ART. I.-The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Van. By the Rev. THE publication of my memoir on the Cuneiform Inscriptions of Van in the pages of this Journal (Vol. XIV. pp. 377-732) gave an impetus to the study of these interesting texts which was not long in bearing fruit. M. Stanislas Guyard, who had already contributed so much to their decipherment, and whose untimely death is still deplored by science, soon afterwards published a detailed criticism of my work (in his Mélanges d'Assyriologie, Paris, 1883), and followed it by papers in the Journal Asiatique (8th series, vol. i. pp. 261, 517; vol. ii. p. 306; vol. iii. p. 499). M. Stanislas Guyard was succeeded by the eminent Semitic scholar of Vienna, Prof. D. H. Müller, who had been independently studying the Vannic inscriptions, and papers upon them from his pen have appeared in the Oesterreichische Monatsschrift für den Orient (Jan. 1885, and Aug. 1886), and in the 36th volume of the Imperial Academy of Vienna (1886, "Die KeilInschrift von Aschrut-Darga"). Prof. Patkanoff has, moreover, been kind enough to send me copies of Vannic inscriptions found in the Russian province of Georgia, which I have published with translations and notes in the Muséon, vol. ii. pt. 1 (1883); vol. ii. pt. 3 (1883); vol. iii. pt. 2 (1884); vol. v. pt. 3 (1884). Apart, therefore, from the improved translations of words and passages, due to the penetration of M. Stanislas Guyard and Prof. D. H. Müller, our stock of materials has been VOL. XX.-NEW SERIES.] 1 览 2 THE CUNEIFORM INSCRIPTIONS OF VAN. considerably increased since the publication of my memoir. M. Guyard was fortunate enough to find in the Louvre squeezes of the great inscription of Argistis on the rock of Van, made some years ago by M. Deyrolle, as well as squeezes of other inscriptions, and a copy of the text of Meher Kapussi. The squeezes and copy include my inscriptions V., VII., XIV., XIX., XX., XXXVIII., XXXIX., XL., XLI., XLII., XLIX. The corrections of the text furnished by them are of considerable importance. From Prof. Patkanoff I have received copies of four new inscriptions from Armavir, and of inscriptions found at Ordanlu, Ihaulijan, and Salahaneh, as well as a photograph of the inscription of Menuas engraved at Tsolakert (No. XXXIV. of my Memoir). These fresh spoils not only add to our knowledge of the Vannic vocabulary, but enable us to amend our old readings. Lastly, Prof. Müller has published one of the four inscriptions from Armavir, mentioned above, from a squeeze and photograph of Prof. Wünsch, together with an interesting text of Sarduris II. from Astwadzashen, and a copy of the first seven lines of the inscription of Palu (No. XXXIII.) from a squeeze of Prof. Wünsch. It will be seen, accordingly, that during the five years which have elapsed since the publication of my Memoir, important advances have been made in our knowledge of the Vannic texts. I shall, first of all, pass in review those portions of my Memoir in which, as I believe, my readings and translations have been successfully corrected by Guyard and Müller, or in some instances by myself, noting the emendations the texts themselves have received from the squeezes of M. Deyrolle and the photograph of M. Patkanoff; and I will then give the new inscriptions that have been brought to light, with translations and a commentary. At the end a vocabulary will be added, containing the new words from the recently-found inscriptions, as well as the words the reading or translation of which requires correction. Certain corrections must be introduced into the list of characters (pp. 419-422). The character is not a form < li. This was of da, as I had supposed, but of proved by Guyard, and explains the mode in which the name of the city of Malatiyeh is written (Me-li-dha-a-ni). The new form of li first appears in the inscriptions of Menuas, after the death of his father Ispuinis. I believe, however, that it was at times confounded with da, though at present we have no means of certifying the fact. The result of Guyard's discovery is to change the reading of all the words in which the syllable da occurs, except, of course, those in which the syllable is represented by the proper character for da. Consequently the "local case" of the noun will end like the "perfective" in li. The character um, to which I have prefixed a query, must be removed from the list. M. Deyrolle's squeezes show that in the three cases where I have read um-nu-li the word is really tanuli, the first character being ta. The character bad should be be, since in the 7th line of the inscription of Palu Prof. Wünsch's squeeze gives it instead of bi, unless, indeed, the character had both values. As was be, it is possible that was ge rather than kid. I have already stated in my Memoir (p. 681, note 1) that the character kab should be read qar. The ideograph which I have rendered by 'language' or 'tribe' has been shown by Guyard to represent the Assyrian. ideograph of pukhru 'totality,' which has the same form in Assur-natsir-pal's standard inscription (W.A.I. i. 20, 28). M. Deyrolle's copy gives it in v. 24 in place of The word for 'camel' should probably be didhuni, since in xl. 6 Deyrolle's squeeze has, which is more probably intended for di than for ul. twice' must be struck out; the squeezes prove that in in all' has to be read. We must also excise every case 'son.' On the other hand, we must add to the list of ideographs <<'a vine,' which an examination of Schulz's original copy shows to exist in li. col. i. 3. As Guyard has pointed out, the phonetic reading of the ideograph uduli(s) is furnished by line 7. We must further add (ardinis) 'day,' which I have misread tume (1. 10, 12, 16), as well as the eight other additional ideographs given at the end of this paper. It may be added that the squeezes seem to make it clear that the word signifying to give' must be read tequ and not laqu, and that consequently it is probable that Sandwith is right in li. col. iii. 10, where he has khuteve 'of kings' instead of khulave. Some more examples can be added of cases in which the line does not end with a word (e.g. No. lxi.). In In the declension of the noun (p. 429) the suffix da must be changed into li, as already noted. Guyard maintained that the suffix was used in three senses: (1) as an expletive, (2) in order to join a word to its suffix, and (3) in order to form substantives, gerunds, and participles, when it denotes 'the thing of' something or some one. But the first two senses must be rejected, and in place of them my two senses of locality' and 'perfection' should be substituted. xx. 3 (see p. 431) we must read ini-li pili armanîli at-khuâ-li sidis-tuâ-li after having restored this memorial-tablet which had been destroyed.' Müller has shown that pi-li—which I believe him to be right in supposing to be the origin of the Assyrian 'pilu-stone'—is the reading of the ideograph ➡ ‘a tablet,' so that armanilis must be the translation of the ideograph 'foundation,' which is substituted for it in parallel passages. Consequently at in at-khuâ-li is a prefix of some sort, like ap in ap-tini, and ini-li (which I read ini-da) is not an adverb, but a case of inithis.' The suffix of the pronoun could be omitted, e.g. we find alus ini pili armanili tuli in xx. 10. The form nu-lilê-di-ni (xxx. 24) still remains unexplained. The suffix tsi has been shown by Guyard to signify 'belonging to.' In the numerals 'twice' should be struck out, and Müller has made it clear that atibi means 'myriads' and never thousands,' that tarani (xlix. 13, as restored from Deyrolle's squeeze) signifies 'second' or for the second time,' and that sistini (xlix. 22) is 'third' or 'for the third time.' Guyard had already observed that suśini must be first,' corresponding as it does to the numeral in year,' where one is the ideograph of year and not a word mu 'his,' as I had imagined. The local case of the 3rd personal pronoun should be meiali or meli. As just remarked, a pronoun mu must be struck out of the list. So also should be a possessive meiesis. Guyard, by his brilliant discovery of the meaning of the phrase in the execratory formula, alus ulis tiu-lie ies zadubi 'whoever else pretends: I have done (this),' revealed the existence of the first personal pronoun ies 'I.' As the final s is a suffix, the stem is ie, which seems to be the same as the stem of the demonstrative, i-ni. The relative, which I had seen in ies, will therefore have to be removed from the list of Vannic pronouns. Ulis or ulies (instead of my old reading udas) has been shown by Guyard's discovery to signify 'other,' 'another.' The stem would be u, as in ui 'and' or 'with.' Müller is probably right in holding that sukhe is not a pronoun, as Guyard and myself have believed; eha may be 'and' rather than 'this'; and ikukas 'the same must be added to the list of the pronouns. Iku-kas is literally 'of the same kind,' being formed from a stem iku by the help of the suffix -kas. For ada, ali or alie must be read. The word properly means to add'; hence the sum,' moreover,' in part' (ale-ki), and possibly along with.' The adverb sada (for which read sali or salie) must be omitted. As Guyard has proved, it is the phonetic reading of the ideograph ✈ ‘a year.' To the form ap-tini (p. 442) we may add at-khuali 'which had been destroyed.' These prefixes remind us of the prefixes of Georgian. For -da or -dae the termination of the present tense -li and -lie should be substituted. The forms literally mean 'is for' the doing of a thing, alus tu-lie, for example, being 'whoever is for taking away.'1 1 The form is really the dative of the gerund in -lis. |