Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:41:27.813Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Historical Problems of the Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

J. D. Hawkins
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Two Neo-Hittite rulers occupied positions of authority, the proper understanding of which demands a detailed examination of the textual passages describing this authority. The rulers, Azatiwatas of Karatepe and Yariris of Carchemish, seem moreover to have enjoyed curiously analogous positions. Neither gives in his inscriptions any very exact information on his rank, nor do they record their fathers' names, yet both seem to have exercised a high degree of authority over their cities, Adana and Carchemish respectively, and both refer to their “lords” and their lords' families in ways which have in the past been somewhat misunderstood.

Ever since the discovery of Karatepe in 1946, debate has continued concerning the dating of the monument and its inscriptions, and the position of Azatiwatas is to some extent bound up in this question. Azatiwatas does not directly claim any specific royal title but only the vague religious honorifics “the Sun-blessed(?) man, Tarhunzas's servant” (§ I), adding that he was promoted (“made great”) by Awarikus the king of Adana (§ II) and that Tarhunzas has made him mother and father to Adana (§ III). Although much of the inscription concerns the benefits which he conferred upon Adana (especially §§ IV–VI, XXIV, XXXI–XXXII, XXXVII), he does not claim to have sat on the throne himself — on the contrary, he explicitly, if rather imprecisely, states that he established his “lord's family” on it (§§ XIV–XVI, with the notes on these passages on p. 107). The lord in question must presumably be understood to be Awarikus, and the establishment of his family in Adana must refer to a time after his death or disappearance.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 29 , December 1979 , pp. 153 - 167
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Irene Winter's contribution to this volume for a bibliography of previous views and a new suggestion for reconciling the widely differing estimates; also RlA V, s.v. Karatepe.

2 For a correct commentary on the question, and a summary of previous views, see Weippert, , ZDMG, Suppl. I/1 (1969), 193 note 8Google Scholar. For the spelling of the name Azatiwatas, see below, footnote 19. For the passages of KARATEPE cited below, reference should be made to An. St. XXVIII (1978), 103–119Google Scholar, and the discussions and translation there. The question is also reviewed in detail by Steinherr, , WdO VI/2 (1971), 171–182Google Scholar. Unfortunately I cannot agree with any of his interpretations.

3 Tribute list, 738 B.C. (Rost, Tiglat-pileser, Annals l. 151 and Plate XV, = ANET, 283a; Levine, , Two Neo-Assyrian Stelae from Iran (ROM Occasional Paper 23, 1972), 18 l. 8Google Scholar; cf. Weippert, , ZDPV 89 (1973), 26–39Google Scholar; Cogan, , JCS 25 (1973), 96–99Google Scholar; Tribute list, 732 B.C. (Nimrud tablet, K.3751, rev. l.7′ = ARAB I, § 801; cf. Weippert, loc. cit., 52 f.).

4 Postgate, , Iraq 35 (1973), 22 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 28.

5 Kate, attested for the years 858–833, replaced by Kirri in 833 (III R 7, ll. 53–4; Michel, , WdO II/1 (1954), 40 11. 22–34, etc.Google Scholar; id., ibid. II/3 (1956), 221 ff. = ARAB I § 582–3Google Scholar; for the latter dates see Grayson, . Bi. Or. 33 (1976), 140–143Google Scholar; contra, Reade, , ZA 68 (1978), 251–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

6 Beyond the fact that an unnamed king of Que took part in the Arpad-led coalition against Zakur of Hamath in 796 B.c.(?) (Donner and Röllig, KAI 2 no. 202, A6; also Gibson, , TSSI II, no. 5, p. 8 f.Google Scholar; for the date see CAH III/12 (forthcoming), ch. 9 part IV and note 230).

7 Cf. above, Winter.

8 See above, footnotes 3 and 4.

9 See Forrer, , Provinzeinteilung, 70–72Google Scholar; Landsberger, , Sam'al, 77 f.Google Scholar; Postgate, , Iraq 35 (1973), 30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Landsberger, , Sam'al, 81 f.Google Scholar; Na'aman, , BASOR 214 (1974), 33Google Scholar note 36; Bing, , Cilicia, 87 ffGoogle Scholar.

11 King, , CT XXVI (1909)Google Scholar, no. 1, col. iv 61–v 22, and pp. 9–15; Luckenbill, , Sennacherib, 61 ff.Google Scholar; Heidel, , Sumer 9 (1953), 150 ff.Google Scholar; Bing, , Cilicia, 96 ffGoogle Scholar.

12 Landsberger, , Sam'al, 82Google Scholar. This unsupported assertion unfortunately tends to be repeated, e.g. by Na'aman, , BASOR 214 (1974), 33 and note 36Google Scholar; Winter, above, p. 147 with n. 144.

13 RlA II, 427Google Scholar, Cd (= KAV, no. 20, col. iv l. 35); collation supports the restoration Que — information, courtesy of A. R. Millard; see his forthcoming book, Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire (Warminster, 1979)Google Scholar.

14 Borger, , Asarhaddon, 33 l. 18Google Scholar; 51, Episode 8; 100 § 66 l. 23 and n. 24; Grayson, , ABC, 125 fGoogle Scholar.

15 Borger, , Asarhaddon, 49 f.Google Scholar, Episode 6; Grayson, , ABC, 83Google Scholar.

16 For previous attempts to place Azatiwatas in this historical context, see I. Lévy, Les inscriptions de Karatepe (La Nouvelle Clio 2 (1950), 106–121Google Scholar); Mellink, M., “Karatepe: more light on the dark ages” (Bi. Or. 7 (1950), 141–50)Google Scholar; Bing, Cilicia, ch. 4.

17 See above, p. 155 and footnote 15.

18 See HH., no. 19.

19 HHL, § 4.1; and for the spelling Azatiwatas, ibid., [20] f., [44].

20 Von Soden, , GAG § 32bGoogle Scholar.

21 Manuale I, cap. I § 27.

22 Glossar 2, s.v.; Laroche, , Noms, 290Google Scholar.

23 Laroche, , Noms, 291Google Scholar.

24 Gough, M., An. St. II (1952), 91 f.Google Scholar; Houwink ten Cate, , LPG, 26Google Scholar; contra Bing, Cilicia, 00.

25 As now demonstrated by Irene Winter, who also identifies an earlier style of reused sculpture.

26 Peckham, J. D., The Development of the Late Phoenician scripts (Cambridge, Mass., 1968)Google Scholar, ch. IV esp. 116–119.

27 The Yariris sculpture and inscriptions, CARCHEMISH A 6 + 7, B 4–8, A 15 b, A 24, have received much attention from scholars seeking to determine their date, readings and historical implications; see Akurgal, E., Spaethethitische Bildkunst (Ankara, 1949), 38, 144 etc.Google Scholar; Bossert, H. T., St. Cl. Or. 1 (1951), 35–67Google Scholar; Barnett, R. D., Carchemish III (London, 1952), 261 ff.Google Scholar; Meriggi, P., St. Cl. Or. 2 (1953), 5–28Google Scholar; id., Athenaeum 30 (1952), 174–179; Bossert, H. T., Belleten 16 (1952), 537 ff.Google Scholar; Laroche, E., Anadolu 2 (1955), 19 ff.Google Scholar; Meriggi, P., Manuale II/1 (Rome, 1967), nos. 9–11Google Scholar; Orthmann, W., USK, 187–191Google Scholar; Hawkins, J. D., Iraq 36 (1974), 72 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Genge, H., NSR, 153–167Google Scholar.

28 By all scholars cited in footnote 27, with the exception of Meriggi (see footnote 29).

29 Meriggi, op. cit., (footnote 27), influenced by the newly discovered KARATEPE bilingual, drew attention to the correct translation (see below, especially footnote 35).

30 E.g. Tarhunazas, author of the BULGARMADEN inscription, bears the title while at the same time declaring himself to be a “servant” of Warpalawas; see below, footnote 82.

31 DEUS.AVIS-tanisamis: Bossert's identification of this word with Empire period d UTU-šr (*ıštanušmıš), “My Sun”, which is accepted by Meriggi (Manuale II/1, p. 23Google Scholar), may be rejected, based as it is on values for DEUS.AVIS now discarded, and the implausible theory of an otherwise unattested survival of the Cun. Hitt. enclitic possessive pronoun -mi-. The word is clearly connected with the noun DEUS(var. LITUUS).AVIS-ta-ni/ní-, which in the phrase miya(n)za DEUS.AVIS-taniya(n)za has a clear contextual meaning of “in my days” (Meriggi, , Glossar2, 68 f.Google Scholar, although again the phonetic reading cannot be maintained). We appear to have a participle of an iterative (-sa- suffixed form) of a denominative verb, parallel in formation (as noted by Meriggi, loc. cit.) with *tiwatami, “sun-blessed(?)” of KARATEPE and elsewhere. Since the connotations of the basic noun seem to extend to “good times”, a sense such as “well-fortuned, lucky” might be guessed.

LITUUS+ta-sa-pa-CERVUS-wa-ti-i-sa: Bossert's recognition, as modified by Meriggi, (Manuale II/1, 23 f.Google Scholar), that this word is a compound of the storm god Tešub and the Stag-God seems not implausible. However it should be pointed out that the Stag-God's name seems to have been Runt(iya)- or Runza- (Houwink ten Cate, , LPG, 128 ff.Google Scholar), and evidence to connect this with the onomastic element ruwa(ta)- is inconclusive.

32 Hawkins, , An. St. XXV (1975), 151 fGoogle Scholar.

33 Manuale II/1, 31Google Scholar; HH., no. 39, I 1–2. For pUGNUS-ri+i-, see below, footnote 36.

34 See below, p. 159 f. with footnote 52.

35 IKamaniya ami DOMINUS-nani INFANS-ni (dat. sing.). As pointed out by Meriggi, it now seems syntactically inescapable that Kamanis was Yariris's lord's (i.e. Astiruwas's) son, not his own.

36 DOMINUS-naniya(n)za-[pa] wamu [DOMUS] -na(n)za [PUGNUS-ri] +i-ha. For this restoration, against that of Meriggi, (Manuale II/1, 31 f.Google Scholar), the following may be urged: (i) there is very little space for restoration and the three and a half signs restored represent a minimum and would conveniently fit; (ii) the dat. plur. of “children” as seen in 1. 3 is INFANS-ni-ia-za; (iii) no direct object is provided by Meriggi, whereas the parna(n)za gives an acc. sing, neuter instead of the dat. plur. The verb, a minimal restoration, which overcomes the difficulty noted by Meriggi, is stylistically appropriate to the context, thus: “The gods made me strong and exalted(?) over Carchemish, and I strengthened Carchemish, and I exalted(?) my lord's house.”

37 An. St. XXV (1975), 150 fGoogle Scholar.

38 Ibid., 152.

39 CARCHEMISH A 6 1. 3: wata tanimi REX-ti mita(n)ti(n)zi a(n)ta (BONUS)wasaranuha; cf. Meriggi, , Manuale II/1, 25Google Scholar.

40 See below, p. 159 with footnote 49.

41 CARCHEMISH A 6 1. 4, A 7 a ll. 2–3 (INFANS-nis-was REL-za asta); A 6 1.6 (IKamanis-pawa REL-i INFANS-nis asta).

42 CARCHEMISH A 6 1.4: CUM-ni-pawatuta apas FKATER-la(n)zi iziha; cf. Meriggi, , Manuale II/1, 26Google Scholar. Laroche's “with him” (CUM-ni … -tu), and Meriggi's “made (as sculpture)” surely the senses to be preferred. The word for “brother” FRATER(i.e. lNFANS)la- has been recognized since Forrer, principally on the basis of this and the following two associated contexts (footnotes 43 and 44), and to a lesser degree from others. The lack of correspondence between Cun. Hittite-Luwian on the one hand and Hieroglyphic on the other is odd and puzzling — Hitt. ŠEŠ-ni-, Luw. nani-, Lyc. nẽni,.Hier. FRATER-la-, “brother”; Hitt. DUMU-la-, Hier. INFANS-ni-, “son, child”, but cf. Luw. DUMU-ni-.

43 CARCHEMISH A 7 a l. 1: za(n)zi-pawatu POST+RA/I-zi FRATER-la(n)zi; recognize in POST+RA/I-, with Meriggi, Hier. apara/i- (= Hitt. appezzi-), but translate, with Hrozny (IHH, 191) and Laroche (HH., no. 34 IIa), “younger”, rather than “(physically) following”.

44 See below, with footnote 50.

45 CARCHEMISH A 7 j: zas-pawa ITuwarsais tarwanis (*357)zarzamis “FRONS”-hiti asazamis CAPUT-tis. tarwanis unlikely to be nominative apposition to PN referring to woman, as noun (Laroche) or adjective (Meriggi); thus presumably genitive dependent on zarzamis, participle of unknown verb zarza-. “FRONS”-hiti, understood as dat. sing, of *ha(n)tahi-, “firstness, pre-eminence”, cf. below, footnote 49. asazamis, certainly participle of verb asaza-, “speak, pronounce, proclaim”, for which see Hawkins, , Davies, Morpurgo, JRAS 1975/1972, 132 fGoogle Scholar.

46 Cf. especially KARATEPE § LX f. (CAPUT-tis = Phoen. rzn and 'š).

47 An. St. XXV (1975), 150 fGoogle Scholar.

48 IKamanin-pawa CRUS.CRVS(-)niyasatalan uranuha. CRUS.CRUS(-)ni-ia-sa-ta-la-, sense perceived since Hrozny, but form of word requires elucidation; clearly nomen actoris in -tala- from verb, a comparison of the occurrences of which suggest the reading CRUS.CRUS(-)ni(-ia)-za/sa-, the -za/sa- being recognized as iterative suffixes of the types noted in HHL, § 4.5.3; cf. now Mittelberger, H., Grazer Beiträge 7 (1978), 13 fGoogle Scholar.

49 wata REX-ta(n)za “FRONS”-hiti *273-n REL-ti (MANUS. *273) suhitiha. “FRONS”-hiti, understood as dat. sing, of *ha(n)tahi, “primacy, preeminence” (hant-, “front, forehead”, An. St. XXV (1975), 148 f.Google Scholar, + -ahi-, neut. abstract suffix); *273-n, probably rendering warpin, HH., no. 273(a); cf. 1. 4 (end) of this inscription, (*273)warpin, and comment in An. St. XXV (1975), 151Google Scholar. warpi- seems to denote an intellectual or moral rather than physical attribute; cf. the examination of the root by Weitenberg, , Hethitica 2 (Louvain, 1977), 47–52Google Scholar — but the hieroglyphic attestations require further examination, suhiti-, otherwise unknown verb, determined by the uninformative MANUS. *273, at a guess “displayed”.

50 POST+RA/I-zi-pawatu FRATER-la(n)zi uranuha.

51 wata (“INFANS.NI”)atala(n)za a(n)ta sasaha. sasa-, unclear whether transitive (in which case analyse wa+ata, “and them” (i.e. Kamanis and his brothers) to provide direct object) or intransitive; at a guess, associate with Hitt. sai/siya-, “seal”, Hier. (SIGILLUM) sasa(n)za, “seal”. atala(n)za, dat. plur., indirect object; Laroche takes as full phonetic reading of FRATER, which would give, “I A(N)TA SASA-ed (intrans.) to/for the brothers”; Meriggi prefers “cousins” which could give, “I A(N)TA SASA-ed them to/for the cousins” (HH., no. 45 III; Manuale II/1, 34)Google Scholar.

52 (*243)karpar(?)(an)tahisa-pawama(n)zata amiya(n)za DOMINUS-naniya(n)za IAstiruwas INFANS-niya(n)za arha “LONGUS”(-)yariha. To the interpretation of this passage offered in Iraq 36 (1974), 72 n. 37Google Scholar, the following modifications are now suggested: -ma(n)za, “for/from them”; as seen by Meriggi (Manuale II/1, 34)Google Scholar it is best to take “them” merely as anticipating “the children” not referring to a different group of persons. “My lord Astiruwas's children” must refer back to Kamanis and his brothers, since Kamanis is “my lord's son” (above, footnote 35).

karpar(an)tahisa; as noted by Meriggi, should be a neuter abstract in -ahi+sa, and the direct object; but since we are quite ignorant of its meaning, as of that of the verb arha(-)yari-, we can hardly determine whether the action is good, neutral or bad, and thus whether it is of advantage or disadvantage to the children. In the past, scholars have assumed a bad sense (Barnett, Bossert, Meriggi, also myself), but the interpretation of the tenor of Yariris' inscriptions suggested in the present article implies that we should assume a good sense in the action of this clause.

53 Meriggi, , Manuale II/2Google Scholar, nos. 257, 162; II/1, no. 28.

54 See below, footnote 59; the unknown city name, written VITELLUS-zá(URBS), is hardly to be interpreted, as does Meriggi (Manuale II/2, 148)Google Scholar, as “Malatya”, written VITELLUS(=ma x?) -lì-zi(URBS).

55 Meriggi, , Manuale II/2, 165Google Scholar.

56 An. St. XXII (1972), 105Google Scholar.

57 In the phrase Sasturas IKamanis FRONS-lá/í-sa mita(s) (CEKKE, rev. 1; see below, footnote 59); for the reinterpretation, see An. St. XXV (1975), 149 fGoogle Scholar.

58 Bossert, “Of S. (is) K. … servant”, denied by Meriggi, , “S. (is) K.'s…servant” (St. Cl. Or. 2 (1953), 34Google Scholar and footnote 2).

59 Kamanis tarwanis Karkamisa(URBS) VITELLUS-zá(URBS) REGIO.DOMINUS Sasturas IKamanis ha(n)tilis mita(s) Kamanan(URBS) URBS+MI-nin Kanapuwana(n)za(URBS) CUM-ni *344(-)isa(n)ta apasati *314(-)satanati: for the verb *344(-)i(ya)sa-, see Manuale II/2, 102Google Scholar.

60 For a somewhat comparable introduction, see KARABURUN, 1, below, footnote 101. If Kamanis really had been the “first servant” of Sasturas, we would have expected an introduction of the pattern: “K., titles, (patronym), of S. (titles) the first servant” — cf. introduction to BULGARMADEN, below, footnote 82.

61 CAH III/1 (new edition), ch. 9 part IV with footnotes 218, 222, 225, 227, 230, 233 (forthcoming).

62 Suggested by Bossert, , St. Cl. Or. 1 (1952), 63 f.Google Scholar; accepted by most scholars, with reservations; cf. the remarks of Orthmann, , USK, 188Google Scholar; Genge, , NSR, 157 ffGoogle Scholar. is less cautious.

63 The author of CEKKE, obverse, written DOMINUS.SOL-waras (collated, phonetic reading of first element unknown; contra Meriggi, Ki ?-UTU-wa-r-s 2) is doubtless the same individual as the DOMINUS-tiwaraya Ahalisan, “DOMINUS-tiwaras Ahalis's son” (dat. sing.) of rev. 4 (cf. An. St. XXV (1975), 148Google Scholar for form of patronymic); the father also features, rev. 3: IAhaliya AQUA.DOMINUS PRAE-na, “before Ahalis the River-Lord”. DOMINUS-tiwaras calls himself Sasturas wasamis mita(s), “honoured servant of Sasturas”, and further (obv. 4) refers to “Sasturas his lord” (sa-sa-tú[+ra/i]-ia] DOMINUS-ni á-pa-sa-na, dat. sing.; collated, contra Meriggi, , Manuale II/1, 108Google Scholar).

64 mis tati sastu tiwatami CAPUT-ti, “my father Sastu(ras), the Sun-blessed man”, taken as nominatives with unexpressed case endings (Hawkins, , An. St. XXII (1972), 113Google Scholar, contra Meriggi, , Manuale II/2, 148Google Scholar); otherwise with Meriggi, contra Bossert, , St. Cl. Or. 1 (1951), 58 fGoogle Scholar.

65 Meriggi, , Manuale II/2, 147 fGoogle Scholar.

66 For the contradiction, see Orthmann, , USK, 191Google Scholar, but cf. 187 and notes 39–44 for a consideration of earlier views.

67 Hawkins, , An. St. XXII (1972), 104Google Scholar; Genge, , NSR, 160 ffGoogle Scholar., attempts to revive this ascription, unnecessarily in my opinion.

68 Iraq 36 (1974), 73 and n. 44Google Scholar.

69 Evidence for a regnant descendant of Astiruwas (son or grandson?)has been noted above, p. 160 and footnote 55; CARCHEMISH A 17 b hints at a regnant descendant of Kamanis (Meriggi, , Manuale II/2, 131Google Scholar), but besides the name and titles little sense can be extracted from the text as it stands, though collation might improve matters. The piece CARCHEMISH A 26 f seems to preserve traces of a genealogy to which the restoration of Kamanis has been suggested on the strength of a surviving ma (Meriggi, , Manuale II/2, 163Google Scholar), but apart from this, little enough of the text or sculpture survives to suggest an attribution with any confidence.

70 See above, footnote 3, for sources; also Weippert, loc. cit., 48 ff. The name of Hupišna and its contemporary king are lost from the second list.

71 Nimrud Tablet (dated 729 B.C.) includes the narrative immediately after the Tribute List of 732 B.C. (ll. 14′ – 15′ = ARAB I, § 802)Google Scholar.

72 Tadmor, , JCS 12 (1958), 86Google Scholar note 262, 94; Levine, , Two Neo-Assyrian Stelae from Iran, 36Google Scholar; Lie, , Sargon, 10Google Scholar (Annals, ll. 68–71 = ARAB II, § 7)Google Scholar; Winckler, , Sargon, I, 102Google Scholar (Display Inscription, ll. 28–9 = ARAB II, § 55)Google Scholar.

73 RIA IV, s.v. Ḫulli, for sources; also Forrer, , Provinzeinteilung, 71 ffGoogle Scholar.

74 Nimrud Letter 39; see Postgate, , Iraq 35 (1973), 21–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

75 Tadmor, , JCS 12 (1958), 97Google Scholar and notes 311–15.

76 See above, footnote 10.

77 See Özgüç, T., Kültepe and its vicinity in the Iron Age (Ankara, 1971)Google Scholar, for a description of the site and its remains.

78 König, , Handbuch der chaldischen Inschriften, 89Google Scholar and note 7.

79 Iraq 21 (1959), 153 ffGoogle Scholar.

80 Manuale II/1, 122 f.Google Scholar; II/3, 283 f.; Glossar 2, 153.

81 HH., 262; compare very evident archaism of the certainly late CARCHEMISH A 21/22 b + a.

82 amu-wami Tarhunazas tarwanis TarhuwarXs nimuwa(n)zas Warpalawasis REX-tis HEROS -tis tarwanis mitas, “I (am) T. the ruler, T.'s son, servant of W. the king, the hero, the ruler”.

83 Meriggi, , Manuale II/2, 10Google Scholar (on BOR) and 13, with a somewhat different interpretation of ANDAVAL.

84 Orthmann, , USK, 219 fGoogle Scholar. with criticism of the earlier dating of Ussishkin, , Anadolu 11 (1967), 197 ffGoogle Scholar.

85 Reported by Mellink, , AJA 81 (1977), 300Google Scholar; and in detail by Professor Mustafa Kalaç at the XXIV R.A.I., Paris, 1977. I am most grateful to Professor Kalaç for his personal communication on this important new piece.

86 Sources: Tiglath-pileser III, Annals (738 B.C.) and Nimrud Tablet (732 B.C.); Sargon, letter to governor of Que (710 B.C.) — as above, footnotes 3 and 4.

87 As for footnote 85; for the forthcoming publication, see Kalaç, , KZ 92 (1978), 117–125Google Scholar.

88 T. Özgüç, Kültepe and its vicinity in the Iron Age, Plate L, rev. I (Ki-ia-ki-; not in index, ibid., p. 115).

89 Son of Tuatte king of Tabal encountered by Shalmaneser in 837 B.C.; see above, footnote 79.

90 See above, p. 163, and footnote 72.

91 See below, p. 166 f. with footnote 98 and Editorial Note. The location of Šinuhtu (Šinahuddum) has always depended on its association with Atuna/Tunna: see Lewy, J. in Halil Edhem Hâtıra Kıtabı, 16Google Scholar (with Wahšušana in VAT 15316); Garelli, , Les assyriens en Cappadoce, 123Google Scholar.

92 Supplement the translation of Meriggi, , Manuale II/1Google Scholar, no. 31 with that of An. St. XXV (1975), 127 f.Google Scholar, 141, 148 ff.

93 E.g. I suggested, loc. cit., the values pa x and sí on the grounds that such readings would at least give sense in several different contexts, thereby in some measure providing support for each other.

94 In An. St. XXV, 150Google Scholar, five kings was read; but further collation of photographs suggests that this numeral may be seven.

95 See also the treatment by A. Morpurgo Davies and Hawkins, below, footnote 98.

96 This seems to be supported in the following line where the sign recurs in a context in which it alternates with sa 5, namely a verb *336-na-ha-sa 5/sa x- (Glossar 2, 68; HH., no. 336 II, 3). Meriggi and Laroche consider the sign to be su(?), and indeed it is possible that this sign should have been used, abnormally, for the nominative -s.

97 As suggested by Meriggi, , Manuale II/1Google Scholar, ad loc.

98 “The Hieroglyphic Inscription of BOHÇA”, in Studies in honour of Professor P. Meriggi for his 80th Birthday (forthcoming).

99 Mentioned by Sargon in 718 (above, footnote 72) and 713 B.C. (Winckler, , Sargon, II, 45Google Scholar, S.2022, ll. 3′–10′ = ARAB II, § 214).

100 Mentioned by Tiglath-pileser III (above, footnote 3).

101 awa Sipis REX-ta Sipis-pawa Niyas tapariyalata harnisa(n)za tama(n)ta wara/i zati sama(n)za iziya(n)ta, “Sipis was king and Sipis Nis's son was governor — they built the fortress and they(?) for themselves(?) made a SAMA(N)ZA here”; cf. RHA XXIX (1971), 123 and 129Google Scholar; and for the patronymic, An. St. XXV (1975), 148Google Scholar.