Erdington 17 March 1875.
Ki. [cuneiform]. Ya.u has long engaged my attention. The absence of determination does not forbid our recognizing the Divine Name here; for we Nusku, Samsú & Uzu, besides several territorial names, equally without determinations, in the syllabories. It is now some years since I communicated to Mr Sayce my belief that the temple of Solomon is intended in the Bit. Hila [cuneiform] Ni in the annals of Sarukin and Sirahirib. This was confirmed by those of Assur-banipal, in which we have Bit. [cuneiform] Na, & Bit. Hila [cuneiform] Na, designating one & the same temple at Uruk. In the latter case Hili is in the dative, in the former in the accusative, i:e: if declined [symbol] for הליח־תיכ, in the samaritan version of Genesis, represents לא־תיכ in the Hebrew, and לוח & לא have the same sense.
In the new syllabory which you have edited, we have I for Yau, and this also is the Divine element in some personal nouns. Most important is the variant reading of this new syllabory – I have puzzled myself in vain with Sinabi of the old, –I min nabi, “ I twice pronounced”, as Mr Smith explains it, for here we have evidently the ײ, which represents both הוהי & םיהלא in the Sargons. We have the Akkadian doubled form in the following legend, on a bronze axe in the hands of P. Garnucie of Rome, in writing of the most archaic type.
If I am right in identifying the second sign with [cuneiform], I would connect it with בבש, & translate “Conterat multipliciter imimicum meum ײ” At any rate the precative ha, and the evident sense of Kur mu, warrant us in supposing that we have a wish for ײ to do something unpleasant to “my enemy.” So the legend on this axe is not unlike that on the sword of your great namesake, (perhaps ancestor), “Sum Talboti pro vincere inimico nev.” If the Akkadian zal or sal, also applied to Samsú, throw any light on the morning of [cuneiform], it may be connected with ללצ “to protect.” I think all this has a bearing on the antiquity of the name הוהי.
Now with regard to your 16 & 18. The Akkadian equivalent of your Α is either si.ik or sν.gal. I prefer the latter, and I think the additional sign in 18 is a phonetic extension, making sí.gal.[lam?]. Now it is for you to consider whether these words have not a sense, somewhat different from those you have indicated, in II. 25 & 44. [cuneiform] alone is an “ark”, and ix expresses the material whereof made, in the flood tablet (II.14 &c), and elsewhere. In II.25 we have ni with the addition of ba. with this addition I cannot connect the sense of זוז or רשנ; so must choose between those of [Hebrew], i:e: “to keep”, or “conceal”, and “to cut”, referring either to its object, (and for this we have [Hebrew]), or to its workmanship. Then ni.ba is pissatum, and the sense is not affected by the addition of Sigallam; and this pissatum was something to open, for it had a dalat. I think we are concerned with a sanctuary; because in II.60 the god of Susan is Tispak, and in Assurbanipal Surdis, both followed by Sigallam; and in the latter we are told that the image was never seen. Following out your byssurs idea, I would suggest that pissatum was a “tabernacle”, such as that of Israel, enclosed by curtains. But this does not seem to me certain, for in the texts referred to by Mr Smith, lapsus is “may be enclosed”, and napsastum may be simply what is “enclosed” or “concealed” without reference to curtains. Still it is easy to conceive derivations of sense. In II.44 we have súluku miaz and súluku sígal. Connected with the former a question arises whether nuhu can be connected with nahunti, which is united, in personal names, with Kudur a name of Ninip, (as Tispak is), and with Suturku or Sirhuk, which the Assyrians wrote Sutur & Istar, because Surdis was Star with them, but designated Ninip in Elam. If so it would mean, “hidden in a tabernacle” Among the names of Ninip we have Sár. sár.ri sa naspanti where רתס & ןכּש have the same sense “to hide”; and this name, which is written with [cuneiform] in II.57 is written with [cuneiform], (elsewhere = so.ar), in III. 67, showing the equivalence of these two signs. Hence I conclude that the [cuneiform] רסא, which belonged especially to Ninip, was “house of something hidden”; and [here?] probably we get the true meaning of Saturnus. From all this I think you will agree with me that sígallam is a “tabernacle”, and that especially of this god, at least in Susan. I have called him Ninip, but the equi-value uras ]cuneiform] baru convinces me that Bar was his true Assyrian name.
The spirit of your very interesting communication to our society assures me that you will not consider these suggestions an intrusion –
Yours very respectfully
D H Haigh
[cuneiform] may be the same for [illegible] Saddari among the names of Ninip.
W. H. Fox Talbot Esqr