234, REY. G. E. WHITE, ON A VISIT TO THE 
wedge following the YY, a, be the determivative prefix for the 
name of a man, is probably to be completed Y¥ <4, A-zi. To 
all appearance the name of the district over which his father 
ruled was Bit-tahhi, though the reading of the first component 
(bit) is doubtful on account of the uncertainty as to what the 
language of the fragment is, and the last syllable is in the same 
case on account of the mutilation of the inscription. 
It will thus be seen that there is every probability that the 
fragment is historical, and its arrangement would suggest that it 
was in the form of annals. 
With regard to the language there is considerable doubt. 
Besides the words transcribed as if they were Semitic, but which 
may, as has been already stated, have been pronounced in an 
entirely different way, there are several others, phonetically 
written, which are not impossibly Semitic. These are dttabzi 
(resembling a verbal form with inserted ¢), izzi (which may be a 
noun or an adjective), tastia (which resembles an Assyro- 
Babylonian noun with the suffixed possessive pronoun of the first 
person), Serru, and kari (both of which resemble nouns). Besides 
this, etendt and zSin might also be Semitic (verbal forms). Con- 
cerning the numeral “three” or “third” in line 6 I have already 
spoken. 
On the other hand, na-a, an da pa, the combination of charac- 
ters at the beginning of line 6, and the greater part of line 7, if 
not the whole, have a non-Semitic look. A comparison of the 
letter in the language of Arzapi or Arzawa from Tel-el-Amarna 
shows an inscription written in a precisely similar style of 
writing, and containing words which have some likeness to 
Semitic expressions, but which are certainly not Semitic, and 
are to all appearance not by any means so numerous. There is 
little or nothing, however, in the inscription from Arzapi which 
throws lhght upon the fragment now under consideration, though 
this may be simply due to the fact that the former is a letter, 
whilst the latter is apparentiy historical, and on that account 
would naturally contain entirely different words and phrases.* 
* An examination of the copies published by M. Chantre from the 
pens of Boissier, Delitzsch, and Scheil shows that in the other tablets 
found at Boghaz Keoy there are not only Semitic words (one, in an 
inscription which seems to contain forecasts, seems to be the Assyro- 
Babvlonian word érét?, “ pregnant women”), but words having a Semitic 
