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

770 EXPLORATIONS IN BIBLE LANDS ing to the end desired, 1 but it miscarried and had to miscarry. For the very peculiar character of the bilingual inscription made it impossible to reach a sure result by its aid. For, in the first place, the Assyrio-Babylonian version was to all appearances the work of an unskilful engraver, and many points of reading, even the very name of the king, were confessedly doubtful, while the arrangement of the hieroglyphic version was by no means self-evident or certain. Furthermore, of the six symbols which occur in the hieroglyphic version, onlv three, or at most four, have with certainty (in spite of Sayce's supposition to the contrary) been found in other inscriptions of this character. Without a doubt, in his reading of the Assyrio-Babylonian version Sayce in some points was more probably wrong than right. He arranged the hieroglyphic version wrongly, and he found all six symbols in other inscriptions ; some of them he recognized in characters which he regarded as mere variants, but which in reality were absolutely distinct forms. Accordingly, as the bilingual was essentially the foundation on which he built, it follows that his further " decipherings " in the main can have but little claim to this title. It should be noted, however, that his efforts have not been altogether in vain. Thus with the help of the bilingual he has by chance made out correctly, but not proved, the meaning of a sign for me and mi, also of a sign for "king" or its equivalent. Further, a symbol which according to my reading stands for dei, " lord," he has by chance translated approximately correctly as "king." Two other signs he takes, not without good reasons, to serve as case-endings, and another sign from the inscriptions which accompany the figures of gods at Boghazkoi he takes to be the determinative for " god," all of which are correct or at least approximately 1 In the "Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archeology," vol. vii., pp. 274, seqq., and 299, seqq., also in Wright, " The Empire of the Hittites," 2ded., pp. 166, seqq., etc.

DURING 19TB CENTURY: HITTITES 771 so. Unfortunately for himself, he identified with the last another symbol with quite a different meaning, — the symbol for "country," — thus raising a barrier which made further advance impossible. Curiously enough, once before he had guessed the meaning of this same sign correctly, though it is true accidentally, and on quite untenable ground. Any further contributions of Sayce towards the deciphering of the inscriptions are quite arbitrary and without foundation. No essential advance was made by Sayce's successors, namely Ball, 1 Menant, 2 Peiser, 3 and Halevy. 4 It should be mentioned, however, that Halevy is correct, though accidentally so, in taking (independently from my own researches) a symbol, which can apparently be added or left out at pleasure after that for me, to represent the vowel e. The rest we may pass over in silence. In the works of the above mentioned scholars a wild logic runs riot, and its extravagances call for no description. Peiser took a direction quite different from that of the other decipherings, in the main confining himself to the seal-inscriptions found in Sennacherib's palace at Nineveh. These he arbitrarily attributed to Hittite kings, and as Sennacherib in his cuneiform inscriptions had omitted to preserve us the names of such, he assigned them in the same arbitrary fashion to two kings belonging to the time of his predecessors, Tiglathpileser III. and Sargon. Since these hypotheses which form the basis of his argument are absolutely groundless throughout, and the names of other couples of " Hittite " kings of the same period, according to Peiser's method of reasoning, would have suited the inscrip- 1 In the " Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology," vol. x., pp. 437, seqq. 2 Memoires de FAcademie des Inscriptions, vol. xxxiv., pp. I, seqq. 3 Die Hettitischen Inschriften. 4 Revue S'emitique, vol. i., pp. 55, seqq., and 126, seqq.

DURING 19TB CENTURY: HITTITES 771<br />

so. Unfortunately for himself, he identified with <strong>the</strong> last<br />

ano<strong>the</strong>r symbol with quite<br />

a different mean<strong>in</strong>g, — <strong>the</strong> symbol<br />

for "country," — thus rais<strong>in</strong>g a barrier which made fur<strong>the</strong>r<br />

advance impossible.<br />

Curiously enough, once before he<br />

had guessed <strong>the</strong> mean<strong>in</strong>g of this same sign correctly, though<br />

it is true accidentally, and on quite untenable ground. Any<br />

fur<strong>the</strong>r contributions of Sayce towards <strong>the</strong> decipher<strong>in</strong>g<br />

of <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>scriptions are quite arbitrary and without foundation.<br />

No essential advance was made by Sayce's successors,<br />

namely Ball, 1 Menant, 2 Peiser, 3 and Halevy. 4 It should<br />

be mentioned, however, that Halevy is correct, though<br />

accidentally so, <strong>in</strong> tak<strong>in</strong>g (<strong>in</strong>dependently from my own researches)<br />

a symbol, which can apparently be added or left<br />

out at pleasure after that for me, to represent <strong>the</strong> vowel e.<br />

The rest we may pass over <strong>in</strong> silence. In <strong>the</strong> works of<br />

<strong>the</strong><br />

above mentioned scholars a wild logic runs riot, and its<br />

extravagances call<br />

for no description.<br />

Peiser took a direction quite different from that of <strong>the</strong><br />

o<strong>the</strong>r decipher<strong>in</strong>gs, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> ma<strong>in</strong> conf<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g himself to <strong>the</strong><br />

seal-<strong>in</strong>scriptions found <strong>in</strong> Sennacherib's palace at N<strong>in</strong>eveh.<br />

These he arbitrarily attributed to Hittite k<strong>in</strong>gs, and as Sennacherib<br />

<strong>in</strong> his cuneiform <strong>in</strong>scriptions had omitted to preserve<br />

us <strong>the</strong> names of such, he assigned <strong>the</strong>m <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> same<br />

arbitrary fashion to two k<strong>in</strong>gs belong<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> time of his<br />

predecessors, Tiglathpileser III. and Sargon. S<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong>se<br />

hypo<strong>the</strong>ses which form <strong>the</strong> basis of his argument are absolutely<br />

groundless throughout, and <strong>the</strong> names of o<strong>the</strong>r<br />

couples of " Hittite " k<strong>in</strong>gs of <strong>the</strong> same period, accord<strong>in</strong>g to<br />

Peiser's method of reason<strong>in</strong>g, would have suited <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>scrip-<br />

1<br />

In <strong>the</strong> " Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of <strong>the</strong> Society of Biblical Archaeology," vol. x.,<br />

pp. 437, seqq.<br />

2<br />

Memoires de FAcademie des Inscriptions, vol. xxxiv., pp. I, seqq.<br />

3<br />

Die Hettitischen Inschriften.<br />

4<br />

Revue S'emitique, vol. i., pp. 55, seqq., and 126, seqq.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!