39 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXXIII N° 1-2, januari-april 2016 40

THE LOCATION AND ERECTION OF THE STORM-GOD STELAE FROM ARSUZ: DECIPHERING THE UNREADABLE LUWIAN CITY NAME IN AS THE PORT OF URASSA/I1 )

Martien DILLO

ABSTRACT

In the recently published article on the Arsuz stelae with a first edition of the hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions, the authors (B. Dinçol et al. 2015) put forward a proposal suggest- ing that the erection site of the Neo-Hittite monuments was not the same as their find-spot. In this article it will be argued that this theory should be rejected and that the coastal city Arsuz (Rhosus) was already at an early stage (c. 910 BCE) under the influence of Hiyawa (Cilicia) and its capital. This permits the identification of the city with the unreadable name in Cilicia with Greek Magarsus and with Hittite Urušša, which makes the deciphering of the hieroglyphic writing of the name possible. Even the differences between the scenes of the Storm-god on both stelae, may be understood as intentional designs linked up with their location in Arsuz. The differences in spelling in the two identical inscriptions can be explained by the logographic working method used by the scribe.

1 Introduction The publication of two parallel Storm-god stelae discov- ered in 2007 in Arsuz (mod. Uluçınar) in the of , with practically identical Luwian hieroglyphic inscriptions (ARSUZ 1 and 2), offers interesting new mate- rial to expand our knowledge of the Neo-Hittite period around 900 BCE (see edition B. Dinçol et al. 2015). The monuments were found buried together 50 cm below ground in a naval base camp, situated on the coast at the foot of the Amanus range. In the published text on these stelae the author Suppiluliuma, son of Manana and king of ‘Walas- tin’2 ), recountshis achievements which were made possible because of the support of the Storm-god. Mainly on the basis of palaeographic grounds, Dinçol et al. arrive at a plausible dating of the inscriptions to the late 10th century BCE. This date may well be further refined, I suppose, to c. 910 or c. 900 BCE, given the identification of his namesake Sapalulme — who met Shalmaneser III in 858 BCE — as Suppiluliuma II and probably the author’s grandson. According to the translation and historical interpretation given by Dinçol et al., Suppiluliuma I reports that, after his succession to the throne and the settling of the land (§§ 2-3), he ‘overcame’ a revolt by an unnamed city, referred to as “this city” (§§ 7-10), and that he also ‘overcame’ a certain act of Adana (§§ 11-12). He further reports that he visited

1) This review article is a reaction to the recent editioprinceps Belkıs Dinçol, †Ali Dinçol, J.D. Hawkins, Hasan Peker and Aliye Öztan, with a contribution by Ömer Çelik, ‘Two new inscribed Storm-god stelae from Arsuz (İskenderun): ARSUZ 1 and 2’, AnatolianStudies 65 (2015): 59-77, with 11 figs. I would like to thank Theo van den Hout, Alwin Kloekhorst and Ilya Yakubovich for their comments to earlier versions of this paper. 2) Previously read as P/Walistin, now perhaps to be understood as ‘Walastina’ or even ‘Phalastina’ due to the p/w change, cf. with literature Weeden 2013: 10; Yakubovich 2015a: 38. To be read perhaps in Luwian as Falastini(ya) after Ilya Yakubovich, who did present the previous form under the lemmata Falistini(ya)- ‘Falistina’, and its adjective Falistinizza- ‘of Falistina’, in his online corpus ACLT (since 2013).

998873_Bior_2016_1-2_01.indd8873_Bior_2016_1-2_01.indd 2222 330/05/160/05/16 11:5711:57 41 THE LOCATION AND ERECTION OF THE STORM-GOD STELAE FROM ARSUZ 42

the land of Hiyawa (Cilicia) and there made his “skill pass kingdom there were large scale Aramaean upheavels at the before the city ... [name believed unreadable]” (§§ 13-14). end of the 10th century BCE, which makes such a campaign The erection of the stelae is also mentioned (§ 18) and Dinçol in this period to Cilicia less likely. In the east there were et al. offer two possible scenarios for the location where the migrations of the Yahanite and Bit-Adini tribes, and in the stelae may have been erected. The first scenario places them north on the way to Cilicia the later city-state of Sam’al in their find-spot Arsuz, “in different parts of it”. In addition, (mod. Zincirli) rose to power.5 ) however, they develop an alternative scenario which they Rather than to an invasion and occupation it appears that seem to prefer. In this scenario, the stelae were left behind the inscriptions refer only to a small expedition to Cilicia, in Arsuz during their transit, but were intended to be erected where the king showed his ‘skill’ (WARPI) before a town respectively in Adana, the capital of Cilicia, and perhaps in (other than Adana), whose name is esteemed ‘unreadable’ the other city with the unreadable name there, where Sup- and has not been deciphered by Dinçol et al. Without occu- piluliuma I had been active. pation, the erection of the monuments abroad would be In this article I will argue, in section 2, that the alternative impossible. For such Neo-Hittite Storm-god stelae, even scenario as provided by Dinçol et al. cannot be correct and when erected as ‘victory monuments’, there was always an that we have to stick to the first scenario. Starting from this element of associated veneration.6) This can be seen in the point of view I will analyse, in section 3, the clauses text of the Arsuz stelae as well, where reference is made to §§ 11-14. It seems plausible then in my view that Arsuz was bread offerings which may not be removed (§ 23). Such a already dependent on Cilicia before c.910 BCE, which may veneration and claim is only recognised within their own make the casusbelli an economic one. In section 4 I will try territory. to decode the ‘unreadable city name’, step by step, first by This leads us to a last objection against the scenario that analysing the signs at the end of the word, then by identify- the monuments were intended to be erected outside of Arsuz. ing the city as the most important port of Cilicia, and further- From images on coins from the Roman period it appears that more by trying to find the Hittite name of it, which may be in Arsuz (class. Rhosus), there was still a form of Storm-god indicated in a treaty from the 14th century BCE, after which worship in its Semitic manifestation in the first century BCE, the reading of the initial logographic sign of the word may considering the fact that the city’s symbol was a standing become apparent. In section 5 follows a more detailed figure of the god just like the Storm-god of Arsuz.7 ) This research into the location of the stelae in Arsuz, studying the makes it likely that Arsuz has always been the place of erec- differences between the two stelae in order to gain a better tion, and not “simply a place where they were abandoned in understanding of their realization. I will argue that the differ- transit to unreached destination(s)”, as Dinçol et al. have it. ences in the images of the Storm-god may have their origin We must therefore opt for the first scenario, namely that in two different designs, linked up with their different loca- the monuments had been erected at the find-spot, in Arsuz tions in Arsuz. The multiple differences in the spelling of the itself. The unnamed city, referred to as “this city” (§ 7), will two identical texts may be explained by the scribe’s working not be Adana in Cilicia — where one of the two monuments method (5.5). Finally, in section 6 a dating of the destruction in the alternative scenario of Dinçol et al. was intended to and burial of the stelae will be proposed. have been erected — but Arsuz itself, lying within the bor- ders of the Neo-Hittite kingdom Walastina. Hence, the 2 Objections to the alternative scenario unnamed city, where the revolt had taken place which the king ‘overcame’, was indeed Arsuz. The other monument The first major argument against the scenario that the ste- with the duplicate text, found buried along with the first stele lae were left behind during their transit, is that there is no in Arsuz, also stood in Arsuz, and was not intended for erec- evidence to suggest that Suppiluliuma I of Walastina subju- tion outside the land’s borders at the other city with the gated the land of Cilicia for a brief or longer period around unreadable name in Cilicia (§ 14). Thus we may conclude 910 or 900 BCE — nor even a part of it as far as its capital that the burial of the monuments took place in Arsuz as well, Adana. This would have required a large-scale expedition, since they were also erected there. which is not attested. Moreover, it is unlikely that the Neo- Hittite kings, like their predecessors from the Empire Period, 3 Further analysis of the historical context of §§ 11-14 had the necessary manpower and resources to do so. The known inscriptions regarding the military activities of these small kingdoms mostly concern border skirmishes or inter- 3.1 The reaction of Adana ventions within their own land. Furthermore, their relative The historical context becomes clearer when the text as weakness is also evident from the fact that they needed to given by Dinçol et al. is analysed differently. The under- forge great anti-Assyrian alliances to deal with the Neo- 3 standing of the clauses §§ 11-14 could be improved by also Assyrian resurgence. ) taking into account some recent corrections made by Ilya A second important argument is the political-geographic situation of the kingdom of Walastina with its capital Kina- lia/Kunulua (mod. ) in the Amuq, the plain of 5) Cf. Lipiński 2000: 238-239; Bryce 2012: 163ff., The Aramaean (Assyrian Unqi).4 ) To the east and north of this States. 6) For this type of inscriptions cf. Hawkins 2000: CHLI, Vol. I passim; for examples of their dedicatory function, and stelae serving as cultic objects, cf. Hutter 2003: 259-260. 3) Cf. Bryce 2012: 209ff.; Giusfredi 2010: 26ff. For a different opin- 7) Cf. coins from Rhosus (first century BCE), showing the facing cult- ion about the conflict that existed between Suppiluliuma I and Cilicia, statue of “the Syrian divinity Baal Hadad” and attributes of this god “wor- indicating “how the kingdom of Walistin was a force to be reckoned with shipped as god of storm, thunder, and soil fertility”, see Levante 1985: 239. (...), at least in the tenth century”, see Weeden 2013: 19. I am grateful to Dr Frans Bruna and classicist Jaap Croonen, members of 4) Cf. Harrison 2014: 396-397; Bryce 2012: 128-133, treating ‘A king- our Hittite reading-club ‘Ex Oriente Lux’, for their help and advice con- dom of the Philistines?’ and ‘The Kings of Pattin’. cerning these coins.

998873_Bior_2016_1-2_01.indd8873_Bior_2016_1-2_01.indd 2323 330/05/160/05/16 11:5711:57 43 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXXIII N° 1-2, januari-april 2016 44

Yakubovich and Rostislav Oreshko (see below). Immediately following the passage about “this city”, which we now take to be Arsuz, there is an idiomatic expression which is not fully understood, but states that Adana did something nega- tive. Dinçol et al. think of a personal affront to the king “mocking/cheating?”, which the king also managed to ‘overcome’: (1) ARSUZ 1-2, §§ 11-12 (after A1 in edition) § 11 L.429-sa-pa-wa/i-mu(URBS) (LIGNUM)tara/i-wa/i |PONERE-wa/i-ta § 12 a-wa/i |SUPER+ra/i CRUS-ha “The city/land Adana ‘put me to the stick’, and I overcame”. The geographical name L.429-sa(-) (§ 11) is read as (A) TANA-sa(-)(URBS) (in A1) and as (A)T[ANA]-sa(-)(REGIO) (in A2) “the city/land Adana”. Dinçol et al. do not mention the recent important proposition regarding reading the sign L.429 as instead of (see Oreshko 2013), and apparently dismiss this. This suggestion of Oreshko has Fig. 1 Map of the SinusIssicus (mod. Gulf of Iskenderun) in the led to an interesting debate between David Hawkins and Ilya Classical (Roman) Period (after Calder-Bean 1958) Yakubovich, in which the latter re-evaluates the arguments and judges that “Oreshko’s hypothesis remains viable”.8) Moreover, in a recent reaction Rostislav Oreshko has made it convincingly clear that the sign L.429 is found in A1 (Rhosus) — the revolt of this “this city” —to the change of only (§ 11), while A2 should be read h[i-ia-wa/i]-sa(-) rule in Walastina (c. 910/900 BCE), when the new monarch (REGIO) = /H[iyawa]s/ ‘the land Hiyawa’, equal to the syl- Suppiluliuma I seeks to reassert central authority in this pros- labic writing of |hi-ia-wa/i(-)(REGIO) in both texts (§ 13). perous province.11) Maybe (LIGNUM)tara/i-wa/i and in A2 Hence, the debate has now decided in favour of reading |(“LIGNUM”)ru-wa/i-i12) = /tarwi tuwa-/ “put on/to the L.429 as HIYA(WA), and it could even be read logographi- wood/stick” is expressing the disagreement which arose as a cally (see Oreshko 2015: 124).9) This would give the transla- result — perhaps a kind of boycott (?) —, because Adana tion: ‘The city/land Hiyawa (!) ‘put me to the stick’, and I refused to pay the ‘ideal prices’ (mentioned in § 5), which overcame’. Also with this reading and translation, the name Suppiluliuma I now demanded for his corn and wine, or they ‘Hiyawa-city’ refers to the capital of Cilicia, in which case blamed him for unpaid debts after his defeat of Arsuz only Adana is eligible. (Rhosus). However, a more military interpretation of the In § 11 the connective particle -pa- = /ba/ ‘but’ has left expression as proposed by Ilya Yakubovich cannot be untranslated by Dinçol et al. If one does translate it, then the excluded.13) contrast with the preceding clause becomes clearer and there The translation given by Dinçol et al. of SUPER+ra/i is also a better contextual consistency of events: ‘But (!) the CRUS = /sarra ta-/ ‘to overcome’ — as the derived meaning city/land Hiyawa ‘put me to the stick’’. There is talk of a (also in § 9) — is improved by Yakubovich, taking its literal new fact in the story of the king, but the event is a response meaning “to stand up, rise up” (Yakubovich 2015b: 58). to what went on before. Instead of thinking of a type of per- Hence, I would prefer to understand citation 1 (§§ 11-12): sonal affront to the king, as is suggested, one may think of a /Hiyawas=ba=wa=mu tarwi tuwatta a=wa sarra tahha/14) response by Adana to the preceding events. “But the city/land Hiyawa ‘put me to the stick’ (boycotted? The kingdom of Hiyawa (Cilicia), with its capital Adana, me), and I rose up.” lay directly opposite Arsuz across the Gulf of İskenderun (class. Sinus Issicus) (Fig. 1), and apparently responded in a hostile way to the action of Suppiluliuma I to force “this 3.2 Journey to Cilicia and action before an unidentified city city” (Arsuz) to get in line. Ρωσός This is then followed by Suppiluliuma’s response to the Most probably the coastal city Arsuz (Greek ‘ ) was reaction of Adana, by making a journey to Hiyawa (Cilicia) already under the influence of Adana and its rulers for some and his action there before an unidentified city: time, with their dynasty descending from the Greek Mop- sus.10) This was maybe already the case under his ancestors, because Suppiluliuma I at the end of his historical narrative 11) For the favourable agricultural and forestry conditions on the west slope of Mt Amanus, see Klengel 1970: 30. — with a familiar topos — boasts that he has performed 12) Correct in edition the ending -wa/i in A2 (§11) and read instead: these actions, unlike his fathers and grandfathers (§§ 15-17). -wa/i-i (after photo and drawing) as is correctly done by Dinçol et al. in If they had been under the influence of Cilicia for a long their Commentary. Correct also in A1 (end of line 4) |INFRA-tá (§10), time, this might explain the resistance of the people of Arsuz read: INFRA-tá (correctly done in Commentary as well). 13) Cf. the proposed translation: “The town/land *429 (Hiyawa) made me take up arms”, see Yakubovich 2015b: 58, and cf. Oreshko 2015: 124, 8) This debate started in the same journal’s issue (AnatolianStudies 65) who prefers to understand quite the opposite: “Hiyawa turned the spears/ in which the edition was published: first an ‘Addendum’ by Hawkins arms against me”. I would prefer to understand ‘(put me) to the stick’ as a (2015: 54-55) to Yakubovich 2015a: 35-53, then the latter’s ‘Reply’ kind of economic sanction (understand ‘stick’ = ‘tally-stick’?). (Yakubovich 2015b: 56-58). 14) Bound transcription here and below in this paper after the Luwian 9) For the scribe’s logographic working-method, see below section 5.5. corpus ACLT on line (now named there ‘interpretative transliteration’), see 10) For this debate and a new view on the relationship between the Yakubovich (since 2013), with updates about Arsuz. I am grateful to Ilya Phoenician and Luwian texts from Cilicia, see Yakubovich 2015a: 35-53. Yakubovich for sending me these updates in advance.

998873_Bior_2016_1-2_01.indd8873_Bior_2016_1-2_01.indd 2424 330/05/160/05/16 11:5711:57 45 THE LOCATION AND ERECTION OF THE STORM-GOD STELAE FROM ARSUZ 46

(2) ARSUZ 1-2, §§ 13-14 (after A1 in edition) Cilicia. The unusual position of |PRAE-i = /pari/ ‘before, in § 13 wa/i-tá-*a |hi-ia-wa/i-ha(REGIO) |(PES2)tara/i-zi-ha front of’, known as postposition and here used as § 14 a-wa/i |PRAE-i CAPERE+CAPERE-L.417- preposition,20) may emphasise that they were patrolling na(URBS) mi-na-*a |L.273-i-na |hi-nu-wa/i-ha before the city and were perhaps even intending to blockade “I routed? also the land Hiyawa, / or I turned? to the land Hiyawa also, the city, possibly a port (see below). In this case I would and I made my skill pass before the city ...”. prefer to understand citation 2 (§§ 13-14) as follows: /a=wa=tta Hiyawi=ha tarziha a=wa pari ‘XURBS’ amin warpin Dinçol et al. give both the transitive and intransitive aspect hinuwahha/ of the verb |(PES2)tara/i-zi-= /tarzi-/ “to route, turn” (cf. “And I turned also to the land Hiyawa, and I ‘moved’ (sailed?) Rieken 2004). But since there is only one action before one ‘my fighting force’ (my warship(s)?) in front of the city ‘X’.” city, the second option seems most likely to me: thus not the land was ‘routed’ (in ACLT now translated ‘roamed at will’), Maybe this thought is too speculative, but regardless of but that there was a journey made to the land, where some- how this clause should be translated exactly, it in any case thing was done before a city. This leads to the translation: appears that the king personally demonstrated his power and ‘And I turned to the land Hiyawa also, and I made my ‘skill’ determination to safeguard his (commercial) interests. pass before the city ‘X’’. Yakubovich chooses in his debate with Hawkins for the first option, but solves the potential 4 Deciphering the unreadable name of the city in Cilicia problem of ‘also’ in the sentence by designating this as a link to the previous military operations (Yakubovich 2015b: 58), 4.1 The unreadable city name could have the ending -assa/i thus the previous operations relating to the revolt of “this city”, which is now understood as being the city of Arsuz The ‘unreadable’ city’s name (‘X’), written with a few (Rhosus). signs of unknown readings, was not identified and was trans- literated as: CAPERE+CAPERE-L.417-na(URBS) (A1-A2, 3.3 Voyage by ship § 14). In addition to what Dinçol et al. say about it, the syl- labic value of the sign L.417 deserves closer examination. It now seems likely, based on the location of the stelae Looking at the spelling of the word, one would expect a syl- that when Suppiluliuma I went from Arsuz(Rhosus) to Cili- labic sign after a logogram. In TOPADA (§§ 4, 10, 12) this cia he did not make a complete campaign over land to the sign has the value , a value which is relatively certain, north through the difficult mountainous landscape. Within since it is also used as the ending of the nominative singular the present scenario it is more plausible that he made his genus commune (Hawkins 2000: 461).21 ) A reading voyage over sea by ship. With the proposed translation “and CAPERE+CAPERE-sax-na(URBS) provides us with two I made my skill pass” (§ 14) Dinçol et al. interpret mi-na-*a possible interpretations. The first is that we are dealing with |L.273-i-na = /amin warpin/ (accusative singular) ‘my skill’ the dative-locative case in -a of a place name that ended in as the ‘skill’ shown by Suppiluliuma I of Walastina before -san(a)-. However, this dative ending -a does not occur fre- the city ‘X’. However they also point out that the verb used, quently in our corpus (cf. Melchert 2003: 187). The other the causative hinu(wa)- ‘cause to pass’ — which is perhaps possibility with the reading -sax-na, is to think of a place better to translate as ‘move’ —15) is found with various real name containing the (possessive) suffix -assa/i-, the dat.-loc. objects. Here the object is warpi-, which according to Dinçol singular form of which would end in -(as)san (cf. Melchert et al. stands for “a concept which seems to cover a wide 2003: 188). range of meanings, ‘skill, craft, courage, virtue’, etc.”16). But I do not know of another example where this word is com- 4.2 The unreadable city could be the Cilician harbour bined with a possessive pronoun when it is used in a similar Magarsus abstract meaning.17) Mentioned in the text of Arsuz is the personal (real) object Based on the location of the stelae we proposed that Sup- of the king. With the new proposal in ACLT to regard piluliuma I went from Arsuz(Rhosus) to Cilicia by sea (see warp(i)- as a word for ‘weapon’ or ‘tool’,18 ) we could be above, section 3.3). Within this scenario it is likely, that the more concrete in understanding /amin warpin/ now as ‘my unidentified and ‘unreadable’ city will in all probability have fighting force’, which the king ‘moved’ to the Cilician been the city Magarsus (Greek Mάγαρσος). This was “die city.19 ) This may be a reference to a warship, or to warships, wichtigste Hafenstadt Kilikiens”, lying near Cape Karataş, with which the king sailed to the ‘unreadable’ city ‘X’ in ‘the southernmost point of CiliciaCampestris’ (cf. Bossert 1950: 664). It was directly across the Gulf of İskenderun 15) Cf. ACLT s.v. hinu(wa)- (i) ‘to move’ (V), with 10 matches in (class. Sinus Issicus) about 40 km away from Arsuz(Rho- 7 documents. Ilya Yakubovich kindly informs me that a better translation sus), and the now silted mouth of the Pyramus (mod. Çey- could be ‘to spread, extend’ (letter, 6 December 2015). han) (cf. Fig.1). The location was previously confused with 16) Cf. already Hawkins–Morpurgo Davies 1986: 76-77. (mod. Kızıltahta) (cf. Ramsay 1890 (reprint 1962): 17) Cf. “by mighty courage he resolved the dispute” (constructed with- out a possessive pronoun) KARKAMIŠ A4b(CHLI I: II.1, c. 1000 BCE), 385), but this place, which is also located on the Pyramus but 6 § 5, see Hawkins 2000: 80; cf. also Weeden 2013: 10, combining the slightly more inland, probably only took over the role of new evidence from the parallel stele found in 2011, cf. edition by A. Dinçol et al. 2014: 147-148. 18) Cf. ACLT s.v. warp(i)- ‘weapon, tool’ (N,common), with 16 matches in 14 documents. Ilya Yakubovich kindly informs me (in his letter 20) For the small number of prepositions in the hieroglyphic Luwian mentioned above) that he has a footnote formulated about it in a forthcom- corpus, see Melchert 2003: 203. ing paper and intends to write on the topic. 21) For the supposed sign L.417 in ŞIRZI (CHLI I: V.19, Malatya, 1 19) Cf. TOPADA (CHLI I: X.12, Tabal, c. 735 BCE), 3 § 13 (Hawkins § 1, read now L.412 (!), identifying the name of the author as 2000: 453), with a similar translation ‘might’ in combination with the royal Runti(CERVUS3)ya- ‘Runtiya’(?) (now dated c.750 BCE), see Dillo 2013: cavalry. The subject of the phrase is not clear however, see Weeden 2010: 52. 339-340.

998873_Bior_2016_1-2_01.indd8873_Bior_2016_1-2_01.indd 2525 330/05/160/05/16 11:5711:57 47 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXXIII N° 1-2, januari-april 2016 48

Magarsus in the course of the fifth century BCE, after the Akkadian version of the Annals of Hattusili I is URUur-šu course of the river had changed.22) (also KURur-šu), but in the Hittite version the place is called Waršuwa (URUwa-ar-šu-wa) and in my view it should not be URU 4.3 The harbour Magarsus = Hittite Urušša? equated with ‘Urussa’ or Urušša (Akk. ú-ru-uš-ša) in the treaty with Šunašura.26) The city Urušša can never have been The debate concerning the identification of the cuneiform located so far to the east, as is apparent from the quoted place names in Cilicia has a long history in Hittitology, but provision in the treaty, which was already under the authority the identification of the river name Šamri with the river Sey- of the king of Kizzuwatna (‘minor’)— despite being Hurrian han (class. Saros) has long been established.23) The river is earlier. The place name Urušša is also found in Hittite texts, mentioned in the boundary description in the treaty of the spelled in the same manner as in the Akkadian version of the Hittite king Tudhaliya (I/II) with Šunašura of Kizzuwatna treaty, URUu-ru-uš-ša- and URUú-ru-uš-ša-, but from these (early 14th century BCE).24) It is found in the Akkadian ver- attestations it is more difficult to determine the location, sion of this treaty, in the description of the western border of although in one case there is a connection with Kizzuwatna with Hatti (note that the section containing the Kizzuwatna.27) description of the eastern boundary of Kizzuwatna has not In that case identifying the port of Magarsus, at the old been preserved). mouth of the river Ceyhan (class. Pyramus), with the place From the description in the treaty it is clear that the area Urušša, which should also be sought not too far east,28) is, governed by Šunašura spread from the river Seyhan, towards in my view, most likely. Since in the treaty merchants are the east, with Adaniya in its centre (the area surrounding specifically associated with this city, it seems highly plausi- Adana). It thus formed only a small ‘minor’ part (Kizzu- ble that it was indeed a port. watna ‘minor’) of the ancient Kizzuwatna (to be understood as Kizzuwatna ‘maior’), which had fallen under the influence 4.4 The sign CAPERE+CAPERE to be read as MAGNUS of the Hurrian kings of Mittanni in the 15th century BCE. From the treaty between Tudhaliya and Šunašura it becomes If Magarsus can indeed be equated with Urušša, and if this evident that the Hittite king did everything to try and get city is indeed the one that is referred to by the hieroglyphic Kizzuwatna ‘maior’ back in his power, which was defini- writing CAPERE+CAPERE-L.417-na(URBS), as I argued tively lost to the Hittites under his grandfather. Hence, the above, we may read in these signs either Magarsus or Urušša. area from Adaniya to the east was disputed with the Hurrian A reading for CAPERE+CAPERE, yielding Urušša king, and the Ceyhan river (class. Pyramus), to the east of however, is not known, neither is a ‘Dorn’ found written for the river Seyhan and to the east of Adaniya, may have played the value <+ra/i>, which is expected if Magarsus should be a role in this. In the new situation formulated in the treaty read. What I do find striking though is the connection the following applied: “Hatti and the land of Kizzuwatna between the initial elements of both place names, now pro- shall be united” (translation after Beckman 1996: no. 2, §46) posed to refer to the same port, Hittite Urušša and Greek and the duty to resist the power of the Hurrian king in the Magarsus, namely: Ur- as a form of Luwian ura- ‘great’, and Maga- as a possible variation (mega/maga) of Greek μέγα- east or to counter his influence, is formulated as: “we will 29 fight by side against the ruler of Hurri” (Beckman 1996: ‘great’. ) Therefore, we have to look closer to the sign no. 2, §47), all with the aim: “In the future the land of Kiz- CAPERE+CAPERE and consider if this could be zuwatna must not ever again turn to the land of Hurri” MAGNUS? (Beckman 1996: no. 2, §49). Agreements were also made Dinçol et al. suggest that the sign CAPERE+CAPERE, regarding conquests and the exchange of refugees. In refer- also found in the Late Period in HAMA 8 (CHLI I: IX.6, c. ence to this a place name is mentioned, which must be 850 BCE; cf. Hawkins 2000: 410), § 2, replaces the usual located in the eastern area of Kizzuwatna ‘minor’ or on the DEUS determinative for the name of a god. Indeed one can border with the Hurrian territory and which had recently find parallel inscriptions of the god’s name: (DEUS)pa-ha- fallen under the power of Šunašura: “I will never later give la-ti-ia = /Pahala(t)tiya/ ‘for Ba‘alati’, while HAMA 8 at the end of this possibly unfinished inscription has the written: back to the King of Hurri anything of the land of Hurri which 30 was turned over to the possession of Sunashshura — [nei- |(MANUS+MANUS)pa-ha-la-x-x. ) The form Pahala(t)tiya ther] merchants nor the population of the city of Urussa” (Beckman 1996: no. 2, §54). and also known for a legendary Hittite siege (CTH 7), cf. Bryce 1998: The city ‘Urussa’ is often thought to be equivalent to 77-78; Klengel 1999: 47-48. Uršu, known from the Old Assyrian Period and the Annals 26) For proposals on its location cf. Del Monte–Tischler 1978: 475- 476, s.v. Waršuwa, but put under one lemma as variants together Uršu and of Hattusili I, from the Hittite Old Kingdom. This can hardly Uruša as well. For the identification ‘Urussa-Ursu’ “to the north of be correct however. Uršu is thought to have been located ”, see Garstang–Gurney 1959: 55-56. further to the east in Syria, and is usually identified with 27) Cf. still Goetze 1940: 41ff. The city URUu-ru-uš-ša-is connected (mod. Urfa).25 ) The spelling of this place name in the with Kizzuwatna in CTH 133 (Traité d’un Arnuwanda avec les gens d’Ismirika), and URUú-ru-uš-ša can be found in CTH 225 (Donationsroy- alesdeTudhaliyaIVenfaveurdeŠahurunuwa), cf. also Desideri–Jasink 22) Cf. the appearance of the first city coins of Mallus in the late fifth 1990: 86-93 with further literature. century BCE, see Magie 1950 (reprint 1975): 1149-1150, correcting 28) Note that some scholars have identified Urušša with ‘Rhosos/ Ramsay 1890 (reprint 1962): 385. I am grateful to classicist Jaap Croonen Arsuz’ because of its location not too far to the east as well, see Del for verifying the classical sources. For Magarsus see also Desideri–Jasink Monte–Tischler 1978 (s.v. cited above, note 26). 1990: 42. 29) Cf. Greek megaron vs magaron, Megarikos vs Magarikos (< Meg- 23) Cf. Del Monte–Tischler 1978: 546. ara). Here perhaps an Anatolian influence, cf. e/a alternation in Pamphylian 24) For translation and literature, see Beckman 1996: no. 2 (CTH 41). Greek, as for the place name , with the dialectal adjective Estwe- The cited parts of the treaty are taken from this translation. For the political diius derived from Luwian Azatiwadiya, cf. Brixhe 1976: 145-148, 193-196 context see Bryce 1998: 150; Klengel 1999: 112-113. (with the older Luwian readings after Laroche 1960). 25) For the history of the city Uršu/Waršuwa, attacked by Hattušili I in 30) The stele, whose whereabouts and dimensions are unknown, was the region ‘lying west of the Euphrates and north of Carchemish’ (CTH 4), known to Hawkins from a photograph circulated by a Beirut antiquities

998873_Bior_2016_1-2_01.indd8873_Bior_2016_1-2_01.indd 2626 330/05/160/05/16 11:5711:57 49 THE LOCATION AND ERECTION OF THE STORM-GOD STELAE FROM ARSUZ 50

is understood as the personified title of the goddess Kubaba cursiveform pictographicforms ‘Lady, Mistress’, cf. Semitic b‘lt‘lady, mistress’.31) Perhaps one can take now the sign CAPERE+CAPERE = MANUS+MANUS, instead of a variation of DEUS, indeed as being more likely a variation of MAGNUS/UR(A) (L.363), and so HAMA 8, § 2 read as: |MAGNUS(!)(-)pa-ha-la-x-x, and now translate: “(for) the Great (!) Lady”, as a term of *363 address for Kubaba, comparable to MAGNUS.DOMINA ‘great lady, queen’, used for her title ‘Queen of Karkamiš’.32) There is also the writing of MAGNUS.DEUS before some other divine names.33) standardform ARSUZ 1 and 2 HAMA 8 The sign with the ‘two hands’ in ARSUZ 1-2 is connected Fig. 2 Proposed pictographic variants of the sign MAGNUS/UR(A) at the top and so graphically forms one character and no liga- ture of two signs. So possibly what we see here is a picto- graphic variant of the standard sign (*363), 35 which has a more cursive character and the origin of which This suffix is already active early in Kizzuwatna, ) and pos- is not yet understood (Fig. 2) — apart from a proposed sibly the name of the other port — without such a suffix — depiction of ‘ram’s horns’. The hands are perhaps showing a played a role, namely that of Ura. This city was situated ‘great’ distance, but the form will be ‘archaizing’ (note the further to the west in CiliciaAspera, on the coast in Luwian Tarhuntassa and played an important role in the trade with otherwise monumental sign-forms in this inscription), per- 36 haps typical for the scribe tradition in Arsuz and Hama, Ugarit at least since Hattusili III. ) At one time the city’s because this pictographic form is not found in the Empire name Urušša/*Urassa — situated on the coastal shipping Period or elsewhere.34 ) route from Ura to Ugarit and vice versa — was understood as Urassa/i- ‘belonging to Ura’, from which the dative-end- ing -assan became accepted through analogy.37) 4.5 The unreadable city name in Hiyawa = Urassa/i? In turn, the Greek-speaking inhabitants of Cilicia added the prefix maga-, as variation of Greek μέγα- ‘great’, in the Taking the value -sax for L.417, as argued above, and if the reading MAGNUS/UR(A) for CAPERE+CAPERE is cor- spoken form for the place name Urassa/i to distinguish it rect, we may read the hieroglyphic writing of the ‘unreada- from ‘Rhosos’ — situated directly opposite on the other side of the Gulf of İskenderun —, the Greek name of which is ble’ name (in § 14) as MAGNUS-sax-na(URBS) or URA-sax- 38 na(URBS) (dative) = /Ura(s)san/ ‘(before/at) the city identified with Phoenician rōš (cf. Astour 1978). ) This will Urassa/i’ (< Hitt. Urušša = Gr. Magarsos). have occurred early in the Neo-Hittite period, namely at a Then we have to assume that the Luwian inhabitants of time when the first element Ur-/Ura- was still associated Kizzuwatna in developing Urušša> *Urassa during the with Luwian ura-‘great’: ‘Great’-(U)rassa/i (Rhosos) > Empire Period, after some time took the ending of the name Magarsos. Given the Greek colonization of Cilicia from to be that of the possessive adjective -assa/i, which is also 1200 BCE and the contacts with Rhosus even before 900 used for ethnic adjectives (cf. Morpuro Davies 1980: 132). BCE (see above, section 3.1), this will then have occurred before 900 BCE. Later, after the Roman period, the name Magarsus will in turn have influenced the development of Rhosus > Arsuz (cf. Astour 1978, cited above). dealer in 1985. First glance suggested that it was a fake, on account of its unusual appearance (unfinished?), including the unknown final signs. Hawkins however gave several arguments that it must be genuine (Hawkins 5 The location and erection of the stelae: two (?) sculp- 2000: 409-410). His argument about the substitution of MANUS+MANUS for DEUS regarding its genuineness could now be improved, because a tors and one scribe possible relation with MAGNUS (see below) was unknown at that time. A better photograph became available, when the stele was on exhibition in 5.1 Comparable situations ‘The European Fine Art Fair (Tefaf), Maastricht, 4-13 March 2005’, sent in by Gordian Weber Kunsthandel, Köln. This photograph from the cata- We return to the location and the erection of the stelae. logue [page 364], stating: “Basalt, h 44,5 cm; private collection, Neuchâ- tel, prior to 1968”, was at that time also put on the internet. Dinçol et al. regard the duplicate character of the texts of 31) Cf. already Meriggi 1962: 91. ARSUZ 1 and 2 almost unparalleled in hieroglyphic Luwian 32) For MAGNUS.DOMINA = /hassusara-/ ‘queen’ as a title of inscriptions, “only the text exists in duplicate Kubaba, see MEHARDE (CHLI I: IX.13, Hama —read now Amuq/Walas- versions placed on both gates of a city.” There are, however, tina–, 10th cent. BCE) and KARKAMIŠ (CHLI I: II.19, c. 900, and II.26, c. 750 BCE) (cf. Hawkins 2000: 416-417; 119; 142); also with different use of logogram-determinatives, see Hawkins 2000: 417, 384, and 485 (ad 35) Cf. Yakubovich 2010: 39ff., 52-53. For a recent treatment of the SHEIZAR, KIRÇOĞLU, and KULULU 5). genesis of the possessive suffix -a(s)sa/i, see Bauer 2014: 147-151. 33) For the writing MAGNUS.DEUS before divine names, cf. GÜRÜN 36) For earlier localisations of the port Ura, often identified with Silifke (CHLI I: V.2, Malatya, later 12th century BCE), §1, §7 (cf. Hawkins 2000: (class. ) at the delta of the river Göksu (class. Calycadnus), see Del 296-297). Monte–Tischler 1978: 458, s.v. UraII. It is now equated with class. Kelen- 34) The sign was understood rather early in the first stage of decipher- (mod. Gilindere, near Aydıncık), more to the west, see Beal 1992: ment as a ‘signe de suprématie’ and defined as ‘eine Art Volute’, however 68-69; cf. Bryce 1998: 364 note 19; Klengel 1999: 240 note 451. “La nature précise de l’objet représenté est encore inconnue” (Laroche 37) Cf. the comparable problem with the place name /Parnassa(n)/ in 1960: 192, ad no. 363); cf. also Hawkins apud Herbordt (2005: 275) for Karkamiš c. 800 BCE (KARKAMIŠ A24a2+3 (CHLI I: II.25), 2 § 3), L.363 = Cun. GAL, phonetically ura-. The proposal to identify the sign presenting “either acc. or dat. sing. MF of -a-stem or perhaps dat. sing. with ‘ram’s horns’, cf. Bryce 2012: 300 and 296 with fig. 15, now has to (-san) of -i-stem”, Hawkins 2000: 135. The form is understood as dative be abandoned. The now suggested pictographic form of MAGNUS is not of a-stem by Yakubovich in his online corpus ACLT. found in the Empire Period. However, the upside down position in the 38) Astour (1978: 134) identificates the Greek name of Arsuz (Rhosos) ‘Cruciform seal’ (cf. A. Dinçol et al. 1993) could be explained in the same with Phoenician rōš, and proposes the development: Gr. Rhòsos > Arab. way, supposing its origin were two hands. Rūsūs>Arsūs>Arsūz.

998873_Bior_2016_1-2_01.indd8873_Bior_2016_1-2_01.indd 2727 330/05/160/05/16 11:5711:57 51 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXXIII N° 1-2, januari-april 2016 52

situations in the Late Neo-Hittite Period that are more or less drawn that “the fact that fragments of the two stelae were comparable to that of Karatepe c. 700 BCE. In the individual found together indicates that they were located close to each archaeological treatment, given by Aliye Öztan it is noted other”. This is different from the first scenario which is that the production of such monuments as a pair can also be given in the introduction, wherein an establishment “in dif- found with the Storm-god stelae of Tell Ahmar. These mon- ferent parts” of Arsuz is mentioned. But it certainly seems uments are not mentioned by Dinçol et al. at the beginning possible and could point to a situation as in Arslantaş, with of the edition, perhaps because the monuments show differ- two duplicate texts at the same city gate. ent inscriptions and are not duplicate texts, however they can The situation of ÇINEKÖY in Cilicia, south of Adana, be almost simultaneously dated to c. 900 BCE, and both rep- however, teaches us that things could be different. Excava- resent the Neo-Hittite style of the period.39 ) Even earlier, c. tions there have shown that this grand monument of the 1000 BCE, there are two other stelae with identical texts Storm-god with separate chariot pulled by bulls and with a concerning king Ura-Tarhunta of Karkamiš. These inscrip- bilingual inscription (dating from the late 8th century BCE) tions however, are probably not exactly contemporary, as it was already destroyed in antiquity. The broken parts were is assumed that the son of the Country Lord Suhi I dedicated found without further discoveries, approximately 70 cm a smaller replica of the stele his father had previously below ground level, from which was concluded that the ele- erected.40) ments had been removed from their original place of erec- On the other hand, the inscriptions of ARSLANTAŞ (c. tion. The nearest mountain, located 1 km away from the site, 780 BCE), which Dinçol et al. fail to mention are more com- is deemed as the most likely original location, or even that parable with ARSUZ 1-2. Hawkins has only published in his of Magarsus or Mallus about 30 or 25 km to the south.45) A corpus the hieroglyphic text of ARSLANTAŞ (1) on the back distance of 25 km or more however, seems very unlikely to of the southern portal lion from the East Gate of Arslantaş me, when people want to dispose of monuments. A distance (anc. Hadattu) (cf. Hawkins 2000: 246), while publication of of about 1 km is more plausible in such a case, and such a the duplicate text on the back of the northern lion in the same possibility therefore cannot to be ruled out regarding the two gate, discovered by Hannes Galter, was not forthcoming. 41 ) stelae of Arsuz. This inscription, to be named ARSLANTAŞ 2, was observed Hence, the two stelae found together, could have indeed in July 2009 by our visiting team in the garden of the been located in different places in Arsuz. This makes the Museum of Aleppo, and its existence can thus be con- other situation, a location as in Karatepe, possible, where firmed.42) Galter has examined the socio-economic back- each stele was erected at one of the two entrances to the city. ground of these inscriptions on the gate lions of Hadattu As I see it, however, there is only one road across Mt Amanus, which are formulated in multiple languages, and has made connecting with the capital (Tell Tayinat). In that case one clear that the inscriptions in Hadattu were compiled from stele could have been positioned on the landward side, for ideological motives in Assyrian context.43 ) They served all people coming from the direction of the capital, and the other population groups: Assyrian and Aramaic at both main gates, on the seaward side, the port side, for visitors coming from but there was also a duplicate Luwian text at the East Gate overseas (including Magarsus). Given the differences in the leading to the formerly politically Luwian area (Tell Ahmar sculpture of both stelae (see below), explained from ideo- on the Euphrates), and from there onto actual Luwian terri- logical motives, this option appears to be preferable. tory (Karkamiš, 20 km upstream).44) We may then presume that also in Arsuz (Rhosus) ideological motives will have 5.3 The method of the sculptor(s): two designs by possibly played a role in the creation of the stelae. just one sculptor

5.2 The location of the stelae in Arsuz The images on the stelae are described in further detail by Aliye Öztan in the archaeological section. Notable are the There are now two possibilities for the location of the ste- stylistic differences: the Storm-god of ARSUZ 1 is portrayed lae in Arsuz. First, that the stelae were placed together, as in standing on a plant (‘palmette’) “to emphasise the fertilising Arslantaş, at the entrance to the city. The other possibility is element of his nature”, while ARSUZ 2 offers the traditional that, as in Karatepe, each stele was erected at one of the two image with the Storm-god standing on his bull, “signifying entrances to the city. his power”. Based on the further differences in the area of In the above-mentioned special section on the Arsuz “planning, design, the rendering of details and the use of archaeological monuments by Aliye Öztan the conclusion is space” it is then concluded that “these differences are due to the stelae having been executed by different sculptors”. And “the differences observed in the details indicate that the 39) Cf. TELL AHMAR 2 (CHLI I: III.1, Masuwari, c. 900 BCE), see sculptors worked in a free manner, apart from the limitation Hawkins 2000: 227, and TELL AHMAR 6 (ed. Hawkins apud Bunnens 2006: 11, Masuwari, c.900 BCE). of the main, general theme”. 40) See the edition A. Dinçol et al. 2014: 146-147, 151, with further But it is precisely the stylistic differences which make it literature. clear to my mind, that it was an intentional difference in 41) See Hawkins 2000: 226 and 246-248, with plates 103-105 (Tell design associated with an ideological motive, which was per- Ahmar [Assyrian period], 8th century BCE). For the now more precise date of the Arslantaş inscriptions c.780 BCE, see Galter 2004: 449-450. formed at the separated stelae. Within the general theme of 42) Cf. Dillo 2013: 332 note 2, and see my separate note: ‘The unpub- the Storm-god and his fertility, there were two designs: one lished Luwian inscription ARSLANTAŞ 2’, forthcoming (Dillo 2016). directed ‘inwards’, to their own land and its fertility and their 43) See Galter 2004: 450-456. 44) For the situation of the gates and direction of the roads ‘vers Tell Ahmar’ and ‘vers ’, see Thureau-Dangin et al. 1931: 6, Fig. 1, Carte 45) Tekoğlu–Lemaire 2000: 967. For a new synoptic edition of the de la région d’Arslan-Tash, et Annexe, Plan du site d’Arslan-Tash. Fig. 1 initial parts of the Luwian and Phoenician versions of the bilingual inscrip- is repeated in Galter 2004: 444. tion (§§ 1-7), see Yakubovich 2015a: 40-44, with tables 1-2.

998873_Bior_2016_1-2_01.indd8873_Bior_2016_1-2_01.indd 2828 330/05/160/05/16 11:5711:57 53 THE LOCATION AND ERECTION OF THE STORM-GOD STELAE FROM ARSUZ 54

own population (= design one), and the other directed ‘out- in A1 his position is described as BONUS2.SCRIBA-la “the wards’, to the stranger arriving from overseas, who was good scribe”, while A2 simply mentions SCRIBA-la = /tup- 47 warned of the dominance of the reigning monarch (= design pala/ “the scribe”. ) The sign BONUS2 (L.370) is well two). Thus, in ARSUZ 1 the motive is the ‘fertilising ele- known from seal impressions dating from the Empire Period. ment’ of the nature of the Storm-god, focused on the (desired) There it is used not just with SCRIBA, but also in conjunc- fertility of the land. The striking difference of the rosette tion with other professions, it is then sometimes also lacking motif, which is found only on ARSUZ 1, fits this design with the same title — even when it is referring to the same because it “should be associated with the concept of fertility seal holder. The older theory that it might indicate a social narrated on the stele”, as indicated by Öztan in his section. qualification (‘noble scribe’?), has largely been abandoned Perhaps then, other major differences also relate to this, such in favour of a kind of determinative ‘good’ with symbolic as the traditional image of the Hittite king, who is depicted meaning of ‘Gutes’ oder ‘Wohlergehen’ (‘für den Siegelin- in the same clothes as the Storm-god, both wearing Anato- haber’) (cf. Herbordt 2005: 91). lian shoes. This was already a familiar sight since the Bronze In the Neo-Hittite period the sign is almost exclusively Age for the Hittite-Luwian population. Thus ARSUZ 1 used for the syllabic value , but in this particular inscrip- would be directed towards the land, perhaps erected at the tion it is not only used for SCRIBA but also before a differ- entrance to the city, coming from the kingdom’s capital. ent logogram. It is used in conjunction with an unknown type In case of ARSUZ 2 on the other hand, with the depiction of wine: BONUS2.VITIS-mi- currently translated as “good of the Storm-god on his bull, ‘power’ is expressed to inspire wine” (§ 5). Dinçol et al. also refer to the use of a title with 48 awe in the visitor. In the text this is also explicitly formulated BONUS2.VITIS on seals from the Empire Period. ) as: “and he (the Storm-god) made me superior to every Furthermore, apart from here in the inscription of Arsuz, king” (§ 21). Here the king is dressed in a more contempo- the title BONUS2.SCRIBA-la is only found in the scribal rary manner in a long skirt,46 ) while the Storm-god is tradi- signatures of MEHARDE and SHEIZAR.49) These inscrip- tionally dressed as it is on the other stele. Both are barefoot, tions are now more precisely dated by Dinçol et al. (2015: which may also be of significance. This stele would then be 63) to the early tenth century, under Taita II of Walastina. erected facing ‘outwards’, to the sea, possibly placed on the We are then possibly dealing with a continuation of the use quayside, facing visitors arriving from the sea. from the Empire Period, perhaps characteristic of the scribe It is quite possible that two different sculptors have simul- tradition in Walastina. taneously worked each on his own stele, but the differences It thus remains uncertain whether the scribe by using in details and use of space, used as an argument for several BONUS2, had any other intention beyond it just being a posi- sculptors, may well be attributed to a single sculptor. This tive symbol. Annick Payne, however, still thinks of a “higher one sculptor could have worked successively on two specific status and thus a hierarchical structure within the profession” different designs of the Storm-god, but was free in working (Payne 2010: 183). It is noteworthy that the personal name on the details. Also, the noticeable errors identified by Öztan of the scribe is identical to the name of the king’s father, in their edition in the spacing, in my vision can be attributed suggesting that it probably concerns a member of the royal to the same sculptor, who obviously had difficulty with this. family. First he began with ARSUZ 1 (design one), but made a (big) mistake on the left (from the viewer’s perspective) with the 5.5 The method of the scribe arm of the king, which is held ‘protectively’ by the Storm- god. In his subsequent work on ARSUZ 2 (design two) he The texts A1 and A2 are essentially identical, yet they corrected that error, but then committed another (smaller) show some differences in the word endings. Dinçol et al. fault because he ran out of space on the right, meaning the point to the omission of case-endings and the curious alterna- Storm-god’s trident could not be displayed completely. Apart tion in the toponym ‘Walastin’, but on closer inspection there from other minor differences, there are striking similarities, are more differences, which should be attributed to the writ- such as the image of the ear of corn and the strangely shaped ing habits of that one scribe Manana. cluster of grapes in the hands of the king, identical on both Except for variations in the writing of word-dividers stelae, which supports the argument of one and the same (L.386), and whether or not the logogram marker (L.410) has sculptor. been written, it is the variation in plene writing versus non- Therefore, the Arsuz stelae may well have been made one plene writing, also known in cuneiform, which is most strik- after the other by the same sculptor, which — given the mis- ing.50) Although the spellings used in A1 and A2 are often takes he made — presumably started with ARSUZ 1. The similar (5×),51 ) one also finds plene writing in A1 vs method of the scribe of both texts can confirm this even further. 47) Here we stick to the identification of L.326-la = SCRIBA-la ‘scribe’, which may be confirmed by the method the text was written, espe- 5.4 The identity of the scribe cially the last phrase, the ‘scribal signature’ (see below). This identification was challenged by Theo van den Hout at the 9th International Congress of Both texts (A1 and A2) name in their ‘scribal signature’ Hittitology (Çorum, September 2014), where he proposed to understand the sign representing ‘a high official’, not a simply ‘scribe’. I am grateful to one scribe, Manana, without revealing his descent. However, him for receiving his hand-out of the congress. 48 ) The title MAGNUS.(BONUS2)VITIS equates the military function of cuneiform GAL.GEŠTIN, see B. Dinçol 1998: 163-167; cf. also 46) Cf. e.g. the reference by Dinçol et al. (2015: 75) to KARKAMIŠ Hawkins apudHerbordt 2005: 311. A13d (CHLI I: II.16, plate 24), with the representation of Katuwa, the 49) CHLI I: IX.13-14, cf. Hawkins 2000: 418. Karkamišean Country-Lord, dated probably 10th or early 9th century BCE 50) For a recent study in plene spelling in Hittite, see Kloekhorst 2014. (cf. Hawkins 2000: 115), hence contemporary with Suppiluliuma I of 51) Plene writing in A1 = A2: REL-ti-i (§6), “I”-ti-i (§10), i-zi-ia-ta Walastina. (§16),i-zi-i-ha (§17), REL-i-sa (§27).

998873_Bior_2016_1-2_01.indd8873_Bior_2016_1-2_01.indd 2929 330/05/160/05/16 11:5711:57 55 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXXIII N° 1-2, januari-april 2016 56

non-plene writing in A2 (3×),52) while the opposite also same ‘handwriting’ of monumental sign-forms. Differences occurs (7×).53) The same applies to the writing of the sign ta only occur in the elaboration of the detail and the placement vs tá.54) Often the spelling is the same (9×),55) but one also of the signs on the ‘writing surface’. finds ta in A1 vs tá in A2 (2×),56) and vice versa (5×).57 ) Since the sentence structure in A1 and A2 is identical eve- There are also other noticeable differences (26×), in particu- rywhere except in the ‘scribal signature’,61 ) the conclusion lar that, especially after logograms, there are a number of may be drawn that the scribe worked from an example, a variations in the endings (22×).58 ) One can even draw up a draft, the text of which was formulated succinctly without a list of logograms which are written with endings in A1 and ‘scribal signature’.62) The preparation of this draft was most without them in A2 (7×), but the reverse occurs just as well probably formulated on a wooden writing board (perhaps (4×) (Table1). These logograms are most of the time used covered with wax),63) where he wrote wherever possible in in the same way in A1 and A2, but sometimes they can be logograms and omitted the endings. However, in the transfer written differently, with an extra determinative,59) and they of the text onto the stelae, he painted the signs from his draft are also interchangeable with syllabic writings.60) onto the stone ready to be chiselled out by the stonemason,64) but further worked freely and at will on the signs and word- Table 1 Variation A1 vs A2 in writing logograms with and endings, calling on his wealth of experience and routine. without endings Here he will not have worked line by line alternately between A1 and A2 — as then, one would expect fewer differences endings A1 no endings A2 — but he worked on the texts one after the other and added 65 I I his own ‘scribal signature’ out of habit. ) §1 PURUS.FONS.MI-sá PURUS.FONS.MI Also the difference in the lines and line height indicates §4 (DEUS)VITIS-ia-sa-ha (DEUS)VITIS that the work was being carried out one after the other. A1 §5 PANIS-li-sa PANIS starts with a rather generous, somewhat idealising ‘I’ (EGO2 CRUS+RA/I CRUS ‘full figure’, cf. L.2), after which the text follows in rela- §14 |L.273-i-na |“L.273” tively narrow lines. A2 starts with the ordinary EGO (L.1) and follows a somewhat grander layout of lines. Yet A2 has §24a (DEUS)BONUS-ma-sa|| (DEUS)BONUS more logograms without endings and on the whole also §24b (DEUS)VITIS-pa+ra/i-ia-sa (DEUS)VITIS fewer signs. Here the writer only followed the image of his draft text and he worked on the text freely without authenti- no endings A1 syllabic, or endings A2 cation with A1. Perhaps the different location of the stelae §5 CENTUM CENTUM-ni during the application of the text played a role in this. In short, we may cautiously conclude that the writer §17 EGO mu-*a Manana, possibly a member of the royal family — and then §25 CAELUM(-) CAELUM-sa(-) a high official indeed —, in consultation with Suppiluliuma 66 α §28 CAPERE+SCALPRUM CAPERE.SCALPRUM-tà I of Walastina, ) prepared a draft text ( ), which of course has not been preserved ([α]), but which was highly logo- graphically formulated. In the application of the text, he The same picture also applies to the design of the various worked together with his stonemason,67) whereby he first signs. This is certainly worth further study, but judging from applied the text (A1) on the supposedly already prepared the published photos and line drawings we see roughly the stele with design 1 (ARSUZ 1). Then, after completion, he went on to work on a similar stele with design 2 (ARSUZ 2) applying the same text (A2), working from the same draft [α] 52) Plene writing in A1 vs non-plene writing in A2: EGO-mi-i vs EGO- (Fig. 3). mi (§1), (“LONGUS”)i+ra/i-ti-i vs |(LONGUS)i+ra/i-ti (§22), DOMI- That he was also auctorintellectualis of the Storm-god NUS-ni-i-sa vs DOMINUS-ni<-sa> (§27). designs seems possible, but this is difficult to decide. Techni- 53) Non-plene writing in A1 vs plene writing in A2: mi-za-*a vs mi-ia- za-*a(§2), (LIGNUM)tara/i-wa/i vs |”LIGNUM”-ru-wa/i-i(cf. above, cal research here may help clarify whether the sculptor of note 12) (§11), mi-na-*a vs [mi]-i-na-*a (§14), |za-na vs |za-a-na(§18, §23), MATER-na-tí-ni-sa vs MATER-na-tí||-ni-i-sa(§24a), CAELUM-si- pa-wa/i-tú vs [CAE]LUM-si-i-pa-wa/i-tú (§26). 54) For the difference between ta and tá at least in the Karkamiš tradi- 61) Only two times the direct sequence of two words has changed as tion between 1100 and 850 BCE, see Rieken 2010: 301-310. wel (§2, §18). 55) Sign ta- both in A1 and in A2 (4x), see §7, §8, §16, §19; sign tá- 62) This plausible inference is supported by lengthy experience in stud- both in A1 and in A2 (5x), see §2, §8, §13, §15, §25. ying the intrinsic and extrinsic elements of mediaeval charters and their 56) Sign ta- in A1 vs tá in A2: |PONERE-wa/i-ta vs PONERE-wa/i-tá|| copies. For an early study of mine in diplomatics, in German, see Dillo (§11), |i-zi-ia-ta vs |i-zi-ia-tá(§15). 1988. For a brief introduction to this science especially for ‘cuneiformists’, 57) Sign tá- in A1 vs ta- in A2: wa/i-tá-*a vs [wa/i]-ta-*a (§10), see Waal 2015: 1-2. INFRA-tá|| (cf. above, note 12) vs [INFR]A-ta (§10), [ ]-pa-wa/i-[...]-tá 63) For the hieroglyphic writing on wood in Hittite Anatolia, see Waal vs |ni-pa-wa/i-tú-ta (§23), pa-ti-pa-wa/i-tá-*a vs pa-ti-pa-wa/i-ta-*a 2011: 21-34. For writing in hieroglyphic Luwian in the Iron Age, see Payne (§24a), |tá-ti-sa-pa-wa/i-tú-távs |tá-ti-sa-pa-wa/i-tú-ta (§24b). 2010: 182-187. 58) For some other spelling variations in A1 vs A2, cf. §§ 1-7, 11, 14, 64) For the sculptural techniques in antiquity, special in the Hittite 17-18, 20, 23-25, 27-28. Empire, see Alexander 1986: 27ff. 59) In A1 PANIS vs in A2 SCUTELLA.PANIS (§23), and otherwise in 65) This may well confirm the understanding SCRIBA-la as ‘scribe’ A1 BONUS2.SCRIBA- vs in A2 SCRIBA- (§28). (cf. above, note 47), because this functionary will have been here the 60) In A1 EGO vs in A2 syllabic mu-*a (§17), but also in A1 and in scribent himself. A2 both syllabic (§18); see also now the correction mentioned above (sec- 66) Cf. his declaration: “This mighty Storm-god (stele) I myself Sup- tion 3.1): in A1 HIYAWA-sa(-)(URBS) vs syllabic in A2 h[i-ia-wa/i]-sa(-) piluliuma set up, King Manana’s (A2 var.: Amanana’s) son” (§18). (REGIO) (§11), after Oreshko 2015: 124. But otherwise in A1 syllabic 67) For the mention of the scribe and his stonemason, see Payne 2010: |pu-tà vs logographic in A2 VIA.PUGNUS-tà (§20). 183 note 6.

998873_Bior_2016_1-2_01.indd8873_Bior_2016_1-2_01.indd 3030 330/05/160/05/16 11:5711:57 57 THE LOCATION AND ERECTION OF THE STORM-GOD STELAE FROM ARSUZ 58

[α] BCE and author of the text, came to this place by sea, since (highly logographic) a campaign overland is extremely unlikely. Furthermore, Magarsus is identified with the Hittite port Urušša, men- tioned in the 14th century BCE, which lends the possibility of seeing in the sign CAPERE+CAPERE the pictographic variant of MAGNUS. After these identifications the logo- graphic spelling of the place name situated in Cilicia can be A1 read as Urassa/i. A2 The new identification and deciphering present a more Fig. 3 Stemma of the texts on ARSUZ 1 and 2 coherent historical picture in which it is clear that Arsuz (Rhosus) even before 900 BCE was under Cilician Greek influence. The king commemorates his successful reaction to the situation and to a possible boycott of Cilicia with the design 1 is indeed identical to the sculptor of design 2 — erection of two Storm-god stelae. The differences in design possibly even identical to the stonemason of the inscriptions are conspicuous, but can be explained in terms of a deliber- A1 and A2 — which would seem most credible. ately distinctive design. These are explained here ideologi- cally, partly on the basis of comparison with the Luwian inscriptions of Arslantaş (anc. Hadattu). The differences in 6 Dating the destruction and burial of the stelae design can also be attributed to a single sculptor and can be With the recent archaeological findings in Tell Tayinat in linked to the location of the stelae: ARSUZ 1 was most mind, one may even wonder if it is not possible to determine probably located at the landward entrance of the city, while the date of the removal and burial of the monuments more ARSUZ 2 was erected seaward, on the quayside. The method accurately. In the gate complex leading to the acropolis in of the experienced writer Manana, presumably a member of Tell Tayinat an upper torso and head of a colossal human the royal family, who was responsible for the text on both figure have been excavated, “buried in a paved stone surface monuments, appears to substantiate this idea. He has at dif- that appears to have formed a passageway through the gate ferent locations for each separate stele repeatedly consulted complex” (cf. Harrison 2014: 408). The inscription on the his draft, which must have been highly logographically for- back (TELL TAYINAT 4) makes it possible to attribute this mulated. The stelae were most probably torn down after the sculpture to Suppiluliuma equivalent to the Patinean king Assyrian conquest of the kingdom’s capital in 738 BCE and buried in Arsuz, on the site where they were discovered in Sapalulme known from the Assyrian campaign of 858 BCE, and now considered Suppiluliuma II (of Walastina), the 2007. grandson of the author of the Arsuz inscriptions.68 ) The gate complex was destroyed by the Assyrian conquest of the city in 738 BCE and the “smashed remains of the monumental References sculptures” were buried under a new Assyrian courtyard ACLT, see Yakubovich (since 2013) (Harrison 2014: 410). CHLI, see Hawkins 2000 Presumably, therefore, the older Storm-god stelae from CTH, see Laroche 1971 Arsuz (from about 910/900 BCE) were smashed and broken Alexander, R. L. 1986: ThesculptureandsculptorsofYazılıkaya. in a similar way during the Assyrian conquest of the country University of Delaware/AUP, Newark/London etc. in 738 BCE, whereafter — afraid of the curses against van- Astour, M.C. 1978: ‘Continuité et changement dans la toponymie dals these texts contained — the monuments both were bur- de la Syrie du nord’, in LaToponymieAntique.ActesduCol- ied carefully some distance away from their place of erection loquedeStrasbourg12-14juin1975 (Université des Sciences as in Çineköy, but still in Arsuz itself (at the location of the Humaines de Strasbourg, Travaux du centre de Recherche sur la Proche-Orient et la Grèce Antiques 4; Brill, Leiden): 117- present-day naval base), or otherwise at least one of them 141. was moved away and buried along with the other, near the 69 Bauer, A. H. 2014: Morphosyntaxofthenounphraseinhiero- place of erection of that stele as in Tell Tayinat. ) glyphicLuwian (Brill’s Studies in Indo-European languages and linguistics 12). Brill, Leiden etc. 7 Conclusion Beal, R. H. 1992: ‘The location of Cilician Ura’, AnatolianStudies 42: 65-73. By making clear that the find-spot Arsuz (Rhosus) of the Beckman, G. 1996: Hittitediplomatictexts; ed. by H.A. Hoffner stelae ARSUZ 1 and 2 is the same as the place of their erec- Jr. (Writings from the ancient world 7). Scholars Press, tion, it is possible to identify the ‘unreadable’ place name in Atlanta, Georgia. Bossert, H.Th. 1950: ‘Vorbericht über die archäologische Untersu- Hiyawa (Cilicia) with that of Magarsus located across the chung von Karataş’, Belleten 14: 664-666. Gulf of İskenderun, the most important Cilician port of that Brixhe, C. 1976: LedialecteGrecdePamphylie.Documentset period. Suppiluliuma I, king of Walastina, around 910/900 grammaire (Bibliothèque de l’Institut Français d’Études Ana- toliennes d’ 26). Adrien-Maisonneuve, Paris. Bryce, T. 1998: TheKingdomoftheHittites. OUP, Oxford. 68) Cf. Dinçol et al. 2015: 62-63; Weeden 2013: 12. — 2012: 69 TheworldoftheNeo-Hittitekingdoms.Apoliticaland ) When was the Çineköy monument buried? One could think of the militaryhistory. OUP, Oxford. Assyrian expedition to Que (Hiyawa) in 696 BCE, after the death of Sargon in 705 BCE in Tabal. Another possibility depends on the answer to the Calder, W.M. and G.E. Bean 1958: AclassicalmapofAsiaMinor. question if Sanduwarri of Kundi and Sissu, executed by the Assyrians in Beingapartialrevision,bypermissionofMessrs.JohnMur- 675 BCE, was the same as Azatiwada (from KARATEPE 1), cf. Hawkins ray,ofJ.G.C.Anderson’sMapofAsiaMinor. The British 2000: 45 (but left beside by Bryce 2012: 160-162, 288). Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, London.

998873_Bior_2016_1-2_01.indd8873_Bior_2016_1-2_01.indd 3131 330/05/160/05/16 11:5711:57 59 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXXIII N° 1-2, januari-april 2016 60

Del Monte, G. F. und J. Tischler 1978: RépertoireGéographique — 2015: ‘Addendum to ‘Phoenician and Luwian in Early Iron Age desTextesCunéiformes, Band 6, DieOrts-undGewässer- Cilicia’ by Ilya Yakubovich’, AnatolianStudies 65: 54-55. namenderhethitischenTexte (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas Hawkins, J.D. & A. Morpurgo Davies 1986: ‘Studies in hiero- des Vorderen Orients, B 7/6). L. Reichert, Wiesbaden. glyphic Luwian’, in H.A. Hoffner Jr. and G.M. Beckman Desideri, P. & A. M. Jasink 1990: Ciliciadall’etàdiKizzuwatna (eds), Kaniššuwar.AtributetoHansG.Güterbockonhis allaconquistamacedone (Università degli Studi di Torino, seventy-fifthbirthdayMay27,1983(Assyriological studies Storia 1). Le Lettere, Torino. 23; Oriental Institute, Chicago): 69-81. Dillo, M. 1988: ‘Moderne Fälschung oder ‘acte recrit’? Untersu- Herbordt, S. 2005: DiePrinzen-undBeambtensiegelderHeth- chung der Neuausfertigung angeblicher Originale mittelalter- itischenGrossreichszeitaufTonbullenausdemNişantepe- licher Schöffenurkunden von ’s-Hertogenbosch’, in W. Setz Archivin (Boğazköy-Hattuša 19). Von Zabern, Mainz (ed.), FälschungenimMittelalter.InternationalerKongreß am Rhein. derMonumentaGermaniaeHistorica,München,16.-19.Sep- Hutter, M. 2003: ‘Aspects of Luwian religion’, in H.C. Melchert tember1986 (Schriften der Monumenta Germaniae Historica (ed.), TheLuwians (HbO I, 68; Brill, Leiden etc.): Chapter 33 (6 vols); Hahn/MGH, Hannover): Teil IV, Diplomatische Six, 211-280. Fälschungen (II), 447-482. Klengel, H. 1970: GeschichteSyriensim2.Jahrtausendv.u.Z., — 2013: ‘The name of the author of ŞIRZI. A text collation’, Bib- Teil 3. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin. liothecaOrientalis 70: 332-360. — unter Mitwirkung von F. Imparati, V. Haas und Th.P.J. van den — 2016: ‘The unpublished Luwian inscription ARSLANTAŞ 2: a Hout 1999: GeschichtedeshethitischenReiches (HbO I, 34). duplicate version comparable with the situation of ARSUZ 1 Brill, Leiden etc. and 2’, NouvellesAssyriologiquesBrèvesetUtilitaires 2016/1 Kloekhorst, A. 2014: AccentinHittite.Astudyinplenespelling, (forthcoming) consonantgradation,clitics,andmetrics (Studien zu den Dinçol, A., B. Dinçol, J.D. Hawkins, G. Wilhelm 1993: ‘The “Cru- Boğazköy-Texten 56). Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden. ciform Seal” from Boğazköy-Hattusa’, (in FsNeve) Istan- Laroche, E. 1960: Les Hiéroglyphes Hittites. Premier Partie, bulerMitteilungen 43: 87-106, Taf. 6. L’écriture. CNRS, Paris. —, B. Dinçol, J.D. Hawkins, N. Marchetti, H. Peker 2014: ‘A stele — 1971: CataloguedestextesHittites (Études et commentaires by Suhi I from Karkemish’, OrientaliaN.S.83: 143-153, with 75). Klincksieck, Paris. Tab. IV-VI. Levante, E. 1985: ‘The Coinage of Rhosus’, NumismaticChronicle Dinçol, B. 1998: ‘Der Titel GAL.GEŠTIN auf den hethitischen 145: 237-243. Hieroglyphensiegeln’, Altorientalische Forschungen 25 Lipiński, E. 2000: TheAramaeans,theirancienthistory,culture, (1998): 163-167. religion (Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 100). Peeters, Leuven. —, †A. Dinçol, J.D. Hawkins, H. Peker and A. Öztan, with a con- Magie, D. 1950 (reprint 1975): RomanRuleinAsiaMinortothe tribution by Ö. Çelik 2015: ‘Two new inscribed Storm-god endofthethirdcenturyafterChrist. Princeton, New Jersey stelae from Arsuz (İskenderun): ARSUZ 1 and 2’, Anatolian (reprint Arno Press, New York). Studies 65: 59-77, with 11 figs. Melchert, H. C. 2003: ‘Language’, in H.C. Melchert (ed.), The Galter, H.D. 2004: ‘Militärgrenze und Euphrathandel. Der sozio- Luwians (HbO I, 68; Brill, Leiden etc.): Chapter Five, 170- ökonomische Hintergrund der Trilinguen von Arslan Tash’, in 210. R. Rollinger and C. Ulf (eds), Commerceandmonetarysys- Meriggi, P. 1962: Hieroglyphisch-HethitischesGlossar.Zweite, temsintheAncientWorld.Meansoftransmissionandcultural völligumgearbeiteteAuflage. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden. interaction.ProceedingsoftheFifthAnnualSymposiumofthe Morpurgo Davies, A. 1980: ‘Analogy and the -an Datives of Hier- AssyrianandBabylonianIntellectualHeritageProject.Held oglyphic Luwian’, AnatolianStudies 30: 123-137. inInnsbruck,Austria,October3rd-8th,2002 (Melammu Sym- Oreshko, R. 2013: “The Achaean hides, caged in yonder beams”: posia 5; Steiner, Stuttgart): 444-460. The value of Hieroglyphic Luwian sign *429 reconsidered and Garstang, J. and O.R. Gurney 1959: ThegeographyoftheHittite a new light on the Cilician Ahhiyawa’, Kadmos 52: 19-33. Empire (Occasional publications of the British Institute of — 2015: ‘Once again on the reading of Hieroglyphic Luwian sign Archaeology in Ankara 5). British Institute of Archaeology in *429: the evidence of the newly published ARSUZ inscrip- Ankara, London. tions’, NouvellesAssyriologiquesBrèvesetUtilitaires 2015/3: Giusfredi, F. 2010: Sourcesforasocio-economichistoryofthe 123-125, Note Brève 74. Neo-HittiteStates(Texte der Hethiter 28). Winter, Heidelberg. Payne, A. 2010: ‘‘Writing’ in Hieroglyphic Luwian’, in I. Singer Goetze, A. 1940: KizzuwatnaandtheproblemofHittitegeography (ed.), ipamatikistamatiparitumatimis.LuwianandHittite (Yale Oriental Series, Researches 22). Yale UP, New Haven, studiespresentedtoJ.DavidHawkinsontheoccasionofhis Conn. 70thbirthday (Institute of Archaeology Tel Aviv University, Harrison, T. P. 2014: ‘Recent discoveries at Tayinat (ancient Kulu- Monograph Series 28; Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv): nua/Calno) and their biblical implications’, in C.M. Maier (ed.), 182-187. CongressVolumeMunich2013 (Brill, Leiden etc.): 396-425. Rieken, E. 2004: ‘Luwisch tarza/i’, in A. Hyllested et al. (eds), Per Hawkins, J. D. 2000: CorpusofHieroglyphicLuwianinscriptions, AsperaadAsteriscos.StudiaIndogermanicainhonoremJens Vol. I, InscriptionsoftheIronAge (Untersuchungen zur ind- ElmegårdRasmussensexagenariiIdibusMartiisannoMMIV ogermanischen Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft / Studies in (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 60; Institut für Indo-European Language and Culture, N.S. 8.1). De Gruyter, Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck): Berlin etc. Parts 1-2: Text; Part 3: Plates. 457-468. — 2005: ‘Kommentaren zu den Siegelinschriften und Hierogly- — 2010: ‘Das Zeichen im Hieroglyphen-Luwischen’, in phen’, apud S. Herbordt, DiePrinzen-undBeambtensiegel Y. Cohen, A. Gilan and J.L. Miller (eds), PaxHethitica.Stud- der hethitischen Grossreichszeit auf Tonbullen aus dem iesontheHittitesandtheirneighboursinhonourofItamar Nişantepe-Archiv in Hattusa (Boğazköy-Hattusa 19; Von Singer (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 51; Harrassowitz, Zabern, Mainz am Rhein): VIII.3, Commentaries on the read- Wiesbaden): 301-310. ings, 248-313; X.3, Commentary on the sign list, 426-436. Ramsay, W.M. 1890 (reprint 1962): Thehistoricalgeographyof — 2006: ‘The Inscription [TELL AHMAR 6]’, apud G. Bunnens, AsiaMinor. London (reprint Hakkert, Amsterdam). AnewLuwiansteleandthecultoftheStorm-GodatTilBar- Tekoğlu, R. et A. Lemaire avec le concours de I. Ipek et A. K. Tosun sib-Masuwari (Publications de la Mission archéologique de 2000: ‘La bilingue royale Louvito-Phénicienne de Çineköy’, l’Université de Liège en Syrie, Tell Ahmar 2; Peeters, Lou- Comptesrendusdesséancesdel’AcadémiedesInscriptionset vain etc.): Chapter 2, 11-31. BellesLettres,del’année2000 (Paris): 961-1006.

998873_Bior_2016_1-2_01.indd8873_Bior_2016_1-2_01.indd 3232 330/05/160/05/16 11:5711:57 61 BOEKBESPREKINGEN — FARAONISCH EGYPTE 62

Thureau-Dangin, F., A. Barrois, G. Dossin et M. Dunand 1931: Arslan-Tash (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 16). Geuthner, Paris 1931. 2 vols. Texte, Atlas. Waal, W. 2010: HittiteDiplomatics.StudiesinAncientDocument FormatandRecordManagement(Studien zu den Boğazköy- Texten 57).Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden. — 2011: ‘They wrote on wood. The case for a hieroglyphic scribal tradition on wooden writing boards in Hittite Anatolia’, Ana- tolianStudies 61: 21-34. Weeden, M. 2010: ‘Tuwati and Wasusarma: Imitating the behav- iour of Assyria’, (in FsHawkins2)Iraq 72: 39-61. — 2013: ‘After the Hittites: The Kingdoms of Karkamish and Pal- istin in Northern Syria’, BulletinoftheInstituteofClassical Studies56, 2: 1-20. Yakubovich, I. 2010: SociolinguisticsoftheLuvianLanguage (Brill’s Studies in Indo-European Languages and Linguistics 2). Brill, Leiden etc. — (since 2013): Annotated Corpus of Luwian Texts, published on the internet, URL: http://web-corpora.net/LuwianCorpus/ search/. — 2015a: ‘Phoenician and Luwian in early Iron Age Cilicia’, Ana- tolianStudies 65: 35-53. — 2015b: ‘Adanawa or Ahhiyawa? Reply to the addendum by J.D. Hawkins’, AnatolianStudies 65: 56-58.

Rosmalen (NL), December 2015

AANKONDIGING

NEW ON-LINE VERSION OF MĪS PÎ (TEXT AND PHOTOGRAPHS)

Our 2001 book C. Walker and M. Dick TheInductionof theCultImageinAncientMesopotamia:TheMesopotamian MīsPîRitual (Vol. 1, State Archives of Assyria Literary Texts. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2001) is no longer in print. These rituals are of importance to a broad range of scholars, so with pleasure I announce that an updated and revised version of the text with photographs is available for free download at https://sites.google.com/a/ siena.edu/mis-pi. Eventually this text will appear at the Uni- versity of Pennsylvania’s ORACC. The text appears in PDF and Word 2010, I just ask that any references to the new text follow the conventions of the Budapest Convention of November 2001. Christopher Walker and I always envisioned this text as a collaborative work. We kindly ask for any suggestions from colleagues: typos, incorrect readings, new texts, new sugges- tions at interpretation, etc. Any such contributions will receive attribution. In his manner, the on-line version should remain the most up-to-date text of MīsPî. Michael B. Dick Siena College Loudonville, NY 12211 [email protected] Michael B. Dick, S.T.L., Ph.D. Retired from the Department of Religious Studies Siena College

998873_Bior_2016_1-2_01.indd8873_Bior_2016_1-2_01.indd 3333 330/05/160/05/16 11:5711:57