^/riiyg, 1^^ 



NATURli 



5^1 



Hamath. Other symbols, not difficult to identify as 

 essentially the same, yet assume a form more or less 

 changed. The difference is altogether so considerable 

 that in ancient times the ability to read and fully under- 

 stand the one type may quite possibly not have involved 

 a facility of perfectly comprehending the other. The 

 difference might be spoken of as one of dialect, if that word 

 could be, in this case, appropriately employed. Then, so 

 far as the more considerable monuments in the Museum 

 from Jerabliis or Carchemish are concerned, there is clearly 

 between them a difference in age, and the difference may 

 possibly be very great. As evidence in support of this asser- 

 tion, I mayadduce a symbol which was intended apparently 

 to denote an agricultural implement. When this symbol 

 was given as in Fig. M (i), though probably drawn out of 

 perspective and perhaps already somewhat conven- 

 tionalized, yet its relation to the actual object would 

 seem to have been not very distant. But when the 

 symbol has become changed in the manner that appears 



m 



Fig. M. — Symbols of agricultural implements : i and 2, from Jerablus 

 monuments; 3, from incised bowl. 



in (2), there is no difficulty in recognizing that a con- 

 siderable interval must have elapsed. In (3), on an 

 incised bowl, at present deposited in the British Museum, 

 the same symbol has assumed something of a hieratic 

 form. Though the bowl was found at the site of Babylon, 

 the inscription cut into it obviously belongs to the Car- 

 chemish type. Possibly the bowl had been brought from 

 Carchemish as a trophy. 



It is conceivable that (i) might denote a kind of 

 harrow, but more probably the vertical portion repre- 

 sents the end of a threshing-sledge, with teeth of stone 

 or iron projecting therefrom. It appears to me very 

 doubtful whether this symbol (which is not found on the 

 inscriptions from Hamath) is ever used with any direct 

 reference to agricultural operations. It is rather to be 

 understood figuratively of severity in warfare and of the 

 devastation of an enemy's country. This is in accord- 

 ance with the usage of the Biblical books, which, on 

 account of local contiguity, have, in relation to the 

 Hittite inscriptions, peculiar importance. Thus we find, 

 in Amos i. 3, " For three transgressions of Damascus, 

 and for four, I will not turn away [the punishment] 

 thereof; because they have threshed Gilead with thresh- 

 ing-instruments of iron"; and there are other similar 

 passages. Moreover, such metaphorical or figurative 

 employment of material symbols is in accordance 

 with what we know of the use of picture-writing by 

 the American Indims. I ought, perhaps, to add that 

 on the Carchemish inscriptions the threshing-sledge is 

 usually accompanied by what is probably the representa- 

 tion of the more essential parts of a plough somewhat 

 conventionalized. Between the pole (or handle) and the 



Fig. N. — Probable symbol of plough. 



share or tooth, wedges would seem to have been inserted 

 to keep the tooth firm in its place. By an easy metonymy 

 a plough would denote land tilled and cultivated. Fig. N 

 gives this symbol as accompanying Fig. M (2). 



The difficulty of explaining the characters of the 



ttittrte inscriptions may result in part from the objects 

 originally depicted being such as are no longer known to 

 us. But probably a much more serious cause of difficulty 

 is to be found in conventionalization and the changes 

 made to facilitate rapid execution. And we must take into 

 account, in addition, the necessity which would arise in 

 some cases for the lateral compression of the representa- 

 tion, if I may so speak, in order that the symbol miglft 

 be conveniently given in the same line and in asso- 

 ciation with other symbols. This last remark applies 

 particularly to a symbol which, there is strong reason to 

 believe, represents the shadoof, or instrument for raising 

 water, still used in the East. It would have been incon- 

 venient to represent at full length the lever at top, with a 

 weight at one end, and a bucket, suspended by a cord or 



^ 



Fig. O. — Shadoof %ym\>o\, from Jerablfls inscriptions. 



chain, from the other. Consequently we have the instru- 

 ment represented with modification, and with the lever 

 shortened. Here again in all probability the symbol is 

 used for the most part figuratively, and not in general 

 with reference to the raising of water or the irrigation of 

 land. People familiar with the swinging up and down 

 of the lever, and of bringing up the bucket of water, 

 might use the symbol of " raising " in a wider sense, or 

 generally of active and efficient operation. It is probably 

 with this latter meaning that it is employed in three out 

 of the five Hamath inscriptions, and in a combination of 

 symbols which is exceedingly interesting and instructive. 

 Two of the three are represented in Fig. P. As to the 

 general subject, the presence of the hand grasping war- 

 like weapons can scarcely leave a doubt ; and in accord- 

 ance with this indication is the spear-head, however 

 ornamented, at the other end of the figure. The two 

 triangular-topped symbols between, probably denote 

 actual conflict. The idea represented conventionally 





Fig. p. — Groups of symbols ending two Hamath inscriptions. 



may be that of a mass of warriors who have closed 

 together in deadly combat, or a mass of spears seer* 

 together. Under the first of these triangular-topped 

 figures is a symbol which has been supposed to repre- 

 sent an insect. The two symbols together may be taken 

 as meaning " war commencing." In the second place, wc 

 have a combination with the shadoof, and we may interpiffet. 



