Version classiqueVersion mobile

Hittitology today: Studies on Hittite and Neo-Hittite Anatolia in Honor of Emmanuel Laroche’s 100th Birthday

 | 
Alice Mouton

I. Linguistique, grammaire et épigraphie

A New Hieroglyphic Luwian Epigraph: Urfa-Külaflı Tepe

Massimo Poetto

Texte intégral

For valuable and constructive comments (e-mail of August 20th, 2015) I am deeply grateful to Professor H. Craig Melchert.

1In the broad range of Emmanuel Laroche’s scientific interests in the field of Ancient Anatolia, Hieroglyphic Luwian played a primary role, as is widely known. It has thus seemed appropriate to remember such a maître by treating a new (albeit incomplete) document belonging to that linguistic domain.

2The stone with which we are here concerned was found at Külaflı Tepe, a north-western neighborhood of the city of Şanlıurfa – whence its designation as URFA-KÜLAFLI TEPE –, and purchased by the Şanlıurfa Archaeological Museum in 2000. I was able to inspect and photograph it in September 2002 and 2005 in the yard of that Museum at the friendly invitation of Professor Fikri Kulakoğlu and by courtesy of the former Director, Bay Eyyüp Bucak. The authorization to publish this document – hitherto without inventory number – is still effective thanks to the present Director, Bay Müslüm Ercan, and the Museum Assistant, the archaeologist Nedim Dervişoğlu, through the kind intervention (September 2014) of Dr. Meltem Doğan-Alparslan.

  • 1 Cf. the concise archaeological presentation of the piece by Kulakoğlu 2003: 70 sub 3 and pl. 4, fig (...)
  • 2 Some preliminary interpretative details supplied by me to Kulakoğlu are given in his report of 2003 (...)

3The base (Pl. 1 figs. 1a-c), originally a rectangular basalt block, measuring 36 cm in height and 60 cm in width, has a square hole on its top to support a stele or a statue. The three heavily damaged sides encircling the inscription show the lower remains of bulls in relief.1 The inscribed section (Pl. 2 figs. 2a-b) is also partly obliterated and not entirely readable or understandable.2 It is nonetheless evident that the segment preserved on this side – between considerable lacunae – is a continuation of a text, possibly starting on the lost stele (or orthostat) originally fixed on the upper hole of the base, in a similar manner to, for example, the inscription on the JISR EL HADID 4 block just published by Dinçol/Dinçol/Hawkins/Peker 2014.

4The script, as is usual on such monuments, is boustrophedon: the first line runs here dextroverse, the second sinistroverse and the third again dextroverse.

5The signs – in relief – are monumental, with cursive intrusions: á (middle of l. 1), mu (beginning of l. 2) and u (middle of l. 2). The word-dividers are intermittently used.

Transliteration

l. 1a

……]-ti-a/i

l. 1b

à-wa/wi )⌈9⌉((-)⌈x⌉-⌈x⌉-⌈x⌉-⌈ná-⌈x⌉-sa/si-n ⌈x⌉-⌈x⌉-⌈sa/si⌉-pa-s DINGIRW-ti [ ……

l. 2a

……]-wa/wi-tú

l. 2b

à-wa/wi-mu K LADDER(-)s-pa-tá K PERSONAGE u-su-pa-ta-ti-à

ll. 2c-3a

wa/wi-tá-à Ma⌉-x|-laURUKzi-la

l. 3b

wa/wi-mu-ta-à K)200(K)HAW ?(-)za-la-[x]-za K)200(K ……[……

Commentary

6Line 1a: The surviving sequence ……]-ti-a/i stands for the ending of a present 3rd person, the conclusion of a sentence, rather than a dative / ablative sg.

  • 3 See Poetto 2010 reaffirmed in Poetto 2014: 796 (against Payne 2012: 93: “9 BOS-za ‘nine oxen’” and (...)

7Preceded by the connective particles à-wa/wi comes (line 1b) the numeral ‘9’ (here only 8 vertical strokes are effectively discernible) with ideographic marker and an effaced glyph below. Yet, if the sign (179 / L 153) might emerge from the outline of the latter, we would obtain the initial syllabogram of this same number undeniably exhibited – and equally combined with the ideogram )9( – already in MARAŞ 5 § 2 in )9(-u-za!-à ‘(a) ninth (share)’ (matched by the simple nu-u-za of TELL AHMAR 6 l. 7 § 28).3

8After two erased columns an ending -⌈n⌉ (probably accusative sg. MF or adverbial) is still recoverable. What the following á-⌈x⌉(= ⌈sa/si?)-sa/si-n (presumably accusative sg. of possessive adjective) and ⌈x⌉-⌈x⌉- ⌈sa/si⌉-pa-s (genitive sg.?) might indicate is not obvious. Maybe offerings to the subsequent god Tarhunza (DINGIRW-ti, dative, in preference to ablative)?

9Line 2a: ……]-wa/wi-tú: the simplest solution seems to take this ending as an imperative 3rd person.

10The underlying -mu is best considered as the final component (= ‘(to / for) me’) of the next introductory à-wa/wi- (line 2b) with inaccurate arrangement of the elements, in view of the ending -in (-)s-pa-tá (two columns ahead), formally a preterite 3rd person if it constitutes the verb in unusual non-final position (frequent instead in KARATEPE). This complex will be analyzed after examining the preceding “LADDER”.

11Nevertheless, it seems suitable to begin with the middle section of the line, more promising for an understanding of this challenging context.

  • 4 Hawkins 2000: 405 and pl. 213.
  • 5 Implicitly endorsed by Hawkins 2013: 74 with n. 17 after the plain cross-reference to my discussion (...)
  • 6 supant- should thus mirror a variant / by-form *suppant-, in parallel with, e.g., kappant- (partici (...)

12Behind the standing “PERSONAGE” is u-su-pa-ta-ti-à, an ablative sg. rather than a dative (see below, tentative rendering of this clause). The present attestation provides a welcome addition to the so far isolated u-su-pa-ta-tà (accusative sg., with graphic omission of the ending -n before the enclitic -ha ‘and’ + -wa/wi) – determined by the ideogram for ‘ox’, WAW = 109 / L 105 (with markers) – known from HAMA 4 side B ll. 3/4 § 11 (Pl. 3 fig. 3),4 an extension in -ant- (in turn with preconsonantal loss of -n-) alongside )WAW(- su-pa-ti-n (to be read usupantin, likewise accusative sg., with “i-mutation”) on side A l. 4 § 14, attribute of the next )WAW(-n ‘bovem’. In Poetto 1979: 671-673 I had analyzed usupant- as a nominal compound, formed by u- ‘ox’ (a reduction of uw(i)- / waw(i)-, with the well-established alternation / evolution wa / u) plus the adjective supant-, to which I attributed the value ‘pure, sacred’,5 comparing Hitt. suppi- / suppai- / suppiyant-.6

13The context is clearly cultic, a sacrificial ceremony is being performed, specifically a holocaust, given the verb that governs the sentence, lu/lá/lí-s3-lu/lá/lí-s3-, characterized by the ideogram for “flames” (204 / L 477), so that the meaning ‘to burn’ appears inescapable.

  • 7 In this respect it must be remarked that HEG Š: 1190 and 1193 improperly attributed to me the genet (...)
  • 8 Whence my exegesis of the whole clause (Poetto 1979: 674): “E in nessuna occasione (essi [scil. my (...)

14The literal interpretation ‘ox-pure / ox-sacred’ is perfectly paralleled by Avest. gaospənta (vocative sg.) < gav- + spənta- ‘ox-purified’.7 One might however wonder why in HAMA 4 side A l. 4 § 14 also )WAW(-n ‘bovem’ occurs if this is already included in the preceding )WAW(-su-pa-ti-n. My view was (and still is) that a pleonasm – literally ‘consecrated-ox ox’ – and, diachronically, a redefinition, are perfectly conceivable. In other words, u(w(i))- in usupant- would not have retained the autonomous meaning ‘ox’, so that the original compound would have become an apposition and then a simple attribute with a religious connotation: ‘unblemished’.8

  • 9 Hawkins 2000: 336 and pl. 165.
  • 10 With the admissible emendation (n. 22) hu-pi-tà-<ta>-tà-n-<<n>>, accusative sg., in III C 1 § 7.
  • 11 Along the lines of Melchert 1999: 368-373 for this suffix. – Utterly different presentation in Luwi (...)

15As to the secondary -- in u-su-pa-ta-tà-, a substantial parallelism to an nt-stem derived with a suffix -ant- is produced by hu-pi-tà-ta-tà- of BOYBEYPINARI 2 (°-ti, dative / ablative / instrumental sg. + -wa/wi in IV D1 § 4b; °-⌈x⌉-ha-wa/wi in IV C1 § 29), which Rieken 2008: 642, 64410 cogently explicated as “/hupidant-ada-/ […] ‘Verschleierung??’” by adducing Cun. Luw. hupidant(i)- ‘veiled(?)’ for the first enlargement with the adjoined further formant reflecting “uridg. */-o-to-/”.11 It is therefore arguable that usupant- could also be substantivized by means of this morpheme and thus used independently, without the aid of the word ‘ox’.

  • 12 Bittel 1937: pl. 9.1.

16Turning to the “PERSONAGE”, a full-height figure, facing right, wearing an ankle-length garment, with bent arms pointing upwards: from the iconographic viewpoint, irrespective of the uncommon headgear, one is reminded of the individual on the well-known dedicatory stele base BOĞAZKÖY 2 (Pl. 3 fig. 4)12 – though belonging to the Empire Period – which in a way represents a “self-portrait” / “self-introduction” phonetically expressed by the adjacent personal name.

  • 13 Hawkins 2000: 382 and pls. 201-202.
  • 14 See recently Taracha 2011 and 2012, with references.
  • 15 Specifically dealt with by Masson 1996: 30-31 and Baltacıoğlu 1998, with bibliography.
  • 16 Hawkins 2000: 142 and pl. 41; 381-382 and pl. 200 respectively.

17Worth mentioning might also be the first individual within the zoomorphic procession in TULEIL 2 l. 1 (Pl. 3 fig. 5),13 and we should not omit the standing person at the foot of the ladder in the famous depiction on one of the orthostats at Alaca Höyük (Pl. 3 fig. 6), inserted in a ritualistic ensemble;14 it is interesting to note that in Masson’s opinion (1996: 30-31 with n.1) this man – like the curious one on an edge of the ladder15 – “paré […] d’un déguisement particulier […,] semble porter le même masque, celui d’un bélier ?”. Actually, also the face of our “PERSONAGE” resembles a muzzle – in all probability a mask too –, with a sort of curl along the cheek. A further image – although not in full shape – of an individual with arms turned upwards is offered by 3a / L 6 ‘adorer’ of KARKAMIŠ 31 l. 3 § 8 (complemented by -suna, infinitive [Pl. 3 fig. 7]) ‘to pray’, referring to the goddess Kubaba; analogously TULEIL 1 l. 3 (fragmentary context [Pl. 3 fig. 8]).16

  • 17 Cf. Güterbock/Kendall 1995: 52-54 and fig. 3.7, and the latest picture put forth by Savaş 2008: 668 (...)
  • 18 Hawkins 2000: 231, 233 ad “CORNU + CAPUT-mi-i-” and pls. 95-96. On its equivalent written DINGIR-n- (...)

18Nevertheless none of these iconographies show any atypical headgear, which is instead worn by two figures: the first on the extraordinary silver vessel in the form of a fist of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston – interpreted, within a ceremonial scene, as a vegetation or mountain deity adorned with large leaves, with arms upraised in front of the face (Pl. 4 figs. 9a-b);17 the second in TELL AHMAR 5 l. 4 § 11: a human head wearing a close-fitting cap provided with two horn-shaped elements (Pl. 4 fig. 10), “shown by context to be acting as the god’s spokesman, thus some kind of priest or prophet”.18

  • 19 On which cf. Jakob-Rost 1966.
  • 20 Pecchioli Daddi 1982: 376-378; Melchert 1989. The long since recognized term for ‘dog’ in Hieroglyp (...)
  • 21 Pecchioli Daddi 1982: 373-375.
  • 22 Comparable to the UR.MAH ‘lion-man’ (Pecchioli Daddi 1982: 375-376) and the ḫartagga- ‘bear-man (...)

19While the precise office of the “PERSONAGE” under discussion remains to be elucidated, still it appears plausible that (1) such a pictogram should represent the subject of the sentence, otherwise missing, and that (2) the context must in its turn be sacral, so that a reference for this dog-faced individual to the cultic functionaries19 in Cuneiform religious records UR(.GI7) ‘dog-man’ / Hitt. kuwa(n)- ‘hound-man’20 and UR.BAR.RA ‘wolf-man’21, likewise concerned with offerings,22 comes straightaway to mind.

  • 23 Poetto 1993: 29.
  • 24 Hawkins 2000: pl. 1, autography, and Hawkins 2010: 6 (but neglected in Hawkins 2000: 80, transliter (...)

20The crampon k” (386[.2] / L 386.(2)) placed before this figure deserves a special mention. I assume that it should not be considered a word-divider, but a “determinativo onorifico”, years ago identified as such,23 at least when preceding – as regards the post-Empire and Late period (KARAHÖYÜK and KARKAMIŠ), leaving here aside the Imperial use – designations / functions of human beings, e.g. KSAG-ti- ‘person’ and Ktá-ti- ‘father’. In relation to our “PERSONAGE”, particularly revealing appears its position in front of 350[.1]-s ‘priest, minister’ of KARKAMIŠ 4b l. 8 end, § 6.24

  • 25 Cf. HW² I: 42-45.

21Returning to the pictogram of the “LADDER” (GIŠKUN4/5 / Hitt. (GIŠ)ilan(a)-25 – here schematically three- runged), other occurrences of this implement / structure (ideally for climbing / ascending to – i.e. devoutly approaching – a divinity?), in addition to the aforesaid representation on the relief from Alaca Höyük, are:

  • 26 A feminine personal name containing the assured signs pa-ti and à surrounded by sundry decorative m (...)

22(1) in identical vertical position (with numerous rungs, as on the Alaca Höyük block) on a golden signet ring from Ugarit (RS 24.145) at the sides of a Hieroglyphic legend (Pl. 4 fig. 11);26

23(2) inside the ru sign (188 / L 412 [Pl. 4 fig. 12]);

  • 27 Hawkins 2000: 323, 324 commentary (“DOMUS+SCALA”) and pls. 157-158; for the full preservation of th (...)
  • 28 Hawkins 2000: 96, 99 commentary and pls. 10-11.

24(3) inside the pictogram symbolizing ‘house’ = )É+KUN4/5( (220 / L 252 [Pl. 4 fig. 13]) – with two enigmatic occurrences: )É+KUN4/5((-)ha-ti-a/i (dative / ablative sg.) of ŞIRZI l. 2 end, § 3,27 and )É+KUN4/5((-) tá-wa/wi-na/ni-zi (accusative pl.) of KARKAMIŠ 11a l. 5 § 19, explained as “tawani-apartments,” which “would be the women’s quarters located on an upper floor, reached by a ladder, like the Homeric [τὸ] ὑπερῷον”;28

  • 29 Numbering to be gathered under a single heading since it marks the same lexeme zalala- ‘cart’: cf. (...)

25(4) in the combination consisting of a “foot” surmounted by some sort of “ladder” or “stairs, steps” (Pl. 4 fig. 14) at times above “2 wheels” (76 / 77 / 78.1-3 / L 91 / 92 / 9429). Add (329 / L 335) and 331 / L 338.

26But how is our pictogram employed here? It might either determine or belong to the aforesaid next preterite(?) (-)s-pa-which, if referred to the following u-su-pa-ta-, should likewise appropriately pertain to the sacrificial sphere:

‘(to / for) me the “PERSONAGE” LADDER(-)sapata-ed with a holy-ox’.

  • 30 Less likely pl., by context.
  • 31 For an assessment of such graphic sequences cf. Rieken 2008: 640-641.

27Lines 2c-3a: After wa/wi-tá-à (= wa + ata pronoun 3rd sg.30 N, subject + ta locative particle)31 we find the town name ⌈Ma⌉-x-laURU (in absolute form) followed by the temporal adverb zi-la which concludes the clause.

  • 32 del Monte/Tischler 1978: 266; del Monte 1992: 103-104.
  • 33 Cf. recently Forlanini 2008: 151, 185 nn. 54-56 with bibliography.
  • 34 Friendly pointed out to me by Massimo Forlanini.
  • 35 See, e.g., Grayson 1991: 259 l. 53: “URUma-⌈s.u⌉-la”.
  • 36 See Dinçol/Dinçol/Hawkins/Peker 2014: 63, 65 commentary, 68 fig. 2, 70 fig. 5 D.

28Provided that ⌈Ma⌉- (the “ram” head [104(.1) / L 110(.1)], with the point of the protruding horn still visible) is correctly recognized at the break of the vertical left edge of the text, the attested toponyms consisting of three syllabograms – the first of which Ma- and the last -la – are definitely scanty: one is Matila (URUMa-ti-la alongside URUMa-ti/di-il-la32), a prominent cult-center between Hattusa and Arinna,33 hence to be discarded as excessively distant; the other is Mas. ula,34 in the relatively nearby Mardin area, conquered by Aššurnas. irpal II (who reigned from 883 to 859 BC) during his fifth military campaign (879 BC).35 A solution will perhaps turn up with the identification and phonetic reading of the cryptic medial glyph. Instead, with regard to the initial pictogram, it is worth noting its logographic function in the complemented word for ‘ram’ itself, 104[.1]-na/ni-s (nominative sg.) in the above-quoted fragment JISR EL HADID 4 side D l. 2 § 5.36

29As a result of the absence of the verb, a nominal sentence looks here in order: ‘It [scil. the oblation(?)] (will be) in M. thereafter’.

30Subsequently (line 3b) the text reads as follows:

31-mu- ‘I / (for / to) me’ (in wa/wi-mu-ta), ‘200 sheep(?)(-)za-la-[x]-za’ and ‘200 …..’ (other animals or commodities ‒ only unintelligible traces of signs).

32(-)za-la-[x]-za should indicate some kind of sheep, if my recognition of the preposed ideogram (the animal protome with rounded element below [the bulge of the fur? or a pendulous ear?] = 105 / L 111[.1]) is valid. It is however indeterminable whether the ending -za expresses here a nominative / accusative sg. nt., or a dative pl. (‘sheep(?) for / to … [various purposes]’).

  • 37 See, e.g., Chantraine 1970: 329; Liddell/Scott/Stuart Jones/McKenzie 1996: 500; Oettinger 2008: 409 (...)

33Finally, a consideration concerning the numerals. The quantity 200 + 200 seems excessive if referred to a cultic act / a sacrificial rite, unless it serves as a hyperbole, just as is the case with Greek ἑκατόμβη ‘an offering of 100 oxen’, then ‘large sacrifice’ (of heterogeneous animals): in the Iliad used for 12 oxen, for bulls and goats, for 50 rams, and in Miletus just for 3 victims.37 Alternatively, perhaps more realistically, a tribute or a tax might be implied.

Conclusions

34Despite some intricacies, the present epigraph is not uninteresting in many respects:

  • The uncommon / unprecedented glyphs employed (l. 2);

    • 38 Çelik2005.
    • 39 See Poetto 2015: 182, 187 pl. 3 apropos a specific point of the text.
    • 40 Both stones are presently being studied by Dr. Meltem Doğan-Alparslan and Dr. Metin Alparslan.

    The fact of being one of the three monuments written in Hieroglyphic Luwian ‒ currently kept in the Museum of Şanlıurfa ‒ until now found in this zone; the other two ‒ a bull base38 and a stele bearing on the obverse the image of a typical Storm-God39 ‒ come from the Siverek-Şekerli district, north-east of Şanlıurfa.40

  • 41 Cf., e.g., Liverani 1992: 34-44; 89 and fig. 3; 57-62; 92-93 and fig. 6; 73-80; 95-96 and fig. 10; (...)
  • 42 Published by Kulakoğlu 2003.
  • 43 Cf. also Kulakoğlu 2003: 76-77 with references; add Çelik2005: 20.

35The Neo-Hittite presence increases thus the importance of this territory east of the Euphrates, otherwise known only through the accounts of some military campaigns (the second [882 BC], the fifth [879 BC], the ninth [between 875 and 867 BC] and the tenth [866 BC]) of Aššurnas. irpal II.41 Therefore, also on the strength of other non-inscribed Late-Hittite sculptures from this same region,42 all these monuments should be dated prior to the conquest by this Assyrian king, namely within the late 10th-early 9th century BC.43

Bibliographie

Baltacıoğlu, H., “Alaca Höyük Sfenksli Kapı’ya ait Akrobatlar Kabartması”, Olba 1: 1-28, 1998, pls. 1-6. Bauer, A. H., Morphosyntax of the Noun Phrase in Hieroglyphic Luwian (Brill’s Studies in Indo-European Languages and Linguistics 12). Brill, Leyde – Boston, 2014. Beekes, R., Etymological Dictionary of Greek, I. Brill, Leyde – Boston, 2010.

Bittel, K., Boğazköy – Die Kleinfunde der Grabungen 1906-1912, I – Funde hethitischer Zeit (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichung der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 60). J.C. Hinrichs, Leipzig, 1937.

Bordreuil, P. / Pardee, D., La trouvaille épigraphique de l’Ougarit, 1 – Concordance (Ras Shamra-Ougarit 5). Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, Paris, 1989.

Bunnens, G., A New Luwian Stele and the Cult of the Storm-God at Til Barsib-Masuwari (Publications de la Mission archéologique de l’Université de Liège). Peeters, Louvain – Paris – Dudley, 2006.

Çelik, B., “A New Stele of the Late Hittite Period from Siverek-Şanlıurfa”, Anadolu / Anatolia 28, 2005, 17-24. Chantraine, P., Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque Histoire des mots, II. Klincksieck, Paris, 1970.

del Monte, G. F., Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der hethitischen Texte Supplement (Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes 6/2). Reichert Verlag, Wiesbaden, 1992.

del Monte, G. F. / Tischler, J., Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der hethitischen Texte (Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes 6). Reichert Verlag, Wiesbaden, 1978.

Dillo, M., “The Name of the Author of ŞIRZI: A Text Collation – Notes on the Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions”, BiOr 70, 2013, 332-360.

Dinçol, A. / Dinçol, B. / Hawkins, J. D. / Peker, H., “A New Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscription from Hatay”, Anatolica 40, 2014, 61-70.

Forlanini, M., “The Central Provinces of Hatti: An Updating”, in: New Perspectives on the Historical Geography and Topography of Anatolia in the II and I Millennium B.C. (Eothen 16), Strobel, K. (éd.). LoGisma editore, Florence, 2008, 145-188.

Grayson, A. K., Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC, I (1114-859 BC) (Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia – Assyrian Periods 2). University of Toronto Press, Toronto – Buffalo – Londres, 1991.

Güterbock, H. G. / Kendall, T., “A Hittite Silver Vessel in the Form of a Fist”, in: The Ages of Homer – A Tribute to Emily Townsend Vermeule, Carter, J. B. / Morris, S. P. (éds.). University of Texas Press, Austin, 1995, 45-60.

Hawkins, J. D., Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, I/1-3 (Untersuchungen zur indogermanischen Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft NF 8). De Gruyter, Berlin – New York, 2000.

Hawkins, J. D., “The Inscription [TELL AHMAR 6]”, in: Bunnens 2006: 11-31, 142, 146-147 figs. 21-22.

Hawkins, J. D., “The Usage of the Hieroglyphic Luwian Sign ‘crampon’ (L.386)”, Kadmos 49, 2010, 1-10. Hawkins, J. D., “Gods of Commagene: The Cult of the Stag-God in the inscriptions of Ancoz”, in: Diversity and

Standardization – Perspectives on social and political norms in the ancient Near East, Cancik-Kirschbaum, E. / Klinger, J. / Müller, G. G. (éds.). Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 2013, 65-80.

Helft, S., Patterns of Exchange / Patterns of Power: A New Archaeology of the Hittite Empire – Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania, [Philadelphia], 2010.

Jakob-Rost, L., “Zu einigen hethitischen Kultfunktionären”, Or NS 35, 1966, 417-422. Kabatiarova, B. R., Ugaritic Seal Metamorphoses as a Reflection of the Hittite Administration and the Egyptian Influence in the Late Bronze Age in Western Syria [– Thesis]. The Department of Archaeology and History of Art - Bilkent University, Ankara, 2006.

Kulakoğlu, F., “Şanlıurfa’da Son Yıllarda Keşfedilen Geç Hitit Heykeltraşlık Merkezleri ve Eserleri”, 2002 Yılı Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi Konferansları, 2003, 65-87.

Liddell, H.G. / Scott, R. / Stuart Jones, H. / McKenzie, R., A Greek-English Lexicon9With a revised supplement. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996.

Liverani, M., Studies on the Annals of Ashurnasirpal II 2: Topographical Analysis. Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, Rome, 1992.

Masson, E., “Réalité ou métaphore. De l’intelligence des documents écrits ou figurés des Hittites – Notes critiques”, RHR 213, 1996, 25-38.

Melchert, H. C., “PIE ‘dog’ in Hittite”, MSS 50, 1989, 97-101. Melchert, H. C., “Two problems of Anatolian nominal derivation”, in: Compositiones Indogermanicae in memoriam Jochem Schindler, Eichner, H. / Luschützky, H. C. (éds.). Enigma Corporation, Prague, 1999, 365-375. Meriggi, P., Hieroglyphisch-hethitisches Glossar2. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 1962.

Oettinger, N., “An Indo-European Custom of Sacrifice in Greece and Elsewhere”, in: Evidence and Counter-Evidence – Essays in Honour of Frederik Kortlandt, I (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 32), Lubotsky, A. / Schaeken, J. / Wiedenhof, J. (éds.). Rodopi, Amsterdam – New York, 2008, 403-414.

Payne, A., Iron Age Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions (WAW 29). Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, 2012. Pecchioli Daddi, F., Mestieri, professioni e dignità nell’Anatolia ittita (Incunabula Graeca 79). Edizioni dell’Ateneo, Rome, 1982.

Poetto, M., “Luvio geroglifico SAR+r(-à) KAT-ta”, in: Festschrift for Oswald Szemerényi on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, II (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science IV/11), Brogyanyi, B. (éd.). John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 1979, 669-677.

Poetto, M., L’iscrizione luvio-geroglifica di YALBURT – Nuove acquisizioni relative alla geografia dell’Anatolia sud- occidentale (Studia Mediterranea 8). Gianni Iuculano Editore, Pavie, 1993.

Poetto, M., “Per la definitiva lettura del numerale ‘9’ in luvio geroglifico”, Or NS 79, 2010, 242-245, pls. XXIII-XXIV. Poetto, M., Review of Bunnens 2006, BiOr 71, 2014, 793-797.

Poetto, M., “DINGIRSassa”, in: Saeculum – Gedenkschrift für Heinrich Otten anlässlich seines 100. Geburtstag (StBoT 58), Müller-Karpe, A. / Rieken, E. / Sommerfeld, W. (éds.). Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 2015, 181-187.

Prechel, D., “‘Gottesmänner’, ‘Gottesfrauen’ und die hethitischen Prophetie”, WdO 38, 2008, 211-220. Rieken, E., “Die Zeichen <ta>, <tá> und <tà> in den hieroglyphen-luwischen Inschriften der Nachgroßreichszeit”, SMEA 50VI Congresso Internazionale di Ittitologia, Roma, 5-9 settembre 2005, Archi, A. / Francia, R. (éds.). CNR-Istituto di Studi sulle Civiltà dell’Egeo e del Vicino-Oriente, Rome, 2008, 637-647.

Saadé, G., Ougarit et son royaume Des origines à sa destruction. Institut français du Proche-Orient, Beyrouth, 2011. Savaş, S. Ö., “The Fist of the Storm God and the ‘Rundbau = Étarnu-structure’”, SMEA 50VI Congresso Internazionale di Ittitologia, Roma, 5-9 settembre 2005, Archi, A. / Francia, R. (éds.). CNR-Istituto di Studi sulle Civiltà dell’Egeo e del Vicino- Oriente, Rome, 2008, 657-680.

Stefanelli, R., “EKATOMBH, o del procedere cerimoniale”, InL 37, 2014, 29-61. Taracha, P., “The Iconographic Program of the Sculptures of Alacahöyük”, JANER 11, 2011, 132-147.

Taracha, P., “The Sculptures of Alacahöyük: A Key to Religious Symbolism in Hittite Representational Art”, NEA 75, 2012, 108-114.

Tischler, J., Review of Friedrich, J.-Kammenhuber, A.-Hoffmann, I.: Hethitisches Wörterbuch2, III/16 (2004), ZA 96, 2006, 149-152.

Weiss, M., Language and Ritual in Sabellic Italy – The Ritual Complex of the Third and Fourth Tabulae Iguvinae (Brill’s Studies in Indo-European Languages and Linguistics 1). Brill, Leyde – Boston, 2010.

Yon, M., La cité d’Ougarit sur le tell de Ras Shamra (Guides archéologiques de l’Institut français du Proche-Orient 2). Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, Paris, 1997.

Yon, M., The City of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, 2006.

Notes

1 Cf. the concise archaeological presentation of the piece by Kulakoğlu 2003: 70 sub 3 and pl. 4, figs. 7-8.

2 Some preliminary interpretative details supplied by me to Kulakoğlu are given in his report of 2003: 76.

3 See Poetto 2010 reaffirmed in Poetto 2014: 796 (against Payne 2012: 93: “9 BOS-za ‘nine oxen’” and now Luwian Corpus: “ “9” BOS(ANIMAL)-za-ʹ” [i.e. “wawa- (N, neuter) acc,sg, bull figurine”!] sub “nuwa ‘nine’ (0,ton)” as well as “9-u-za [acc,sg]” sub “nuwi(ya)- ‘nineth part’ (N, neuter)”, both echoing Hawkins 2000: 270 with pl. 119 and Hawkins 2006: 16 and 29 § 28). Inconclusive about the graphic reality of this point, with related inferences, Bauer 2014: 86-87, commentary to quotations (39)a and (39)b (p. 85).

4 Hawkins 2000: 405 and pl. 213.

5 Implicitly endorsed by Hawkins 2013: 74 with n. 17 after the plain cross-reference to my discussion in Hawkins 2000: 406, commentary to § 11. It is gratifying to find out that a kindred interpretation – providing thus further confirmatory support (pace Weiss 2010: 371 n. 49: “Poetto 1979: 671-72 has suggested that Hieroglyphic BOS usupa(n)t- might be a compound of ‘cow’ and supp- [sic!] but this is not certain”) – now peeps out in Payne 2012: 65 n. 78, in connection with her translation ‘sacrificial ox’: “The term usupatata seems to refer to some kind of animal sacrifice, specifically cattle because of the determinative BOS; according to Yakubovich (pers. comm.), the stem contains the elements u<*waw- ‘cow’ and suppa- [!] ‘sacrificial meat,’ which would make good sense in this context”; note in addition (with divergent morphological analysis) “usuppatt(i)- ‘bull sacrifice’ (N, common)” (base of u-su-pa-ta-tà(-ha-wa/wi), surprisingly understood as “usuppattadi, ins[trumental]”!), however in coexistence with the incongruous “suppatt(i)- [“(“BOS”)su-pa-ti-na, acc,sg”] ‘animal offering’ (N, common)” in Luwian Corpus.

6 supant- should thus mirror a variant / by-form *suppant-, in parallel with, e.g., kappant- (participle) < kappi- / kappai- ‘small, little’.

7 In this respect it must be remarked that HEG Š: 1190 and 1193 improperly attributed to me the genetic relationship between supant- and spənta-: my parallel patently concerned only the identity of structure (noun + adjective) and the significance of such nominal compounds!

8 Whence my exegesis of the whole clause (Poetto 1979: 674): “E in nessuna occasione (essi [scil. my father and grandfather]) immolarono alla dea buoi puri (e) destinati (letteralm. ‘alcun bue puro (e) destinato’) al sacrificio”.

9 Hawkins 2000: 336 and pl. 165.

10 With the admissible emendation (n. 22) hu-pi-tà-<ta>-tà-n-<<n>>, accusative sg., in III C 1 § 7.

11 Along the lines of Melchert 1999: 368-373 for this suffix. – Utterly different presentation in Luwian Corpus: “hubidattad- ‘hubida-block’ (N) ins” and, unemended, “hubidadannan ‘at the hubida-block’ (0, ton)”.

12 Bittel 1937: pl. 9.1.

13 Hawkins 2000: 382 and pls. 201-202.

14 See recently Taracha 2011 and 2012, with references.

15 Specifically dealt with by Masson 1996: 30-31 and Baltacıoğlu 1998, with bibliography.

16 Hawkins 2000: 142 and pl. 41; 381-382 and pl. 200 respectively.

17 Cf. Güterbock/Kendall 1995: 52-54 and fig. 3.7, and the latest picture put forth by Savaş 2008: 668-670.

18 Hawkins 2000: 231, 233 ad “CORNU + CAPUT-mi-i-” and pls. 95-96. On its equivalent written DINGIR-n-mi-a/i- (= massanami-) in TELL AHMAR 6 side D l. 6 § 22 see Hawkins 2006: 14, 15 (‘the god-inspired (one)’), 27 and 146-147 figs. 21-22; on the function of this image cf. Bunnens 2006: 82-83; Prechel 2008: 219-220 in particular.

19 On which cf. Jakob-Rost 1966.

20 Pecchioli Daddi 1982: 376-378; Melchert 1989. The long since recognized term for ‘dog’ in Hieroglyphic Luwian is śuwa/ina/i- (Meriggi 1962: 112).

21 Pecchioli Daddi 1982: 373-375.

22 Comparable to the UR.MAH ‘lion-man’ (Pecchioli Daddi 1982: 375-376) and the ḫartagga- ‘bear-man’ (Pecchioli Daddi 1982: 233-234; against the meaning ‘bear’ for hartagga- see the considerations of Tischler 2006: 150-151, who opts for a generic ‘Raubtier’).

23 Poetto 1993: 29.

24 Hawkins 2000: pl. 1, autography, and Hawkins 2010: 6 (but neglected in Hawkins 2000: 80, transliteration, and Hawkins 2010: 10). For an overall reassessment cf. Hawkins 2010, with evaluation of the usages of this notation (rendered by “VIR2”) before diverse terms.

25 Cf. HW² I: 42-45.

26 A feminine personal name containing the assured signs pa-ti and à surrounded by sundry decorative motives plus the generic designation ‘good (to the) woman’ (Yon 1997: 109 and fig. 59 = Yon 2006: 99 and fig. 59 – reading: “Patilou-wa / Patili” / “Patilu-wa / Patili”!; Kabatiarova 2006: 80 and 133-134 fig. 3c: “Patili”!, with a hint at the “vertical ladder like motives, a feature not seen on any other signet”. The object is also cited by Bordreuil/Pardee 1989: 298 and fig 39, 299; Helft 2010: 46, 48, 261 no. 70: “Patiluwa? A/I-x-x-pa-ti-lu-tu PONERE-wa?”!; Saadé 2011: 156 and fig. 41: “Patilou-wa”!).

27 Hawkins 2000: 323, 324 commentary (“DOMUS+SCALA”) and pls. 157-158; for the full preservation of the marker cf. Dillo 2013: 347-348 and fig. 7, with the word tentatively interpreted as “a ‘look-out tower(?)’ for the wild animals”.

28 Hawkins 2000: 96, 99 commentary and pls. 10-11.

29 Numbering to be gathered under a single heading since it marks the same lexeme zalala- ‘cart’: cf. Hawkins 2000: 135 § 1 commentary. A peculiar shape is shown by TELL AHMAR 6 side B l. 6 § 24 (see Poetto 2014: 795-796).

30 Less likely pl., by context.

31 For an assessment of such graphic sequences cf. Rieken 2008: 640-641.

32 del Monte/Tischler 1978: 266; del Monte 1992: 103-104.

33 Cf. recently Forlanini 2008: 151, 185 nn. 54-56 with bibliography.

34 Friendly pointed out to me by Massimo Forlanini.

35 See, e.g., Grayson 1991: 259 l. 53: “URUma-⌈s.u⌉-la”.

36 See Dinçol/Dinçol/Hawkins/Peker 2014: 63, 65 commentary, 68 fig. 2, 70 fig. 5 D.

37 See, e.g., Chantraine 1970: 329; Liddell/Scott/Stuart Jones/McKenzie 1996: 500; Oettinger 2008: 409, 411; Beekes 2010: 396. Unconvincing the new etymology by Stefanelli 2014: 38-58.

38 Çelik 2005.

39 See Poetto 2015: 182, 187 pl. 3 apropos a specific point of the text.

40 Both stones are presently being studied by Dr. Meltem Doğan-Alparslan and Dr. Metin Alparslan.

41 Cf., e.g., Liverani 1992: 34-44; 89 and fig. 3; 57-62; 92-93 and fig. 6; 73-80; 95-96 and fig. 10; 81-86; 96 and fig. 11 respectively.

42 Published by Kulakoğlu 2003.

43 Cf. also Kulakoğlu 2003: 76-77 with references; add Çelik 2005: 20.

Table des illustrations

Titre Pl. 1
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifeagd/docannexe/image/3462/img-1.png
Fichier image/png, 530k
Titre Pl. 2
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifeagd/docannexe/image/3462/img-2.png
Fichier image/png, 765k
Titre Pl. 3
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifeagd/docannexe/image/3462/img-3.png
Fichier image/png, 82k
Titre Pl. 4
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifeagd/docannexe/image/3462/img-4.png
Fichier image/png, 493k

Auteur

University of Bari (emeritus)

© Institut français d’études anatoliennes, 2017

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540

Lire

Open access

Acheter

Volume papier

amazon.fr
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search