Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T01:06:00.286Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dating of Hittite Texts: a Test

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Silvin Košak
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I. Over the last ten years, criteria for dating Hittite texts have gradually been evolving. In the first stage, so-called “orthographic” peculiarities were identified which enabled a rough division of texts into Old, Middle and Late (or Empire) texts. The Middle Hittite group was a new discovery, causing a major reshuffle of texts and a consequent re-writing of Hittite history. The two prominent studies were the pioneering one by Carruba (1969) and that of Houwink ten Cate (1970) which utilized a larger corpus of texts. The latter separated the distinctive features into linguistic and philological characteristics and added some observations on the use of topoi which he divided into groups exhibiting similarities in content matter, similarities in structure and lexical correspondencies, all typical for certain periods. These criteria were largely accepted, with a notable dissension by A. Kammenhuber and a strong scepticism by J. D. Muhly. A general survey of current subdivisions of periods is summarised by J. J. S. Weitenberg.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 30 , December 1980, pp. 31 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alp, S., 1947. “Hitıt Kirali IV. (?) Tuthaliya' nın askerî fermanı”, Belleten 11, 383–414.Google Scholar
Bin-Nun, Sh. R., 1973. “The offices of GAL mešedi and the tuhkanti in the Hittite kingdom”, RHA 31, 6–25.Google Scholar
Bin-Nun, , 1974. “Who was Tahurwaili, the Great Hittite king?”, JCS 26, 112–121.Google Scholar
Bin-Nun, , 1975. The Tawananna in the Hittite kingdom. (THeth 5). Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Cancik, H., 1976. Grundzüge der hethitischen und alttestamentlichen Geschichtsschreibung. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Carruba, O., 1968. “Die Chronologie der hethitischen Texte und die hethitische Geschichte der Grossreichszeit”, WZKM, Supplementa I, 226–249.Google Scholar
Carruba, O., 1977. “Beiträge zur mittelhethitischen Geschichte II: Die sogenannten ‘Protocoles de succession dynastique‘”, SMEA 18, 175–195.Google Scholar
Friedrich, J. and Kammenhuber, A., 1975. Hethitisches Wörterbuch. 2., völlig neubearb. Aufl. Lief. 1. Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Goetze, A., 1957. Kleinasien. 2. Aufl. München.Google Scholar
Gurney, O.R., 1972. The Hittites. 2nd ed. Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
Gurney, O.R., 1977. [Review of Neu-Rüster 1975]. BiOr 34, 199–200.Google Scholar
Gurney, O.R., 1978. “The anointing of Tudhaliya” (to be published in the Meriggi-Festschrift).Google Scholar
Hoffner, H. A., 1975. “Propaganda and political justification in Hittite historiography”, in Unity and diversity: essays in the history, literature, and religion of the Ancient Near East. Ed. by Goedicke, H. and Roberts, J.J.M.. Baltimore & London, 49–62.Google Scholar
Hoffner, H. A., 1977. [Review of Neu-Rüster 1975]. BASOR 226, 78–79.Google Scholar
Houwink ten Cate, Ph. H. J., 1970. The records of the early Hittite empire (c. 1450–1380 B.C.). Istanbul.Google Scholar
Josephson, F., 1972. The function of the sentence particles in Old and Middle Hittite. Uppsala.Google Scholar
Kammenhuber, A., 1970. [Review of Otten-Güterbock 1968]. OrNS 39, 547–567.Google Scholar
Kammenhuber, A., 1976. “Neue Ergebnisse zur hurrischen und altmesopotamischen Überlieferung in Bogazköy”, OrNS 45, 130–146.Google Scholar
Kammenhuber, A., 1979. “Direktiv, Terminativ und/oder Lokativ im Hethitischen”, in Hethitisch und Indogermanisch. Innsbruck, 115–142.Google Scholar
Kempinski, A. and Košak, S., 1970. “Der Išmeriga-Vertrag”, WdO 5, 191–217.Google Scholar
Kestemont, G., 1974. Diplomatique et droit international en Asie Occidentale (1600–1200 av.J.C.).. Louvain-la-Neuve.Google Scholar
Košak, S., 1978. “The rulers of the Early Hittite Empire“. (Paper read at the International Conference The Problems of Ancient Egypt, Ljubljana, 38–30.9.1978).Google Scholar
Kronasser, H., 1963. Etymologie der hethitischen Sprache. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Kühne, C. and Otten, H., 1971. Der Šaušgamuwa-Vertrag. (Eine Untersuchung zur Sprache und Graphik). (StBoT 16). Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Kümmel, H. M., 1967. Ersatzrituale für den hethitischen König. (StBoT 3). Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Muhly, J. D., 1974. “Hittites and Achaeans: Ahhijawa redomitus”, Historia 23, 129–145.Google Scholar
Neu, E., 1970. Ein althethitisches Gewitterritual. (StBoT 12). Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Neu, E., 1974. Der Anitta-Text. (StBoT 18). Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Neu, E. and Rüster, Chr., 1973. “Zur Datierung hethitischer Texte”, in Festschrift H. Otten, Wiesbaden, 221–242.Google Scholar
Neu, E., 1975. Hethitische Keilschriftpaläographie II. (StBoT 21). Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Oettinger, N., 1976. Die Militärischen Eide der Hethiter. (StBoT 22). Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Otten, H., 1951. “Die hethitischen ‘Königslisten’ und die altorientalische Chronologie”, MDOG 83, 47–71.Google Scholar
Otten, H., 1969. Sprachliche Stellung und Datierung des Madduwatta-Textes. (StBoT 11). Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Otten, H., 1979. “Original oder Abschrift – Zur Datierung von CTH 258”, Florilegium Anatolicum, Paris, 273–276.Google Scholar
Otten, H. and Güterbock, H. G., 1968. Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi XVI. Berlin.Google Scholar
Otten, H. and Rüster, Chr., 1972. “Textanschlüsse von Boğazköy-Tafeln (1–10), ZA, 62, 102–108.Google Scholar
Otten, H. and Souček, V., 1968. Ein althethitisches Ritual für das Königspaar. (StBoT 8). Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Rüster, Chr., 1972. Hethitische Keilschriftpaläographie. (StBoT 20). Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Sommer, F., 1953. “Zu den letzten Publikationen hethitischer Keilschrifttexte aus Berlin”, OLZ 48, 5–20.Google Scholar
Starke, F., 1977. Die Funktionen der dimensionalen Kasus und Adverbien im Althethitischen. (StBoT 23). Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Szabó, G. Frantz- and Heinhold-Krahmer, S., 1976. [Review of Neu-Rüster 1975], Kratylos 21, 97–102.Google Scholar
Weitenberg, J. J. S., 1979. “Einige Bemerkungen zu den hethitischen Diphthong-Stammen”, in Hethitisch und Indogermanisch. Innsbruck, 289–303.Google Scholar