TAIC HIEROGLYPHS TTITE INSCRIPTIONS GIFT OF HORACE W. CARFENTIER [ C-7'^S' ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS HITTITE INSCRIPTIONS. BY C. R. CONDER, Capt. R.E.^ AUTHOR OF ' TENT WORK IN PALESTINE,' ETC. ', PUBLISHED FOR THE COMMITTEE OF THE PALESTINE EXPLORATION FUND BY RICHARD BENTLEY AND SON, Ipttijlishers in ©rbinarg to ^cr Jliijestg the (^nmx. 1887. [A/i Rights Reserved. ] CONTENTS. PAGli INTRODUCTION - . _ - y PREFACE - - - - - vii I. HISTORY OF THE DISCOVERY - - I II. RULES FOR TRANSLATION - - " 3^ IIL THE COMMONER SYMBOLS - - "37 IV. THE GRAMMAR - - - "75 V. THE GODS AND RELIGIOUS IDEAS - - 8o I, VI. THE CYPRIOTE CONNECTION - - - 96 \vn. THE CUNEIFORM CONNECTION - "99 J VIII. THE EGYPTIAN CONNECTION - - "113 J IX. THE CANAANITE CONNECTION - " I25 X. OTHER CONNECTIONS - - - - 141 XI. SUMMARY ----- 147 ANALYSIS - - - - - 159 NOTE ------ 239 ADDITIONAL NOTE - " - - 240 439968 Digitized by the Internet Arcinive in 2008 with funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/altaichieroglyphOOcondrich INTRODUCTION, The publication of Captain Conder's letter, addressed to the Chairman of the Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund, In the Times of February 26th, 1887, produced so great and widespread an Interest, that the Committee have readily undertaken the pub- lication of the following memoir, In which Captain Conder has developed the theory announced In that letter. They do so In the earnest hope that his labours In the cause of the decipherment of these valuable inscrip- tions may be accepted, by those who are able to decide, as the first step towards their INTRODUCTION. complete decipherment. In this, as In all their publications, the Committee beg It to be understood that they put forward this memoir as the responsible work of Captain Conder alone. W. B. I, Adam Street, Adelphi, May isf, 1887. AUTHOR'S PREFACE. The interest created by the publication in the Times of 26th February of a letter to the Chairman of the Palestine Exploration Fund, as to the Altaic hieroglyphics, places me in a somewhat difficult position, since the claims which I then put forward are by no means those which I am apparently thought to have made. It is not to be supposed that a problem which has so long occupied our best Orientalists can be solved at once by one who does not possess their scholarship and knowledge. The Egyptian and Cunei- form systems were not perfectly understood when first discovered ; and many long years Vlll PREFACE. of special study have been devoted to their elucidation since the keys to their right understanding were found. What I felt justified In claiming, what I hope to have done, Is to have found a true key^ to the reading of the Altaic system, which may be accepted by Orientalists as simple and demonstrable, and to have identified the language of these texts as belonging to the family of Ugro- Altaic dialects^ of which the Proto-Medic and the Akkadian are^ perhaps^ the oldest known examples. In the present pages I propose to give my reasons in de- fence of this thesis, and to show that it Is perhaps already possible to grasp the general meaning and character of many of the Inscriptions, Including the seals. It will * I am not the first to have discovered the sounds, since some were fixed already by Professor Sayce ; but I may be the first to discover approximately the language to which the sounds belong. PREFACE. ix require, perhaps, years of special study to develop the work, and to produce final and complete translations. I am prepared to be shown numerous errors ; and I trust to the learning of scholars like Professor Sayce, Mr. T. G. Pinches, Mr. G. Bertin, and others, fully to utilize the key which, with the utmost diffidence, I offer them. I hope to show that the symbols are the prototypes whence the Ctmeiform system has developed ;* that they have possibly a common origin with the hieroglyphic system of Egypt, and that it is not impossible that the Chinese characters may have also de- veloped from the original Altaic picture- writing, of which the inscriptions under con- * When the Saturday Review talks of these emblems as 'legs of tables and chairs,' it does, in fact, acknow- ledge that the general appearance is such as is due to the Cuneiform connection. One emblem (//) resembles an arrow, and another {it) is perhaps a spear. PREFACE, sideration seem to me to represent a some- what advanced stage, yet a stage perhaps more primitive than that of the Egyptian system., and preceding the Cuneiform on the one hand, and the Cypriote syllabary on the other.* The observations of the scholars whom I quote all seem to tend to such conclusions, and the fact that the proposed identification of the language agrees with the work of the soundest authorities is one of the chief reasons why I feel some confidence that it may be generally accepted by those whose opinion is of welght.f * A letter signed * Orientalist,' in the St. James's Gazette of the 3rd March, 1887, admits the 'meagre results' attained up to that date by those who had studied the subject. The writer stated that my claims could not be accepted until fully laid before competent specialists, which is, of course, what I desire to do. t I ought perhaps to state why I have proceeded as I have in publishing this discovery. This memoir will show that I could not have done justice to the method PREFACE, xi It is inevitably certain that there' must be some errors in the present work ; but if I have only succeeded in commencing the decipherment, I have done all I hope to accomplish. in a short account: had I given only a sketch of the system, misunderstandings and controversies might have arisen, which would have wasted time. 2nd April, 1887. ERRATA. On Plates II. and IV., Figs. 5 and 10, the Cuneiform emblem Sii has been drawn in error with three cross strokes only ; it should have a fourth long horizontal stroke below. On Plate II., Fig. 8, and page 103, the Cuneiform emblem for ' man ' should have a horizontal stroke below. ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS AND HITTITE INSCRIPTIONS. *xx* 1 HISTORY OF THE DISCOVERY. If you go to the farther end of the Assyrian Court, in the British Museum, you will there find half a dozen bas-reHefs and a cast of a sculptured Hon, which are labelled as 'In- scriptions in an unknown character.' The bas-reliefs were brought from Carchemish, on the Euphrates, by the lamented George Smith. The meaning of the curious symbols on these inscriptions, and the deductions to be drawn from their decipherment, form the subject of these pages. I /;:^.c : ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. \\l I ,'Jn',the year 1812, Burckhardt, the cele- brated traveller, discovered at Hamath, on the Orontes, between Damascus and Aleppo, the first stone Inscribed with the symbols of this unknown system of hieroglyphics. In 1870, Mr. J. A. Johnson, American Consul- General, and the Rev. S. Jessup, of the American Mission, found again, in Hamath, Burckhardt's stone, and four others closely resembling It, and. Indeed, repeating Its Inscription In part. A bad copy, by a native, was afterwards published ; but the first reli- able cast was taken In 1872 by the Rev. W. Wright, D.D., now Secretary of the Bible Society. The stones were afterwards taken to Constantinople, where, in 1882, I visited them In the Museum. Dr. Wright, in 1874, announced his belief that the inscriptions were of Hittite origin ; which, In the case of the Hamath and Carchemish stones, can now be shown to be probably true. His theory was received with but scant courtesy by others, who had not given to the subject HISTORY OF THE DISCOVERY. 3 either the labour or the learning which he devoted to so startling a suggestion. In the same year, 1872, my late comrade, Mr. C. F. Tyrwhitt Drake, copied a similar, but much-decayed text at Aleppo ; and in 1873 M. Clermont Ganneau published an- other copy of the same, made by M. Paucker. In 1874 George Smith copied this te^Ur^a^^d^ discovered the valuable texts a,t Carchemish^ in the same characters. Since then the same system has been found, to have been used thro ughout^'A:Sia Minor. i\t_rbreez, norxh-^ west of ^arsus^a curious sculpture was dis- covered by Major Fischer, as early as 1838 ; and again by the Rev. E. J. Davis in 1876 (see ' Transactions Biblical Archeeologlcal^ Society,' vol. iv., p. 336)^ At Karabel^ between Smyrna and Sardes, Professor Sayce found, on the bas-relief of the so-called Sesostrls, six or seven of the same charac- ters in 1879 ; and he discovered, at this time, the long-lost companion bas-relief, mentioned by Herodotus, on which also he I — 2 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. found similar emblems. In the same expe- dition Professor Sayce further copied, on the famous bas-relief of the ' Weeping /NIobe/ ^ on Mount SIpylos, near Ephesus, in Lydia, / a cartouche In the same character. In.j[882 the cartouche of Rameses II. was found on the same bas-relief by Dr. Gollob, a German explorer — a discovery of no small Import- ance, since It serves to give the Inferior limit of age for the monument, and to show that the Altaic hieroglyphs are older than the fourteenth century b.c. The search in Asia Minor was continued by Sir Charles Wilson, K.C.B., in 1880-1882, and by Mr. W. M. Ramsay. At Gurum, In Cappadocia, Sii^-Charles found two Altaic texts. At Tyana,\ north-east of Ibreez, Mr. Ramsay, In i-Sfe; copied a text In four lines, differing from those previously known, the characters being Incised Instead of being In relief This, judging from the conven- tionalized style of the emblems, seems to be of comparatively late date. HISTORY OF THE DISCOVERY. Farther east, in northern Cappadocia, the same character has aTsGTlSeeri discovered, at Eyuk and at Boghaz Keui (the ancient / Pteria), which ruins were described by ^F«eier before 1849. Correct photographs were pubHshed by M. Perrot, in 1862, of the wonderful bas-reliefs at both sites. M. Perrot observed a much-decayed Altaic text, in ten or eleven lineSr-at-Boghaz Keui. Not far off, at the lasili Kaia, a group, which is specially interesting, though consisting of only four characters, was copied.* In his recent volume on the art of Asia Minor, M. Perrot also gives a copy of a text from OVIarash/ above the figures of a pair of deities, wliich/was discovered, I believe, by Dr. Gwyther. In 1882 Dr. Gwyther photographed and took a squeeze, at Marash, of the figure of a lion covered with Altaic hieroglyphics. A cast of the same is now in the British * Perrot, ' Hist, de I'Art,' vol. iv., p. 705. On this we read. An Set . , , ' God Set . .' ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. Museum. Finally, in 1885 the Biblical Archaeological Society published a drawing of a stone bowl, found at Babylon, round which, on the outside, runs a long Altaic inscription. This also, like theXTyana text^ seems to be of late date, since the symbols are very greatly conventionalized, and in some cases approach more closely to the ( Cypriote) than do any of the texts previously noticed. The next discovery was the existence of the same character on terra cotta seals, aVid on seals found by Layard at Kouyunjikyin 1 85 1. The former were first^published by Perrot ; and again, in 1885, by the Biblical Archaeological Society. These together give twenty-eight inscriptions. M. Perrot, in 1886, published several seal cylinders, which also serve (In one case very curiously) to elucidate our subject. There is no doubt that very many more of these texts exist throughout Asia Minor and Mesopotamia ; and they may be expected in Eastern HISTORY OF THE DISCOVERY, Armenia, in Persia, Media, and the Cau- casus. There is, indeed, no limit to the possibiHties of their discovery in Western Asia. It is not proposed here to enlarge on the unsuccessful attempts made to decipher this character.* All the failures have been use- ful : have aroused discussion, and have directed us towards the truth. The Rev. Dunbar I. Heath, though he failed to estab- lish his readings of the names of Egyptian kings on the Hamath stones, or his later translation in Hebrew, made many useful suggestions ; as did others who made no pretensions to read the riddle. The latest attempt has been made by the Rev. C. J. Bair (* Proceedings Soc. Bib. Arch.,' February, 1887), who endeavours to show that the language is Semitic. I must leave to others to point out the evident faults of principle which vitiate his ingenious but arbi- trary method, and will only here remark that ^ See note at end. 8 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. his paper shows much learning, and contains many suggestive remarks, and some true points of discovery. The work of Professor Sayce stands, how- ever, in quite a different category to that of other students of the Altaic inscriptions. It is marked by a penetration and originality which others have not equalled ; and my discovery is not only a direct result of his work, but would probably also have been impossible had I been unaw^are of his writings. At the same time he will, I think, concede to me the credit of some independent effort, and I hope will be able to join in the pursuit which now presents itself to the student. As already noticed, Dr. Wright suggested the Hittite theory in 1874. In 1876 Pro- fessor Sayce seems independently to have arrive'd at the/ same conclusion, though he did not fuhy elaborate the theory of a Hittite Empire (a theory which I have never been able fully to follow) until 1880. In 1876 Professor Sayce proposed a comparison of HISTORY OF THE DISCOVERY. 9 the Hamath emblems, with the syllabary used by the Greeks in Cyprus, in Caria, and in Lycia, which is now known to have been still employed (among Egyptian Greek settlers) even down to the days of Alexander the Great, or long after the Phoenician and Aramean alphabets had come into use among the Greeks of Asia Minor and of Europe. The copies consulted by Professor Sayce were, however, so imperfect that he felt very doubtful as to many of his proposed com- parisons. It appears to me in the light of the present discovery that out of thirty-six symbols he correctly compared eight in all with the Cypriote. (See ' Transactions Bib. Arch. Soc.,' 1877, p. 22.) This was a very important step in advance. In July, 1880, on his return from Asia Minor, Professor Sayce published a paper, and inaugurated the Hittite Empire by articles in the Times and in the Contemp07^ary Review, The paper (' Transactions Bib. Arch. Soc.,' vol. vii., pp. 248-308) is full of the most lo ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. valuable information, as will be seen in sub- sequent pages. There can be no doubt that at this time Professor Sayce correctly deter- mined the ideog7^aphic value of several Altaic symbols. He gave, however, no definite opinion on the language of the Hittites and of the allied tribes, beyond the statement that it was not Semitic — a statement which is demonstrably true, and in which he had been partly forestalled (as early as 1866) by the great French scholar Chabas, when writing on the relations of the Mittites and Egyptians (' Voyage d'un Egyptien en Phenicie en Palestine,' etc., p. 330). In 1884 appeared Dr. Wright's valuable work, ' The Empire of the Hittites,' in which is collected all existing information, and which has been improved and enlarged in subsequent editions. The copies of the various texts published by the Biblical Archaeological Society in the same year Dr. Wright reproduced, and others have since been added. Comparing these copies with HISTORY OF THE DISCOVERY. ii the original stones, I find them faithful, but in a few cases where the symbol is indistinct, or from other reasons, I have discovered that they still need revision. In Dr. Wright's book Professor Sayce enlarged upon his discovery of a short bilingual text in (so-called) Hittite and Cuneiform which he recognised on a silver boss discovered as early as 1864, and of which two casts — one In the British Museum, one made by the great scholar F. Lenormant — existed. This discovery Professor Sayce had already announced In 1880, and had thence suggested ideographic values for six Altaic symbols. He went on in Dr. Wright s work to suggest sounds for twenty-one symbols, and ideographic values for eighteen symbols. He discarded, however, several of the identifications of sound, which he had (at least so it seems to me) rightly fixed In 1876, and in some cases substituted comparisons which were much less apparent. As regards sounds, I believe Professor Sayce's later 12 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. proposals to be correct in five instances. As regards ideographic values (or the meaning of the pictures), I think he is right in about seven cases. In twenty-three cases, however, I think he will admit that his views must be modified. In the case of the ideographs his determinations are of only a general character, whereas my own discovery gives to them a distinct grammatical identification. "^ The principle which he laid down of comparing the Cypriote with the Altaic was sound ; but he only went so far as to suggest a connection with the Georgian language, and laid down that Semitic tongues must be excluded from the inquiry — an important and correct de- termination. My own share in this work had so far been * For instance, what Professor Sayce calls * deter- minative prefix of an individual,' I call * Thou '; his ' determinative of supremacy,' I call ' the firmament ' ; his ' nominative suffix,' I call /i or ' to '; his ' dative suffix,' I so consider, giving it the sound ra ; his * determinative of Deity' I call An^ etc., etc. HISTORY OF THE DISCOVERY. 13 very slight, though I had carefully followed the labours of others. Inthe spring of 188 1 I discovered the site of Kadesh, the HIttite chief town on the Qrontes^,.„„a1id confirmed this discovery by arguments published (* Heth and Moab,' Chapter I.) In 1883, which M. Perrot appears only to have gathered second- hand from M. A. Renan in 1886, but of which I am the original author. The argu- ments directed against this discovery are easily met ; but I was disappointed in not finding any Altaic Inscriptions at Kadesh, where I discovered only fragments of Greek texts and Byzantine bas-reliefs, although I sought even in the sacred shrine of Neby Mendeh for older remains. It is probable that excavation at this site, or at the neigh- bouring ruined enclosure called ' the Ark of Noah,' may yet lead to valuable discoveries. In 1883 I published a proposed comparison of the Altaic and the Egyptian systems. Dr. Isaac Taylor pointed out to me several errors in this comparison ; but my new dis- 14 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. covery shows me that in the principle I was right, though in many cases I was quite wrong in detail. Professor Sayce encouraged me in my inquiry, which in a private letter (for we have, I think, never met) he stated to be likely * to throw light on the values or meanings of many of the characters ' — a verdict which is, I think, justified by results, though Dr. Isaac Taylor regards my adher- ence to this view in 1886 as a ' blot ' on my latest work, * Syrian Stone-Lore.' In ' Heth and Moab' I inserted a note containing conjectures, the influence of which it is perhaps not difficult to trace in the later writings of other students. The texts should be examined, I thought, without any refer- ence to the theory that they were written by Hittites — a theory as yet incapable of proof, since neither the HIttlte language nor the language of the texts was known. They might be Semitic or Egyptian, I thought, and not Hittlte at all ; but failing these, there remained one known language for com- HISTORY OF THE DISCOVERY. 15 parison (see * Heth and Moab,' p. 426, ist edition), namely, the Akkadian ; and I sug- gested the comparison of this Altaic language with the hieroglyphs. I also recorded an opinion on the same page that the origin of the Altaic might be found by comparison with the oldest known Cuneiform symbols — the linear Babylonian. This was, if I re- member right, not my own conception, but due to Dr. Isaac Taylor, and it proves to be founded on fact ; and although without the Cypriote the discovery of the language w^ould have been impossible, I find, nevertheless, that important additions, and confirmations of my thesis, are obtained by a study of the oldest linear Babylonian symbols — a study which in the hands of experienced and cautious specialists is capable of very great development. In my latest work, ' Syrian Stone-Lore,' I have devoted some pages to the Hittites (November, 1886), and have stated m.y belief that they were a branch of the Altaic race 1 6 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. akin to the Akkadians. This opinion I founded chiefly on their Mongolian appear- ance — as represented In Egyptian pictures — and also on the occurrence of the Akkadian words Tar and Sar for ' chief in their language, as known from Egyptian texts. As to the monuments, I there stated that the script might possibly be that of the HIttltes and of kindred tribes, but continued to re- gard the question as not solved. I again expressed a disbelief In the theory of a HIttite Empire, and a belief In the connec- tion between the Altaic and the Egyptian emblems. I now submit that In these con- jectures (though not In others which I have given as alternatives) I am justified, as shown by my recent discovery. I find that Pro- fessor Sayce, Dr. Isaac Taylor, and even Dr. Brandls (who with George Smith de- ciphered the Cypriote), and Dr. Deeke — who, with the preceding, discovered a rela- tion between Cypriote and Cuneiform — are all alike right In principle : that their opinions HISTORY OF THE DISCOVERY. 17 do not, as they suppose, clash, but rather supplement each other ; that none of them really exclude my own suggestion of a com- parison with the Egyptian, however wrong I may have been In detail — as even Professor Sayce may perhaps have been wrong In detail concerning the Cypriote ; and finally, I find that only one school Is really excluded, namely, that which seeks to make the Hittltes Semitic, and to read the Altaic in- scriptions as if written in a Semitic tongue. I have, I think, thus fairly summarized the real work done up to the present time, with- out wasting words over the obsolete con- jectures which are no longer useful ; and I must go on to explain how I arrived at the key to reading the Altaic texts. On the 7th February, 1887, I was looking through a collection of Cypriote inscriptions, when I was particularly struck w^ith one which has never (as far as I am aware) been compared with the Altaic, namely, that deciphered as having the sound MI (No. 4, Plate I.). It is 2 i8 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. a double triangle, just like the emblem to which Professor Sayce — arguing from the bilingual silver boss — has assigned the value 'country.' It struck me that I had already from the Egyptian parallel concluded that the Altaic emblem did mean ' country ' (' Syrian Stone-Lore,' p. 24), and that the sound M I was very close to the sound Me or Ma, which in the Akkadian, and in the Proto-Medic, represents the word for * country.' This might be a mere coinci- dence, but I at once saw that it might, on the other hand, be the key to the very language which I had already for three years dimly recognised as that spoken by the Hittites. I continued at once to work out the com- parison, and found two cases where a similar connection was traceable. In the Cypriote syllabary I found that PA was a sound re- presented by an emblem clearly connected, not only with the sceptres borne by Assyrian deities and by the gods of Boghaz Keul, but also with the oldest form of the Cuneiform HISTORY OF THE DISCOVERY, 19 symbol for sceptre, which in the Akkadian language is read Pa. Again, the high cap which Professor Sayce pointed out as pro- bably meaning ' King,' he has himself con- nected with the Cypriote emblem for the sound KO. A little reflection suggested that J^u is the Proto-Medic word for King, also apparently known in the Akkadian dialect, where Ku means King and * high ' — a cognate idea.* Confirmed in my conjecture, I collected as many Cypriote emblems as possible for com- parison ; and, in a few days, I discovered myself in the possession of twenty-one words, the sounds of which (with slight vowel varia- tions) were obtained from the Cypriote sounds, * The use of the word 'tiara' for 'power' may be illustrated from an Akkadian text published by Lenormant (W. A. I. iv., 3 and 4 ; * Magie,' p. 20), supposing his rendering to be correct : ' In the sea, and on the great earth, the tiara has become a very little tiara ; the very great tiara his tiara.' The reference is to a demon of sickness, and Lenormant understands this curious phrase to mean, that the ' power ' of the demon is decreased. 2 — 2 20 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. the meanings from Akkadian or Proto-Medic words, and these meanings found to agree with the evident intention of the pictorial form. To this list (Plate I.) I might add several other sounds, such as the Cypriote O, which represents an ' herb ;' while 17 in Akkadian means * herb ;' and others which are treated hereafter in detail, but which are not certain. Taking the twenty-one emblems alone, it is evident that we have a case of the combina- tions of sixty-three things taken in groups of three (viz., twenty-one cases where * sound,' * form,' and ' meaning ' must agree), and the chance that the required combination will occur throughout Is only one out of the total number of possible combinations. In other words, the chances against me (supposing my comparisons to be really good) were { (63 X 62 X 6i)-^(i X 2 X 3) } — I to I. The required combination being actually obtained in twenty-one groups of three things, the mathematical chancts in my favour become 39,710 to I. HISTORY OF THE DISCOVERY, 21 This result seemed to me to justify my saying to a few friends that I had found the language of the Hittlte hieroglyphs. I had found not only a few nouns, but also the sounds MO, ZU, NI, for the pronouns, the word MES, for the plural (not, how- ever, known in Cypriote) and the commoner prefixed, suffixed, and affixed syllables peculiar to this family of agglutinative lan- guages. I felt justified, therefore, in attributing to distinct symbols, such as the deer's head, the bull's head, etc., sounds of the Akkadian tongue ; and from this process further con- firmations followed. Thus, for instance, DAR is the Akkadian word for all genera of deer, which was easilv reconciled with the value Tar required for the first emblem on the silver bilingual boss of * Tarriktimme, King of the Land of Erme.' About forty sounds could be attributed with some certainty in this manner, giving sixty sounds, out of one hundred and ten quite distinct hiero- 22 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. glyphic emblems known on the Altaic in- scriptions.'"* As regards the remainder, there are some of which the ideographic value is clear, although the proper sound may be open to question. There are others only once or twice repeated, for w^hich, at present, I can only offer conjectures; but this number is gradually diminishing, and in time, with the help of better scholars, we may hope to be able to understand every symbol as yet found. Among other points, I soon noticed that great assistance was obtainable by observing the oldest forms of the linear Babylonian Cuneiform. This script has long been known to be derived from some hieroglyphic system, and I discovered that in the Altaic we have the true prototypes, which afterwards de- ■^ The total number of known signs has been reckoned at about 140, but many of these are only variants, used at different times in different localities, whereas others are due to imperfect copying, from the casts, of well- known symbols. HISTORY OF THE DISCOVERY. 23 veloped into Cuneiform. I found also that the connection supposed by Dr. Deeke to exist between Cypriote and Cuneiform rests on the fact that they both trace to a common origin — the Altaic hieroglyph. Thus the syllable PI in Cypriote (Plate III., No. 41) is clearly a representation of the * ear ;' Pi in Akkadian meaning * ear ' ; and the oldest Babylonian Cuneiform emblem for Pi being also a sketch of the ear. KHE again — the Cypriote sound (Plate IV., No. 8) — is a rude sketch of a fish, as is the Cuneiform emblem also, which answers to the Akkadian word Khe for a fish. This question must be con- sidered more in detail on a later page. Turning to the comparison with Egyptian, I found, as I had hoped, that great assist- ance would be obtainable. It was clear that phonetic value ''' in Egyptian was of no as- * On my plate, * Syrian Stone-Lore,' p. 24, I have com- pared certain Altaic symbols with letters of the Egyptian alphabet, giving the Hebrew equivalent of the Egyptian letter. I have not, however, in the text ventured to assert 24 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. sistance, since the Egyptian and Akkadian languages are not closely related ; but z^/eo- graphic values proved, as I always had supposed, to be alike. Nor was this only in cases like the bull's head, the ram's head, etc., where the picture was still only a picture, for it also holds eood in such a case as that of the abstract idea of light. The Altaic emblem derived through the sound of the similar Cypriote emblem (Plate I., No. 6) clearly represents rays descending from the firma- m.ent. So does the Egyptian word for light — a point to be more particularly considered later. The reason for this ideographic con- nection will appear when we come to con- sider the connection between the Egyptian and the Cuneiform. It now became possible to get a general idea of the construction of the sentences in that the Altaic symbol had the same phonetic value, since I could not prove it. I find that this has misled others, and I must suppress the plate in a future edition of the book. HISTORY OF THE DISCOVERY. 25 the inscriptions, and to identify certain words. The symbol (No. 9, Plate II.), which Pro- fessor Sayce supposed first to mean 'country,' and in 1884 to mean 'deity/ I found, after many trials, to have apparently the latter meaning — which is confirmed by the fact that it is attached to nearly all figures of gods on Altaic monuments as yet known. To this symbol, therefore, I gave the value AN, and soon found that this led to the identification of Ea, Tammuz, Set, Aa, Bil, and other gods, all of whom belong to the old Akkadian Pantheon. This, again, materially strength- ened my position. It remained, however, to prove that the grammar of the inscriptions is that peculiar to the ancient agglutinative languages — Proto- Medic and Akkadian ; and I soon found that in this grammar lies the true reason why the Inscriptions have never been read before. It has always been assumed that they begin with the verb, whereas in the older Akkadian and Proto-Medic dialects the object should 26 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. stand first, followed by the subject, with the verb at the end. As on the first Hamath stone the plural MES follows the first emblem, it is clear that this emblem is a noun ; and it is clear also that it is followed by adjectives, some belonging to the object. The grammar, therefore, is that of an agglu- tinative tongue, and this I was able very soon to prove by the positions of the pro- nouns, and of the post-positions. It was not, however, until I had discovered the existence of two cases of the Akkadian * Amen ' at the end of the prayers (on the 23rd February) that I felt to tread on really firm ground. The great complexity of the grammar, even in inscriptions which are pre- sumably of simple construction, renders a translation difficult ; and, as far as my reading goes, I gather that the incorpora- tion of syllables in the verbal groups is still a matter of difficulty even to Akkadian specialists. I feel, therefore, little hesitation in announcing my grammatical difficulties. HISTORY OF THE DISCOVERY. 27 which are not serious enough to prevent our arriving at the gist of the inscriptions, safely guided as we are by the pronouns and post-positions ; and which difficulties will be finally adjusted by Akkadian specialists. I proceeded to analyse all the known texts before publishing my discovery, which was announced on the 26th February. I found it possible to distinguish several nouns by their occurrence near the beginning of the first line of inscriptions, and several verbs by their occurrence near the ends of the last lines. This process I will now explain in detail, and add some remarks on the grammar. Meanwhile, it is first necessary to lay down general rules, deduced from my own observa- tions, and from those of my predecessors, which must be strictly followed in translation. The beauty of the discovery seems to me, however, to lie in the elasticity of the system combined with its rigid requirements. Each word has only one emblem, each emblem one sound ; each suffix, affix, or pronoun, has one 28 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. well-known sign, and every emblem repre- sents a monosyllable ; but, on the other hand, we may be prepared for endless symbols representing the nouns or the verbal roots required by the subject, all more or less clearly to be understood. In fact, we see that since no new pronouns or even particles can appear, we ought to be able to read any text found In the future quite as well by this system as we can read those already found. That is to say, all the commonest emblems being known, the gist of the matter should be discoverable. Moreover, we can see why certain symbols survived in Cypriote, while others fell Into disuse. The Cypriote syllable was required to consist of one consonant, with a vowel more or less definitely fixed. Words with two consonants — such as Pal, tar, etc., were not used ; words like Pa, Ku, ta, nm, etc., remained In use long after the original meaning of the sounds was forgotten, and were so used by the Greeks to express the sounds of an HISTORY OF THE DISCOVERY. 29 Aryan language, quite unconnected with the Altaic. The sounds with double consonants we must trust to obtain from the oldest Cuneiform. In conclusion of this section, I note that I give the name Altaic* to this script, because it is a comprehensive and safe term. It remains to be shown whether the language is true Akkadian, or nearer (as one might from certain indications suppose) to the allied dialect called Proto-Medlc. It may be the mother - tongue whence they both slightly diverged, but it is clearly not Sumerlan or Suslan. It Is allowed, even by very critical scholars, that Lenormant was right In con- necting the Proto-Medlc and Akkadian with the Ugro- Altaic languages ; with Finnish, and less closely with Turkish and Magyar. Altaic is, therefore, a safe term, and the net result of the discovery is, that the hieroglyphs were * No doubt the script will continue to be popularly known as Hittite, nor does this appear to be a serious misnomer, though hardly scientific. 30 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. carved by the early ancestors of those very races which still dwell in Northern Syria and in Asia Minor, as represented by the Turko- mans and Turks, mingling, as the Hittites did before them, with the Semitic races of Palestine and Arabia. In fact, my belief that the Hittites are still represented, in Syria and in Palestine, by the Turkomans who are to be found even in the plains of Esdraelon and of Sharon — a belief which I ventured to express three years ago in * Heth and Moab '—now appears to be founded on fact, though these actual tribes are later im- migrants from the East. li. RULES FOR TRANSLATION. The following rules arise from the discovery of the language In which the Altaic hiero- glyphic texts are written, and from a careful study of the Inscriptions : I. The texts read In lines, as a rule alter- nately from right to left, and from left to right. The heads of a?iimals, etc., face towards the beginning of the line. The rule of alternation Is not, however, absolute, as we see from Hamath stone No. V., where lines three and four both read from right to left. As a rule, the first line reads from the right, but not invariably, since at Ibreez the text by the head of the god begins from the left. II. The position of the emblems shows 32 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. their relation, and Indicates the grammatical construction. Three (or two) superimposed emblems in the line form, as a rule, one word ; and a series of groups followed by a single emblem indicates a 'packet,' so to say, forming one expression. This is in strict accordance with the genius of the agglutinative tongue in question. The ' packets ' are well known to Akkadian scholars, and the arrangement is called an ' encapsulation ' by Lenormant. A suffix, as a rule, comes at the bottom of the group, a prefix at the top ; but this rule is not invariable, as we see by comparingthe different arrangement of the same group in the first lines of the Hamath stones, Nos. II. and III. In the one case the A7 is at the bottom of the group, in the other at the top of the next group. III. Certain latitude in consonantal sounds is allowable. Thus we know that In Akkadian, as in Egyptian and in other languages, there was no real distinction of sound between L and R. A comparison of Proto-Medic and RULES FOR TRANSLATION. 33 Akkadian shows that there was at an early period no real distinction of D and T, which Is also true in Egyptian. It is probable that there Is very little real distinction between the gutturals K, G, and Kh (compare Khar and Kur for ' mountain ') ; but this of course Is not necessary for our reading, though it will prove valuable in tracing the language. B and P are, again, sounds known to be confused In these early languages; the soft T and S seem also perhaps to be indistinguish- able. IV. A certain latitude In vowel sounds Is also allowable."' O and U blend, as do A and E, or E and I. This Is not peculiar, since any who have Hved among half-civilised people (as one may learn In Syria, Egypt, or Bechuana- land) must become aware of the Indefinite character of the vowel sounds. We learn * The vowel sounds obtained from Cuneiform for the Akkadian cannot, I should suppose, be considered fixed with strict exactitude, and there is also in Cypriote a certain slight latitude allowable. 3 34 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. the same from the fact of the very late in- troduction of vowel points in Hebrew and in other Asiatic written languages. The exact vowel sound in the Akkadian (as usually- identified) need not, therefore, be expected in the present accepted sounding of the Cypriote syllables. This will, I think, be conceded. V. There is no double system of determina- tives and syllabic sounds, as in Egyptian. The nouns and verbal roots, however, retain their original pictorial character more closely than do the grammatical signs, pronouns, post-positions, etc. VI. The grammatical construction is that of the older Akkadian and Proto- Medic, not of the Susian or Sumerian. Such, at least, is my conclusion from a study of the texts. VII. It seems probable that the same symbol may give the inverted vowel sound Ji7i and N'e for instance, or y^r and jRa (as in RULES FOR TRANSLATION. 35 the symbol J^a or La, which reads Ar on the silver boss). VIII. The important words — nouns and verb roots — are apparently distinguished by larger emblems than the grammatical syllables prefixed or following ; on the same principle on which Kings are represented in Egypt and Assyria as giants compared with their captives or servants. IX. Finally, it is to be noted that emblems which are alike, but not identical, are to be distinguished carefully. They have often a cognate meaning, but I am convinced that no stroke on the inscriptions was made in vain. Although the meaning of small additional strokes or characters may escape us at first, a careless reading and confusion of distinct emblems must lead us wrong ; and for this reason exact copies are indispensable, and are more easily made when a knowledge of the language has been attained. An additional stroke often occurs on one side of symbols, which, in other cases, are 3—2 36 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. without it. This is certainly not accidental, and I think it denotes the end of a clause, or of a packet. It may be compared with the stroke dividing the clause in Cuneiform.'" "^ I find just before going to press that Professor Sayce has made a similar suggestion already. III. THE COMMONER SYMBOLS. The constantly recurring symbols which have as yet formed an obstacle to the reading of the texts now serve to facilitate their under- standing. Their values can be determined from the Cypriote, and their meanings from Proto-Medic and Akkadian. To begin with the personal pronouns. 1. MO (Plate I., No. ii) is clearly the Akkadian Mit for * I.' A study of its oc- currence In twenty-four distinct cases shows seven cases in which it is apparently prefixed at the top of a group, and seventeen in which it is suffixed. In Akkadian the prefix is the personal pronoun * I,' the affix is the posses- sive pronoun *my' or the accusative 'me;' the 38 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. suffix also serves to form the passive voice. Instances — Mti-ru, *I build;' Adda-mu, 'my father ;* Rti-mu, ' builds me,' or M am built.' F'or this sign there is a slight variant form at Jerablus, which has, however, I think no variation of meaning. This important word has never been recognised as a pronoun in any previous system, as far as I am aware.*" 2. ZU (Plate I., No. 13) seems clearly to be the second pronoun. It is, I think, in- variably found as a prefix ; and Professor Sayce called it the determinative of persons, which is in a sense true if it represents * Thou.' In one or two instances it Is found in duplicate, which might be thought to represent the plural ; but the Akkadian plural * Ye ' appears to be (according to Lenor- mant) Zu nene, and the group Ztt Zu must apparently mean * Thou Thou,' which is quite possible in an invocation. 3. NI (Plate I., No. 12). — This is perhaps * It may perhaps also stand in some cases for V7n as a subjunctive prefix. n.i. + WW/v\ t TofcLcep.38. EWener.TiOi,. ALTAIC AND CYPRIOTE THE COMMONER SYMBOLS. 39 the commonest of all the Altaic symbols, and inevitably so if it is connected with the Akkadian sounds N'a and Nij which are of peculiar importance. For the study of this symbol I collected in a table forty-eight cases of its occurrence in groups of two or three symbols. In twenty-four cases I found it occurring at the top of the line ; but it is not by any means always a prefix in such cases, since it is often a suffix of the preceding group, the symbol below it being a conjunc- tion, post-position, or pronoun. In some cases it is, however, clear that it must be the governing personal pronoun * He,' or even the demonstrative * This,' as is the case also with the Akkadian Bi (' he ' or 'this'), and its parallels in Finnish, Turkish, Proto- Medic, etc. The group MO-NI, * I-him,' is found preceding a verb on the Altaic hieroglyphs, and this combination may perhaps sometimes denote the prefix Mun, an impersonal indicative. In eighteen cases the sign NI appears at the bottom of 40 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. the group, and in six only is it in the middle out of the above - mentioned collection of forty-eight groups. The commonest position is consequently that of a post-position, and this is explained by the fact that in addition to its value as a pronoun it has probably a case value. In Akkadian it appears that JVa, as a post-position, marks the ablative ; and it serves, as it were, to place a noun in the accusative or objective (^.^., Dam-Kina^ * Wife earth from,' the earth-wife or earth- goddess, where A7, ' earth,' becomes in the genitive case) ; this use of the Altaic symbol seems often to give good sense. I cannot understand why Professor Sayce, who began by identifying the sound of this symbol with the clearly identical Cypriote Ni, after- wards deserted this position in favour of a very doubtful similarity to Yi, giving to this important word the value e or i ; unless he supposed the frequent occurrence of the sound Ni to be improbable, whereas in Ak- kadian it is one of the commonest sounds. THE COMMONER SYMBOLS. 41 As regards the ideographic value of the two preceding symbols there is little to say ; but I think Ni is clearly of Phallic origin, and represents * the male/ a conception which, as the original picture-writing developed into the system under consideration, was modified into the more abstract idea of the personal pronoun * He.' There are a few cases where Ni stands over the heads of a bull, ass, ram, or other male animal. I am not sure how this would best be explained in Akkadian,* but it seems to me that the emblem here forms an abstract or possessive — e.g., NiSet, *Set-ish'; Ni-Gut, 'bull-like.' In the in- scription behind the King or Priest at Ibreez we must begin clearly with Ni on the right> since we have a suffix on the extreme left. In this case A^/ appears to mean * This person,' or simply ' He.' The plural * They ' in Akkadian is repre- * Ni prefixed in Akkadian forms the verb — e.g., Nigm^ * to surround,' a verb from Gin, * enclosure,' and this appears also to be the case in our inscriptions. 42 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. sented by NenCy and a reduplieation of Ni may probably give the Altaic symbol ; but of this I have not yet found a case. 4. LI (Plate I., No. 14). — Clearly the Cypriote Re or Li, and clearly a suffix In the Altaic hieroglyphs. Professor Sayce calls it the nominative suffix es, thus deserting his older correct identification from the Cypriote, in favour of a linguistic necessity which has perhaps no real existence. In Akkadian // is a post-position which forms the dative and the instrumental cases, and also, appa- rently, the adverb. The nearest English word for general use seems to be * to' or * -Ing.' 5. KA (Plate I., No. 19).— This Is a highly important suffix, clearly the Cypriote Ka^ and apparently the Akkadian Ku which forms the case of motion, and is rendered ap- parently ' for ' or ' towards.' This sign, which occurs at the end of nouns in many cases, seems to bear the meaning * towards/ and might be conjectured to represent a sign- post. It appears often to belong to a word- THE COMMONER SYMBOLS. 43 packet of several adjectives or adverbs, and is not repeated with each, but stands, it would seem, at the end of a clause. There are slight variations in its form ; but it is always dis- tinguished by the base on which it stands, and by the penthouse head. 6. TI (Plate I., No. 20). — This is also a suffix, but not as commonly used as the pre- ceding. It seems to be the Akkadian Ta, a locative suffix meaning 'to' or *in.' It is observable that when several of these post- positions occur together H rarely stands last of the group, as far as I have been able to observe. It may have a connection with the Akkadian id for ' one.' 7. IT (Plate I., No. 20). — This symbol is very like the preceding, but not identical, apparently, either in position or in form^ Whereas TI or ta seems to be possibly a spear, IT, with its broadened end, looks more like an arrow, and it has apparently a barbed head. It seems frequently to stand alone or as a prefix, and may therefore be compared 44 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. with the prefix id in Akkadian, or ii in Proto- Medic, the preformants of locality as Lenormant calls them. 8. RA or LA (Plate I., No. i6).— This sign long puzzled me, yet the comparison with the Cypriote La is clear enough. Pro- fessor Sayce seems to regard it as a dative suffix, though he groups It with two other characters which have, I think, different shapes and values (viz., Sa and Pal). As I have said before, there is no real distinction which can be made between Ra and La in Akkadian. Ra is the Akkadian post-posi- tion for the dative, and the same syllable in- corporated in the verb gives a reciprocal or co-operative meaning, as does also the Proto- Medic ir. In the Altaic texts this syllable seems to occur with both nouns and verbs. The original object may have been a whip, such as some figures on the monuments of Asia Minor seem to carry. The lash points towards the beginning of the line, which distinguishes this sign from the next. In THE COMMONER SYMBOLS. 45 confirmation of this reading we find, I think, on the silver boss the same emblem, where the syllable Ar or Ra should occur, In the name of the country Erme. The lash points the same way ; but this indication I do not find noticed by Professor Sayce, though he gives the value er to his supposed dative suffix. 9. SA (Plate I., No. 18).— This phonetic value was established by Professor Sayce In 1876, though he abandoned It in 1884; and it seems to me that he connects No. 9 with No. 8 in an unnecessary manner. The exact distinction between this post-position and Ti Is slight : Sa Is not an Infrequent terminal suffix in Akkadian, and the nearest English word seems to be ' In ' or ' with.' 10. KE (Plate I., No. 21).— This syllable is peculiar in respect that It occurs redupli- cated before verbs, giving the sound Keke or Kek. Professor Sayce has always identified it with one form of the Cypriote Si ; but this I could not see my way to follow, because of 46 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. the base of the Sz which is not found in the Altaic fio-ure. A further studv of the Cypriote St shows us that the normal form has no stem, and I am convinced that the original emblem, whence the Cypriote Sz derives, was a human eye not yet known in the Altaic texts. This agrees with the value of the Akkadian sound .5"/, which means, I believe, an eye. To return to No. lo, there is a form of Ke in the Cypriote which is tolerably close to the Altaic emblem. The value of J^e gives us remarkably good sense, since we can then read Ke^e as equivalent to the Akkadian causative prefix to the verb, viz. J^a^. From this discovery I was able to identify the ' Amen' at the ends of some of the stones'" and * It-ka-ti-kek-me, * Cause to be,' on the Hamath stones. Compare the Kek-ti-mu^ * Cause to me,' on the third Jerablus stone ; and the forms on the Babylonian bowl, Kek me^ ' Cause to be,' and again Kek mu, * Cause me.' This word Kek-me is apparently the Kakama^ which Lenormant tells us is the termination of the Akkadian prayers, or charms, which begin with En^ as do the THE COMMONER SYMBOLS, 47 on the Babylonian bowl, where two * Kek's ' divide the text into two equal halves, occur- ring at the opposite ends of a diametric line through the bowl. , This prefixed position of the symbol Ke also agrees with the use of the ' prefix of position ' Ki, in Akkadian, on which M. Bertin has learnedly discoursed. The nearest English word is ' as,' and the ad- jective may be formed by this prefix : Ke over a ram's head meaning ' as a ram,' or ' like a ram.' Thus, although the Cypriote comparison is not as close as in some other cases, I feel confident that the value Ke is correct ; Ke also occurs affixed to nouns, forming, apparently, the adjective or perhaps the agent, like the Akkadian ik. The identification with Si was perhaps one of Professor Sayce's main obstacles in discover- ing the language of the Altaic hieroglyphs. Hamath stones. Kakama is in Assyrian translation rendered by the word * Amen,' Amanu^ and means evidently 'So be it.' Cf. 'LaMagie,' p. 15. 48 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. The emblem called GA in my translitera- tion will be mentioned later. It seems to mean * belonging to/ and occurs most fre- quently as a nominal affix. We may now pass on from the considera- tion of these valuable pronouns and particles, which together serve to determine our language as agglutinative and as akin to Akkadian, and glance at the identification of the plural, the conjunction, the Intensltive, the chief auxiliary verbs of action and of motion, and the compulsive voice, all of which serve to make firm the ground under our feet. No. II. MES (Plate II., No. 14).— This is not known In Cypriote, but Professor Sayce, from the bilingual boss, attributed to this emblem the value 7ne. He also (I think In- correctly) connected it with the Cypriote 7no, which we have seen to mean ^ I.' The emblem now under consideration has no connection with the normal form of 7710. It is of its essence that it should be regarded as consisting of two or four parallel strokes. pi.n. 'W ■ /7 ^ fT re = p-l L- ^ .'m^W& ±tT - ♦& Aa/v "F^ 7^ ^ pr £^ •^ 5^ r r- ^ •S> TT" •^ 7" « X X - « ^ (i) ^ i-T- >^ .0^ 4i ^^ 11 © a- ^ ami/ ^i:rTt^ y 5*^ '^lu^ M (n ^ X3 ^ ■- <:]> ::]: ...jcott T«« — Ta^acep.48. EWeUer.Uth. ALTAIC, CYPRIOTE, &c. THE COMMONER SYMBOLS. 49 A comparison of several occurrences of a special group meaning ' fire,' shows us that the four strokes, in some instances, are equiva- lent to the two strokes each with a line down the middle in others — the difference is one of individual sculpture only. Now Professor Sayce has pointed out that es and mes are frequent terminations in Alarodian names. In Akkadian uies means ' many,' and as a suffix forms the plural {e.g.y ' addal father, and ' addameSy fathers) ; and we thus at once see that the four strokes mean 'number' or ' many,' suggesting an original condition when the race could only count three, and when more than three was * multitude ' (com- pare the Sechuana language in South Africa, and the researches of Sir John Lubbock into this interesting question). I have proposed to compare this emblem with the Cunei- form sign for the plural, consisting of four horizontal strokes and the vertical stroke which is used to divide clauses. (See Plate IV., No. 10.) 4 50 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. We have, therefore, in this sign the plural for nouns, and we see that the incorrect com- parison with the Cypriote mo has been an obstacle to decipherment. No. 12. E or A (Plate II., No. ii).— This is only a provisional sound, but I think it will prove correct.* No exact equivalent is known in Cypriote. The emblem is always small, and appears to connect the clauses. I regard it therefore as a conjunction, and it seems to be used as a syllable for the short A or the short £. Professor Sayce gives it a value not founded on any comparative basis, and apparently too important for its small size and constant recurrence. I pro- pose to compare this symbol with the Cunei- form sign for the conjunction. No. 13. NE (Plate I., No. 17) may be compared with the Cypriote A/'i^ ; but it is not, apparently, the Akkadian negative JVii^ as * For instance, it gives Eri on the Hamath stones, and JSe, or A a. The Cuneiform zja might come from it. In Akkadian ua is 'and,' but the sign compared is the Assyrian ra. THE COMMONER SYMBOLS. 51 far as I can see, because it seems to be an affix to nouns, not a prefix. It is rather, I think, to be regarded as an intensitive JVe or eu (compare the form An and Anna, * God,' and * very God,' in Akkadian). I feel, how- ever, that further study by speciaHsts may improve on this suggestion ; but the small size and frequent occurrence of the emblem seem to show that it cannot have the value of a noun or verb, while Professor Sayce's suggestion that it is a plural seems to be excluded by what has been said about No. 1 1, Mes. In Akkadian the sound En is rendered 'jusqu'a' by Lenormant (* Magie,' p. 319.) No. 14. MA or ME (Plate I., No. 9) was identified by Professor Sayce, in 1880, with the human hand grasping, and with the Cypriote to. I am not quite certain on this point, but of the grammatical value of the symbol I feel little doubt. It appears to stand for * make,' or ' be ;' and it is well known that in Cuneiform the hand is the original emblem of * power ' — as indeed in 52 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS, all ancient symbolism. These facts seem to agree together, and to give us the verb * make/ or * be,' which agrees with the oc- currence of the emblem in question as part of the last group on the fourth Hamath stone, where it seems to form the verb root pre- ceded by the causative Ke/c. I have pro- posed to compare this emblem with the Cypriote Me. In Akkadian the verb 7ne signifies to be f' the Cypriote emblem for ;;/^ may, perhaps, be the correct parallel. Professor Sayce, in 1876, compared this emblem with the Cy- priote ma, but in 1880 with ^0. We may here note that ve7^h of action in Altaic hieroglyphs ai-e denoted by various attititdes of the hand or ami. When we look at Assyrian bas-reliefs we see the same. The king's hand is held in the position whence, perhaps, the Cypriote Ni (Plate I., No. 8) develops; (15) and iVz, in Akkadian, * See M. Berlin's note on the prefix Mi for the future. ('Trans. Bib. Arch. See.,' viii., p. 244.) THE COMMONER SYMBOLS. 53 means apparently ' protection/ giving us the value for the original Altaic emblem. (16) The raised hand might be compared with one form of the Cypriote ie, and te we know to mean ' to raise ' in Proto-Medic. (See Plate II., No. 7.) The hand raised in adoration means, therefore, ' worship.' The hand with the palm towards the mouth, and the fingers raised (Plate III., No. 36), w^hen joined to a human bust, forms, I believe, the noun Eit, for prayer; and when alone, possibly the root * pray.' If we look at the Assyrian bas-reliefs we see that suppliants (whether captives or worshippers) always have the hand in this attitude. We see it also on the cylinders and on modern Persian paintings ; and I can give evidence that in Syria a peasant who comes to ask a favour always still approaches his superior with both hands raised to his mouth in exactly this attitude. I feel, therefore, no doubt as to the meaning of this important emblem. (17) The hand pointing downwards will evidently mean 54 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. ' down/ or * descend,' and I think It must be connected with the linear Babylonian emblem having the value dti for * descend/ and pro- bably with the various forms of the Cy- priote ^0 (Plate II., No. 4). (18) The extended hand may be compared, perhaps, with the Cypriote Se, and with the Cuneiform emblem of the hand, and appears, perhaps, to mean * give.' Se, in Akkadian, I believe I am correct in saying, has this meaning. (See Plate II., No. 5.) (19) The hand in the position of holding an object possibly means * bestow,' and should be read in this case sz, if Lenormant is right. It perhaps resembles one form of the Cypriote //, though of this I do not feel sure. (See Plate III., No. 59.) No. 20. DU (Plate III., No. 44), the foot pointing towards the beginning of the line, seems to mean ' come ' and ' become.' We may compare the Egyptian emblem for 'come,' as contrasted with its opposite *go' — a pair of feet in each case in opposite direc- tion. (21) When the foot points the other THE COMMONER SYMBOLS. 55 way the emblem will consequently perhaps mean DE, or 'go.' (22) The duplication dudtc gives us the form ' come often,' which some Akkadian scholars seem to call the fre- quentative, while in other cases dttdtt^ is ren- dered apparently * make go' or 'expel/ (23) The leg, which I have only noticed in three or four cases (Jerablus iii., line 2) may have a distinct value, and recalls the Cuneiform emblem Su, which as early as 1878 Professor Sayce showed to be derived from an old hieroglyphic leg. (24) On the same text (line 4) we have two legs In the attitude of ' running,' and the context of the passage, when compared with a well- known Akkadian magic text, shows us that this emblem (not found elsewhere) means probably ' run.' No. 25. TA (Plate I., No. 10).— The value is obtained from the Cypriote. The mean- ing Is clearly ' compulsion,' and Identical, as I pointed out in 1883, with the Egyptian em- blem of the hand and stick, which has the 56 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. same meaning. It occurs with the syllable ni\ affixed (Hamath L, line 3, and II., line 3) which may be read ^ant. In Akkadian /a7i is a verbal prefix for * Causation,' which agrees exactly ; when standing alone it may be taken to mean ' force/ and with 7ii to mean * compel.' No. 26, a hand with a sceptre, has a some- what cognate meaning, and I take it to mean * rule,' or 'honour.' It should be noted that the club or sceptre with a round head, and held just below its head, occurs in the hand not only of a deity at Marash, but also of King Shamash Pul on his bas-relief in the British Museum. The ordinary club {dabbils) used in Syria has this shape, and is usually held just under the knob. No. 27. The hand with a knife (Plate III., No. 51) seems clearly to mean bat^ or 'slay,' and may be the original of the simple Cunei- form emblem for bat, 'to slay.' (Plate IV., No. 6.) No. 28 (Plate III., No. 47), a head like THE COMMONER SYMBOLS. 57 an umbrella-handle, seems clearly to be a root, and It occurs at the end of the fifth Hamath stone. Professor Sayce gives It the value J^zie or Mes, and the meaning ' to worship.' I think, however, It may be taken to mean ' word,' or ' call,' although I do not feel that this Is as yet demonstrated. Pro- visionally, therefore, we may give It the value £"11, ' word.' No. 29. Another Important emblem (Plate II., No. 3) looks like a small herb, and Is the same shape with the common Cypriote Te. I believe It to represent the Akkadian De, 'to move,' 'grow,' or Mlve ;' as In the well- known expression, Ktir-nu-de, generally rendered ' land of no return,' but, per- haps, better, ' land of no movement ' — the country of the dead being so named. The sprouting herb is a natural emblem for 'growth.' The remainder of the common emblems require less notice. The nouns represented by animals' heads are easily recognised : 58 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. ' bull,' '"* * deer/ ' ram,' ' sheep,' * ass/ and, I think, * dog ; ' also the * hare ' and the human face {Sa^ or Ka In Akkadian) .t The ram's head Is specially Important, meaning, appar- ently, when used as a verb root with JVi pre- fixed, * to oppose ' or ' fight ' — In fact, * to ram.' It may be noted that the sort of w^Ig worn on the head recalls the dressing of the hair among the HIttltes and on the Assyrian bas-reliefs. The head with long ears and the tongue out we shall find to mean * demon.' The head with a long thin neck I conjecture to stand for ' soul,' as It occurs on texts when the head without a neck Is also represented. '"" The bull's head is common at Jerabis. The words Gu^ and Khar stand for ' bull ' in Akkadian. There is, perhaps, a connection with Gud^ for ' firm,' or ' strong,' that being the usual meaning of * bull,' as used in Egyptian of heroes, etc., just as Aleph is used of a prince (duke) in the Bible. The deer is Tar. The ram I suppose to be Lu ; but this is only provisional, as Lu-7iit^ ' male sheep,' is the present reading of ram in Akkadian. t The animal heads are also used apparently in the abstract with Ni prefixed : Bull for * might,' ram for * fight,' hare for 'swift,' deer for 'noble,' etc., etc. THE COMMONER SYMBOLS. 59 The king's head may be read perhaps Kzi, or perhaps Sary but the meaning Is the same, Sar being an Akkadian term for a ' ruler,' adopted afterwards in Egypt and among Semitic peoples. As to the eagle, ZU, we must speak later, as also concerning the lozenge-shaped TAM. One of the common noun emblems Is the pot, which I propose to identify with the sound A, for water. The Cypriote a has many shapes, and the various forms of the Cypriote Va (see Plate I., No. 5) all suggest a connection. In 1883 I compared this symbol with the comparatively rare Egyptian emblem for water, used In a group of three pots, with /^/, or ' heaven,' to mean ' the waters above the firmament.' I see no reason to repent of this, though the Egyptian phonetic value, JVu, has no connection, the relation being purely Ideographic. I have adhered to the same Idea In * Syrian Stone- Lore' (p. 24). It may be objected that the pot occurs very frequently ; yet we have 6o" ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. texts (Jerabis, No. 2, and Hamath, No. 2) where it never occurs. It forms the chief constituent of the name of a god, and we have a cylinder (that of Naram Sin, son of the mythical Sargina) where the water-pot occurs as an emblem probably of the god A. Holy water was an important feature of Akkadian magic, whence the use of magic bowls, like that of Babylon, as we shall observe later.'" At Ibreez the pot occurs with the verb ra, to ' flow ; ' and taking these facts into consideration, we may feel toler- * We read in the ' Descent of Istar,' and in the * Legend of Gisdubar,' about the ' Water of life ' in Hades. Lenormant remarks that water, according to the Akkadians, was the source of all life. We must remember that Mesopotamian cultivation depended on the rivers, and that Carchemish and Hamath stood on great rivers. We must also not forget that the Hittites swore faith to Rameses H. by the rivers as gods, and that Ea, the god of rain and water and ocean, and of the celestial ship or ark, was one of their chief deities. We must recall the passage (' W. A. I.,' iv., iii. 2) about * magic waters ' curing sickness, and (' W. A. I.,' iv., xvi.) about the demon who ' raises his head against the propitious waters of Ea.' THE COMMONER SYMBOLS. 6i ably secure as to this emblem. Professor Sayce's comparison with the Cypriote O seems to me less happy than some of his identifi- cations, and that emblem is, I think, rather to be assimilated to the Akkadian ^/, or * herb/ since it resembles a plant. It is not likely that so large an emblem as this pot can be other than a noun or verb root. There are other varieties of vase to be noted in analyzing the inscriptions, which seem to refer to * oil,' or some such offering, and which must be distinguished from the com- mon emblem. The symbol E, or house (Plate III., No. 23), Is clear enough. There are forms of the Cypriote E which approach it, and the Cuneiform symbol is almost the same. (See Plate IV., No. 3). Two doors are repre- sented, while in the Egyptian parallel emblem we have only one. This house occurs as the name of a god, evidently £a, the god of the * heavenly house.' In one case the house seems to have little 62 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. wings, like those of figures found at Carche- mlsh (for Akkadian angels, It seems, had wings like ours) ; these may, however, be pathways. At Ibreez we have a different form, representing a temple with a cella, just as in part of the linear Babylonian emblem for ' mother.'* Another common emblem appears to me to be an altar with a fiire on it, which may be compared with the Egyptian. I do not suggest any phonetic value, but take the sense to be 'offer/ or 'sacrifice.' The sword or knife (Plate III., No. 29) we may read Pa/ ; it seems to be a noun. Other emblems may be left to the section in which the Cuneiform connection Is dis- cussed. As to the throne (Plate V., No. 2), we know that in Egypt It was an * The idea of the emblem for ' mother ' in linear Cuneiform is * Temple of the Germ,' which is shown within, while another emblem adjoins. I believe the idea to be purely Phallic, and not the subtle abstraction suggested by Mr. Houghton. THE COMMONER SYMBOLS. 63 emblem of deity, and in Cuneiform it has the value zd, or 'power.' It may be rendered provisionally 'holy,' or 'majesty.' The Altaic emblem resembles the sort of gridiron on which the gods appear seated on some cylinders, and whatever the phonetic value may be, we cannot hesitate as to the ideo- graphic. The identification as a throne was proposed to me in 1883 by Professor Sayce, and we have a very clear instance since for comparison on the lion of Marash. The sacred tree (apparently to be read Shar) and another tree will be discussed later. The emblem ZO (Plate I., No. 3) is identified from the Cypriote by Professor Sayce; and we know that Zu and Zi in Akkadian mean * life/ or * spirit.' I think the emblem represents lightning, and that we here see that the Persian idea of 'essential fire ' as the vital principle (which Renouf has proved to be also a very old Egyptian belief) was inherited from Medes or Akka- dians, whence it also passed into Phoenician 64 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. philosophy, and so to the Greeks. As to the serpent U (Plate I., No. 7), I feel no doubt, though Professor Sayce has deserted this belief in consequence of the study of one of the later hieratic forms of this emblem. The figure on the first Hamath stone cannot be anything but a serpent (line 3), nor can that on the terra-cotta seals ; and on the Marash Hon the form is not the flattened hieratic emblem of the Babylonian bowl. Exception may be taken to the Cypriote comparison, but even if the phonetic value — which in the case of the god's name gives us the value Aizu^ — be incorrect, we know what the serpent means ; for Renouf shows in a con- vincing manner that the snake or dragon in Egypt is the emblem of a ' cloud ' ; and the Altaic god is, therefore, the sky or cloud deity — which, by-the-bye, is just the character of the Assyrian Anu. The snake was also an emblem of Ea, as we know from cylinders * Anu was a Semitic god — the Akkadian Anna. pi.ni. 22 24 i^ iniD (7) 'A^ Fig. 12. think, been able to identify in a satisfactory manner by the aid of Mr. Houghton's account of the Babylonian Cuneiform. Our illustration gives us a fine instance of the history of the Assyrian Cuneiform. No. 7 is usually called BIL GI in Akkadian. Nos. io6 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. 5 and 6 are two of the original linear Baby- lonian forms of the same. Nos. i, 2, 3, 4 are taken from the first, second, and third Jerablus texts, as copied from the originals by myself. The emblem which stands first, and is apparently BIL, we have already noticed as the name of a god on the Babylonian bowl. Mr. Houghton shows that it is the 'fire- drill ' used by the Akkadians and Phoenicians, as well as by so many early tribes all over the world — the pramantha from which Max M tiller tells us Prometheus was named. Mr. Houghton's explanation of the other emblems seems to be modified by discovering the Akkadian original ; the filbert-shaped object is not the head of a beast, as it has some- times been represented ; it has no eye or mouth, as far as my senses of sight and touch of the original stone go. It is clearly 2. flame like that on the altar in another Altaic emblem. It very rarely occurs alone, but there is a case where it is placed over a ram's head (Jerablus iii., line 3) as an apparent THE CUNEIFORM CONNECTION. 107 attribute of the god Tammuz.''' This emblem, then, is GI, or 'flame' (such being the Akka- dian meaning of £1.) The third emblem is MES, the plural, which has apparently become silent in the word Bzl gi, if that reading is certain. The group, then, is re- solved into BIL-GI-MES, and the interpre- tation is 'fire-drill-flames,' which came to be accepted as * fire,' and was in time adopted by the Assyrians as equivalent to Isahc (Hebrew EsJi), the Semitic word for fire. This, perhaps, explains why we have Bil gi instead of gibil, as to which Cuneiform scholars apparently disagree : some of them (like Lenormant) make Bil a verb.f The Altaic emblem seems to show us a log of wood into which the fire-stick is inserted, while sparks are issuing from the log. In the linear Babylonian form (No. 6) we see the wood laid under the drill. The flame gi has gradu- ■^ It seems also to occur twice on the Babylonian bowl. t Others make it a genitive. io8 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. ally become a lozenge, but the Cuneiform sign (No 7) still shows a connection with the idea of flame. The Cuneiform oldest emblems for ' reed ' and 'life/ which seem to represent the growth of flowers or reeds, I propose to com- pare with an emblem on the third Jerablus text (line 3), and with two of the sceptres of Fig. 13. the gods on the Boghaz Keui bas-reliefs. The idea is that of ' growing up,' but I do not feel certain as to the proper phonetic value. The linear Babylonian form for i^a^ (a ' stone ' in Akkadian) is clearly taken from the idea of the cippus or menhir on a base, which occurs on the Altaic hieroglyphs. To No. 3 I have already assigned the phonetic value ifa^, for other reasons. No. 2 seems, THE CUNEIFORM CONNECTION. 109 perhaps, to be a root meaning 'memorial/ which recalls the fact that in Hebrew the verb to * remember' comes from the same root with 'male' and 'monument.' It is well known that the menhir, ox lingam, is con- ^ 4. Fig. 14. nected with the male idea in India and all over Asia. No. 4 is a cippus, just like those erected by the Phoenicians as sacred emblems and as funeral monuments. The root tu, to ' descend,' seems to me to correspond with the hand (said sometimes to V 1^ ^ I. be a glove), which points downwards on the Altaic texts ; and to which we have already no ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. assigned the value * down ' or * descend,' to which we may therefore give the phonetic value TU. Mr. Houghton's ingenious ex- planation seems to me too subtle ; and the Altaic hieroglyph gives, I think, a safer origin to the sign, which in Cuneiform became No. 3. The group (No. i) next given is the word ad for father. Professor Sayce compares the included emblem with Nos. 2 and 3, which are the verb to * make.' This perhaps throws light on the verb to * make ' or ' be,' of which we have already spoken (p. 51), giving it provisionally the value MA or ME ; but this I regard as conjectural.* By the aid of Mr. Houghton's paper we are thus able to compare the Altaic and the Cuneiform in about twenty cases, including the group Bi7 gi. I submit that my thesis is most materially strengthened by this com- * In addition to these signs I think we may compare the sounds Gar, JDim, As, a, and, perhaps, others with Cuneiform as noticed on other pages. THE CUNEIFORM CONNECTION. iii parison. These pages are, however, only the germ, perhaps, of a future development in which the scholars will embark ; and the comparison, if carried further by those to whom the Cuneiform is familiar, on the basis of a supposition that the language of the Altaic texts is closely akin to Akkadian, will, I feel convinced, produce great results, aiding us to understand alike the Cuneiform char- r^ > 2. Fig. 16, acters and the Altaic prototypes much better than at present. This comparison serves also to give some idea of the probable antiquity of the Altaic hieroglyphs. The execution of the accom- panying figures shows us that they must be more archaic than the bas-reliefs covered with Cuneiform characters. In Assyria the Akkadian became an extinct language about 1500 B.C., and I believe the Hamath 112 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. Stones to be perhaps as old as Abraham at least — the oldest monuments of Asia. We know that many of the Cuneiform clay tablets were copies from older monu- ments. Mr. Pinches {^Babylonian Record, November, 1886, p. 9) has translated one, which is said on its own face to be a ' copy of the tablet of usu stone ;' and usu, he says, is basalt — the very stone of the Hamath and Jerablus texts. It was, perhaps, from an ancient Altaic hieroglyphic text that the clay tablet of Singasid was copied. VIII. THE EGYPTIAN CONNECTION. We now turn to the question of the possible Interdependence of the Altaic and Egyptian systems, concerning which little has pre- viously been here said. In this inquiry I do not stand quite alone. Lenormant long ago pointed out that the Ideograph for ' place ' used In the Cuneiform appeared to have a common origin with that used In Egypt. Both, In fact, may be derived from the usual representation In plan of a walled town. I have compared nineteen cases where (since the discovery of the language of the Altaic Inscriptions) the Egyptian still seems to me to have the same ideographic value as 8 114 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. the Altaic. No doubt it is true that heads of bulls, rams, birds, etc., or other pure pictures will not serve to establish a connection. They may arise from independent sources, espe- cially when the languages are different ; but there are other cases where I do not think that the connection can be so briefly dis- missed. On Plate No. V. I have shown ten examples, some of which involve abstract ideas. Thus it is curious that the goat represents a chief (Hik) in Egypt, and the deer (Tar) a chief in the Altaic. In both systems the throne means Divine majesty or power ; in both we have a very similar emblem for the firmament. Last of all, the Egyptian emblem for * lightning,' or ' bright- ness,'* is evidently identical with that which, by aid of the Cypriote, we have concluded to * Mr. Houghton notes that this also means 'storm,' and is like the Cuneiform emblem for ' storm,' or ' dark- ness.' The idea is the same, the rain taking the place of the shafts of light. The expression must have meant * shed,' applying equally to water and to light THE EGYPTIAN CONNECTION. 115 mean ri, or ' shine.' It is, in fact, a series of rays descending from the emblem of the firmament, or heaven. Professor de Lacouperie {Babylonian Re- cordy December, 1866, p. 27) has recently- written as follows : * There are strong reasons to believe that the Babylonian and Egyptian writings have sprung from a former system. They have many symbols in common, with similar pho- netic values which are not loan signs. A list of such signs was begun by Professor Hommel and by myself independently, and requires only to be extended for being pub- lished. Professor Hommel thinks that the Egyptian writing was derived from that of Babylon, and says he can put forward some facts in support of this view. For my part, I find that there are cogent reasons to believe that both writings have come from an older system, which has also produced the Hittite hieroglyphs, and the pictorial figures and symbols which were preserved on the black, 8—2 ii6 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. stone of Susa, the boundary-stones of Baby- lonia,* and also preserved in some later symbols/ I believe the learned author to have hit on exactly the right explanation, and I think that the comparison which I ventured — how- ever imperfectly — to draw, in 1883, between the Altaic and the Egyptian is justified by the discoveries of others. We may, therefore, pause to inquire whether any other traces of connection are discernible between Egyptians and Akka- dians. The Egyptian language does not show us any such connection. It is one of a family of African and Asiatic tongues which * These emblems are Semitic, and though there is, I think, certainly a connection, it seems to me that they are planetary, and represent the ' houses ' and the planetary and zodiacal animals. I have some time since identified with the planets those emblems which occur above the heads of Assyrian kings by aid of M. Pereties plaque. M. Ganneau compared these signs, but, as far as I know, did not deduce the fact that they are emblems of the planets, whence indeed our modern emblems for the days of the week are derived. THE EGYPTIAN CONNECTION. 117 have, as Professor de Lacouperie tells us, the grammatical order, subject + object + verb, like the Sumerian order. The Egyptian is allied not only to the Coptic, but to other North African languages. The tribes round Suakim and in the Soudan, which are neither Negro nor Arab,* with others in Abyssinia, speak kindred dialects. The Galla and the Kordofan dialects, the Kabyle, Algerian, Tuarik, and the old lan- guage of the Canary Islands, are all akin to Egyptian ; and perhaps the Madagascar tongue, though corrupted by the Malay. The Somali, Dankali, Bishari, Agao, Chaho, Billin, and Kunama tongues are also com- pared by Professor de Lacouperie. The Caucasian, Kolarian, and (In India) the Dravldlan dialects are, says the latter scholar, the Asiatic representatives of the same family. * See Sir C. Wilson's paper, read at the Anthropo- logical Institute, 8th Feb., 1887; 'Syrian Stone-Lore,' chap, i., p. 54 ; Babylcnian Record^ Dec, 1886, p. 30. fi8 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. The people who spoke these tongues belonged to the old black race, which is called by Herodotus the Asiatic Ethiopian — a race with finely-cut features, but some- what full lips, and apparently with straight or curly black hair, but not with wool. They have been found by M. Dieulafoy portrayed at Tell Loh, and the Abyssinian type with aquiline features and jet-black skin is the modern representative. They are sometimes supposed to have had their cradle In Bactria, but I do not understand that this rests on any very certain evidence. These people existed In Arabia and on the shores of the Persian Gulf, as well as in Beluchistan. In Babylonia the ' dark race ' Is mentioned as one of those ruled by Sar- gina (traditionally in 3800 B.C.). In Susiana they seem to have been mingled with an Altaic population. They spread down the Indus into the Dekkan. The Klings in South- East India are the same. * It is still an open question,' says Pro* Pl.V. To^acep.ne I.WeOer.lJA. ALTAIC AND EGYPTIAN. THE EGYPTIAN CONNECTION. 119 fessor de Lacouperle, ' which may very- likely receive an affirmative answer, to know if some of the languages of India belong- ing to the Himalaic division of the Scythian stock must not extend their affinities so as to include in their group some of the African languages/ To this black race the antiquarian ethno- logists have given the name * Cushite/ since * Cush ' in Semitic languages means * dark ' ; but I confess that I cannot quite see the connection. The Kassi or Cosseans may be connected with Cush, but they seem to have spoken an Altaic dialect closely akin to Akkadian. I do not know if there is any evidence to convince us that the black race came from Central Asia. May it not rather have its home in Africa ? But whatever be the answer, it is to the black race that the Egyptian language appears to trace its origin. We have, however, nothing, as far as I can find, to show that the hieroglyphic system is due to the black race, although I20 ALTAIC hieroglyphs: it possesses the phonetic values of their language. Language, we are constantly re- minded, is not a sure test of race, and the ancient Egyptians on the monuments are not a black people. It Is remarkable, In South Africa, that the Bantu people, though superior In other respects, have not developed the picture-writing, which the Chinese-like Hottentots possess. Nor does It appear that Abysslnlans or other members of the Ethiopian race (as distinguished from the negro) have any picture-writing system. The Amharic and kindred alphabets are borrowed from the Phcenlclan alphabet, as developed in Yemen among the Arabs of a remote antiquity. As regards race, we learn from Brugsch* that there were at least three, if not four, races known to ancient Egypt — the Nahasu, or negroes in the south ; the Amu, or Semitic brown race who In the * ' Egypt under the Pharaohs,' vol. i., p. 3 ; ' Syrian Stone-Lore,' p. 54. THE EGYPTIAN CONNECTION. 121 Hyksos period invaded the Delta ; and the Libu, a h'ght race (the white Lybians) on the west. Many Egyptologists have supposed that a Turanian Asiatic stock existed in Egypt, and to them possibly the origin of the hiero- glyphics may be due. It is in this manner, perhaps, that we may best explain the connection between Altaic and Egyptian hieroglyphics. The connection may be due to a common Asiatic origin in a picture-writing whence the Egyptian and the so-called Hittite both developed. The Egyptian is of immense antiquity, and far more complex, since it consists of about 400 symbols against the Altaic no to 140 emblems. The Egyptian is a double system of determinatives and syllables ; the Altaic represents a simpler stage when the pictorial ideograph with a monosyllabic value is accompanied, not by determinatives, but only by conventionalized symbols of particles and grammatical forms. I might even suggest that the Egyptian double system arose from 122 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. the fact that the emblems were applied to a language other than that to which they belonged in the first instance ; just as in Cuneiform the old Akkadian ideograph got a new phonetic value when it came to be used in a Semitic language. Determinatives may have served to fix the true value of syllables which at first had another sound in another language. The Altaic hieroglyph is not the original of the Egyptian ; but the earlier pure picture-writing whence it developed may perhaps have been the parent alike not only of the Egyptian and the Cuneiform, but even of the Chinese hieroglyphics as well. Now, as remarked on a previous page, it seems probable that really reliable resemblances of idea in two systems are due not to indepen- dent coincidence of conception, but rather to common origin ; and that differences are due to separate development. This seems to me a more natural conclusion than that urged by both mythologists and philologists, who tell us that men thought out the same thoughts THE EGYPTIAN CONNECTION. 123 in the same way without any intercommuniopi. Our experience of mankind should surely teach us that men do not think alike or arrive at the same conclusions, any more than they start from the same premises — unless they have consulted together. So much for the Egyptian connection. It is parallel, not successive ; and remembering that we must deal not with Identity of sound, but only of meaning and of form, I venture to hope that it will be very considerably developed In the future by competent scholars, and that It will justify the encouragement which Professor Sayce extended to me when I first tried to compare the Altaic and the Egyptian, and justify also the complete comparison of the oldest Cuneiform and Egyptian emblems. If this view be correct, It Is curious to note how the various developments of one system overlapped each other. The Phoe- nician alphabet, developed from the Egyptian, was the returning wave which superseded the 124 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. Altaic system in both the Cypriote and also in the Cuneiform developments. Yet in a remote past this alphabet, developed by the Semitic peoples, had been originated (through the Egyptian hieroglyphs) by the same great race which used the syllabaries of Cyprus and of Babylon. The Aryans in Greece, the Semitic tribes in Babylonia and in Syria, used first the Altaic syllabaries, and afterwards adopted the alphabets which had the same original derivation. In fact, no Asiatic system of writing can, on this theory, be distinguished as having other than an Altaic origin.* * The genealogy of these systems would, therefore, be as follows : I St stage — Picture-writing - - Altaic 2nd „ — Hieroglyph - Egyptian Proto-Medic, etc. I . .- ' 1 3rd „ — Syllabary - Hieratic Cypriote Cuneiform I . . 4th „ — Pure alphabet - Phoenician The Eastern branches never reached the fourth stage, and their late syllabaries were in time superseded by the various alphabets which sprang from the Phoenician ; but both Cypriote and Cuneiform were still in use as late as 300 B.c ; Persian Cuneiform with thirty-six letters still retained a few ideograms. IX. THE CANAANITE CONNECTION. As yet we have treated our subject without any regard to the HIttites, to whom the hieroglyphs are popularly ascribed. The question raised by many Inquirers of late has been — are these symbols really HIttlte, or not? The answer must first be sought In an Inquiry as to who the HIttites may have been. I do not aim at reproducing all the valuable materials which are collected in Dr. Wright's ' Empire of the HIttites,' which must be con- sulted (In the second edition) by those who would learn In detail what Is said of this people In the Bible, and on the records of Egypt and of Assyria. In 'Syrian Stone- Lore' I have marshalled the leading facts, 126 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. and I will only say that the earliest collection of Egyptian references with which I am acquainted is that to be found in the mono- graph by Chabas (dated 1866) on the journey of an Egyptian Mohar in the fourteenth century b.C" The French scholar, so far, anticipated Dr. Wright and Professor Sayce as well. Turning first, then, to the names of kings of the Hittites, which occur on the monu- ments of Egypt, and to the names of towns in Syria (some of which are clearly Semitic) conquered by Thothmes III. and by Ra- meses IL, we can obtain some idea of the language of the Kheta in Northern Syria ; and I think it will be possible to conclude that they were an Altaic tribe. The Biblical notices might next be compared, and the type and complexion of the Kheta on Egyptian monuments must also be considered ; after which still more interesting questions will * * Voyage d'un Egyptien en Syrie/ etc., F. Chabas, Paris, 1886, p. 329. THE CANAANITE CONNECTION. 127 demand a short inquiry. The names are taken from the list given by Professor Sayce, which is more complete than that prepared by Chabas, though the list given by Chabas has the advantage that it shows the hiero- glyphs, and has also been consulted. Kheta Kings mentioned in Egyptian. 1. Tartisebu^ or Tardisebu. — 'Chief Prince.'^'^ 2. PeiSj or Patz. — Pa-sa, ' sceptred.' 3. Kar batons, or Galbatutz. — ' Great . . . .' 4. Smaritas. — Dimir-tas, (?) ' god-hero. 'f 5. Tiatar, or Tatar. — Ditar, 'judge/ J 6. Khelep sar. — * Ruler of Aleppo.' 7. KamaiZy or Kamais. — Compare Car- chemish, from g-am, * force/ * Essep\i = Sar or * Prince' (W. A. I., v. 30-5), an Akkadian word borrowed in Assyrian (' Trans. Bib. Arch. Soc./ viii., p. 62). t Tassak, *hero' ('T. B. A.,' vi., p. 390). See final note. X In Professor Sayce's list from the Cuneiform we have Sadi Anteru, perhaps Set-An-Tar ; also Tulia, which may read Turia, from Tur, the Akkadian for ' chief,' or * son,' which is in Proto-Medic Tar. 128 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. 8. Taruka7znas or Tarkananas. — ' Chief with god,' or ' with Nana' (mother-goddess). 9. Tarkatazas, or Tarkatasatz. — * Chief hero.' (See No. 3, note.) 10. Zuzase. — Compare the Zw7avs\, and Zuza-rurai tribe. 11. Rabsimna, or Labsitnna, — (Lab = brave.)'"' 12. Masrima (?). — (Mas = soldier.) 13. Totar. — (Compare No. 5, Tatar), 'become chief '| (?). 14. Khetasar. — * HIttlte ruler.' 15. Maurasar, or Mulsar. — ' Lord ruler.'J 16. Sap -lei, or Saph-rer. — Compare Saph.§ 17. Motur, or r * I judge.' (?) !•; 18. Motenar \ ' I powerful.' (J) * Compare the Susian S'unki = ' empire,' and Proto- Medic S'unkuk = ' king,' both from S'un. t Compare the Proto-Medic Tartu = 'judgment.' X Akkadian Mul, * lord,' as in Mul-ge, * lord below,' which was the name afterwards rendered Moloch by Semitic peoples. § There was a Susian god called Sapak, or * Sap-ish ;' but I do not know what Sap (the Philistine Saph) may mean. We have Tarkhu-lar king of the Gamgamai. Tarku or Tarak seems to be Tar-ak^ 'great chief.' THE CANAANITE CONNECTION. 129 19. Akaina, or Agam, — Ai-gam, 'strong father '(?). 20. Kaui Sira. — * King Judge/ or * Ruler of KuL' 21. Nezira, — Perhaps 'lordly.''"' 22. Sap sar. — * Sap ruler' (compare No. 16). 23. Tadil, or Tatir. — Compare No. 5, Tatar. 24. Zuazas. — Compare No. 10. 25. Aakitasebti. — Aka-it-essepu, ? 'crowned prince.' The evidence of this list seems to confirm what I have already saidf as to the probable Altaic origin of the Hittites, judging only from the words Tar and Sar, which belong to the Proto- Medic and allied dialects. I have no doubt that the comparison can be * In Susian, which is an Altaic dialect, Nazi means ' Lord,' according to Lenormant. We have Tarkhu-nazi as a king of the Gamgamai in Professor Sayce's list from the Cuneiform. See also final note. t 'Syrian Stone-Lore,' p. 16, note. 9 Su, river. M Bash, head. )) Pak, above. it Parla, shine. )> Par, day. »> dah. at. » ta. at. « deh. in. )> de. interior. » iki, two. }> kas, two. )> alti. six. )) as, six. J> Yer, earth. 5» Ar, land. »> leh, with. >» li. with. )> m, my. }) mu, my. J» Yap, build. )) up, city. XI. SUMMARY. I PROPOSE, in conclusion, to summarize the preceding arguments, and to point out briefly the evidence which has accumulated in favour of my proposed decipherment of the Altaic hieroglyphs. I St. On the basis of Professor Sayce's comparison, in 1876, of the Cypriote and Hamathlte — but with the aid of many Cy- priote texts not then known — I have at- tempted to show that twenty-one sounds giving twenty-one words, all of the Proto- Medic or of the Akkadian dialect, may be identified on the Altaic texts, of which sounds Professor Sayce has already determined at least eight. 10 — 2 148 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. 2nd. Among these sounds are the per- sonal pronouns and the commoner particles and grammatical forms which are used in Akkadian. 3rd. The grammar which belongs to these dialects appears to be reconcilable with the occurrence of these symbols on the known Altaic texts of Hamath and Carchemish, etc. 4th. These identifications agree exactly with the values of the symbols on the bilin- gual Altaic and Cuneiform boss of Tarrik- timme, as determined by Professor Sayce, though his connection of No. 6 with the Cypriote is not apparently correct, and though he has given no phonetic value to the symbols Nos. 3 and 4. 5th. The discovery of the language renders it possible to assign know^n phonetic values to many other emblems, through a comparison with the ideographic values in Cuneiform and in Egyptian. 6th. The result gives to us in a natural manner the names of nine or ten of the SUMMARY, 149 deities adored by those who wrote these inscriptions. These deities prove in each case to be Akkadian, and well known — a fact which agrees completely with the initial theory as to the language.* 7th. The subject of the inscriptions is exactly what we should have expected. They occur on statues of the gods, and they are invocations only, like those on the earliest Egyptian monuments, and very closely akin to the magical texts of the Akkadians. In seven cases they appear to begin with the word En ('prayer' or ' charm'), which stands at the commencement of so many of the Akkadian texts already known from the Cuneiform, and the prayers in several cases end with variations of that form of words ■^ Moreover, Tammuz, Aa, and Bilgi are enumerated together in the same order as on the Akkadian tablets ('Trans. Bib. Arch. Soc.,' viii., p. 165). These three gods, Sun, Water, Fire, are called ' the three lords of justice' in Akkadian, and are the three chief deities of the Zendavesta. J50 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. which in Akkadian answered to A7nanu, or * Amen/ in the Assyrian translation. Bertin has remarked on the difference of subject between Akkadian and Sumerian inscrip- tions. ' In Akkadian,' he says, ' we have historical records, magical incantations, and hymns.' It is only natural that the oldest records should be magical, and they carry us back to a state of civilization sim.ilar to that of the wilder Mongolian peoples of the pre- sent age. 8th. The decipherment is materially ad- vanced by a comparison of the hieroglyphics with the oldest known Cuneiform symbols which approach the later forms of hieratic emblems on the monuments — especially the Babylonian bowl. This comparison has, I believe, never before been attempted, and it would indeed be very difficult, were it not for the identity of the language. The most im- portant result of this inquiry is the striking identification of the emblems for fire. In the hands of specialists the comparison so ini- SUMMARY. 151 tiated seems capable of very complete de- velopment. 9th. The observed parallelism between the Altaic and the Egyptian systems Is not arbi- trary. It rests on a scientific basis, and It agrees with similarities observed by various scholars between the Cuneiform and the Egyptian. This also Is a subject worthy of further study, and from which new results of interest may be expected. loth. By a study of the names of kings and towns noticed In Egyptian records, we are able to show that the language of the Hittltes was the same which occurs on the monuments under consideration, and thus to prove that the stones of Hamath and of Car- chemlsh are In all probability of HIttlte origin : this confirms the view propounded by Dr. Wright no less than twelve years ago. nth. This conclusion tallies exactly with the Egyptian representation of the Hittltes as a Mongolian race. 1 2th. The distribution of the monuments, 152 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS, the occurrence of the character on seals from Nineveh, and on objects from Cappadocia and from Babylon, now presents no difficulty. The race which produced these has long been known to have existed both in Mesopo- tamia and also in Asia Minor. 13th. The linguistic evidence is in perfect accord with what we gather from the Bible concerning the Canaanite races ; it also agrees well with what is there said concern- ing the derivation of certain Egyptian tribes, and of the Philistines in Southern Palestine. 14th. It will now appear that the texts can, without torturing a single syllable, be made to give a consecutive sense. Some short texts like that behind the king's head at Ibreez are specially instructive, since the rendering seems natural and appropriate. 15th. The system is at once rigid and elastic. It assigns one monosyllabic value to each emblem, but it is reconcilable with the discovery of many emblems yet unknown, representing words which do not belong to SUMMARY. 153 the subject of the known texts. No system of alphabetic decipherment would possess this advantage, and no real alphabet occurs in any hieroglyphic system. On the other hand, as Professor Sayce long ago pointed out, hieroglyphics could not be used in Semitic languages, because they are in- flexional tongues, which is the reason of the invention of syllabaries and alphabets. 1 6th. Finally, I would wish to restate in a few words the claim I have to make, so that no misunderstanding may be possible. / do not claim to have discovered the sottnds belong- ing to the syllables ; the sole credit for this is due, I believe, to Professor Sayce, who in 1876 discovered some eight sounds by aid of the Cypriote ; and on this discovery my own is based. But no one has previously succeeded in identifying the langtiage to which these soimds belong; and Professor Sayce has never gone further than to suggest — without giving detailed proof — a connection with Georgian. / do not claim that my 7^enderings 154 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. are either complete or final. Special know- ledge is required to make them so, and I think years must elapse before the texts are quite deciphered ; but I hope to put in the hands of scholars a key whereby they may attain to such final translation. If I may be permitted to suggest the kind of work which would now be most useful towards the elucidation of our subject, I should propose : I St. A more extended and complete com- parison of ideographic values between the Altaic emblems and the oldest forms of linear and archaic Babylonian Cuneiform. It is from this, I think, that we may now get most light, and this should be conducted on the basis of a special knowledge of Proto-Medic and Akkadian. 2nd. The comparison between Cuneiform and Egyptian should be developed and pub- lished. 3rd. It would be interesting to know whether the character used at Eyuk and SUMMARY. 155 Boghaz Keui possesses any peculiarities. The text in eleven lines at the latter place, as mentioned by Perrot, is said to be too much decayed to be copied ; but If only parts could be reproduced, valuable results might follow. 4th. The existing copies from the casts of the Hamath stones require to be revised from the stones themselves, or from very perfect casts. The stones are at Constanti- nople. The cast of the Hamath Stone No. V. especially Is Illegible In parts — per- haps on account of the condition of the original. Last of all, a word or two may be said as to the apparent age of these Inscriptions. The history of Babylonia goes back to 3000 B.C., and even to 3800 B.C., If we may believe Nabonahid ; but the oldest Cuneiform texts are probably very much later. Some are even acknowledged copies In clay from older basalt monuments. The Altaic hieroglyphs must be older than the linear Babylonian texts — how much older we cannot say, 156 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. although it is possible that the two systems might exist side by side, as did the hieratic and the hieroglyphic in Egypt ; and it is not, therefore, certain that the existing monu- ments of Hamath and Carchemish are of necessity the work of the ages preceding the use of Cuneiform.* On the other hand, it would seem that the sculptures which ac- company the Altaic hieroglyphs are always much more archaic and clumsy in char- acter than are the Assyrian bas-reliefs on which Cuneiform inscriptions are cut. This favours the idea that they are more an- tique. We are not left without some indication of date. Dr. Gollob's discovery of the car- touche of Rameses II. on the weeping Niobe gives us a clear indication that the Altaic emblems on that monument are older than about 1350 B.C. : the characters in this case * The clay tablet stands to the basalt monument in the relation of the papyrus to the granite in Egypt, z.e.j of hieratic to hieroglyphic. SUMMARY. 157 do not seem to be marked by any peculi- arities of archaic nature. We may, therefore, fairly assume that the Hamath and Carchemish stones are at least as old as Moses, and perhaps as old as Abraham ; and there is good reason to sup- pose that they are the oldest monuments yet found in Asia. We have noticed that there are apparent gradations in the character used on the various known texts which indicate a con- siderable range of time during which these characters must have been used. The Tyana text is one of the latest ; the Baby- lonian bowl — which is almost Cypriotic in its character — is probably quite the latest of the texts as yet discovered. As regards the text at Marash above the heads of the deities, the picture given by Perrot is hardly enough to allow of our judging as to its date. I should, however, be inclined to think that the incised inscriptions are later than those which are in relief. The Egyptian parallel favours such a 158 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. view, since the oldest Egyptian texts are in relief, but those of Rameses II. in intaglio. I append to this short memoir my sugges- tions as to translation, and the notes neces- sary to explain my views. I ask serious students, in whose steps I have trod, to give me a fair hearing ; and I cannot but feel some confidence that since I am only carrying on their work, and have not attempted, I hope, to do more than my knowledge of the subject permits, they will, while correcting my errors and supplementing my deficiencies, still feel justified in giving me a generally favourable verdict as regards the reality of the discovery of a language on these monu- ments closely akin to Proto-Medic and Akka- dian. ANALYSIS. I.— THE BILINGUAL. The silver boss, discovered about twenty years ago, and now lost, was electrotyped by Mr. Ready, and also by Lenormant ; and these copies were recovered by Professor Sayce (see Wright, p. 165, 2nd edition). The reading of the Cuneiform text round the boss, given and supported by Professor Sayce, is as follows : Tarrik-timnie Sar Mat Erme — * Tarrik- timme, king of the country of Erme.' The six Altaic emblems, which are repeated in the field on either side of the king's figure, I propose to read : i6o ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. TAR(UK) DIM KU MA AR- ME (i) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) This reading I support as follows : No. I. The word ^ tm 3.ho means * to create.' I propose to compare the Cuneiform emblem £)zm. Professor Sayce has recognised the pictorial meaning of this emblem. No. 3. J^Ky the Akkadian word for * king ;' the sound is recoverable from the form of the Cypriote Ko.'f No. 4. Ma, the Akkadian word for ' country.' The sound is recoverable from the Cypriote Mi.X No. 5. ^r, recoverable from the Cypriote La. It is the emblem frequently used for the post-position, /^a, on the other monuments. § No. 6. Me. The sign of the plural on other monuments in this script. In Akkadian Afes is the sound of the plural affix. It may, however, here be pronounced Afe, as in Proto-Medic and Susian, bringing us into exact accord with the Cuneiform. * This emblem seems to occur on the terra-cotta seals. t See back, p. 19. X See back, p. 17. § See back, p. 44. II i62 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. II.— HAMATH STONE No. i. See Wright, Plate I. and p. 139. The cast is at South Kensington. I read as follows : TA PAL ID PAK EN KA E SA PAK? ME LI LI LI MES s^-> KU NE MU E Pot? RI A KA RE ? NI ZO KE LI ^^ ME LI <— «s TI A U? ^^ GAN ? MU KE KE IT TA ME TI KA NI The arrows in this and all subsequent cases show the direction in which the line is to be read, concerning which no dispute has arisen. The published copy shows part of a Kzi- after the last Tz; but I have looked carefully at the cast, and I think it is only a portion of the stone left projecting. ANALYSIS. 163 The literal translation of these words is as follows : 1. Prayers, above -go -be (plural) -ing. Throne (or holiness) (above ?), sword-with-ing and power- ful towards (or for).* 2. King (intensitive)-my worship [Eri)- for. (Pot ?) water (pour ?) him-ing King King-spirit be-as-ing.t 3. It-ka-ti-kek-7ne [Am^n). {May compel, (cloud-flow ?) water-him-to.}| This appears barbarous enough in English words, but, as I have shown, with regard to nearly every symbol on this stone in the pre- ceding pages, the construction is that proper to an agglutinative language ; and the pre- fixed, and affixed, and suffixed particles are * The Ka here ends the preceding * packet.' See grammatical rule 6, p. 78. t See back, p. 46, for explanation. It appears to be a form of the Kakaj?ia iownd as Amen in Akkadian prayers known through the Cuneiform. X Perhaps Um-ta-7ii, perhaps Ta-ntmu. The whole clause is still very doubtful. 1 1 ~ 2 1 64 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. in their right places. A few notes are re- quired. Line i. The two double blocks for Ales are in other cases four strokes, as we may prove (see back, p. 48) by comparing the various recurrences of the group for * fire.' In the second group, Pak is provisional pho- netically. The foot within it is quite clear on the cast. The word Id for throne is pro- visional ; the emblem was identified by Pro- fessor Sayce. In Cuneiform and in Egyptian alike the throne is the emblem of deity, of holiness, of power, and of majesty. The emblem beneath is not Li, but apparently Pak, the * firmament' Line 2. Eri, to worship — as in Eriaku, the king's name. It is apparently formed from Ri, to shine, with the syllable E or A above. "^^^ The third group in this line seems to me to ■^ Ri has been explained before, Plate I., No. 6 ; Plate v., No. 4. J^i is ' shine,' Jr is ' light.' ANALYSIS. 165 represent a diota, with the emblem of water, and an emblem (possibly) for 'pour' below. This may not be right, but the group is fortunately independent. The Zo may follow Ku-ku ; or may, perhaps, come over the second Ku, as on the third Hamath stone, so that we should read, * King Spirit King,' or ' King King Spirit being/ I have given my reasons for Zo, which is clearly the Cypriote ZoJ^ Line 3. The only doubtful emblem seems to be Gan.\ The Tan has its proper prefixed position, as meaning ' compel.' * See Plate I., No. 3. t It is, of course, doubtful if the emblem is gan^ * en- closure,' representing a tank. In Akkadian we have, according to Lenormant, gan-ul for the ' pipes ' connected with the rain {a-ati), recalling the ' water-bags ' which in the Old Testament represent the clouds — the 'water- barrels ' of the Vedas, which are clouds. If this be the meaning, the tank is shown with water pouring out of one angle, and by vertical-lines inside the enclosure. The group might then mean 'cloud pour (or flow) water his.' The water-pot A also has vertical lines within to represent the water. Ga?i is also a ' cloud ' in Akkadian. .^66 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. FREE RENDERING. I. Prayers upgolng. For the Holy One iabove, mighty and powerful. 2. Worship for my King (pouring him ?) (a libation ?). The King who is the Spirit King (or King of life). 3. Amen. May it make the water of the sky (or cloud, to flow ?). Which would mean : * Let prayers rise up to the Holy One above, mighty and strong. May my Lord be adored with libations. The Lord, the Spiritual Lord. Amen. (May he grant me rain.' ?) The last clause is very doubtful, and special study may greatly improve this rough attempt. ANALYSIS, 167 III.— HAMATH STONE No. 2. This was one of which I gave a proposed translation in the Times; but the copy which I followed, and which professed to be from the cast, I find has the third line of H. I. by mis- take ; and Dr. Wright has given the correct copy on his first plate — this alters the last clause. This inscription seems never to have been quite finished. There is room for two more groups in the third line, where the stone remains untouched by the chisel (Wright, p. 139). KU AS KE KA TA PAL ID PAK EN ^ KU NI GA LI ^' SA PAK? DE ME MES E LI LI MES GU?GUKU?MUKA KU E - - R I ZOKE? ^ Tr.. EP^TTo NERINIMUKUKUME NI ID? GU? MUKAENI LI? GA E MU TA KE KE IT LI (?) NI ME TI KA i68 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. This is not as easy as the preceding, be- cause the second line is apparently injured on the left, and the cast doubtful; while one emblem remains without explanation. In the third line, also, the noun or verb after Tanz- mu is one which I cannot explain. It may be Nim, * high,' but this is only a conjecture. The literal translation, as far as I under- stand the text, is as follows : 1. Prayer(s) above-go-be (pl.)-ing. Holy one (above ?) sword-with-ing and power- ful towards great* spell his. King King — 2. Wordf say. (King and Holiness ?) -my, word for. King(intensitive)-my vvorship- towards ( — )his worshipped,^ King Spirit King being. 3. Amen. Cause . . . ing . . unfinished. '•' The gig prefixed to nouns in Susian, etc., may be compared with Kega, as meaning * great.' It is allied to the Akkadian gig. t This gu is doubtful ; it may be only a rough bit of the stone. X Ri-Mu-Ni. Perhaps the E under Ni preceding belongs to this group, making Ert Mini, ' worshipped.' ANALYSIS. 169 This repeats parts of the preceding, and does not require many, notes. In line 3 I have suggested As, ' spell,' as the subject (see Plate II., No. 13, and p. 66). The A7 after It seems to show that it must be a root, as does the Ke£-a before it, if this be the correct value. The idea would be that of a charm or spell attracting the divinity ; but a better explana- tion may be afforded by aid of the Cuneiform. In the second line the word Gzi Is provisional. It is a very common emblem, and Professor Sayce believed it to be Kt/e for ' worship.' The group Ktt-id-e Is very doubtful, the cast being much blurred. The sort of crane's head after Eri-ka I cannot explain. I am not quite certain either of the third Gu. In the third line I am also unable to explain the group after Tani-mu, Still we get, perhaps, enough to grasp the general Idea of the text. FREE RENDERING. I. Prayers upgolng. A great charm for the Holy One above, mighty and powerful. 2. A cry calls the King of Kings. The Holy 170 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. King also I call towards.'" My King even worship for worshipped. King Spirit King being. 3. Amen. May it make Which means : ' May the uprising prayers be heard by the Holy One above, mighty and powerful. (I) Cry to the Lord of Lords. Even to my Holy One I cry. I worship my Lord . . . worshipped. The King who is the Spiritual Lord. Amen. May he make . . . .* This is substantially my already published translation, with some grammatical Improve- ments. Of course, some clauses are conjec- tural, and the whole may be much Improved by special study. * Mu-gu-ka, * I-say-towards ' ? ANALYSIS. 171 IV.— HAMATH STONE No. 3. See Wright, Plate II. and p. 140. The stone was regarded by the natives of Hamath as a talisman. Thousands of people had stretched themselves on It to cure rheu- matism, and believed they were cured, just as Celtic peasants used to He on the dolmen stones. Perhaps It was originally a talisman, and the tradition survived the laneuas^e of the prayer.* GU? KU NI KE KA TA SA ID PAK EN ^-^ E GA E LI ^^^ ' ^1- NI KU ^^ LI PAL ^^^ MES ^^ LI GU? . MUKA KU E ID A ZO IT KE KE GU? NE R[ PAK? NI KUKU S6— * . LI?.* , MU KA E E RI RI KA TI ME * In Akkadian temples there was a sacred object called Sagba^ or * talisman' (Assyrian, Mamitu). Pro- bably it would seem an inscribed tablet or plate like our stones. 172 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. The cast is very doubtful on the left of the second line. FREE RENDERING* May the Holy One above, mighty and powerful, hear the uprising prayers. A cry crying to the Lord of Lords . . I adore my Lord. I adore the holy One above — A.f The Lord, the Spiritual Lord of light. Amen. ■^- A literal rendering is hardly necessary, as this short text repeats those which have been already explained fully. t ' The Holy One above, A-ni ' (the ni marking the case) may be the An-a-mu of the next text, the A-a * water,' or god of the moon and of water, who was adored at Jerabis, with Sun and Fire. ANALYSIS. 173 v.— HAMATH STONE No. 4. See Wright, Plate III. and p. 140. The state of the cast, and perhaps of the original stone, makes some of the emblems on the left doubtful, and I think a new copy from the stone Itself might be useful. The first line begins on the left, which is unusual. AN SHI? »— A DU MU TAR ^j, ITkAGU^ES pa? DIB? KA DU KA MU KU? ID PAK? —a NE A ID NI ? E Altar TA TA KY? MU ME ^ (P) ME KA NI KA Altar A N E Altar? MU -w-vME NI KU UL? PAL KU |RI? NE KA SA ^^ ^^ ^l^ UL TAR KY? MES A GA? GA ? AN E AN ? ^-K GU EN GU K ^j. . KA KA NI Altar? ^^ . In this transliteration there are several pro- visional values. S/ii (' horn ') ; Pa (a hand, apparently with sceptre round-headed) ; Z?/^, 174 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. an emblem much obliterated in the first line. In the second line J^ti is doubtful ; so is what I have called Pa^, dividing the two thrones ; but the ideographic value is evidently * throne over throne,' or ' Holiest over Holy,' or * majesty' (intensitive) 'over majesty.' The sign which follows these on the right is not the usual A>. It seems to have wings.* The Gii^ under the next Ta is turned the wrong way, though fairly distinct on the cast. The altar shown on the copy is uncertain in the third line : on the cast it looked to me like Ke. A study of the cast also seems to me to show a deer's head, not a bull, as in the published copy. 67, the fleur-de-lis, is provisional, though it might be the origin of the Cypriote /u. The next emblem, like a door-key, I suppose from the cast to be a much-worn £'u. The fourth line is illegible on the right, and the fishing-rod emblem I * It might perhaps be JVi prefixed to the altar to form the verb ' offer.' The cast is, however, indefinite. ANALYSIS. 175 do not understand, unless it be ^a, * belong- ing to/ The last group but one, which also occurs on line i, is apparently a form of Mes.^' The last emblem, Ky, on the published copy, is indistinct on the cast, and very doubtful. With such difficulties still to sur- mount, a perfect reading is impossible, though a study of the stone at Constantinople might throw some light. This is the first appear- ance of the emblem, which I take to be an altar with a burning flame ; but of the pho- netic value I have not ventured to give any conjecture. We have an Akkadian text which illustrates this inscription, published by Lenormant (W. A. I., iv. 18, 3 ; * Magie,' P- 33) : ' The crowns . . . great shepherd . . . on the thrones and the altars . . . the sceptre of marble (?)... great shepherd.' * The group Gu-mes-ka^ ' words for,' is to be compared with Guga^ ' pronounced,' and Gugage^ ' word for,' on Akkadian magic tablets. (' Trans. Bib. Arch. Soc.,' vi., pp. i55» 194.) 176 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. Apparently an address to some king or deity. The fourth Hamath stone is apparently an address to the water-god, called An-a-mu in the first line, apparently ' My God A ' (or * My god of water'). In the second line he seems to be called Akii, and Aku we know- as a name of the moon-god A, in the case of the King's name, Eriaku. The last groups, reading, En Ani gumeska kyka. ' A prayer of words for A (exaltation ?),' seem to stand alone at the end of the text instead of the usual formula at the beginning, which is absent. I do not think there was ever any line before the first. Translation is rendered difficult by the points thus enumerated, but the gist of the matter seems recoverable. Literally, we must, I think, read thus : ( I ) God - water - my, horn ? - come - ch ief * * 'The horned chief of water.' See Bahylo?iian J^ecord, February, 1887, where the god Ea is actually ANALYSIS. 177 water-of.* God Ea words for. Sceptre- holding-come f for tablet {did ?) my (2) be for. (I him exaltation ?) cause be. Cause . . . offering water even offer. Holiest above-Holy Aku ('Water-King') (3) offering made. King (intensitive) (male ?) towards Power-ful towards call. King (intensitive) (male, male ?) light- Lord God Ea as God-like (word offer ?) . . . Prayer. Of Aa, words for (exaltation for ?). No doubt improvements on this attempt are quite possible. represented with horns ; so is the god at Ibreez. The same group occurs on Hamath V. But S/n' is doubt- ful. * The group A ni may be compared with such ex- pressions as Dam-ki-na, ' wife earth from ' or * of.' The Ni places the noun A in the genitive or ablative. t The £>u, 'come,' I think may be used in the sense of * become,' which is, I believe, known in Akka- dian (speaking under correction), so as to form a sort of appellation ' sceptre-holding become ' = Pa-sha^ as the object of the next group ; or perhaps ' for sceptre-holding become,' i.e., *in his honour.' 12 ■178 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. FREE RENDERING. I* call on the God A the horned (or stately) Lord of Water, Ea. In his honour (I) make the monument (or tablet ?)f I (exalt ?) him. I cause a libation to be offered. To the Holiest of Holy Aku an offering made. J I cry to the (strong ?) King the powerful. I . . . offer to the (strong ?) king (strong ?) lord of light to Ea as God. A prayer. Words for the (exaltation of Aa). This is substantially the rendering already published in the Times, save that it is better probably to render A as the name of the well-known god, and not as ' water ' or ' rain.' * The personal pronoun may perhaps be considered as understood, or the whole may perhaps read as im- personal. t This of course is rendered doubtful by the half- obliterated word, which seems perhaps to represent a tablet. It may be the usual form for a 'monument' or * memorial.' Only a study of the original stone can cast further light on this symbol. X Mii-ni being read as the past participle, Mu7i or Van, ANALYSIS. 179 VI.— HAMATH STONE No. 5. This Is the longest of the Hamath texts. It is also the worst preserved, judging from the cast (see Wright, Plate IV. and p. 141). It Is on the other face of the same stone with the preceding text. The stone was a corner-stone In some monument or building, and the inscriptions were no doubt a charm to sanctify the building. Dr. Wright says that some of the characters have been effaced. The published copy is the best that the cast allows, but I think It Is not always quite right. Thus, line 2 ends, I think, with Ke. Line 3 ends, I think, with JVi. Line 4 begins /Ca. There are also, unfortunately, several emblems of so unusual and unsugges- tlve a character that I have not been able to suggest any meaning for them. Lines No. 3 and 4 both read from the right, which is un- usual. 12 — 2 L ID EN PAK MES C/2 W H 14 SHAR (?) GU ID (?) < < 5 - ^H^ ^^^ 5 ^ c3 2 <^ W^P ": t3 p^ ^_ ^~^ ^ ^ ^ S fV. <^ ^« £sns.iXtiX VO f^ in I snsjXqx ^^ <1 d 1—1 H-t C:> in ^ -. t-l on ^ pd (—1 Sf^p S ^ :^ ^ <^ "^ «-U p 5 ^Q ID <: H O p^ IWW •—1 ^<; ^ ^2 ID w ^ Q N o > < H < ID CT! P:^ g ID H ^_) ID N Q ID N < ID N 1 , • . • ^ CO • ! ANALYSIS. 187 VIIL— JERABIS TEXT No. i. See Wright, Plate VIIL, and p. 144. This Is a text written round four sides of a door-jamb. The photograph consequently does not give the proper sequence. The text is broken on the left, but probably not much is lost. There Is a plain band on the second and third faces at the re-entering angle, but no break in the sentences. The text Includes several new emblems not found at Hamath. The forms are very distinct, and so little conventionalized, that I think this must be a very old example. A few notes are necessary before endeavouring to translate. The Inscription appears to be an invoca- tion of the three gods, Sun, Water, and Fire, who, as already explained, formed the prin- cipal triad of the Akkadians. Line i begins, like the Hamath stones and i88 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. the known Akkadian texts, with £71, * prayer.' The last emblem marked ? on face A may be Tal\ ' the menhir/ or lingam, belonging to Set. The next emblem, now partly erased, may have been the name Set, so that A and B faces would read, ' Prayers of the Stone of Set.' On face D the first emblem is rather doubtful ; but a study of the stone seems to show that it is Ka. The upper emblem after /\zi may be the one which I have called Tak ; but this is very doubtful. It is not the same as that attached to the name of Set. Lme 2. Here a gap occurs, as the line reads from the left, and is broken ; at least two groups are lost, and there is an unusual emblem here. Under the first ^ is a curious emblem like a whip. I conjecture that it may be a form of the word J^e, to ' flow/ which occurs at Ibreez, and represents a stream of water ; but this is very doubtful. The J^a after De is not the usual form, as the base is on one side. On face B, we find for the first time a group also found below, and ANALYSIS. 189 on the third Jerabis stone. Professor Sayce has already noticed it as giving the value * supreme ' to the upper emblem, which I call Pa^ — a reading which is confirmed by various coincident circumstances. I have called the King's head K21 provisionally ; but it may perhaps be Mi//, or Sar. The sense evidently is 'above King.' The ex- tended hand is evidently a right hand, and seems here to form a verbal root. Its sound might be s?l I think its meaning is possibly * right ' — that is, auspicious or southern, as contrasted with * left,' evil or northern — an idea well known in Semitic languages, and connected with the words * front ' for east, and ' back ' for west. The origin of the idea (proper to the northern hemisphere only) is that the midday is the south, and the north is the region of night, by which the sun returns east. It is a general idea among Asiatics that the north is the region of night and of demons, per- haps showing a race which came from the 190 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. ' land of darkness ' where the nights in winter were very long. This is the simple and evi- dent reason why a worshipper facing the rising sun regarded the right hand as pro- pitious. Lme 3. The emblem here called Ta^ is that which I believe to mean ' memorial,' as explained before (p. 109) ; it is not the emblem Ta/^ for a menhir. The phonetic value may require alteration. The particle J^a prefixed belongs, I think, to the previous group as a suffix. It is both the verbal infix which gives what Lenormant calls a 'co-operative meaning,' and is also the dative * to.' The hand raised above the symbol ^^ is a doubtful emblem. It may, I suppose, mean accept. The jYe at the end of face B is in the same attitude as in the first word £71. I con- jecture that with the affix Ka and the possible though half-obliterated Ra, it means ' supplication to.' On the face D we find, for the first time, a sheep's head, which is to be read, perhaps, hi, apparently an appella- ANALYSIS. 191 tlon ; it is not certain that the next head is also Lu. The ears are not the same, and I am not sure that there is not a protruding tongue, as on the second Jerabis stone. The Nz ? on this face is the hand in attitude of protection. Line 4. The hand in the attitude of super- position, which occurs twice in this Hne, I think may mean * give.* I call it provision- ally Si, It occurs with the cross, which means, I think, * benediction.' Compare the second Jerabis stone. The symbol Vo in this line we have, I think, not found previously. It is like Vo in Cypriote, and represents possibly Vo or U7?i for 'may' as a prefix. In this line we have also the emblem which might be a footprint — to be rendered Gar, * put ' or * make.' The Tak before Set is not certain, as it has no base. It might be Ke, which seems otherwise unknown on this text. Line 5. On face B there is an emblem called De? It is not quite like the preceding 193 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. emblems so called, and has, perhaps, a dif- ferent meaning. On face D the emblem after Ee (or Ea) is, perhaps, the sacred arti- ficial tree, so important a feature in Akkadian mythology. It might, however, be Pa, for * sceptre.' Professor Sayce suggested the former meaning. On the whole, this is the most distinct and best-preserved text we at present possess in the Altaic hieroglyphs. A verbatim transla- tion seems, from the preceding considerations, to be as follows : 1. Prayers-his (stone Set ?)-him-to for Fire flames-growth- for-to-ing. King King . . . ing. God (Ane) become words to strong. . . . 2. . . . to . . . (flow ?) Tamzu-Aa to. Fire-flames-grow-for-ing King over king descend-ing right (or propitious) become Thee mighty* Set strength {ra-7nes-li-ra)^ . . '■' This closed fist no doubt means 'strong,' and reminds me of a common gesture of the Syrian peasantry, who, when they admire a man for strong action, close the fist and shake it, saying, ' Kawi ! Kawi P that is to say, 'Strong, strong.' t Ra-Mes-ti, a grammatical form, cf. Mes ke in next inscription. ANALYSIS. 193 3. (the memorial to ?). Thee . . . water- ing Set Bull-water-of-to prayer-memorial for thee for, thou (accept ?) stone (of) Set sheep- water-of-to . . . protect to Thou . . . me- ing become for . . . 4. . . . gives thee to, thee for . . to me. Thou (may ?) I orrow give to ; strong (may ?) I grow give to Thou blessing put me, at the stone (of) Set to. Tamzu Water (protec- tion ?) Thou Fire. 5. flames grow -for (?) ; King protection over King descend protect. Thou . . . Thou spirit life of my become A . . to, sceptre holding become stone (of) Ea Thou (sceptre?) stone (of) Set There are, of course, several obscure pas- sages in this rendering, especially because the sheep's head and some of the positions of the raised hands and arms are difficult. The grammar is, however, apparently sound, ac- cording to rules laid down previously ; and however curious it may appear in English words, it is the grammar of the Altaic tongues. The general result seem.s to be : 13 194 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. FREE RENDERING. 1. Prayers of *the Monument of Set. Powerful words for the living" fire, the Most high . , . the divine . . . 2. . . . to . . . (pour?) Tammuz, Aa, living fire* Most High descending (propi- tious ?) Thee strong Set . . . 3. the memorial (is) for. Thee . . . Set great one of the water the prayer of the memorial (is) for (Accept thou ?). The monument of Set Thou 4 Grant me to live grant me to grow strong Give thou me a blessing at the Monument of Set. Tammuz, A . ., living fire. 5. (great protector?) King above descend to protect. Thou . . Thou spirit of my life ■^ Tamzu, both in line 2 and line 4, is connected with water and fire, or with rain and heat. So also on the Babylonian bowl the same connected expressions occur. So also in the Zendavesta — water, fire, and the sun are the chief objects of worship. We have here, indeed, the origin of the so-called * fire-worship ' of the Akkadians and Medes, and of their ' water-worship,' too. ANALYSIS. 195 . . . . the monument in honour of Ea . . . the monument of Set. . . This seems to be, therefore, an invocation to the three chief gods (sun, water, fire) to come and abide at or dwell in the monument {Tak) to which the text be- longed — probably in a temple. This is a very common idea, not only in the Akkadian mythology, but also in the Phoenician, since as Sanchoniathon tells us, the gods were supposed to inhabit stones. It is common to all menhir-erecting people who supposed their sacred stones to be haunted by, or even inhabited by, the gods, and who therefore poured libations on them, or placed offer- ings before them. (See ' Heth and Moab,' Chapter VII., etc.) I do not, however, venture to suppose that this rendering is incapable of improvement, by those who are familiar with the Akkadian grammatical forms. 13—2 196 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. IX.— JERABIS No. 2. In this case we have a figure of a king or of a deity, with the text on either side. The figure has suffered much. So has the text to the left of the figure ; to the right it is perfect, and so clear that there can be no hesitation as to any figure, although some emblems I do not understand. (See Wright, Plate IX. and p. 145.) The understanding depends very much on the meaning of the emblem called Ba^. It seems to me clearly to represent a hand with a knife, and I have compared the Cuneiform emblem, Ba^ (Plate IV.), which may be derived from our hieroglyphic. The text, then, would seem to refer to slaying some- thing, and I think the something seems to be a species of demon. A few words of explanation are required. Line i. The first emblem Professor Sayce C/2Q < 5<^ o:::< |3. c o S5S 53:3 rJ ff hJ C:> *g 1—1 ;_■ W H ^ D < C/5 H b W ii> W ^ S H H on H pqP3 3<^ »*- o WW ! J rv-. go • • <5 Hand NI (?) (?) (?) 1 ! 1 198 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. believes to stand in place of the usual emblem, £n, for prayer, which seems to agree with what we have already determined. The second emblem looks like one of the oil- vases used In the East. It might be com- pared with the Cypriote Pe. I can only conjecture the meaning. The word Tar does not clearly show on the published copy, but there is, I think, no doubt that it is a goat, or ibex, like that of the bilingual boss : the eye and the beard are very distinct on the original monument. The sheep's head, with the emblem of country below, Is clear ; I propose to read It phonetically hi ma, and to compare with the well-known Akkadian word lama, meaning * giant/ or ' hero,' but this is only a conjecture. The two opposed faces, with hands crossed, have been supposed by Professor Sayce to mean * treaty ;' but the usual emblem of treaty In antiquity consists of two hands joined, the old practice being to swear with joined hands. The ideographic Idea seems ANALYSIS. 199 to me rather to be that of ^ double,' or * like- ness,' somewhat like the Egyptian idea of the 7^a. Line 2. The group Mes ke is peculiar to this text. In line 4 it stands in an evidently- affixed position, with the verb to slay pre- ceding. Hence I suggest that it is probably a gerund form like Ra-mes-ka in Akkadian. As to the sacred trees in this line, enough has already been said. (See back, p. 89.) Line 3. The hand here shown is the left hand. The emblem following is perhaps the altar of the Hamath stones ; but if so, there is no flame above it. The meaning seems to me doubtful, since the verb should follow, not precede the noun. Line 4. The animal's head here has a tongue protruding, which must show some canine animal — a wolf, or dog — hence to be read Lig. The emblem below may be a paw perhaps, and mean 'claws,' such as demons are shown with on Assyrian sculp- tures, like the Aramaic plaque of M. Peretie. ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. Line 5. There are three strokes over the head of Set, perhaps meaning ' triple ;' It Is not the usual plural sign. Set seems to me to be used generally to mean ' Deity.' I sup- pose the triple deity is the triad of sun, water, fire, often mentioned. Line 6. The expression zii-zu I thought might mean ' you ;' the word below Is a monument like the Phoenician cippl. The hand in attitude of * giving ' follows ; the sense is interrupted by the destruction of the line above. The ram's head occurs here, and In the next line. I have shown already (p. 93) that the ram's head Is the word for * fight ' on the Cappadocian cylinder, where the demons are shown fighting, with the word above. The emblem Ti in this line is not the usual shape. Line 7. The emblem called Me Is like that w^ell known from the Hamath stones, but of this I do not feel quite certain. It seems rather to mean ' take.' Li7ie 8. Here we have another animal's ANALYSIS. 201 head — perhaps a hyena, or a bear (Sakh in Akkadian) ; this also may be, perhaps, a demon, or an appellation ^ bear-like.' We are now prepared to read the text to the right, and the remains of that to the left. It seems to run in a series of short separate clauses : I. Prayer . . . Fire flames Chief King. (Hero ?) . . . god - Tamzu likeness (or double ?). 2 slay - come. Lilshar - both Anshar both head become above-four adore. 3. God Tamzu (give T) offering (sacrifice Y) 4. . . . slay become-to-be* Wolf (claw ?) spirit triple slay. 5. Likeness of triple Set t (bless ?). . . . 6. many. Thee thee monument gives adore-to-become blessing become. Spirit triple slay Sun warrior of. * Mes-ke, gerund, * meet to he.' t The emblem here is found with the head of Set on an inscription with a winged figure (Wright, Plate XI., Figs. 3 and 4) ; it has no doubt some auspicious meaning. 202 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. 7. Sword - take opposing death become with.* 8. . . . (some wild beast) slay meet dead to be. (Taking the final Meske as the gerund.) Now, although I consider this to be subject to a proper verification by a specialist In Akkadian, It seems to me that there Is much which is fairly certain. It seems clear that the names of a deity followed by heads of wild animals, and by pictures of slaying, must give the general sense, and the ram's head we have independently connected with the idea of contention. FREE RENDERING. A prayer ... to the Chief Lord of Fire, (the hero ?) . . . the god Tam muz's portrait, which slays the to the two sacred trees (the fourf chiefs above T) adora- * Ke-ti read Kit= ' with ' or * of.' t The four would be Fire, Sun, and the trees just enumerated. The symbol is not Mes. ANALYSIS. 203 tion. Give sacrifice (or an altar) to the god Tammuz (?) (or perhaps, god Tammuz accept sacrifice) . . . slay. Triple spirit the wolf (paw ?) slay. Likeness of the triple Set (bless ?).... many. To you the monu- ment gives adoration and benediction. Triple spirit of death. Sun warrior take the sword of battle for slaughter. . . . slay m.eet to be slain. This constant war waged by the sun-god against demons, is not only a very familiar feature of Akkadian and Assyrian phrase- ology, and often represented in sculptured bas-reliefs and on gems, but it also forms a very important part of the religion of the Zen- davesta, which, as before said, was founded on the old Median dualism, the belief being in the power of the sun to drive away the evil things of darkness. 204 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. X.— JERABIS No. 3. This is a highly interesting and instructive text, which serves, I think, to strengthen our position (see Wright, Plate X., p. 145). It is remarkable as being written on a curved surface. Why the Hittites could not write only on good flat surfaces I do not know. They seem often to have preferred the back of a Hon or a pillar-shaft to a tablet, and the custom survived in Assyria, where the legs and body of a lion, or the skirts of a king, were covered with arrow-headed symbols. The stone is a gray basalt ; the text is more worn than the two preceding. The stone is ^\ feet high, 2^ feet broad, and the arc of the curve is 3^- feet. On the flat side is a figure in a niche, holding a sceptre and a sword, and with a striped robe (or perhaps a hair robe, such as we know to have been worn by the gods) ; probably the text con- 6 i4 < H I ^ iW G <5 'v. 1-^ L»^ -< W >^ H ^ H < y Pi ^ H r»- r>-. Ho I— I w ^ H w ^ H CO \< H O ! i ! i ! 2o6 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. secrates the statue. We may compare the boundary- stones inscribed in Cuneiform with strange astronomical figures, and texts at the back. Unfortunately the top line is broken, and the head of the figure consequently lost ; it should be sought at the spot where George Smith found the stone. The stone is also broken away at either end. A few words of commentary on the pub- lished copy are required before attempting to translate. Line i. The triangle after ^ is a unique emblem. It is something like a form of Cypriote O given by Professor Sayce ; but the latter may be an imperfect example of the common form of O, which cannot be connected. It is also like Va laid on one side, and like the Cypriote /. Line 2. We have here the first Mas — a head with long ears and tongue protruding, which I take to mean demon. The protrud- ing tongue recalls the figure of Vishnu as the lion, and the Bes of Egypt and of Phoe- ANALYSIS. 207 nicia.'"' I believe it to be intended to show a cruel deity — Moloch or Mulge has such an appearance — perhaps connected with the sup- posed wolf-head on the preceding text. The ram's-head, already shown to refer to fighting, follows immediately ; and although the sounds Mas and Lu are purely provisional, we can, I think, have little doubt as to the ideographic meaning. The vase under the head which follows seems to be the same which stands as the second symbol on the preceding text. It is not impossible, perhaps, that this group reads Sag-pa, * charm,' or ' talisman ;' but this is a conjecture, which may be disproved in spite of the form of Cypriote Pi, already noticed. The emblem called // is like the Cuneiform A I and like the Cypriote Li ; it is supposed to be a prefix to the word bat. The Tak is that form of cippus which I have supposed to mean * memorial.' Line 3. This is all very clearly preserved, * There are bronze heads of demons with protruding tongues, well known to Assyriologists. 2o8 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. with a few exceptions. After Zo-/i, we have a sort of tiara, which also occurs in line 5. Perhaps N'im, ' high,' may be equivalent. The pair of feet perhaps means 'stand.' The emblem of * life ' has been already noticed (p. 108). The emblem after Bn is one which I have supposed to mean ' adoration,' Te. At the very end, //-// is not certain. On the stone these look like feet in the direction opposite to that called Du provisionally, but they may be worn away. Line 4. The winged walking-stick before the first Mas, I conjecture to be a winged snake, as a study of the stone seems to show a snake's-head. It recurs on line 5. On the Marash lion we have what looks very much like a serpent standing erect. The erect serpent is known on a Baby- lonian cylinder by the tree of life. The figures at Carchemlsh often have small wings. In one of the Akkadian magic texts we find a god invoked to * cut the wings ' of the demon (W. A. I., iv. 16, i), as Istar cut ANALYSIS. 209 the wings of the A/al in the forest."" The tablet in question is one of great import- ance to our present text, as there are two clauses in that text which seem to be similar to clauses in the hieroglyphic text from Jerabis under consideration. It is very remarkable that the Cuneiform parallel speaks of the demon as defeated by a 'pillar,' on which the talisman was apparently written. Our present text is written on a sort of pillar. A little farther on, in line 4, we come to a group B a-ni — pair of legs running — ne-ke-it face (or soul) die, which would give : * And water of running as at soul become.' Perhaps the explanation may lie in the very expres- sion in the Cuneiform text above noticed (see ' La Magie,' p. 43) : ' Like water may it make him run.' Just before the sentence thus illustrated * We also read of the demons (W. A. I., iv. i, i), * they glide in at the doors like serpents.' 2IO ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. the published copy shows a group which, looking at the stone, I think should really have a bull's head in the middle. The stone is much worn. If I am right it would read De-gtit-dic (compare du-gud-da, ' powerful '). Lt7te 5. There is a doubtful passage in this h'ne. The published copy shows a demon's head about the middle, but the stone is much worn. After it comes a very interesting group, namely, the usual house for E, or Ea, and above it a saltire marked as X. It seemed to me to mean a * barrier ; '* and on referring to the Akkadian text (W. A. I., iv. ]6, 1) as translated by Lenormant (' Magie,' p. 42), I find the words : ' He who raises his head against the blessed waters of Ea, may the barrier of Ea stay him.' This gives us, per- haps, some idea of the meaning of the group and of the clause. I think the group which is obliterated may be a foot, with the ordinary * There is a Cypriote form just like it, which is read, I believe, / or u. ANALYSIS. 211 water-pot above and below, as In the pub- lished copy. After Tam-zti In this line comes a symbol which we may suppose to be ga, ' belonging to.' Then come two demons' heads, looking towards each other. This group, which has never been found elsewhere, I think, helps our argument. As already noticed, we have on the plaque of M. Peretie, from Palmyra, and on the Cappadoclan cylinder, pictures of demons standing (as beasts) erect, and clawing one another. The expression is ex- plained by various Akkadian charms trans- lated from the Cuneiform, viz. : * May the evil demons go forth ; may they seize each other' (W. A. I., Plates 17, 18, vol. II. ; ' Magie,' p. 10). ' Holding one another embraced, may they be driven together to the deserts ' (W. A. I., Iv. 16, i). The soul Is represented on the Palmyra plaque walking away safe, while the demons are fighting. 14 — 2 212 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. It seems possible that the two demons facing each other have the same ideographic value. This (with exception of the emblem which I have suggested to mean ' portrait ') is the only case where a face occurs with its front away from the beginning of the line. The emblem between them seems to me, from the stone, to be Z71, * thou ; ' the one below Is perhaps a tiara, and the group means, possibly, ' King of opposing demons.' After it comes the unusual emblem of the ' bundle,' which I have supposed to mean ' bind.' The next group stands Ni-As-bat on the copy, but I think It Is certainly Ni As me — the hand found so often on the Hamath stones. The preceding commentary allows of our now attempting a rough translation of the greater portion. Line i. . . . Tamzu . . ing Ea . . . and . . come. Line 2. . . . many my strong. Thee demon warrlor-from (talisman ?) soul protec- ANALYSIS. 213 tion* come bless me. F'ire flames lord (Water. King ?) . . . adoration be adore f King . . . cause to me slain. Line 3. . . . Tamzu for, Fire flames grow- to (or for). J King over King flame warrior spiritual (exalted ?) ruling (the sceptre and affix, Pa-li) warrior for memorial stand to me cause to me thee bind.§ King at life of to me . . to. Prayer (intensitive) Ya adora- tion to Set adoration Line 4. . . ing many protect (flying ser- pent ?) Demon make fight spirit strong become for become water him. God spirit at-flame-ing memorial become . . stone give * I conjecture the arm here in a peculiar attitude to mean * protect,' and so when repeated; but this is of course as yet unproved. t This part seems very doubtful. X The form is not the usual one of De^ but the group no doubt has the same meaning, the emblem being only sculptured rather larger and more elaborately than usual. On Jerabis I. we have found the group twice with Ka instead of 7/', and it is not certaui that in the present case also the emblem may not be Ka. § Here and in line 5 we have the emblem for * spell ' as before, pp. 169, 171. 214 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. power and water of running as at soul be- come. Line 5. . . tiying serpent cause become {H keke du) spirit water of for monument. Thee Demon (intensitive) . . Set . . . expels * Thee demon water become water of Set barrier of Ea . . Set my lord-ly Tammuz belonging to thee opposing demon (chief ?) . . charm to charm be . . .t Here, then, we have, I believe, a long text showing us that the Hittite religion was just the same as that of the Akkadians, consisting in a belief that the demons of darkness were to be defeated by aid of the gods Tammuz and Ea. A free rendering is difficult, because there are gaps at the end of the lines ; but it would perhaps be somewhat as follows, although I can only roughly determine the * This form du du^ is rendered ' faire sortir' by Lenormant. t Two small circles occur here, as also at the end of Hamath No. 5, just before the last gu. The circle may perhaps stand for Mar, but it also recalls the old Cunei- form emblem for heart. ANALYSIS. 215 general sense, which no doubt requires thorough treatment by competent special scholarship. We must remember that we are dealing with an agglutinative language, and a very rude hieroglyphic system. FREE RENDERING. 2. . . from the demon warrior the (talis- man ?) protecting my soul becomes a bless- ing, the Fire Lord, the Water, the King . . . * . slays for me .... 3. . . Tamzu the living fire the King of Kings spiritual . . royal warrior the me- morial (erected by me ?) causes me to enchant thee. (King of my life . . .?) The prayer . . adoring. Set adoring . . become. 4. . . protects The (snake ?) demon to make fight ; the wild bull spirit to become weak,* the memorial . . stone of the Divine spirit of flame grants strength,! and as the * The bull here is not like the usual type, but more like the Am or ' wild bull.' t De-gut-du I suppose to be equivalent to du-gud-da, rendered ' puissant ' by Lenormant. (' Trans. Bib. Arch. Soc.,' vol. vL, p. 177.) 2.i6 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. running of water (may) his soul become. 5. . . (the snake ?) causing to become, the monument of the spirit of the water.. Thee demon . . Set . . . expels Thee demon the water become water of Set the barrier of Ea belonging to . . my lordly Set to Tammuz, Thee . . opposing demon . „ . the spell binds By the holy water, which seems to me to be here mentioned, I understand the ' magic water of Ea/ mentioned in Akkadian texts, known from Cuneiform. Rough as is this rendering, I hope that the general sense will be found to be correctly determined. ANALYSIS. 217 XI.-THE IBREEZ TEXT. The other small fragments from Jerabis cannot give any particularly useful results,* and we pass on to the sculpture at Ibreez, representing a king adoring a gigantic deity with horns, having grapes in the right hand and corn in the left. Behind the king's or priest's head is a short text, very valuable as a check on our previous results. (Wright, Plate XIV. and p. 148.) The figure of the god is some 20 feet high. I doubt whether this can be a purely Hittite or Akkadian * As to the Karabel and Niobe texts, I do not feel any certainty. The former seems to read, // I)/d . . . Zu Afi . . . ' a tablet . . . Spirit of Heaven . . .' On the Niobe we have perhaps Ku . . . gut du, ' King . . . strong become.' Dr. GoUob's additional marks I do not understand. We seem to have Zo, 'spirit,' and the character which 1 have suggested is like the Cypriote lo^ 'male' or 'man;' but these might perhaps be Greek letterings added, as is the cartouche of Rameses II., or as the Greeks wrote their names on Egyptian statues. 2i8 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. sculpture. The god and the priest have beards, after the Phoenician or Greek fashion. Mr. Davis has remarked the similarity to Assyrian sculpture. The shoes are those of the modern Turkish or Syrian peasantry, which struck the Egyptians as differing from their own, and which are given to the HIttltes on the Karnak pictures. The noses are aquiline. The head-dresses are not those of the gods at Boghaz Keul. There Is a third Inscription below the bas-relief close to the water, which flows under the red llmestone- cllff, where the sculpture has been executed. Text Behind the King. The forms seem clear, all but two cm- ble ms. <— ssg KA ? DU NI »— > NI RE A <— 9S A KU GAR LI NI ^ ? TAK KA He come . . . for. Flow water. Making King of water. . . . monument towards. ANALYSIS. 219 Thus the meaning seems to be, * This per- son comes . . . towards the monument of him who makes the stream flow the King of the water.' The short text thus seems to- apply to the figure in front of it, and to the actual position of the monument beside a stream. Text Over the God's Head. AN GA? IT? ^ . . . An-u to KA?NIU?KAKA Tl LI LI ME NI NI NI Him water make living him E DE A TE? LI GAR <-«-p.-ry tj DE A house raise become LI AN ? RA ? E ing God Set to house SET GA? belonging to. This appears, I think, to include hono- rific titles to the god, but the letters are so crowded and indistinct that I can only roughly conjecture the general meaning. It appears that we have the god called the * The first emblem is perhaps Xa. Ka-ni would read Ka7i^ which might be compared with ga7i, ' this,' only the latter word is not a prefix. Gan^ prefixed = * may.' 220 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. * God of the Serpent,' which, as we have seen, was a title of Ea. The general result seems to be ' . . to the sky-god him of the living water, him the temple* raised to, the temple be- longing to the god Set.' As the statue occurs by a stream, it is evi- dently natural that it should represent Ea, the god of all water and moisture, who made both corn and wine flourish by giving rain and dew. The horned head-dress also agrees with this, since, as before shown, Ea is repre- sented with horns. The third text is too imperfectly preserved — or too imperfectly copied — to be read. I think we may read the words Bil-ga, ' fire,' and A-ga, ' water/ and perhaps recognise the serpent. The characters seem to me to be more conventionalized than those of Hamath and * The emblem rendered ' temple ' is not the form otherwise occurring as the name of Ea. It has a cella. ANALYSIS. Jerabis, and this, in conjunction with the Semitic features and beards of the figures, makes me suppose this sculpture to be com- paratively late. ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. XIL— THE TYANA TEXT. See Wright, Plate XV. and p. 154. This is an incised text. I do not propose to attempt to read it, as the copy is very in- definite. It is in four lines. The usual groups, Ku-ku and Au-Tam-zu, occur; also * Thou Ea,' and the sky-god with Ri, ' light,' and the ordinary suffixes. The symbol Zu, * thou/ occurs very frequently, showing an invocation to the usual gods. ANALYSIS. 223 XIIL— MARASH TEXT. This is given by Perrot {' Hist, de I'Art,' vol. iv., p. 556). It is over the heads of two deities, one with a sceptre, one with a cup, seated either side of a table or altar. The drawing of the symbols is much too indefi- nite to be read — it is due to M. Puchstein. The sculpture was found, I believe, by Dr. Gwyther. A cast is said to exist at Berlin. 224 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. XIV.— AINTAB. West of this place Dr. Trowbridge, of the American Mission, has photographed quite lately* a sculpture of a lion-headed god slaying some animal. In the corner Is an emblem, either the head of an ass, or more probably of a hare, and the same In the other corner reversed. See what is said of the hare-god, p. 90. ■* A copy has kindly been sent to me by Mrs. Barnes, and another offered to me by Dr. Macaulay, both, I believe, through the kind permission of Dr. Trowbridge. ANALYSIS. 225 XV.— THE SEALS. On these, as on the Phcenlclan and Assyrian seals, we may expect also the names of the gods (see Wright, Plates XIII. and XVI., p. 155). Sir H. Layard found eight seals in the chamber of the Palace of Sennacherib at Kouyunjik. The clay seals belonging to M. Schlumberger were pub- lished by M. Perrot in 1882. The seals from Kouyunjik should, I presume, be read reversed. According to the copy they read (Figs. 5, 6, 7, 8) ^o^a E-u ?; but Perrot gives a picture of one which makes the first emblem a ship with a rudder at the helm (' Hist, de I'Art,' vol. iv., p. 567). In this case we might read, * sky ship of Ea.'* This great ship of Ea was a very important feature of Akkadian religion. It occurs on cylinders, * The ship would read Ma, 15 2 26 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. and it is mentioned in Akkadian tablets. In this ship the sun passed over the ocean and so safely returned to the east (see ' Magie/ p. 150). Mr. Rylands has published another seal (Wright, Plate XX., Fig. 4), on which we read An-Tain-Zu, The celebrated Eagle has become sadly like a stuffed parrot, but Mr. Rylands recognised it. The clay seals (Plate XVI.) are perhaps more difficult to understand. On the largest we have the serpent with An above, the moon, the star, the word ' mes ' and something else. Perhaps ' The god of sky : the moon and stars.' On another (Fig. 16) we have a dog or lion, a star, a foot, and Pak. I should propose to read An-pak-dtt-lig, ' the god lion above.' On another seal (No. 15) a god stands on a dog or lion, as also at Boghaz Keui. On another seal (Fig. 12) we have Ku-7na-mes and the Serpent of Ea, ' King of Countries' — a frequent divine appellation. Fig. 14 gives the sign Dim, and the em- ANALYSIS. 227 blems of ' blessing ' and of ' majesty.' Fig. 13 (upside down) is the cross with ^a, * power.' No. i has the gryphon or cherub. On No. 7 we have Ku Ku . . and a figure adoring the sacred tree, i.e. * King King . . .' On No. 11 we have Pak-du-lig (as on No. 16). The seal copied from Lajarde is very interesting (Fig. last). The reverse is the Assyrian Pegasus, which the Phoenicians adopted : the obverse is the winged sun, and the legend An-Tam-Zu,''' and A7i-Sha7\ * The word for 'spirit' in Akkadian is Z/, which should perhaps be the sound, and not Zu^ as given in this memoir. The Dii-zu of Assyrian texts is, however, clearly derived from JD{i-zi\ which with Taiti-zi is the Akkadian name of the sun. The emblem Zo for * spirit ' is also perhaps properly Zi. The Cypriote Zo and Ze are alike. 228 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. XVI.— THE BABYLONIAN BOWL. The bowl Is 13 inches in diameter; 8f inches high ; the basin only 4f Inches deep ; the base 7-^ Inches diameter ; 2 J Inches high. It is of basalt, and the text is Incised (Wright, pp. 161 and 198, Plate XXV.). Professor Sayce remarks on the hieratic character of the lettering, and on the unique figure which represents the bowl Itself with its inscription. He also recognised the fact that the text was a dedication to the gods. This bowl should perhaps be compared with those found by Layard inscribed In Hebrew with names of angels and demons, although the latter are as late as the sixth century a.d. To me It seems clear that these bowls held the ' enchanted water,' or the ' beneficent water,' which being consecrated to Ea was the great resource against demons. It Is to this practice of using holy water that we perhaps ANALYSIS. 229 owe the frequent occurrence of the emblem A on the monuments. This also agrees with the Hittite invocation of rivers, and of the water- god, and with the occurrence of our texts at Carchemish and Hamath and Ibreez, on the banks of rivers. The water-worship of the Medes has the same origin, and the ' water of life ' which restored Izdubar (or Gisdubar) from his sick- ness, and which revived Istar when she de- scended into the Hades of her cruel rival, the wife of Mul-ge, has a close connection. So much for the use of the magic bowl. The next point is to find where the text begins, and which way it reads. It reads from right to left, as is usual in the first line of Hittite texts. It is in a single line. Taking the halves separately we should read, I think, from An-Tamzu. We have the usual group of ' Sun, Water, Fire,' at this point — the Akkadian triad. 230 ALTAIC HIEROGLYPHS. N '<1 \< 5 - < m "^^^ - ^hJ ^ ^ N "^ n-. ^ " ^ ^ H I^^ t ^ ^Q - ^ .8 3 ^ "5; p t^s N n;^; <: HH P^ hJ < 1^ o m n-. D w Q '^l^ w ^ Ul g w ^ h^ ^w P^ ^< P^ N ;z; H< :^ ^^ iDl^ ru N < D PlH t^ ^t=! n-. N^ < ^3 H O ru ^ fv. ru 1 '