ON THE CANAANITES. fell 
FURTHER REPLY BY THE AUTHOR. 
I avait myself of the opportunity to adda few words on the 
remarks made on my paper by scholars unable to be present when 
it was read. Before doing so, I would mention that, whilst the 
discussion has been in the press, one of Mr. Boscawen’s hopes has 
been falsified by further discovery. He compares the Hittite with 
“a language which is already partly known to us on the tablets of 
Cappadocia.” Unfortunately this language was not known, for as 
Dr. Sayce has now stated in the Academy, it proves to be only an 
Assyrian dialect,—Semitic,—and thus, as is now generally admitted 
by all real students of the subject, nowise connected with Hittite. 
When Mr. Boscawen spoke, he apparently expected the Cappadocian 
texts to tell a very different story. Dr. Sayce and others now 
claim to possess cuneiform texts in a “ Hittite” dialect ; but until 
they can read these, and show that they are Hittite, the case of the 
Cappadocian should teach us caution. At the present moment we 
have not a shred of evidence that cuneiform characters were ever 
used in Syria, or in Asia Minor proper, or by any but the Assyrians, 
Babylonians, and races immediately under their influence. The 
Hittites and the Turanians of Asia Minor had a native script, and 
as early as the ninth century the Aramaic alphabet was used in Asia 
Minor, as we know from very recent discovery. 
Dr. Taylor’s reasons for giving his adhesion are no doubt inde- 
pendent: the fact remains that the conclusions of my paper are 
accepted by a good Turanian scholar. I owe much to his kindness 
in aiding my researches in Turanian languages, and I venture to 
think if he has time to study the details of my work that he will 
find the development of the grammar and vocabulary more securely 
based than he perhaps may think without such study. 
Mr. G. Bertin is also a valuable ally to whose aid in studying 
Akkadian I am deeply indebted. He stands second to no scholar 
in England in special study of that language. I do not share his 
suspicions as to the genuineness of the bi-lingual boss, nor am I 
convinced of the very early dates given by some other modern 
scholars, as well as by himself, for Akkadian civilisation. I do not 
doubt that if specialists take up the study of Hittite, on the 
principles which seem now to meet with very general approval, 
they will far outstrip my first attempts, especially if more Hittite 
VOL. XXIV. G 
