158 REPORT — 1860. 



I. 4. la all these contexts, a genitive of the name of a people who were not Assy- 

 rian seems required. Yet Uhanan is an impossible form for a Semitic genitive. The 

 word ]\D?, "a language, i. e. a people speaking a language," suggests itself at once; 

 but its genitive plural would be luandti. The idea that Uhanan should be resolved 

 into two words, the first being Id, the negative particle, suggested itself also ; but to 

 this also there were insuperable objections. Sanan is, no doubt, the theme of an 

 adjective ; but when joined to a noun it must have a case ending. In the first con- 

 text the rules of grammar would require sannu, in the second sanndti, in the third 

 sanaiti euph. for sananti. In the fourth sarrut is in construction, and would require 

 a genitive after it, and not an adjective. The same might be said of kissat in the second 

 context. Besides, Id sanan would mean " not fighting," and would be the very last 

 title that a king of Assyria would apply to himself. The translation " unchanging," 

 which has been suggested, would require Id sanah, in place of Id sanan, if the case 

 ending were to be omitted, which, however, it could not be. Whether, therefore, 

 Idsanan be regarded as one Assyrian word or as two, it presents insuperable diffi- 

 culties. These, however, disappear at once if it be considered as an Indo-European 

 word. It has all the appearance of an Indo-European genitive plural from a nomi- 

 native Idsas; and such a word is just what will suit all the contexts. Accordingly, 

 the recognition of ligivindinas as Indo-European led immediately to the recognition 

 of Idsanan as so too. 



The next question to be considered is to what country the Indo-European people 

 who used these words belonged. 



The account of the hunting expedition in which the Assyrian king took the lig- 

 windinas is preceded by that of his receiving tribute from the people on the coast of 

 Syria, beginning with the Tynans and ending with the Arvadites. This renders it 

 probable that his hunting was on the west of Assyria; and indeed he states in the 

 Pavement Inscriptions that he hunted on the banks of the Euphrates. Again, if the 

 word Idsanan signified a people, other than the Assyrians, over whom Tiglath Pileser 

 acquired dominion, they must have been to the west or north of Assyria ; for he 

 mentions no conquests towards the south ; and we know from the inscription of 

 Sennacherib at Bavian that he was defeated by his southern neighbours, his capital 

 taken, and his gods carried off by them. He could have had no dominion over the 

 Medians, or any neighbouring people that have been hitherto supposed to be Indo- 

 European. 



This, leads to the inquiry whether the Egyptian or Assyrian inscriptions afford any 

 grounds for the supposition that an Indo-European population was located in Syria. 

 Fifteen years ago Dr. Hincks pronounced certain names published by Champollion 

 as those of the chiefs of the Khita, to be Indo-European. Four names terminating 

 with siro, as Champollion read the characters, were published by him, the former 

 part of the first name, which was that of the chief of the nation, being Khita, the 

 name of the nation. Dr. Hincks affirmed in 1845 that this name must be Indo- 

 European, and must mean " lord of Khita." He read the latter part of the name 

 swar, connecting it with Kvpios. M. de Rouge adopted this interpretation of the 

 name, but said that the second element in it was the Semitic sar ; to which it was 

 replied that no Semitic compound could be formed as M. de Rouge supposed. 

 " Lord of Khita" would be Sar-Khitti, not Khita-sar, according to the mode of 

 arrangement of the elements of a compound name adopted by all Semitic people. 



From the fact of these names being Indo-European, Dr. Hincks at first inferred that 

 the enemies of Rameses II. were Scythians, as Champollion had supposed ; but it 

 was subsequently proved that they lived within a short distance of Egypt ; and their 

 capital Kadish, formerly read Atisli, was identified with a place on the Orontes, 

 south of Emessa. They were, in short, the Khattaya of the Assyrian inscriptions, 

 and the Hittites of the Old Testament ; and their religion, as shown by the Egyptian 

 inscriptions, was clearly Canaanitish. How then could they have Indo-European 

 names ? 



Conceiving it to be certain that some of their chiefs had such names in the time of 

 Rameses II., Dr. Hincks reconciled this fact with the other by supposing that Indo- 

 Europeans had previously overrun their country, and acquired dominion over it; 

 but that they had adopted the religion and probably the language of the conquered 

 people ; at any rate they had failed to impose upon them their own language, The 

 Khita had chiefs with Indo-European names, and doubtless of Indo-European race; 



