¹ E.g. Bull Inscription, 1. 18 (= ARAB II, § 392).

² The sculptural remains of this period have recently been the subject of a very exhaustive reappraisal by Orthmann, W., Untersuchungen Zur spätheth. Kunst (Bonn, 1971Google Scholar; hereafter referred to as Untersuchungen). In this, for the purpose of dating, he has examined the epigraphic evidence (Kapitel V, Auswertung der schriftlichen Quellen). In a forthcoming review of this book I offer some detailed observations upon this section (ZA 63 (1974); hereafter Review).

³ Goetze, A., Kizzuwatna, 4 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁴ Illustrated by the Canaanite-influenced Akkadian of the Amarna Letters, the Hurrian-influenced Akkadian of Alalah IV, the Akkadian, Hurrian and Ugaritic texts of Ras Shamra, and the onomastica of the various groups as revealed in these sources.

⁵ Kammenhuber, A., “Hethitisch, Palaisch, Luwisch und Hieroglyphenluwisch” in Hb. Or. I/II, 2/2, 2 (Munich, 1969), 121 f.Google Scholar; for an even closer identification, see Hawkins, J. D., Davies, A. Morpurgo and Neumann, G., Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Phil.-Hist. Klasse (1973)Google Scholar.

⁶ The nearest approach to it is in CARCHEMISH A 15 b 4, where we find —“[…] in the script of the City and in the script of Sura and in the script of Assur and in the script of Taiman, twelve languages I —ed.” The script of the City is surely hieroglyphic as used in Carchemish, the script of Assur Assyrian cuneiform. Sura could refer to “Syrian”, i.e. Aramaic, or possibly to Urartian, since the kings called themselves “King of the land Šura”. It is not clear what language or script can be associated with Taiman, which is usually identified with Teman in Hanigalbat.

⁷ Cf. in general RIA IV, s.v. Ḫatti, § 1.

⁸ Güterbock, H. G., “Toward a definition of the term Hittite” (Oriens 10 (1957), 233 ff.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, clarified this situation admirably.

⁹ Cf. above, note 4.

¹⁰ The Assur letters and Kululu economic texts written on lead strips survive as lonely representatives of an entire lost corpus of hieroglyphic texts.

¹¹ For this country sources do begin to illustrate the population groups. Cf. Goetze, A., “Cilicians” (JCS 16 (1962), 48 ff.)Google Scholar; Cate, P. Houwink ten, Luwian Population Groups (Leiden, 1961)Google Scholar.

¹² The SE. Anatolian states, known generally to the Assyrians as Tabal, deserve separate consideration; these have formed the subject of a recent study in this journal—see Postgate, J. N., “Sargon's letter referring to Midas” (Iraq 35 (1973), 21–34)Google Scholar.

¹³ For the Assyrian attestations, here and below, see Parpola, S., Neo-Assyrian Toponyms (AOAT 6; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1970)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ For hieroglyphic attestations, see Meriggi, P., Hieroglyphisch-Hethitisches Glossar (2nd. ed.; Wiesbaden, 1962)Google Scholar.

¹⁵ For the Hebrew attestations, see Brown, F., Driver, S. R. and Briggs, C. A., A Hebrew and English Lexikon of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1907, etc.)Google Scholar, s.v.

¹⁶ Exact dates are of course drawn from Assyrian synchronisms. Where two are quoted, these give the minimum length of a reign. In the names of rulers, the relationship to the predecessors is marked where known.

¹⁷ Assyrian and Urartian sources in parentheses. Bold type, or large capitals beside small, indicate that the individual is author of the inscription.

¹⁸ Further evidence has come to light regarding the readings of certain important hieroglyphic signs, see J. D. Hawkins, A. Morpurgo Davies, and G. Neumann, op. cit., above, note 5. There it is proposed that the signs formerly read a, ā, i, ī should be read i, ia, zi, za respectively. This will of course mean that certain much-quoted names of Hittite princes will have to be re-spelt. Here we have Astuwatimanzas (formerly Astuwatimaīs) and Yariris (formerly Araras). Note also Kamanis (formerly Kamanas).

¹⁹ See e.g. ANET, 262.

²⁰ AKA, 73 v 49; Weidner, E., AfO 18 (1957–1958), 344 ll. 31–2Google Scholar.

²¹ Weidner, loc. cit., 350 l. 30.

²² RIA IV, s.v. Ḫatti, § 4.1.

²³ E.g. in ARAB I, §§ 292, 306; Landsberger, B., Sam'al, 32 f.Google Scholar, nn. 64, 66; W. F. Albright, CAH II (revised edition), ch. XXXIII, § III.

²⁴ RlA IV, s.v. Ḫatti, § 3.1. It is perhaps instructive to note the mechanics of the error. Schroeder's KAH II, 71 appears at first sight to be a copy of an actual tablet but in fact is not; it is a composite text based on a number of fragments. Weidner's pains-taking re-edition of this text (AfO 18 (1957–1958), 347Google Scholar ff.) has a complete list of all the fragments on which his transliteration is based. Schroeder's l. 16, reading LUGAL KUR ḫa-at-te GAL-te lu-ú aš-kun, equals the end of Weidner's 1. 30; and from Weidner's edition it is clear that this line is only preserved in fragments K (VAT 9636, the basis of Schroeder's composite text), N (= KAH II, 69), O (= KAH II, 66), P, Q., and the newly published complete text, B. Although P and Q, are not published, it is certain that Schroeder's GAL-te was never present in this line; see Weidner's critical apparatus to his 1. 30. Even Schroeder indicated that it did not appear on K (there is a break), and that it was absent on N (l. 7); however, an inspection of his copy of O shows where he got it from. Here only the beginnings of ll. 2–4 are preserved; a comparison with K and N, and the new version in B indicates however that these lines should be restored as follows:

l. 2 i-na UGU ^Iì-ni-[^dte-šub LUGAL KUR ḫa-at-te lu aš-kun a-na ^urumi-li-di-a]

l. 3 šá KUR ḫa-at-te GAL-te lu [al-lik ma-da-at-ta ša ^Ial-lu-ma-ri]

l. 4 lu am-ḫur ^uruen-za-ta šá KUR i-[šu-a, etc.].

Thus Schroeder, looking at the beginning of l. 3, incorrectly restored GAL-te in his composite text, l. 16, a crucial error when one considers the statements based upon this text which have found their way into general studies. Thus the phrase KUR Ḫatte rabīte is attested only once, and that in reference to Milidia.

²⁵ RlA IV, s.v. Ḫatti, § 3.2. KUR Ḫatte rabīte must be translated “the great land of Hatti”, “great” being an ornamental epithet strictly comparable to “wide” in “the wide land of Amurru”, etc.; “Great-Hatti” is surely inadmissible.

²⁶ E.g. by Landsberger and by Albright, op. cit. above note 23.

²⁷ For the reading of this name, cf. above, note 18.

²⁸ An. St. 22 (1972), 87 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁹ Orthmann, , Untersuchungen, especially Kapite III, 1Google Scholar.

³⁰ Carchemish III, 259.

³¹ Cf. Güterbock, H. G., JNES 13 (1954), 105Google Scholar.

³² Belleten 16 (1952), 543Google Scholar and figs. 19 and 40.

³³ Loc. cit. above, note 31. The first syllable is damaged and unclear.

³⁴ Noms des Hittites (Paris, 1966)Google Scholar, no. 1441, 7 = HH, no. 363 I c; HH, no. 313 II.

³⁵ Cf. An. St. 22 (1972), 98 fGoogle Scholar.

³⁶ A 11 b 1–2: “This city—the (city) of my father and grandfather—was of (i.e. in the hands of?) Nanuwiya, and he YARIYA-ed away the —building, but I PITAHALIYA-ed it with (?) the grandsons of Ura-Tarhundas.”

A 11 c 5: “When I took this city by force(?) from the grandsons of Ura-Tarhundas and when I PITAHALIYA-ed it.”

The grammatical structure of the sentences is clear, but, as often, doubts as to readings and vocabulary of hieroglyphic leave us to guess at the sense. Cf. the following note.

³⁷ A 15 b 3: “For them (my children) 1 YARI-ed away the —buildings from the sons of my lord Astiruwas”. Cf. An. St. 22 (1972), 104Google Scholar. As noted there, the much-quoted translation of Barnett, “I led down my lords the sons of Asadaruwas,” has had to be revised, although the implications of usurpation appear to stand. For the phrase “to YARI(YA) the—buildings”, some such sense as “to seize the citadel” would be appropriate. For the spelling Yariris, cf. above note 18.

³⁸ An. St. 22 (1972), 104Google Scholar.

³⁹ It would be tempting to supply the sense:— “When the Assyrian King carried away the Storm-God of Aleppo, he (the Storm God) smote Assyria with lightning.” However, the other senses could be argued for the doubtful words.

⁴⁰ A 24 a 6, reads:—

[…]x-á-ta ₄-na-śa-′à-sú+ra/i(COUNTRY)∣∣-wa-ní-[x] KING […] It is impossible, however, to be certain from the publication that the sense runs on from l. 1 to l. 2 as suggested.

⁴¹ Kurkh Monolith, col. ii 87.

⁴² Weidner, E., AfO 8 (1933), 22 col. vi, 1. 18Google Scholar.

⁴³ Belleten 16 (1952), 535 fGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁴ An. St. 22 (1972), 104 f.Google Scholar; ZA 63 (1974), Review 187Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ Untersuchungen, 191; Orthmann's group Kargamis V, style Sph II b, dated to the time of Tiglath-pileser III or later, ibid., 161.

⁴⁶ We would now read the hieroglyphic name previously taken as Sakaras (Saⁿkaras) as Sikaras (perhaps Siⁿkaras). The identification of this name with the cuneiform Sangara is less easy but not impossible. There was never any possibility of identifying the individuals.

⁴⁷ SirWoolley, Leonard, Carchemish II, 92Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ For the Aramaic attestations here and below, see Donner, H. and Röllig, W., Kanaanaïsche und Aramaïsche Inschriften (Wiesbaden, 1969) IIIGoogle Scholar, Index VI (Ortsnamen).

⁴⁹ On the reading of this name, cf. below, p. 74. The Assyrian equivalent is ^Ipa-la-lam.

⁵⁰ On the reading of these names, cf. above, note 18; Muwanzas (formerly Muwaīs), Halparuntiyas (formerly Halparuntiās). Cuneiform Assyrian equivalents are Qalparu{n)da (Halparuntiyas), and Mutallu (Muwatalis).

⁵¹ Untersuchungen, 204; these names are not legible on the published versions of this inscription. For the reading Astu-[…]-manzas, cf. above, note 18.

⁵² Some monuments can be dated earlier on purely stylistic grounds, i.e. Orthmann's Sph I style, which includes the sculptures of Ain Dara and the Kargamis I group.

⁵³ An. St. 22 (1972), 96 f.Google Scholar; cf. Carchemish III, 192; Untersuchungen, 40 f.

⁵⁴ First by Bossert (MAOG 6/3 (1932), 66 f.).

⁵⁵ Untersuchungen, 203 f.; Orthmann has, however, erred in his reading of the dynastic information on MARAŞ 4; cf. ZA 63 (1974), Review 203. This makes his task of dating more complex than it should be.

⁵⁶ Cf. ZA 63 (1974), Review 203Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ Rost, P., Tiglatpileser, 12 l. 59 ffGoogle Scholar. = Plate XIX (Annals); ibid., 26 l. 152 = Plate XV (Annals); ibid., 70 l. 8 = Plate XXXVII (Nimrud Tablet) (= ARAB I, §§ 769, 772, 801).

⁵⁸ Lie, A. G., The Annals of Sargon (Paris, 1929), 38 ll. 1 ffGoogle Scholar. (Annals), supplemented by Winckler, H., Keilschrifttexte Sargons (Leipzig, 1889), 112 f.Google Scholar, ll. 83–9 (Display Inscription) (= ARAB II, §§ 29, 61).

⁵⁹ H. Winckler, op. cit., 82, ll. 10–11 (Display inscription of Room XIV); ibid., 148, ll. 28–31 (Pavement Slab IV); Lyon, D., Keilschrifttexte Sargons (Leipzig, 1883), 14, ll. 26–7 (Bull inscription)Google Scholar (= ARAB II, §§ 79, 99, 92).

⁶⁰ Gadd, C.J., Iraq 16 (1954), 182 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar., ll. 41–75.

⁶¹ Ibid., 185.

⁶² The reading of this name is argued in Hawkins, Davies and Neumann, op. cit., above, note 5.

⁶³ Garstang, J. and Gurney, O. R., Geography of the Hittite Empire (London, 1959), 34 fGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁴ For the Urartian attestations here and below, see König, F. W., HCI (AfO Beiheft 8; Graz, 1955), Wörterbuch, s.vGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁵ Ibid.; also E. Laroche, Noms, no. 1167. But some scholars deny that Sulehawali is to be read as a personal name.

⁶⁶ Most of the Malatya names present difficulties in reading, (i) Taras, probable reading (written LEG+ra/i-sa; cf. HH, no. 82, 3). (iii) Wala-Runtiyas, probable reading (written wa ₄-la-ANTLER-ti; cf. HH, no. 207, II and below under (ix)). (iv) Halpa-sulupis, probable reading (cf. HH. no. 132, 1; written HALPA-BIRD-pi-sa). (v) Suwarmis, cf. Glossar, s.v. (vi) Maratis, cf. Noms s.v. (vii) X-zi-Tarhundas apparently written x-zi-THUNDER(-.sa ₅), but needs collation in each case (cf. above note 18). (ix) Runtiyas, probable reading of STAG, as of ANTLER (cf. Cate, P. Houwink ten, Luwian Population Groups 130 n. 3Google Scholar; together with Güterbock, H. G., SBo II, 11Google Scholar and JNES 20 (1961), 86 n. 3Google Scholar; for the phonetic spelling ru-ti-ia-sa (i.e. Runtiyas) see HH, no. 103, IIa. There is no evidence for a hieroglyphic reading as Ruwas or Ruwat-). (xi, xiii) Arnuwantas, cf. below, note 77; (written BIRD-wa-tá-sa). (xiv) Sahuis, cf. below note 74. (xv) X-ti-Runtiyas written X-ti-ANTLER-ia-sa. The first sign is of unknown value; for the reading of ANTLER, cf. above under (ix). For these names, cf. ZA 63 (1974), Review 207 ff., with the modifications of note 18 above.

⁶⁷ AKA, 71 f. (Cylinder Inscription, col. v 33–41). The statement here that Milidia was in “the land of Hanigalbat” (KUR ḫa-ni-gal-bat) is clearly an error for locating it in “the great land of Hatti” (KUR ḫa-at-te GAL-te), as becomes clear from the second reference (see following note); cf. Goetze, A., MAOG 4 (1928–1929), 64 and n. 7Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ Weidner, E., AfO 18 (1957–1958), 350, l. 31Google Scholar; already cited above, note 24.

⁶⁹ Cf. Noms, nos. 39–41; Landsberger, B., Sam'al, 28 n. 54Google Scholar; no Hurrian element of this type seems to be attested.

⁷⁰ a + ra/i-THUNDER, Noms, no. 127 b.

⁷¹ Cf. above, note 18.

⁷² Cf. Noms, nos 429 (?), 430–35, 437, 438.

⁷³ BM. 121057, see Millard, A. R., Iraq 32 (1970), 171CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Although a Hurrian name in this area at this period would not be inexplicable, most of them seem to belong in Upper Mesopotamia. To find Subartu so far west of the Euphrates would however be surprising.

⁷⁴ Bossert, H. T., AfO 17 (1955), 68Google Scholar; apart from this one possibility, however, Bossert's readings and identifications are quite unreliable (e.g. the name Helaruada does not appear in hieroglyphie), and should be disregarded.

⁷⁵ E.g. Noms, no. 1169, 1–2.

⁷⁶ Even according to Orthmann's dating (Sph II?), which is very substantially later than that usually attributed to them; cf. Untersuchungen, 91 ff. (Malatya sculptures), 116 f. (DARENDE, ISPEKÇÜR).

⁷⁷ Cf. above, p. 77, Table 1 n. 6.

⁷⁸ The identification of Sulumal and Tarhunazi on DARENDE (Gelb, I. J., HH II, 19Google Scholar; Delaporte, L., Malatya, 53Google Scholar) is incorrect; cf. ZA 63 (1974), Review 208Google Scholar; and here, Fig. 1.

⁷⁹ Lie, Sargon, 34–6, ll. 204–221; supplemented by (Sargon) Winckler, , Keilschrifttexte Sargons, 112Google Scholar, ll. 78–83 (= ARAB II, §§ 26 f., 60). Cf. Tadmor, , JCS 12 (1958), 92 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁰ Winckler, op. cit., 82 ll. 9–10 (Display Inscription of Room XIV); ibid., 148, ll. 23–7 (Pavement Slab IV); Lyon, , Keilschrifttexte Sargons, 14Google Scholar, ll. 26–7 (= ARAB II, §§ 79, 92, 99); cf. above, note 59.

⁸¹ Cf. above, note 60; also Landsberger, , Sam'al, 78 fGoogle Scholar. and n. 208.

⁸² E.g. Sam'al under Kilamuwa and Bar-Rakib; perhaps also Hamath under Zakir. Cf. Elliger, K., Festschrift O. Eissfeldt (1947), 84 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁸³ AKA, 375 iii 96 (= ARAB I, § 480).

⁸⁴ Kurkh Monolith (3 R 7), i 37; (3 R 8), ii 30, 83 (= ARAB I, §§ 599, 601, 610).

⁸⁵ Cf. ZA 63 (1974), Review 210.

⁸⁶ An. St. 20 (1970), esp. 77 ff.Google Scholar, 108 f.

⁸⁷ Ibid., 109.

⁸⁸ König, , HCI, 123 fGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁹ Rost, , Tiglatpileser, 12Google Scholar, l. 62 (= ARAB I, § 769).

⁹⁰ Lie, , Sargon, 36Google Scholar, l. 221; 70, l. 467 ff; supplemented by Winckler, , Keilschrifttexte Sargons, 116Google Scholar, l. 112 ff (= ARAB II, §§ 27, 45, 64).

⁹¹ Sam'al, 77.

⁹² Cf. above, p. 73. Also Untersuchungen, 142.

⁹³ RlA IV, s.v. Ḫattin.

⁹⁴ For a list, cf. ibid., § 4.

⁹⁵ Identified by Gelb, I. J., Hittite Hieroglyphic Monuments (OIP 45; Chicago, 1939), 39Google Scholar.

⁹⁶ E.g. by King, , AKA, 368 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁹⁷ By Gustavs, A., OLZ 20 (1917), 321 ffGoogle Scholar. There could hardly be any connection between the second millennium Anatolian city and the first millennium Syrian state.

⁹⁸ See in general, RlA IV, s.v. Ḫattin, § 1.

⁹⁹ The inscription is a further piece of the one published by Levine, L. D., Two Neo-Assyrian Stelae from Iran (ROM, Art and Archaeology Occasional Paper 23; Toronto, 1972), 11 ff.Google Scholar; I owe this information to the courtesy of H. Tadmor and L. D. Levine.

¹⁰⁰ Forrer, , Provinzeinteilung, 56 ffGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰¹ Rost, , Tiglatpileser, 16, l. 100 f.Google Scholar; 24, l. 143 ff. (=ARAB I §§769, 772).

¹⁰² See Parpola, N-AT (AOAT 6) for references.

¹⁰³ Rost, Tiglatpileser, Plate XXI (= 3 R, 93; ICC, 65). This text is in fact composite and thus very dubious; Tadmor, H., Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 2 (1967), 177Google Scholar. Tadmor's forthcoming edition of Tiglath-pileser's inscriptions may be expected to elucidate it. (See Addendum, p. 83).

¹⁰⁴ E.g. ARAB I, § 770; Tadmor, H., Scripta Hierosolymitana 8 (1961), 257Google Scholar. (See Addendum, p. 83).

¹⁰⁵ Rost, , Tiglatpileser, Annals l. 144Google Scholar (= ARAB I, § 772). In this context a list of the cities of Unqi (Kinalua, Huzarra, Tae, Tarmanazi, Kulmadara, Hatatirra, Sagillu) where captives were settled, was followed by further settlements in the cities of the sea-coast (Şimirra, Arqa, Usnu, Siannu). It would seem that a similar order might have been followed in the earlier passage detailing the conquest.

¹⁰⁶ Provinzeinteilung, 58.

¹⁰⁷ As reported by Gelb; see the following note.

¹⁰⁸ AJSL 51 (1935), 189 ff.Google Scholar; he proposed to identify it with Kullanköy, near Arpad.

¹⁰⁹ Festschrift O. Eissfeldt (1947), 97 and n. 101Google Scholar.

¹¹⁰ AJSL, loc. cit., 190 f.: “The equation of Kunulua with Kullania as asserted by Forrer presents too many phonetic difficulties, and it receives not the smallest shade of confirmation from the Assyrian sources.”

¹¹¹ There is one possible Sargon reference, Iraq 23 (1961), 23 ii 14Google Scholar. The Kullani kašid of the Eponym Canon of course, though it refers to the reign of Tiglath-pileser III, occurs in what must be classed as a Sargonid document. There thus appears to be no overlap at all in the use of the two names. (See Addendum below).

¹¹² Astour notes this identification, and explains the transposition as a Human feature (JNES 22 (1963), 225Google Scholar). This explanation, however, seems somewhat anachronistic.