Version classiqueVersion mobile

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

 | 
Alice Mouton

V. Historiographie

Laroche and the Seals of Meskene-Emar

J. David Hawkins

Texte intégral

Introduction

1An international colloquium “Les écritures mises au jour sur le site antique d’Ougarit (Syrie) et leur déchiffrement, 1930-2010” was held in December 2010 in the Collège de France and the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, and the Actes de colloque have recently appeared (Bordreuil et al. 2014 (éds.)). When invited to give a paper, I felt it appropriate to speak on “The digraphic seals of Ugarit: Emmanuel Laroche and the decipherment of Hieroglyphic Luwian”. In this paper, I reviewed Laroche’s distinctive contribution to decipherment with his commentary on the Ugarit digraphs (Laroche 1956), and his use of this material in his signary Les hiéroglyphes hittites (Laroche 1960). About 1970, new evidence became available, permitting the “new readings” of four crucial Hieroglyphic signs, which radically transformed the understanding of the language of the Hieroglyphs, revealing it as almost identical to the Luwian written in cuneiform in the archives of Boğazköy-Hattuša (Hawkins/Morpurgo Davies/Neumann 1974).

Digraphic seals from Meskene

2Meanwhile excavations at the Syrian site of Meskene-Emar by a French archaeological mission, 1972-76, recovered some 1000 cuneiform tablets providing among other things a new and larger group of digraphs. These too were entrusted to Laroche for publication, and he announced the discovery at the XXIIIrdRencontre Asssyriologique Internationale held in Birmingham in July 1976, providing a satisfactory selection of representative examples of the new material. I reported these developments too in my paper, bringing the story up to Laroche’s three preliminary publications (Laroche 1981, 1982 and 1983).

3I concluded with noting that Laroche did produce a draft manuscript for the final publication but that sadly he was prevented, by ill-health and death in 1991, from carrying this through to completion. I was fortunate in receiving from him a copy of this draft manuscript.

4It will, I hope, be thought appropriate in the context of this colloquium and in honour of Laroche’s memory that I should put on record his contribution on the information from Meskene-Emar, in which I can include much unpublished material. This was the period in which I enjoyed a detailed correspondence with him relating to my own work on the hieroglyphs, and it well reflects his generosity in sharing this new information with me. It is also important to note where new perceptions suggest the correction of some of his preliminary conclusions, and of course this in no way detracts from the scale of his achievement.

5Laroche’s draft manuscript is entitled “Documents hittites : première partie, empreintes de sceaux hiéroglyphiques”, and it was intended to appear as Emar V in the programme of publication, though as noted, he was never able to revise it to a state suitable for publication. The text is largely intellectually complete, and the revision required was more editorial in character, cross-referencing and ironing out of inconsistencies, etc. I will hereafter refer to it as Emar V ms.

6Of his three preliminary publications, Laroche 1981 is the most detailed, consisting first of a concise summary of the material and its character, followed by a provisional list of fifty-five names given in normalized form, then cuneiform and hieroglyphic writings, and titles where provided, ending with key equivalents of syllabograms and ideograms (titles), and graphic variants.

  • 1 In an adjoining article by Beyer, three names are further illustrated: one by photograph and drawin (...)

7In his second preliminary publication, Laroche 1982, he gives as examples twelve impressions (cylinder, signet and stamp) of names written digraphically: seals with names in hieroglyphs identified by cuneiform epigraphs NA4KIŠIB IPN… “Seal of So-and-so”. Here six are illustrated by photographs and one by a drawing by Beyer.1 In the third preliminary article further names are presented in photograph (Laroche 1983), some repeated, with further exposition.

Meskene-Emar publication

8Meanwhile the epigraphic material from the Meskene excavations was being published: the tablets by D. Arnaud as Emar VI/1-4 (Arnaud 1985 and 1987), as cuneiform copies including the seal epigraphs, transliterations and translations; and the seals by D. Beyer as Emar IV, Les sceaux (Beyer 2001), including those with inscription divided into cylinder, signet and stamp seals. It was Laroche’s Emar V which was intended to bridge the gap by uniting the cuneiform epigraphs with their hieroglyphic impressions and illustrating them with detailed photographs, also providing elucidatory comment.

9As it was, Beyer was able to use Laroche’s Emar V ms. for the readings, and he also published a number of photographs but by no means a comprehensive collection which remains a desideratum. It is always unfortunate when the illustrations of the seals become separated by publication from the tablets on which they were impressed with the identifying epigraphs, though one can see that this was probably inevitable when publication was divided between three scholars each with their own area of expertise.

Further material from illegal excavations

10Up to this point we have been concerned with the tablets excavated by the Mission archéologique de Meskéné-Emar under the direction of Jean-Claude Margueron in the years 1972-76. Both during and after that time massive illegal excavations recovered hundreds of tablets which have flooded on the antiquities market and come to rest in the hands of private individuals including some big collectors, Borowski, Rosen, Hirayama and others.

11These tablets are being published either as substantial collections or piecemeal by ones and twos: see especially Arnaud 1991-Gonnet 1991; Tsukimoto 1990, 1991, 1992; Beckman 1996; Goodnick Westenholz 2000-Singer 2000. Of these the first and the last did the best job by publishing the seal impressions along with the tablets bearing them. Of this additional material Laroche was only able to use some of the items from the first cited.

Correspondence J. David Hawkins – Emmanuel Laroche

  • 2 Hawkins 2013: 87 fig. 11.

12As I have noted, I corresponded with Laroche in the early 1980s, most importantly on the digraphic values, cuneiform – hieroglyphic, established by the Meskene documents, and I think that some of this is worth putting on record. I have already recorded that after his first presentation of the Meskene digraphs at the XXIIIrdR.A.I. in Birmingham in 1976, he gave me the two transparencies which he had used to illustrate his talk, one showing cuneiform correspondencies of hieroglyphic signs, the other some examples of the personal names in digraphic writings. These I published in Hawkins 2013,2 noting that the hieroglyphic rendering of the name Ahi-Dagan was incorrect. A further error must also be corrected: the hieroglyphic rendering of cuneiform ip in the name Ipki-DKUR is also wrong. For these two names, see below Emar V ms. no. 50 and 67 (Fig. 3b and 3c).

  • 3 Laroche 1981: 10-12.

13When Laroche published his “Liste (provisoire) des noms émariotes écrits en hiéroglyphes hittites”,3 it was important for me to establish the exact cuneiform-hieroglyphic equivalences, since certain inconsistencies in the hieroglyphic transliterations were observable. So I wrote to him, asking for clarification on a number of points, to which he graciously responded with comprehensive answers, adding also several new pieces of evidence.

14I sent my queries in the form of a photo-copy of his “Liste provisoire” with my queries marked on it, which he returned with his answers and other comments. I reproduce here his covering letter dated 15 November 1981 (Fig. 1) and the photo-copy of the “Liste provisoire” (my queries in black, his answers in red: Fig. 2a-d).

Fig. 1: Emmanuel Laroche’s covering letter to J. David Hawkins (15 November 1981)

Fig. 1: Emmanuel Laroche’s covering letter to J. David Hawkins (15 November 1981)

15As will be seen, the important points for me were the exact correspondences for hieroglyph L.209 (i(a) for me), L.450 (a), L.19 (á), and L.376 (zi/a); also the range of L.100 (ta), L.29 (), L.41 (); the forms of L.413 (hi) as against L.415 (sa), of L.434 (ka) and of L.214 (ni).

Emmanuel Laroche’s “Liste provisoire” (Fig. 2a-d)

Fig. 2a: “Liste provisoire” no. 1-21. Black annotations: J. David Hawkins’ questions. Red annotations (here in gray): Emmanuel Laroche’s answers

Fig. 2a: “Liste provisoire” no. 1-21. Black annotations: J. David Hawkins’ questions. Red annotations (here in gray): Emmanuel Laroche’s answers

Fig. 2b: “Liste provisoire” no. 22-48. Black annotations: J. David Hawkins’ questions. Red annotations (here in gray): Emmanuel Laroche’s answers

Fig. 2b: “Liste provisoire” no. 22-48. Black annotations: J. David Hawkins’ questions. Red annotations (here in gray): Emmanuel Laroche’s answers

Fig. 2c: “Liste provisoire” no. 48 bis-55. Black annotations: J. David Hawkins’ questions. Red annotations (here in gray): Emmanuel Laroche’s answers

Fig. 2c: “Liste provisoire” no. 48 bis-55. Black annotations: J. David Hawkins’ questions. Red annotations (here in gray): Emmanuel Laroche’s answers

Fig. 2d: “Liste provisoire”: comments on no. 5, 6 and 56. All red annotations (here in gray) by Emmanuel Laroche

Fig. 2d: “Liste provisoire”: comments on no. 5, 6 and 56. All red annotations (here in gray) by Emmanuel Laroche

16I now add comments where necessary, following the numeration of the “Liste provisoire”.

2. ‘Abd-ili: Laroche was already noting at Meskene the graphic practice later described as initial-a- final: see VI.3 no. 30 below.

5-6. Adad-qarrad and Adad-rapih: For the writing Ada(d) (DU) with hieroglyphic i(a)-tá, see Laroche’s full response below in Excursus 2.

7. Ahi-Dagan: The hieroglyphic name identified with this cuneiform epigraph is actually a different one, written i(a)-ka(+ra/i?)-tá-ti. Correction to be noted to transparency 1.

14 bis. Ba‘alat-Aštarte: Note Laroche’s addition of this significant use of L.376 (zi/a) for -t-(a)s-, commented also in his covering letter (Fig. 1).

22-25. Ebri-Tešub, Ehli-kuša, Elli, Ehliya: all render cuneiform e with hieroglyph L.209 (i(a)).

27. Hešmi-Tešub: Laroche notes the difficulty of distinguishing L.413 (hi) from L.415 (sa) though actually the first sign here is L.215 (ha) as he later recognized: see below Emar V ms. no. 6 (Fig. 3a).

28, 31. Ibniya and Ilanu: Here hieroglyph L.209 (i(a)) actually renders cuneiform i, not e.

32. Iliya-Dagan: The hieroglyphic reading of this name is erroneous. Laroche later abandons it.

33. Imlik-Dagan: The hieroglyphic reading is actually i(a)-á-mi-…, thus cuneiform Imlik-Dagan = hieroglyphic Yamlik-

35. Ipki-Dagan: Misreading caused by seal jumping during impression leaving misleading double image. See below VI.3 no. 50.

38. Mati-DIM: Mistake for cuneiform ma-di-DKUR, hieroglyphic ma-ti-tà-[ka], as Laroche later recognized, see VI.3 no. 38.

40. Maziya: Apparently not published. Laroche later reads hieroglyphic ma-zi-á-x-á. 44 bis. Punu: See addition by Laroche at foot of Fig. 2b.

46. *SIN-abu: Laroche solves the problem by reading sà-ga-ara-á-bu and identifying sagar a palmyrene Moon-God (bottom of Fig. 2c).

47. Sei-Dagan: This gives a equivalence hieroglyph L.209 (i(a)) = cuneiform i (not e).

  • 4 See also the covering letter (Fig. 1).

48 bis. Tilae: Laroche was puzzled at the apparent hieroglyphic á (L.19) = cuneiform ti.4 Later he had solved this by identifying the sign rather as the same as that corresponding to te in the DN Hutena (YAZILIKAYA no. 47). This has recently been confirmed by the recurrence of the sign on a seal in the NIŞANTEPE archive (Hawkins 2005: 431-432) read with new number L.526.

49. *Tadi-Dagan: Apparently unpublished, reading discarded?

52. Wasti: Laroche confirms writings with both sa and .

56. Burakum: Added. The hieroglyphic writing puzzled Laroche with a different name which he read as HI/SA??-ZITI. The problem has been solved by the publication of the group M(oyen) E(uphrate) (Arnaud 1991 and Gonnet 1991), where Burakum used the same seal on tablets nos. 36 and 91, but on no.76(a) it has the epigraph NA4KIŠIB Ihi-il-la-ri-zi, indicating the hieroglyphic reading hi-la+ra-zi, the name of the original owner of the seal.

Emmanuel Laroche’s Emar V ms. (Fig. 3a-c)

Fig. 3a: Emar V ms. no. 1-22. All annotations in black by J. David Hawkins

Fig. 3a: Emar V ms. no. 1-22. All annotations in black by J. David Hawkins

Fig. 3b: Emar V ms. no. 23-63. All annotations in black by J. David Hawkins

Fig. 3b: Emar V ms. no. 23-63. All annotations in black by J. David Hawkins

Fig. 3c: Emar V ms. no. 64-76. All annotations in black by J. David Hawkins

Fig. 3c: Emar V ms. no. 64-76. All annotations in black by J. David Hawkins

17Laroche’s draft manuscript (Emar V ms.) was as noted above, never revised and edited into publishable form. It did however serve Beyer in his massive edition of the Meskene seals, Emar IV, to provide the readings of the inscribed seals with their cuneiform epigraphs (see Beyer 2001: XV). He was not of course in a position to control this material fully, so has transmitted a number of incorrect or misleading readings, especially where the hieroglyphic names and the cuneiform epigraphs differ.

  • 5 As noted above, Laroche’s Emar V would have united these two strands of evidence with his own readi (...)

18Here seems an appropriate place to make such corrections as are possible. The cuneiform epigraphs can all be checked by cross-reference to Arnaud’s copies in Emar VI/1-4. The hieroglyphic name readings can be partially checked where Beyer gives usable photographs, but this is not the case for all.5

19I conclude this tribute to Laroche’s memory with reproducing his list of names from Emar V ms. (Fig. 3a-d), which is divided into four sections: I. rois et princes (nos. 1-11); II. devins, prêtres, scribes, dignitaires (nos. 12-22); III. témoins (cun. IGI mx, nos. 23-63); IV. divers (nos. 64-76). This list represents a further stage of the “Liste provisoire” from Laroche 1981, with additions, a few subtractions, and corrections.

20I have cross-referenced the number of these names with those of the “Liste provisoire”. I also give, as far as possible, references to Beyer’s treatment of each seal according to his classifications (A. cylinder seals; B. signet rings; C. stamp seals). I accompany this with such comments as may be necessary on the individual entries.

21My hope is that this information may serve to advance our access to the Meskene evidence pending a final full publication of the material.

Emar V ms. I. Rois et princes (Fig. 3a)

  • 6 This is now in the Hirayama collection, HCCT E16, see Tsukimoto 1984: 68 and 70.
  • 7 This is now in the Rosen collection, see CHLI 1/2: 574-575.

223-4. Talmi-Tešub and *Ku(n)zi-Tešub: Earlier in 1981, photographs were sent by an antiquities dealer to the British Museum, where I was shown them: 1) a cuneiform tablet sealed by a number of impressions of a circular stamp seal, hieroglyphic legend ku-ti-TONITRUS REX.FILIUS, cuneiform epigraph NA4KIŠIB Iku-un-ti-DU-ub DUMU Ital-mi-DIM LUGAL Kar-ga-miš;6 2) the upper half of a circular stamp impression showing the Storm-God. Behind him the name and title (hieroglyphic) of Talmi-Tešub, king of Karkamiš, in front the name and title of Kuzi-Tešub, king of Karkamiš.7 In my letter to Laroche thanking him for his response to my queries on the “Liste provisoire” (dated 19 November 1981), I communicated these two documents to him, which he incorporated in his Emar V ms., and the Rosen impression passed from there to Beyer 2001: C.2. In 1986, complete impressions of the same seal were excavated at Lidar Höyük: see Sürenhagen 1986 and Hawkins 1988.

6. Hešmi-Tešub: By the time of Emar V ms., Laroche had corrected the initial hieroglyphic sign from L.413 (hi) to L.215 (ha).

11. *Panasa?: This reading can now be seen to be erroneous: see below Excursus 1.

Emar V ms. II. Devins, prêtres, scribes, dignitaries (Fig. 3a)

  • 8 See line 31, IGI IEN.GAL Ú.TU: Emar VI/1: 171 and Emar VI/3 no.205. However the two are not certa (...)
  • 9 See Hawkins 2002: 225-226 with n. 64.

16. Belu-kabar “héraut”: Laroche took hieroglyphic L.254 (the “barred rectangle”) as the equivalent of cuneiform Ú.TU: seal epigraph NA4KIŠIB IEN.GAL […].8 He took Ú.TU as (GA+ṬU=)ÍL, nāgiru, “herald”. But the reading of L.254 has been corrected: Hawkins2005: 303 no. 15, and shown to correspond to ša rēši, “eunuch”.9 It does not seem that the reading nāgiru can be maintained.

  • 10 Laroche 1980: 75-76.

17. Ehli-Kuša: Laroche explains the logographic writing cun. KAR.D30 from the lexical evidence KAR = Hurrian ehl-.10

19. *Sagar-abu: See “Liste provisoire” no. 46 for Laroche’s solution of the reading and identification of the Moon-God Sagar (Fig. 2c).

Emar V ms. III. Témoins (Fig. 3b)

23, 29. Amzahi and Ehliya: Particularly important seal, unusual in including patronym. Both names give important digraphs, and both were already so presented by Laroche in 1976 at the XXIIIrdR.A.I.: see his table of syllabic equivalents (Hawkins 2013: 87 fig. 11), which give L.376 = cun. za (formerly read i), and L.209 = cun. e and ia (formerly read a).

30. *Atar-abi: Cun. NA4KIŠIB Iat-ra-bi = hier. tara/i-pi-*a (initial-a-final). For this reading Laroche suggests Semitic *Atar-abi. Beyer reads Adrabu.

32. Mudri-Tešub: Laroche knew three seals (two signets, one stamp) of this important official, theUGULA.KALAMMA, as listed by Beyer. In addition a further seal is known impressed on tablets Msk 74.144 (no. 290: Beyer 2001: B.49) and Hirayama HCCT E2-2-2 (three impressions). I saw the latter in the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, in 1983. The cuneiform epigraph reads NA4KIŠIB Imu-ud-ri-DIM = hieroglyphic legend mu(i.e. BOS <MI>)-tara/i-TEŠUP-pa.

33. Ba‘al-malik: The name EN-ma-lik is borne by two different individuals: 1) DUMU za-al-mi (written pa-á-li-ma-li) and 2) DUMU ba-a (written pa-li-ma-li). The use of hieroglyph á (L.19) intervocatically to represent Semitic ‘ is noteworthy.

34. Ba‘alat-starti: Noted above under “Liste provisoire” no. 14 bis (Fig. 2a). The cuneiform epigraph reads [NA4KIŠIB D]-tar-tu-li-it DUMU ha-ri to the seals hieroglyphic legend ba-la-za-tar-ti. Laroche explains cun. Astartu-lît as “Astarté est victorieuse/suprême”, equating with hier. Ba‘alat-(a)starte “Astarte est la Dame”. He comments on the use of -za- to represent (-)t-s(-): “la consonne affriquée z = t + s”.

38. Madi-Dagan: This entry corrects “Liste provisoire” no. 38 (Fig. 2b), (DUMU) mati-DIM to ma-di-DKUR = ma-ti-tà-[ka].

39. Dagan-kabar (m.DKUR.GAL): Two individuals have seals with this name, the sons of Beli (signet) and Nukra (cylinder). Both write their name ta-ka-pa+ra/i. Laroche notes the haplography in Dag(an)kabar.

40. Dagan-talih: The three bearers of this name are sons of 1) Tura-Daga; 2) Yašur-Dagan; and 3) Huzamu. Nos. 1 and 3 write the name ta-ka-TALA-i(a), no. 2 ta-ka-ta-li (reading given in “Liste provisoire” no. 20 – Fig. 2a).

41. Dagan-tarih: Laroche reports a final hieroglyphic syllable -ha (L.215), but to judge from Beyer’s drawing this is not present (no photograph available).

42. Elli: Good example as Laroche notes of cun. e(l) = hier. i(a) (L.209). Elli’s patronym is of interest, GEŠTIN.ŠEŠ: Emar VI/2: 713, Emar VI/3: 125 no. 118 l. 12. Yakubovich 2010: 91-92, following van den Hout 2003: 304, argues “on semantic grounds against interpreting the name Maddunāni as a Luwian compound ‘brother of the vine’”, preferring an alternative explanation. The present attestation would seem to invalidate this argument: cuneiform epigraph GEŠTIN.ŠEŠ = hieroglyphic seal legend VITIS-na-ni (read in reverse, hier. VITIS = wiyani- “vine”, and maddu- “wine”); thus the reading should be Maddunani.

44. Yadi-Ba‘al: In the name (cun.) ZU-ba-la, zu may be read as phonetic, giving the common name Zu-Ba‘al, “he of Ba‘al”; or logographically ZU = īdu, “know”, as here, indicated by its hieroglyphic equivalent, noted by Laroche, reading ia-ti-pa-li, “Ba‘al knows”. He also noted but did not explain the pair of flanking signs, which occur frequently on seals and may now be recognized as PITHOS (L.336) marking the profession of the seal bearer (Hawkins 2005: 305-306).

45. Yadi-Dagan: Laroche knew three impressions of this seal and notes “pas de cunéiforme”, reading i-a-ti-tà-ga (i.e. i(a)-á-ti-tà-ka), Yadi-Dagan. In fact tablet no. 217 in Emar VI/2: 756 and Emar VI/3: 231-232 does have the epigraph NA4KIŠIB Iia-ti-DKUR DUMU GUR.DKUR (photo: Beyer 2001: pl. 28b; A.69 incorrect for A.70!). The digraph cun. ia-ti- = hier. i(a)-á-ti- is important.

46. Imlik-Dagan: Laroche’s more accurate reading hier. i-a-mi-li-k(i)-dà-ga (i.e. i(a)-á-mi-li-ki-tà-ka) gives valuable digraph cun. im- = hier. i(a)-á-mi-. Thus cun. writes Akkadian imlik-, hier. the West Semitic yamlik-.

50. Ipki-Dagan: As noted above, “Liste provisoire” no. 35, this seal has jumped while being impressed resulting in a confusing double image, which misled Laroche into identifying L.336 as part of the name with value i4 (i5). Beyer, disentangling the double impression, noted this “important dérapage”. Below the arm of the right-facing god the signs -ki-tà-ka though appearing twice, are adequately clear. Above however the god’s head with PITHOS (L.336) in front of it also appears twice, misleading Laroche into reading L.336-L.334-L.336 (i5 pa i5) as rendering of cun. ip-. In fact the signs rendering ip- must have stood to the right of the profession designation PITHOS, probably i(a)-pa/pi-. Thus no value i5 (L.336.II, 1, 3) exists: the “new readings” show it to alternate with zi, not i.

51. Matkali-Dagan: Hier. reading matkali- for cun. NIR elucidated by Laroche from vocabulary Sa (KBo 1.43 obv. 4, 5), giving NIR = du-gul-du/ta-kal-du (tukultu), thus “Dagan est ma confiance”.

52. Maziya: Laroche now reads hier. ma-zi-á-x-á (no published photograph to check).

53. Pe(n)ti-Tešub: Laroche so interprets hier. pi-ti-TEŠUPpa, doubtless correctly. The cuneiform epigraph is damaged and uncertain, but cannot correspond.

57. Tur-Dagan: Cun. IGUR.DKUR = hier. tu+ra/i-tà-ka. Laroche correctly reads GUR as Tur- from the hieroglyphs; Arnaud and Beyer, incorrectly Itur-.

61. Zu-Astarti: Common name, many bearers, always written cun. Zu-aš-tar-ti. Son of Hubuhuma (A.93) writes his name zu-wa/i-sa-tara/i-ti; son of Zimri-Ba‘al (LI.EN, A.79, B.29 – correct the reading of patronym in Beyer 2001) writes á-sa-tara/i-ti on both cylinder and signet (contra Laroche).

63. Isbi-Dagan: Laroche notes the unusual use of L.327 (sa5) for s(a), giving i(a)-sa5-pi-tà-ka.

Emar V ms. VI. Divers (Fig. 3c)

64. [le dieu] Dagan?: Laroche’s doubts about sign DEUS are probably unnecessary: it may just be poorly impressed. Beyer discusses the unusual graphic identification of the divine figure.

65. Abi-Dagan: The cylinder impression (A.6) has cun. NA4KIŠIB I.DUTU-da-i, hier. i(a)-pi-tá-ka, i.e. seal user and seal owner are different; signet impression (B.11) has cun. NA4KIŠIB Ia-bi-D[…], hier.
a-pi-t[a?]-k[a?] (reading dextroverse), where the two might correspond. The hier. i(a)-pi-ta-ka should not represent Abi-Dagan – initial a- is elsewhere written hier. á, not a (initial-a-final), see discussion Excursus 2.

66. Abi-DUTU: Cun. reads NA4KIŠIB Ia-bi-DUTU LÚ (KUR) ha-ti; hier. SOL.LEO? (unrecognized by Laroche – see his sketch on “Liste provisoire” no. 3, Fig. 2a). The reading should be Hittite Tiwata-walwi, thus different from epigraph.

67. Ahi-Dagan: As Laroche notes (“Liste provisoire” no. 7, Fig. 2a), “another name”, apparently reading i(a)-ka(+ra/i?)-tà-ti.

68. Ari-x: Cun. reads NA4KIŠIB […]-ri EN a-bu-si which may very probably correspond to hier. x-x-ara/i. Collation might identify x-x.

69. Aziya: Cun. reads NA4KIŠIB Ia-zi-ia. Laroche remained uncertain about hier., where H. Gonnet reads á-zi-à, correctly identifying the signs; but perhaps read *a-zi-á (with initial-a-final).

70. Itik?-Dagan: Cuneiform epigraph largely lost: [N]A4K[IŠI]B I.Dx[…] but clearly does not correspond to the relatively clear hier. i(a)-ti-ka-tà-[ka] read by Laroche.

71. Gurteli?: Cun. has NA4KIŠIB Igur-te-[…], which corresponds well enough with Laroche’s tentative hier. ku+ra/i?-ti-li, but he also notes an apparent a (L.450) to the right of the name, which is difficult to accommodate.

72. Laya-Dagan: Cun. NA4KIŠIB Ipa-na-a DUMU na-na, different man from hier. la-i(a)-tà-ka. Curiously Laroche does not note that this is the same name as on the seal RS 17.28B (Laroche 1956: 145-147), where the seal inscription gives the reading as La-at-DKUR. One might be tempted to emend -at- to -ia- in line with the hier., but the name recurs in the text line 28.

73. Puraku(m)?: This man used the seal of Hillarizi several times: as established by Arnaud 1991-Gonnet 1991. See above, V. no. 56.

74. Tilae: Hier. initial ti-, apparently á-, identified by Laroche: see “Liste provisoire” no. 48 bis (Fig. 2c).

75, 76. DU-rapih and DU.UR.SAG: See Excursus 2.

Excursus 1: L.303 sara/i

23*Panasa?: Read SARA/I-sà, Sarisa (toponym and personal name). Laroche included these two seals, Beyer 2001: C.18 and C.19, from the ME collection, but lacked at that date evidence for the reading. The cuneiform epigraph NA4KIŠIB Imar-ia-an-ni DUMU I.DU-ma-na-ad-du showed that a different man was using the seal, Marianni, who impressed it on two tablets relating to his affairs.

24Laroche very tentatively read Panasa: pa?(above horn)-na(below horn)-(the gazelle), and this reading has passed into the literature (Beyer 2001: C.18 and C.19).

25Decisive evidence came from the excavations of Kuşaklı-Sarissa in 1993 and 2001 with the discovery of two seal impressions on jars, reading respectively SARA/I-sà REX and SARA/I-sà(URBS) REX, “king of (the city of) Sarisa”. The sign SARA/I (L.303 – but the sign is misdrawn) had already been correctly identified by Laroche in hier. SARA/I-ku = cun. hitt. šarku- (Laroche 1958: 256). His analysis of SARA/I as sa5+ra/i was only half-correct: see below. Further occurrences of the sign were gradually recognized, especially in the combination SARA/I-sà (Sarisa), seen to be not only a toponym but also a personal name, and it was possible to show that the two ME seals were further examples of this: Hawkins 2010. Since this article I have recognized a further example of the personal name on the seal SBo II 36 (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4: SARA/I-sà (from Hawkins 2010)

Fig. 4: SARA/I-sà (from Hawkins 2010)
SARA/I

26That the sign is made up of the “seal” (L.327)+x was recognized by Laroche, who took x as ra/i (L.383). The new examples show clearly that this is not the case: rather it is the “leg” (L.82). The value of L.327+L.82 as SARA/I was established, and an explanation is now suggested by M. Weeden: the “leg” as a logogram for Hitt.-Luw. ar-, “stand”, is here used as a rebus, thus sa5+ar(a/i) represents sara/i.

Excursus 2: Usage of i(a) (L.209), the Meskene evidence

27As noted above, one of my main interests in the Meskene digraphs following the “new readings” of 1973-74 were the cuneiform equivalents of L.209. The “new readings” had established for the Late Period the values L.376, L.377 as zi, za and L.209, L.210 as i, ia, and for the undifferentiated Empire forms as zi/za and i/ia (zi/a and i(a)). Already by 1976 the name Amzahi provided digraphic evidence for the za value (see above, VI.3. no. 23 and Hawkins 2013: 87 fig. 11).

28What of L.209? Laroche’s Birmingham slide 1 showed that he accepted the equivalents cun. i and e, but also claimed cun. a, where more exactly the equivalent was ia. My question was (and remains): are there any unequivocal equations L.209 = cun. a? Ahi-Dagan as given on the Birmingham slide turned out to have no hieroglyphic correspondence (“Liste provisoire” no. 7, Fig. 2a).

29In the names, initial a- (cun.) is written normally hier. a (L.450; initial-a-final): Amzahi, Abi-lalu, Alal-abu, Ahi-malik, Abunnu, Adrabi, Abdili, Aziya?, Abdu; occasionally á- (L.19): Abi-lali, Ame, Aya-damiq, Alal-abu.

30Note the writings of ZU-bala (i(a)-ti-pa-li (Yadi-Ba‘al)); Yadi-Dagan (i(a)-á-ti-tà-ka); Imlik-Dagan (i(a)-á-mi-li-ki-tà-ka i.e. Yamlik-).

31Note also A6, used by I.DUTU-da-i: seal of i(a)-pi-tá-ka; no evidence to read Abi- for i(a)-pi-, which could represent ib/pi- or iab/pi-. Beyer’s Abī-Dagan is not correct. Beyer 2001: A.7 Abi-damiq uses the seal of i(a)-pi-ni-i(a) (Ibniya).

32The only possible correspondences cun. a = hier. L.209 are the two names (Beyer 2001: B.23 and B.24) I.DU.UR.SAG and I.DU-rapih, written i(a)-tá-ka+ra/i-tá and i(a)-tà+ra/i-pi-i(a), where Laroche identifying the theophoric element as Ada(d), reads a-ta (“Liste provisoire” nos. 5 and 6; Fig. 2a). It may be noted however that this as a problem for the “new readings” is the same as that encountered in the Late Period, where the toponyms Hamath and Halab are found written phonetically imatu and ilapa (initial i- L.209). The explanation is probably the same too: a Semitic name beginning with a Semitic velar + unstressed short vowel represented in the borrowed script as e/i, this Hədad > Idda (Edda): cf. Hawkins/Morpurgo Davies/ Neumann 1974: 157-158.

33In any case, I would not accept these two writings as evidence for L.209 corresponding to cun. a, thus having a possible a-value, in the face of all the contrary evidence. It must be preferable to seeks an alternative explanation, as above, that keeps L.209 within its well established range of correspondences, cun. i (e) and ia.

Bibliographie

Arnaud, D., Emar VI/1-3: recherches au pays d’Aštata. Textes sumériens et accadiens, textes et planches (Recherche sur les civilisations synthèse 18). Éditions Recherche sur les Cilivisations, Paris, 1985.

Arnaud, D., Emar VI/4: recherches au pays d’Aštata. Textes de la bibliothèque, transcriptions et traductions (Recherche sur les civilisations synthèse 28). Éditions Recherche sur les Cilivisations, Paris, 1987.

Arnaud, D., Textes syriens de l’Âge du Bronze Récent (Aula Orientalis Supplementa 1). Ausa, Barcelone, 1991. Beckman, G., Texts from the vicinity of Emar in the collection of Jonathan Rosen (History of the Ancient Near East Monographs 2). Sargon, Padoue, 1996.

Beyer, D., Emar IV: recherches au pays d’Aštata. Les sceaux (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Archaeologica 20). Éditions universitaires, Fribourg, 2001.

Bordreuil, P. / Ernst-Pradal, F. / Masetti-Rouault, M. G. / Rouillard-Bonraisin, H. / Zink, M. (éds.), Les écritures mises au jour sur le site antique d’Ougarit (Syrie) et leur déchiffrement 1930-2010. Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Paris, 2014.

Gonnet, H., “II. Les légendes des empreintes hiéroglyphiques anatoliennes”, apud: Arnaud 1991, 198-214. Goodnick Westenholz 2000

Goodnick Westenholz, J., Cuneiform Inscriptions in the Collection of the Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem. The Emar Tablets (Cuneiform Monographs 13). Styx, Groningen, 2000.

Hawkins, J. D., “Kuzi-Tešub and the ‘Great Kings’ of Karkamiš”, AnSt 38, 1988, 99-108. Hawkins, J. D., “Eunuchs among the Hittites”, in: Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 47th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Parpola, S. / Whiting, R. M. (éds.). The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki, 2002, 217-233.

Hawkins, J. D., “VIII.3, Commentaries on the readings; X.3, Commentary on the sign list”, apud: Herbordt, S., Die Prinzen- und Beamtensiegel der hethitischen Grossreichszeit auf Tonbullen aus dem Nişantepe-Archiv in Hattusa (Boğazköy-Hattuša 19). Von Zabern, Mayence, 2005, 248-313 and 426-436.

Hawkins, J. D., “Sarissa, Toponym and Personal Name”, Or NS 79, 2010, 171-176. Hawkins, J. D., “The Digraphic Seals of Ugarit: Emmanuel Laroche and the Decipherment of Hieroglyphic Luwian”, in: Bordreuil et al. 2014 (éds.), 2014, 73-91.

Hawkins, J. D. / Morpurgo Davies, A. / Neumann, G., Hittite Hieroglyphs and Luwian: New Evidence for the Connection (Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen I. Phil.-Hist. Klasse). Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, Göttingen, 1974.

Laroche, E., “Documents hiéroglyphiques hittites provenant du palais d’Ugarit”, in: Ugaritica III. Sceaux et cylindres hittites, épée gravée du cartouche de Mineptah, tablettes chypro-minoennes et autres découvertes nouvelles de Ras Shamra, Schaeffer, C. (éd.). Geuthner, Paris, 1956, 97-160.

Laroche, E., “Études sur les hiéroglyphes hittites. 4. Les sceaux de Tarsus”, Syria 35, 1958, 256-259. Laroche, E., Les hiéroglyphes hittites. Première partie: l’écriture. Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, 1960.

Laroche, E., Glossaire de la langue hourrite (Études et commentaires 93). Klincksieck, Paris, 1980. Laroche, E., “Les hiéroglyphes de Meskene-Emar et le style ‘syro-hittite’”, Akkadica 22, 1981, 5-14.

Laroche, E., “Documents hittites et hourrites”, in: Meskéné-Emar. Dix ans de travaux 1972-1982, Beyer, D. (éd.). Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, Paris, 1982, 53-60.

Laroche, E., “Les hiéroglyphes hittites de Meskéné-Emar : un emprunt d’écriture”, Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 1983, 12-23.

Singer, I., “Appendix I: The Hittite Seal Impressions”, apud: Goodnick Westenholz 2000, 81-89; 121-125. Sürenhagen, D., “Ein Königssiegel aus Kargamis”, MDOG 118, 1986, 183-190.

Tsukimoto, A., “Eine neue Urkunde des Tili-Šarruma, Sohn des Königs von Karkamiš”, Acta Sumerologica 6, 1984, 65-74. Tsukimoto, A., “Akkadian Tablets in the Hirayama Collection I”, Acta Sumerologica 12, 1990, 177-259.

Tsukimoto, A., “Akkadian Tablets in the Hirayama Collection II”, Acta Sumerologica 13, 1991, 275-333. Tsukimoto, A., “Akkadian Tablets in the Hirayama Collection III”, Acta Sumerologica 14, 1992, 289-310.

van den Hout, T., “Maeonien und Maddunašša: zur Frühgeschichte des Lydischen”, in: Licia e Lidia. Prima dell’ellenizzazione, Giorgieri, M. et al. (éds.). Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche, Rome, 2003, 301-310.

Yakubovich, I., Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language (BSIEL 2). Brill, Leyde, 2010.

Notes

1 In an adjoining article by Beyer, three names are further illustrated: one by photograph and drawing and two by his drawings.

2 Hawkins 2013: 87 fig. 11.

3 Laroche 1981: 10-12.

4 See also the covering letter (Fig. 1).

5 As noted above, Laroche’s Emar V would have united these two strands of evidence with his own readings.

6 This is now in the Hirayama collection, HCCT E16, see Tsukimoto 1984: 68 and 70.

7 This is now in the Rosen collection, see CHLI 1/2: 574-575.

8 See line 31, IGI IEN.GAL Ú.TU: Emar VI/1: 171 and Emar VI/3 no. 205. However the two are not certainly the same man.

9 See Hawkins 2002: 225-226 with n. 64.

10 Laroche 1980: 75-76.

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1: Emmanuel Laroche’s covering letter to J. David Hawkins (15 November 1981)
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifeagd/docannexe/image/3568/img-1.png
Fichier image/png, 528k
Titre Fig. 2a: “Liste provisoire” no. 1-21. Black annotations: J. David Hawkins’ questions. Red annotations (here in gray): Emmanuel Laroche’s answers
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifeagd/docannexe/image/3568/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 364k
Titre Fig. 2b: “Liste provisoire” no. 22-48. Black annotations: J. David Hawkins’ questions. Red annotations (here in gray): Emmanuel Laroche’s answers
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifeagd/docannexe/image/3568/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 405k
Titre Fig. 2c: “Liste provisoire” no. 48 bis-55. Black annotations: J. David Hawkins’ questions. Red annotations (here in gray): Emmanuel Laroche’s answers
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifeagd/docannexe/image/3568/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 264k
Titre Fig. 2d: “Liste provisoire”: comments on no. 5, 6 and 56. All red annotations (here in gray) by Emmanuel Laroche
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifeagd/docannexe/image/3568/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 106k
Titre Fig. 3a: Emar V ms. no. 1-22. All annotations in black by J. David Hawkins
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifeagd/docannexe/image/3568/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 236k
Titre Fig. 3b: Emar V ms. no. 23-63. All annotations in black by J. David Hawkins
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifeagd/docannexe/image/3568/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 153k
Titre Fig. 3c: Emar V ms. no. 64-76. All annotations in black by J. David Hawkins
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifeagd/docannexe/image/3568/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 152k
Titre Fig. 4: SARA/I-sà (from Hawkins 2010)
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifeagd/docannexe/image/3568/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 658k

Auteur

SOAS, London

© 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