Explorations in Bible lands during the 19th century - H. V. Hilprecht

Explorations in Bible lands during the 19th century - H. V. Hilprecht Explorations in Bible lands during the 19th century - H. V. Hilprecht

searchformecca.com
from searchformecca.com More from this publisher
31.03.2015 Views

766 EXPLORATIONS IN BIBLE LANDS inscriptions with engraved characters, it will apply to these too and others like them. These inscriptions, therefore, written in the engraved character may be safely referred to Sargon's time or later (perhaps even later than 606 b. c.) — a conclusion at which we had already arrived for another reason discussed above. Finally, certain Hittite seal inscriptions found in the ruins of Nineveh cannot be of later origin than 606 b. c, because in this year Nineveh was destroyed. From arguments of this nature it is plain that at all events the great mass of the inscriptions belongs to a period between 1000 and 600 b. c, allowing perhaps a little on either side. The approximate chronologv thus arrived at for the series tallies well enough with that reached by the other methods indicated above, also with that fixed by Puchstein for the accompanving sculptures. Our results mav therefore be held to be approximately correct. These results will make, e.g., the Hamath inscriptions, the character of which is of an earlier type than that of any inscription from Jerabis, date from about 1000 b. c, or earlier, while according to them the inscription on the bowl from Babvlon will date from about 600 b. c. An analysis of the inscriptions corroborates this view. Thus, an inscription from Ordasu (accompanying a lion hunt), where the characters exhibit a relativelv late form but still are cut out in relief, must date from between 712-708 b. c, because it belongs to Mud(t)allu of Kommagene, who according to the cuneiform inscriptions during this period held Melitene. On the other side two inscriptions in engraved characters, including that on the bowl, seem to have been composed after 606 b. c. or not much earlier, because according to their contents Karkemish is apparentlv held no longer by an Assvrian king but bv a king of Cilicia. At this point the further question mav be put, how old this hieroglyphic system of ours reallv is. We mav point

DURING 191H CENTURY: HITTITES 7G7 to the fact that even in the inscriptions from Hama (Hamath), which, apart perhaps from that carved on the rock of the Pseudo-Sesostris, are undoubtedly the oldest of the series, we find no longer a pure picture-writing, but one Hittite Inscription on a Bowl from Babylon already modified by the influence of the cursive. It follows from this that the system is of earlier date than the Hamath inscriptions, that is, earlier than about iooo b. c. It is to be noted on the other hand that about 1400 the Assyrio-Babvlonian cuneiform writing then in use in Western Asia was also employed in the royal despatches sent to the king of Egypt by the various princes ruling in the

766 EXPLORATIONS IN BIBLE LANDS<br />

<strong>in</strong>scriptions with engraved characters, it will apply to <strong>the</strong>se<br />

too and o<strong>the</strong>rs like <strong>the</strong>m. These <strong>in</strong>scriptions, <strong>the</strong>refore,<br />

written <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> engraved character may be safely referred to<br />

Sargon's time or later (perhaps even later than 606 b. c.) —<br />

a conclusion at which we had already arrived for ano<strong>the</strong>r<br />

reason discussed above. F<strong>in</strong>ally, certa<strong>in</strong> Hittite seal <strong>in</strong>scriptions<br />

found <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> ru<strong>in</strong>s of N<strong>in</strong>eveh cannot be of later<br />

orig<strong>in</strong> than 606 b. c, because <strong>in</strong> this year N<strong>in</strong>eveh was<br />

destroyed.<br />

From arguments of this nature it is pla<strong>in</strong> that at all<br />

events <strong>the</strong> great mass of <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>scriptions belongs to a period<br />

between 1000 and 600 b. c, allow<strong>in</strong>g perhaps a little on<br />

ei<strong>the</strong>r side. The approximate chronologv thus arrived at<br />

for <strong>the</strong> series tallies well enough with that reached by <strong>the</strong><br />

o<strong>the</strong>r methods <strong>in</strong>dicated above, also with that fixed by Puchste<strong>in</strong><br />

for <strong>the</strong> accompanv<strong>in</strong>g sculptures. Our results mav<br />

<strong>the</strong>refore be held to be approximately correct. These results<br />

will<br />

make, e.g., <strong>the</strong> Hamath <strong>in</strong>scriptions, <strong>the</strong> character<br />

of which is of an earlier type than that of any <strong>in</strong>scription<br />

from Jerabis, date from about 1000 b. c, or earlier, while<br />

accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong>m <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>scription on <strong>the</strong> bowl from Babvlon<br />

will date from about 600 b. c. An analysis of <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>scriptions<br />

corroborates this view.<br />

Thus, an <strong>in</strong>scription from<br />

Ordasu (accompany<strong>in</strong>g a lion hunt), where <strong>the</strong> characters<br />

exhibit a relativelv late form but still are cut out <strong>in</strong> relief,<br />

must date from between 712-708 b. c, because it belongs<br />

to<br />

Mud(t)allu of Kommagene, who accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> cuneiform<br />

<strong>in</strong>scriptions dur<strong>in</strong>g this period held Melitene. On<br />

<strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r side two <strong>in</strong>scriptions <strong>in</strong> engraved characters, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g<br />

that on <strong>the</strong> bowl, seem to have been composed after<br />

606 b. c. or not much earlier, because accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong>ir<br />

contents Karkemish is apparentlv held no longer by an<br />

Assvrian k<strong>in</strong>g but bv a k<strong>in</strong>g of Cilicia.<br />

At this po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>the</strong> fur<strong>the</strong>r question mav be put, how old<br />

this hieroglyphic system of ours reallv is. We mav po<strong>in</strong>t

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!