Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T18:27:13.194Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New Urartian Inscriptions from Adilcevaz

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

P. Hulin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Adilcevaz lies on the north shore of lake Van, almost due south of the summit of Süphan Dağ (14,547 ft.). At its west end substantial remains of a lofty wall of later than Urartian times run down from below the Ahlat road to the shore of the lake (and actually into the lake, of which the relative level has evidently risen since the construction of the wall). It was on a largely concealed face (at right-angles to the line of the wall) of a stone block in this wall that it was reported that cuneiform writing could be seen.

Accordingly, in September, 1956, the writer inspected the wall, accompanied by his wife, who located the block some fifteen metres below the road in a short secondary wall-surface of dressed blocks, with hard rubble filling behind, parallel with the line of, and running inland from the broken end of a further wall projecting three or four metres in the Adılcevaz direction from, the main wall. The cuneiform writing proved to be visible as a result of the absence, close to the surface, of mortar between the inscribed block and the one lake-ward of it in the same course; and on poking away more mortar between the two blocks and up to the under surface of a third, larger, block, forming part of the next higher, and uppermost surviving, course, it was found that this under surface also bore cuneiform signs.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 9 , December 1959 , pp. 189 - 195
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1959

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 Originally by a local Turkish schoolmaster, whose report was kindly conveyed to the writer by Mr. C. A. Burney.

2 The writer thanks the Turkish central and local authorities and the authorities of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara for helping him to make the journey which included this visit to Adılcevaz, the Trustees of the Arnold Historical Essay Fund of the University of Oxford for helping to meet his expenses in making it, and his wife for constant practical help in the course of it.

3 The sunlit upper surface of this block may be discerned 26–27 mm. from the top and 40–42 mm. from the left of pl. VI (b) (opp. p. 49) of AS VII (1957)Google Scholar.

4 Reported by Belck in 1898; AS VIII (1958) 236, n. 11Google Scholar.

5 The amount of stone missing would depend on the way in which the missing or partly missing word manuni was written; ma-nu-ni, ma-nu-u[-ni], and ma-a-nu-u-ni all occur.

6 The rulings cut between the lines of the inscriptions are omitted in the copies.

7 The form is that of a third person passive imperative verb (Goetze, , RHA III, fasc. 24, Juillet 1936, 269–75Google Scholar; Melikishvili, , Vestnik Drevney Istorii fasc. 43, 1953.1, 281)Google Scholar; perhaps to be connected with the verbal root kul- (“neglect”, Goetze, ibid., fasc. 22, Janvier 1936, 189, cf. Melikishvili, , VDI fasc. 47, 1954.1, 209Google Scholar; “admit,” Goetze, l.c. 191; “vernichten,” “ein(== zer)stampfen,” König, , HChI p. 191Google Scholar), or with the word appearing in the form ku-ul-me-i-e in HChI 80 § 11 II as the dative case of a noun meaning something like “fruitfulness”, “prosperity”, “well-being”, and in the form ku-ul-me-e in HChI 103 § 4Google Scholar IV with possibly a similar meaning (HChI pp. 96, 121, 191; Melikishvili, , VDI 45.249, 46.184, 47.209Google Scholar); the subject of the verb may have appeared in the preceding line.

8 There is no certain case either of ali(e) “he says” (AS VIII, 1958, 251, n. 21Google Scholar) not immediately preceded by its subject, or of the relative form ali (occasionally alie) separated only by a nominal expression from a following verb in the third person passive imperative form; but as alie in ll. 2′, 3′ and 5′ follows what appear to be passive imperative verbal forms, which may well have concluded curse- or threat-expressions, it may in these cases introduce further quotation of what the speaker (presumably Rusa) says.

9 Otherwise always with added in known Urartian texts; be-li damqūti (SIG5. MEŠ) in the Assyrian version of the Kelishin inscription, corresponding to Urartian u-ri-iš[-ḫi-e ga-]-li, HChI 9 § 5; perhaps to be taken as a plural here—the form in which the following verb appears, although occurring usually with a singular subject, occurs also with a plural (or partly plural) subject (GUD 3 UDU dingirḫaldie, urpulini, HChI 41 V; cf. Goetze, , RHA III 276, n. 53Google Scholar), though the regular third person plural passive imperative form may have been in -uali (Goetze, l.c. 276; Melikishvili, VDI 43.281Google Scholar). That the signs be-li in HChI 9 § 5Google Scholar represent a form of the Akkadian word bēlu, “weapon” (perhaps of a special kind, not simply a synonym for kakku) is regarded as uncertain by Friedrich, (AfO XVII ii, 1956, 367Google Scholar). (This Akkadian word bēlu is distinguished from BE-li (Sargon, Eighth Campaign, l. 36), ti-il-li (Harper 268, ll. 14, 16), “Behang,” of horses, by Müller, K. Fr., MVAG 41.3, 1937, 40 n. 1.Google Scholar) The word urišḫi (probably “spear”, and—or, earlier—“shepherd's crook”, according to König, , HChI p. 41, n. 6Google Scholar) appears also (preceded by Iargišti) as the inscription on a small bell (Melikishvili, , VDI 47.257Google Scholar, no. 3), where the translation “weapon” seems less appropriate, as it seems also when it appears on bronze bowls, on these, however, as a variant to Éurišḫi, which is translated “Magazin(?)” by Friedrich (l.c. 368; same translation of the variant text in ZDMG 105, 1955, 60, no. 9Google Scholar), “Totenhaus” or “Rüstkammer” by König, (HChI 112CGoogle Scholar, cf. HChI p. 71, n. 8).

10 Taken as from the stem ter(u)- (cf. Goetze, l.c. 271); te-ru[-u-ni] corresponds to Assyrian ištakan (GAR-an) in HChI 9 § 4Google Scholar (cf. HChI 9 § 6, 122 § 5).

11 ḫi-ni occurs twice in HChI Inc. 32, apparently as an independent word (for which Melikishvili suggests the meaning “son(?)”, VDI 47.205), and ḫi-ni-e once in HChI 23.22; here perhaps -ḫi-ni is the phonetic complement of the Urartian word for “possession”, represented by NÍG. (The termination -ḫini here would accord less well with Friedrich's suggestion, AfO XVII 368Google Scholar, that this word may be urišḫusi than with the possibility that it may be the conceivably connected ḫurišḫi, König, HChI p. 217Google Scholar, Melikishvili, VDI 47.206Google Scholar; it may well not be either of these.) Or possibly ḫini here is the word of HChI 23 and Inc. 32, written pleonastically like, e.g., gudpa-ḫi-ni (cf. Friedrich l.c. n. 10), still with the meaning of NÍG.

12 KÙ in other known Urartian texts occurs only as part of the words for “silver” and “gold”. The sign might mean “pure”.

13 -še suggests the termination of the še-case of a noun; -mu-še recalls LÚtašmuše (HChI 23 IV) and elmuše (e.g. below, ll. 8, 11); the reading MU-še might be possible, if appropriate to the context.

14 Usually as a determinative in Urartian; here perhaps independent, and the subject of the following verbal form.

15 The existence of the verbal root from which 'aḫulini is formed was suggested by Goetze's reading 'a-ḫu-li-e in the passage HChI 41.31 (JAOS 55, 1935, 296Google Scholar), though he was unable to suggest a meaning.

16 Perhaps the same as iridul[ie] of HChI 6 XGoogle Scholar, translated in the sense “remove” (from (its) place) by König, , HChI p. 39Google Scholar, “conceal” ibid. p. 188, “change” (the place) by de Tseretheli, M., RA XXXIII (1936) 96 n. 3Google Scholar, Melikishvili, VDI 47.208Google Scholar.

17 For [a-mu--bi in HChI 80 § 6 V König suggests “[deportier?]te ich”; the context there suggests some verb appropriate to the king's treatment of an enemy; amubi there may be a complete word, from the same root as amulini, for which a similar meaning would be suitable in what may be the king's threat to the man who dares to remove the stone, am-u-di in HChI 125 IX and am-ú-e in HChI 124 IX may be unconnected.

18 KI.TIM-a seems to be the locative case, “on the ground” (or “in the ground”). In view of qirani șirabae manu (HChI 90 I), it may be that in the phrase qiurani(e) quldini(e) manu (with variants; HChI p. 198), quldini is not in the -ni case like qiurani, but in the stem-case, and that quldinini here is an adjective in a locative case, with the same form as the ablative, and agreeing with KI. TIM-a.

19 The reading É is not quite certain.

20 ašdu[… in the bilingual HChI 122 § 8 is of uncertain meaning; áš-du in HChI 80 §5Google Scholar II, §6 II is read aš-gub and translated “gewann(?) ich” by König, (cf. HChI p. 91, n. 6Google Scholar); aštubi, aštuli (Melikishvili, , VDI 47.200Google Scholar) may not be connected (cf. Friedrich, , Caucasica 8, 1931, 148–50Google Scholar).

21 The signs ka ne are perhaps to be taken as representing the verb for “to burn” (Akk. ḫamāṭu; cf. CAD VI 64), the following ni possibly indicating the verbal form, conceivably a passive imperative like the following word; or the ni might terminate a subject of šiedulini—cf. the use of KA.IZI in UZU KA.IZI “cooked meat” (e.g. KAR 177 rev. iii 20Google Scholar; UZU IZI.KA in ND 5545.11, Iraq XXI, 1959, 48Google Scholar).

22 šiedulie in HChI 121 IIIGoogle Scholar may mean something like “ich liess (die Wasser vom Fluss Alaini) weg fliessen” (König, HChI p. 202Google Scholar; cf. Melikishvili, , VDI 47.216–7Google Scholar); there may be a connexion here with šid- “to erect” (HChI pp. 201–2, Melikishvili, , VDI 47.216Google Scholar); cf. HChI p. 142, n. 14.

23 mei ešimeşi elmuše manuni ends (or constitutes) a sentence in HChI 117 IIGoogle Scholar, ends the inscription in HChI 10 VIII, XVIGoogle Scholar, and occurs also, incomplete, in HChI 97 IGoogle Scholar; for its meaning Goetze, suggested “let not be misfortune over the ………!”. (RHA III 195Google Scholar); König, , “und man. … giesst als Trankopfer aus” (HChI pp. 56, 138Google Scholar).

24 Perhaps to be connected with ušta- “to go out” or with uštu- “to offer”.

25 amani appears to be an independent word in HChI 98A 6, 7, 10, 98a 6Google Scholar, but of unknown meaning; König, suggests “Feuer?”, HChI p. 172Google Scholar).

26 ma-nu-bi—if that is what the stone bore—is otherwise unexampled; it may have to be connected with the word appearing as manudi in the bilingual HChI 122 § 6Google Scholar (corresponding to atušuk, “I sacrificed,” “I offered”), or possibly with manu- “to be”.

27 Possibly i-e-še-e-i is a lengthened form of ieše, “I”; e-i is not known as a separate Urartian word.

28 šatubi (HChI 104 VIGoogle Scholar) describes the treatment of 50 GIGIR gunušini in a list of war-achievements (“50 Wagen-Kämpfer nahm ich gefangen”, König ad loc.); and šatuali kurieli (HChI 23 IVGoogle Scholar, 104 VIII, cf. 103 § 4 VII) the action of a submitting prince, perhaps “he grasped (my) feet” (or “knees”); the common element seems to be “to take” (cf. Friedrich, , Caucasica 8, 1931, 147–8Google Scholar; Melikishvili, VDI 47.215–6Google Scholar); cf. šatuli in HChI 124 VIII, 126 IIIGoogle Scholar.

29 TAR-ni in HChI 103 § 12Google Scholar II seems to correspond with naḫidini, ibid. § 14 VIII, probably from naḫ-, of which the form naḫuni corresponds with Assyrian naši in the bilingual HChI 9 § 5Google Scholar (cf. HChI p. 219); so perhaps TAR here is for naḫubi, “I carried off.”

30 Perhaps to be read DINGIR.

31 The name does not seem to occur elsewhere; it may refer to a locality in the neighbourhood of Adılcevaz—as may kurZiuqunii in HChI 128 IGoogle Scholar.

32 The context in which alzinai appears in HChI 124 IXGoogle Scholar suggests something connected with water; König, (HChI p. 172Google Scholar) offers “ein Wasserterminus, wohl Zustrom (Zufluss)”.