Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:37:49.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Hittite Cylinder Seal in the Yale Babylonian Collection1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Gary Beckman
Gary Beckman
Affiliation:
Yale University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recently Professor Harald Ingholt generously donated to the Yale Babylonian Collection a Hittite cylinder seal from the empire period, which has received the inventory number YBC 16575. The piece, which is of copper and measures 24·5 × 11 mm., is in excellent condition and shows little sign of wear – see Plate XX and Figure 1. According to Professor Ingholt, he purchased the seal in the 1930s in the bazaar of Beirut, a city which lies outside of the area controlled by the Hittite empire at the greatest extent of its expansion, but which at the time of the acquisition of the seal was linked by daily train service to Adana in Cilicia, the rail line running through the heart of what had once been the southern domains of the Hittites.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 31 , December 1981 , pp. 129 - 135
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1981

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

2 The seal was subjected to X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy by Professor Gary L. Haller of the Yale University Department of Engineering and Applied Science. Professor Haller concluded that, although the seal is silver in color, “XPS analysis clearly shows that it is predominantly copper. The other elements which impart the silver rather than copper color were not identified. A search for zinc, tin, lead, and aluminum suggests that these are not major impurities or alloying elements … there is a peak in the spectrum which could be reasonably assigned to nitrogen suggesting the possibility of a nitride component in the copper”.

3 For the northern part of this route, see Lewis, Geoffrey, Turkey, 3rd edition (New York: Praeger, 1965), p. 190Google Scholar, and especially the fold-out map provided in this volume.

4 See Beran, Thomas, Istanbuler Mitteilungen VIII (1958): 137Google Scholar, and Bittel, Kurt, Die Hethiter (Munich, 1976), p. 171Google Scholar.

5 Almost all of the actual seals have been acquired from dealers and are thus without archaeological context.

6 Here and elsewhere in this paper, transcriptions of the “Hittite hieroglyphs” have been made according to the system of Meriggi, Piero, Hieroglyphisch-Hethitisches Glossar, zweite Auflage (Wiesbaden, 1962Google Scholar) (sigla M). Reference is also made to the system of Laroche, Emmanual, as presented in Les hiéroglyphes hittites, 1 e partie (Paris, 1960Google Scholar) (sigla L). In addition, account has been taken of the new readings established for the signs M171 (i/ya) and M387 (za/zi) by Hawkins, J. D., Morpurgo-Davies, Anna, and Neumann, Günter in Hittite Hieroglyphs and Luwian: New Evidence for the Connection, Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, I. Phil.-Hist. Klasse, Jahrgang 1973Google Scholar, Nr. 6 (Göttingen, 1974). Where the reading of the name of a seal owner is assured by a second inscription in cuneiform, it has been given in broad transcription.

7 An additional, as yet unpublished, cylinder seal impression appears on a bulla recently discovered in the late thirteenth century level of a building near Temple IV in the Upper City of Ḫattuša – see Peter Neve's report presented by Mellink, Machteld, AJA LXXXI1I (1979): 333Google Scholar.

8 The best known representative of this group is the “Tyszkiewicz seal” in Boston. See Alp, Sedat, Zylinder- und Stempelsiegel aus Karahöyük bei Konya (Ankara, 1968), pp. 271–74Google Scholar, and Alexander, Robert, Anatolica V (1973/1976): 141–215Google Scholar.

9 Most writers date these pieces to the Old and Middle Hittite periods. See, for example, Alp, , Zylinder- und Stempelsiegel, pp. 271–74Google Scholar, and Bittel, , Die Hethiter, pp. 149–50Google Scholar. Alexander, , on the other hand, Anatoliea V (1973/1976): 160–61 and 169–70Google Scholar, suggests on the basis of both iconography and engraving technique that the seal Louvre AO 20138 belongs to the thirteenth century.

10 This seal displays only an as yet unintelligible five line hieroglyphic inscription with no figures of any kind – see Ward, W., The Cylinder Seals of Western Asia (Washington, D.C., 1910), p. 267Google Scholar. Porada, Edith and Buchanan, Briggs, Catalogue of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in North American Collections, I (Washington, D.C., 1948), p. 163Google Scholar, declare that this piece is “patently fraudulent”, but Meriggi, Piero, Journal of Cuneiform Studies XXII (1968): 9–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar, speaks for its authenticity.

11 Published by Güterbock, Hans G. in Siegel aus Boghazköy, II, (hereafter SBo II), AfO, Beiheft 7 (Berlin, 1942) as no. 22Google Scholar.

12 See Beran, Thomas in Bittel, Kurt et al. , eds., Vorderasiatische Archäologie (Festschrift A. Moortgat) (Berlin, 1964), p. 31, note 21Google Scholar.

13 Ibid., pp. 31–32.

14 See Bossert, Helmut Th., JKF II (1953): 112Google Scholar, Tafel XVI b–c, and Alp, Sedat, Festschrift Heinrich Otten (Wiesbaden, 1973), pp. 13–15Google Scholar, Ab. 2a, b.

15 See Alp, , Festschrift Otten, p. 15Google Scholar.

16 Such borders are also found on Nos. 1, 13, 14, 18, and 19, while No. 2 has a similar border only on the bottom of the field. For guilloche borders on Hittite stamp seals, cf. SBo II nos. 184–99.

17 Cf. Yazılıkaya no. 42 and, for the smiting pose, see Collon, Dominique, Levant IV (1972): 111–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Cf. Yazılıkaya no. 34.

19 The sign possibly appears also on no. 3, on the ground line before the god with the bow, although the impression is not clear enough to allow a final judgment. Beran, , Istanbuler Mitteilungen VIII (1958): 139Google Scholar, describes the figure in question as “einen von einer einfachen Palmette bekrönten Kegel”.

20 Delaporte, Louis, Catalogue des cylindres orientaux (Paris, 1920), pl. 102Google Scholar, no. 3a. This seal is discussed by Kennedy, D. A., RHA XVII/65 (1959): 153Google Scholar.

21 Masson, Emilia, Syria LII (1975): 221–22Google Scholar.

22 Inventory number 3507 – see Alp, , Athenaeum XLVII (1969): 1–3, Tf. IGoogle Scholar.

23 Delaporte, Catalogue, pl. 100, no. 14c.

24 In Schaeffer, Claude F.-A. et al. , Ugaritica III (Paris, 1956), pp. 130–31Google Scholar.

25 Masson, , Syria LII (1975): 222Google Scholar, shares this opinion.

26 Bittel, Die Hethiter, p. 197, Ab. 225Google Scholar.

27 This shape is also found on a Hittite ivory panel discovered at Megiddo – see Frankfort, Henri, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient (Baltimore, 1969), p. 130Google Scholar, fig. 57. Note its presence here as a “space filler” behind the sphinxes at either end of the second row of figures from the bottom, while rosettes (M192 = L189) are placed between almost all of the other figures.

28 In many cases it is difficult to decide whether a sign belongs with those discussed here or to L155, “grenade” – cf. SBo II 27, 57, 164, etc.Google ScholarMora, Clelia, AS XXIV (1974): 165Google Scholar, interprets this latter sign as a stylized representation of fertility and views L152 as a combination of L155 and a tree. It is also possible that L155 is only a schematic variant of L152.

29 This sign is found on Nos. 1, 2, 6, 9, 20, and 22.

30 Cf. also SBo II 31Google Scholar.

31 A bird also appears behind each of the opposing figures of the Sun-god in the top register of the Megiddo ivory mentioned in note 27.

32 JNES XXXVI (1977): 206Google Scholar.

33 Florilegium Anatolicum, Mélanges offerts à Emmanuel Laroche (Paris, 1979), p. 283Google Scholar.

34 Laroche, , Hiéroglyphes, p. 80Google Scholar, sub no. 135, and Syria XXXV (1958): 259Google Scholar, conjectures that the bird with folded wings indicates a title or function, which becomes unlikely in light of the probable presence of other titles on some seals bearing this sign, for example No. 13 – see below, p. 134, and note the scribe sign (M258) on No. 20.

35 Kennedy, , RHA XVII/65 (1959): 158Google Scholar.

36 The vertical stroke expected in a correctly-formed ha-sign is missing here, but this emendation has been suggested to me by Mr. J. D. Hawkins, who has seen what appears to be the same name on an unpublished seal in a private collection.

37 Collation of the original indicates that this is the proper identification of the sign, and that it is not the “priest” sign (L372), as read by Buchanan, , Journal of Cuneiform Studies XXI (1967): 20Google Scholar.

38 SBo II, p. 13Google Scholar. See now also Bittel, et al. , Boghazköy V (Berlin, 1975), p. 56Google Scholar, where Güterbock suggests that the vessel L337 as on the bulla 406/z (= No. 23 here) may also represent this title.

39 Read here, with Meriggi, , Glossary, p. 231Google Scholar, sub no. 349a, JUG + phonetic complement (i.e., JUG-zi-ya). Laroche, , Hiéroglyphes, p. 210Google Scholar, lists sub no. 211 the sign here read ya as a separate sign, possibly indicating a title.

40 Gelb, I. J., Inscriptions from Alishar and Vicinity, OIP 27 (Chicago, 1935), pl. LII, no. 68Google Scholar.

41 Reading with Meriggi, , Glossar, p. 221Google Scholar, sub no. 269.1.

42 Delaporte, Catalogue, pl. 102, no. 2a = Kennedy, , RHA XVII/65 (1959): 149Google Scholar.

43 Masson, , Syria LII (1975): 225–27Google Scholar.

44 Ibid., p. 225.

45 Ibid., p. 222.

46 Hittite Seals (Oxford, 1920)Google Scholar.

47 This seal is also pictured in Gurney, , The Hittites, second edition (Harmondsworth, 1959), pl. 21Google Scholar.

48 For these see Hoffner, Harry A. Jr, Alimenta Hethaeorum (New Haven, 1974), pp. 39–40Google Scholar. Add Zidanni, attested in the Middle Hittite land donation texts 11, 12, and 26 – see Riemschneider, Kaspar K., Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung VI (1958): 368, 370, and 374Google Scholar. Despite its rather lowly ring, the GAL.GEŠTIN-ship was actually a high state position involving chiefly military duties.

49 The cupbearer is most often found as an anonymous participant in state religious functions, but five incumbents of this office are known by name: Alalimi, (KUB XXI 38Google Scholar, obv. 32; KUB XL 84, rev. 3Google Scholar; KBo IV 10, rev. 32)Google Scholar, Arimelku, (KUB XXVI 43, obv. 13fGoogle Scholar. = KUB XXVI 50, obv. 1)Google Scholar, Ḫanteli, later king (KBo III 1Google Scholar: 30), Pappa, (KBO VII 21: 3Google Scholar), and Wiliya, (KBo VII 21Google Scholar: 5).

50 Note that Alalimi is said to be a “supervisor” (GAL or UGULA) of cupbearers, while Pappa and Wiliya appear in a single fragmentary personnel list.

51 See Bittel, , Die Hethiter, pp. 217 ff.Google Scholar, for a similar observation on the nature of the rock reliefs of Yazılıkaya.

52 It is unlikely that any of these figures represent human kings, as suggested by Laroche, in Ugaritica III, p. 250Google Scholar, for RS 17.59 (here No. 15) and RS 17.158 (No. 16). Note that these figures bear the horns of divinity, a feature which is to my knowledge attested only twice in imperial Hittite art for a depiction which is definitely that of a human: in the relief of Ḫattušili III at Firaktin (Bittel, , Die Hethiter, pp. 176–77Google Scholar, Ab. 198) and on the seal of Muwatalli (Beran, , Die hethitische Glyptik von Boghazköy [Berlin, 1967], nos. 250–52)Google Scholar. In these instances the king's image is simply a replication of that of the deity with whom he is associated.

53 Storm-god: Nos. 15 (cf. Yazılıkaya no. 42), 17, 25?, and 26. Sun-god: Nos. 1, 2, and 20.

54 See Gurney, , “Hittite Kingship”, in Hooke, S. H., ed., Myth, Ritual and Kingship (Oxford, 1958), pp. 105–21Google Scholar, and especially the texts quoted on pp. 113–14. Compare now Starke, Frank, “Ḫalmašuit im Anitta-Text und die hethitische Ideologie vom Königtum”, ZA LXIX (1979), 47–120Google Scholar.

55 See Starke, op. cit., p. 66, note 39.

56 See Güterbock, , JAOS LXXVIII (1958): 241–42Google Scholar.

57 Compare here the position of the Sun-god of Heaven along with the Sun-goddess of Arinna, the Storm-god of Heaven, and the Storm-god of Hatti at the head of the lists of oath gods in Hittite treaties – see Kestemont, G., Orientalia ns XLV (1976): 148, 156Google Scholar.

58 See Goetze, Albrecht, Journal of Cuneiform Studies I (1947): 176–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.