Aprils, 1888] 



NATURE 



537 



mitted in safe custody to Constantinople. The arrival of 

 Dr. Wright's casts in this country was naturally followed 

 by attempts at the decipherment of the hieroglyphics, 

 though some of those who made these attempts had 

 previously concerned themselves with the imperfect 

 representations given by Burton and Drake in the work 

 already mentioned. About the same time (1872) atten- 

 tion was called to the inscription then existing at Aleppo, 

 but since unfortunately destroyed. Not very long after- 

 wards an interesting bas-relief at Ibreez, in Lycaonia, 

 accompanied by an inscription, was brought anew under 

 notice by the Rev. E. J. Davis ; and in 1876 Prof. Sayce 

 observed with reference to this inscription, "The 

 Hamathite hieroglyphics appear to have been an inven- 

 tion of an early population of Northern Syrians. Their 

 occurrence in Lycaonia is probably due to Syrian con- 

 quest." Still later, and in view of the sculptures of 

 Boghaz-Keui and Karabel, together with other monu- 

 ments, Prof. Sayce took a much wider view, extending 

 Hittite presence and influence through Asia Minor. Not 

 long after taking this more extended view of the Hittites, 

 the same scholar made a discovery of no small import- 

 ance with regard to the decipherment of the inscriptions : 

 I allude to the discovery that certain characters on the 

 seal of Tarkutimme were Hittite hieroglyphics {Academy, 

 August 21, 1880). The true nature of these hieroglyphics 

 had not been previously seen, though, together with the 

 cuneiform inscription round the circumference, they had 

 been discussed by the late Dr. Mordtmann. 



The history of this now celebrated seal is certainly 

 remarkable. About the year i860, a convex silver plate 

 bearing the inscriptions just alluded to was presented for 

 sale at the British Museum. Doubt was entertained con- 

 cerning the genuineness of this silver plate as an antiquity, 

 and the purchase was declined, though an electrotype 

 copy was made and preserved. On account of the pro- 

 longed interval which has ehpsed, the precise ground of 

 doubt is not now altogether clear. It seems not unlikely, 

 however, that the decision as to the spuriousness of the 

 plate was arrived at after several considerations had been 

 duly weighed. The silver of the plate may have seemed 

 too well preserved for an object of so great antiquity, 

 unless, indeed, it had been in some special manner 

 sealed up and protected in a vase or other receptacle. 

 Then the character of the engraving was probably re- 

 garded as inconsistent with the idea of its having been 

 cut originally in silver, and especially in a comparatively 

 thin silver plate, the engraving being rather that of stone, 

 on which material, indeed, a seal was much more likely 

 to be engraved. And another important fact, as agree- 

 ing with this view, is a flaw which appears on the right 

 hand of the central figure, and which suggests the frac- 

 ture or chipping of stone rather than the abrasion of 

 metal. On these grounds, probably, the conclusion was 

 arrived at that the plate was not a genuine antiquity.^ 

 Most likely it was a cast or electrotype from an ancient 

 stone seal, this seal having been retained by the dis- 

 coverer — whoever he may have been — with the view of 

 obtaining eventually a larger profit by its sale. Proceed- 

 ings of this kind are not unknown at the Museum. 

 But where the original seal then was, or now is, has never 

 been known ; and the silver plate offered at the Museum 

 has likewise disappeared from view. But this disappear- 

 ance is of little importance to science, if the genuineness 

 of the inscriptions can be fully proved. 



In favour of this genuineness it must be urged as im- 

 probable that any from among the few Assyriologists who 

 were to be found in Europe nearly thirty years ago would 

 have co-operated in forging the seal. Moreover, there 

 are two difficulties in the way of believing in such a 



' The decision arrived at was probably in accordance with the view of 

 Mr. Ready, who then was, as he still is, at the Museum. What has been 

 said as to the style of engraving and the fracture was. most likely, suggested 

 by him at the time, though he cannot now recollect the details of the 

 matter. 



forgery. First, the cuneiform legend has pecuHarities 

 which distinguish it from any other known type of cunei- 

 form writing, as was observed by Dr. Mordtmann. Then 

 there is an interspace over the head of the standing 

 figure, which might seem, at first sight, to be interposed 

 between the beginning and end of the cuneiform legend. 

 It occurs, however, in the middle of a wbrd. For this 

 interspace a possible reason may be derived from the 

 recently-discovered Yuzgat seal ; but its occurrence does 

 not suggest the idea of forgery by a scholar conversant 

 with the cuneiform characters. Supposing, however, that 

 these difficulties are put aside, there remains the much 

 stronger argument furnished by the characters in the 

 central space, which are certainly Hittite. Now, and for 

 some time past, great interest has been displayed in rela- 

 tion to Hittite inscriptions ; but in and about the year 1 860 

 the case was far otherwise. There was then no temptation 

 to forge these Hittite inscriptions on the seal, even if it had 

 been possible to do so. But it may be doubted whether 

 at the time in question it would have been possible to 

 find and bring together the various Hittite characters. 

 Besides, it is not difficult to discern a concinnity and 

 agreement between the cuneiform and Hittite adverse to 

 the idea of forgery, and consistent only with the opinion 

 that the seal is, with its inscriptions, a veritable bilingual. 



Fig. D. — Bilingual seal of Tarkutimme (enlarged). 



About the time already mentioned (i860), Dr. Mordt- 

 mann examined at Constantinople a convex silver plate, 

 then in the possession of M. Jovanoff, probably the iden- 

 tical plate which was offered at the British Museum. 

 Concerning this plate, Dr. Mordtmann wrote, with date 

 '• Constantinople, December 6, 1861," a contribution to 

 Grote's " Miinzstudien," entitled " Sceau de Tarkoum- 

 dimmi, roi de Tarsous " ; the designation " Tarkoum- 

 dimmi, roi de Tarsous," being Dr. Mordtmann's reading 

 at that time of the cuneiform inscription on the seal. He 

 noticed also, very appropriately, the resemblance of 

 the name on the seal to the names Tarcondimotus, 

 TapKoidifj-oTos, as found in Tacitus, Strabo, and Die 

 Cassius, names employed to denote a father and son, 

 Cilician kings who reigned in the time of Augustus. 

 Dr. Mordtmann mentioned, also, that Plutarch gives, 

 instead of the longer form, the shorter name 'VapKoubrjfxos, 

 a name approaching still closer to that on the seal, ex- 

 pressing, however, at the same time the opinion that the 

 king to whom the seal belonged was of much earlier 

 date.^ As to the name of the place mentioned. Dr. 



' Prof. S.iyce has called the seal " 1 he Boss of Tarkondemos." But I do 

 not .see how in any way the seal can be suitably designated a " boss." And, 

 even if it be conceded as certain that "Tarcondemos " represents the name 

 given on the seal, still it i- a Gra;cized form which cannot be used with pro- 

 priety to denote a king who, according to Prof Sayce 's view, probably lived 

 some 700 years B.C. ■ 



