Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:46:11.739Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Urartian Hieroglyphic Inscriptions from Altintepe*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Jeffrey J. Klein
Jeffrey J. Klein
Affiliation:
Dartmouth College, Hanover, N.H.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

“Hieroglyphic inscriptions” of various types are common at Urartian sites, but even without a systematic collection and study of them as a whole it is evident that the great majority are at best only pictographic in nature. The relatively small number of such texts, their brevity, the isolated occurrence of many of the signs and the lack of repetition from site to site make it unlikely that they represent any phonetically based writing system. Indeed, the claim of some authors that there existed a local, specifically Urartian hieroglyphic script has yet to be demonstrated.

The hieroglyphic inscriptions from Altıntepe, on the other hand, clearly belong to a different category. The length and consistency of the texts strongly suggest the employment of a regular script, while the close correspondence of the signs to those of the Hittite Hieroglyphic syllabary has led a number of scholars to contend that these are purely Hittite documents. The following study will show, however, not only that the language of the inscriptions is in fact Urartian, but also that they present some rather important new evidence for the reading of Hieroglyphic Hittite itself.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 24 , December 1974 , pp. 77 - 94
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Barsegȋan, L. A., “Ob Urartskoi Ireoglificheskoi Pis'menosti”, Vestnik Obshchestvennykh Nauk (Erevan, 1967 [2])Google Scholar was pointed out to the author by Dr. B. B. Piotrovskii in Leningrad, but was unavailable during the preparation of this article. A full “corpus” of Urartian hieroglyphic inscriptions would be extremely useful, and the author hopes to undertake this task some time in the future.

2 As noted, for example, by Piotrovskii, B. B.. Il Regno di Van, Urartu (Roma, 1966), 34 fGoogle Scholar.

3 Melikishvili, G. A., Die Urartäische Sprache (Rome, Biblical Institute Press 1971), 18Google Scholar, speaks of “eine örtliche Hieroglyphen-Schrift” in connection with a clay tablet from Toprakkale (Lehmann-Haupt, C. F., Armenien Einst und Jetzt II.2 [Berlin and Leipzig, 1931], 588Google Scholar), but the paucity of signs in this text (some of them clearly numerals) together with its complete isolation, suggest that it is not very reliable evidence for an indigenous script.

4 E.g. inscription 9, below: Steinherr, F., “Die Urartäischen Bronzen von Altıntepe”, Anatolia III (1958), passim, especially 101 f.Google Scholar; Barnett, R. D. and Gökce, N., “The Find of Urartian Bronzes at Altın Tepe, near Erzincan”, Anatolian Studies III (1953), 128Google Scholar, also considered this possible. Laroche, E. included all of the Altıntepe texts in his “Liste des documents hiéroglyphiques” RHA XXVII (1969), 124Google Scholar.

5 The author is indebted to Professor T. Özgüç for permission to study the Altıntepe inscriptions and to Mr. R. Temizer, Director of the Ankara Archaeological Museum, for his co-operation in facilitating this work.

6 The last (AT.59/2173) is unpublished and consists of an incised triangle and a four-spoked wheel followed by the name of Argišti (II) in cuneiform. It will eventually be published by Professor K. Balkan along with the other cuneiform inscription from the same tomb (AT.59/2174, a fragment of a helmet?). Cf. Özgüç, T., Altıntepe II (Ankara, 1969), 70Google Scholar.

7 Ozgüç, T., Altıntepe II (Ankara, 1969), 75 ffGoogle Scholar.

8 Toprakkale: C. F. Lehmann-Hauptt, op. cit. II.2 466 ff.; Erzen, A., AA (1962), 411 f.Google Scholar, fig. 22, 23; sketch plan, TAD X.2 (1959)Google Scholar, Pl. XVI.

Karmir-Blur: Piotrovskii, B. B., Karmir-Blur II (Erevan, 1952), 65 ffGoogle Scholar.

Adilcevaz: (Kef Kalesi) Bilgiç, E. and Öǧün, B., Anadolu IX (1965), 14 f.Google Scholar, Pl. I-VI; Öǧün, B., AA (1967), 485 f., fig. 5Google Scholar.

Bastam: Kleiss, W., AMI (n. F.) III (1970), 35 ff.Google Scholar, V (1972), 30 ff.

Kayalıdere: Burney, C., AS XVI (1966), 83 ffGoogle Scholar.

Çavuştepe: Erzen, A., TAD XVII.2 (1968), 89Google Scholar, fig. 5.

Arin-Berd: Oganesȋan, K. L., Arin-Berd I (Erevan, 1961), 18, 42Google Scholar, fig. 21, 22.

Patnos: (Deǧirmen Tepe) Balkan, K., Atatürk Konferanslari, T.T.K. XVII sen, no. 1, (Ankara, 1964), 241Google Scholar.

Norşun Tepe: Hauptmann, H., IM 19/20 (1969/1970), 66Google Scholar.

Armavir: (Ganla-Tapa) A. A. Martirosn, Sov. Arkh. (1972 [3]), 46Google Scholar, fig. 3.

Fragments of the same distinctive red-polished Urartian pithos ware have been found at Zernaki Tepe, near Erciş (Nylander, C., Orientalia Suecana XIV/XV [1965/1966], 146 f.Google Scholar) and by the author at Mılbar (Uç Tepe), southwest of Malazgirt, in 1971 (the site is mentioned by Burney, C. A., AS VII [1957], 53Google Scholar; map, p. 43, no. 259).

9 Vineyards are frequently mentioned in Urartian inscriptions and wine is a common article of tribute (cf. Hchl,p. 183, s.v. GEŠTIN), while oil hardly appears. Sargon describes the sacking of the wine cellars of the captured Urartian city Ulḫu during his 8th campaign: Meissner, B., ZA 34 (1922), 116 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, line 220; Luckenbill, , ARAB II § 161Google Scholar, whose translation should be amended by CAD Ḫ, 19, s.v. ḫabû (ḫapû).

10 The spelling ṱerusi rather than ṭirusi is followed throughout, based on HchI 103 A. III. 10/ UKN 155 G.10, where the sign Labat no. 172 (ṭè=ne) is used. Elsewhere, and especially in all the pithos inscriptions, the word is written with Labat no. 396 (ḫi), read here as ṭé. This is also the reading apparently adopted by D'iakonov, I. M., UPD 91Google Scholars.v. ṭer-usi.

11 Toprakkale: HchI inc. 20a-y/UKN 340a-x. Shushanths (spelled Susans on some maps): HchI inc. 21, 35/ UKN 341.

12 Karmir-Blur: Piotrovskii, B. B., Karmir-Blur II 65 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 36 (=Hchl inc. 36/ UKN 345-364); Piotrovskii, B. B., Epigrafika Vostoka XI (1966), 81 f.Google Scholar (=UKN, p. 456).

Adilcevaz: (Kef Kalesi) Bilgiç, E. and Oǧün, B., Anadolu IX (1965), 14 f.Google Scholar, Pl. XIII-XIV.

Arin-Berd: K. L. Oganesn, op. cit., 42, fig. 22 (cf. UKN 456).

Armavir: A. A. Martirosn, Sov. Arkh. (1972 [3]), 49Google Scholar, fig. 3.

Bastam: von Schuler, E., AMI (n. F.) III (1970), 93 fGoogle Scholar.

13 Piotrovskii, B. B.Karmir-Blur II 65 ff.Google Scholar, figs. 37–9, with aqarqi to the right and ṭerusi to the left of the bracket line; cf. also idem, Epigrafika Vostoka XI (1966), chart, pp. 81, where the “dot” notation was apparently used to make additions to previous cuneiform listings.

14 The equation is suggested by von Schuler, op. cit., 93 f., where he publishes a pithos fragment from Bastam which seems to have the same notation in both pictographic and cuneiform writing (his Pl. 46.1). He calls the aqarqi symbol a “large jar”. “Goat skin (?)” was suggested by Burney, , AS XVI (1966), 90Google Scholar. Variants are known at several sites: dotted circles for aqarqi, holes for ṭerusi at Kayalidere (AS XVI [1966], 88 f.Google Scholar, cf. G 8, 11, etc.); at Arin-Berd (Arin-Berd I, 42Google Scholar, fig. 22, just below rim); and at Norşun Tepe (information kindly supplied by H. Hauptmann). At Çavuştepe, both “Cuneiform and picture writing” are mentioned without further details (Bilgiç, E. and Öǧün, B., Anadolu IX [1965], 15Google Scholar).

15 As noted by Özgüç, T., Altıntepe, II, 77Google Scholar.; E. Laroche, loc. cit. (above, note 5). The Hittite character of the Altıntepe pithos inscriptions has apparently been doubted by Burney, C. A. and Lang, D. M., The People of the Hills (London, 1971), 293Google Scholar, note 5.

16 Bossert, H. T., Orientalia n.s. 29 (1960), 433 fGoogle Scholar.

17 Meriggi, 4, n. 7.

18 J. D. Hawkins and A. Morpurgo-Davies presented a paper on this subject, based primarily on the author's reading of the Altıntepe graffiti, at The Royal Asiatic Society meetings, July 1973. (Typescript summary kindly forwarded to the author.)

19 I. M. D'iakonov has pointed out to the author his own prior suggestion (Hurrisch und Urartäisch, = Münchener Studien der Sprachwissenschaft, Beiheft 6, n.f., 50Google Scholar) that Urartian graphic q represented a phonetic // or //, which would account for the -h- in aharku.

20 The maximum number of ṭerusi commonly found in the inscriptions is 8½, which has led D'iakonov to suppose that there might have been only 9 ṭerusi to an aqarqi (UPD,p. 6). Lehmann-Haupt reports, but does not illustrate, a maximum listing of 9 ṭerusi at Toprakkale (Armenien, II.2 47Google Scholar). Some pictographic notations from Karmir-Blur apparently also quote 9 ṭerusi (Karmir-Blur II, 68, no. 29Google Scholar), and decisive confirmation is finally supplied by a cuneiform pithos inscription from the same site with 9½ ṬÉ (Piotrovskii, B. B., Epigrafika Vostoka XI [1956], 81, no. 194Google Scholar). There may have been a tendency to round off amounts with 9 or more ṭerusi to the next higher number of aqarqi.

21 Armenien II.2, 474Google Scholar, apparently followed by König, , HchI, 71, n. 5Google Scholar.

22 Karmir-Blur II, 74Google Scholar, followed by Melikishvili, , UKN, 366Google Scholar, D'iakonov, , UPD, 6Google Scholar, and Salvini, M., SMEA 9 (1969), 10Google Scholar.

23 Piotrovskii, , Il Regno di Van, 212Google Scholar.

24 Karmir-Blur II, 74Google Scholar. Both rooms had a capacity of nearly 150,000 litres and a total of 152 jars. (The number actually given, loc. cit., is 125, a misprint. One magazine held 82 jars, the other 70. The correct figure of 152 vessels is given in Piotrovskii, , Il Regno di Van, 212Google Scholar).

25 Altıntepe II, 36, fig. 35Google Scholar.

26 Scale drawings, AS XVI (1966), 86 fGoogle Scholar.

27 A. A. Martiroan, Sov. Arkh. (1972 [3], 46Google Scholar.

28 AS XVI (1966), 89, fig. 17 no. G 11Google Scholar.

29 Anadolu IX (1965), Pl. XIV; row 6, leftGoogle Scholar.

30 Epigrafika Vostoka XI (1956), 81Google Scholar (chart) no. 193; assuming, as seems most likely, that the amounts indicated by drilled holes were meant to be added to those written in cuneiform, and that there were 10 ṭerusi to an aqarqi (cf. above, note 20). It is certain that the holes are later and are not translations since the figures do not match.

31 Altıntepe II, 65 ffGoogle Scholar. for a description of the tomb.

32 Barnett, R. D. and Gökce, N., AS III (1953), 124 (5)Google Scholar; Pl. XVI, 4. The author was able to examine the vase in Ankara, but not permitted to remove it from its showcase. The measurements are from Barnett and Gökce, except that they give 32·0 cm. as the maximum diameter. However, a close study of the photograph, Pl. XVI.4, shows that this must be either a mistake by the authors or a typographical error, since the diameter is clearly greater either by comparison with the scale or with the given height, to which it appears approximately equal.

33 Ibid., 124, 128.

34 Steinherr, F., “Die Urartäischen Bronzen von Altıntepe”, Anatolia III (1958), 97–102, especially 100 fGoogle Scholar.

35 The identification and dating accepted by e.g. Van Loon, M., Urartian Art (Leiden, 1965), 12, 104Google Scholar; Özgüç, T., Altıntepe II, 71Google Scholar; Young, R. S.Hesperia 38 (1969), 259CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Besides the three other similar bronze vessels in the same grave (II) at Altıntepe (Barnett and Gökce, 124 [4, 6, 7], Pl. XVI. 2, 3) another of nearly identical shape was found in Tomb III (Emre, K., Belleten 33 [1969], 293, Pl. 1.4)Google Scholar. Clay copies occur at Altıntepe, (ibid. 293, figs. 2-6) and Malaklyu (“Igdyr”) (Barnett, R. D., AS XIII [1963] 154 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 12, fig. 21.7); a number of examples have recently been found in a new cemetery near Adilcevaz (unpublished, in Ankara), probably of 7th century date (shown to the author through the kindness of Dr. B. Öǧün).

37 Laroche, 14.

38 Ibid., 227.

39 Hawkins, J. D., AS XIX (1969), 103Google Scholar.

40 Cf. Laroche, 135. The seal is published by Schaeffer, C., Ugaritica III (Paris, 1956), 50 ff.Google Scholar, figs. 76-7, and discussed by Laroche, ibid., 149 ff; for the cuneiform text of cf. Nougayrol, J., PRU IV (Paris, 1956), 239Google Scholar.

41 Hogarth, D. G., Hittite Seals (Oxford, 1920), 45, no. 306 (“Marash”?)Google Scholar; 48, no. 330 (Deve Hüyuk).

42 HchI 110/UKN 167 1. 5; HchI 115/UKN 170 1. 2;HchI 117/UKN 169 1.3.

43 de Tseretheli, M., RA 33 (1936), 123 in text HchI 117/UKN 169Google Scholar.

44 HchI 9/UKN 19: Assyrian version, 11. 3,16; Urartian version, 11. 4,19.

45 D'iakonov (UPD 67) reads GAR-ú-e and explains the -ú-e as phonetic complement for a plural form *a-la-ú-e which, however, is not otherwise attested (cf. ibid., 60).

46 HchI, 201 s.v. šaue with references to the text.

47 Friedrich, J., in Handbuch der Orientalistik, erster Abteilung, 2.Band, 1. und 2.Abschnitt, Lieferung 2 (Leiden, 1969), 53Google Scholar; Melikishvili, op. cit. (note 3), 8.

48 Cf. references in HchI, 187, s.v. ikukani.

49 UKN, 406, s.v. ša-ú-e: Russian pravitel; and op. cit. (note 3), 86.

50 Cf. note 40.

51 “Majordomo” suggested by Laroche, 135. The tablet is dated to the second half of the 13th century. In later times the officials with this title were commonly eunuchs and the term gradually took on that meaning (cf. RLA II, s.v. Eunuch); LÚ ša-rēši occurs as an Akkadogram in Urartian apparently with the meaning “eunuch” (HchI 131/UKN 286 with D'iakonov's improved readings, UPD, text 12, rev. 1. 2.

52 Interpretation suggested by Laroche, 198.

53 Cf. HchI, 231 and HchI 91 A/UKN 138 which records the construction of an É.GAL and names it URU Ir-bu-ú-ni, i.e. the city Irbuni.

54 Assuming a maximum diameter of ca. 37·0 cm. (cf. above, note 32), and calculating on the basis of a nearly spherical shape, one arrives at a volume of 17·15 – 24·90 litres depending on how much one corrects for the slightly flattened shape of the vase. A capacity of around 20 litres is probably closest and matches exactly two times the value already suggested for the ṭerusi.

55 Op. cit., 99.

56 Altintepe II, 75Google Scholar.

57 Patnos (Aznavur-Tepe [Urartian Aludiri]): founded by Menua; temple: Boysal, Y., Belleten XXV (1961), 199 ff.Google Scholar, inscription: Balkan, K., Anatolia V (1960), 133–58Google Scholar.

Çavuştepe: built by Sarduri II according to the inscription still in situ; plan: TAD XVII (1968), 77 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 5.

Kayalidere: Burney, C. A., AS XVI (1966), 35 ff.Google Scholar; undated by inscriptions, but there are good archaeological grounds for believing this site was built and destroyed all within the 8th century.

58 Wall paintings, cf. Altintepe II, 47 ff.Google Scholar, especially 57 for comparison with Arin-Berd. For the chronology of Arin-Berd, cf. K. L. Oganesn, Arin-Berd I, 12 fGoogle Scholar.

59 cf. HchI 16/UKN 28 and, for the Patnos inscription, Balkan, K., Anatolia V (1960), 133 ff.Google Scholar, texts nos. 1 and 2 (= Melikishvili, , VDI [1971(3)], 235 f., nos. 372–3Google Scholar).

60 HchI 80 § 4.IV/UKN 127.II; HchI 81 Rs. §4.IV/UKN 128 A2. Argišti's fifth year?

61 All excavated sites known to have been founded in the 7th century have produced pithos inscriptions in cuneiform (Karmir-Blur, Toprakkale, Bastam, Adilcevaz, cf. above, note 8). Sites founded in the 8th century but continuing into the 7th have evidence of both systems (Arin-Berd, Çavuştepe), while those which seem to have been occupied exclusively in the 8th century have only pictographic notation (Kayalidere, Patnos). Adilcevaz, founded by Rusa II (ca. 685-645 B.C.), has account notations only in cuneiform. For oil(?) storage jars with cuneiform volume notations at Nimrud, cf. Iraq XIX.1 (1957), 20Google Scholar.

62 Cf. note 61. All excavated sites founded by Rusa II have produced cuneiform pithos notation and one of them (Adilcevaz, Kef Kalesi) has produced only cuneiform.