure is certainly the beginning, 
and the characters face the beginning. But in the next line they 
face the other way, and so on. The writing is, therefore, boustro- 

phedon. Also the lower lines in J and || and the side-stroke 

in \r slope in the direction of the writing. The sign ic seems 

to divide words, though it is irregularly used. The sign 3C is 

E 2 


perhaps used to mark an ideogram. Putting all this together, 
we have as preliminary results : 

= Tarku ? A = city. 

= ti(m) ? I = king. 


= m(e). (50) = god. 

king. | = word-divider. 

AA = Country. 3C = mark of ideogram ? 

It is not much to begin with. 

Now since we know only these values, and have no knowledge 
of the language of the inscriptions, our next step had better be 
to identify if possible, and from them to collect values of 
other signs. Of course it is difficult to say which group out of 
an unintelligible mass of signs, is a name. We must guess, as 
carefully as possible. As a precaution, which has been neglected 
by most scholars, it is very important to determine the grouping 
of the inscriptions, and, if possible, their dates. Roughly, the 
following seem, on internal evidence l to be the chief groups : 
(a) M15 (= Alb); (b) M9, A 2, A3, All; (c) Mil, A 6, A 7; 

(d) M16, Ala?; M 2-4, M6, M21, M22, M 25, M 52, A7? ; 

(e) M31,M32. 

As to the dates of the several groups, there is very little 
evidence. Yet this is a very important question if we are to 
know what names are possible in a given inscription, for obviously 
we shall not be likely to find the same persons or places prominent 
in 1400 as in 800 B.C. It has sometimes been assumed that the 
incised inscriptions are later than those carved in relief, but the 
contrary might equally well be maintained. As a matter of fact 
this difference of style is probably not a necessary criterion, and 
inscriptions maybe of the same date, though differing in this 
respect. From what was said above (p. 35) it would follow that 
the hieroglyphic inscriptions belong to the Southern or later 
period of Hittite history. On artistic grounds Garstang dates 
the carvings which he found at Sakche-geuzi about 900 to 
850 B. c., and considers the lions at Mar'ash to be of the same 
period. These again belong to the same group (d) as the Hamath 
inscriptions, and cannot be far removed in date from those of 

1 Especially the recurrence of the same combinations of signs, some of-' 
which are names. 



Carchemish. That is to say, they may all belong to about the 
time of Shalmaneser III, c. 850. 1 Of. also the figure of the god 
on M 2 (fig. 13) with that at Zenjirli (fig. 28). As mentioned above 
(p. 8) hieroglyphic texts are not found at Boghaz keui, and it may 

FIG. 28. 

reasonably be doubted whether this system of writing had been 
developed in the earlier period, beyond its first rudiments. It 
is curious that, if this is correct, the system was developed at 
about the same time as the so-called Phoenician alphabet. "Was 

1 But e.g. M 31, 32 are probably later, and M 7, 46 later still. 


it also alphabetic, or partly so? Was it one of several competing 
attempts to invent an alphabet, of which the * Phoenician ' 
survived on its merits? 

The next preliminary step is to separate groups of signs in the 
texts. This also has not been sufficiently done by previous in- 
vestigators. Yet it is manifest that no progress can be made if 
we divide the words wrongly. Some help is given by the word- 
divider 1C, but as this is not consistently used, and in some 
inscriptions is not used at all, we have to rely mainly on a 
laborious inspection of the texts. After all this has been done 
(and the results of it will appear incidentally as we proceed) we 
may try to identify names among the various groups of signs. 

Since we know that A means city, we shall be justified in 

conjecturing that a group of signs standing immediately before 
or after it may perhaps be a place-name. It must be a group 
which recurs, and which can be clearly detached. Or if we find 

the sign I { king ' in such a connexion we may presume that the 

group is either a place-name or a personal name. One of the 
most probable of such names is a group which occurs repeatedly 
thus : 

(A] la 1 , lib 1 , M9 1 - 2 - 4 , 

(A2 4 - 6 ). 
(A3 1 , 11 a 4 ). 

That is to say, ten times unmistakably, and four times probably. 
It is found, usually in the same position, in the Carchemish 
inscriptions, and, as far as I know, not elsewhere. Sayce has 
taken it to be the name Carchemish, and there can be no doubt 
that he is right. Then how are we to assign the values? In 
cuneiform documents the earliest form l of the name is Karkamisu 
(2000 B. c.), later Kargamis (-mis), and from the ninth century 
Gargamis (-). The Egyptian form is Krkms or Krkms. There 
is, therefore, not much variation in the form. 
As we do not yet know whether the Hittite system is syllabic 

1 See Hogarth, Carchemish, p. 17. 


or alphabetic, we had better for the present treat the signs as 
purely consonantal, and divide as follows: 

K R G(K) M S or 

KR G(K) M ? 

Since we already have reason to make 1 1 1 1 = m, the latter is more 
probable, and, moreover, J is such a very common sign that it 
can hardly be always s. Thus we have three more values : 

= g or Tc. 

= s. 

= Ter (i. e. Tear) or gar. 

The value bar is confirmed by another name. It occurs in only 
one other group : 

Q Z^ (Ml, A 11 a 36 ) 
17 (A lib 4 , A lie 3 ) 

(A lib 5 ). 

This I take to be the god-sign followed by Karduniash, the 
Kassite name for Babylon. I will speak of this later. Returning 
to Carchemish, some other details may be gathered. It is followed 
by the king-sign, with or without ^T^. Hence it appears that 
here (and I believe always) the king-sign (and similarly the 
god-sign) is not a determinative, but an ideogram, and the 
groups mean respectively ' of Carchemish, king', and 'god of 
Kardunias '. This is really a very important point, because if it 
is correct the word after (3^) is not necessarily the name of a god, 

but may be a place-name and so with I . Secondly, the sign j 

at the end of Carchemish is then a formative syllable, used (as 
other instances show) especially with names of countries or 
peoples, to mark the genitive or to form a gentilic adjective. 
This again is important because, in conjunction with the king- 
sign, it will enable us to pick out national names. Thirdly, the 
/T^ is, I think, in all three forms the phonetic complement of 
king, but in one form it may belong to Carchemish, so that 


we have either c of Carch. King ' or ' Carchemisian King ', meaning 
the same thing. The genitive or adjective stands before the 
governing noun. The language is therefore not Semitic, for in 
no form of Semitic, even when the cases existed, can you ever 
have that order. 

The i has been taken by Sayce to be s. If the three forms 
of Kardunias are to be pronounced the same, and are not different 

cases, this value is confirmed, for ^^ = ^Dj? = = FT . 

As to KarduniaS, if the identification is right, the values must 
be assigned thus : 


= d(u). 
Q = n. 

The second character, c ^- > , is found usually after the sign 

either as a separate group, preceded by Q^), and therefore as 
a god-name (or place-name), or as a group in combination with 
other characters following it (as in M 2 1 ), and therefore as the first 
element in a personal name compounded with the god-narne. This 
god is so frequently mentioned that he must be the chief god, or 
one of the chief gods, of the authors of the inscriptions. Sayce takes 
the name to be Sandes, the god of Cilicia. Others propose Tesub, 
the god of Mitanni. But though this occurs often enough in 
compound names, it is apparently never used as the first element. 

On M 2, where ^\Jlf c "Q- > occurs, there is a portrait of a god 

who can only be E/ammanu or Adad (Addu). The latter can 
form the first element in compound names. "We may therefore 
take '^Jlf to be the ideogram of Addu (since it occurs alone), 

and ^p as its phonetic complement. (It is not impossible, 

however, that we should read San-du, which also occurs as the 
first element in names. In cuneiform Hittite the god-name 
occurring most often is written ideographically, J1 I]M, which is 
read as Tesub, or Addu, or Ba'alu [cf. Gressmann in Beiheft 
ZATW, 33, p. 191], or il U-ub : which must be Tesub.) 


The third sign, (TV elsewhere seems to be some sort of 

k, and one naturally thinks of the Carduchi, living on the 
borders of Armenia, near the source of the Tigris. 1 But the fc 
or kh does not seem to occur in cuneiform, and must be due to 
the Greeks. 2 They occupied much the same country as the Kutu 
in cuneiform (not in TA), and that is the name which would 
probably have been used for them in Hittite. Moreover, ^^ 
would not be the natural termination for a people, though it 
would be for a place-name. Another difficulty is the lack of 
any vowel-sign for -ia-. But an early form of the name (e.g. in 

Fia. 29. (From Messerschniidt, pi. 21.) 

Sennacherib's copy of the seal of Tukulti-ninib) is m * tu Kardunisi. 8 
We might therefore transcribe the Hittite form as Kardunis. 

Now some more names. 

There are two inscriptions by the same person, on lions, found 
at Mar'ash, in cuneiform Markasu (fig. 29). In both of them occurs 
a group (found nowhere else) which I take to be the name of the 
city. In M52 1 it is preceded by the ideogram of city. The 
values will then be distributed as follows : 

1 Cf. Xen. Anal. iii. 5. 15, &c., and Strabo, xvi. 747. 750. 

2 But cf. Pliny, vi. 44 ' Carduchi quondam dicti nunc Cordueni '. 

3 Cf. also the form Gindunisa. This supports Hiising, who (in OLZ 1906, 
664) rejects the usual explanation 'City (&c.) of Dumas', a god otherwise 
unknown, and proposes 'Sea-land ', assuming an Elamite word, duni = sea. 


M52 1 kf | $ 4> f] ^ 
M21 2 5\ 

M U B K A S 

The final sign, which is apparently a grammatical suffix, will be 
considered later. 

"We thus gain a new sign for m, a sign for r, two signs for ~k 

(or similar guttural, see below), and we find that the vowel f| 

may be omitted. (I will discuss the two vowels later.) 

The new sign for m occurs in a group in the great Carchemish 
inscription (A 6 3 ) : 

which is particularly illuminating. The ideogram of king 
divides it into two groups, each ending with J, which was 

mentioned before as forming the gentilic adjective or genitive. 
We have therefore two national names here. With the values 

already ascertained the first is M s , cf. ^P in Gen. 10 23 , 

a ' son ' of Aram perhaps the same as the Masu, 1 who were 
allied with the Hittites against Egypt at the battle of Kadesh. 

The second group is M e^? k(d) T- This I take to be the 

~\m of Gen. 10 2 , a ' son ' of Japhet, in cuneiform Muski, in Greek 
MOO-XOL, allies of the Hittites in Mesopotamia in the later period. 
Then = ^ is provisionally another s, and the whole group is, 
' Of the Masians, king, of the Moschians, king'. A third king is 
mentioned, but I have not yet identified his people. 

To return to Mar'ash. The sign c^> or <\ must be some 

sort of guttural. On the ground of the cuneiform Markasu I 
have called it 7c, but it might be g, or some strange sound like 
the Arabic (or Sumerian g), since in the modern pronunciation 

it has been weakened to ^J&y*. But <\ (and therefore c^> ) is 
not the same as &, since it always points the other way, and 

1 Hardly Mysians. Even in cuneiform it is hard to identify some of the 
obscure tribes mentioned, and the difficulty is greater here, because we do not 
know where to look. 



the direction of the signs is carefully observed in the inscrip- 

The omission of the vowel is common. Another instance is 

X^ l I I' ' King of tlie Kuans' (Eastern Cilicia) in A 11 b 3 , 
elsewhere (A4 d ) spelt 

One more pair of names may be mentioned, because they occur 
so frequently, though the reading of them is uncertain. The 

group <3 x$ t <3 
c? ^. \ 

FIG. 30. (From Messerschmiclfc, pi. 6.) 

is found in A2 4 , A6 2 - 9 (and to be restored in A6 1 ), Alia 6 , 
A 11 c a , and to be restored in M 6 3 , though it is unrecognizable in 
the published copy (fig. 30). It is divided into two parts by the sign 

T, which shows that it contains the names of two peoples or 

countries. The first name occurs alone in A 2 2 , and perhaps in 
M2 2 : the second occurs alone in Alb 3 (=M15 3 ). That is to 
say, the names are mentioned in the Carchemish texts only 
(and perhaps in M 2, from Babylon), but not at Hamath, nor in 
the (apparently) later inscriptions. They seem to be a pair 
naturally connected together like Sumer and Accad, but also 


associated by similarity of sound. The combination may have 
continued in use long after it had ceased to have a political 
significance. We require then two place-names (differing only 
in that one has an additional syllable in the middle), which 
must at some time have had an importance in Hittite affairs. 
In Delitzsch's vocabularies halanta is ' head ', so that perhaps the 

head ( s ) may have the value ha. Elsewhere I have suspected 
the value n for > an( ^ * f r ^< Hence the two names may 

be Hana (in North Mesopotamia) and Hattin (from there to the 
Orontes). That is not proved, for the values are uncertain, but 
two small points of some importance are established by com- 
paring the ways in which they are written : 

(1) That ^p is a simplified form of /rf) ^* an( * that k otn mav 

occur close together in the same inscription (A6 9 - 2 , fig. 27), so 
that the linear forms do not prove an inscription to be later 
than one with the full forms. 

(2) That the system of writing employs ligatures, since we 

find (M 15 3 = A 1 b 3 , cf. A2 4 ) ft for <j ^. 
Another common ligature is with || ||, as in A6 2 
g C>J ft $ also written g II II t>J fl $- 

A6 4 - 8 P | |5 CD ( cf * M42j 62 > sllowin g h w the copies may 
mislead), written - 1111 ft in A 11 b 3 ' 5 , A lie 6 . 

Others are <j> = ^ ft (M 2 6 ), 

^ = fpi ^ (M 2*- 5 , cf. A 1 c , &c.), 
and perhaps (j? == ft A/ (M32 1 ), 

So also Campbell Thompson. 



So far I have dealt only with names, and the results, though 
few, are fairly certain. We will now go on to something more 

M. 2 (Babylon). 

<D. oe nob 



0000 x ^ 

n A 

M. 3 B (Hamath). 

0000 Oin&ftt 

M. 4 A and B (Hamath). 

Same beginning, then A 

n ../* 

^ V 

M. 6 (Hamath). 


M. 7 (Kivchoghlu) 



M 9 (Jerabis). 

FIG 31. 

conjectural. Let us take first the beginnings of the best pre- 
served inscriptions in Messerschmidt's Corpus and examine 
them in detail (figs. 31, 32.) These clearly represent a regular 
formula with variations. They begin generally with a head or 


figure with the hand pointing to the mouth, apparently to in- 
dicate the author of the inscription in the act of speaking. Then 

M. 21 (Marash). 

oflo (J(j 

0000 7 

n & 

M. 31 (Agrak) 

M 32 (Bulgarmaden) 
x U4T ^ ' A (/ | 

,# n vt '< v A 

M. 33(Bor). 

M. 51 (Boghcha-keui) 


M. 52 (Marash). 


FIG. 32. 
follows the group | || || ("j . The middle sign we already 

believe to be m. The other two are so common that it is generally 
agreed that they must be vowels. Now one of the Arzawa letters, 
and some of the documents at Boghaz-keui, though written in 


Hittite, begin with the Semitic word umma, ' thus (says) '. I 
suggest that this group, following the speaking figure, is a 

Semitic loan-word, umma, and that, therefore, | = u and H = a. 

These values seem to me to agree best with other indications. 

We might then expect a name to follow, and in fact the next 
group is in most cases marked by a slanting stroke over the first 
sign. I take this stroke to indicate a personal name. (So 
Campbell Thompson, independently.) After the name we ought 
to have titles king, prince, governor, &c. and here, as might 
be expected, there is considerable variety. The groups mostly 
end in ^^ = s. (Sayce thinks this is the mark of the nominative 
case. It may be so, or it may be demonstrative or pronominal 
in character, like the N of the emph. st. in Aramaic. We do not 
yet know whether the language had or had not cases.) 

After the titles there is generally the sign j^3 , with a 

phonetic complement a hand turned down in the act of 
giving or placing. This should be the verb, and since it follows 
umma, &c., it should be in the first person singular. Thus the 
normal formula would be something like : ' Thus (says) X, the 
king, I dedicated this (temple, &c.) '. Taking the first line on 
the list : umma is followed by a name (marked with the oblique 
stroke) which I read Kiakkis (for reasons which do not matter 
at present), then a title which occurs very commonly in various 
forms, nearly always in this position in the introductory 
formula, and rarely elsewhere. 

id. K(?) U N S 

Ilk L ^ < M2 ' 52 )* 


||k c h (Alia 1 ). 

(A lib 1 ). 
(M32,33, A6 1 ). 

(A2 1 ). 



The only constant parts are O (with or without DC) and the 
termination &. Sayce has conjectured that O is a picture of 

the priestly apron. It probably is used as the ideogram of priest. 
In an unpublished inscription at Carchemish it occurs with a 
name .under a figure evidently representing a priest. In A6 1 
and A lib 1 the group precedes the ideogram of god, hence clearly 
'priest of the god so-and-so '. The rest of the signs are then the 
phonetic complement, or (in the fullest form) perhaps the com- 
plete spelling of the word. 1 We get thus - /^ = s, as 

before, and C = t[_- Also fi may be omitted, as before. As to 

the value of C = t[_, I venture the following suggestion: the 


sign is the ideogram of god, and QB) ^ ^ (frequently) seems 

to be the plural of it [Qg) c J the genitive plural (A4d)]. If 
was pronounced ilu as a Semitic loan-word, 2 its plural would 
be Hani, and C would be n, and would be *. (We already 

have the vowels a and u.) In the inscription from Ordek-burnu, 3 
n^N is certainly used as a loan-word for god, and a word pa seems 
to mean priest. The word for priest here would end in -u-n-a-s 
(the -as being only the ending of the grammatical form), and we 
may perhaps conjecture that |||\ = & In a Greek inscription 
from Lydia 4 we have the word xavtiv for priestess, which may 
well be a Hittite (or native Lydian) loan-word. The Hittite 
word may then really read Jca-u-in-a-s, the u being a semi-vowel. 
Of course one naturally thinks of the Hebrew f!"D, but it is 
impossible at present to say on which side the borrowing is. 

1 Not, as suggested in JRAS., 1917, p. 568. two words. 

2 As in cuneiform Hittite. 

3 Near Zenjirli, in Aramaic characters but in a non-Semitic language, 
perhaps a Hittite dialect. See Lidzbarski, Ephemeris, iii, p. 192. 

4 Amer. Journ. of Archaeology, 1913, p. 362, c. 


The next group occurs several times in this position, i.e. as 
a title. In M 2V ^Jj f] ]} ZH\, and in M 52 1 J ^Jj [] ^ 

Hence we may conclude that Q> = @) = JJ. 

Elsewhere (M 2 1 5 - 6 ) it is preceded by , and must, therefore, 
be a place-name (or possibly a god-name). We, therefore, want 
a word which will fit both, as a title and as a place-name. After 
thinking over it for a long time, it struck me that the place 
must be Kadesh (the Hittite city on the Orontes), and the title 
kata-s, a Hittite term for some kind of officer, found in Egyptian. 
Cf. also Kadas-man in Kassite proper names, represented by 
tukulti. "We might translate it 'prince' or 'governor'. Then, 

fcor fc, and = t or d. 

Translate : ' Thus says Kiakkis, priest, governor ... I set up .,/ 

The same formula occurs in the other beginnings : 

M3, 4, 6. 'Thus says (title) (name) I set up . . .' Here || |[ 

alone is used instead of umma. Perhaps it is the pronoun /. 

After the verb is something like 'this memorial of the king of 

the city '. 

M 9. ' Thus says Katus, of Carchemish king, the great king.' 

The double king-sign with Qj occurs often at Carchemish. It is 
not ' king of kings ', which is not the Hittite title. 

M21. 'Thus says X ... governor, priest, (title), king of the 
land-of-the-city, of Y ... son, I set up this . . .' 

Here cr^J f| J] &, &c., might be ' priest of Kadesh ', but 

at the end of 1. 1 it occurs again without and with the 

addition of ^*f (and so in 1. 2), which seems more likely to be 
a defining termination ('the said governor') than to be another 
case of Kadesh. The title after ' priest ' is still obscure. 1 In 

M 4, 6, ' king of the city ' was | J\ , here ' city ' has the addition 

c -Jj fl and the defining &. This -da may, of course, be merely 

a phonetic complement, or a case-ending a locative literally 
' king in the city ', but since we know that the Hittite phrase 

1 The explanation proposed in JRAS., 1917, p. 565, is purely conjectural. 


was ' king of the land of the city ', it is not improbable that we 
have this here. 

The next group is marked with the top-stroke, indicating 

a proper name. If ^Tl is a ligature for ^"Tl J it ought to read 

K-wi-n-s-a-s, but I know of no such name. However, if it is 
a name, the next group should mean son. In 1. 3, in a similar 
combination, 'son' is expressed as an ideogram by a rabbit, so 
that < ^^ here is only an abridgement of it. The same ideo- 

gram occurs in M 46 after a name, where the differences in the 
phonetic complement are instructive : 

\ fl fl < M211 >- 

(M 21"). 


Hence it appears that the vowels may be omitted at will : that 
= t\ = Jc : fjj = h = [7 = s. I think /7j is a linear 

form of 5^ = s. The pronunciation of the ideogram is 


The other Mar'ash inscription, M 52, is closely connected with 
M21. It begins: 'Thus says X..., governor, priest, (title), 
king of the land of the city, of Markasu priest, I set up this . . .' 

The name, which is the same in both, is puzzling. The sign 
^\Jlf certainly represents a god-name. Sayce takes it to be 
Sandes, the god of Cilicia. It occurs at Hamath, Malatia, Agrak, 
Mar'ash, Bulgar-maden, but only exceptionally at Carchemish, 
therefore mostly round Cilicia (and at Hamath). It also occurs 
in M 2, an inscription which was found at Babylon, but clearly 
does not belong there (see below). Since Q = b (p) the name 
might be Sandapi (Harper, Ass. and Bab. Letters, 167 15 ), but that 
is doubtful, for names compounded with Sand- do not seem to 
occur commonly in Asia Minor (see Sundwall). M 2 (where ^\J[f 
is used for the god, as well as to form a personal name) bears 
a picture evidently representing Adad = E-ammanu ( n IM), the 
storm-god, and the sign might be taken as the lightning which 
he holds in his hand. He might indeed be Tesup, the specially 
Hittite (and Mitanni) god, but Tesup is apparently never the first 


element in a name. There is also Tarku (Tarhu), a Hittite l or 
Cilician god who frequently forms the first element in the names 
of Asia Minor, as may be seen from the lists collected by Sachau 
and Sundwall from native inscriptions and Greek sources, as well 
as from names occurring in cuneiform texts. But in M 34 and 51 

we have the group ~]j[f c ^p, and if c ^p is really du, as in 

Kardunias, this god-name must be either Addu, or Sandu. 
Provisionally I read it as the former, and *)j[f as the ideogram 
of Addu, cf. M 2 2 , &c., ']jjf /T^, with the defining termina- 
tion, n Addu-s. 

The next sign is found only in this connexion here and in 

M 21 and MSB. It is no doubt the same as ^\ in M 2, M 16. 

The third sign is b (p). The whole name might be Addu-raba 
(or rapa), for there is no reason why it should not be Semitic, 
but further proof is needed. 

After the name we have Jcadatcas det kauinas, then the same 

unknown title as in M 21, but with j" for /^p, then ' king of 

the land of the city ', then Mu rkas-s, the final s being apparently 
the genitive ending, then ' priest ' again. I at first took Mur7cas-s 
to be in apposition to ' city ' (' the city of Marash '), but the 
repetition of l priest ' makes it more probable that the combination 
is ' of M. priest ', and it may then be questioned whether Kadawas 
is not ' of Kadesh '. 

M 31 and 32 are specially interesting because of the recurrence 
of the names. M 31 must be 'Adduas (son) of Adduwin', the 
genitive alone expressing the idea of son, as in other languages. 

The next sign Jl I take to be the ideogram of Sun, a pillar of 

fire with rays. Its phonetic complement is || || ^T^ = ni-. In 
the Arzawa letter, i. 23, we have -mis as a suffixed pronoun = ' my '. 
Hence this group means 'my Sun', cf. Arzawa, i. 13, an UD-mi, 
the title which the Hittite king applied to himself, as it were 
' my majesty', and see Meissner in ZDMG 72, p. 35, il Samsi .... 
M32 has 'Adduwin, prince and priest, (son) of Adduas'. The 
reading of this inscription is not always certain. Hogarth differs 
from Messerschmidt, and Olmstead from both. The two signs 

1 Hommel says (Grundriss, p. 44) that the Kassite Turgu was = Bel-Raminanu. 

F 2 


at the beginning I do not yet understand. The value n for 

is only conjectured from comparison with the similar name in 

M31. The next group is the ideogram for 'prince' (or similar 

title) with phonetic complement -s. Possibly is a ligature 
for ^1 + P = ^>, cf. on A6 1 . Then follows \J with the word- 
divider over it. This can hardly be a prefix to O c ^^ , 
forming one word with it. I take it to be the conjunction ' and ', 
cf. below on M 2. Elsewhere \l seems to be = n, and in cunei- 

form Hittite nu seems to mean (at least sometimes) ' and '. The 
second name should be the genitive of the first name in M 31. 

As suggested above, ftf is probably a ligature for fl \l , and its 

value should then be an. It should correspond to /^p f + F7 \ 
the (genitive) termination of the second name in M31. Then 

After the verb ('I set up, dedicated') and 'this', the word 
uHkuss (if that is the right reading, cf. M 33 1 ) probably means 

' boundary stone ', since it is followed by A r-J'j /^ * the land 

of the city '. It has been suggested independently that the stone 
marks a boundary. This meaning is also suitable in M 33 1 and 
in M 34. The word does not occur at Carchemish, where, as all 
the known inscriptions are in the city itself, a boundary stone 
would not be found. 

M 33 begins with utikuss. Then a group which I took l to be 
a name, on account of the top-stroke. I now believe that Sayce 
must be right, and that it is a derivative form of Tuna or Tyana 
(= Bor) where the stone was found. The whole group will then 
read T-u-n-u-n-s, and the two words will mean 'boundary of 

Tyana '. This confirms the value N^) = n. The sign y^"Tl = t 
is then to be distinguished from ^"Tl = & Next follows ' king of 
the land-of-the-city, priest'. The next group is s M-k-a-x, where 

1 JRAS. 1917, p. 577. 


I take ?'f to be a linear form of M = r. If s = s the word will 

be sarkas, cf. sarTtu* ' chief" in Delitzsch's vocabularies, possibly 
derived from the Semitic sar. The same title occurs in M 51, and 

is probably the same as & H @ f]J in M 7 (a later inscrip- 
tion), where the values s and Jc are already known. The value 
EOT = S (or z) is confirmed by M 3 B 2 , 4 A 2 , 4 B 2 (TN c 3TT J 

' of Kinza '. 

The beginning may then be translated : ' Boundary of Tyana. 
The king of the land of the city, the high priest X (name broken), 
set up this monument (?)...' 

"We will now compare the beginnings of the new Carchemish 
inscriptions (fig. 33). These are almost certainly to be translated 
as follows : 

A 1 b (= M 15 B). 'Thus says my majesty X ... the great 

king. My majesty . . . ' JC || || ZT^ is no doubt to be read in 

both places, though they are defaced. For the expression see 
above (p. 67) on M31. 

The name is the same as in A 2, A 11 a, All &, but the values 
of the first two signs of it are unknown. 

The next group, since it occurs (with variations) elsewhere 
after the sign for { king ', can hardly be anything but ' great 

king'. Whether it is all one compound word, or I I Jj fi & is 

a separate word meaning ' great ', is not yet certain. 

A 2. ' Thus says Katus, priest, of Carchemish king, great king, 
(son) of X . . . , the great king : I set up this monument (or 

similar term) in honour of (?) the god Addu(s), ruler of Hana(?) 

The name occurs also in M 9, A3, All, therefore only at 
Carchemish. The second sign of it is the same as in Tyana 
(M 33), and is a less ornamental form of QHH]3 i n All. There 
was a Kate-i of Kue in the time of Shalmaneser III, cf. also 
KaSovtas, a king of the Scythians in Suidas, Katova in the new 
Lydian inscriptions, and Kori;?. 1 The second name is the same 
as in A 1 &, with the addition of ^^ . I take this to be a genitive 
expressing ' son of, as in Etruscan and often in Greek (see above 

1 A connexion with the Kassite name Gaddas (for Ganclas) is less probable. 


p. 67). If it were a nominative, we should have two great kings 
as joint donors of the monument, which is unlikely. The verb, 
too, is in the same form as when only one name is the subject. 
Katus was then son (and no doubt successor) of the author of 

no? -o 

"& OH////I 



FIG. 33. 

'This' is elsewhere ^7 ZT^ , so that ^^ is only a 
linear form of the calf's head value not ascertained. The next 
words | f \J <J> ) ^\ (omitted in fig. 33)., may be 

compared with M 33 2 o|o ^r^ ^r$ ^c 5 so 


X\ = N^ = n. The meaning 'in honour of is only a guess. 

Something of the kind seems necessary since a god's name follows. 
On Hana, see above, p. 60. On ; ruler ', see below, p. 78. 

A 3. ; This (?) is the Carchemisian, king of the-land-of-Addu, 
Katus the great king . . . ' 

This beginning differs in form from that of the other inscrip- 
tions. The first word (ici-d-b-u) seems to be connected with 
tci-s-b-u, 1 &c., in A 7. There is no word for 'set up '. Hence we 
should expect that originally the stone (a door jamb) had a portrait 
attached to it. 

The suffix in (^) *]f[f ^\ fl may be merely grammatical, but 

it may be the same as in A ^J\ ^ , which we took to mean c the 

land-of-the-city '. The construction is not quite clear, but at 
any rate the god *}j[f (Adclu?) is represented as the god of 

' Great king ' here differs from the usual form by the insertion 

of JJ ^ , which may be only the phonetic complement of ' king '. 

In that case [J || &i would seem to be a separate word, meaning 

' great '. 

A. 6. ' Thus says Anaas. priest of the god X ... my lord, lord 
of the land of B . . . , governour of . . . ' 

"With the name cf. the Cappadocian names Ania, Anima (Tall- 
quist), and "Awa, &c., Kretschmer, Einleititng, p. 344. In A76 it 

is spelt fl \L ( |~ ZT2^ . He was not a king, and his dress is not 

royal. Xote also (in Hogarth) the girdle, as still worn locally. 
The god's name is written with an ideogram value unknown. 

In the next group, I take II II (1 Z\7i -mas to be the suffixed 

pronoun ; my', like -mis in Arzawa i. Cf. also Kadasman in 
Kassite names, translated by tukulti ' my helper'. The whole 
group here is then -n--m-a-s, used like beli-ia in a similar 
position in Assyrian texts. : my lord '. 

The next group is probably the same word s-n-s, but written 

with the ligature A = jj ^ = Qj c . 

1 Elsewhere -bu is apparently used as a mere grammatical suffix. 


Then a place-name would naturally follow, but the reading 
of it is difficult, because the value of the second sign (a com- 
pound?) is unknown. The name is perhaps the same as 

Q /& cS fl <& ' &c '' in M 51 ' 62 ' 3 ' where tlie value of 
the third sign is unknown. The -da in both cases looks like the 
termination meaning 'land of, so that Q fT\ Jh might be 

either the name of a god or a city. The group is hardly PaJchudu, 
tLa name of the Aramaeans in Mesopotamia. 

Alia. 'Thus says Katus, priest, of Carchemish king, great 
king, (son) of X ... the great king, I set up this. H-s-t-u-t?-n- 
wi-s-a the great king had built the temple (?)...' (lacuna). 

The king is the same as in A 2, A 3, &c., and the titles are as 
usual. The father's name is here again in the genitive (to express 
'son of) but without & . 

The group after the verb would naturally be read u-m-wi-s, but 
in A 2 1 a similar group (if the animals' heads are the same in 
both) in the same position would read m-u-wi-s. 

The long group following is a name, since it is marked with 
the top-stroke, and is followed by 'great king'. Unfortunately 
the first and fifth signs are uncertain. Perhaps the end should 
be read -wi-a-s. 

The most important fact ascertained from this line concerns 
the verb. This occurs twice, the hand being upright the second 
time (merely to fit the space), but with the same meaning, 
cf. A 11 ft 1 . In the first occurrence it is in the 1st person, and has 
the phonetic complement C, as elsewhere. The second time it 
is in the 3rd person, without phonetic complement, and there- 
fore probably the bare stem. Thus the distinction confirms our 
analysis of the sentence. 

The next group occurs, with variations, several times. The 
meaning ' temple ' is a mere guess, based on the proximity of the 

The effaced signs following are no doubt to be restored from 

1. 2 as | Jrf \ (3^) Lri ^ u-m-n ILi-n-i (see p. 64). U-m-n 

must be a substantive (or preposition?), since in 1. 2 we have 
u-m-n-m-a-s ' my umn '. 

A 1 1 b. ' Thus says Katus, priest of the (land of the ?) gods my 
lords, of Carchemish king, great king, (son) of X ... the great 



king, I set up this. H-s-t-u-t-n-ici-s the great king had built the 
temple (?) . . . 

Cf. the beginning of A 11 a. 

IL-n-d-a may be only an oblique case of ildni, or it may mean 
' land of the gods '. 

The next group (as in A6 1 in the same connexion) must be 

'my lords', and is the (genitive?) plural termination as in 
gentilic names. The ideogram for ' lords ' (plural) is used in A 6 l 
as parallel to (71 C ^f or J^ /T^ (singular), and it is tempting 

r c 
to make q = J^ = s-n, but it may be a different word. If 

/I /I PK 

S = s it cannot of course be h in s / J, as proposed above. 

The long name has ^ for w in A 11 a. 


FIG. 34. (From Koldewey.) 

We will now take the inscription M 2 (fig. 34), and consider 
it in detail. I choose this because it is well preserved, mostly 
legible, and raises many interesting questions. It seems to be 
historical in character. It is fairly easy to divide into its com- 
ponent words, partly owing to the free use of the word- divider 


1C- Wo must not, however, assume (as is done by Koldewey in 
his editio princeps 1 ) that every word is so marked, and that, 
therefore, from e.g. the middle of 1. 1 to the beginning of 1. 2 is 
all one word or name. The sign is used irregularly, or perhaps 
we should rather regard it as some sort of mark of punctuation. 
If so, it might be dropped where words are used in close con- 
nexion, the connected words being regarded as forming one 
compound phrase. 

Two facts about the inscription must be noted at the outset : 

(1) It is on a block of dolerite, such as is not found in Babylonia. 
It was, therefore, brought there as a trophy. Koldewey 2 points 
out that the portrait of the god on one side of it is like that at 
Zenjirli, 3 and that it probably comes from the same district and 
time, i.e. from the land to the north of Syria in the tenth century 
B.C. At any rate it was not set up in Babylon by any Hittite 

(2) According to Koldewey, the beginning, i.e. most of 1. 1, 
has been re- carved on an erasure. That is to say, the man who 
is represented as speaking took an old inscription, had the 
original beginning chiselled away and his own name put in its 
place. Perhaps he wished to appropriate a distinguished record. 
It is hardly likely that the erasure is due to a mistake, for in 
that case they would have re-dressed the whole surface of the 
stone. This falsification increases the difficulty of studying 
the text. 

The name contains the same sign twice, and this has been 

shown to interchange with >\ . It is therefore a k. The 

second sign recurs in 1. 4, where I take it to be ia.* Hence we 
may read the name (with the top-stroke) as K-ia-Jc-s. The final 
s is, of course, merely the grammatical termination. A man 
named Kiakki was king of Tabal in Sargon's time, and was 
deposed by him and sent to Assyria in 718. This may be the 

1 Wiss. Veroff. d Deutschen Orient.-Ges. i (1900). 

2 Das wieder ersteliende Babylon (1913), p. 163. 

3 See Messerschmidt, Corpus, Tafel i, and above, figs. 13 and 28. 

4 We are not yet in a position to discuss Hittite palaeography, and it is wiser 
for the present not to speculate on the relation of this sign to others somewhat 
like it elsewhere. M2 is peculiar in its writing. Several common signs do- 
not occur in it at all, and several signs occur frequently which are otherwise 
not found, or found only rarely. It must therefore be interpreted largely from 
itself. The same is true of other texts and groups of texts. Some signs seem, 
to have had a local currency only. 


man in question, and the stone may have been sent to Babylon, 
^when he was deported to Assyria. (Sargon made himself 
Sakkanak of Babylon in 709.) But it is more probable that 
he was an earlier king of the same name, since we know that 
the names did recur, and the stone may have been taken to 
Babylon as one result of some earlier success against the Hittites. 
In either case, since the bulk of the inscription is earlier than 
Kiakkis, we must be prepared to find that it is to be dated long 
before 718 B.C. 

He does not call himself king, but Jcadas utrn Addubuns. The 
reading of this latter name is only conjectural, see above, p. 66. 
In the preceding word the second sign is uncertain. The 

word should be the same as | r D ^^ \ in 1. 4 > so tnat 
= r D = t, if the readings are both right. But in A2 1 

the calf s head corresponds to Jrf m in A 11 a 1 . Since Jcadas 

is some kind of officer (' deputy ', ' satrap ') utrn should be a 
higher title, ' overlord '. 

The second line begins the matter of the inscription with 

a new sentence. The sign J| is again used for ' sun ', a title 

applied to kings. Its termination f-^j fi marks an oblique case. 
In the next group the first sign seems to be merely the common 
, as in 1. 4. The word is probably a noun, since in 1. 4 it has 

the oblique case-ending. I suggest that i-ya-r is a form (plural ?) 
of the Kassite ias 'land', so that the two words are equivalent 
to sar matati, literally Samas matati. 

Then | | -- D \/ IHI ft % ought to be a verb 1 with pro- 
V \y 

nominal suffix, 'made me' the suffix being the same as that 
used with nouns. Less probably the word might be utrn-man 
(with the r accidentally omitted), : my overlord ', as in 11. 1,4. 

Cf. also All b 5 

1 Dare we compare this utn- with Etruscan utin~ce, meaning probably 
dedicated ', &c. ? Cf. Torp, Etruskische Beit rage, ii. p. 105. 


The group ends certainly with , and a succeeding group 


begins with [/ , a proper name with the top-stroke. Therefore 

\l stands alone between them, as also in 11. 3, 4, 5, 6. I suggest 

that, as in M 32 (see above, p. 68), and often, this is the word 
for ' and ', cf. nu in cuneiform Hittite. In the name following, 
the first sign is uncertain. If it is meant for ^""fl the name will 

be the same as xp t-J'\ < ^<\ i n Ml on a bowl, also found at 
Babylon, i.e. Kadan. After 'my Sun' follows the verb 

^r^j Lti , elsewhere meaning to ' set up ' (at/e'^/ce). Here it 
^ic Lz: 

is much the same, ZOrjKe. Note that the phonetic complement is 
n, as in the previous verb, ut-n-man. The subject of both is 
(3) ~}jlf i at the beginning of the line. 
The next six signs are unintelligible. 

Line 3. Jf J\ (T)> as ^ n 1- 4 ( see n te), cf. 1. 6. 

The next sign seems to be a bad form of the head-sign, and 
the group to be S jrt) J (see above, p. 59). Here it has the 
addition Q |, apparently some sort of case-ending. If so, 
J marks the plural, or noun of multitude, not necessarily 

After \\ i and ' i-n-wi r-n-n-wi must agree, since they have 

the same termination, which is plural. Inwi (or wi-ni) occurs 
elsewhere with ' gods ' and other words. It must, therefore, have 
some very common meaning, such as ' these ' (cf. Vannic ini) or 
'all'. The word r-n-n- should then mean ' countries ',' cities ', 
'allies', or something of the kind. [Cf. Arinna, and Ar(e)n(e)na 
in the Treaty, ' the city'? or Vannic ami 'fortress'.] Then 
follows a series of n-b-u-s with a place-name, three times. (In 
the first occurrence the Q has been omitted by an accident.) 
Cf. the Vannic nu-u-s ' king ', or here more generally ' ruler '. As 
the place-names are written by ideograms they can only be 
guessed at present. All three have the same phonetic comple- 

ment <$? or fc(j)? fl . which must, therefore, be some formative 


termination. This sign is no doubt meant for ^ffi? , which 
otherwise would not occur in this inscription. 

r J ~- 7 in 1. 6 has the phonetic complement ^<. = t ? 

j f (perhaps two heads) is not known. 

I I is no doubt for [ ^ Jfl (T) , as in M 4 A 2 and often, 
since the sign occurs only in this combination. As the middle 
sign is a ligature for Jl 1 1 1 1 , one is tempted to read the name as 

Halman = Aleppo, but JJM = I is not certain. Each name is 
followed by g ZT^ , which looks like an ideogram (a tower) for 
a fortified city (n-va, of. the Hittite gloss buru = ' fortress'). 

Line 4. ^ fl (V ^\ fl as in 1. 2, with a case-ending, ' in these 

Utrn must be the same word as in 1. 1. 

The termination in Addu-da is difficult, 'by (the grace of) 
Addu' ? (vvv 0eo>). 

The next group is marked as two words connected by \l = ' and '. 

As there is some reason to think that two values (I and n) are 

confused in \\. , it is easy to guess that b- ^\ n(u) ^y-'-a is the 

common pair 'Bel and Ea' (la-a). The sign (QE) then refers to 
all three. 

Jp || fT) here follows god-names (as K || ("j in 1. 6) and 

precedes a personal name. In 1. 3 it precedes a place-name. If 
it is a noun it should mean something like ' lords ' or ' protectors '. 
The first sign is apparently a conventionalized upright hand, not 

the same as M because it slopes the wrong way. It appears as / 
in A2 5 - 6 , where it corresponds to Q in A6 4 . The word then 
will be another form of 11 |j (0 in A 2 2 , cf. A 3 1 , and is perhaps 
the same (written phonetically) as T f) [7 , &c., a common word, 


in which the first sign is an ideogram (therefore = bia or pi a 1 ). 
The precise difference between the form here and that in 1. 6 is 
not certain. This may be plural and that in 1. 6 singular. I have 
noticed, however, that where two or more words (names) are 

closely connected, the last sometimes has the ending (T) , which 

would thus seem to be an enclitic conjunction in some cases, like 
Latin -que. It is perhaps hardly suitable here. 

The last group in this line was a great surprise to me when 
T first read it. It consists of an ideogram followed by six phonetic 
signs which, with the values already found, read b-u-r-i-a-s. 
There can be 110 doubt that we have here a name compounded 
with Burias, the name of the Kassite storm-god. One then 
naturally guesses the ideogram to be = Burna, and this seems in 
fact to be right. The hand with the dagger is used as a title, 
and Sayce long ago deduced the meaning ' powerful ', &c., for it. 2 
Now in the Kassite vocabulary 3 bur-ias is translated bel matdti 
'lord of lands', whence it has been concluded that in Kassite 

bur = l lord ' and ias = ' land(s) '. 4 Then W^~ mav ^ e ^ ur * n 

Hittite also. The ideogram here is not merely a more elaborate 
form of this, for in A I 6 , A 2 5 - 6 , and elsewhere, it is written quite 

clearly M^3 It is, therefore, a compound ideogram, and the 

upper part is not the handle of the dagger, as has been supposed, 

but the sign \J . Hence the whole should read bur-n or Burna, 

and, if bur means 'ruler', burna should mean ' ruled', of which 
kidin ('prote'ge') in the vocabulary is a fair if free translation. 
If this is the Kassite king, Burnaburias II, of Babylon, the 
inscription was written at any rate after 1350 B.C. Certainly 
the Kassites had influence in N. Syria then, of which this may 
be a record. It is not a late inscription, so far as one can judge 
palaeographically, for it does not use debased forms such as 

g"~$ ^v\ fTJ . It does use I C carefully, whereas M 46 (cer- 
tainly late) never has it. Some of its peculiarities make me 

1 Cf. the element often found in Asia Minor names (Sundwall, p. 178), so 
that e.g. TapKvppios would mean 'Tarku is lord'. The p is inserted only to 
emphasize the medial j3, like the v in TapKovfynos. 

2 Cf. too the early form for EN in Langdon, Sumerian Grammar (\ll] , p. 267. 
8 Pinches in JRAS. 1917, p. 106. 

4 Hiising has questioned this, but see below on 1. 6. 


wonder whether it can possibly be in the Kassite language. That 
question cannot be answered till we know more of Kassite and 
more of Hittite. If, as suggested above, the date is about 900, 
Kassite would be unlikely. 

Line 5. The beginning is unintelligible to me. It should be 
some title of Burnaburias or statement about him. 

Then follows ndbus as in 1. 3, but with fl in the first syllable. 

Then an interesting name, of which all the signs are now known, 
Burnadakas. I do not know the name elsewhere, but it is 
perfectly good Kassite. The vocabulary gives dakas = ~kakkabu 
' star ', and, as it was drawn up expressly to explain Kassite names, 
this word was no doubt used in the formation of them. It should 
mean then ' protege de Te'toile '. 

The next group, clearly a title, has two strange signs : c^> 
perhaps the same as in the name Murkasu in M 52 (above, p. 57), 

where it answers to ^\ A*. The other in Koldewey's copy 

has a form which does not occur in any other inscription. It is 
just possible that the word may be k-a-(ui)-n-as 'priest', but it 
is very uncertain. 

Then 1 1 = ' and '. This must be a separate particle, since we 

know the preceding and succeeding words. 

After nabus again is another name compounded with dakas, 

'star'. Unfortunately we do not know the value of lit 

a compound ideogram occurring frequently, and I do not like 
to hazard a guess about it. 

The last word, carried on into 1. 6, is wi-b-u-r. As the word 
following has the gentilic ending, this is probably the phonetic 

writing of i3, bur, with the prefix , of which the meaning is 

not clear. It is found elsewhere, and also with other prefixes, as 
LH_ Q l $> A6 9 , ^ Q |o (f^, A3 2 , and, without 

prefix, Q l $> A2 44 , Alia 5 , A lie 3 . 

Line 6 begins with a place-name, ending in J, but the ideogram 
is not explained. 


Then another name, probably the same as in 1. 3. Note, no 
'and'. Then \l = 'and', followed by a personal name (?), of 
which the first sign is unknown. The second sign is apparently 
17, but as that does not occur elsewhere in the inscription, it 

may be wrongly copied. If it is s, one naturally thinks of the 
Kassite sindi, 'gift', but that is always the first part in a com- 
pound, or some name like Hacra-dvSa, or Alaksandu. 

The next word is icibur again, the same as in 1. 5, so that 

= M = r. 

The next group occurs frequently. It is certainly a place- 
name, since it is usually connected with a word for ' ruler '. The 

essential part is If o (two ideograms), to which more or less 

phonetic complement is added. Here it has a full phonetic 
complement and also the termination Q | (if that is the right 
reading), which seemed before to form a genitive or derivative 
adjective. (But the reading is not certain, and the ending might 

be Q | (0 as in A2 4 .) The other occurrences are : 

Alia . II Pjfm where (o) 17 c r-^j is again ruler of it 
(and cf. M 25 5 ). 

A lie*, jj | 4* 

Cf. also M 19 c end. 

It is generally connected with and 

(Hana and Hattin ?). I take the group to be Hani-rabbat (or 
-galbat), the country of Mitanni or part of it. (Note that in A 3 3 

the first ideogram is written in two parts, of which \J may 


be n. though it is turned the wrong way.) In A2 4 it is spelt 
with the phonetic complement -a-b-d (or t) + bur. In A3 3 the 
second ideogram is spelt out -r-a-b + bu. In A6 9 the phonetic 
complement is only -t. In A 11 c 3 the second ideogram is spelt out 

in full -r-a-b-d (or t) + bur, so that <ty> = r and "yV = r. 

1C 1C 

The only other new word in this line is \J\ Q M /j| /^ . 

There are three word-dividers over it, of which the first, I think, 
really belongs to ll ' and ', the second is intended to mark the 

beginning of the word, and the third stands before the last two 
signs. As this group is connected by ' and ' with the god Addus 
(like Bel and Ea above), and followed by the word for ' lords ', it 
must be a god-name. The first sign is not found elsewhere, and 
may be wrongly copied. The rest are -b-r-ia-s, the ia being 

expressed by a ligature -j| = ^ |"| . In the Kassite vocabulary l 

Ubrias is the equivalent of the Assyrian n !M, variously read as 
Hadad, Ramman, Tesup, &c. There can be no doubt that this is 

the name meant here, and therefore \1\ is some sort of u. It 

is particularly interesting that the word-divider is placed unmis- 
takably before -ias, showing that this was regarded as a distinct 
word in the compound. The name has been taken as merely 
another way of writing Burias, but it is more probable that 
Ubr- is to be compared with Mitanni ivri (Messerschmidt ipri) 
' king ' and Vannic euri, and is therefore a synonym of bur. As 
Burias is rendered by bel matdti, so Ubrias may be rendered sar 
mated i. 

Line 7. II may be Hani(rabbat), but the remaining four signs 

are unintelligible. 

The whole inscription may then be translated somewhat as 
follows : 

(1) Thus says Kiakkis, priest, viceroy of king (?) Addubuna : 

(2) The god Addus as Sun (i. e. king) of the lands appointed 
me, and Gadan my Sun he set up ... 

(3) Protector of Hana and of these cities, governour of ... the 
fortress, governour of ... the fortress, gover- 

1 Pinches, op. cit., p. 102. 


(4) -nour of Aleppo (?) the fortress. Of these lands was Addu- 
bun(as) overlord, by (the grace of) the gods Addu, Bel, and Ea, 
protectors of Burnaburias. 

(5) ... the governour Burnadakas, priest (?), and the governour 
. . -dakas, priest and lord 

(6) Of . . -un (and) of . . -t, and . . -sanda, lord of Hanirabbat 
and Addubunas". May the gods Addus and Ubrias, protectors 

(7) Of Hana(?) . . . 

Much, of course, is uncertain in this first attempt at translation, 
but it may be hoped that the main outline is tolerably correct. 

FIG. 35. (From Hogarth, pi. A. 1 &.) 

We will now take another inscription (fig. 35) A 1 & (= M15B, 
a poor copy). This was found at Carchemish, where it still was in 
1914. Unfortunately the readings are often very uncertain, and it 
is probable that something is lost on the left-hand side, for in 1. 3 
we have the word-divider at the end, a position which it never 
occupies. It should stand before or over the word to which it 
refers. The edge of the stone, though damaged, seems not to 
have been broken off, to judge from a photograph in my posses- 
sion. Hence the inscription must have been continued on a 
contiguous block, and the lines are not consecutive on that side. 
We can, therefore, only treat the rest as a fragment. 


The beginning has been already discussed. 

Line 2. The first sign is lost. Sayce, who copied the text on 

the spot, read . If the lines were continuous, we should 
expect A >*J [] /T^ * of the land of the city'. 

The next group | ^ \j || || [] & (?) would seem to be the 
same word as | | - f) \J || || fj ^ in M2, corroborating the 

values c fl = t and ^ = d or t. The reading -wflS is not 

certain, and the distinction between -mas (if so) here, and -man 
in M 2, is not clear. 

The next group is 'and(?) kadas', but the \J is doubtful. 
Sayce's copy omits it. 

Then follows ^ f| $ ^ $ f| . It has already been suggested 
that nr is the ideogram for K JJ in M2 (pronounced &/?), 

and means { lord ' or something similar. If so, the combination 
should mean 'lord of the lords' or even 'king of the kings'. 
Then -ra looks like another genitive ending. Whether the -r 
in the first of the two forms is for -ra, and the meaning is 
'viceroy of the king of the kings of X', or whether the first 
word is nominative singular ' viceroy, king of the kings of X ', 
cannot be decided. Probably it is the former. 

Line 3. The first sign is the ligature for ^ an(i tne word 

is the common group provisionally read Hattin-ici ' of Hattin '. 
Then a-i-a-s-r-a. The word aias, &c., occurs frequently, e. g. 

(M 1 5 M 6 2 , M 11 3 3 M 19 A B 5 - 8 , M 52 5 , A 6 4 , 


G 2 

(Mil 5 .) 
(M 53.) 

(M 3, M 4.) 

(M7 2 5 M15A 3 , M19O 7 .) 
(A6 5 - 5 .) 

(M15B 34 = AU :;t , Al 5 .) 

The stem is therefore a-i-a, which may be compared with 
Vannic aia 'country', and perhaps is the same as Kassite ias 
with a prothetic helping-vowel a. At any rate it is clear from 
the above list that -ra is a formative suffix and not part of the 
stem. If it forms a genitive, as suggested above, the word might 
either be construed with the preceding Hattinwi l of Hattin the 
country ' or with the following word ' of the (i. e. this) country 
ruler '. The latter is the more probable, if we compare the similar 

phrase in Al 

of the(se) countries king (and) ruler, and these my (?) gods Bel 
and K-r-n-a-1', where aiasra must be connected with what 

The next group reads m-b-u-r, i. e. bur with the prefix m. In 
A 1 a 5 , just quoted, we have b-b-u-r, and in M 2 wi-b-u-r. The 
three forms thus seem to be variants . of the same word, so that to 
and m s as in Babylonian, are not distinguished, and 6 is a variety 
of the same sound. Hence the words should be pronounced 
wibur, mibur, bibur. 

Then follows ' and ' and the word-divider, proving that some 
words are lost. Perhaps the sentence continued as in A 1 a 5 . 

Line 4. The beginning is too much injured to be read. The 
last word is aiasra again. 

Translate somewhat as follows : 

(1) Thus says my majesty the great king: my majesty . . . 

(2) ... of my over-lord, and viceroy of the king of the kings 

(3) Of Hattin, of this land ruler and . . . 

(4) ... of the land. 


There are some indications that this inscription differs from 
M 2 in dialect, but only in dialect, since it has also much in 
common with M 2. The same difference may, therefore, be 
expected in other inscriptions, just as they also differ in the use 
of signs, so that progress in decipherment must necessarily be 

What, then, is the fundamental character of the language, or 
of that part of it which the texts may be found to have in 
common ? The question cannot be answered until all the material 
has been subjected to a careful analysis, which cannot be made 
here. In what has been said above, I have tried to keep an open 
mind and to observe the slightest indications, in the hope that 
they may point in some definite direction. In M 2 we found 
undoubted Kassite names and probably Kassite words. There 
are also suggestions of affinity with Vannic 1 and Mitanni. These 
three languages, however, are so little known that they can help 
little in the decipherment of Hittite. Yet it does seem that this 
group (perhaps including Elamite) is inter-related and has some 
connexion with Hittite. At any rate no other family of languages 
(certainly neither Semitic nor Indo-European) shows any evident 
connexion with it at all. If these inscriptions are of about the 
ninth century B.C. and onwards, we should expect the language 
to be related to Vannic more nearly than to Kassite, which 
belongs to an earlier period. Unfortunately, owing to the large 
use of ideograms in the Vannic inscriptions, and the similarity 
of their contents, the number of words of which we know the 
pronunciation is relatively small, and the same difficulty meets 
us in the Hittite texts. In Kassite the words known are fewer 
still and we have no consecutive texts. 

That cuneiform Hittite should be allied to the hieroglyphic > 
language is to be expected, but the relation is not yet proved. 
To decide the extent of it we must wait till more cuneiform 
Hittite is published. 

In the above attempt at decipherment I am painfully conscious 
of the poverty of the results. Many more suggestions might be 
made, but it is better not to pile up hypotheses until the founda- 
tions are assured. So far as the results rest on the identification 
of names they are probably sound, but when we venture farther 
imagination is liable to be too enticing. A single short bilingual 

1 Sayce considers that the Hittite system of writing was used in the region 
of Van before the introduction of cuneiform (JRAS. 1882, p. 418), and that 
Vannic is related to Georgian (ibid., p. 410). 


text would confirm or confute the whole system. It must be 
remembered, too, that we are at present wholly ignorant of the 
phonetic laws which governed Hittite writing. One instance is 
sufficiently instructive. It has been mentioned that the use of 

the sloping side-stroke is not clear. The group ||=jj> C Q~ :> M^ /T^ 
= Karduni(a)s, is at least probable. But in A 11 6 6 the name is 
written J"1 c ^p Q) || (in an oblique case). Elsewhere J>M was 
shown to be k (or ), and the variant thus corroborates the value 
of [L, . But the side-stroke cannot always mean r. "What then 

is the reason of the variant ? Was r liable to be dropped, or 
assimilated ? 

With regard to the principle of the hieroglyphic writing, there 
can be no doubt that it is partly ideographic and partly phonetic. 
It is not always possible to be sure to which class a particular 
sign belongs. Some common signs are unquestionably ideo- 
graphic, but speaking generally it may be assumed that the less 
common are ideograms and the more common are phonetic. 
The total number is not large nothing like that of the Assyrian 
syllabary for instance but the texts are relatively few, and 
more texts may provide more signs. Even from the existing 
material it is not possible to draw up a complete list of signs, 
because some of the inscriptions are much defaced, and of others 
the copies 1 are not to be trusted. Consequently we cannot 
always be sure whether similar forms are really identical, and 
whether exceptional forms have not been mis-read (as in M 6). 
When we know the language we shall be able to read much 
which is now illegible. 

As to the pronunciation of the ideograms we may never attain 
to certainty. In the case of the phonetic signs there is more 
ground for hopefulness. It is indeed still uncertain whether 
they are syllabic or purely alphabetic. In the course of studying 
them I have sometimes thought that there were indications of 
syllabic values, as, is, us, sa, si, su, but as the evidence was not 
convincing it seemed wiser to treat all phonetic signs provisionally 
as alphabetic, and to assume that vowels were often omitted in 

1 The best are those by Lawrence and Woolley in Hogarth's Carchemish ; 
the worst are those in Olmstead, Charles, and Wrench, Travels and Studies, 
vol. i. Those of Messerschmidt are mostly good. 


writing, as for instance in Phoenician and in Etruscan. If this 
should turn out to be really the system, it opens up some very 
interesting possibilities. 

Sayce 1 has noted a tendency in the Vannic inscriptions to 
change the cuneiform syllabary into an alphabet, as later the 
Persians actually did. Now, if our Hittite inscriptions began to 
be written about 900 B.C., and the Yannic soon after, they are 
not far removed from the earliest specimens of * Phoenician ' 
writing. (The Mesha inscription was written about 850.) It 
would seem then that all three developments were due to an 
alphabetic idea which was in the air about that time. The 
Hittites developed a partly alphabetic form of writing from their 
existing system of quasi-heraldic signs, the people of Van tried 
to do the same with the Assyrian cuneiform, and both failed ,- 
the originators of the 'Phoenician' alphabet developed their 
system from some unknown set of signs, and gained universal 
acceptance. It was as perfectly simple as it was simply imperfect. 

Attempts have sometimes been made to show a connexion 
between Hittite and Cypriote or Cretan signs without much 
success. The Cypriote signs are evidently much conventionalized 
(as are many of the Hittite), and as we do not know their original 
forms 2 it is useless to attempt a comparison. Of the Cretan 
signs no values are yet ascertained, so that comparisons are 
worthless. It is indeed probable that the Cretan and Cypriote 
systems will turn out to have something in common. Cretan, 
however, uses ideograms, while Cypriote is purely syllabic a 
much more artificial system. Whether either will prove to 
be connected with Hittite we cannot say. In conclusion, as a 
summary of what has been suggested above, I add a list of 
ideograms and of phonetic signs, with their values where these 
have been made at all probable. 

1 JRAS. 1832, p. 417. 

2 Even the early terra-cotta balls in A. S. Murray, Excavations in Cyprus 
(1900), p. 27, do not help. 



Phonetic signs, with probable values. 



^L = - 

= i. 

= n (or 

G = &,!>. 

v = n. 

= n (or I). 

[0 = r. 

= *,fl- (or ?) [con- 
K j fused with \l] . 

= ~k, k [confused with (T)] . 




Uncertain values. 


= r. 

ft = 



1C (word-divider). 

(A2-, ending in Q ?). 

I = king. 


&B = great king. 

= city. 

Ideograms, with probable values. 

* - ^i. 

= chief. 

= bur. 
= burna. 

fl = lord. 

= great (or plural sign ?). 

= fortress. 


= Addu. 

= Ea, 

= priest. 

= sun. 

= ruler (read 


J/ = Hani (or town?). 
O r 


= son. 

le <c - = dedicate, &c. 

= country. 

Uncertain values. 

r l ~^ (name of a people) 
$ (ends in 

\V = ,7am. 


= Tarku. 

(a god-name) (cf. A , &c.). 

> J 





a-sign, 63. 

Adaclniravi IV. 16. 

Addu or Adad, 27 ; bis ideogram, 56, 
66, 67, 71. 

Adduas pr. 11., 67. 

Addubunas pr. n., 75. 

Adduwin pr. n., 67. 

adjectival form. 56, 58, 80. 

Aegean trade, 22, 37, 40 ; names, 35. 

Agum II, 9. 

Akab, 16. 

Aia, 24 n. 3. 

aia in Vannic, 84. 

aias, 83. 

Alaksandu, 80. 

Aleppo, 11, 13, 16, 20, 23 n. 2, 77 : in- 
scription, 3 n. 2. 

alphabet, beginnings of, 87. 

Alube, 23 n. 2. 

Amenophis III, 12, 22. 

Amenophis IV, 11, 12. 

Amorites in Palestine, 15. 

Anaas pr. n., 71. 

'and ' in hieroglyphics. 68, 76, 77, 79, 
80, 81, 84. 

Anderson (J. G C.), 5. 

Aramaeans. 14. 

Arandas, 12 ; form, 46. 

Arinna, cf. Vannic ami, 76. 

Armenian and Hittite, 24. 

Amuanta, 14 ; form, 46. 

Aryans, 45 ; names and gods in 
Mitanni, 45. 

Arzawa. 12 n.4, 42; language, 42. 

Ashkenaz and "A.&VOS, 24 n. 3. 

Assurnazirpal, 16. 

Assyria, Avars with Hittites, 16; crushed 
Hittites, 17. 

Attys, 27. 

Azir, 12. 

6-sign, 66. 

Babylon attacked, 9 ; again, 15 ; in- 
scription, 6. 74 ; language used by 
Hittites, 40. 

Bambyce, 28. 

Bel in hieroglyphics, 77, 84. 

Belck, 41. 

bia or pia = ' lord ', 78 n. 1, 83. 

bibur, 84. 

Bilingual inscr., 49, 50. 

Bir-idri, 16. 

Boghaz-keui, 6, 7, 8 n. 1, 11, 24; ar- 
chives, 11 ; cease, 14, 22 ; capital, 
19 : no hieroglyphic inscriptions 
there. 37, 53. 

Bork, 41. 

Bugge, 42. 

Bulgarmaden, 20. 

-bu suffix, 71 n. 1, 76, 80, 81. 

bur, 78, 81. 

Burckhardt, 1. 

Burias, 78, 81. 

burna, 78. 

Burnaburias, 78. 

Burnadakas, 79. 

Burton, 2. 

bunt = ' fortress', 77. 

Campbell Thompson, 48, 60 n. 1, 63. 
Cappadocia, Babylonian influence in. 

21, 22n. 1,40 ; Hittite head-quarters, 

22, 24; aboiigines of, 35; tablets, 

Carchemish, excavations, 5, 6; taken 
by Egypt, 10; in the Hittite con- 
federation, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17; chief 
centre, 15, 20; taken by Assyria, 
16 ; province of Assyria, 18, 19 ; 
Hittite capital, 19 ; mina of, 19 ; 
cuneiform late there, 38 n. 2 ; name 
in hieroglyphics, 54. 

Carduchi, 57. 

Caria, 33 ; language, 46. 

cases in hieroglyphics ?, 63. 

Caspian sea, 24 n. 3. 

Caucasian origin of Hittites ?, 24, 38. 

Chantre, 42. 

Cilicia, 31, 33; names, 46. 

'aVy'-sign, 50. 52. 

Clermont-Ganneau, 4 n.2. 

Colchis, 24 n. 3. 

Cornier, 48. 

' country \ 84. 

' country '-sign, 50, 52 

Cretan signs, 87. 

Crete, 23, 36. 

Cuneiform Hittite, 6, 37, 38. 

Cybele, 27. 

Cypriote signs, 87. 

rf-sign, 65, 83. 

da, case-ending, 65. 

-rfa = ' land of ?, 72. 



Damascus, 16, 17. 
Dardani, 13, 22, 23. 
decipherment of hieroglyphics, 48. 
' dedicate ' ideogram, 63, 76. 
Delitzsch, 46. 

demonstrative ? ending, 63. 
dialect, differences of, 85. 
discovery of Hittite inscriptions, 1. 
Doghanlu-keressi, 38. 
Drake (Tyrwhitt), copies of inscrip- 
tions, 2. 

d(u}-sign, 56, 66. 
Dudhalia, 14. 

Ea in hieroglyphics, 77. 

Egyptian rule in Asia, 10, 12; war 
with Hittites, 13; portraits of Hit- 
tites, 30, 31, 32. 

Elamite culture, 24; language, 41. 

Eni-Tesup, 14. 

Enilu, 17. 

Ephesus, mother goddess at, 28. 

Etruscan type, 30 n. 1, 39 n. 4 ; lan- 
guage, 46, 69, 75 n. 1, 87. 

euri in Vannic, 81. 

Eyuk, 5, 6, 38, 39 n. 2. 

Fick, 34. 

(/-signs, 55, 58. 

Gamgum or Gurgum, 17, 18, 20, 37. 

<7r- or Awsign, 55. 

Garstang, 52. 

Gasga, 12 n. 4. 

genitive form. 56, 58, 73, 80, 84; = 'son 

of ',67, 69, 72. 
gentilic ending, 79. 
Georgian and Mitanni, 41. 
'^od'-sign, 50, 52, 64. 
'great' ideogram, 65, 71, 72. 
Gyges, 21. 

Halizones, 23 n. 2. 

Halman in hierogl. ?, 77. 

fiamath, 11, 16, 17, 20 ; inscriptions, 1. 

Hammurapi, 8, 21. 

fiana, 10 ; in hieroglyphics ?, 60, 80. 

flani-rabbat, 10, 14 ; in hieroglyphics, 

" 80, 81. 

Harri = Arya ?, 45. 
Hatti = Hittites, 5, 7. 
Hatti-land = Syria, 14, 15, 17. 
fiattin, 16, 20; in hieroglyphics?, 60, 

" 80, 83, 84. 

Hattusil 1. 12 ; form of the name, 46. 
Hattusil II, 7, 13, 20. 
Bead lam, 4. 
Heath, 4 n. 2. 
Hebron, 8, 20. 
Heth = Hittites, 5. 

hieroglyphic Hittite, 37. 

hieroglyphs, syllabic or alphabetic ?, 

Hilprecht, 49. 

Hit, oil-wells, 19. 

Hittites in Genesis, 8 ; residuum in 
Palestine, 15; unknown 'to Greeks, 
21 ; traders, 22 ; race, 23 ; Northern 
period, 22 ; Southern period, 35, 41 ; 
grammar, 43 -f ; Indo-European in- 
fluence on, 45 ; vocabularies, 46 ; 
language not Semitic, 56 ; hiero- 
glyphs, plural, 76 ; verb, 72, 75 ; con- 
junction, 78 ; partly ideographic, 86. 

Hogarth, 4, 5. 

Holma, 42, 

Hrozny's theory of Hittite, 42 + ; op- 
posed, 42 n. 7. 

H-$-t-u-t-n-wi-$-a, 72, 73. 

Humann and Puchstein, 5. 

Hiising, 41, 57 n. 3. 

-sign, 64. 

a-sign, 74; ligature, 81. 

rf, 75, 78, 81, 84. 

ideograms (and determinatives), 55, 

66, 86 ; compound, 78, 79 ; liet of, 

Hani loan-word in hieroglyphics, 64, 


Ilubidi, 17. 
Indilimma seal, 50. 
Indra, 45. 
inscriptions, hieroglyphic, dates, 52; 

incised and in relief, 52; of the 

Southern period, 52 ; not at Boghaz- 

keui, 53. 

inwi t cf. Vannic ini, 76. 
Ionia, 21, 23, 39. 
Irhuleni, 16. 
Israelites, 15, 16, 23. 
ivri in Mitanni, 81. 
Ivriz, 6, 31. 
iyar, 75. 

Jensen, 24, 48. 

Jerabis, 4, 19 ; = Carcheniish, 19 n. 1. 

Johnson and Jessup, 1. 

fc-signs, 58, 65, 66, 68, 74, 79, 86. 

Kadan or Gadan, 76. 

kadas or katas a title, 65, 75, 83. 

Kadasman, 65, 71. 

Kadesh, 20; taken by Egypt, 10; 

taken by Hittites, 11 ; battle of, 13 ; 

in hieroglyphics, 65, 67. 
Kalparuda, 16. 
kar- or ^ar-sign, 55, 56. 
Karabel, 24, 38. 
Kardunias in hieroglyphics, 55, 56, 57, 




Karkar, 16. 

Kassites, 9 ; influence in N. Syria, 21, 
41, 78 ; dynasty ends, 15 ; language, 
9 n.4, 41, 79, 85; no texts, 85; 
vocabulary, 41 ; names, 41, 85. 

Katei, 69. 

Katus. 65, 69 ; 71. 72. 

Kciveu' in Lydian. 64. 

kaidnas, 64. 79. 

Kedabeg. 33 n. 1. 

Kr,Teioi. 23 n. 2, 33. 

Khalybes, 23 n. 2. 

Khatti = Hittites, 5. 

Kheta = Hittites, 5, 7. 

Khetasira = Hattusil, 7. 

Kiakkis in hieroglyphics, 63, 74. 

'kinrj '-sign. 51. 52,65. 

'king of kings'. 83. 

Kinza in hieroglyphics, 69. 

Knudtzon. 42. 

Kretschmer, 34. 

Kue, 17, 20. 37 : in hieroglyphics, 59. 

Kumniuh, 16. 17, 20. 

Kundaspi, 16. 

Kunulua. 16. 

Kurhi. 16. 

Ku*fa5pi. 17. 

Kussar. 12. 

Kutu. 57. 

KwinsaS ?, 66. 

/-signs ?. 77. 

Labarna. 16. 

' land of the city ', 50, 66, 67. 

Langdon. 49. 

La Roque, 1. 

Lawrence. 5. 

Le Coq. 45. 

ligatures. 60. 66, 68, 71. 77, 81, 83; 

IM*, 90. 
linear signs. 60. 
locative ending ?. 65. 
'lord', 71, 73,77. 
Lucian's account of Bambyce, 28 
Lulli, 16. 

Lycia, 33 ; language, 39. 
Lydia, 39. 40 ; patronymics, 46 ; lan- 
guage, 39. 

w-signs, 50, 52. 58. 62, 75. 

Malatia or Milid, 6, 11, 16, 17, 18, 20. 

-man ' my ', 83. 

Mar'ash, 6, 11, 57 ; in hieroglyphics, 

57. 67 ; inscriptions, 66. 
Ma< in hieroglyphics, 58. 
-mas or -mis = ' my ', 67, 71, 83. 
Masu = Mash, 13, 20. 
Mattiuaza, 12. 
Maurasira = Mursil, 12. 
Mesopotamian trade, 36. 
Meyer (Ed.), 42. 

mibur, 84. 

Mita, 17; = Mirlas. 33. 

Mitaniii, 9 n. 2, 10, 14, 20, 37, 40 ; pro- 
tected by Hittites, 12 ; names, 40 ; 
language, 41 ; related to Hittite ?, 

Mithra, 45. 
Monograms, 38. 
Mursil, 12 ; form, 46. 
Mulki = Moschi, 15, 17, 20, 37; lan- 
guage, 39 ; in hieroglyphics, 58. 
Mutallu (or -lis) of Boghaz-keui, 12. 
Mutallu of Gurgum, 18. 
miiwis, 72. 
Mysians, 13 n.2, 58 n. 1. 

-signs, 56, 64, 68, 71, 77. 

-n termination of verb. 72, 76. 

names in Asia Minor, 35, 67 ; in -anda, 
&c., 46 ; in Mitanni, 41 ; in hiero- 
glyphics, 52-60 ; marked by a top- 
_stroke, 63. 

Nasatya, 45. 

n-b-u-s, 79 ; cf. Vannic nu-u-s, 76. 

Nebuchadrezzar I, 15. 

nu = 'and', 68, 76, 77. 

representing p in Greek, 43 n. 3. 
Olmstead, 5. 

Oi'dek-burnu inscription, 64 and n. 3. 

p sign, 66. 

palaeography of inscriptions, 74 n. 4 ; 

debased forms of signs, 78. 
Panammu. 17. 
Peiser, 48. 
Pelasgi, 23. 
Persian Empire, 21 
Philistines, 23. 
Phoenician alphabet, 53. 
phonetic laws in Hittite, 86 ; signs, 

syllabic or alphabetic ?, 86 ; list, 88. 
Phrygia, 27 ; language, 39. 
pia or fe/a, 78. 
Pinches. 44. 
Pisiris, 17. 
Pitru, 16. 

place-names, 79, 80. 
portraits, Hittite, 30, 31, 32. 

1 priest ', ideogram, 64 ; = kauinas, 64. 
'prince', 68. 

Pteria, 6. 

r-signs, 58, 80, 81. 
r assimilated ?, 86. 
-ra suffix, 83, 84. 
Rameses II, 7, 13, 22, 32. 
Barneses III, 14. 
Rammanu, 27, 56, 66. 
Ramsay, 5. 
Rezin, 17. 


Rhodes, 40. 
rnnwi, 76. 
Rostovtseff, 24. 
Rylands, 1 n. 1. 

& signs, 55, 56, 58, 64, 66, 69. 73, 77, 


-^-termination, 65, 74. 
Sakche-geuzi, 52. 
Sara'al, 17. 
Samsuditana, 9. 
Sandes, 56, 66. 
Sangara, 16. 
Sarduris III, 17. 
Sargon of Accad, 20. 
Sargon II, 17, 18, 75. 
sarkas, 69. 
Sarpedon, 40. 
Sayce, 4 n. 2, 5, 23 n. 2, 24, 28, 41, 48, 

50, 54, 56, 63, 64, 66, 68, 78, 83, 

85 n. 1. 

Semitic words in Hittite, 40. 
Seti I, 12. 
Shalmaneser T, 14. 
Shalmaneser III, 16. 
Sieg and Siegling, 45. 
signs used locally, 74 n. 4, 85 ; quasi 

heraldic, 87. 

Silver mines at Bulgarmaden, 20. 
sindi, 80. 

Sipylos, 24, 27, 38. 
Smith (George), 4. 
s-n-s-mas = ; my lord ', 71, 73. 

* son ',66. 

Subbiluliuma, 12, 22. 
Sulumal, 17. 

' sun ', 67 ; used of kings, 67, 69, 75. 

Sundwall, 34. 

Syria freed from Hittites, 15. 

*-signs, 65, 68, 75, 77, 80, 83. 

Tabal, 17, 20, 37. 

Tarhu or Tarku, ideogram, 50, 52, 67. 

Tarhulara, 17. 

Tarhunazi, 18. 

Tarkondemos seal, 49, 78 n. 1. 

TapxiVfroy, 78 n. 1. 

Tarquinius and Tarhu, 30 n. 1. 
Tell-el-Amarna letters, 8, 10, 42. 
' temple"?, ideogram, 72. 
Tesub, 56, 66. 
Texier, 6. 

* this ', 70. 

Thothmes I, 10. 

Thothmes III, 10. 

Tibia, 12 n. 4. 

Tiglath-Pileser I. 14. 

Tiglath-Pileser IV, 17. 

Tokharian, 45. 

Torp, 42. 

Treaty, Egypt and Hittite, 14 ; Mitanni 

and Hittite, 44. 
Trk, c., in Lycian, 46. 
Trojan war, 23. 
Tukulti-ninib, 14 
Turfan, 45. 
Turgu, 67 n. 1. 
Tusratta, 12. 
Tyana, 6, 17: in hieroglyphics, 68. 

-signs, 63, 81. 

Uassurme, 17. 

uMcuSS, 68. 

Ubrias, 81. 

nmma, loan-word in hieroglyphics, 63. 

umn, 72. 

Urikki, 17. 

utn, 75 n. 1. 

utrn, 75, 77. 

Van, kingdom of, 17; language, 41; 

related to Hittite ?, 85 ; to Georgian, 

85 n. 1 ; ideograms, 85. 
Varuna, 45. 
Vocabularies, Hittite, 46 ; Kassite, 41, 

78, 79, 81. 
Vowels omitted in hieroglyphics, 58, 

59, 64, 66 

Ward (Hayes), 4 n. 2. 

wilur, 79, 80, 84. 

widbu, 71. 

Winckler, 6, 44. 

trim, 76. 

u-isbu, 71. 

Woolley, 5. 

word-divider, 52, 73, 78, 81, 82, 84. 

Wright, 4, 5. 

Xanthus-stele, 46. 

Yaubidi, 17. 
Yuzgat tablet, 42. 

jr-sign, 69. 
Zihria, 12 n. 4. 


Genesis 10 15 , p. 8. Genesis 23 19 , p. 9 n. 1. 
10 23 , p. 13 n. 2. 37 28 > 36 , p. 9 n.2. 

14, p. 21. Judges 3 5 - 6 , p. 15. 

14 1 , p. 8. 1 Kings 10 28 , p. 20 n. 1. 

14 13 , p. 9 n. 1. 2 Kings 12 5 , p. 9 n. 2. 

23 p. 8, p. 12 n. 3. -RWHal ifi3.45 1V 15. 
23 16 , p 9. 

Ezekiel 16 3 - 45 , p. 15. 


YC 00091