| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: The land of the Hittites: An account of recent explorations and discoveries in Asia Minor, with descriptions of the Hittite monuments
Author: Garstang, John
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The land of the Hittites: An account of recent explorations and discoveries in Asia Minor, with descriptions of the Hittite monuments" ***
This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.
HITTITES ***
[Illustration: BULGHAR MADÊN: APPROACHING THE TAURUS MOUNTAINS
The village lies in the valley between the two ridges.
_Frontispiece_ (_See p. 43._)]
THE
LAND OF THE HITTITES
AN ACCOUNT OF RECENT EXPLORATIONS AND
DISCOVERIES IN ASIA MINOR, WITH DESCRIPTIONS
OF THE HITTITE MONUMENTS
With Maps and Plans
Ninety-nine Photographs and a Bibliography
BY
JOHN GARSTANG D.SC. B.LITT. M.A.
RANKIN PROFESSOR OF THE METHODS AND PRACTICE OF
ARCHÆOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL; FELLOW
OF THE SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF LONDON
HON. MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY OF NORTHERN
ANTIQUARIES, COPENHAGEN
LONDON
CONSTABLE AND COMPANY, LTD.
10 ORANGE STREET, LEICESTER SQUARE, W.C.
1910
University of Liverpool
[Illustration]
Institute of Archæology
TO MY WIFE
INTRODUCTORY NOTE
BY THE REV. PROFESSOR A. H. SAYCE, D.D., D.LITT., M.A.
The history of ancient Oriental civilisation is slowly revealing itself
to the excavator and archæologist. Scientific excavations have been
carried on in Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, and Palestine; it is now the
turn of Asia Minor, both north and south of the Taurus; and there are
indications that the revelation which Asia Minor and the neighbouring
lands of Syria have in store for us will be even more startling than
that which has come from Egypt and Babylonia. There we already knew that
great empires and wide-reaching cultures had once flourished; the earlier
history of Asia Minor, on the other hand, was a blank. But the blank is
beginning to be filled up, and we are learning that there too an empire
once existed, which contended on equal terms with those of the Nile
and the Euphrates, and possessed a culture that formed a link between
the east and the west. What I once called the forgotten empire of the
Hittites is at last emerging into the light of day, and before long much
that is still mysterious in the art and religion of Greece and Europe
will be explained.
This much has already been ascertained by the excavations made by the
German expedition under Professor Winckler at Boghaz-Keui, north of the
Halys, the site of the Hittite capital. But there are many other sites in
Asia Minor and northern Syria where Hittite culture once flourished, and
where, therefore, discoveries similar to those which have startled the
scientific world at Boghaz-Keui may be expected to be made. Some of these
sites were examined by Professor Garstang in his preliminary journeys of
exploration; at another he has begun the work of excavation and brought
to light important remains of art and antiquity.
Sakje-Geuzi lies at a short distance from Sinjerli, where German
excavators have discovered monuments which form the chief attraction of
the Hittite section in the Museum of Berlin. The mound of Sakje-Geuzi
represents a continuous history of unnumbered centuries. The earlier
strata are the accumulation of a neolithic people; above them come
the ruins of Hittite and Aramæan builders. The temple disinterred by
Professor Garstang shows us what Hittite art was like in the Syria of the
tenth and following centuries before our era, and enables us to guess at
the character of the cult that was carried on in it.
In the following pages he has given an account of his work and the
conclusions that may be drawn from it. This, however, occupies but a
small portion of his book. Its main purpose is to review our present
knowledge of Hittite history, art, and archæology; to describe the
Hittite monuments now known to exist, and to trace the story of the
Hittite empire as it has been revealed to us by recent discoveries.
Among the great political forces of the ancient Oriental world we now
know that none exercised a more profound influence than the Hittites of
Asia Minor. It was they who overthrew the Amorite dynasty of Babylonia
to which the Amraphel of Genesis belonged; to them was due the fall of
the Egyptian empire in Asia, and it was they who checked for centuries
the desolating advance of the Assyrians. In Palestine their influence was
supreme, and it is with good reason that in the tenth chapter of Genesis
Heth is named second among the sons of Canaan. They were the founders of
the Heraklid dynasty in Lydia, and Babylonian art as modified in Asia
Minor was carried by them to the Greek seas. Greek religion and mythology
owed much to them; even the Amazons of Greek legend prove to have been
the warrior-priestesses of the great Hittite goddess. Above all, it was
the Hittites who controlled the mines of Asia Minor which supplied the
ancient world with silver, copper, lead, and perhaps also tin. Before
the age of Abraham traders carried the bronze of Asia Minor to Assyria
and Palestine, and thus transformed the whole culture of western Asia.
The story of the forgotten people is a fascinating one, and the reader
cannot do better than study it under the guidance of Professor Garstang,
whose work will be the standard authority on the subject for a long while
to come.
A. H. SAYCE.
NUBIA, _December 1, 1909_.
AUTHOR’S PREFACE
Since Professor Sayce and Dr. Wright first called attention, more than
thirty years ago, to the forgotten empire and civilisation of the
Hittites, no book has appeared to keep the English reader abreast of the
further information which has since come to light upon that subject.
In the meantime researches made by British and German explorers in
northern Syria and Asia Minor, and the studies of numerous scholars who
have applied themselves to this problem, have advanced the position so
far that the Hittites are nebulous no longer, but stand revealed in the
clear light of history, claiming the attention of all those interested
in the story of the Bible Lands, of Asia Minor, and of early Greece. The
position and character of Asia Minor lend a wide interest and charm to
its past no less than its present.
The present volume aims at filling the gap which has already grown too
wide. It starts _ab initio_ with a rapid survey of the Hittite lands,
and an outline of their history. The Hittite monuments are then passed
in review, each described separately and independently, in such a way
as to be useful to any one visiting them _in situ_ or in the museums
of Constantinople and Berlin, where there are departments devoted
specially to this branch of archæology. The bibliography and numerous
cross-references in the footnotes will, it is hoped, make the work handy
to the archæologist as a book of reference. The author’s own theories
are mostly confined to the last chapter, and an effort has been made
to distinguish between facts proved or generally accepted and matters
of personal opinion. The attempt to reconstruct the history of the
fourteenth and thirteenth centuries B.C. from the archives recently
discovered by Dr. Winckler at Boghaz-Keui is put forward tentatively, and
would doubtless have been better done by a philologist. It has been found
impossible to treat the subject of Hittite art and religious symbolism in
general within the limited scope of this volume and its title.
Some other points are best noted at the outset. One aim of the book being
to interest the English reader in a fascinating but neglected subject,
the bibliographical references are given in English wherever translations
of foreign authors are available. Unhappily some of the masterpieces of
modern scholarship, like Meyer’s _Geschichte des Alterthums_, are not
yet rendered into English. The geographical names employed, even at the
risk of inconsistency, are those most familiar or in common use. Thus
Hamath instead of Hama, Aleppo for Haleb, Carchemish for Jerablus, Tyana
for Kilisse Hissar. In regard to the term ‘Hittite,’ also, the word is
primarily used in reference to that class of monuments generally known
as Hittite, and hence to the ancient people whose handiwork these were.
The word Hatti is used in a more restricted sense, to imply the central
and at one time dominant Hittite state or states whose seat and centre
of organisation was at Boghaz-Keui. But it should not be forgotten that
actually the words Hittite and Hatti are interchangeable.
There are many friends who have helped forward the completion of the
work at various stages. Among them are the writer’s colleagues during
two of his journeys of exploration in Asia Minor. The Rev. W. M. Linton
Smith has corrected several chapters in proof, and has provided several
photographs of the Phrygian monuments. Mr. Arthur Wilkin has kindly
supplied the photographs of Ephesus, Sardis, and the goddess on Mount
Sipylus. The bulk of the illustrations, however, are the handiwork of
Mr. Horst Schliephack, and they speak for themselves. Any one who has
attempted photography under the conditions of travel in Asia Minor
will realise the skill with which these results have been obtained. In
Constantinople our work has received the constant help of Sir Edwin
Pears and Mr. G. H. Fitzmaurice; while H.E. the late Hamdi Bey greatly
facilitated our expeditions by his good-will as Director of the Imperial
Ottoman Museum. In this connection we cannot omit to mention those
patrons of science whose generosity provided the means of carrying out
these expeditions, namely, the Right Hon. Sir John T. Brunner, Bart.,
M.P., the late Dr. Ludwig Mond, Mr. Ralph Brocklebank, Mr. Martyn
Kennard, and Mr. Robert Mond. These gentlemen have earned the gratitude
of all those interested in the advance of knowledge; and the writer
trusts sincerely that they will find within these pages something that
will reward their interest in these undertakings. Mr. Hogarth and Dr.
Messerschmidt are also to be thanked for the loan of several photographs,
and for the facilities granted in the museums at Oxford and Berlin
respectively under their control.
The brunt of the proof-reading has again been borne by the Rev. W.
Macgregor, and Mrs. R. Gurney has also helped again in the revision of
a considerable portion of the manuscript previous to printing; in this
connection the help and kindly criticism of colleagues at Liverpool is
not forgotten. Finally to Professor Sayce the writer’s warmest gratitude
is due, both for his first lessons in Hittite lore, and for the constant
stimulus of suggestion and correction given unstintingly from the funds
of his knowledge. The pleasant labour of the best part of two years
devoted to the preparation of this volume has been amply rewarded by many
delightful days spent with him amid the Past in Oxford and Edinburgh and
on the Nile.
J. G.
MEROË, _February 7, 1910_.
CONTENTS
CHAP. PAGE
INTRODUCTORY NOTE: By the Rev. Professor A. H. SAYCE, LL.D.,
D.D., D.Litt. vii
AUTHOR’S PREFACE, xi
I. A CHAPTER OF GEOGRAPHY, 1-50
Boundaries and physical features (pp. 2-4); eastern Taurus and
Anti-Taurus (p. 5); northernmost Syria: the plains, the valleys
of the Afrîn and Kara Su (pp. 6-13); Passes of the Amanus (pp.
14-15); Valley of the Orontes (p. 16).
Plateau of Asia Minor, boundaries and features (pp. 17-19);
five regions (pp. 20-21); position of Cæsarea, the roads (pp.
22-25); the Halys River (pp. 26-28), its basin (pp. 29-31);
position of Boghaz-Keui and Eyuk (pp. 32-33); northern roads
and rivers (pp. 34-35); western regions, Angora, Phrygia, Konia
(pp. 36-40); south-eastern region, Kara Dagh, Ivrîz, Tyana (pp.
41-42); Taurus: the Bulghar Dagh (pp. 43, 44), the Cilician
Gates (pp. 45-47); Cilicia (pp. 48-50).
II. SOME PAGES OF HISTORY, 51-73
Outline of Hittite period: the empire, revival and final
submergence (pp. 52-55); survival of customs (p. 56). The
Phrygians, in Assyrian and Greek history (pp. 57-58), their
civilisation and monuments (pp. 59-61); the Urartians and
Cimmerians (p. 62). Lydia (pp. 63-64); Greek colonies (pp. 65,
66). Persian rule (p. 67). Alexander and Hellenising influences
(pp. 67, 68). Roman period: Seleucids, kings of Pontus,
Cilicians; organisation (pp. 69-70); monuments (p. 71). The
Saracen (Arab) conquests (p. 72); the Seljûk Turks (p. 73).
III. MONUMENTS OF THE HITTITES, 74-195
Preliminary: method of study (pp. 74-76), chronology (pp.
77-79), classification (pp. 80-82), disposition (pp. 84-91).
SECTION A.—Monuments of the north of Syria: Hamath, Restan,
Aleppo (pp. 93-97); Kurts-oghlu, Sinjerli, Kara-burshlu,
Sakje-Geuzi (pp. 98-106); Aintab, Killiz, Marash (pp. 107-122);
Jerablus (Carchemish), Tell-Ahmar, Samsat, Rum-Kale (pp.
123-131).
SECTION B.—Monuments in the Taurus and Anti-Taurus: Malatia,
Derendeh, Palanga, Gurun (pp. 132-144); Arslan Tash, Albistan
(pp. 132-146); Kuru-Bel (p. 147); Ekrek, Tashji, Fraktin (pp.
148-151).
SECTION C.—Monuments of the Halys Basin: Asarjik, Suasa
(pp. 152, 153); Karaburna, Bogche, Yamoola (pp. 154-157);
Boghaz-Keui, Denek Maden (pp. 158-160).
SECTION D.—Monuments of the West: Angora, Giaour-Kalesi, Yarre
(Chesme Keupru), Doghanlu, Bey-Keui (pp. 161-167); Sipylus,
Kara-Bel (pp. 168-172); Kölit-oghlu, Eflatoun-Bunar, Fassiler
(pp. 173-176).
SECTION E.—Monuments of the South-East: Kara Dagh, Kizil Dagh
(pp. 177-182); Emir-Ghazi, Ardistama (pp. 183, 184); Tyana,
Bor, Nigdeh, Andaval (pp. 185-189); Bulghar-Madên (p. 190);
Ivrîz (pp. 191-195).
IV. THE NORTHERN CAPITAL: A DESCRIPTION OF THE ANCIENT CITY AT
BOGHAZ-KEUI AND THE SCULPTURES CALLED IASILY KAYA, 196-241
PART I.—Identity with Pteria (p. 197); history, economy, and
situation (pp. 198-200); the acropolis ramparts, gateways and
defences (pp. 201-205), Nishan Tash and other monuments (p.
206); the Lower Palace (pp. 207, 208); chronological evidences
(pp. 209-211).
PART II.—The Rock-sculptures called Iasily Kaya: Situation,
description of sanctuary and decorative scheme (pp. 211,
213); leading figures of gods (pp. 214-216); a priest-figure
(p. 217); procession of male figures (pp. 218-220); plan and
schedule (p. 221); the leading goddesses, etc. (pp. 222, 223),
procession of females (p. 224), the Priest-king (p. 225);
ceremonial feast and monsters (p. 226). The Inner Gallery: the
moving figures (p. 227); Dirk-deity (p. 228). General survey
(pp. 230-232); historical considerations (pp. 233-234); the
divine triad (pp. 235-241).
V. WALLED TOWNS AND PALACES, 242-314
PART I.—The Palace and Sculptures of Eyuk (pp. 242-269).
Researches (pp. 242, 243): the site (pp. 244-245); the
Sphinx-gate (pp. 246-248); buildings and masonry (pp. 249-252).
The Sculptures: sphinxes, bull-god, priest and priestess,
masons, musicians (pp. 253-262); the mother-goddess, lion
corner-stone, groups (pp. 263-266); oblation scene, double
eagle (pp. 267-270).
PART II.—The Town and Sculptures of Sinjerli (pp. 270-298).
Excavations, summary of results (pp. 270-273); reliefs from
city gate, eagle-headed deities, horse-riders, winged monsters,
male figures, bowman, hare and stag (pp. 274-276); citadel gate
(pp. 277-278); reliefs—(i) charioteer and victim, (ii) warrior,
(iii) lion, (iv) God of Chase, (v, vi) lion and monster (pp.
279-283); (vii) man bearing kid, (viii) Ceremonial Feast,
(ix, x) three male figures, (xi) archer, (xii-xiii) stag and
kid, (xiv) winged lion rampant, (xv-xvi) figures with double
hammer (pp. 284-288); (xvii) warrior and sphinx, (xviii)
monster, (xix) figure of woman (pp. 289-291); (xxiv, xxv) bull
and horse-rider, (xxvi-xxvii) bull and man with clubs (pp.
292-294); (xxviii-xxix) pair of deer, (xxx) winged lion, (xxxi)
warrior, (xxxii) hunter, (xxxiii) dog, (xxxiv) musician, (xxxv)
male figure, (xxxv, xxxvii) pair of goats (pp. 295-296);
reconstruction of gateway, lion corner-stones, two peculiar
busts, the sphinx-bases (pp. 297-298).
PART III.—The Mounds and Palace-portico of Sakje-Geuzi (pp.
298-314). Local history and research, walled citadel (pp.
298-300); palace entrance, decorations, lion corner-stones
(pp. 301-302); reliefs, eagle-headed deity, fertilising tree,
sphinx, king-priest, attendants (pp. 303-308); sphinx-base (pp.
309-311); historical results, stratification, pottery, foreign
relations (pp. 312-314).
VI. THE STORY OF THE HITTITES, 315-391
The Authorities (pp. 315-316). The Hittites, their coming
and settlement, early culture, earliest historical allusions
(pp. 317-325). The Hatti rulers; conquests of Subbi-luliuma,
treaties with Mitanni, the Amorites, and with Egypt (pp.
326-336). Empire of Subbi-luliuma, reign of Mursil; Mutallu
and the battle of Kadesh (pp. 337-343); Hattusil, the Egyptian
treaty and foreign politics; his successors (pp. 346-352).
Survey of Hittite civilisation under the Hatti; the position
of women, religion, organisation, the army, roads and cities,
sculptures, and architecture (pp. 353-367). The European
migrations, disruption of the Hittite empire, the Muski, the
Assyrians, Carchemish (pp. 368-371). The great revival, the
‘Cilician’ empire, disposition of the Hittite kingdoms, with
map, the balance of power (pp. 372-377). Changes in decorative
and religious art; Semitic influence in Syria (pp. 377-380).
Oncoming of Assyria, coalitions of Hittite states, battle of
the Qarqar, fall of Tarsus (pp. 381-384). The Vannic kings,
conquests in Syria, decisive battle with Assyria; supremacy of
Assyria in Syria; fall of Carchemish, Marash and the Tabal (pp.
385-390). Epochs in Hittite history (pp. 390-391).
APPENDIX A.—BIBLIOGRAPHY OF HITTITE ARCHÆOLOGY, 392-394
APPENDIX B.—INDEX TO HITTITE MONUMENTS, WITH A BIBLIOGRAPHY, 395-401
AUTHOR INDEX, CLASSICAL AND BIBLICAL REFERENCES, 402-403
GENERAL INDEX, 404-416
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
PHOTOGRAPHS
PLATE _To face page_
I. Bulghar-Madên: Approaching the Taurus Mountains, _Frontispiece_
II. (i) A Valley in the Taurus, 4
(ii) Headwaters of the Halys near Sivas,
III. Aleppo: View of the city from the citadel, 6
IV. Karakul: A Kurd family at home, 8
V. Kartal: (i) Verandah of a house, 12
(ii) Group of Turkoman women,
VI. Bogche: A chief pass over the Amanus Mountains, 14
VII. Beilan: Summit of the pass, 16
VIII. Woodland on the south slopes of Taurus, 18
IX. Cæsarea: Cloister of a school, and citadel, 22
X. Injesu: Mosque and town, 24
XI. Halys River, between Chok Geuz and Bir Geuz, 26
XII. Yeni-Han, near Sekkili: Nomad encampment, 28
XIII. (i) Chesme Keupru: Interior of the han, 30
(ii) Sekkili (near): Yuruk encampment,
XIV. (i) Nefez-Keui: Women drawing water at the Spring, 32
(ii) Tyana: Turkish women and child,
XV. (i) Yuzgat: Dervish and vagabonds, 34
(ii) Kulakly Keui: Types of inhabitants,
XVI. Angora: Old houses on the outskirts, 36
XVII. Nefez-Keui; Carpet-weaving, 38
XVIII. (i) Nefez-Keui: Minaret of the village mosque, 40
(ii) Anatolian Horses: Noonday halt,
XIX. Bor: Bridge over the Kizilja-Su, 42
XX. Approaching the Cilician Gates, 44
XXI. Entrance of the Cilician Gates, 46
XXII. (i) Going south through the Cilician Gates, 48
(ii) Tarsus: The gardens and the town,
XXIII. Tarsus: (i) The walls of Dunuk Tash, 50
(ii) Sacred stone at an Arab shrine,
XXIV. (i) Bey-Keui: The Royal Road, 56
(ii) Dimerli: A fallen Lion,
XXV. (i) Dimerli: The Lion tomb, 60
(ii) Ayazîn: Tomb with Lions,
(iii) Tyana: Phrygian inscription of Midas,
XXVI. View near Sardis: Valley of the Pactolus, 64
XXVII. Cilicia: Roman aqueducts over the Eastern plain, 68
XXVIII. Kyrrhus: (i) Roman Tomb, and 70
(ii) Ruined Bridge,
XXIX. Baalbek: Sculpture and Temple Ruins, 72
XXX. Ephesus: The Library of Celsus, 74
XXXI. Angora: Temple of Rome and Augustus, 76
XXXII. Nigdeh: Portal of the White-Midresseh, 1223 A.D., 78
XXXIII. Nigdeh: Tomb of the Seljûk period, 80
XXXIV. (i) Ephesus: Mediæval fortress with Seljûk Remains, 82
(ii) Konia; Zazadîn Han, of Seljûk work,
XXXV. Rowanduz Kaleh; Mediæval fortress, 84
XXXVI. Cæsarea: Old Turkish cemetery, 88
XXXVII. Hamath: Inscription in Hittite hieroglyphs, 94
XXXVIII. Aleppo: Fortress on the Acropolis, 98
XXXIX. Sakje-Geuzi: Royal hunting scene, 104
XL. (i) Killiz: Bronze figures, 106
(ii) Denek Maden; Ivory seal,
XLI. Aintab: Inscription on sculptured corner-stone, 108
XLII. Marash: Architectural Lion corner-stone inscribed, 110
XLIII. Rowanduz: Camp scene in the Qurt Dagh, 122
XLIV. Malatia: (i) Priest offering to lightning-god on bull, 138
(ii) Priestess offering to winged deity,
XLV. Palanga: Inscribed columnar statue, 142
XLVI. Ekrek: Hittite inscription with Christian emblems, 148
XLVII. Fraktin: The rock-sculptures, 150
XLVIII. Bogche: Hittite inscription on round-topped stone, 154
XLIX. Yamoola: Giant eagle standing upon lions, 156
L. Angora: The acropolis, 162
LI. Ayazîn: Rock-hewn tombs and church, 164
LII. ” Roof of the church with dome, 166
LIII. Sipylus: Image of the Mother-goddess, 168
LIV. Kara-Bel: The Hittite God of Arms, 172
LV. Tyana: Ruined Roman aqueducts, 184
LVI. Bor: Hittite inscription and relief, 186
LVII. Ivrîz: Giant sculptures on the rock, 192
LVIII. Boghaz-Keui: Site of Pteria, 200
LIX. ” Gorge of the Beuyuk Kayanin Daresi, 202
LX. ” The Lion Gate, 204
LXI. ” (i) The Fortress called Yenije-Kaleh, 206
(ii) Remains of the Lower Palace,
LXII. ” Bird’s-eye View of the Lower Palace, 208
LXIII. ” (i) Camp at the foot of Beuyuk Kaleh, 210
(ii) Iasily Kaya: Sculptures on the left,
LXIV. ” General view of Iasily Kaya, 212
LXV. ” Central sculptures at, 214
LXVI. ” Group of two monstrous figures, 218
LXVII. ” One of the female figures, 222
LXVIII. ” The King-Priest at Iasily Kaya, 224
LXIX. ” (i) The Small Gallery: view, 226
(ii) Hittite portraits, three figures,
LXX. ” The dirk-deity, 228
LXXI. ” Hittite God embracing the priest, 232
LXXII. Eyuk: Sculptures decorating frontage of palace, 252
LXXIII. ” (i) Shrine of the Mother-goddess, 260
(ii) Musicians with bagpipe and guitar,
LXXIV. Coast Route round the Gulf of Issus, 270
LXXV. Sinjerli: (i) Ceremonial Feast, 280
(ii) Warrior with spear,
LXXVI. ” Sculptures of gateway _in situ_, 286
LXXVII. ” (i) Hittite God of the Skies, 292
(ii) God of the Double Axe,
LXXVIII. Sakje-Geuzi: Entrance to Palace, 300
LXXIX. ” Lion corner-stone (left), 302
LXXX. ” Lion and adjoining sculptures (right), 304
LXXXI. ” (i) Sculptures of left flanking wall, 306
(ii) Continuation of the series,
LXXXII. ” Sphinx-pedestal to central column, 310
LXXXIII. Hittite Allies: (i) Mongoloid, 318
(ii) Proto-Greek,
LXXXIV. Surviving Types: (i) Amorite 320
(ii) Hittite,
LXXXV. Nomads passing into Asia Minor, 322
LXXXVI. Cæsarea: Types of Semitic settlers, 334
LXXXVII. Yeni-Han: Group of nomad women, 340
LXXXVIII. Battle of Kadesh: Hittite chariotry charging, 344
PLANS
Boghaz-Keui: Plan of the Rock Sanctuary called Iasily Kaya, 221
Eyuk: Plan of the Sphinx-Gate, 247
Sinjerli: Sketch Plan of Gateway, 278
MAPS
Hittite States after the Revival of the Tenth Century B.C., 375
Submergence of the Hittite States (Eighth Century B.C.), 385
Map of Hittite Sites in Asia Minor and Northern Syria, _To face_ 390
I
A CHAPTER OF GEOGRAPHY
At the outset of our undertaking we are faced by a considerable
perplexity, in that the land we are setting forth to examine is
practically undefined. We are guided indeed by vague and scanty
historical references towards the north of Syria and the east of Asia
Minor, but for a wider and surer delimitation, however incomplete, we
must rely on the evidence afforded by the disposition of the Hittite
monuments themselves. These cannot fix for us any certain boundaries,
nor does the area throughout which they have as yet been found coincide
with any great natural landmarks such as are wont to form the frontiers
of nations. On the other hand, their curious disposition, and the very
disunity of the tract they indicate, awaken our interest by a suggestion
of unusual circumstances that could weld together, in political unity,
peoples whose conditions of life so differed. And though mostly in the
heart of a peninsula washed by the blue waves of two great inland seas,
no part of the long coast-line can be included, upon present evidence,
in our territory. Maybe the cause is only that the conditions there are
not favourable to the preservation or recovery of monuments; but none
the less it is to be noted that no trace of Hittite handiwork has yet
been found around the coast, whether along the wooded shores of the
Black Sea in the north, on the fertile inlets of the west,[1] or on the
rocky passes of the Syrian seaboard; nor has any clear connection yet
been shown between the Hittite confederated peoples and those sea-rovers
who, from their harbours under the southern shelter of the Taurus, made
piratical descents upon the Egyptian Delta in the thirteenth century
B.C.[2]
Thus we see the Hittites as a purely inland people, not taking to the
sea more kindly at any rate than do the Turkish peoples of to-day. The
centre of their monuments is the mountainous region of the Taurus and
Anti-Taurus systems, whence on the one hand they lead us down to the
hot plains that lie between the right bank of the Euphrates and Mount
Amanus (the Giaour Dagh), with a continuation to the south by the valley
of the Orontes as far as its sources in the Lebanon; and on the other
hand widen out to embrace not only the northern fringe of the Taurus
Mountains, and the basin of the Halys River, but practically the whole
broad tableland of Central Asia Minor, with one finger pointing down the
Hermus valley past Sardis to the west. The inference to be derived from
these preliminary considerations will receive confirmation as we proceed
with our inquiry, when we shall find reason to believe that the peoples
whose land we are trying to map out were of mountain origin. The problem
of their settlement, however, remains obscure; we must await the results
of further investigations to determine whether it was a combined movement
of peoples, bringing with them the elements of their civilisation, like
the Turks in modern history, or whether for ages they endured the rigours
of mountain life before they became strong enough to descend upon the
hospitable plains below.
The wilder mountains of Greater Armenia, east of the head-waters of the
Euphrates, show no definite sign of Hittite settlement;[3] but they form
a distinctive boundary to our region, being the culmination of the system
of which the Taurus are a part. Here too is the centre of mountain-ranges
which, like the rivers rising in their heights, descend in several
directions. To the north the towering peak of Ararat, seventeen thousand
feet in height, looks down upon the green upland valleys of the Caucasus.
Towards the east, the range which skirts the Caspian Sea connects beyond
with the systems of Central Asia. Towards the south, another chain holds
up as it were the highlands of Asia, on the one hand, giving way on
the other to the basins of the Euphrates and the Tigris, and touching
eventually the eastern waters of the Persian Gulf.
The Taurus system is another such chain trending westward, dividing
Asia Minor from the rest of Asia, skirting the southern coast-line,
then breaking and scattering as the level falls towards the west until
it descends below the sea, where its hilltops, still projecting, form
the Ægean archipelago, until drawn together it rises to dry land on the
soil of Greece. In the heart of these mountains, the two main sources
of the river Euphrates flow in a westerly direction until they unite
above Malatia;[4] thence twisting and turning ever, in its search for a
passage through the rocky ramparts that oppose it, the great river makes
an easterly contour until nearing the plains. Before reaching Gerger,
however, its direction is changed once more, turning westward in a long
curve past Samsat towards Aintab, and southward to the latitude of
Aleppo: from here its course becomes more tranquil and direct towards the
Persian Gulf.
The bend of the Euphrates below Malatia marks for the present the
boundary of the Hittite country on the east. The whole mountainous
region lying to the west of this landmark is divided by the gorges of
the Pyramus, comprising the bleak easterly heights of the main Taurus
range on the one hand, and the more broken but less barren regions of
the Anti-Taurus which lie within. From the Taurus numerous torrents fall
southward to join the bend of the Euphrates, while the northern slopes of
the same range look down on the deep valley of the Tochma Su. This river,
flowing eastward, is another main tributary of the Euphrates, which it
joins not far from Malatia, and it forms our present boundary to the
north in that direction.[5] Its sources are found high up past Gurun in
the main watershed, from which some rivers flow southward to the Cilician
plain, others north-west to feed the Halys.
[Illustration: PLATE II
A VALLEY IN THE TAURUS (_See p. 5._)
HEAD-WATERS OF THE HALYS NEAR SIVAS (_See p. 26._)]
The routes connecting the north of Syria with Asia Minor make use of
these natural channels of approach. Thus the main road from Aintab
northwards, after reaching the Pyramus near Marash, follows that river
closely to Albistan, whence the bed of a stream leads up to the divide
that gives way to the valley of the Tochma Su beyond. Derendeh is thus
gained; and up this new valley the road passes by Gurun northward, and
so over the watershed to Sivas in the valley of the Halys. From Albistan
another route leads eastward to Malatia; and westward a path passing by
Izgîn rises over the mountains to the interior.[6] A more direct route,
however, from Aintab and Marash leads by the side of streams that feed
the Pyramus north-westward up to Shahr (the classical Komana), on the
sources of the Cilician Sarus; thence, by one of several passes, among
which is the Kuru-Bel, the head-waters of the Zamanti Su are reached, so
leading down to Cæsarea at the foot of Mount Argæus. The last-named river
is tributary to the Sarus, passing by Ekrek, Tashji, and Fraktin on its
course.
It may be judged that a region so broken up by mountain-streams is
not altogether barren or inclement. Its very altitude, averaging six
thousand feet above the sea, gives respite from the summer heats that
make life burdensome upon the Syrian plains. Green patches nestle under
the shelter of its heights, protected thereby from the severity of winter
blizzards when the mountain-passes may be filled with snow. And in its
deeper valleys, though the actual banks are mostly rocky, yet the broad
slopes on either side are generally favourable to the cultivation of
cereals and other necessaries. The numerous fair towns that have sprung
up in favoured spots, mostly upon Hittite sites, with their gardens and
vineyards, fruit and olive plantations, their industries in weaving
and embroideries, reveal to us something of its attractions and the
possibilities of ancient settlement.
Just as the roadways of this region converge upon Marash, so from this
centre other lines of communication spread out into the regions of the
south. On the one hand the valley of the Pyramus leads down to the
Cilician plain; on the other the road to Aintab, which we now follow,
brings us to the northernmost parts of Syria, historically the scene of
the struggles of the Hittites with the Pharaohs and with Assyria. The
whole tract before us as far southward as Aleppo is of twofold character:
on the east are the great plains that lie away to the Euphrates, while on
the west two mountain-ranges intervene between these and the sea, lying
parallel with one another and with the coast.
The plains are really an apex to the Syrian desert, themselves watered
sparsely by winter streams flowing to the Euphrates, with some
independent rivers which, failing to find an exit, resolve themselves
into small salt lakes and swamps. There are no trees or other protection
against the withering sun, and the surface is broken only here and
there by low ridges and the mounds which mark the sites of ancient
settlements.[7] The people are mostly Kurds, mingled with the settled
descendants of northern Bedouins, using a primitive Arab speech. Their
life is arduous: their crops are parched before they can be reaped;
but none the less out of generations of experience they find the means
to live and feed their flocks. Except for local routes, the only roads
which cross this desolate tract lead from Aleppo and from Aintab to the
crossing of the Euphrates now found at Birejik, not far from the site of
ancient Carchemish at Jerablus.[8]
[Illustration: PLATE III
ALEPPO: VIEW OF THE CITY FROM THE CITADEL: THE KONAK IN THE FOREGROUND
(_See p. 7_ and _Plate xxxviii_.)]
Aleppo itself must be classed as a city of the plain, though its economy
is different. Here is the natural centre of commerce for the north of
Syria and a great part of Western Asia. So, instead of being a peasant
village upon a nameless stream, Aleppo has grown to be one of the
fairest cities of the East. Local industries have developed, adding to
its resources. Its stone-built houses and public places, its groves and
fruit-gardens, as well as the hearty spirit of its people, are the tokens
of its prosperity. Another town of considerable interest and importance
is Killiz, on the border of the plain, midway between Aleppo and Aintab.
In approaching this place the road passes through miles of olive-groves,
which form long lines of dark green upon the red loamy soil.
From Killiz as we turn westward the character of the landscape is
immediately changed; the plains are left behind, and the mountain
country is entered that lies between them and the sea. Of the two ranges
mentioned previously, the Qurt Dagh, which is first encountered, is less
bold than its western neighbour, and also less continuous, giving way
gradually towards the south. It is wild and varied enough, however, to
provide a series of memorable panoramas of mountain scenery. Northward
the head-waters of the Afrîn[9] River have scoured deep gorges in its
wooded heights; and the main stream, flowing southward in a wild and
sparsely cultivated valley, has hewn for itself a rocky bed through
which it swirls until the hills are left behind, when turning westward
it flows on to join the Orontes near to Antioch. In such a country it
is not surprising that no Hittite monuments have been placed on record.
It is in contact, nevertheless, on either hand, with places where some
of the most instructive Hittite works have been discovered; and we are
tempted therefore to linger somewhat in this unfamiliar region, seeking
in the life and features of its people for living witness of the ancient
civilisations in which it must have shared.
The population is naturally scanty, and varies racially according to its
disposition. On the basalt plateau which forms the eastern boundary to
the valley, leading down to Killiz and Aintab beyond, several villages
of Kurdish families are found. Here communication with the towns is
frequent, and mingling is not uncommon accordingly with other elements
of the Turkish people. The houses are often well constructed of masonry,
for stone is plentiful; indeed, the whole plateau is so thickly strewn
that even the pathways are difficult and narrow, while before the plough
can be put to the land a space must first be cleared at considerable
labour. Consequently the amount of cultivation is small, and even the
sparse grain that grows wild over thousands of acres remains unreaped. In
addition to the settled villages, and the tumbled ruins of many deserted
hamlets, this high ground is freely sprinkled in the summer-time with
the tents of nomads, either seeking refuge temporarily from the eastern
plains, in accordance with a common practice, or halting for a brief
season on their endless journey.
[Illustration: PLATE IV
KARAKUL: A KURD FAMILY AT HOME
Husband, wife, child of an elder wife; two brothers, left.]
The rocky edges to this plateau on the western side are broken ever and
again by rifts, down which a more copious supply of water tumbles from
above, opening out into little nooks under the shelter of the heights
before joining the main valley of the river below. In such places a
village may be found amid a patch of comparatively luxurious cultivation,
well illustrated by the vines and mulberries of Rowanduz. This pleasant
spot lies at the foot of the steep descent from Karakul upon the plateau,
and is marked by the ruins of a fine mediæval castle crowning a prominent
cone-like hill.[10] The groves and gardens are watered by a primitive
system of irrigation. The rich soil readily repays the labour bestowed
upon it in however simple fashion.
Lower down, in the main valley and nearer the river’s bed, the aspect of
the country is generally savage and neglected. A short withered scrub
speckles the surface of the ground, which is reft in every direction by
the dry gullies of winter torrents. The main routes, here as elsewhere,
keep consistently along the higher levels, crossing the rifts near their
beginnings, before they have become too rough and too steep to scale.
Other tracks are found naturally along the river’s bed, which they cross
and recross, scaling the cliffs where the water has laid bare the rocks,
and at other times passing through more open spaces cheered by narrow
strips of corn-land and the rich bloom of a myriad oleanders, wherever
the steep banks recede a little way on one side or the other. These
lower tracks, however, are never easy to follow, even under favourable
conditions, on account alike of the numerous scrambles over cliffs
often shaly and precipitous, where a false step of horse or man might
lead to disaster, and also of the numerous crossings of the river, often
deceptive to any one unfamiliar with the fords. The latter obstacle
becomes a grave danger after mountain storms which may have passed almost
unnoticed in the valley. Even in summer-time thunder-clouds from time to
time collect above the heights, and amid a gorgeous display of lightning
and reverberating thunder a torrential rain transforms in a few minutes
the rocky basin of the river. The dried-up gullies are now alive with
splashing streams, and the slumbering rivulets become foaming torrents,
the sudden uproar of scurrying streams and newly born cascades striking
the ear with curious strangeness and foreboding.[11] In an hour or two
the streams are once more tranquil and the sun has reappeared; but the
river below has received nearly all the water that has fallen, and swirls
on deep and dangerous. Fords that have little changed their appearance
are now impassable, and none but the stranger will attempt to cross them.
Even without such temporary dangers, the unwary traveller in such a
country, trying maybe to force a march when unacquainted with the village
tracks and local landmarks, will surely come to grief; and though within
an hour or two of some village where loyal, if frugal, hospitality awaits
him, will find himself lost, with little means of knowing how to direct
his footsteps. For the village which he would gain lies hidden out of
sight in some sheltered nook, or behind a bend in the river, or beyond a
rise of ground. Yet even though he reach the village by night, whether
as an armed party or as a benighted wanderer, his welcome is secure,
and his life is sacred. No questions will be asked him, nor will any
demand the reason of his coming. Warm milk and home-made bread-cakes,
and sometimes honey, will be offered him as refreshment; and after a
few simple courtesies the best room will be put at his disposal. In the
morning the ‘swash-swish’ of the churn, an inflated goatskin, will tell
him that the housewife is busied with his breakfast: soon the door is
opened and he recognises in his attendant, who lays the round tray before
him, none other than his host, the headman of the village. His horse is
fed and saddled, and the chief’s son is his guide.
In the main valley, however, we have not found that which we seek.
Pushing on then up one of the sources of the river we reach Kartal, in
a green dell begirt with wooded hills. Though off the beaten track this
place is only one day’s journey by mountain-path from Aintab. Perhaps
on this account the people here are freer. Their simplicity of life is
the same, but their curiosity is greater and their restraint is less.
Here we are soon friends; and have opportunity to study their manners
and their features. Their houses are partly hollowed in the hillside as
in many parts of Asia Minor, alike for economy in construction, and for
better protection against rain and cold. The roofs are built of timber,
and so covered with earth that it is difficult in descending from above
to distinguish them from the surface of the ground with which they are
continuous. The chief industry of the villagers, in addition to the
tending of their fields and flocks, is the making of butter and dairy
produce, which is sent to the market at Aintab. They are said to be
Turkomans, descendants of wanderers from the East who settled here many
generations back, and now an element of the Turkish people. But there
is something in their faces reminiscent of Hittite portraits, suggested
generally in the women, and marked strongly in some of the men, though
in others not at all. This glimmer seems to be due to mixture in past
times with a pre-existing population; for in the hills above there are
settlements of woodmen whom even these villagers regard as a somewhat
strange and different people. Here, at last, we come face to face with
that remarkable type portrayed so clearly on Egyptian sculptures, and
suggested also in the Hittite monuments themselves, characterised by the
strong nose in line with the receding forehead, the round protrusion
of the head behind, the heavy lips and beard, and the stolid look. The
figure is short and thickset, betokening stamina and strength. Our
photograph[12] was obtained at Kuchuk Kizil-Hissar, nearer to Aintab, but
it is clear that the home of this type is now the mountainous country,
where it has persevered in seclusion and still survives.
Our wanderings in this district have not then been fruitless. The
traveller may be rewarded also by a picture of wonderful beauty to be
seen at sunset from the wooded heights near the sources of the Afrîn
River and the Kara Su. Pen cannot describe the delicacy and harmony of
the colours in the trees, with the effects of light and shade among their
leaves and in the shadows of the foreground; nor could brush compose the
majesty and depth imparted by Nature to the distance of this scene. Ridge
beyond ridge, of varied forms and softening colours, leads back to where
beneath the reddening glow the bold ranges of the Amanus chain are seen
purple, even while the snow-clad peaks of far-distant Taurus in the north
still gleam in the last lingering rays of light.
[Illustration: PLATE V
KARTAL: VERANDAH OF A HOUSE
Churning, left; crushing grain with a wooden mallet, right back.
KARTAL: GROUP OF TURKOMAN WOMEN
(Note the cylindrical hat and cover).]
From here the western edge of the Qurt Dagh range descends abruptly to a
broad and marshy valley, shut in, on the other side, by the Giaour Dagh.
The land is flat, and the streams, after descending from the mountains,
mostly stagnate in marshes overgrown with reeds and scrub. From the
middle tract egress is almost wholly shut off, by ridges and outliers
from the hills. Such water as escapes either flows northward to join
the Pyramus or southward to form the Kara Su. Though now pestilential
with malaria and sparsely inhabited, this valley is naturally very
fertile; and numerous mounds which dot the surface are indicative of
extensive ancient settlement.[13] Among these are the sites of Sinjerli
and Sakje-Geuzi, which provide us with our most complete architectural
monuments of the Hittites on this side of the Taurus. Here there seem to
have been a series of petty states or principalities,[14] consisting of
groups of towns clustering round the palace of the local king, fortified
strongly with stone walls and towers. We do not yet know what may have
been the precise relations of these elements of the population to one
another; but it is clear that in the days of Hittite supremacy they must
have been amongst those tribes who shared in the confederacy.[15] It
is also obvious that no people could hope to defend themselves in this
valley who did not hold the passes of the mountain-ranges on either side.
[Illustration: PLATE VI
BOGCHE: THE VILLAGE WHICH GIVES ITS NAME TO A CHIEF PASS OVER THE AMANUS
MOUNTAINS]
The westerly chain of the Giaour Dagh, indeed, was readily defensible.
Except for a few local tracks available only in the summer, there are
but few passes over its unbroken mass, and these are well defined. This
splendid range of mountains, better known as Mount Amanus, forms a
main branch of the Taurus system, from which it is divided only by the
valley of the Pyramus. It separates Syria from Cilicia on the west, and
touching the sea near Alexandretta follows the coast south-westward,
until arrested by the broad valley of the Orontes. The average height
of the chain is from four to six thousand feet, while some of its peaks
reach almost to the snow-line.[16] Of the several passes that traverse
it, that which leads transversely from Marash into Cilicia presents
the easiest gradient, and is much used by caravans, though impassable
by carts. The central pass above Bogche, however, is better known,
being the direct line of communication between Cilicia and the East.
Bogche itself is reached from Osmaniyeh on the eastern borders of the
Cilician plain by a path which, while generally following the valley
of the Bogche Su, traverses also some outlying ridges. The village is
thus found picturesquely situated in an open and fertile spot among the
hills. The long ascent thence continues up to one of the main sources of
the same stream until the watershed is crossed, whence the descent is
steep and rugged to the valley. The track then heads directly by Sakje
Geuzi over the Qurt Dagh to Aintab, and so eastward to the crossing of
the Euphrates. Though direct and not very difficult, this route is
not yet made passable by carts, and perhaps for this reason the mail
from Adana and the West takes the coast route, on mule pack, round to
Alexandretta,[17] whence rises the main road to the interior. The Beilan
Pass, as it is called, above Alexandretta, is by far the easiest, and the
steep gradient on either side is so nicely engineered that it is hardly
realised in passing where the watershed is crossed. Leading down directly
to the fair seaport on the Mediterranean, this route for centuries has
been a main channel of commerce between Europe and Asia; and until
the railway connecting Aleppo with Beyrout diverted a large part of
the traffic, caravans consisting of hundreds of laden camels in long
procession could be seen daily, bringing out the merchandise of the East,
and taking back the manufactured products of the West.
The mountain-chain now turns south-west, and terminates abruptly in the
rocky point called in Arabic _Ras El Khanzîr_, ‘The Pig’s Head,’ while
its southern slopes descend steeply to the estuary of the Orontes.
Beyond, the mountainous character of the coast is continued south in the
Jebel Ansarîa (or Bargylus Mountains), which hold on until broken by the
broad rift which divides them from the Lebanon. Hugging the eastern side
of this range the Orontes River comes northward, and turning sharply
where the mountains break, it flows past Antioch south-westward to the
sea. At the bend it is joined by the Afrîn River and the Kara Su in a
broad and swampy hollow almost shut in by the mountain-ranges and the
eastern plains.
The sources of the Orontes are found in the northern region of the
Anti-Lebanon, and here the southern limit of the Hittite monuments is
reached.[18] In this vicinity was Kadesh, the frontier fortress of the
Hittites that figures so prominently in the battle-scenes of Egypt. Here,
too, is Homs, now a remarkable Arab city, at the junction of the main
routes from Damascus to Aleppo, and from Palmyra to Tripolis on the sea.
Further north is Restan, strongly placed at a bend of the river on a
steep and naturally defended knoll. Further again is Hamath, where the
main road and the river separate, the latter turning westward to seek its
green bed below the mountains, and the former holding on directly towards
Aleppo across the plains. Here, at Hamath, were found the hieroglyphic
inscriptions which first gave rise to systematic Hittite studies. Here,
too, types of people are found strongly reminiscent of the past, like
living models of the ancient sculptures.[19]
[Illustration: PLATE VII
BEILAN: VIEW OF THE VILLAGE AT THE SUMMIT OF THE PASS (_See p. 15._)]
This district, in the head-waters of the Orontes, was not only the
Hittite frontier, but was such as the Hittites in the period of their
settlement seem to have delighted in. Here their walled towns and
citadels sprang up, in the midst of a land well watered and reasonably
fertile, under the shadow of mountains which cut them off from the sea
and from their enemy of the South; while behind the road was open to call
up in necessity the assistance of the northern branches of their people.
* * * * *
From the Taurus we descended firstly to the north of Syria, because in
the development of Hittite studies this region first attracted attention
through the references to it in Egyptian and Assyrian history. But modern
research has added to our knowledge of the Hittite lands a wider and
different territory on the other side. There the descent to the interior
of Asia Minor from the mountains is not so marked, for even around the
foot of snow-capped Argæus, the most advanced pinnacle of the system,
the plateau is still four thousand feet above the sea. The level falls
gradually towards the west, but rarely much below three thousand feet;
while on the other hand the numerous minor ranges that break the surface
of the interior attain a considerably greater height. This tableland is
almost enclosed by ridges of mountains: on the north and south these
descend directly to the coast; on the west they are more broken and less
bold, but they constitute none the less a great obstacle between the
plateau and the green valleys of the Ægean coast.[20] On the east, as we
have already seen, are the Anti-Taurus ranges, backed by the Armenian
hills beyond. The upland area thus enclosed is from two to three hundred
miles across according to the direction taken, for its form is irregular.
Only to the south is the boundary sharply defined, where the range of
Taurus forms a mighty wall, which in the middle turns almost a right
angle in direction, running north-eastward and north-west. The whole
plateau may be regarded as irregularly five-sided.
The interior varies greatly in its features, the chief agent being the
peculiarities of its river systems. Shut in as it is, many rivers fail to
find an outlet to the sea: this is especially the case in the plain which
lies at the foot of the western ranges of the Taurus, where the waters
stagnate, forming salt lakes or marshes. This plain is green around
Konia, but its extensions to the north and east are practically desert,
being parched and barren in the summer months. On its north-east, in the
centre of the peninsula, its boundary is the largest salt lake of the
interior, which is fed likewise by several minor inland streams. There
are some rivers, however, which find an outlet even through the Taurus
ranges, but such are more common towards the west and north-west. The
districts which these water are consequently among the most attractive of
Asia Minor, with areas of natural woodland and green pastures, as well as
fertile soil for cultivation.
But the greatest river and most important landmark of the interior is the
Halys, which describes a broad circuit through the heart of the plateau,
enclosing towards the north-east a tract about a hundred and fifty miles
across which mostly lies in the basin of the river, well watered by
its many tributaries. This region is one of the most important in our
subject. Though not extensively cultivated, for the stable population
even here is relatively small, it is none the less highly fertile. Its
hills and slopes are mostly green with pastures, and in the flat valleys
are long reaches suitable for the plough. Another favoured district lies
southward from the Halys, passing by Mount Argæus, skirting the eastern
edges of the plain, and watered by streamlets from the Anti-Taurus.
Here in the vicinity of Tyana are wide acres of corn-land, gardens are
plentiful, and even trees abound.
[Illustration: PLATE VIII
WOODLAND ON THE SOUTH SLOPES OF TAURUS
(_See pp. 19, 47._)]
Woodland is rare in the interior, but highland trees grow in profusion
on the mountain-sides. The middle heights of the Taurus are covered with
virgin forest, especially on the southern aspect, where every variety
of European tree is found; and the pine-woods of Phrygia in the west
have been a feature of the country throughout its history.[21] The
slopes overlooking the Black Sea, however, catch the chief share of the
northern rains, and here consequently forest-land is plentiful,[22]
and nearly continuous along the coast. The interior is almost rainless
in the summer-time,[23] and relies chiefly for its water supply on the
winter storms, and later melting of the mountain snows. Owing to its
high elevation above the sea the cold season is severe and persistent:
the bleak winds from southern Russia sweep across its plains and open
spaces, driving the population of the exposed areas for shelter into
houses either sunk below the surface of the ground or hollowed in the
banks of streams. The compensation for this inclement season is ample in
the summer weather, when the warm sun shining down from blue skies is
tempered by refreshing breezes which the altitude produces—features of
climate that distinguish this tableland from the southern coasts, and
from the plains of Syria.
Such in brief are the striking features of this portion of the Hittites’
land. On these breezy highlands the ancient people found all the elements
of contentment: hunter, woodman, shepherd, and peasant found each his
home, in which Nature provided him with all the ordinary requirements
of his life. Nor was the development of his civilisation to be arrested
by his settlement: the resources of his country were inexhaustible;
mines of useful and precious minerals are not uncommon;[24] and the
means of providing other commodities was at hand, for the walls of the
plateau were not without openings to foster some relations with the
coast and so with other lands. But, on the whole, the uplands which he
had occupied were economically self-contained; and for the stimulus to
his civilisation we look naturally to the East, and especially to the
old-established culture on the Euphrates, the communications with which,
by the nature of his settlement, were open and in his power.[25]
In the foregoing general view of Central Asia Minor we have seen that
the interior tableland may be divided conveniently for description into
five main regions, not for the most part separated from one another by
any definite boundary, but each characterised by some special feature.
These are, in the south, the plains that lie northward and eastward
from Iconium; in the west, the pine-clad hills and verdant pastures
of Phrygia, where several great rivers rise that descend in different
directions; in the north, the upland but not highland country around
Angora, in which also is the divide between some tributaries of the
Sangarius and of the Halys; in the north-east, the broad tract enclosed
by the convex curve of the Halys River, to which we shall presently
return; and, in the south-east, the tract of which Tyana is the centre,
with which we shall include the eastern portion of the plain of Konia
and the range of Taurus that bounds it on the south. Of these regions,
the two latter may be regarded as an eastern or inner group as opposed
to the three former lying to their west, from which they are physically
separated, more clearly, at any rate, than the components of either group
from one another, by the broad expanse of desert, the great central
lake, and especially by the middle course of the Halys. This distinction
between eastern and western will be found to have a real significance
as our story develops: it is clear from the outset, however, that the
former group would first receive and longest retain contact with Eastern
civilisation, whether by the natural approaches over the watershed
between the Euphrates and the Halys, or by the several crossings of the
Anti-Taurus which converge upon Cæsarea, or by what is now the chief
channel of communication through the Taurus Mountains by way of Cilicia.
This distinction will be found further emphasised by the comparative
plenty of Hittite monuments on the one side, and their paucity in the
west. On the southern plains, indeed, skirting the main range of Taurus,
westward progress was less restrained;[26] but that the Halys in the
north presented a real barrier[27] is borne out by the fact that when
the Lydian Crœsus crossed the Halys in the sixth century B.C. he found
a strange and presumably non-Aryan people surviving upon the eastern
side, who were indeed, according to Herodotus,[28] called Syrians by the
Greeks, and by that historian spoken of as Syro-Cappadocians.
With our two eastern divisions we must include the plain and district
westward of Cæsarea, a tract which on the north lies partly in the
basin of the Halys, and on the south is practically continuous with
the plains of Tyana, from which it is separated only by a low ridge of
hills. Towards the west are the remarkable troglodyte villages,[29]
where, probably from remote antiquity, the inhabitants have hewn out
their dwellings in the soft surface rock and conical mounds which are
the peculiar feature of the locality. There is little evidence as yet,
however, to make this region of importance in our subject, and it is only
recently that Cæsarea has yielded trace of Hittite handiwork.[30] None
the less the continuation of exploration will certainly bring to light
new monuments, for the district lies in the heart of the Hittite country;
and Old Cæsarea (Mazaca) was the residence of Cappadocian kings.
[Illustration: PLATE IX
CÆSAREA: CLOISTER OF A SCHOOL, WITH THE CITADEL BEYOND]
The position of Cæsarea is geographically of great importance, and
from Roman times at any rate has marked the focus of the trade and
traffic, and consequently of the road-systems, of the interior. The
soil locally is of great fertility, owing to its volcanic nature. Vines
and fruit-trees grow and thrive luxuriantly. The middle heights of
slumbering Argæus are covered thickly with pine-woods. The snow-capped
peak of this mountain towers in the heavens, the conspicuous feature of
the horizon and the landmark for two days’ journey on every side. Its
form is conical: to the west and south, where it rises directly from the
plain, its base is washed by great lakes and marshes of variable extent.
Towards the east it is connected up by broken ridges with the Anti-Taurus
system. On its northern slope is Asarjik, overlooking Cæsarea, which
lies at the foot of the mountain on that side. The site of the ancient
city (Mazaca) is probably that marked by the ruins of Græco-Roman times,
to be found in the vineyards on a low spur of the mountain about a mile
south of the modern town.[31] Here is a spot that will one day reward
excavation by a volume of unsuspected history. In the modern town, apart
from its bazaars and industries and its splendid mediæval remains,[32]
one of the most interesting sights is the ever-changing stream of human
faces to be seen in its streets, for its traffic and position bring to
it daily caravans from every side. In its resident population there
are considerable Greek and Armenian elements; but there may be noticed
as specially of interest to our subject the Jewish families,[33] in
which the dominant features of face and stature recall again the type
previously noticed at Kartal in Northern Syria. Main roads radiate from
Cæsarea in all directions: towards the north-east to Sivas by the valley
of the Halys; to the north by Yuzgat, crossing the river, which is
five hours distant from Cæsarea, by a remarkable bridge of many spans
(hence called _Chok-Geuz Keupru_); to the north-west by way of a lower
bridge (called in contrast _Bir-Geuz_, or One-span Bridge), heading
thence directly for Angora by the bridge at Cheshme Keupru; to the west
across the plains to Konia by Sultan Han, skirting the southern border
of the salt lake (Tuz Geul); to the south by Injesu and Tyana, and so
to the Cilician Gates, or by a western branch to Eregli. An alternative
route from Cæsarea to the Cilician Gates, shorter but impassable by
carts, leads through defiles of wild beauty through the outlying ridges
of the Anti-Taurus. South-east there are several well-established
mountain tracks, like those to Fraktin and Ekrek, but there is one
of special interest and antiquity, to which we have already alluded,
heading directly for Marash by way of the high pass of Kuru-Bel,[34]
and passing hence by Komana. Of the other routes enumerated there is
one which was already of importance on general grounds before a recent
discovery gave to it a special historical interest. This is the main road
north and south, passing through Yuzgat, which in antiquity connected
Boghaz-Keui with the east by way of Tyana and the Cilician Gates. This is
clearly a southerly stage of the Royal Road of the Persian period, but
whether it is the main route is not determinable from the description
of Herodotus.[35] It has, however, now been traced for several miles
between Injesu and a ford of the river near Bogche,[36] by the ruts
scored deeply and over a broad track on the surface rock, exactly like
the section previously traced through Phrygia by Sir William Ramsay.[37]
It is significant that this route did not touch Cæsarea, to reach which
a considerable détour must be made around the foot of Argæus, so much
so that even now an optional route is in use from Injesu to Chok-Geuz
Keupru. The old route was, if anything, even more direct, for from
Injesu, near which it is traceable, it headed for the river in due line
for Boghaz-Keui. The Hittite inscription overlooking the river at Bogche,
the continuous signs of the road approaching Injesu from this direction,
the Phrygian inscription found on the site of Tyana,[38] and the Hittite
inscriptions from the same vicinity,[39] are evidences of the antiquity
of this road analogous in every way to those which have been accepted
as identifying it in the Phrygian country, from Bey-Keui to Doghanlu.
Incidentally we find light in this discovery on the historical antiquity
of the Cilician Gates as the main channel of communication with the east.
Later in these pages[40] we shall find reason to believe that the western
part of the great Royal Road, which led the Persian posts in crossing
Asia Minor to make the wide détour by way of Pteria (even though the city
was in ruins),[41] had been made and established by the Hittites in the
thirteenth century B.C., when the stone walls of their capital crowned
the hilltops of Boghaz-Keui. Possibly the earliest communication with the
East was by way of the valley of the _Tochma Su_,[42] or by Marash; but
the development of this southern branch of the main chariot-way cannot
well be later than the tenth century B.C., when the second kingdom of the
Hittites grew prominent with Tyana (or maybe Cæsarea) as its centre.
[Illustration: PLATE X
INJESU: VIEW OF THE MOSQUE AND TOWN]
In passing now to a closer examination of the geography of those portions
of the tableland with which we shall be most concerned in later chapters,
we cannot begin more appropriately than by a description of the Halys
River itself, as one of the definite landmarks of the interior, and as
including in its circuit some of the most instructive Hittite works. This
splendid river, known in the Turkish language as the Kizil Irmak, has a
total length of five hundred miles, without counting its minor windings.
Its sources must be sought in the map beyond Sivas, far up the northern
slope of the lower Armenian hills,[43] where at one point but a few miles
divide it from several tributaries of the Euphrates. For nearly two
hundred miles it holds on in a south-westerly direction through hilly
country, fed by numerous short streams on either hand, which scour for
themselves deep channels in their swift descent. Its waters are deeply
stained red-brown in colour by the rich sediment which it carries. Its
banks are rugged, and like most main rivers of western Asia it flows
deep below the general level of the basin which it drains. The bridge
opposite Cæsarea (Chok-Geuz) is only gained by a steep climb on either
side. Between this and the other bridge some fifteen miles lower down,
the river flows characteristically through a steep-sided valley, with
only narrow strips of verdure along its banks. These strips are precious,
and, though liable to be washed out by flood,[44] are cultivated with
great care by individual peasants, who are rewarded with fruits and even
flowers, as well as the vegetables which are their chief concern.[45]
Sometimes these strips, which are never more than a few feet in width,
give way entirely where the rocks protruding from the bank present an
obstacle around which the deep waters swirl. Ever and again, however, the
steep banks recede, leaving a green oasis wherein a village lies among
its crops. Yamoola is such a place, where the right bank lies back as
the lower bridge is approached. But for the most part the edges of the
plateau in which the river’s bed is sunk are so rugged and so strewn with
stone that they remain uncultivated. Here and there villages are found
even in the river’s banks; in some cases the entire houses are excavated
therein, so that their windows look out on the water through walls of
solid stone, as at Chok-Geuz Keupru; in other cases the excavation is
more partial, leaving most of the frontage and part of the roof to be
built—the one with mud, the other with timber and mud, as may be seen by
following the left bank below the lower bridge. The traveller will also
be rewarded here in summer-time with wildflowers in varieties of colour
surpassing imagination, possible only in a highly fertile and neglected
soil. Patches of pink, blue, orange, white and yellow meet the eye in
quick succession. Roses grow in profusion, while here and there are whole
fields of purple iris, shining and changing hue as they bend in the
sunlight to the winds that play upon them.
[Illustration: PLATE XI
THE HALYS RIVER, BETWEEN CHOK GEUZ AND BIR GEUZ]
The volume of the river has now become so great that fords are few and
generally difficult. That near Bogche[46] is no longer passable in the
winter and spring-time. The village itself lies back from the river-brink
about fifteen miles below the Bir-Geuz bridge. Karaburna lies near
the opposite bank, another day’s journey lower down. Hereabouts the
hilly ground which lies eastward of the great lake Tuz Geul arrests the
southerly progress of the river, which, thrown back, turns in a great
sweep north-westwards for nearly a hundred miles, then northwards to
latitude of Angora, so dividing the heart of the peninsula. The chief
bridge in the latter portion of its course is now at Cheshme Keupru,
where amongst other main communications the road from Cæsarea to Angora
recrosses the river. Hereabouts it would seem there was a bridge and
fort or guardhouse in Persian times,[47] where the royal road from the
Phrygian country and the west passed over towards Boghaz-Keui. Above this
bridge the immediate banks are green and on the left side open; but below
the waters pass at once into a rocky defile, changes which are typical
of the varying nature of the river’s bed. Opposite Angora (which is
distant about thirty miles at the nearest point) Nature opposes further
obstacles to the northerly progress of the river in the broken ranges of
the northern coast, so that it now turns completely upon its original
direction, and henceforth flows north-easterly with one main détour. As
it winds around the foot of the Kush Dagh it descends from the plateau,
and in a widening valley with fertile banks finds its way into the Black
Sea, northwards from Samsun, at the point of a promontory which it has
itself deposited.
[Illustration: PLATE XII
YENI-HAN, NEAR SEKKELI: NOMAD ENCAMPMENT ON THE DELIJE IRMAK (_See p.
29._)]
The great circuit of the Halys encloses a tract of country a hundred and
fifty miles across, watered chiefly by tributaries of the same river.
Of these the Delije Irmak is chief, and it is perhaps more directly
concerned with the fertility of the country than its parent river. It
rises in the watershed of the Ak Dagh Mountains, under the southern
slopes of which the Halys itself flows down the long reach between Sivas
and the bridges near Cæsarea. Thence in its course it makes a similar
circuit within that of the Halys, which it only joins in the middle of
the north-westerly reach. This river is more gentle in its flow, and
its banks are mostly flat alluvial tracts of great fertility; indeed,
the land would support a population many times more numerous than its
settled inhabitants. Long green pastures and arable spots remain unneeded
and neglected. It is small wonder that the wandering Turkoman and other
nomad peoples have found out this favoured region so suitable to their
habits and the feeding of their flocks. Their tents in little groups are
found quite frequently in places off the beaten tracks; indeed their
encampments remaining through several years sometimes mark the foundation
of villages and settled life. The tent of the nomad is generally made
of lengths of rough hand-made cloth, woven from home-spun goats’ wool.
These are sewn together to give a considerable expanse of cover, which
is spread over vertical poles and brought down to earth on the windward
side. In such a tent the owner and his family share a common shelter
with their flocks and any other animals they may possess.[48] In some
cases the development of the house from tent may be watched growing
proportionately with the duration of their stay. For the ashes and
rubbish are regularly thrown out around the back of the tent for mere
convenience. This refuse gradually accumulates, and may be increased by
earth cleared gradually from within, and by stones collected from the
land in use around, so that in a year or two a wall or mound three or
four feet high already encloses the tent on three sides. The worn-out
cloth cover is now replaced by a roof of rafters and twigs covered with
earth, and perhaps without realising it the nomad has settled and built a
house. The solution is not always so simple or purely economical. In some
cases walls of reed are built, over which the cover will be stretched
as before and held down all around with pegs. In due course, with a
prolonged stay, the worn-out cloth will be replaced by thatch, and rough
stone walls supplant the decaying reeds; and so, as he loses the habit of
wandering, the nomad loses also the necessaries of his journeys.
[Illustration: PLATE XIII
CHESME KEUPRU: INTERIOR OF THE HAN (_See p. 28._)
NEAR SEKKELI: YURUK ENCAMPMENT (_See p. 29._)]
The Delije Irmak is replenished in its turn by numerous smaller streams;
on one of these is Yuzgat, which had its origin in a settlement of
Turkomans, and has now grown to be one of the most important towns of the
district. It is pleasantly situated in the cup-like hollow of a green
hillside, and with its well-ordered streets, its stone-built bazaars and
public buildings, has an appearance of considerable attraction. Here
horses are to be procured of useful kind and at reasonable prices, and a
great horse fair is held annually in the summer months. The masoned stone
used in its construction was largely brought from the ruins of ancient
Tavium, which is found at Nefez-Keui, a short journey to the west.
The latter is one of the most typical and instructive villages of the
interior. It is placed near the sources of another tributary of the same
river, well up the southern slopes of a considerable secondary watershed.
In typical fashion the backs of the houses are partly excavated in the
hillside, so that the mud-covered roofs are continuous with the ground
behind, while the fronts of the houses and the village streets are
banked up in terraces. Nearly all the houses have some form of verandah
sheltering their entrances; and numerous Greek inscriptions may be found
built into the walls of many buildings. The ancient acropolis may be
recognised by a few sculptured fragments in a steep knoll some minutes
westward, and on the way the modern cemetery is passed in which also
several stones bearing Greek inscriptions or sculptures have been re-used
and in some cases re-inscribed. The main industry of the villagers here,
as everywhere in Asia Minor, is naturally agriculture. The fields in
the dales below, though somewhat marshy in places, are very green with
luxurious pastures and some quantity of trees; while nearer the village
gardens of vegetables are plentiful with orchards of fruit-trees and
a considerable expanse of vineyards. Other national industries are
carried on in the houses unnoticed, such as the hand-weaving of small
carpets,[49] done chiefly by the women. The water supply of the village
is found in several springs, which have been built up and prepared for
the watering of cattle and flocks, as well as for domestic purposes. The
scene of women washing their garments or their children at the trough, or
drawing water at the source is here, as throughout the East, one of the
most characteristic of daily life. The prevailing type of face among the
inhabitants of this place is Turkoman, but a certain clean-cut Greek or
proto-Greek type of face may be found suggested in some few of the men,
recalling distantly a special type of Hittite warriors as portrayed in
Egyptian sculpture. Some of the women are noticeably beautiful.[50]
Northwards from Nefez-Keui the route continues to rise to the crest
of this secondary watershed, which reaches a height of over seven
thousand feet. From the eastern edge several streams fall away to join
the Chekerek. As soon as the northern slopes are reached, a remarkable
change of landscape presents itself; bare patches are replaced by
continuous pastures, and the stream which descends towards Boghaz-Keui
passes through meadows and wooded glades of peculiar beauty. As the
river[51] gathers strength it works its way into a deep continuous vale
of increasing splendour, the slopes of which are thickly covered with
trees and shrubbery of considerable variety, except where here and there
a bare patch of rock or red-brown soil adds to the contrast of colours.
At the mouth of this valley, on the right at the foot of the hill, the
little village of Boghaz-Keui is disclosed, with its white minaret and
houses and large konak, on a low outcrop of rock, made pleasant by a few
trees and splashing streams. The ridge is left behind, and the landscape
immediately opens out into wide pastures bounded by dark green uplands,
and broken freely by white limestone rocks. The name of this place, the
‘Village of the Gorge,’ has arisen possibly on account of its general
situation, or more probably in reference to the deep ravine of another
river[52] which bounds the eastern edge of the historic hill, on which
are the palaces and acropolis of ancient Pteria, that marks the one-time
capital and centre of the land. It is difficult for us now to realise,
with the changed political and economic conditions, what special feature
there was peculiar to this site, unless that were its climate and
defensible position, that should have marked it out for such a destiny.
Its ancient city is now a deserted ruin, without meaning to modern life.
Its roadways have no longer any significance, and even in the faces of
its people there can be seen no reflection of its former population.
It would seem that the Lydian conqueror of the sixth century B.C. had
thoroughly and effectively destroyed it.[53]
[Illustration: PLATE XIV
NEFEZ-KEUI: TWO WOMEN DRAWING AT THE SPRING
TYANA: TURKISH WOMEN AND CHILD]
Another Hittite site, marked by a low mound now covered by the village
of Eyuk, lies some twenty miles farther to the north. The route thither
winds around somewhat barren uplands, among which a few arable spots have
been chosen as the sites of villages. In some of these, particularly in
the remoter places upon the hills, an ancient type survives in striking
and rugged contrast to the familiar though varying Turkish features.[54]
Our photograph, taken at Kulakly (a hamlet on the way from Boghaz-Keui
to Eyuk), discloses the same prominent facial details and sturdy figures
as we have previously seen in the woodlands above Kartal in the north
of Syria. It is a type preserved to some extent in the Jewish families
found in some of the towns of Asia Minor, as we have seen to be the case
at Cæsarea.[55] It is strikingly reminiscent of the Amorite element among
the Hittite allies on the Egyptian battle scenes.
The main roadways of this region, as indeed throughout the tableland in
general, are curiously independent of the river systems. Local tracks
follow naturally the valleys of streams so far as these serve for the
required direction, but in general the high roads are independently
devised. Of these the two which cross at Yuzgat are the chief: the one
leads from Cæsarea northwards either to Chorum, the administrative
headquarters of this district,[56] or to Amasîa somewhat eastward, and
so on to Samsun on the coast of the Black Sea; while the other connects
Sivas with Angora and the west. The latter route as it approaches the
Halys passes by Denek Maden, where are considerable mines of lead and
silver, the ore of which contains also antimony and gold. The descent
to the Halys bed lies through a well-timbered country, and the river is
crossed by this route at Cheshme Keupru. There are also other routes of
considerable importance, one of which has been mentioned as connecting
Cæsarea with Angora directly, crossing the Halys twice; while another
from Angora eastward, much used in summer-time, passes over the river
considerably north of Cheshme Keupru, heading for Sungurlu, whence the
way is open to Chorum by way of Eyuk, or to Yuzgat, passing in this case
by Boghaz-Keui.
There are some few rivers of this region which do not enter the basin
of the Halys. The chief of these is the Chekerek, which rises likewise
in the Ak Dagh Mountains, and pursues a circuitous course northwards,
in avoiding the slopes of minor ranges, until it joins the river Iris
at Amasîa. The last-named river, called in Turkish the Yeshil Irmak,
with its main branch the Lycus, belongs entirely to the coastal system,
and so does not enter into our account of the interior plateau. Another
stream just eastward of the Iris is the Thermodon, made famous in Greek
literature[57] by its association with the Amazons. This is one of a
series of similar rivers which flow almost directly northwards to the
Black Sea from the lower Armenian hills. There are other short rivers of
like kind westward of the Halys, some of which help to feed that river,
while others flow directly to the sea. These do not need to be mentioned
by their names, as they all fall away from the northern slopes of the
broken and irregular chain of mountains that forms the northern boundary
to the tableland.
[Illustration: PLATE XV
YUZGAT: DERVISH AND VAGABONDS
KULAKLY KEUI: TYPES OF INHABITANTS]
The most westerly main river flowing to the Black Sea is the Sangarius or
Sakaria, which rises in the interior, and avoids the northern ranges by a
long westerly détour. Numerous early tributaries of this great river rise
indeed in the slopes of those northern mountains, while others fall from
the western side of the divide, which on the east overlooks the Halys.
These meander southward and westward, seeking for an opening through
the upland region of which Angora is the economic centre. The country
which they water resembles in general characteristics many portions in
the basin of the Halys; and though large tracts equally remain barren
and neglected through lack of population, it is on the whole better
cultivated, and hence more productive. Angora itself is strikingly placed
upon a hill, crowned by an old fortress which overlooks a ravine with
precipitous sides.[58] Here are extensive gardens and cultivation in
sheltered spots, and in the immediate neighbourhood are numerous orchards
and vineyards. The place is famous for its fruits, especially pears and
apples, and for its honey. The Angora goat is historic, and there is
still a considerable trade in the mohair which this animal produces,
and to some extent in special woven fabrics. It is the administrative
headquarters of a large province, the seat, that is to say, of a Wali;
and is an important trade centre for the interior. Several main roads
converge upon it, notably the high road connecting Constantinople with
the East, by way of Yuzgat and Sivas, which crosses the Halys at Cheshme
Keupru. A route no longer of first importance, but dating probably from
Phrygian times[59] at least, connects Angora with Giaour-Kalesi, some
thirty miles south-west, and another place in this vicinity with which we
are concerned is Yarre, placed just above a bridge across the Sangarius
called _Karanje Keupru_.
[Illustration: PLATE XVI
ANGORA: OLD HOUSES ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF THE CITY]
In the time of Herodotus the country around Angora was obviously
regarded as a part of Phrygia, the eastern boundary of which was the
Halys, dividing it from Cappadocia,[60] yet we have preferred to look
upon this as a northern region apart, and to assign to the Phrygian
country its later and more familiar boundaries. As such Phrygia forms
the geographical centre of the western portion of the peninsula. Here is
the main watershed, in which are found the head-waters of three river
systems. On the one side are the sources of the Hermus and the Mæander
flowing down to the Ægean in the west; on another rises the Cayster (the
_Akkar-tchai_), and several smaller rivers which follow a southerly
or south-easterly course, emptying into inland lakes; while from the
northern slopes, as we have previously noticed, other waters feed the
Sangarius, and are rolled with the flood of that river into the Black Sea
eastward from the Bosphorus. These uplands are among the most attractive
parts of Asia Minor; the bracing air is filled with the delicious scent
of pine-woods, the verdant pastures are well watered by numerous clear
streams, and the meadows ripen under a glowing sun, the rays of which
are tempered by the altitude. Here, too, are numerous monuments of the
Phrygian kingdom; while north-east from these, at Doghanlu Daresi,
on one of many minor tributaries of the Sangarius, and south-west at
Bey-Keui, at one of the sources of the same river, near the summit of the
watershed, there have been found traces of Hittite handiwork. Through
the heart of this region, too, there passed the royal road of Persian
times,[61] visible as a series of parallel scars in the surface rock.
This was the main highway linking West with East, and that it developed
largely during Hittite times also is seen by the disposition of Hittite
monuments along its track. Near the coast, it passed near where the
sculptures of Sipylus and Kara-Bel looked down on the approaches to
Smyrna and to Ephesus. From Sardis its precise route eastward is not
determined, but it must have entered the Phrygian country near Bey-Keui,
whence it is traceable past Bakshish and the monument of the Phrygian
Midas, near which is also the Hittite sculpture at Doghanlu Daresi. Still
leading north-westward past Giaour-Kalesi, it would seem to have crossed
the Sangarius near to Yarre, and the Halys either at or just northwards
from Cheshme Keupru,[62] heading in all this otherwise unexplained
détour for Boghaz-Keui, the chief centre of the Hittites in the north.
This road had already lost its main objective even in Persian times, for
Pteria seems never to have recovered from its overthrow by Crœsus, but it
continued to be used, probably because it was ready made; and its traces
remain, like the isolated monuments of the Hittites in the west, striking
witnesses to a vast system of government and economic organisation unlike
anything in later times. For our immediate purpose it is sufficient to
notice that all the clearly Hittite monuments westward of the Halys are
found along this single line of road, a fact which is as significant as
it is remarkable.
[Illustration: PLATE XVII
NEFEZ-KEUI: CARPET-WEAVING (_See p. 31._)]
We do not include in the foregoing considerations the region of which
Iconium (_Konia_) is the centre, which fills the southern corner of the
tableland. Several main roads radiate naturally from this place, which
is the chief town of the province; there are, however, only two or
three with which we are even indirectly concerned. Of these one leads
north-westward, passing Ilgîn at a distance of about fifty miles, and so
into Phrygia, which it approaches up the valley of the inland Cayster.
The second is that which leads eastward across the plains by Sultan Han
and Akserai for Cæsarea; and a third, bending southward to avoid the
desert plains, communicates by Eregli with the Cilician Gates and with
Tyana (Kilisse Hissar). In ancient times there must have been a more
direct road connecting Iconium with Tyana, passing by Ardistama, the site
of which is still marked in what is now desert by the name of Arissama,
with the neighbouring mounds of Emir-Ghazi.[63]
Around and northward from Iconium there are extensive grass plains, the
natural grazing ground of horses which are sent in great droves annually
to the fairs and markets of the country, even as far as Baghdad. The
breeds are not remarkable for quality, and cannot compare with those rare
and beautiful animals reared in the plains that border the middle course
of the Euphrates; but they are for the most part a hardy species standing
little higher than a European pony, useful for transport, and trained for
the saddle to the fast walking pace in which long journeys are always
made.[64] The rivers of this region are short and local, ending for the
most part upon the plains in salt lakes and marshes, which, after the
snows have ceased to melt, become almost dry, leaving the ground covered
with white incrustation. Some of these lakes are of such volume as to be
permanent; the largest of the kind, as has already been mentioned, is Tuz
Geul; its waters are more dense even than those of the Dead Sea, and as
they recede with the approach of summer they leave behind thick deposits
of salt, collected regularly by the natives, who come many days’ journey
for the purpose.
There is another great lake a long day’s journey westward from Iconium;
its situation, however, is quite different from the foregoing, as it
is well up in the western mountains, nearly four thousand feet above
the sea. The town of Beyshehr, which gives its name to the lake, is
found on its south-eastern corner; and the road thereto from Iconium
passes by Fassiler, a place remarkable for its ancient monuments and the
peculiar facial type of its inhabitants. Further to the north, and near
the eastern border of the lake, is Eflatoun-Bunar, the site of a famous
‘Lycaonian’ structure called ‘Plato’s spring.’ With the tract westward of
Konia, however, we have at present little concern,[65] and when we turn
eastward we are inclined to regard the Hittite sites, whether along the
edge of Taurus like Mahalich and Ivrîz, or isolated in the desert like
Emir-Ghazi, as pertaining not to Konia, from which they are separated
by desert, but to the same group as Tyana, with which they are to some
extent geographically connected.
[Illustration: PLATE XVIII
NEFEZ KEUI: MINARET OF THE VILLAGE MOSQUE
Built of the drum of a fluted column, an altar and moulded base, of the
Roman period. (_See p. 31._)
ANATOLIAN HORSES: THE HALT AT NOONDAY (_See p. 39._)]
This eastern group of sites, indeed, is remarkably linked together by
a common river system. The centre is the ‘White Lake’ _Ak Geul_, at
the foot of the Taurus, westward from Eregli, and southward from the
desert ridge called Karaja Dagh, on the northern slopes of which is
Emir-Ghazi.[66] This lake is of variable size. When overfull its surplus
waters disappear in a hole that passes under the mountain; during the
dry season, however, it becomes a marshy pond of stagnant water. Into
this come three chief rivers. From the south-east the Ak Su, which rises
in the main chain of Taurus, drains also the outlying spur known as
the Kara Dagh, on the crest of which is Mahalich. Here also is Bin Bir
Kilisse, ‘The Thousand and One Churches,’ an ancient site; while just to
the north the isolated hill called Kizil Dagh rises from the plain. From
the south-east there comes the Kodja Su from high in the Bulghar Dagh,
flowing past Eregli, before which it is joined by a stream that with
wonderful noise gushes forth in many points from the rock near the hamlet
of Ivrîz, six or seven miles above the town. This source is called by
the natives _Huda Verdi_, ‘God-has-given,’ in appreciation of a divine
gift that transforms an arid corner of the desert into a garden-valley
rich in fruit-trees and vines. Into the same lake from the north-east
comes the Kizilja Su, after a sluggish journey across the eastern plains,
fed in its course by many streams descending from the inner ranges of
the Taurus. The head-waters of this river give life to a whole district
of peculiar interest. The main stream rises just northward at Andaval,
flowing past that village to Nigdeh and thence to Bor; just below here
it is joined by another branch on which is Kilisse Hissar, the site of
old-time Tyana. Here are abundant and picturesque ruins of antiquity, and
though nothing has yet been found earlier than the time of the Phrygian
Midas,[67] there seems to be no doubt from the accounts of Strabo and
other sources that it was from earliest times the political centre of
this region. It is even probable that the Hittite inscriptions found in
each of the neighbouring towns just mentioned have been transported from
here in past times.[68] This district is mostly level, being actually
the eastern border of the plain, though lying at the foot of the Ala
Dagh Mountains that from here trend north-east towards Argæus. Owing
doubtless to the various fertilising properties of the numerous streams
that come down from the hills the whole country is unusually fruitful and
productive; indeed, the region around Bor was in olden times selected
as a part of the Roman Imperial Estate. Everywhere are wide acres of
corn-land; while in the vicinity of the town are gardens, groves, and
vineyards, adding to the attraction which the numerous monuments of
antiquity already impart to it. The same features prevail all along the
route from Cæsarea by Injesu, passing by the extensive groves and gardens
of Develi Karahissar and the miles of arable land, dry but productive,
between Arabli and Andaval. The approach to Tyana, as we proceed, runs
for miles alongside an ancient but ruined aqueduct, picturesquely placed
among gardens and trees.[69] Continuing south, the rolling plains give
way gradually to the outlying spurs of the Taurus, and the main route
crossing the watershed leads on towards the Cilician Gates, down the main
valley of the Chakia Su.[70]
[Illustration: PLATE XIX
BOR: BRIDGE OVER THE KIZILJA-SU]
A mountain-track, leaving the road at Bayal, leads southward over a
series of parallel ridges of increasing height and grandeur[71] directly
for Bulghar-Madên. The silver mines, to which the place owes its name
and probably its being, seem to have been considerably worked in
ancient times. The village is found deep in a valley under the Bulghar
Dagh, a chief range of Taurus, nearly nine thousand feet in height.
The stream rises far up the ridge, from the opposite side of which a
branch of the Kodja Su flows down towards Ivrîz and Eregli. Its course
is eastward, and as it dashes down its rocky bed it is already, when
passing Bulghar-Madên, nearly three thousand feet below the snow-splashed
crags along the base of which it flows. From there the valley, though
narrow and steep-sided, assumes the verdant and enchanting beauty that
ever dwells by mountain-streams, lending character to a large portion
of the Hittites’ country. But to the traveller following in summer-time
the track that winds down the left bank of the river, this beauty and
enchantment is intensified here by the vast setting of the picture, by
its fulness and variety of detail and rich contrasts of colours, combined
with the movement and variegated costumes of the people that mingle in
the scene. The banks are fruit-gardens, and wildflowers of varied sorts
carpet the ground with splendour. Vines and mulberries are in profusion;
and ripe cherries may be plucked even from the saddle, their bright
clusters mottling everywhere the dark green foliage. Below, the swirling
waters, seen at intervals, contribute also their harmonious changes,
being white and gleaming where played on by the bright sunlight, and
again clear green in the deeper pools and shaded places. From among
the trees, the bright colours prevailing in Turkish costumes, reds and
blues, yellow and white, add to the effect; for the whole population of
the scattered hamlets, men and women, boys and girls, are in the gardens
or beneath the trees. At one place may be seen an aged couple bending
side by side at their work upon their tiny plot of land. Below, under a
spreading tree, against the stem of which he leans, a bare-legged boy is
piping his reed flutes, as Marsyas did, while boys and girls stand near
in groups talking and at play. Beyond, out of sight of these, upon a
sand-and-pebble beach two little boys, quite naked, are dancing merrily
by themselves to the distant music. In the background rises the immense
wall of mountain: its lower slopes are thickly wooded with larch and
pines, giving way in the middle heights to scrub oak, which continues
to struggle upward until the bleak rock appears. Overhead a curious
phenomenon tempers the heat of noon-day in this happy valley, especially
on windless days when its beneficence is most appreciated. Towards
mid-day a mist, arising probably from the melting of the snows upon the
ridge, spreads over the valley like a canopy, and so it remains until
as the afternoon wears on the vapour re-condenses, and the bright sun
reappears to cheer the evening. Except for this peculiarity the valley
resembles in general many of those innumerable sheltered rifts among
the Taurus and Anti-Taurus Mountains, wherein the rigour of winter is
recompensed by the bounteous summer, and the scattered population pursues
its life, isolated from and almost independent of the moving world.
[Illustration: PLATE XX
APPROACHING THE CILICIAN GATES FROM THE NORTH (_See p. 46._)]
Where this mountain-stream unites with the Chakia Su a bridge carries
the track across to the other bank to join equally the main road to the
South. This is the historic route leading through the Cilician Gates, the
only pass available for traffic through the unbroken rock wall of Taurus.
Peoples have passed through it that have formed nations; the armies of
conquerors have traversed it in the struggle of continents; religions
from the East have made it their channel of approach towards the
unthinking West; Paul of Tarsus travelled through it bringing the Cross
of Peace; and through it the Crusaders took back in due time the Cross
of War. Makers of history—Persian, Greek, and Macedonian; Christian,
Jew, and Moslem, all have passed this way. The nicely engineered road,
however, with its bridges and embankments, its rock-cuttings and eased
gradients, is a work of modern times. At the opening of our story we
must look back to the beginnings of the pass in a rough track alongside
the rushing stream. Even in early Hittite times, if we pay regard to
the disposition of their monuments, it seems probable that the longer
but more open route that follows the Tochma Su, and the shorter but
rocky track that descends by Kuru-Bel, continued to be the chief lines
of communication between the two main branches of their empire.[72]
Previous, however, to Persian times the road through the Cilician Gates
must have been sufficiently arranged to enable a wheeled cart or chariot
to pass that way.[73]
The route may be divided into main sections, the first reaching as far
as Bozanti Han. In this portion, which may be regarded as the northern
approach to the Cilician Gates, the scenery gradually attains all the
beauties of a deep mountain-pass. The steep slopes of the valley are clad
with the dense growth of pines, mixed freely with oak and cypress, and
other trees of varying foliage. In places the bare rock protrudes and
towers aloft precipitously, with sharp peaks reaching to the snow-line.
Ever and again a more open glade, or the widening of the wooded valley
where the river is joined by other waters, adds pleasing variety to the
journey, and brings into greater prominence the boldness and beauty of
the views. At one place, visible by a short détour, there burst out of
the rock the clear dark waters called appropriately Kara Su, changing the
colour of the entire river. Several ‘Hans’[74] are passed and bridges
crossed before nearing Bozanti; and hereabouts the river, with which
the road has descended thus far, enters a rocky and precipitous defile
through which it rushes to the plain. Avoiding this, the route crosses a
low divide, and descends upon an arm of another river, the Cydnus, which
leads down eventually to Tarsus and the sea. For a short way in this
second section of the route the country is more open, but the enchantment
of it is maintained in the wooded highland landscapes, with views of the
dark green slopes of rugged Taurus and the snowy crest and crevices of
Bulghar Dagh. Two well-placed ornamental forts[75] are passed, and the
winding road, when seemingly faced by an impenetrable ridge of mountain,
enters suddenly a deep rocky gorge. The spot is marked by an inscription
of Marcus Aurelius on a rock in the river’s bed. This is the veritable
Gate of Cilicia. A double door would close it and defy an army.
[Illustration: PLATE XXI
ENTRANCE OF THE CILICIAN GATES]
In keeping with its momentous history, the scenery as the descent
continues at once assumes a wild and impressive grandeur, unparalleled
in beauty, passing description, to which all that has passed before
served but as introduction. Now the keynote is changed, and Nature’s full
orchestra breaks forth into a theme of violent and majestic discords,
ever changing yet sustained, leaving for ever the impression of its grand
harmonies. Here the crags tower up a thousand feet on either side. A
myriad trees, their varied tones intensified by the glowing sunlight,
clothe with soft colours the heights that hem in the horizon save where
it is broken by fantastic peaks. Now the valley is torn by great rifts
of red and grey rock, and warning precipices of prodigious character
overhang the pathway. Below, on a verdant bed bedecked with flowers and
creepers, peaceful glades and vistas disclose the chequered waters of the
stream. Another turn, and a broad sweep of virgin forest lines the slopes
in an unbroken curve; and ever and again Nature’s panorama changes,
attracting the eye to some fresh beauty or surprise.
Though seemingly inaccessible, yet up in the wooded heights here and
there a small village may be found, its houses nestling among fruit-trees
and luxurious wildflowers. The people are very poor, for on these broken
hilltops arable spots are scarce and difficult to work. They are also
reticent and unsophisticated, and it is impossible to obtain from them
any consistent reason as to their choice of dwelling-place while so many
miles of corn-land in the interior await man’s labour. And since the
bracing mountain air amid the pines, and the unique views all round,
which extend beyond Tarsus to the sea, are to them considerations of
last importance, we are left to conjecture in this case also that their
ancestors found refuge here from the political storms of an unknown date.
We are inclined to believe that this was the reason, and that the date
was remote, because of the survival amongst them in striking purity of
a type of the old Hittite races which, though peculiar, is familiar on
the Egyptian monuments. It may indeed have been that of the Cilicians
in general: it is strongly mongoloid in appearance except for the nose,
which is strong and straight, but fine. The chin is beardless, but there
is a thin dark cynical moustache; the cheek-bones are high and the eyes
oblique. In the Egyptian sculptures a pigtail usually completes the
striking features of the portrait, but this seems not to have survived
the Moslem tonsure.
Once through the pass the whole character of the country changes as
by a magician’s wand and another land unfolds itself. The bracing dry
uplands are left behind with their peculiar fascination and unrealised
possibilities, and in their place there appear the palm-trees and
fruit-gardens of a southern clime, with physical peculiarities, economy,
and population entirely different. The western plain of Cilicia is
entirely alluvial soil, and is well called the fruit-garden of Western
Asia. Towards the east there are some hilly places, but to the north-east
the plain stretches out again, following an inland bay of the mountains.
These plains seem to be wholly the gift of the numerous rivers which
water them. These, descending from the mountainous region above, wherein
the nature of the stone is various and to a large extent volcanic, bring
down with them the rich alluvium which is deposited in their sluggish
course below. Their names have been already mentioned. Some further
streams to the west have a swifter course from the mountains which in
that direction gradually approach the sea. Mersina, the modern port,
marks almost the western extremity of the plain.
[Illustration: PLATE XXII
GOING SOUTH THROUGH THE CILICIAN GATES
TARSUS: THE GARDENS AND THE TOWN]
The green tract of Cilicia is so shut in to the north by the Taurus
ranges, and to the east by the Amanus mountains, and so exposed to the
sea, that it seems as if Nature had designed this unique corner of Asia
Minor for a history of its own. Its remarkable fertility, however, and
the important passes which lead down to it in several directions, make it
impossible that it could have been overlooked by any power in possession
of its frontiers. For this reason, and in this instance, the absence of
any clearly Hittite remains[76] must be attributed to accident and to the
nature of the country. But it is indeed remarkable that in none of the
defiles that connect it with the several portions of the Hittite land has
a single Hittite monument been discovered. When we consider how suitable
many spots would seem to be for Hittite monuments, whether in the
Cilician Gates, or in the valley of the Pyramus, or in the pass leading
by Bogche over the Amanus mountains eastward, or on the wave-washed rocks
which must be crossed by the coast route to Alexandretta, this absence
of any Hittite trace becomes the more conspicuous and significant. It
establishes the probability towards which we have been already drawn,
that the main channel of communication between the lands of the Hittites
in the north of Syria and in Asia Minor was by way of the mountain
passes of the Taurus and Anti-Taurus where their monuments are found in
comparative plenty.
[Illustration: PLATE XXIII
TARSUS: THE CONCRETE WALLS OF DUNUK TASH
TARSUS: SACRED STONE IN A COFFIN, IN THE COURT OF AN ARAB SHRINE]
II
SOME PAGES OF HISTORY
In this chapter we take a passing glance at the history of the Hittite
lands after the Hittite power had passed, down to the establishment of
the Seljûk Turks in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries A.D. It is not a
connected story, for with the disappearance of the Hittites the political
horizon changed: thereafter the balance of power in the Near East was
several times distributed anew. We must therefore be content to sketch
an outline of the general course of eventful history in which the lands
subsequently shared, and to note in what manner, but not to what extent,
the local records and monuments are evidence of the parts they severally
played.
We are compelled to make these limitations, for no land on earth can
claim a history so momentous as the drama that was worked out in Asia
Minor during the centuries that followed the Hittite domination. Here was
the scene of a long struggle for supremacy both among its own peoples and
between the adjoining portions of the two continents which it connects;
a thousand _Iliads_ would do scant justice to the deeds of arms alone.
And the struggle of the continents was not merely for the possession of
a land itself rich in minerals and for the most part highly fertile, but
for a passage-way for great migrations, civilisations, and religions.
To this story we have nothing to contribute, no new evidence to bring
forward, no new opinions to maintain; the history of Asia Minor has been
written by pens more able and more competent to deal with it.[77] In
introducing these few pages our object is to subserve our main inquiry:
to enable us to distinguish between the works of the various phases of
history that we meet with in our wanderings, and especially to appreciate
by contrast the peculiarities of the Hittite monuments which we shall
next consider.
Though we defer writing the story of the Hittites until we have seen
what their own works can tell us, we find ourselves obliged to trace
its outline[78] in order to decide at what point that story ends. The
Hittites first appear in history about 2000 B.C., when it would appear
that they were already powerful enough to overturn the first dynasty of
Babylon and sack that city, and that they had settlements in southern
Syria on the frontiers of Egypt. Certain Hittite tablets from Central
Asia Minor are said to belong to the same age. Nothing is known, however,
of the constitution of the Hittites in these early times; but it may
be inferred that they subsequently retired from the south or were
there submerged. It is not until the fifteenth century B.C. that the
name of the Hittites definitely reappears, when successive expeditions
of the Pharaohs encountered them in the north of Syria. Then in the
fourteenth century their capital is found at Boghaz-Keui, in the ruins
of which their archives of this period have been recently unearthed.
These, supplemented by the Tell-el-Amarna letters, tell how the King
of the ‘Hatti’—the local and at that time dominant element—became
Great King of the Hittite confederated peoples and vassal states,
whose chief towns included most of the sites identified with Hittite
remains, like Hamath, Aleppo, Carchemish, Marash, Malatia, and many
city-states as yet unidentified. This was the period of their greatest
empire, and it is probable that the regions of Cilicia, Lycaonia,
Phrygia, and even Lydia at this time acknowledged the suzerainty of the
all-powerful soldier-king. For five or six generations of the Hatti
rulers the position of the Hittites as a dominant power in Western Asia
was recognised by the Pharaohs and the Kings of Babylon, both in their
letters and treaties and by the exchange of ambassadors. During the great
migrations of the twelfth century B.C., however, it would seem that
the Hatti dynasty was overthrown and the Hittite empire dismembered.
This may be inferred from the cessation of their own archives and
from the appearance of the Muski, identified in later times with the
Phrygians,[79] upon the north-west frontier of Assyria,[80] having thus
fought their way across the heart of Asia Minor. These were repulsed,[81]
but this incursion was contemporaneous with a shifting of the chief
Hittite power to Carchemish, while Hamath on the Orontes and other
southern centres come into increased prominence.
In trying to work out the story of the decline and fall of the Hittite
power, we are faced with the same difficulty that enshrouded the whole
problem of the Hittites until recent discoveries shed the light of
internal documentary evidence upon the period of their empire—namely,
that for the most part only the events connected with certain of their
frontier lands came at all within the horizon of the Assyrian and the
Greek historians, and these are seen by us with relative disproportion.
To take a single illustration, we fail to find in the Egyptian and
Assyrian records any suggestion as to the position of the Hittite capital
of the fourteenth century at Boghaz-Keui; and for more than seven hundred
years we are without any direct evidence as to its fortunes, until a
chance reference by Herodotus in describing the affairs of Lydia tells us
of its final overthrow.
In the tenth century, however, during the temporary decline of Assyria
and the withdrawal of the Phrygians, the Hittite states may be inferred
to have largely recovered their power and independence. But though there
were frequent alliances between neighbouring states, there does not
seem to have been any over-lord, as of old, powerful enough to unite
them all under his leadership and to maintain a consistent policy.
Malatia and Marash appear as the chief cities of kingdoms in Taurus,
while in the Anti-Taurus the kingdom of Tabal (or Tubal) probably
included the districts of Komana, Ekrek, Mazaca, and Fraktin. On the
plateau the kingdom of the Khilakku, which we may call Greater Cilicia
(embracing the region from Tyana to the Kara Dagh, and from Karaburna to
Bulghar-Madên), replaced the original state of Hatti within the Halys as
chief representative of Hittite power and tradition. But it was not for
long: if the Muski had retreated it was only to gather strength; while in
the east a new rival, of force and character similar to the Hittites, had
appeared in the region of Lake Van, pressing down to the Euphrates and
even into Syria, where also the steady infiltration of Aramæan peoples
was already challenging the dominance of the old Hittite stock.
From the middle of the ninth century also the struggles of the weakening
Hittite tribes against the reviving power of Assyria were renewed; and
this time they were doomed. Their lands of Syria and in the Taurus were
thereafter the objective of many punitive expeditions on the part of
successive Assyrian kings, who claim always to have conquered and exacted
tribute. For over a century, however, though many times defeated and
severely punished, these states as often found opportunity for casting
off the yoke. But Sargon, late in the eighth century, adopted with
stern determination the policy which his predecessors had initiated, of
transporting large numbers of the rebellious population and replacing
them by Assyrian colonists. One by one the greater Hittite centres on
his frontiers were absorbed, and when the Assyrian forces passed into
Asia Minor to challenge the supremacy of the Phrygian Midas, about 718
B.C., it is clear that these two powers had divided the Hittite territory
between them. The appearance, too, in the north, of the Cimmerians, in
wellnigh irresistible strength, had changed the political horizon.[82]
From one point of view, however, it would be natural to point to the
destruction of Pteria by Crœsus, in the middle of the sixth century B.C.,
as the last event of Hittite history, and so begin our post-Hittite
story from that time. The conquest by Cyrus and the reunification of all
the Hittite lands under Persian rule a few years later, in 546, would
provide a suitable starting-point; yet, in fact, from the age of Sargon,
a century and a half before, there can be traced no real semblance of
surviving Hittite power nor any of the old Hittite individuality in
the local arts. Their very name then almost disappeared from Oriental
history, and was retained but as a memory; while in Asia Minor the
power of the Phrygian kings was then at its zenith, and in the presence
of Phrygian inscriptions at Eyuk,[83] near the old Hittite capital,
and at Tyana,[84] which seems to have replaced Pteria in importance in
the revival of the tenth century, there is indication that the Hittite
day was already ended. But though the Hittite power was broken and
disintegrated, their civilisation faded only gradually from view. Long
after the sun had set upon its pride it lingered on, felt rather than
seen, in the twilight that obscures our vision of the tableland in the
early part of the first millennium B.C., surviving long enough here
and there, as we shall see, in the form of institutions and religious
customs, to have left a trace in the pages of Greek history. Thereafter
we have several clear phases to review, interrupted by others of
considerable disturbance and obscurity. Following the overthrow of
Assyria on the one hand, and the decline of Phrygia on the other, two new
powers appeared in the sixth century in the Medes and the Lydians, who
similarly divided Asia Minor, with the Halys as their mutual boundary.
By 546, however, Cyrus had annexed the whole country to the Persian
Empire, in the continuous history of which it shared until the advent, in
B.C. 324, of Alexander, who once more established the supremacy of the
West. With his death the tribal struggles of antiquity reappear in new
guise, and history is occupied chiefly with the varying fortunes of the
kingdoms of Pergamum, of Pontus, and of the Seleucids, until in the first
century B.C. Roman organisation gathered together the loose threads of
independence and retied the knot in a manner that remained firm, in fine,
for several hundred years. The next great landmark is not till 668 A.D.,
when, forty-six years after the flight of Mohammed, the Saracen army laid
siege to Constantinople. In 1067 the Seljûks appeared from the east,
followed two centuries later by the Osmanli-Turks, though these were not
finally re-established in power, after the Mongol invasions, until 1413
A.D.
[Illustration: PLATE XXIV
MONUMENTS OF PHRYGIA
BEY-KEUI: THE ROYAL ROAD TRACED BY RUTS IN THE SURFACE ROCK (_See pp. 24,
38._)
DIMERLI: A FALLEN LION (_See p. 60._)]
Of the monarchies that arose as the Hittite power declined, and in their
turn passed away, that of the Phrygians first attracts our attention
by its proximity in time and place. When the Muski first appeared in
the twelfth century B.C. upon the north-west frontier of Assyria,[85]
they gave warning of a tide of Aryan immigration setting in from the
north-west. This first wave, after beating vainly against the ramparts
of the Assyrian Empire, seems to have retreated; but it left its traces
behind in a group of people, whether colonists or prisoners settled on
the soil in the Assyrian manner, who by the same name reappear some
centuries later[86] as a small state on the east of the Euphrates
opposite Malatia. We know nothing of the early history of this movement,
but, so far as can be seen, the rolling of this wave across Asia Minor
was coeval with the submergence of the Hatti seated at Boghaz-Keui as
the dominant power among the Hittite states. Nor is it clear to what
cause we must attribute the retiring of this vanguard. Probably, as in
Syria with the Hittites,[87] and in Asia Minor with the Cimmerians, the
migratory movement was intermittent; and historically we may see in the
repulse by the Assyrians on the one hand, and in the development of
the rival state of Lydia and the Greek colonies on the other, coupled
with a certain recuperative vitality latent in the Hittite states of
the centre, various active causes tending to the consolidation of the
Phrygians at the focus of least resistance, in the fertile tracts to
which they gave their name. However that may be, at the dawn of Greek
history we find them already a fading power, but one which had left an
indelible impression in Greek tradition and romance, obscuring entirely
the old-time Hatti power of which no memory remained.
Though the settlement of the Phrygians is just beyond historical
vision, the leading features of the movement can be inferred from
Greek literature, and a certain amount of detail gathered from the
monuments which they have left behind.[88] The chief migration of the
Phrygians—the ninth wave of our simile—may be judged, from certain facts
which Professor Ramsay has pointed out, to have taken place about the
beginning of the ninth century B.C. They came in irresistible bands of
mail-clad warriors from Macedonia and Thrace, crossing into Asia Minor
by the Hellespont, and eventually establishing their monarchy and state
on the sources of the Sangarius.[89] Being all men and conquerors, their
coming introduced new ideas of the dominance of the male element in
religion and in society.[90] The pre-existing central ideal of the people
of Asia Minor had been based on the importance of motherhood, reflected
in religion by the worship of the Mother-goddess, and in society by
a matriarchal system and absence of true marriage. Now the Phrygians
introduced a new Father-god and a god of thunder, and a reminiscence of
the struggle between the old and new ideals may be traced in the pages of
Homer; but ultimately they were amalgamated in various ways in different
parts of the country.[91]
Profound as were the changes in religious and social ideals which the
Phrygians introduced, these influences could hardly stir the popular
imagination so deeply or so rapidly as their deeds of arms. Defended from
all harm by their impenetrable armour, they carried all before them, so
that they appeared in Greek tradition as a race of heroes, whose kings
were the associates of the gods, whose language was before all,[92] and
the speech of the goddess herself.[93] ‘Their country was the land of
great fortified cities.’[94] In this popular acclaim we suspect that the
Phrygians received credit for works and to some extent for the prestige
of the Hatti whose realm they had inherited.[95] Their kingdom without
doubt held chief sway over the north-west and centre of Asia Minor during
the ninth and eighth centuries B.C. In the west, indeed, it was only
at the end of that period challenged by the independence and growing
strength of Lydia; and on the other hand it must have embraced, as we
have shown, the regions both of Pteria[96] and of Tyana, where it touched
the Assyrian frontier in the age of Sargon; but on the whole we fail
to find any wide range of Phrygian works, of walled cities or of vast
monuments, that could entitle the Phrygians to the whole credit of these
memories.
None the less, some Phrygian monuments, like the ‘tomb of Midas’ near
Doghanlu, are striking, peculiar, and impressive. So, too, are others
further south, of which we reproduce some illustrations,[97] because
of the added interest of the influence of Hittite art and technique
which can be traced in them. The ‘lion tomb,’ near Dimerli, illustrates
a motive dominant in their decorative reliefs, reflected in the later
sepulchres of Ayazîn. Here are seen two lions, guarding as it were the
entrance to the tomb, arranged facing one another on either side of the
door. In the tomb of Dimerli the lions are rampant, and a column or
altar is seen between them. The symbolism of this design may be purely
Phrygian, but the decorative conception of the twin guardian lions is
too freely found in Hittite art[98] for us to doubt that it had been
borrowed from the older population. So, too, in the method of carving
the reliefs, as well as in detail of treatment, as, for instance, in the
outline of the shoulder muscles of the fallen lion,[99] there is abundant
indication to us now of an influence not visible to the historians of
antiquity.
[Illustration: PLATE XXV
MONUMENTS OF PHRYGIA
DIMERLI: THE LION TOMB
AYAZÎN: TOMB WITH LIONS
TYANA: PHRYGIAN INSCRIPTION OF MIDAS (_See p. 56._)]
Though the monuments and legends together help us to reconstruct the
base and framework of Phrygian history, there are very few authenticated
data with which to fill in the details. There is no long list of royal
names, for the rulers are supposed to have been named Midas and Gordius
alternately; and a few other names preserved in Greek tradition are
merely legendary. It is not until the age of Sargon[100] at the close
of the eighth century B.C., that a few facts come to light among the
Assyrian archives. Then it would appear that the Phrygian sphere of
influence had penetrated far into south-eastern Cappadocia and was
expanding, until challenged by the Assyrian forces in a series of
campaigns beginning in 718 B.C. But Midas the Phrygian was not easily
restrained, and in the next year prevailed on Pisiris of Carchemish
to revolt against the Assyrian supremacy, while several minor states
of Cappadocia, forming part of the region called Tabal, followed this
example, prompted, doubtless, from the same source of inspiration. The
rebels were promptly punished, and one of these expeditions sent against
them penetrated, it would seem, to Tyana, at this time an important
centre for the Phrygians[101] in the conduct of their wars. In 709,
however, following a further expedition sent against Midas from Cilicia,
the Phrygians capitulated, sending ambassadors and tribute. The reason
for this sudden change of front is also made apparent. About the middle
of the eighth century B.C. there had appeared the first wave of an
overwhelming movement of peoples from Southern Europe,[102] including
seemingly both Cimmerians and Scythians, coming by way of the Caucasus,
spreading terror and devastation as it passed. The Vannic power of
Urartu in Southern Armenia about 720 B.C. received the first onslaught,
and then the frontiers of Sargon, who had to call up all the resources
of his armies to protect his kingdom. Recoiling, the tide set westward
through Asia Minor, meeting about 710 another similar stream[103] that
had crossed the Bosphorus; and the united barbarians for half a century
established a reign of terror in the north of Asia Minor. The details of
the story are wanting, so far as it directly affects the Phrygians during
this fateful period. About 675 however, the royal Midas (presumably
the grandson of _Mita_ who had begged Assyria through his ambassadors
for help), defeated on every hand, in despair committed suicide. The
Cimmerians overran his country, and the kingdom of Phrygia henceforth
ceased to be. We do not follow the movements of these hordes further;
for they have left no trace or handiwork upon the Hittite lands which
they had overrun, although it was not until the close of the seventh
century that they disappeared. Their inroads, however, and the violent
deflections which they gave to the course of history, are probably
responsible for the final disappearance of all trace and memory of the
Hittite power in Greek history.
The Lydian state in the west, that fought the final struggle for
civilisation against these restless and untiring foes, next claims our
notice from the way in which certain of its institutions and ancient
customs reflect the influence of the Hittite civilisation, from which,
indeed, they may have been inherited.[104] Unlike the rulers and
customs of Phrygia, the leading elements of the Lydian society had been
matured on the soil from dim antiquity. Tradition speaks of a dynasty
of Heraclidae who ruled from the twelfth century for five hundred
years,[105] and whose ancestor, Agron,[106] was descended from Hercules
himself. Even before that date there is memory of a royal family of
Atyadae, whose rule, if there be anything in this memory, must have
passed back to the days of direct Hittite domination that saw the carving
of the warrior-gods of Kara-Bel and maybe the Mother-goddess of Sipylus.
However that may be, we see the Lydians already an organised state, even
while the Phrygian power was still at its height, before the Cimmerian
storm had burst. As with the Hittites in past time, their constitution
was partly that of confederate or vassal states governed by hereditary
chiefs owning allegiance to the ruling power at Sardis, and partly
feudal,[107] the chieftains owing their military service and their tribal
forces to the king, while the common people appear as serfs. In this
society the king was both head of the priesthood and chief commander of
the vassal chiefs in war.[108] The emblem of sovereignty was a double
axe, which the Greeks said was derived from Hercules himself.[109] From
among the mass of legend which characterise the earliest efforts of Greek
history, it might be possible to trace many suggestions of the influence
of the Hittite civilisation; but the lack of local monuments (a fact due
doubtless to physical conditions), to reveal to us the dominant features
of Lydian art, restrains us from this aspect of inquiry. One point at
any rate is established, that not merely was the district of Lydia at
one time embraced within the Hittite empire,[110] but that it became
imbued then with many features of social organisation which it carried
down from the old world to the new. Our main inquiry being based on the
monuments of the Hittite lands, we cannot dwell upon the stories of the
Lydian kings, of their desperate struggles with the Cimmerians following
the downfall of Phrygia, nor of their warfare with the Medes, with whom,
after the fall of Nineveh in 607 B.C., they ultimately divided Asia
Minor, with the Halys as the boundary between them. The names of two
kings are worthy of mention as historical landmarks; the one is Gyges,
first of the Mermnad dynasty in the middle of the seventh century B.C.,
contemporary of Assurbanipal, the Assyrian, and of Psamtek, Pharaoh of
Egypt, with both of whom he held relations of diplomatic character.
The other is Crœsus, the last and greatest of them all, who, having
established his power eastward to the Halys, turned his attention to
those rich Greek cities which had sprung up in the West.
[Illustration: PLATE XXVI
VIEW NEAR SARDIS, THE ANCIENT CAPITAL OF LYDIA
The valley of the Pactolus, a tributary of the Hermus, which rising on
Mt. Tmolus flowed past the temple of Kybele at Sardis.]
These colonies, founded in selected spots along the coast several
centuries before, had indeed in many cases already passed their zenith.
Cities like Smyrna, Ephesus, and Colophon were in the pride of their
prosperity before the fall of Phrygia and the rise of Lydia. How old
they were in their origin is not determinable, but they had received,
and retained in historic times, the impress of the Hittite civilisation,
so much so that Mr. Hogarth, writing of Ionia, concludes that ‘this
coast was long dominated by an inland, continental power, that of the
Cappadocian Hatti, who imposed their own distinct civilisation, and
admitted the Ægean culture only as a faint influence ascending along
the trade routes.’[111] ‘The Goddess of the Phrygian mountains became
at Smyrna the Sipylene Mother, and at Ephesus Artemis of the Many
Breasts was worshipped with rites more Oriental than Greek.’ Recently
also Sir Cecil Smith, in discussing certain ivory statuettes found by
Mr. Hogarth in the foundations of the temple of Artemis, has pointed
out further analogies with the old cult of the goddess, as revealed by
the sculptures of Boghaz-Keui.[112] However that may be, the fact that
the Hittite armies of the fourteenth or thirteenth century B.C. had
penetrated to the coast at Smyrna and Ephesus, is made clear by the
sculptures of Sipylus and of Kara-Bel, to which we have alluded.[113]
Now these fair cities of Ionia fell one by one to Crœsus, who seemed
likely to establish an empire even over the islands, when suddenly Cyrus
the Persian appeared from the East, reuniting all the sundered parts of
the old empires of Assyria and of Babylon as he passed. Crœsus marched
immediately out to resist his oncoming, and as a preliminary step crossed
the Halys and ‘ravaged the lands of the “Syrians,” and took the city of
the Pterians and enslaved the inhabitants. He also took all the adjacent
places and expelled the population, who had given him no cause for
blame.’[114] Possibly we may see in these acts, which appeared wanton to
the historian, an effort on the part of Crœsus to delay or prevent the
passing of the Persian army, which would naturally follow the old royal
road in preference to the undeveloped route across the desert. However
that may be, the effort was vain: about 546 B.C. the Lydian capital and
its king fell into the hands of Cyrus.
The old Hittite realms were now reunited under Persian rule, and
continued to share in the common history of the Empire of the Great King
for more than two hundred years. For the purpose of administration Asia
Minor was divided into provinces, governed by Satraps, of which the old
kingdom of Lydia formed one, and the regions of Konia, Angora, Pteria,
and Sivas were included in another, the largest of all, which reached
from Lydia to Armenia, and included the whole plateau from the Taurus
northwards to the sea. The tract of Cilicia with part of the province
of Aleppo formed another, while the former Hittite states in the north
of Syria were similarly grouped together. But the hold of the Great King
ruling in Susa over his distant provinces was weak, and the spirit of
Persian civilisation did not penetrate, or could not, into these historic
lands. No monument remains to tell us of this phase, during which the
old local institutions were maintained and even developed unrestrained.
The Greek cities of the coast retained their Greek characters under
Greek governors; while the tribes of the interior restored the rule of
their local princes or priest-dynasts amid a condition of security and
freedom which they had not known for many generations. All that the
central power demanded was tribute and tranquillity. Local feuds between
the Satraps might smoulder, and the symptoms of rebellion here and there
remain almost unheeded, so long as these conditions were fulfilled.
Under these circumstances the western people gradually recovered the
spirit of independence, while from across the sea the Greek states even
aspired to empire. The march of the Ten Thousand in 402, under Cyrus the
younger, made famous by Xenophon in his _Anabasis_, showed how lax was
the organisation and how weak the control of the central government. It
also opened up incidentally the southern route by the Mæander, Ilgîn, and
Iconium to the Cilician gates, in preference to the longer royal road by
way of Boghaz-Keui, by which hitherto the posts from Susa had travelled
west to Sardis.
In B.C. 334 Alexander the Great crossed the Hellespont, and within a
year, by his energy and ability to use the new army-machine which he had
inherited, had conquered western Asia Minor as far as the Halys, and
passed on leaving it his own. This date marks an issue more changeful
to Asia Minor than the conquest of Cyrus. For though no monuments throw
light on the story of the next two centuries, the system of government
was now initiated which in due time was to result in the Hellenising of
the interior. Cities were founded with Greek names, and the Greek speech
gradually made its way, through Greek-speaking princes and governors, as
the official language. The change worked very slowly, but it was profound
in the issue, as we shall see. At first the states maintained their old
customs and native dialects without appreciable difference, except in the
vigour of the new government, but in the course of two or three centuries
Greek language and Greek culture, even to some extent Greek thought and
religious ideas, had permeated widely among the upper-class natives of
the interior.
The struggles of Alexander’s successors, who had inherited from him the
empire, are matters of common history. The Seleucids reunited, though
in futile manner, the formerly Hittite regions in the north of Syria
and Cilicia, and for a time gained some ascendency in Asia Minor, until
defeated in 191 B.C. and driven back beyond the Taurus, where for another
century they retained a sphere of influence. But of greater interest to
us is the survival of local power in Cappadocia, under the dynasty of
Ariarthes, which had come to the fore in the last century of Persian
domination. This state, at first with incessant warfare, and then by
means of tribute to the Seleucids, maintained in effect a form of local
independence which survived even down to the Roman occupation and beyond.
Another state that retained its freedom and local princes throughout this
time was Bithynia, on the tract opposite Constantinople, but this is a
region outside the boundaries of our story.
[Illustration: PLATE XXVII
CILICIA: ROMAN AQUEDUCTS OVER THE EASTERN PLAIN (_See p. 70._)]
The Romans dallied long in following up the defeat of the Seleucids at
Magnesia, when the way lay open to the annexation of Asia Minor, for
which its people, torn by their internal wars, would have been even
grateful. But it was not until late in the second century b.c. that the
west was united as a Roman province. Even then the east remained under
the direct government of the local princes, to whom the Roman Senate
entrusted their frontier. At the beginning of the first century B.C.
the disaffection of Mithridates, king of Pontus, a state bordering the
Black Sea, and his efforts to win for himself a kingdom in Cappadocia and
Bithynia, was one of the last fitful traces of the old native power, and
called up more serious efforts on the part of Rome. The Cilician pirates,
who from their base under the southern slopes of Taurus had become a
leading naval power, were also suppressed, and during the century that
followed the whole country as far as the Euphrates was gradually brought
under direct control, and the provincial system was established. The
province of _Cilicia_ had been founded in B.C. 103, and after various
successive modifications, during which the western district, Cilicia
Trachæa, continued to be ruled by the priest-dynasts of Olba, the
whole was united with Lycaonia under a consular legate about 137 A.D.
_Bithynia-Pontus_, the scene of the late rebellions, came into the power
of Rome by the will of its last king in B.C. 74, and the double province
was put under the administration of a prætorian proconsul in B.C. 27.
_Galatia_ was constituted in B.C. 25, and _Pontus_ was added to it in
63 A.D. Finally, the occupation of _Cappadocia_, dating from A.D. 17,
completed the division of the administrative districts; for the sixth
province _Asia_, in the west, had been the earliest founded, as we have
noted, in B.C. 133.
[Illustration: PLATE XXVIII
KYRRHUS: ROMAN TOMB AND RUINED BRIDGE (_See p. 71._)]
The system of Roman organisation at first modified and finally broke up
the old tribal communities. For some time, many old-world institutions
were maintained, notably the priest-dynasts of Comana, Olba, and
Venasa; but gradually the native communal temple-district organisation
of society gave way, to be replaced by the Greek political system, the
seeds of which had been planted two or three centuries before, and
had now taken root. In this system the city became the administrative
centre, and the villages around were its branches. Greek became more and
more the language of the people.[115] The formal records of military
works, the milestones and imperial monuments, are inscribed in Latin,
but the inscriptions in the old graveyards are carved in Greek letters.
We cannot dwell upon the history of these times, of the reorganisation
under Diocletian, at the close of the third century, marking the
commencement of the Byzantine period, nor of the spread of Christianity,
with the great social changes that involved. We reproduce, however, some
illustrations of Roman works, such as are met with in plenty throughout
the length and breadth of Hittite lands, from Malatia to Iconium and
beyond, from Tarsus to the Black Sea coast. The great aqueducts like
those of Tyana,[116] and those which stretch for miles across the
Cilician plain,[117] are an indication of the vast scheme of development
that was instituted under the new well-ordered system of government.
Great cities both in Syria and in Asia Minor were the product of these
times. Many of these were the foundations of places that still remain
centres of administration; while some have lost their importance, and
are falling gradually to ruin in silence and desolation. The remains of
Kyrrhus upon the Afrîn,[118] a site now marked only by the small village
of Huru-Pegamber some distance away, are among the wonderful memorials
of antiquity. The imposts are falling from their pilasters, and the
keystones to its arches are working loose, but it retains its silent
streets of impressive stone buildings, its arches and colonnades, its
amphitheatre, as though its people had quitted hardly a generation ago.
Numerous Greek inscriptions may still be found amongst the ruins,[119]
and just southward of the Acropolis several sarcophagi of marble, with
Greek names upon them, indicate the position of the old-time burying
place. In the extreme south of the site, with its sanctity still
maintained in a modern Mohammedan shrine and well adjoining, there stands
perfect a tomb-structure[120] in the Roman style of the second century
A.D. We give a photograph of this, which is one of the best-preserved
examples of its kind. Our other photographs[121] taken at Ephesus and at
Ba’albec,[122] at the two ends of the Hittite lands, will sufficiently
illustrate the art and civilisation of their time and place.
The very prosperity of the country during the Roman occupation was one
cause of its danger, presenting it as an alluring prize to the forces
gradually arising along its frontiers. The extreme centralisation of the
Byzantine system weakened, if it did not altogether exterminate, the
power of local resistance and administration. So long as the central
government remained powerful all was well, but the danger of the system
was manifested by the ease with which the Arab forces in 668 passed
through the land from end to end, pausing only before the walls of
Constantinople. The hold of the Saracen power, however, was not firm, and
the Roman system was possessed of great latent vitality which in the end
was equal to the emergency, so that in a series of campaigns extending
from 920 to 965, the Saracens were driven back from point to point, until
first Tarsus[123] was recovered and then Antioch, which had for more than
three hundred years been in their possession.
[Illustration: PLATE XXIX
BAALBEK: SCULPTURE AND TEMPLE RUINS OF ROMAN PERIOD]
The Seljûk Turks, who next appeared on the scene, were a more formidable
and resistless enemy. Having at one time been the servants of the Arab
sultans, they had now become the masters, and in 1067 they entered
Asia Minor, conquering Cilicia and Cappadocia. Four years later the
Emperor Romanus Diogenes himself was their prisoner, and by 1081
the whole centre and east of the tableland was recognised as their
realm. Adopting a policy of depopulation and devastation, in which the
whole of Phrygia was laid waste, the Turks rapidly set up an almost
impassable frontier between themselves and the Byzantine power which
still held sway in the West. Notwithstanding spasmodic efforts of the
old rulers to regain their dominion, the country gradually relapsed
into Orientalism, and with the rise of the Osmanli Turks from 1289 the
Empire of the West rapidly disintegrated. Under the Seljûk rule, a new
aspect of decorative art and architecture appeared in Asia Minor, a
phase much neglected yet most worthy, as Professor Ramsay has pointed
out, of special study. Under certain of their lines a brilliant series
of monuments arose, among which the Hans[124] or roadside rest-houses
are specially noteworthy, contributing also as they did to public
security and pacification. In addition to these, other public works
like their bridges and fortifications, as well as their mosques and
colleges with cloisters and sculptures, are all evidence of one of the
brightest phases of Moslem art. Some of the beautiful monuments which
are shown in our illustrations, like the sculptured portal of the old
school (or _Midresseh_) at Nigdeh, and the ‘tomb of Havanda,’ at the same
place,[125] with its delicate tracery and design, belong to the best
phases of this memorable period.
With the enthronement of the Seljûks the old world faded rapidly from
view. No conquest in all the history of the Hittite lands had been
so thorough and so enduring. Previously we had seen old institutions
surviving under a new system that grew up around them; but now a new
language and new forms of government, with new administrative districts,
were imposed by the conquerors; while the devastation of the earlier
stages of the conquest, followed by the repeated incursions of nomad
peoples, profoundly modified the racial stock of the population. With
them the modern Turkey-in-Asia was born.
III
MONUMENTS OF THE HITTITES
PRELIMINARY: CHRONOLOGY—CLASSIFICATION—DISPOSITION
With this outline of the chief historical phases of Asia Minor before
us, we pass from the remains of mediæval and classical antiquity to
a consideration of those more ancient monuments which bear witness
to Hittite handiwork. Notwithstanding the progress of historical
research, these remain the surest basis for the study of our subject,
giving us an insight into the Hittite civilisation, which is rendered
more valuable and more intelligible by the light thrown upon Hittite
chronology by recent excavation. Their nature and intrinsic details
are material evidence of Hittite arts, which, in the lack of internal
literary documents, no other sources can satisfactorily supply; while
their disposition defines for us the Hittite lands in a manner more
reliable and more substantial than theories based on vague and difficult
references in oriental history. A reasonable consideration of the
environment of these monuments, also, may help us to appreciate something
of that which is most difficult to realise but all-important, namely the
circumstances of the life of those whose hands produced them.[126]
[Illustration: PLATE XXX
EPHESUS: REMAINS OF THE ‘LIBRARY OF CELSUS,’ RECENTLY UNCOVERED (_See p.
71._)]
Obedient to a now accepted principle of psychology, we follow in the
development of our inquiry the sequence of evidences by which this
subject has been established during the past generation. Postponing
for the present any detailed account of the walled towns and groups of
sculptures which have been the scene of recent investigation, we shall
consider firstly those monuments which are found isolated and scattered
throughout the regions indicated in the opening chapter. If, in so doing,
we can yet be guided by the light of modern discoveries, we may hope to
avoid some of the difficulties which beset the path of these pioneers
whose work introduced to us this new material. Our method of study, like
theirs, must be comparative; but we shall be content to confine ourselves
almost entirely to the monuments identified as Hittite by the presence of
the peculiar hieroglyphic signs or inscriptions carved upon them. It was
indeed upon this line of evidence that Professor A. H. Sayce was enabled,
thirty years ago, to establish the relationship of the unexplained
inscriptions of Hamath with the sculptures of Kara-Bel in the far west
of Asia Minor, and thence to make his brilliant inference of a forgotten
empire.[127]
We use the test of Hittite hieroglyphs, not only because it has become
in this way fundamental to our subject, but because it is no longer open
to doubt whether these peculiar signs are of Hittite origin or not.
Formerly there may have been room for reasonable criticism so long as
this conclusion was based only on the fact that these symbols were found
chiefly on unexplained monuments from Hamath and neighbouring places in
Northern Syria associated in history with the Hittites. But now the
increasing accumulation of this kind of circumstantial evidence has been
crowned by the discovery that the chief site of such monuments in Asia
Minor, namely Boghaz-Keui, was for two centuries the capital of the
Hittites, whose name (Hatti) appears freely on the literary documents
that have been unearthed[128] there in recent excavations. Being secured
then against fundamental error, a comparison of the Hittite monuments
identified on this basis readily reveals peculiarities of art which
may be regarded as typical, so that we might reasonably include in our
category other monuments of like kind which lack only the ultimate
criterion which we have set before us. We do not wish, however, nor do
we need, in the scope of this volume, to press the argument by analogy,
being warned against the pitfalls of such a method by several general
considerations, and especially by the noticeable survival of Hittite
influence in the local sculptures, like those of Phrygia[129] and western
Lycaonia.[130]
Though we continue to employ the old materials, however, we see them
now in a clearer light. Just as the time has passed by when the word
‘Hittite’ must be written in inverted commas, or qualified with the
adjective ‘so-called,’ so now we are not content any longer to regard
the older monuments of the interior together in general as pre-Hellenic,
much less pre-historic, without distinction as to period or locality.
The references to the Hittites in Babylonian, Egyptian, and Assyrian
history alone, it is true, would not be sufficient to establish an
historical basis for this phase of our inquiry, though giving us a
range of dates that covers broadly the whole of the second millennium
down to the eighth century B.C.,[131] but these allusions are now
supplemented, and in great measure made intelligible, by the evidence of
the Hittite archives recently discovered at Boghaz-Keui, which establish
chronological relationships of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries
B.C.,[132] together with a series of contemporary Hittite works. This
date now becomes the basis for all inquiry, bringing into line several
points previously problematical and much disputed, just as the intrinsic
evidence of these archives throws a new flood of light over the
disposition and constitution of the Hittites at the very period when they
figure most prominently in the pages of Egyptian history.
[Illustration: PLATE XXXI
ANGORA: REMAINS OF THE TEMPLE OF ROME AND AUGUSTUS]
Other researches have contributed towards broadening this basis of
investigation. At Sakje-Geuzi recent excavations[133] have established
the fact previously in doubt, that the settlements of Hittite peoples had
begun there at any rate many centuries, possibly several thousand years,
previous to the age marked by the oncoming and ultimately overwhelming
tide of Assyrian influence early in the first millennium B.C. The
relation of the later phase of local arts to Assyrian chronology is
given by the results of excavations made on the great mound at Sinjerli,
distant about a day’s journey in the same valley towards the south.[134]
Here certain palace buildings and sculptures, some of which betray
Assyrian feeling, may be dated, by help of inscribed monuments that were
unearthed, to the eighth century B.C., when this principality became
tributary to Tiglath Pileser III. The reign of Esarhaddon, the conqueror
of Egypt, brought even this nominal independence to an end about 680 B.C.
[Illustration: PLATE XXXII
NIGDEH: PORTAL OR THE ‘WHITE MIDRESSEH’
Built by Ala-ed-din the Great, _circa_ 1223 A.D. An early example of
Seljûk art. (_See p. 73._)]
To these revelations by the spade there should be added various
contributions of the pen, which, together with the old materials, make
possible the study of Hittite remains upon an historical rather than a
purely archæological basis. We might indeed make some general inferences
from the results of these researches, but it will be wise to keep ever
in view the geographical conditions, and never to assume collateral
development among the various branches of the Hittite peoples whose lands
were physically so disunited. Evidence affecting one state in the north
of Syria may be applied with some surety to its neighbours; but it may
not be applicable beyond the Taurus. No published accounts enable us to
test the antiquity of Hittite settlements upon the tableland of Asia
Minor, and it is doubtful if even the necessary soundings have been made.
For the middle period, however, the difficulty is less, where history
shows that the influence of the Hatti administered from Boghaz-Keui
must have predominated in the north of Syria, and contemporaneity of
development may therefore be inferred. But when we come to the inferior
limit of date the same difficulty (the possibility of independent
development) is reopened, for, in the absence of positive material
evidence to the contrary, the Assyrian arms seem never to have passed the
Halys even while Assyrian influences were dominant in Syria. On the other
hand, as we have seen in the previous chapters, we have to take into
account the possible influence of the new civilisations, like that of the
Phrygians, which had meanwhile been developing upon the tableland. One
thing at any rate seems clear, that no Hittite monuments of Asia Minor
can well be later than the period of Phrygian domination in the eighth
century B.C.,[135] so that in the end a general parallel is suggested
with the closing dates afforded from Assyrian history.
Having now considered in general terms the method and the new
chronological basis of our inquiry, we come first to an account of those
isolated monuments which illustrate to us the diversity of Hittite art
and the wide range of its influence. The most striking of these are
perhaps those carved on the living rock, which may take the form of
single figures, some gigantic, others less than life-size, or groups
representing deities and their ministers, accompanied in each case by
Hittite hieroglyphs, or long inscriptions without any sculptures to
give a suggestion of their meaning.[136] Of the moveable monuments
only one is found clearly _in situ_,[137] and this from its position
and nature may be thought, like some of the rock-inscriptions, to have
been a boundary stone. There are others, however, of such weight[138]
or peculiar character[139] that they may be judged to have been set up
not far from the sites where they have been found. The _provenance_ of
monuments found on or in the vicinity of ancient sites is also reliable
as evidence.[140] Sculptures are rarely executed in the round, except for
architectural purposes,[141] though in one or two instances there have
been found fragments of statues.[142] Reliefs however, are plentiful,
mostly representing mythological creatures or persons; while a distinct
class, which represents a ceremonial feast or communion, seems to include
some specimens of funerary character.[143] Among inscribed monuments the
most interesting are those stelæ which show a human figure, accompanied,
it would seem, by a formal biography of good works.[144]
[Illustration: PLATE XXXIII
NIGDEH: TOMB OF SELJÛK PERIOD
Traditionally the tomb of Havanda, wife of Ala-ed-din, but dated 1344
A.D. Note the design, tracery, and stalactite ornamentation. (_See p.
73._)]
Unfortunately a considerable proportion of the inscribed blocks of stone
that have been found are imperfect, so that little can be hoped from the
inscriptions themselves. There are also a few small objects so portable,
and reported from regions so exceptional, that they cannot be used as
topographical evidence. Lastly, there are naturally a number of monuments
simulating Hittite work which we hesitate to include without further
evidence. It will be useful at this stage to give a classified list of
the places where the chief Hittite monuments have been found.[145] Towns
and palaces are included though not discussed in this chapter; further,
classifications which are based on inference, or doubtful in any way,
are denoted by square brackets, while an asterisk signifies that the
Hittite origin of the monument to which it refers is problematical and
unconfirmed. Other special features are pointed out in the footnotes.
WALLED TOWNS.—Boghaz-Keui, Eyuk, Sakje-Geuzi, Sinjerli. [Ilgîn
(Kolitoghlu Yaila), Jerablus (Carchemish), Marash.]
PALACES.—Boghaz-Keui, Eyuk, Sakje-Geuzi, Sinjerli.[146] [Malatia,
Marash.[147]]
FORTRESSES.—Boghaz-Keui (Sary Kaleh, Yenije Kaleh), Giaour Kalesi,
Karaburna, Kizil Dagh.
ROCK CARVINGS.—_Sculptures with Inscriptions_—Boghaz-Keui (Iasily Kaya),
Fraktin, Ivrîz, Kara-Bel (Mount Tmolus), Kizil Dagh, Mount Sipylus,
Tashji. _Sculpture only_—Giaour-Kalesi.[148] _Inscriptions only_—Asarjik,
Boghaz-Keui (Nishan Tash), Bulghar-Madên, Gurun, Kara Dagh (Mahalich).
STONES IN SITU.—_Inscribed Sculpture_—Kuru-Bel. _Inscription only_—Bogche.
MOVEABLE STONES.—_Sculptures in the round_—Boghaz-Keui,[149]
Derendeh[150] (and at Arslan Tash),[150] Eyuk,[150] Eski-Yapân,[150]
Kurts-oghlu,[151] Kuru-Bel,[152] Marash,[151] Yamoola.[149] _Reliefs;
mural_—Aintab, Boghaz-Keui, Doghanlu, Malatia, Marash. [Angora
(Kalaba, Yalanjak, Amaksiz Keui).] _Reliefs representing a Ceremonial
Feast_—Kara-burshlu, Malatia, Marash, Sakje-Geuzi, Sinjerli,[153] Yarre.
_Inscriptions accompanying human figure_—Andaval, Bor, Jerablus[154]
(Carchemish), Kellekli, Marash,[153] Samsat, Tell-Ahmar. _Inscriptions
only_—Aleppo, Alexandretta,[155] Albistan (Kirchuk Yapalak), Bey-Keui,
Ekrek,[154] Emir-Ghazi,[151] Hamath, Ilgîn (Kolitoghlu Yaila),
Izgîn,[156] Jerablus, Karaburna, Nigdeh,[151] Restan, Suasa.
EXCEPTIONAL DISTRICTS.—Babylon, Erzerum (Kaza Passinler),[157]
Kedabeg,[154] Toprah Kaleh.
PROBLEMATICAL MONUMENTS.—Eflatoun-Bunar, Fassiler, Gerger.
The first thing that strikes us in considering this list is that these
monuments are all of stone. We might possibly be able to include, with
suitable caution, some number of small objects of bronze or pottery,
mostly in animal form, and also a number of peculiar ceramic types,
including painted vases and neolithic pottery decorated in a primitive
manner by incisions. But, except in the latter instances,[158] these
do not advance the main subject of our inquiry; for while their
identification with the Hittites is chiefly a matter of general
inference, their _provenance_ is nearly always doubtful. The same thing
might be said unhappily of the definitely Hittite seals and kindred
objects, of which several excellent specimens are on record,[159] whether
made of silver,[160] stone,[161] or ivory.[162] While all of these
are worthy of closest study from the point of view of Hittite art and
_motif_, yet nearly all have been found in the hands of peasants who were
loath to tell the exact site of their discovery, or of town-dealers who
did not know.
[Illustration: PLATE XXXIV
EPHESUS: MEDIEVAL FORTRESS WITH SELJÛK REMAINS AT AYASOLÛK
KONIA: ZAZADÎN HAN, OF SELJÛK WORK AND STYLE (_See p. 73._)]
Hence to define our Hittite land by the disposition of the monuments,
we fall back largely on the works in stone, the original position of
which is known or can be inferred. Doubtless at one time the surface of
the ground was covered with other indications, with ruins of villages
and houses where now the grass grows over indistinguishable mounds;
and doubtless also many exposed monuments must hitherto have escaped
scientific record. Hence our argument from the disposition of the
monuments should be guarded; it is positive, indeed, so far as we have
evidence, but the negative case should not be urged. The durability
of stone has perpetuated these monuments to us, but it is not thereby
demonstrated that the Hittites had any exclusive preference for this
material. And being of stone, they are most plentiful in stony regions,
and rarely found upon grassy plains. We cannot expect, for instance,
upon the broad pastures of Iconium anything analogous to the sculptures
which are found in rocky Taurus, where the opportunity was all-tempting
which in the former case was lacking. It has been well said that ‘if the
plateau presented throughout the same character, there would be no need
to seek on its surface monuments of the past. Hunters and woodmen build
no cities, and arts are unknown to them.’[163] Consequently, in finding
a concentration of Hittite sites upon the hilly regions of the map, this
fact should not be allowed to weigh disproportionately, although there is
independent evidence tending to the conclusion that several branches of
the Hittite peoples, particularly those of Asia Minor, were of mountain
origin.[164]
With these considerations in mind, a study of the disposition of these
Hittite sites upon the map[165] can teach us much, notwithstanding our
self-imposed restrictions. Our southerly frontier reaches to Hamath
on the Orontes. Eastward our boundary is the Euphrates, flowing past
Malatia, Samsat, and Jerablus. Westward the monuments follow the inner
edge of Taurus as far as the Kara Dagh, with not a single site under
the southern slope of these mountains. In the north we have no clear
boundary. Eyuk and Boghaz-Keui are found in the middle of the circuit
of the Halys, with no places nearer than those which lie in the valley
of that river. Across the river a single line of monuments, including
Giaour-Kalesi, Yarre, Doghanlu, and Bey-Keui, seems to lead on towards
the Lydian coast, to where Sipylus and Kara-Bel are found between Sardis
and Smyrna.
[Illustration: PLATE XXXV
ROWANDUZ KALEH: MEDIEVAL FORTRESS ON A STEEP CONICAL HILL OVERLOOKING THE
AFRÎN
Supposed to have been built under Genoese architects during the 14th
century A.D. (_See p. 9._)]
A brief consideration of the classified list of monuments above will
reveal the fact that for description no grouping of these places is so
convenient as that formed naturally by geographical divisions. The first
main group (A) will include all the monuments of the north of Syria,
in which we may recognise three separate districts. The most southerly
is the Orontes valley, with which we can include Aleppo, though the
latter historically would seem to have been the centre of an independent
state.[166] The monuments from Hamath consist of a series of stones
inscribed in relief, partly belonging to the same inscription; while at
Aleppo there is one small stone of similar character. The places Restan
and Homs indicated upon the map are positions of importance further up
the Orontes, though unidentified by local remains.[167] The site of
Kadesh, the historical frontier fortress of the Hittites in their warfare
with Egypt, is similarly now unrecognisable, but a consensus of opinion
among students of the Egyptian records places it not far southward of the
present lake of Homs.[168]
Eastward we have the monuments on the Euphrates, including numerous
inscriptions, a stela, and fragments of sculpture, from the irregular
mounds which mark the site of ancient Carchemish at Jerablus. Several
carved and inscribed monuments are recently reported from Kellekli and
Tell-Ahmar,[169] which are in the same vicinity, while further up the
river there are found an inscribed and sculptured block from Samsat,
and a doubtful carving on the rocks near Gerger Kalesi. The remaining
monuments of the north of Syria lie towards the west, mostly in the
valley of the Kara Su. The mounds of Sinjerli and Sakje-Geuzi are
included, wherein excavations have disclosed the ruins of sculptured
palaces and other monuments that will be described with more detail in a
later chapter. A relief with inscription comes from Kara-burshlu in the
same vicinity; while a sculptured and inscribed corner-stone of peculiar
character has been found at Aintab, a little to the east. To the south
of this town is Killiz, a place not marked by any peculiar remains, but
the centre where numbers of bronze figures,[170] seals, and other small
objects of Hittite character, are commonly found in the bazaars. Lower
down on the Afrîn, and hence geographically contiguous, is Kurts-oghlu,
whence comes a portion of a small statue carved in the round, upon which
still remain two lines of incised inscription. We include Marash also in
this group, though it is on higher ground at the ascent of the Taurus
mountains. Here there must have been a city of importance, suggested
alike in the strategic position and in the number and character of the
monuments found upon the site. Among these are two sculptured lions
(one inscribed with hieroglyphs in relief), slabs carved with reliefs
depicting interesting scenes, and the lower part of an inscribed statue,
as well as several blocks and fragments also inscribed.
Passing northwards the monuments found in the mountain regions of Taurus
and Anti-Taurus constitute our second main group (B). This embraces the
district marked by the four sites in the valley of the Tochma Su, with
which there may be included two others in the head-waters of the Pyramus.
At Malatia there have been found several architectural blocks sculptured
in relief with religious representations and hunting scenes, most of
them bearing also groups of Hittite hieroglyphs upon them. There can be
no doubt that, situated like Marash in a position of great strategic
importance,[171] at one time on the Mitannian and later on the Assyrian
frontier, this place is equally one of the more noteworthy Hittite sites.
From Derendeh come an inscribed fragment of a statue and a small basaltic
lion; and from a spot called appropriately Arslan Tash, one hour distant
to the south, two other lions, which are presumably architectural. At
Palanga an inscribed cylindrical columnar figure has been found; while
Gurun, further up the valley, is the site of two inscriptions, one on the
living rock and the other on an isolated block. On the southern side of
the watershed an inscribed stone has been found in a cemetery at Kirchuk
Yapalak, two hours distant from Albistan; while the column or obelisk
from Izgîn, inscribed on four sides with hieroglyphs in relief, is an
object almost as remarkable as the round column from Palanga.
This group includes, as a second district, five sites in the Anti-Taurus.
The most easterly is Kuru-Bel, a pass near old-time Comana: here is
one of the most striking Hittite works, resembling a great altar with
lions crouching upon the top on either hand. Three places are on the
main stream of the Zamanti Su: from an Armenian cemetery at Ekrek there
has come a stone inscribed in incised hieroglyphs, which has been
re-dressed with Christian emblems; at Tashji are two figures and an
inscription incised upon the rock; while Fraktin is famous as the site
of rock-sculptures that make important additions to Hittite religious
symbolism. Lastly, at Asarjik, on the northern slope of Mount Argæus,
overlooking Cæsarea, an inscription is incised upon a broken rock,
accompanied by interesting markings like graffiti.
In our third main group (C) we include those few monuments found in
or near the valley of the Halys, north-westward of Cæsarea. These are
a great sculptured eagle on a lion-base, an object not demonstrably
of Hittite workmanship, on the river-bank near Yamoola; a perfect
inscription covering four sides of a round-topped stone, standing on a
pedestal, overlooking the river valley on the south bank near Bogche;
thirdly, an inscription in three lines on a stone found at Karaburna,
which is on the opposite bank considerably lower down; and lastly,
two incised inscriptions found recently at Suasa, which lies back
considerably from the river, almost opposite the place last named.
With the same group we class the district inside the circuit of the
Halys, the monuments of which are almost confined to the famous ruins of
Boghaz-Keui, with the neighbouring sculptured sanctuary of Iasily Kaya,
and the walled mound and palace of Eyuk, both of which are described
in later chapters. There are, however, one or two features which may
be appropriately singled out for comparison in this chapter, notably
the inscription in relief on the rock called Nishan Tash, on the high
ground of the citadel at Boghaz-Keui, and a couple of building blocks
sculptured like those of Sinjerli, Malatia, and Eyuk, recently found at
the foot of the acropolis. If we may mention also two objects of doubtful
_provenance_, these introduce a place called Eski-Yapân, on the road from
Sungurlu to Chorum, where an architectural lion is built into a modern
wall,[172] and Denek-Madên, near to Cheshme-Keupru, where an interesting
round ivory object engraved with Hittite characters and signs has been
rescued.[173]
[Illustration: PLATE XXXVI
CÆSAREA: TURKISH CEMETERY, NOW DISUSED (_See p. 23._)]
We are inclined to group together all the monuments westward of the Halys
(D), including with them the two famous sculptures near the Lydian coast.
We thus bring together for comparison the rock carvings of Giaour-Kalesi
and of Kara-Bel, which are analogous, and the dethroned Niobe seated on
Mount Sipylus. In the Phrygian country there are on record an inscribed
stone at Bey-Keui, and a sculpture with uncertain hieroglyphs at Doghanlu
Daresi. A relief found at Yarre, representing a ceremonial feast,
conforms with a definite class of Hittite sculptures found elsewhere on
the several sites mentioned in the list above. The same may be said,
though with less confidence, of carved slabs found in the vicinity of
Angora, representing lions, but we exclude the sculptured lion to be
seen near the bridge at Cheshme Keupru. The remarkable thing about the
disposition of these monuments, excluding the reliefs at Angora, is
that they seem to mark out the line of a single road, namely the Royal
Road from Boghaz-Keui to Sardis and the west.[174] The only reasonable
doubt seems to be as to the route from Giaour-Kalesi to Boghaz-Keui,
about which there is no evidence. Some students of the local topography
think it must have gone by way of Angora, in spite of the tradition
(which in the absence of evidence becomes of interest) that Angora was a
comparatively late Phrygian foundation.[175] Others urge[176] that it
was improbable that the road ‘swerved southwards to Giaour-Kalesi,’ an
opinion seemingly forgetful of the road’s objective.[177]
The district westward of Iconium, in which are found the
Lycaonian-Hittite monuments of Eflatoun-Bunar and Fassiler, stands by
itself. But as there is only one clearly Hittite object from this region,
namely a stone inscribed with hieroglyphs in relief, from near Kolitoghlu
Yaila, near Ilgîn, we include this with the main western group.
We now come to the fifth and last group (E) of these arbitrary
divisions, which includes nine sites and several of the most important
monuments.[178] It embraces the whole of the south-western range of
Taurus from the Kara Dagh to Bulghar Dagh, as well as the districts
at its foot, of which in classical times Eregli (Cybistra) Arissama
(Ardistama) and Kilisse Hissar (Tyana) were the more important centres.
The monuments recently discovered on the Kara Dagh might indeed have
been regarded as a group apart; but as this district shares in the
geographical economy of the others, and is a spur of the main Taurus
range, we prefer to class them with the rest. They are found in two
places, firstly, near Mahalich, on the summit of the Kara Dagh, where
there are two inscriptions in relief and a passage in the rock; and
secondly, on the outlying knoll called Kizil Dagh, on which are the
remains of a ‘high place,’ including a rock-throne and an incised seated
figure with three inscriptions; while on the very summit there are
the ruins of a fortress, and an inscription in relief upon the rock.
The monument of Ivrîz, above Eregli, is well known; it is a gigantic
and imposing sculpture of the god of fertility (by whatever name he
may be known) with the local priest-king in adoration; three short
inscriptions accompany the scene. The traces of a second sculpture of
similar character are to be found not far above.[179] At Bulghar-Madên,
on the other side of a lofty ridge, an incised inscription of five
lines is graved upon the living rock. These two monuments seem to have
been connected in some way with Tyana, in the vicinity of which several
inscribed stelæ and sculptures have been found. That from Bor, discovered
in two portions which were rescued at different times, is the best
of these; and an interesting fragment remains at Eski Andaval, where
jealousies and suspicions prevent it from being seen. Nigdeh contributes
an incised altar of round shape. From Tyana itself nothing is reported,
but the antiquity of the site is unquestioned, and its known monuments
reach back to the time of a Phrygian Midas.[180] In this district,
particularly at Bor, numerous small objects of great interest have been
secured, and there is little reason to doubt but that they were found
originally not far away.[181] Further west, in the desert tract of the
eastern extremity of the great salt plains, there are the ruins of
Ardistama; and in the vicinity, near Emir Ghazi, there have been found in
late years an inscription in relief, and three others on round altars.
These are included in the same group on account of their geographical
proximity.
Now that we have completed this preliminary survey of the disposition
of such Hittite monuments as by their character or the circumstances
of their discovery may be accepted by us as evidence in our inquiry,
we realise more clearly the reason for the distinction we made in an
earlier chapter between the eastern and western portions of Asia Minor.
In the West we can speak of only nine monuments, of which four are not
of Hittite origin. Six of these seem to lie along the line of a single
road; and of the others, only one is inscribed with Hittite characters,
and even that is moveable and not found in its original position. If only
by contrast with this paucity, the comparative frequency of monuments
towards the East, and their definite character, naturally inclines us to
assign some tentative boundaries to the Hittite country. In the North
this is not difficult; the Halys River remained in the time of Crœsus a
division between peoples of different race,[182] and Sir William Ramsay
has pointed out[183] differences in important racial customs between the
peoples of the two banks in ancient times.
But to the south there is no such boundary; even the great plains, which
form so prominent a landmark in the map, seem to be more barren now than
in the days when Ardistama flourished.[184] This change is illustrated by
the western extension of the monuments along the foot of the Taurus and
in the desert. We must not forget, also, that whole tracts are eliminated
from our purview from absence of stone; nor should we allow ourselves
to be prepossessed with the idea of divisions on the tableland, which
is, after all, continuous and coterminous. If it is true that nearly
all the evidences of Hittite occupation in the west resolve themselves
into monuments erected along a single road, it is also true that if we
exclude from our view the group of remarkable monuments at Boghaz-Keui
and Eyuk, there remains little sign that the country within the circuit
of the Halys was indeed at any time Hittite territory, much less that
it enclosed their northern capital. In face of such considerations the
great sculptures and fortress of Giaour-Kalesi, the carvings of Doghanlu,
the inscription and tumulus of Bey-Keui, and most striking of all, the
sculptures of the west on Mount Sipylus and in the pass of Kara-Bel, as
well as those monuments in Phrygia and Western Lycaonia which at least
reflect the influence of Hittite art, become imbued with a relative
importance not to be overlooked in our inquiry. The land of the Hittites
is for us as broad as the extent of their works: it is for another phase
of our subject to inquire whether there is evidence to tell us how and
when their territory was acquired, and for how long it remained in their
power.
SECTION A.—MONUMENTS OF THE NORTH OF SYRIA.
HAMATH, RESTAN, ALEPPO; KURTS-OGHLU (ALEXANDRETTA), SINJERLI,
KARA-BURSHLU, SAKJE-GEUZI; AINTAB (KILLIZ), MARASH; JERABLUS, KELLEKLI,
TELL-AHMAR, SAMSAT, RUM KALI (GERGER).
The town of Hamath has grown up where the main road from the north
enters the Orontes valley. This river, in characteristic fashion, flows
for the most part deep below the level of the surrounding plains;
and Hamath is found at a spot where the banks widen out, so that the
town is in a hollow, almost surrounded by escarpments formed of the
steep banks and the broken edges of the plain. Though picturesque, the
position in general can have had little strategic importance, even in
antiquity, being overlooked and exposed. Hence it probably came into
being in Hittite times as an important halting-place upon the main road
through Syria, and as a natural centre for the surrounding agricultural
districts. The original Hittite stronghold would seem to have been more
strongly placed; this probably covered the broad-topped mound[185] which
marks, in the manner so familiar in old Syrian towns, the beginnings of
the site. Doubtless this would be surrounded at a certain stage with a
wall, as was the fashion of those days; and later, on the analogy of
Sinjerli, the population overspread the limits of the enclosure, and
so settled in times of quiet on the tempting ground at the foot of the
acropolis. In this development, and in the nature of its situation,
Hamath shares largely the general features of many Syrian sites. Being
(even now) somewhat out of the way of European travellers, it is curious
that numerous inscriptions should have been noticed here, while a famous
historical site like Kadesh remains unidentified, and a strong natural
position like Restan was until recently without record of Hittite
occupation.[186]
[Illustration: PLATE XXXVII
HAMATH: INSCRIPTION IN THREE LINES OF HITTITE HIEROGLYPHS CARVED IN
RELIEF, ONE OF THE SO-CALLED ‘HAMATHIC’ INSCRIPTIONS (_See p. 95._)
The photograph is taken from a paper impression.]
Whatever may be the explanation, as early as 1812 a black basaltic block
built into the corner of one of the houses in a bazaar attracted the eye
of a famous traveller[187] by reason of the strange-looking hieroglyphic
signs upon it. Sixty years later other stones came to light;[188] some
were built into the modern walls, others lay loose. All were regarded
with veneration by the inhabitants,[189] and it was with great difficulty
that they were removed, in 1872, to a place of safety by the Turkish
Governor through the energetic initiation of Dr. Wright, supported by the
British Consul.
The inscriptions are five in number,[190] whereof two are on adjacent
sides of the same block of stone. The first was found in the wall
of a house; it measures nearly 15 inches in height and 13 inches in
length.[191] The inscription is in three lines; and it begins at the
top right-hand side, with the symbol of the human arm and head, with
finger touching the lips, a sign which indicates the beginning of a first
personal declaration. Other hieroglyphics may be readily recognised in
the photograph. The yoke which has the phonetic value of our letter S
is thrice repeated in the lower part of the line; while towards the
end there is seen the hand and forearm, marked off by the smaller
word-dividing signs above and below, which in this grouping seems to
express some attribute of lordship,[192] as ‘mighty’ or ‘powerful.’
On the analogy of other hieroglyphic systems, the signs face always
towards the commencement of the inscription. In this way the character
of Hittite inscriptions may be recognised as _boustrophedon_, turning
alternately in direction with the successive rows, like oxen ploughing
in a field. The second row in this case must be read then towards the
right. The most noticeable sign is the royal head-dress, which is conical
and drawn always with a midrib.[193] This symbol is an ideograph meaning
king. Below the first example of this sign there occurs the freely
used determinative of a locality; it is oval in shape, and is to be
distinguished by details from a similar symbol indicating sanctity or
divinity, which is seen commonly at the top of the groups of signs which
seem to name individuals in the sculptures.[194]
There seems to be little variation between the texts of this inscription
and two others from the same place.[195] Of these, No. 2 is an
inscription likewise in three lines, lacking only a few signs at the end.
The stone measures nearly 20 inches in length by 15 inches in height;
it was found built into the wall of a garden. The inscribed end of the
third stone (that which was looked on as possessed with virtue for the
rheumatic), is only just 11 inches in height, with a width the same as
in the former instance. There are two lines of inscription preserved.
The largest stone of all was found built into the corner of a small shop;
its height is just over 2 feet, and its length 3 feet in front. It is
cubical, with a thickness or depth of at least 15 inches. It was probably
a corner-stone in antiquity also, for it is inscribed on the front and on
the left-hand side.[196] The signs, as in the other cases, are in relief.
The inscription is not continuous around the corner, for in front are
five rows, which begin to read from the right, while by the side are four
rows only, beginning from the left. The depth of the rows is the same in
each case. The face inscription is considerably rubbed and damaged, and a
portion of the last line missing; while the edges of the side-inscription
are also rubbed away.[197]
The one monument of Aleppo[198] is a single panel of inscription carved
in relief upon a block of basalt, nearly 2 feet 6 inches long, and 1
foot 6 inches high. When seen originally it was built into the south
wall of an old mosque, and was regarded with special superstition by
the native people, who ascribed to it powers of curing ophthalmia.
The smooth-rubbed nature of the surface of the stone may be partly
ascribed to the devotions of the afflicted, who were wont to rub their
affected eyes upon it. When attention was drawn to the character and
archæological importance of this monument, it was hastily removed, and
reported as broken. Rather more than twenty years later, however, it
was refound,[199] built again into the wall of a mosque, and a new
photograph was obtained. The signs are too worn to transcribe with
certainty, and the inscription is too incomplete to be of much present
use for comparative study. It is remarkable that no other Hittite
monuments from Aleppo have been recorded. Possibly the reason is that the
fine mediæval Turkish castle now completely covers the bold acropolis
which was probably the position of the stronghold in Hittite times.[200]
There is rumour of other inscriptions in the masonry of the keep, and in
the town, but nothing has yet come to light.
We pass now westward towards the ancient lands of Wan. From here only one
monument is recorded,[201] but that is of peculiar interest, being part
of a sculpture in the round. This was found in a large rubbish-mound at
Amk near Kurts-oghlu, a village not far from the Gindarus of Roman times
upon the Afrîn. It is now in the Berlin Museum.[202] It consists of the
lower part of a statue, which must have represented a somewhat stolid
person standing, clad in long skirt, below which the toes protrude. The
inscription is incised in two rows around the front and sides of the
skirt at the bottom, beginning from behind the right-hand side. The space
not inscribed behind is filled with four vertical folds, descending from
the waist, which seems to be encircled with a belt. The upper part of
the body is broken away, but it seems to have been clad in a garment
which reached down, in front and behind, to the waist and descended lower
over the thighs; but the upper part is all broken away, leaving only
the position of one elbow, which was bent. The height of the preserved
portion of the statue is 16 inches, and width at the bottom 10½ inches.
Dr. Messerschmidt notes with regard to the inscription that an attempt
seems to have been made to add a third line, which was abandoned possibly
owing to lack of room, and the signs added were then effaced with
cross-lines. It remains probable, none the less, that these extra words
were essential to complete the sense of the inscription.[203]
[Illustration: PLATE XXXVIII
ALEPPO: ENTRANCE TO THE MEDIEVAL FORTRESS UPON THE ACROPOLIS]
Northward lies Sinjerli, the centre of old-time Shamal, in the valley
of the Kara Su, under the eastern slopes of Mount Amanus. Here one
of the numerous mounds in this locality has been excavated, and
disclosed the site of a walled town surrounding an acropolis which was
separately enclosed. Within were palaces, or _Hilâni_, of different
building periods, and decorated like the gates of the citadel and town
with sculptures of varying character. Several inscriptions, from the
dated evidence upon them and their relative positions, added to the
archæological value of these discoveries, which will be found described
in greater detail in Chapter v.
An hour northward from Sinjerli is the village of Kara-burshlu, at
the foot of Mount Amanus, and on the way from one of the chief local
descents from the mountains called significantly Arslan Boghaz (Lion
Gorge). Above this village there towers a steep knoll, on the summit
of which an interesting carved monument was found by members of the
first Berlin expedition to Sinjerli.[204] The subject of the relief is
a Ceremonial Feast, similar in its general features to others observed
in the locality at Sinjerli,[205] Sakje-Geuzi, Marash, and Malatia, and
in Asia Minor at Boghaz-Keui (Iasily Kaya) and at Yarre, but rendered
important through certain variations. For it seems to have been inscribed
on both sides and on the top; while, below, part of a pedestal remains,
on which it must have been designed to stand.[206] Thus it could not have
been intended for a building stone, nor is there any suggestion that it
was an old stone re-used. Its height is 3 feet 7 inches, its width 3
feet; and the pedestal is preserved to a length of about 5 inches with
a width of 18 inches. Unfortunately the stone was found in a poor state
of preservation, and could not be moved, so that we have to rely chiefly
on sketches and impressions taken on the spot by the discoverers. These,
however, were executed with great skill, and it is the fault rather of
the condition of the monument, and of our unfamiliarity with the writing,
that more of the inscription cannot be made out. As it is, only part of
four rows from the right-hand side have been published; but there seem
to have been originally six rows on each side and at least one row on
the top. The letters are all incised. The sculpture is in relief, and
represents two figures seated on either side of a low table, similar to
one another and _vis-à-vis_. The hair of the one seems to be short, and
of the other curled. Their shoes turn upwards at the toe. Their robes are
long and fringed, reaching to the ankles, and there is a belt (partly at
least) around the waist. Each raises the further hand with something in
it to the level of the mouth. The nearer elbow is drawn back in a natural
position, and a staff is suggested in the hand. The chairs are square
cornered and straight legged, twice as high as broad, with spindles to
match, and low backs, the upper bars of which are thicker and rounded
behind. The table is of familiar shape, rather squeezed in the drawing.
The top seems to be round, and the curved legs (which are probably three
in number) cross about two-thirds of their height, forming a tripod. The
feet of the legs are ornamented, probably but not clearly, as animals’
feet. Upon the table are five flat circular objects (if we interpret the
perspective of the drawing rightly) like native loaves of bread, and upon
them are two small pear-shaped objects more difficult to define.
The class of sculpture to which this monument belongs is to be
distinguished in our opinion from that in which one of the personages
represented is clearly more exalted than the other,[207] hence
presumably the lord or master to whom a servant ministers; whereas in
these, the persons seem to be on an equality, and both share in the
feast. The suggestion of a ‘funerary feast’[208] as an explanation of
these sculptures seems most natural, but the difficulty in accepting
this arises from the fact that at Sinjerli the stone in question forms
part of a mural decoration, and others of those mentioned seem to be
clearly architectural blocks. This difficulty might be explained away
by the compromise that the scenes were originally commemorative of
some religious institution of a funerary character, though not actually
tombstones.[209]
One of the most interesting monuments of this kind is found at
Sakje-Geuzi, which lies in the same valley as Sinjerli, about a day’s
journey to the north-east. The route passes through a gap in a low ridge
which divides the valley transversely and forms a natural boundary
between the two districts. Recent excavations[210] have unearthed in
one of the mounds at Sakje-Geuzi the outline of a walled citadel and
the foundations of a palace with portico sculptured in characteristic
fashion. These buildings we describe with those of Sinjerli and Eyuk
in a later chapter; but there are one or two surface monuments of this
site that may appropriately be mentioned now. One of these is the relief
in question.[211] The stone was found in the marshy ground at the foot
of the mound called Jobba Eyuk. The stone is preserved to a height of
27 inches, and is probably a decorative building slab, brought down in
modern times from the mound. The carving is very weathered, but its main
features may be readily made out. The figure on the left is seated, with
hands stretched out towards the table; while that on the opposite side
stands facing the other, with hands forward as though in the act of
serving.[212] The dresses seem to be long robes; that of the standing
figure may be bordered or fringed. The hair of the seated figure ends
in a bunched curl.[213] The chair is straight-legged as before, only
the back is higher, and while curving very slightly backwards does not
thicken but rather tends to taper. The table is better drawn than in the
last instance; the curve and crossing of the legs is more clear; but the
third leg is shown in each case stopping short at the junction, possibly
because the artist thought the curve took it out of the plane of the
sculptures. The objects upon the table cannot be identified: the one
which seems to be proffered by the left hand of the standing figure is
round and set upright; the other is small and T-shaped.
Another monument not found _in situ_, and no longer at Sakje-Geuzi, was
removed to Berlin[214] some years ago from the walls of the Konak, or
chiefs house, in the village. It consists of three sculptured stones,
obviously part of a mural decoration, but forming in themselves a
complete group. The subject depicted is a royal lion hunt.[215] The
king or priest dynast is marked out by a winged disk near to his head;
he rides in a two-horsed chariot, which is driven by a companion. The
horses, like the men, are clad in mail; jaunty tassels hang from their
sides and shoulders. The car is small and seemingly open at the back;
a quiver for arrows is hung up on each side, as well as an implement
which seems like a javelin. The tires of the wheels are thick, and
there are eight spokes. The two figures standing within the chariot are
clad exactly alike, in long mail robes with short sleeves that do not
reach the elbow. Both are without other headgear than their copious
hair or wig, which is arranged in long parallel curls over the head;
their beards also are dressed in pendent curls in the Assyrian style.
The face of the warrior is partly hidden by that of him who drives, but
the visible characteristics are the same. The eye is rendered in full,
while the somewhat aquiline nose and prominent lips are in profile. The
similarity of these two figures is somewhat striking; possibly, on the
Egyptian analogy, it is the king’s son who drives. He holds the reins in
his two hands, a pair in each, while in his right he seems to grasp also
a short-stocked whip. The figure seen partly behind, which we take for
the monarch, is portrayed in the act of shooting. The short bow is drawn
to the back of the neck, and the middle part of the weapon, held by the
outstretched left hand, together with the long point of the arrow, is
seen protruding from before the face of the nearer figure. His quarry is
a noble lion which is seen immediately in front of the chariot horses.
A third figure in the background here intervenes, being partly hidden
by the forelegs of the horses and the hind parts of the lion. He is
clad only in a short tunic from the waist; the garment has apparently
a seam vertically down the front, and the fold, which is fringed or
bordered, falls transversely over the right thigh. His feet are shod in
sandals.[216] The face of this person is not well preserved, but his
hair is short and very curly. In his right hand an implement resembling
a double axe is poised aloft, while with his left he still grasps a
spear, the point of which protrudes from the near flank of the lion. The
beast itself is shown also in profile; the tail with bushy tip is down;
the mane and ruffle are depicted, and the hair is shown full behind the
shoulder and under the belly.[217] The mouth is open, with the teeth
all bared, and the left paw is upraised with the claws turned outwards,
both actions threatening a fourth person who with face turned towards
the group completes the scene. With both hands this man drives home a
spear into the skull or left shoulder of the animal. He is clad like
the riders in the chariot in a long suit of mail, with short sleeves.
In this case the lower part of the garment may be seen, which in the
others is hidden by the side of the chariot: it is cut away from above
the knees, though falling behind nearly to the ankles. There is a belt
around the waist as before; the sandals have flat soles, while toe-piece
and ankle-strap are clearly delineated. The head-dress of this person is
peculiarly interesting. While perpetuating the form of the conical hat
it seems to look more clearly like a helmet. This may, however, be an
illusion, as there is a border around the brow, and the appearance of a
turnover fold which reaches down the side from the peak. Over the back of
the animal, between the spears of the two standing figures, there appear
four rosettes of twelve petals each; while the upper and lower borders
of the stones are decorated also with a pattern composed of contiguous
concentric circles. The height of these slabs is nearly four feet,
which accords with the measure of other stones of similar character and
decoration found upon one of the mounds of this site.[218] Together these
form a series of pronounced Assyrian feeling, and obviously of later
date[219] than the palace-portico recently unearthed.
[Illustration: PLATE XXXIX
SAKJE-GEUZI: ROYAL HUNTING SCENE
Date probably 8th century B.C.]
From Sakje-Geuzi a difficult mountain track leads over the Qurt Dagh to
Kartal, crossing the head-waters of the Afrîn, and, following the wild
upper valley of that river to Karadinek, passes thence under the curve
of the basalt plateau to Killiz. The distance in time is much the same
as the better road by way of Aintab, being two days’ journey in either
case, but the scenery and interests of the former route are unparalleled
in Northern Syria. At Killiz various small objects have been from time to
time bought in the bazaars, such as stone seals and small bronze figures.
Two of the latter we illustrate here,[220] but it is not certain that
they are of Hittite origin. Their archaic appearance, however, the range
of country and localities in which this class of objects are found, and
several other considerations, render the suspicion a probability.[221]
Aintab, one day’s march eastward from Sakje-Geuzi, lies at the juncture
of two main routes, the one from Cilicia eastward across the Euphrates,
the other from Marash southward by Killiz to Aleppo. It is somewhat
surprising therefore that there is no further evidence of Hittite
handiwork forthcoming than a single granite corner-stone. This is a
cubical block,[222] about twenty inches in height, inscribed on the
one face and sculptured on the adjoining side to the right. It is
clearly an architectural piece, for neither sculpture nor inscription
is completed on the single stone; yet it should be mentioned that in
the palace buildings of Sakje-Geuzi, Sinjerli, and Eyuk in no case has
an inscription been found built into the walls which are decorated with
sculptures. Recently at Malatia, and at Boghaz-Keui, sculptured blocks
have been found on the face of which are hieroglyphic signs, as may be
seen _in situ_ at Eyuk; but in no case is an inscription found built
into a wall. We feel inclined to regard this stone therefore as part of
another class of structure, like a built-up hero-monument or shrine.[223]
The inscription is in three panels, of which the middle one is complete
and enclosed by a border; the lowest is lacking only in the left-hand
corner at the bottom, while the uppermost is suggested only by traces
of the lowest signs within it. A religious character is suggested in
the reading of the middle panel tentatively offered by Professor Sayce:
‘This (monument) erecting to the god of my country.’ The sculptured side
is equally problematical. That which remains shows the right leg of a
man from thigh to knee. The dress seems to be a short tunic, the lowest
edge of which seems to be curled up behind. The position of the leg and
dress suggest several points of interest in attempting a restoration of
the attitude. The figure must have been about life-size, and posed for
action with left leg forward; not running but rather walking quickly, or
possibly hurling a spear, with the muscles of the leg strung up to give
the final impetus to the throw.
[Illustration: PLATE XL
KILLIZ: BRONZE FIGURES. (_See p. 106._)
DENEK MADÊN: IVORY SEAL. (_See p. 160._)]
Marash lies one day’s journey northwards of Aintab: it is a considerable
town placed at the descent from the Taurus on sloping ground well above
the plain and 2500 feet above the sea. We have seen that it has played
a considerable part in local history, as follows from its important
position at the junction of several main routes; and to judge from
the remains that have been found there, it must have been in earlier
times one of the more important centres of the Hittites. As in the
parallel cases of Aleppo and Hamath, probably the conical knoll to the
west of the town, crowned by the remains of the mediæval and earlier
fortifications, marks the original village ‘tell,’ which, like the mounds
of Sakje-Geuzi, began to grow with the first settlements of Hittites upon
the spot. Into an arched stone gateway on this acropolis there had been
built two sculptured lions of Hittite workmanship, one of them, indeed,
freely inscribed with Hittite characters. Originally the two lions had
unquestionably guarded the entrance to a palatial building, forming the
corner-pieces of the lowest course;[224] but in later times they had
been poised aloft in the masonry as mere ornaments.[225] Though these
are perhaps the most striking objects from this place, several other
monuments are on record, the interest of which is enhanced by their
variety of character and detail.[226] These include a slab sculptured
with the representation of a Ceremonial Feast, similar to those of
Kara-burshlu and Sinjerli, but with the addition of Hittite hieroglyphs
upon the sculptured face. There is also the body of a small statue with
a considerable part of the sculpture preserved, and a stela with carved
figure and long incised inscription. Several other sculptures may be
unhesitatingly included in the list, though without Hittite hieroglyphs
upon them. One of these is a fragment showing a woman seated with a child
on her knee, holding in her left hand a lyre upon which is perched a
bird. Another is also broken, but the figure of a man serving at a table
is preserved, and there is clear suggestion of a greater figure on the
opposite side. Below, in an ill-drawn scene, a man holding a spear is
represented leading a horse.[227] Recently a fine monumental piece has
been added to the list, consisting of a cubical block of stone carved on
the four sides, with inscription in this case as well as a human figure
in relief. There are also various fragmentary inscriptions which have
been longer known. There can be no doubt but that Marash was a royal seat
of even greater importance than those at Sinjerli and Sakje-Geuzi.
[Illustration: PLATE XLI
AINTAB: INSCRIPTION UPON SCULPTURED GRANITE CORNER-STONE (_See p. 107._)]
The first object of this list, the inscribed lion, is well known, and has
several times been published in illustration. We reproduce a photograph
of its profile,[228] which is the most typical and interesting point of
view. Its architectural nature is evident, and is entirely accordant with
that of the lions found _in situ_ at Sakje-Geuzi.[229] It must have stood
at the left hand as the decorative corner-stone of a palatial portico,
with its fellow lion in the corner opposite. The place on the back
prepared for the reception of an upper course of masonry may be seen, and
the relative alignment of both walls may be inferred. The forequarters
and head of the lion stood out from the wall, and these are sculptured
in the round; the rest of the body is in relief. The treatment obeys
the now familiar canon, though not carried out in detail: the ruffle
of the neck and hairy belly are suggested; the tail curls under, and
is seen between the two hindlegs. Only one foreleg is seen in profile,
in contradistinction to the familiar Assyrian representations. In this
case, however, detail of execution is sacrificed to the long inscription,
which uniquely covers the body and even the legs of the animal as well
as the spaces between them. The hieroglyphs are deliberate and well cut;
the basaltic nature of the rock probably accounts for their superficial
roughness, especially in view of the great number of signs carved on a
really small surface; for the object is much less than life-size, being
only 17 inches high, 35 inches long, and just over 10 inches thick.[230]
From the rendering of the inscription by Professor Sayce,[231] it would
appear to have been carved by the Hittite king of the district, who
united the priestly dignities with his office, as we should expect from
the accounts of Strabo in parallel cases.[232] There are several striking
points developed by this translation, which though unconfirmed commands
our interest and respect. The king claims for himself amongst other
attributes to be ‘the dirk-bearer[233] powerful,’ ‘citizen of Merash,’
‘priest of Merash,’ ‘royal lord of these lands, king of the lands of the
god,’ ‘who provides food for the sanctuary,’ ‘of the men of the corn
land the chief,’ ‘seated on the throne of Kas.’ He also claims to ‘have
nourished the sanctuary of the Hittite ... the god’s high place,’ and to
‘have made a high place for the dancers’ for the celebration of religious
rites. The Assyrian name of Marash was _Markhasi_, which seems to take
the form _Ma(a)rghasi_ in the Hittite. There is a clear suggestion of a
theocratic ideal in state affairs, beginning with the high priesthood of
the sovereign, and borne further by naming the subjects of the Marash
king ‘children of the gods,’ for which there is analogy in the Vannic
inscriptions. Sandes seems to be chief god.
[Illustration: PLATE XLII
MARASH: ARCHITECTURAL LION CORNER-STONE INSCRIBED WITH HITTITE
HIEROGLYPHS IN RELIEF]
The stone sculptured with the representation of a Ceremonial Feast is
reported to have been found, together with ‘lance heads and potsherds,’
in a vineyard of Marash.[234] This is another of that class of monument
of which we noted the wide distribution and varying features in
connection with that found at Kara-burshlu. In this case both figures
are seated. They are presumably but not necessarily female. They are
clad in long robes; details of the bust are not visible, and it is only
the relative smallness of the feet and hands, and certain fulness in
the treatment of the bodies, that offer a suggestion of their sex. They
are seated on high square chairs with backs that curl away at the top,
and their feet rest upon low square footstools. A table between them
has straight legs, of which only two are shown, ornamented in some way
at the feet. On the table are three round bread-cakes and a cup. The
figures are _vis-à-vis_: each one stretches out the further hand, the
left one holding a cup, the other a round mirror of familiar Egyptian
shape. Their other hands are drawn back and only just protrude from
their cloaks; each seems to hold the same sort of object, ‘perhaps a
vase or pomegranate.’[235] The garment is curious, being continuous
over the head-dress, and descending to the ankles, with a fringe or
border all along the edge and round the bottom. There is a waistband to
each figure, which is seemingly composed of separate strands, but it is
difficult to understand its attachment.[236] The head-dress is singular,
being cylindrical in shape, recalling most nearly that of the Turkoman
women.[237] The faces of the persons are ill-drawn and unnatural, but
prominence is given to the straightness of nose in line with the receding
forehead[238] and to the fulness of the lips. Above and between the heads
there are traces of a considerable inscription in relief, of which the
signs towards the sides can be made out with some certainty; but the
middle portion is too worn to enable one to study the sequence of the
characters, or even to decide whether they form two groups, one referring
to each person. The whereabouts of this stone is uncertain, but casts are
in the Berlin Museum. Its height is 49 inches and width 35 inches; it is
just over 15 inches thick. The material is basaltic stone or dolerite.
The portion of a statue from Marash[239] is of importance as numbering,
together with a large hand from the same place and the broken figure
from Kurts-oghlu, among the very few recorded Hittite sculptures in the
round. Unfortunately this one is too broken and too small to tell us
much in detail of this feature of Hittite art. With the exception of
the right shoulder, however, the whole body is preserved, and only the
head and feet are lacking; but the style of the object is formal, and in
place of artistic detail there are merely four or five irregular bands
of inscription in relief, with other signs upon the preserved shoulder.
The right hand remains, but it is worn and lacks detail; in the left
there seems to be held a sort of loop with pendent tassel. The material
of the statuette is basalt. The height preserved is under 9 inches, its
width 6 inches. This torso seems to have belonged to a figure quite
distinct from another of similar material which seems to have come from
the same vicinity.[240] Of this only two broad bands of the inscription
remain, but they seem to mark the beginning of a long inscription; the
symbols are boldly cut in relief, and are similar in every way to those
of Jerabis. The fragment is rounded and apparently formed part of a
hollow figure: it was copied by the discoverers amid much difficulty and
subsequently disappeared. The existence of a third statue at Marash, but
in this case of gigantic size, is indicated by a large hand, fully twice
life-size, and carved in the round.[241] It is, of course, impossible to
say from this fragment whether it is really of Hittite origin.
Another important monument of Marash has the appearance of a royal
stela with a long inscription accompanied by an image of the king. This
belongs to a class of monument of which we shall find further examples
at Carchemish and in the neighbourhood of Tyana. In this case the figure
occupies the central part of the stone, reaching almost to its full
length; and the inscription is incised in six rows across the whole,
the face and feet and forearms of the man alone excepted. The face of
the kingly personage is turned to his right, and the whole figure is in
profile with the exception of the shoulders, which are square to the
observer—in conformity with the common Oriental principles of drawing.
The right hand holds a staff which touches the ground in front of the
right foot, and rises vertically as high as the shoulders; both elbows
are bent at right angles, the left fist being closed and shown about the
middle of the body. The robe is a single garment reaching to the ankles,
the bottom being fringed or bordered. The toes of the boots are upturned,
and, being represented clumsily, look like _sabots_. The face of the man
is too worn to show much character; there is a long curled beard, a band
around the forehead, and the hair or wig ends in a prominent curled bunch
behind the neck. This stone seems to have been found outside Marash in a
burying-place on the road to Adana.[242] Its height is nearly 3 feet 8
inches, and its breadth just over 1 foot 10 inches.[243]
This monument must yield place to another, which is of unique character
and interest, more recently discovered[244] on the citadel. This is a
block of granite more nearly cubical in shape, but with the top and
bottom broken away, so that its original height remains problematical.
The preserved portion measures about 2 feet 3 inches in height, and
the combined length of three sides, which are approximately equal, is
about 5 feet 2 inches. On three sides the inscription is continuous; the
hieroglyphs are in relief and are arranged in five bands, of which four
are seemingly complete. A sixth band at the bottom is partly traceable,
and there may have been others below; at the top, however, the limit is
clearly marked, so that the beginning of the inscription is preserved.
The opening groups of signs resemble closely those on the lion previously
described, though variations of single signs are noticeable, and may
possibly supply philologists with alternative readings. It is not,
however, the inscription, though unusually legible and complete, that
attracts our interest, so much as the sculptures and composition of the
whole. The inscription is preceded by a king-like figure in relief, who
occupies the right-hand portion of the side on which he is carved and
faces away from the inscription, to the right, looking that is to the
corner. The inscription follows: the height of the figure is equal to
four bands of the hieroglyphs, and the lower bands project under his
feet. The second side is entirely filled with the continuation of the
inscription, which comes to an end at the left hand of the third side
(which is opposite the figure) with the upper part of the picture of a
dagger and part of an attachment for it. On the fourth side there is no
inscription; the corners are cut away, but there is seen in the middle a
sort of tassel, on a large scale accordant with that of the dagger-hilt.
It must be noted that the king is turned towards this object in the
extended drawing: he is portrayed much as on the stela described above,
but the drawing is not good or well preserved. He wears a long robe bound
around the waist; the short sleeves are ornamented at the ends, whether
with a plain band or otherwise; and the bottom of the plain skirt, which
reaches to the ankles, is also fringed or bordered in some way. The toes
are shown upturned. The head-dress seems to be a close-fitting skull-cap,
behind which the hair descends in the familiar bunching curl. The beard
hangs in curls. The face is crudely represented, the mouth being no
longer distinguishable. The left hand, which is very disproportioned, is
held up before the face with fingers towards the mouth, in the position
which in the hieroglyphs is read to indicate the beginning of a personal
declaration. The right hand is drawn up breast high, but no staff is
shown, possibly because it would have traversed the body.
This stone is thought by Dr. Messerschmidt, who has studied it
closely,[245] to have been re-dressed and re-used in Hittite times; he
thinks that a large god-figure, wearing a dagger suspended from the
shoulder, must have been originally the chief subject of the sculpture;
and that this was partly effaced in Hittite times by the king, who had
the stone re-dressed and his own figure carved thereon. The inscription
he regards as pertaining to the larger figure; and he looks upon the
mutilation of the figure of a god as the sign of a period of decline and
degradation.
This monument is unique in character, and every respect must be paid
to the conclusions of one who, being familiar with Hittite works, has
studied this one carefully. Having only the photograph and drawings
which he published as guide, we naturally hesitate to put forward any
alternative view; yet it must be said that there are several fundamental
objections to the explanation which has been offered. The most obvious
and irremovable is that there is direct evidence on the face of the
stone that the carving is all contemporary; for it is all in relief,
and in accordance with precedent the background not sculptured must
have been cut away, so that it would have been impossible subsequently
to carve thereon a figure with the same relief as the rest. Added to
this, it is clear that the inscription is arranged with due regard to
the small figure, not the reverse. Also the ends of the inscribed bands
are coterminous with the dagger, stamping the whole composition as
contemporary. It must next be noted that no trace of a great figure is to
be seen, nor can its form be conjectured, seeing that the dagger hangs
on one side and the tassel on the next, unless indeed the stone formed
the lower portion of a somewhat angular statue,[246] about four times
its present height. A figure in relief would have occupied part of two
sides of the stone including the corner—an unprecedented complication
in Hittite sculpture. The analogy quoted by Dr. Messerschmidt of the
god-figure discovered in the last excavations at Sinjerli breaks down at
this point. That object was carved in the round, representing a deity
standing in Hittite fashion upon a base composed of two standing lions,
as on the monuments of Carchemish and Boghaz-Keui. He wears a dagger
stuck into a belt, and with the trappings there is a large tassel of the
kind seen on the fourth side in this instance. From these details Dr.
Messerschmidt thinks that the Marash monument only differed in that the
dagger must have been worn suspended from the shoulder, on account of the
pendent position of the belt. On all analogy, however, the priest-king
in this case must be facing the deity he is worshipping. If then no
other form of deity can be suggested, we must take the only evidence
before us as to its nature, which would lead us to infer that it is
here represented by the dagger and tassel. We venture no hypothesis in
explanation; the Sacred Dirk[247] as a cult object is known in Hittite
symbolism and familiar in the hieroglyphs; and it would be equally
accordant with precedent to imagine that the dirk was really emblematic
of the deity with whom it was usually associated. Alternatively the
object of worship may have been a great divine statue upon the skirt of
which these representations were carved.
Among the minor inscribed objects from Marash there should be mentioned
one, which is a fragment of basalt 10½ inches high and 8 inches wide,
inscribed with characters in high relief on two adjacent sides.[248]
There are also several uninscribed sculptures from Marash of peculiar
interest. The first is a slab of basalt 21 inches high, carved in
relief.[249] The subject is that of a female seated at a table facing
to the left; on her left knee[250] is a child, whose face is towards
the mother. In the right hand of the woman is a decorated mirror, or
something of that form; and in her left, which is extended over the
table, she holds a primitive five-stringed lyre, square in shape.[251]
Over the lyre is a bird often taken for a dove, but more nearly
resembling a vulture.[252] The counterpart to the figure, if such
existed, is broken away; the carving is crude and the surface worn.
Such details as are distinguishable, the robe, the hat, the chair and
table, seem to be similar respectively to those upon the sculpture of
the Ceremonial Feast from this place previously described. There is a
second uninscribed stone on which appears the emblem of a bird similar to
the other in outline and appearance.[253] In this case the subject shows
two figures, one on either side of a small two-legged table. That on the
right, which is seated, wears the same cylindrical hat as in the cases
just described. That on the left, which is standing, is clad in a long
robe, which, from such details as are visible, suggests the toga-like
garment which distinguishes the priestly class on certain monuments of
Asia Minor. The further hand of each is outstretched as usual, the one
holding a mirror and the other the bird; the latter feature, however,
is not carved with the same detail as in the case just quoted. Over
the right shoulder of the standing figure there seems to hang a bow of
the peculiar triangular form often depicted in ancient drawing.[254]
The cord, however, is not seen; and the stone is in general worn so
smooth that little detail can be discerned. The bow reappears on a third
uninscribed fragment, which probably resembled the former in subject
somewhat closely. On this a figure is shown standing before a two-legged
table, over which he holds aloft a curving bow with his extended left
hand. In his right hand, which is kept low, there may be seen two arrows,
while a quiver hangs at his waist. This stone is also very smooth-worn,
but some details of dress may still be recognised, notably the skull-cap
long robe with fringe, and turned-up shoes. The Hittite character of the
theme is sustained by the arrangement of the hair, which falls away in a
single thick cluster or curl behind the neck. A tassel is attached to the
waistbelt.[255]
A fourth stone of somewhat larger size, being 35 inches high, is
decorated with a subject of unusual character, but unfortunately the most
important figure of the scene is largely broken away.[256] This must have
been a picture of a god, represented in long fringed robe, and sandals
with upturned toes. Poised aloft in front of him, but how supported is
not seen, there is the end of an implement or weapon, the attachment to
which forms a loop, and then hangs down. A low table, with two curving
legs, is placed opposite the middle height of this figure; upon it is
a bird, seemingly a goose, with bread-cakes and other eatables. On the
opposite side, and facing the major being, a small male figure stands at
the same level as the table. He is clad in a short fringed tunic, with
oblique fold, and a vest with short sleeves. On his feet are sandals,
with the points very prominently returned, and above these are anklets,
unless these be long laces wrapped around the ankles to bind the sandals.
His hair is curly on the head and bound by a fillet, while lower down it
hangs more straightly as far as the shoulders. An earring is suggested,
and thick bracelets are clearly shown. He holds an object in his left
hand which may be taken for a palm leaf, while with the right he partly
proffers towards the greater person a small cup which seems to be bound
around with two small bands, as though made of wood. Below, in such space
as remains available, the sculptor has added a horse led by a man. Both
are on a small scale, but disproportionate, as the man stands higher than
the horse’s head; this arises from the fact that a greater height is
available under the feet of the small figure than under the greater one,
where the horse’s body is seen. The animal is a stallion, represented
with a vague suggestion of spirited movement in the forelegs; and his
shoulder-muscles are shown in the same conventional outline as is seen
sometimes on the representations of lions in this style of art.[257]
The man holds the bridle with his right hand; and, with his back to the
horse, and indeed to the greater figure, he holds a spear upright with
his left hand, the end of the shaft resting on the ground. He seems to
wear a skull-cap, and his hair falls behind in the characteristic bunch
or knot. In this case, as in nearly all the figures considered, the
outline of the face shows the nose and forehead as practically continuous.
There are two further sculptured fragments of stones from Marash worthy
also of special mention. On the one there is preserved the front part of
a chariot and the hind part of a horse;[258] the carving is rough, and
the drawing neither clear nor good. A small animal under the horse may
be a dog. The wheel of the chariot seems to have had eight spokes. The
driver is hardly seen, except for the forearm and the hand that grasps
the reins. We may conclude none the less that the fragment formed part of
a scene of the royal hunt.[259]
The other fragment is better known, showing the head of a musician
playing the double pipes.[260] From the treatment of the hair and
general character of the carving of this piece we suspect that it is
of post-Hittite art, corresponding to the Aramaic period at Sinjerli.
There is also in the Berlin Museum a new piece in Hittite style which
may very well come from the same place. It is about two feet high, and
rather wider. The sculpture is fragmentary, but of striking interest, for
the central figure, a man, seems to be riding on horseback. He grasps
the bridle with his left hand, and holds a curving nameless object in
the right. His legs and the body of the horse are not visible. In the
background to the left there is the smaller figure of a female seated
on a chair. She holds a pomegranate in her right hand, and raises a
drinking-cup with the left. To the right of the man’s head a tiny figure
seems to represent the whisk-bearer, turning towards his lord, and waving
a palm leaf.
This brings to an end the list of major monuments from Marash. When it is
considered that the site has never been excavated for its antiquities,
and that these discoveries are mostly accidental, it must be admitted
that there is evidence here of a Hittite city of exceptional importance.
The date to which it can be assigned as a seat of power will be
considered when all the data for comparison are before us.[261]
[Illustration: PLATE XLIII
ROWANDUZ, ON THE AFRÎN: DISCUSSION OF ROUTES, AN INCIDENT OF TRAVEL IN
THE QURT DAGH MOUNTAINS
Note the varied facial types of the natives. (_See pp. 9, 33, 106._)]
We now pass to a third group of Syrian monuments: those which are found
at places on the Euphrates, which we accept as the eastern frontier. We
begin naturally with Jerablus, the site of Carchemish, as being the
nearest, the furthest south and the most famous. Here was the strategic
frontier in the struggle of the oriental nations, and here a Hittite
fortress was so strongly placed that it defied the assaults of the
Pharaohs, and resisted with a great measure of success the efforts of
the Assyrians to reduce it several centuries after the Hittite power had
passed its zenith.[262] Some amount of excavation has been made upon the
site, and though not thorough and inadequately reported, we gain thereby
an indication of a walled city upon the river’s brink, protected on the
land side by ditches in addition to the ramparts,[263] and enclosing as
usual a high knoll which marks at once the acropolis and the site of
the original settlement in a remoter age. Here there have been found
several lengthy inscriptions in Hittite characters, numerous fragments
of the same kind, two stelæ and the upper portion of a third, as well
as a stone sculptured upon its flat side with the full-face portrait of
an exalted being. In some of the sculptures the motive, and in others
the details, of treatment tell of the proximity to a dominant extraneous
artistic influence. This is particularly to be noticed in the emblems
of winged deities, and in some of the monuments on which no Hittite
hieroglyphs are found. One of the latter category is a striking monument
representing two figures standing upon the back of a crouching lion. The
mane of the lion is represented, but no hair is shown underneath the
belly. The attitude of the beast is uncommon in Hittite art, as may be
seen by comparing the lions of Sinjerli, Sakje-Geuzi, Marash, Derendeh,
and elsewhere. The animals carved on the rock walls of the sanctuary
of Iasily Kaya, which also support exalted persons, are represented as
standing; whereas in this case the chin, belly, and tail of the animal
almost touch the ground. The nearest analogy is perhaps one of the less
known sculptures of Eyuk,[264] but there is no real parallel for this
treatment of the subject. Of the personages, one is winged and clearly
divine, while the other, though dressed in the same way, stands behind
over the quarters of the animal, with one hand raised in an attitude of
reverence or supplication. Otherwise the figures are of equal height, and
their costumes also are alike. The head-dress[265] is a conical hat with
prominent upturning brim; the toes of the shoes are likewise turned up in
an exaggerated manner. The robe in each case is long, with a broad fringe
around the bottom; around the waist there is a belt or girdle, and a fold
of the skirt falls sideways from the middle towards the right. The wings
of the leading figure rise sharply upwards from behind the shoulders, as
on one of the deities of Iasily Kaya. He stands upon the shoulders of the
beast, whose head cowers in abjection. In the photograph before us there
is a suggestion of hieroglyphs upon the face of the stone, a feature
which is not, however, confirmed by the observations of others. We thus
have in this sculpture a recognisable mingling of the Hittite and
Assyrian motives; and the sculptor’s art, at any rate, has not suffered
in the combination. Both in treatment and in drawing this monument,
though weathered and exposed, reveals an evidence of artistic skill which
in some of the purely Hittite monuments elsewhere is not even suggested.
Turning now to the monuments of Jerablus that bear Hittite inscriptions
upon them, another deity is found on a fragment of basalt, 31 inches
high, upon which the lower part of the body and the ends of four bands
of hieroglyphs are preserved.[266] In this case the wings are depressed,
folding by the sides, and reaching to the knees, otherwise they would
hardly be visible on the broken stone. The feet of the figure and the
left hand are missing; in the right hand, which is in front of the body,
is a small seed-basket—a symbolism derived from the other side of the
Euphrates.[267] The long robe of this deity is similarly strange to early
Hittite art, being bordered with a long fringe, and divided by several
parallel bands of embroidery.[268] This seems to be an outer cloak,
for one may see on the original traces of the familiar short tunic.
The carving of this monument is unsurpassed on any inscribed Hittite
relief. The delicate indications of the knee muscles may be noted as an
illustration, especially when the gritty nature of the stone is taken
into consideration. In making this comparison it should be borne in
mind that most of the known Hittite reliefs are worn through exposure
to the weather; and that objects unearthed for the first time, as at
Sakje-Geuzi, give a different impression as regards the sculptor’s
craft. Another noteworthy instance is at Iasily Kaya, where a row of
figures which had been partly covered, at least for long centuries, has
been cleared during the last few decades, giving evidence of a detailed
treatment of the whole series which would not have otherwise been
suggested.
Another sculptured object belongs to the category of stelæ, resembling in
general that of Marash. It is partly chipped away, but sufficient remains
for us to make out its original character and dimensions.[269] It is 47
inches high and 26 inches wide. It is crossed horizontally with eight
bands of hieroglyphic inscriptions in relief, with raised lines between
them, except where the outline of the central figure intervenes. This
represents a man, in higher relief than the rest of the carving,[270]
who stands in the middle portion of the stone, his feet descending below
the inscription, and his head just entering the topmost band. The figure
is nearly all chipped away, but the outline remains by that very process
well defined. The person, undoubtedly a king, faces to his left, and in
his extended left arm he holds aloft a short staff or rod which is marked
as though divided down the middle. His right arm is not seen. His robe
was crossed obliquely by folds, and it descended to the ankles. His feet
were shod, and the toes of the shoes turned sharply upwards. His hair
seems to have been dressed[271] in a single bunched curl behind the
neck, but the point is obscure. The upper portion of a second similar
monument is on record,[272] but the object is destroyed. It shows a
central figure turned likewise to the left; with the left hand up, and
forward, and the right hand before the chest. The head-dress seems to be
a skull-cap, with band across the forehead. The sleeves of the dress are
short; and around the waist there is another instance of the broad girdle
of cords, ending, it would seem, in a curling knot or loop.[273] There
are four rows of hieroglyphs, of which we have only an imperfect copy. A
fragment of a third monument of like kind is preserved,[274] but it is
uninstructive.
There are two notable inscriptions from Jerablus among many which are
fragmentary. The one is a corner-stone of special shape,[275] being
recessed in the very angle for eight inches on each side. The raised
inscription upon it, however, seems to be continuous even through the
recessed angle to the broken end of the block. The stone is basalt,
and the whole measures 39½ inches in height. The widths of the various
stages, beginning from the right side, which is unbroken, are 7 inches,
8½ inches, 8¾ inches, and 22 inches to the fractured edge. In further
explanation of the form of the stone, it may be said that the first and
third of these measures are in the same parallel direction, and combine
to give that side of the whole stone a width of 15¾ inches. Similarly the
next side was at least 30½ inches wide. The inscription is in relief, and
is arranged in five bands, divided by lines of equal projection. The
signs are clear, and the tenor of the inscription, according to Professor
Sayce’s reading, is religious and monumental, giving the king-priest’s
account of his setting up a bull shrine on a high place at Carchemish.
Another considerable inscription is found on a portion of a round column,
5 feet 6 inches high.[276] Four bands of the inscription are perfect
so far as they continue, namely, for 41 inches, but the beginning and
ending of the lines are not preserved. There is another band partly
visible above. The back of this object has been dressed, subsequently to
the breaking of the stone, for the purpose of carving thereon a figure
seemingly divine and in full face. It is not in Hittite style, but
Hittite influence may be found surviving in certain features.
We cannot dwell longer with profit upon the details of these broken
remains, nor of the numerous inscribed fragments, of which copies
of nearly twenty are before us. But if we may cull from a somewhat
unusual source, namely the columns of a daily newspaper, an account of
excavations made for the British Museum on the site, it would seem that
the foundations of at least one palatial building were come upon. ‘Facing
the entrance,’ we are told, ‘there were found two imperfect tablets,
which formed part of an adoration scene. On the one was the image of a
goddess, the Hittite Kybele, naked, winged, and with hands offering her
breasts.’ Her hair descends in a double plait on each side, curling away
at the bottom around the shoulders.[277] The hat is of conical shape,
the brim upturned, and bulging at the top. The priestess represented on
the adjoining slab was thought by those who saw the sculptures to have
been clad in a cloak, but the stone was broken away above the knees of
the figure. A little further along were three figures in procession. This
stone was likewise broken about the middle of the figures;[278] but the
central figure may be seen to have been clad in a long fringed cloak,
with a long under garment which is belted, while the outer figures have
only the short tunic familiar in Hittite sculptures. Only the outer
figures wear the turned-up shoe, an interesting distinction if correctly
represented. M. Perrot sees in the sculptures a priest between two
warriors. The border to the stone is the pattern of continuous concentric
circles such as we have seen at Sakje-Geuzi on sculptures of late Hittite
art.
A short distance up the Euphrates from Jerablus is Birejik, which has now
supplanted the former as the place for the passage of the river. From
here there comes a curious monument of indefinite origin, now in the
British Museum under the title ‘Monolith of a King.’ As there is no clear
evidence upon it or in the circumstances of its discovery that it is of
Hittite handiwork, we do not dwell upon it. It has, however, several
suggestive features, not the least interesting of which is the winged
disk with horse-shoe ornament above the figure, as in the emblems which
designate the priest-king at Boghaz-Keui.[279] At Tell-Ahmar, where there
is another crossing of the Euphrates about the same distance southward
from Jerablus, Mr. Hogarth has recently made discoveries which contribute
important evidences to our subject. Awaiting a full description of these
newly-found monuments,[280] we may take note that the site of the finds
was on the eastern bank of the river, revealing the Hittites of that
day as masters of this crossing; and that among the objects discovered,
here or in the neighbourhood, are a lion of somewhat Hittite character,
inscribed in cuneiform but not in hieroglyphs, and a stela or sculptured
monument of sorts, with eight lines of inscription in relief around three
sides, and on the fourth side the lower part of a male figure standing
upon a bull. Further up the river, above Birejik, is Rum-Kale, whence
comes another fragment equally doubtful and even more curious. It is
certainly one of the worst serious efforts to draw a human figure that
sculptor or mason ever worked upon. M. Perrot[281] apparently includes
this in his list of Hittite works, though he describes it as ‘uncouth.’
There is in this case no indication of Hittite or of any other style, so
that nothing can be gained by considering it further.
When we reach Samsat, however, a definitely Hittite monument presents
itself.[282] This is an object which in form recalls the funerary stela
of Kara-burshlu; but as in this case a pedestal of diminishing thickness
is preserved, and the inscription is likewise found upon the two sides of
the stone, there is further evidence in favour of its having stood alone.
The subject of the sculpture carved upon the face is quite different,
however, being only a single figure. So far as this can be seen (for
a deep groove has been cut at some time down the length of the stone
through the middle of the body), it seems to be that of a man turned to
his right. He is clad in a long robe fringed at the bottom, and wearing
shoes with the toes turned extravagantly upwards. He seems to be holding
(with the right hand possibly) a staff, and more doubtfully a reversed
lituus with the left, after the manner of the priests of Boghaz-Keui and
Eyuk. The inscription is incised, but it is hardly sufficiently well
preserved to be copied with any certitude. Nine rows of hieroglyphs are
traceable at the one side and six upon the other, but nearly half of the
stone is missing. It was found in the open, partly buried, between the
town and the hill of the acropolis. Its height is just over five feet,
without including the pedestal, so that the figure which stands clear of
the bottom was about life size. The face of the stone is 25 inches wide,
and the depth of the inscribed sides seventeen inches.
At Gerger Kalesi, almost at the main turn of the river, there is a
monument on the rocks, about which further details would be full of
interest. From the published drawings[283] it resembles the Hittite
reliefs of Giaour-Kalesi and Kara-Bel in the west of the Hittite lands;
and we await some further careful examination with expectation of finding
Hittite hieroglyphs upon it. The figure is apparently gigantic, of three
times human height. It is that of a warrior clad in short tunic (the
details of which are doubtful). He wears a collar of some kind and a
conical hat. There is a bow over the left shoulder; the right hand is
down and forward. It simulates a Hittite monument very closely, and its
presence on the brink of the Eastern frontier of that people is the more
full of interest.
SECTION B.—MONUMENTS IN THE TAURUS AND ANTI-TAURUS.
MALATIA, DERENDEH, PALANGA, GURUN; ARSLAN TASH, ALBISTAN; KURU-BEL;
EKREK, TASHJI, FRAKTIN.
From the north of Syria we pass to the mountainous region of the Taurus
and Anti-Taurus. Here is the centre, if not the focus, of the Hittite
lands, and isolated monuments are found in considerable numbers and
variety. When one takes into account the difficulty of exploration, it
must be conceded to be a remarkable and suggestive fact that no fewer
than eleven Hittite sites in the Taurus country are clearly indicated,
as compared with the same number in the north of Syria, and about twenty
scattered throughout the whole tableland and west of Asia Minor.
One of the most important of these sites is located at Old Malatia, which
lies near the confluence of the Tochma Su with the Euphrates. Here there
must have been a fortified city, comparable to Marash, for the defence of
the frontier. Though no systematic excavation of the site has yet been
made, yet the nature of the several sculptures found there speaks for
itself. The mound which marks the old-time acropolis is probably that
now called Arslan Tepe, near the village of Ordasu, about two or three
miles north-eastward from the modern town: the attention of scholars was
called to this spot by the visit of Mr. Hogarth’s expedition in 1894.
The explorer describes the mound[284] as about fifty feet in height, of
irregular shape, longest from north to south, like the accumulation
above a building, but without any visible masonry upon it. West of it
rise two smaller mounds, and to the south one. The Euphrates is about
two hours distant. The sculptured stones are seven in number, and they
seem to form part of a series decorating a façade. Three of these are
facing-slabs merely, while four others (found independently) are more
solid, and may have been building-blocks. The most perfect slab[285]
is just under four feet in length, with a height of two feet, and
thickness one foot. Along the top is an incomplete row of hieroglyphs
in relief,[286] reading from the left. Below is the main theme of
decoration, representing a lion hunt, carved in strong relief. The
picture is composed of a horse chariot with two riders, a dog below the
horse, and a wounded lion in front. Several hieroglyphic signs are found
above the horse’s back, and also between his head and that of the lion;
but as these signs read now from right to left, it may be concluded that
they continue the inscription above. The sculpture is formal and lacking
in vitality, but several details may be noticed. The chariot is small.
The charioteer and the warrior stand within, side by side; the latter
occupies a front place in the picture, which is drawn in profile with the
usual conventions. Both men are clad in short tunics with waist-belts,
and both wear close-fitting skull-caps, and the hair of the warrior
curls in characteristic fashion behind the neck. His weapons are the bow
and the spear. The bow is short and curved, and the arrow is strongly
barbed; two quivers are depicted cross-ways upon the side panel of the
chariot. The spear is shown point upward, ready at hand in the back of
the chariot. The driver holds two pairs of reins, from which it may be
inferred that two horses are being driven, though being side by side the
outline of only one is visible. The shoulder muscles of the horse are
outlined conventionally, and it is noticeable that his mane is tightly
bound and ends in a curl. The trappings are not distinguishable. The
figure of the dog is seen between the horse’s front and back legs; it
is crude and uninteresting. The pose of the lion is unconventional. He
is represented as half rampant, turning round his head with open mouth
towards his tormentors, and clawing the air with the pain of his wound.
The shaft of an arrow is seen below the shoulder. The tail is short and
thin, and curls upwards; that of the horse is long, and falls so as
almost to touch the ground. The mane of the lion is represented fully by
short curls; but the belly and shoulders are hairless.[287] The claws
are exaggerated; the nose is out of drawing, and the execution of the
sculpture in general is poor.
The second block[288] is smaller, but broken in two pieces; it seems to
lack also the upper band of inscription. On the right hand it is clearly
defective, showing towards that side the back part of a chariot, with
six-spoked wheels, quivers, spear, and bowman, exactly as in the previous
instance. The more perfect scene, though broken through the middle,
shows two figures seated at a ceremonial feast of the kind previously
described.[289] Though both persons are seated, they are not represented
exactly alike. That on the left seems to be a male; he is distinguished
by a close round skull-cap with upturned peak or ornament upon the brow.
His long, straight nose is very prominent. His hair turns backward in a
single full curl behind the neck. His robe is long, and fringed around
the bottom. The toes of his shoes are prominently upturned, and his feet
rest on a square-framed stool. The chair on which he sits has curving
legs, forming a figure-of-eight cross, and ending in a small outward
curve, similar to those supporting the table in other sculptures. The
back of the chair is high and turns outward. In his right hand the man
holds a crooked staff reversed, and in his left he holds up a small
cup. The objects on the table cannot well be identified, as the stone
thereabouts is rubbed smooth; but the table may be seen to be supported
by two straight legs which cross. The figure on the right of the table,
which faces towards the other, is less clearly seen upon the stone, but
sufficient may be made out to show that it differs considerably in some
details. The head-dress is a hat which is not close-fitting, but rises
squarely in front. From behind, a long veil or shawl seems to descend to
the waist, where it can no longer be traced owing to the weathering of
the stone. The suggestion of the face and clothing is that the figure
represents a woman. She is seated, as in the other cases of women,[290]
on a square-framed seat with spindle, the back of which must have been
low. It is suggested, but not certain, that her feet rest on a footstool.
A few hieroglyphic signs between the heads of the figures, and a longer
row over all, complete the whole. Though poorly preserved and poorly
carved, the general theme of these sculptures is not without special
interest. The right-hand portion with the chariot and archer is of the
same nature as the lion-hunt seen on the stone previously described,
and possibly formed part of the same scheme. The left side, with its
two seated figures, belongs to the class of ceremonial feast, of which
we have already described various examples. The association of this
subject with others of entirely different import has a parallel in the
wall sculptures of Sinjerli, where, however, the different subjects are
not found on the same stone as in this instance. Here also the persons
represented seem to be man and woman. Neither serves the other; both seem
to share equally in the rite. In them we are inclined to see the local
king and queen, inasmuch as they are personages of sufficient importance
to be represented, even though no special attributes of rank denote
them. The chieftain and his consort feasting would constitute a theme
readily comprehensible in oriental art; but if the subject have really
a religious significance, which is more probable, we see them in their
capacity of chief priest and priestess,[291] an association for which
the sculptures of Eyuk provide us with sufficient analogy.[292] This
alternative we regard as the real explanation in this instance.
A third sculpture from Malatia[293] is of smaller size, measuring only
thirty-two inches in length and eighteen in height. It is, however, in
beautiful condition, and though the edges are broken, the scene depicted
upon it is complete in itself. The carving is in relief. As in previous
cases a line of inscription[294] runs along the top from left to right.
The subject reproduces a striking resemblance to most of the features on
the stone first described, except that a fleeing stag takes the place
of the wounded lion. Otherwise the horse, chariot, bowman and driver,
even the dog below the horse’s feet, are reproduced almost in exact
facsimile. Only in this case the better preservation of the stone enables
us to trace some details more clearly, while the drawing and carving are
executed with greater skill and care. The short sleeves of the men’s
dress are distinguishable; the ‘two quivers’ suspended crosswise on the
side panel of the chariot seem almost like stout diagonal supports to an
open framework. As in the former case only one horse is represented, but
the trappings are clearly designed for two, and there is a raised band
above his back which may be taken for the back of the further horse, or
possibly the pole of the chariot. The horse is entire. The muscles of the
shoulder and thigh on all the animals are outlined with deliberation,
and behind the horse’s shoulder are certain further markings, intended
probably to represent the ribs or muscles more fully, recalling the
similar convention seen on certain sculptures of Eyuk[295] and of
Sakje-Geuzi.[296] The stag is represented with branching horns; and
his head is well drawn. He is in full flight before his pursuers, his
hind legs being shown in the picture as overlapping the forelegs of the
horse.
[Illustration: PLATE XLIV
MALATIA.
i. King-priest making oblations at the shrine of the God of the skies,
who stands on a bull with lightning in his hand. (_See pp. 138, 359._)
ii. Queen-priestess making oblations to a tutelary winged deity. (_See p.
139._)]
The other stones from Malatia[297] are four in number, each decorated
on one face. Unfortunately no information is forthcoming in regard to
them except the published photographs, which again are not satisfactory.
The subjects carved upon the stones are of striking interest. In the
first of the series a deity, wearing a conical head-dress decorated with
rings,[298] stands upon the back of a horned bull.[299] His left leg
is forward (as he faces to the right), and on his feet are tip-tilted
shoes. In his right hand, which is drawn back, there is a triangular
bow,[300] and in his outstretched left hand he seems to hold up a forked
emblem, like the lightning trident,[301] and to grasp at the same
time a cord which is attached to the nose of the bull. His dress is a
short bordered tunic. Facing him is a long-robed personage, in whom we
recognise the king-priest, distinguished by his close-fitting cap and
the characteristic large curl of hair behind the neck. In his left hand
he holds a reversed lituus; his right is partly extended and seems to be
pouring out some fluid which falls in a wavy stream. He is followed by
a small person who leads up (with some difficulty it would seem) a goat
clearly intended for an offering. Some hieroglyphs complete the picture.
It is instructive to compare the whole theme with that which decorated
the left hand of the façade to the palace at Eyuk,[302] especially as
the blocks of stone seem to be in this instance also cubical building
stones. The second sculpture of this series shows a different deity,
who is winged,[303] though wearing the same conical hat with rings
and upturning peak. His dress is curious; the lower part seems like a
many-pleated continuous flowing garment which winds around his body and
one leg, and passes behind the other leg. His two hands are held near
his body, and in the left he grasps some object which is obscured, but
may be seen to have reached to the left shoulder. He is approached by
the queen-priestess, who is recognised (as in former cases) by the low
cylindrical hat and the long cloak or veil descending therefrom behind
the shoulders to the ground. Her left hand is raised as in reverence,
and her right one, extended but low, seems to hold a narrow jug, with
side handle and long neck, from which she is clearly pouring an oblation
into a two-handled vase which seems to rest on the ground before the feet
of the god.[304] Behind her there follows a small attendant leading an
animal which may be presumed to be a goat as in the previous case. The
few hieroglyphs accompanying these figures are illegible. The third block
of the series seems to have been decorated with a row of male figures,
unaccompanied by any hieroglyphs. Two of these remain. Each is clad in a
short bordered tunic reaching to the knees, a conical helmet with rings
between the ribs, and shoes with turned-up toes. The second man, who
brings the series to an end, is bearded; his nose is mongoloid rather
than aquiline or semitic, and he wears a conspicuous curling pigtail. In
his advanced left hand he holds in a vertical position a long spear (or
similar object), the shaft of which rests on the ground. In his right
hand, which is held to his side, he clasps the handle of a mace, the
head of which is made up of a ring-like device similar to that seen in
the helmets. At his waistbelt there hangs a dagger with curling blade
and crescental handle. The man whom he follows seems to be beardless,
and he wears a short mantle, one end of which is thrown loosely over
the right shoulder. His knife is like his neighbour’s; but an object
with long shaft that he carried obliquely, grasped in both hands, is
difficult to recognise; from the upper end there seems to hang a short
tassel or object attached by a cord. Both figures face to the right, and
in obedience to convention, their faces and bodies are in profile, the
shoulders in full view, while the left foot and left arm are advanced.
The last of this series is fragmentary, and seems to be the decorated
upper border of a larger subject. In what remains it is possible to see
hypothetically a pair of hands held aloft amid flames. Over all is the
pattern of a twisted coil of rope.
Looking back for a moment at the nature of these sculptured monuments, we
may with some certainty attribute them to two different building periods.
The earliest are those four just described, which, from the point of view
of construction and of symbolism, resemble, as we have seen, the palace
works and sculptures of Eyuk.[305] The other sculptured slabs, which we
described first, correspond more nearly from both points of view with the
remains of Sinjerli and Sakje-Geuzi,[306] which we shall find reason
to believe in later chapters belong probably to a later phase than the
foregoing. The one group may be dated in general terms to the later half
of the second millennium B.C., and the other to the early centuries of
the first.
Passing up the valley of the Tochma Su, a small group of monuments is
met with just after passing Derendeh. There was a rumour, when the
English explorers, Hogarth and Munro, passed that way in 1891,[307] of
a sculptured lion at a place called Haüz, not far from Derendeh towards
the north. But the monuments on record were found in the neighbourhood
of Palanga (Chiftlik), which lies on the higher ground after leaving the
gorge of the river, some three hours’ journey westward from Derendeh.
Here a small lion carved in basaltic stone was seen built into the main
gateway; while lying in a puddle near a well hard by, and used as a
stepping-stone, was a fragment of a unique columnar figure made also of
basalt. The lion was similar to those found in the neighbouring wayside
cemetery, hence called Arslan Tash, which we shall presently describe;
the columnar figure,[308] however, is unique and instructive. The
fragment preserved is fifty-two inches high and about fifty-five inches
in circumference towards the top: it swells a little lower down. It
‘represents the lower portion of a draped figure; it is a mere shapeless
column without feet, but a double protuberance of the stone at the end of
the first line of the inscription is evidently intended to represent the
buttocks. The drapery consists of an underskirt, plain except for a short
series of perpendicular pleats down the middle of the back, and an upper
garment thrown round the left side, the folded edges almost meeting under
the right arm.[309] This mantle or cloak reaches down below the level of
the knees; its vertical edges are fringed with a border of narrow lappets
or tags very similar to those represented on a terra-cotta statuette from
Cyprus.’[310] The inscription on this monument extends from the front
of the figure around the left side to the back, covering two-thirds of
the circumference. The signs are incised, and arranged in four bands,
whereof the lowest is broader but less carefully cut than the others. Mr.
Hogarth, in his description, points out other interesting analogies. The
columnar form, the flat treatment of the drapery, and the ribbed pleats
of the underskirt, recall to him the Hera of Samos in the Louvre; while
for the rendering of the zigzag folds at the edges of the cloak and the
buttocks, a parallel might readily be found in early Greek art, as, for
example, among the archaic statues in the Acropolis Museum at Athens.
In particular, the large terra-cotta figures from Salamis present an
interesting comparison as regards both form and the general disposition
of the draperies.
It is difficult to point to any nearer analogies than those which Mr.
Hogarth indicated at the time of his discovery. Though belonging to
a different place and later period, the statue of Hadad, found near
Sinjerli, seems to us to be a product of the same tradition in art.[311]
There is another statue of later date from the latter place, the
discovery of which was recently announced.[312] This is also of columnar
form, though the bottom of the skirt and feet are shown. The arms also
are in relief, while the head and face, the latter wofully ill-drawn, are
in the round. It is a survival and development from the older motive.
[Illustration: PLATE XLV
PALANGA: INSCRIBED COLUMNAR STATUE]
The string of monuments from Palanga to Albistan indicates a southern
bifurcation of the route, linking in Hittite times with the valley of the
Pyramus. The suggestion of an important Hittite road leading continuously
up the valley of the Tochma Su, and so over the watershed to the Halys
and possibly towards Pteria, seems to be substantiated by two further
inscriptions found on the rocks at Gurun, which is some way further
up the river on the edge of the divide. This place (the _Gauraina_ of
Ptolemy and _Guriania_ of the Assyrian texts) lies in a defile on both
banks of the river. Just above the village the waters race through a
narrow rocky gorge, at the foot of which the two inscriptions were
found.[313] The one is incised on the face of an overhanging crag, near
a small spring. It fills a space about four feet wide and three feet
high, and is placed about twelve feet or more above the ground. The
other is somewhat higher on the declivity, and further from the stream:
the hieroglyphs are larger than in the former case, and less carefully
incised. The inscriptions are very weathered, so that it is hardly
possible to make much of them, but they seem to be partly in duplicate.
The emblems which distinguish the two chief male deities in the divine
triad at Boghaz-Keui[314] may be recognised; and Professor Sayce has
also detected a variant of the place-name frequently recurring on the
inscriptions of Carchemish (_Gar-ga-me-i-si-ya_), which makes it appear
that there was some political relation between the two places.
Turning from Derendeh southward up towards the divide, ‘Arslan Tash’ is
reached, about three miles after passing Palanga. The place lies about
one mile east of the Kurdish village of Yeni Keui. The spot is marked by
a series of hummocks near a small wayside graveyard, and receives its
name[315] from two great monumental lions of hard limestone,[316] one
erect, and the other fallen on its left side. They form a pair each about
eight feet in length, and nearly six feet in height. These monuments,
though large and impressive, are of crude appearance. They recall most
nearly two massive early lions found at Sinjerli,[317] but though obeying
certain early canons they are less thoroughly worked, as well as more
roughly drawn. Their mouths are open, but exaggerated in size. The rough
of the mane is strongly but not finely marked; the legs are not at all
disengaged from the stone; the forepaws are almost shapeless, but the
hind ones are fully outlined, with the muscle of the thigh suggested.
Only one forepaw and one hindpaw appear in the profile view (a purely
Hittite convention) while the tail comes down between the legs forward,
ending in a curl.[318] Mr. Hogarth thinks that as they lay when found
these lions may have marked the position of the entrance to a building.
Just over the watershed, at a place called (Ashagha) Yapalak, a badly
defaced Hittite inscription has been seen,[319] but not published,
and it seems to have been removed. The record, however, marks the
continuity of the track, and the next discovery brings us well into
the valley of the Pyramus at Izgîn. The monument itself was seen and
photographed amid considerable excitement at Albistan,[320] whither it
had been transported, and it is now in safe keeping in the museum at
Constantinople.
The object is an obelisk, a unique example among Hittite works. Its
Hittite origin is attested by the inscription which covers its four
sides. Its material is coarse limestone; in height it measures eight feet
two inches; in form it narrows slightly towards the top from one point
of view, maintaining its width (twenty-one inches) in the other. The
tapering faces are narrower at the bottom than the others, being only
ten inches wide. The apex is slightly rounded. The hieroglyphs are in
strong relief, arranged in rows. There are about nineteen of these rows
on the broad faces, and sixteen only on the narrow ones, so that the
signs are less crowded on these sides. Unfortunately the monument is very
worn around the middle, and a considerable portion of the inscription
cannot be recovered. It was originally seen standing as a headstone
in a graveyard at Izgîn, which is a Turkoman village, some six miles
north-east from Albistan, near the confluence of the Kurman Su with the
Pyramus.
We have seen that the monuments which we have examined thus far in
the Taurus region mark out the track of two main highways, the one
following the valley of the Tochma Su, the other branching from that
route southward to gain the valley of the Pyramus. A monument recently
discovered now suggests one way at least by which in ancient times
the Anti-Taurus might be traversed. This is found in the high pass of
Kuru-Bel, a route which has now fallen considerably into disfavour,
though not without its advantages. The distance is not more than ten
miles to COMANA (identified with the modern village of Shahr), which
lies to the south-east. By this route, the tracks from the east, whether
by way of Marash or by Albistan, converging on Comana, might lead down
directly to Cæsarea and the interior; or they might, without serious
difficulty, connect with Ekrek farther to the north, or Tashji and
Fraktin farther south, all of them sites of Hittite works. In this case
the monument seems like a great altar of stone, square cut, with a lion
crouching on the top on either hand. The material is grey trachyte, which
is only found fifteen or twenty miles nearer to Mount Argæus;[321] and
as the object weighs just over a ton, it is a matter of considerable
perplexity how it was transported in ancient times over the rugged
path to the spot where it now lies. There is little doubt but that it
remains in its ancient position. It is found on a limestone rock which
rises from a small grassy plateau overshadowed by the lofty peaks of the
Soghan Dagh, being itself about 7500 feet above the sea. The base of the
object is solid and rectangular in form, with a length of four feet; its
width is just under three feet, and its height seventeen inches. The two
crouching lions are carved in the same piece of stone, one on either
side, like the decorative arms to a throne. The stone is considerably
weathered, so that it is not possible to recover much impression of the
original finish or detail of the work. The limbs of the animals are
outlined, and shown in full relief; the carving is all in the round.
The lions are nearly as long as the stone is broad, while they are ten
inches high and about eleven inches broad. The clear space between them
on the top of the altar is about two feet. In front there may be made out
several incised Hittite hieroglyphs, which seem to have formed part of a
considerable inscription in three lines. We accept the term altar as an
explanation of this monument on the mere general suggestion of its shape;
it is, however, unique, and there is no material for forming a definite
opinion. The modern shepherds of the vicinity make use of it for pounding
up the roots from which they extract a dye for marking their sheep. This
usage has considerably damaged the lions, and affords us no clue as to
the original purpose of the monument. It may, however, have very well
been an altar to the God of the Mountain or of the Pass. The sculptures
of the Kara Dagh,[322] and even those of Boghaz-Keui,[323] prepare us
for local cults of this character.
From Kuru-Bel, as we have mentioned, several different routes lead on
to the plateau of the interior. One of these (but not the easiest or
most direct) follows the stream called Kuru Chai down till it joins the
Zamanti Su. A little way above the junction on the opposite side there
flows in another stream which comes past Ekrek. This is a small Armenian
village, eight hours’ easy journey eastward from Cæsarea. It boasts three
Christian churches, and from one of the graveyards there has come to
light a stone[324] of special interest. This was originally a Hittite
monument with a panel of hieroglyphs incised along the bottom, bordered
by a double line. A few signs appear below, but they are not continued.
The stone has been re-dressed, it would appear, in Christian times, and
five crosses have been carved upon it, being left in false-relief by
cutting away the surface of the stone. There is a feather and zigzag
border around the edge, which may possibly be original. The two rosettes
might equally well be a Hittite device, but their relief corresponds
with that of the crosses. The latter are symmetrically arranged, two
small ones on each side under the arms of the larger central cross, which
stands on a bar upon a roughly incised ‘calvary.’
[Illustration: PLATE XLVI
EKREK: HITTITE INSCRIPTION REDRESSED WITH CHRISTIAN EMBLEMS]
Farther down the Zamanti Su we come to the village of Tashji, placed in
a narrow glen on the bank of a small tributary. Here, upon a rock, there
are visible the incised outlines of two figures and a considerable number
of hieroglyphs.[325] The carvings are so weathered, and the record of
them so insufficient, that little can be made out of the inscription. The
two figures, however, may be judged to have been clad in priestly dress,
with close-fitting skull-cap. The sharply-cut features of one of them
remain conspicuous. They are to the right hand of the scene as published,
and facing to the observer’s right; hence it is probable that they are
facing some deity or deified object which has escaped observation. The
position of this monument is of special interest, as it is only eight
miles eastward from Fraktin, which is found on the next main bend of the
river.
Here, at Fraktin (otherwise Ferak-Din),[326] is one of the most famous of
Hittite sculptures, which makes most important contributions to Hittite
religious symbolism.[327] From its position on the river, Professor
Ramsay has, with reason, identified this place with the _Dastarkon_ on
the river _Karmalas_ mentioned by Strabo,[328] and has shown how the
omission of the name of the place from the list of _Hiera_, though at
one time the most important, and the head over all others in Cappadocia,
argues for its extreme antiquity as a religious centre, the importance
of which was already passing when the list was made. Its sanctity
was preserved, however, even in Christian times, by the Bishopric of
Kiskissos, situated at Kiskeui, the nearest village to the site.
The sculptures[329] of Fraktin are found about half a mile
north-north-east of the village, carved upon a convex rock facing to
the west, where a cliff about fifteen or twenty feet high rises above
a sluggish stream, the Kara Su, which flows past at the foot. They are
about four feet from the ground, and the figures are from three feet
to three feet four inches in height. The group fills a space nine feet
eight inches wide, or, including an outer group of hieroglyphs, thirteen
feet ten inches over all. The carving is executed in relief about two
inches high. There are two scenes, in each of them two personages. The
group on the left consists of two male figures, facing one another, and
separated by an altar. They are both clad in Hittite fashion, with short
tunic, conical hat, and shoes with upturned toes,[330] while each has
seemingly a dagger at the waist. The figure to the left holds out some
object in his extended left hand above the altar. In his right hand there
is grasped a curving staff, which rests upon the shoulder.[331] With this
figure there is associated the divided oval, the emblem of sanctity; so
that we cannot doubt that if either of these two is a divine figure to
whom the other is ministering, then it is the one in question. The figure
upon the other side of the altar is more defaced; he seems to hold under
the left arm a triangular bow,[332] while with his right hand he grasps
an object which is continued by a wavy outline to the ground before his
feet.[333] The altar between the two is very curious, and the object upon
it unintelligible. The pedestal seems to be draped almost like a human
figure with a narrow folded garment ending in a fringe. The narrowing at
the top, representing the waist, and the horizontal belt around it, are
evident.
[Illustration: PLATE XLVII
FRAKTIN: THE ROCK-SCULPTURES
Oblation scenes to the Mother-Goddess (right) and to the Son-consort
(left).]
The group to the right is not completely carved, the outlines only
being shown, though the background is cut away. On the left of the
altar in this case, the figure is seated on a square-shaped stool, and
notwithstanding the conical hat (generally a part of the male attire),
the only parallel cases of a seated deity suggest the figure of Ma, the
Mother-goddess.[334] Whoever or whatever it may be, the hands are held
out towards the altar. On the opposite side there is a similar long-robed
figure standing, and the garment in this case shows a considerable train
behind, while in front the turned-up toe of one foot protrudes. The right
hand seems to lean on a long staff,[335] while the left, contrary to the
usual convention, is extended, and grasps a long pendent object which
reaches the floor,[336] as in the counterpart. The object perched upon
the altar is unexplained, but most resembles the crudely drawn outline of
a falcon or other large bird[337] facing the goddess.
Much has been written, and much might still be argued, as to the meaning
of these sculptures. All that is certain is the insufficiency of
evidence by which to identify them. We seem to have, however, two acts
of worship, probably oblation scenes, represented; and on the analogy of
the sculptures of Boghaz-Keui,[338] we may feel drawn to see in these
sculptures two shrines, the one of the Mother-goddess, later known as
Cybele, the other of her companion, likewise familiar in later times as
Attis. At Boghaz-Keui the same divine pair appear in other guise. But
being ignorant of the local religion, we learn little or nothing from
these identifications. It is however of interest to notice how deeply
permeated and how widely spread throughout the Hittite lands was the cult
of the Nature-goddess in early times.
SECTION C.—MONUMENTS OF THE HALYS BASIN.
ASARJIK, SUASA; YAMOOLA, BOGCHE, KARABURNA; BOGHAZ-KEUI (DENEK MADÊN).
With this group of monuments there are two or three outside the convex
curve of the Halys, though none the less in the basin which that river
drains. The first of these, on the slopes of Mount Argæus, might perhaps
more appropriately have been classed with the monuments of Anti-Taurus,
of which system Argæus is really the most advanced and most prominent
peak. We have no doubt that near the summit of this magnificent
slumbering volcanic cone there might be found traces of Hittite
high-places, but for the present our only evidence of Hittite presence in
this locality is to be found a comparatively short way up the ascent, at
a place called Tope Nefezi, near to Asarjik.[339] Here, among a number
of small rocks, there is found one, enclosed with a growth of low scrub,
upon the southern face of which a Hittite inscription is incised. The
spot is near one of the main ascents of the cone, commanding a view of
the plain below, while in front the snowy peak emerges in vivid, gleaming
contrast out of the dense growth of pine and fir trees that clothe the
middle heights of the mountain. A stream coming from high up the mountain
passes near the spot, and descends just eastward of Cæsarea to join the
Deli Su. This river, flowing west through the marshes, shortly afterwards
enters the Kara Su, which empties into the Halys just above Bir Geuz
bridge.[340]
The rock itself is cracked vertically and weathered at the edges, so
that some of the inscription on the left hand is missing, and some of
it is illegible. It covers a space nearly four feet wide and nearly
two feet high. It consists of two bands, of which the lower one, about
eight inches in height, is marked only faintly with half-obliterated
signs which suggest graffiti. The upper band is covered with incised
hieroglyphs and a group of short upright strokes probably representing
numerals. In the left part of the inscription, three or more signs are
superposed in each column, while the whole is to be read clearly from
right to left. For the moment the presence and position of this monument
are its chief features of importance.
The other site, about equally distant from the Halys, but considerably
to the west, is Suasa, on the head-waters of the stream which enters the
Halys just above Karaburna. Here, on a cubical block of stone, similar
to many hundreds fallen from the cliff, there has been found[341] an
inscription, incised on the front and back. The exposed part of the
stone is rather more than three feet wide. The record of the monument is
insufficient to let us assign much importance to its apparent intrinsic
details, such as the possible appearance of a winged animal and a fish
among the hieroglyphs. That which concerns us most, as in the former
case, is the unquestionably Hittite nature of the monument, and the
place where it is found. If we are to regard these isolated monuments as
general evidence of Hittite routes, we may see in this one the suggestion
of a road from Akserai (_Archelais_) direct to Karaburna, connecting
on the one hand with Ardistama or with Konia, and on the other with
Boghaz-Keui by a southern branch of the royal road.[342]
Karaburna lies on the north bank of the Halys river.[343] Just behind
the village a steep hill rises about four hundred feet, and is crowned
with an ancient fortress. On two sides the wall of rock forms a
sufficient defence, but on the west, and particularly on the north,
this is more broken, and is supplemented by an artificial wall of rough
stone work.[344] In the east side there is a sort of gateway, and below
there is an underground passage leading probably to a well.[345] On a
shelf of rock to the left of this entrance there is a lengthy Hittite
inscription.[346] The surface of the rock is not very smooth, and it was
found both worn and covered with lichen. None the less the discoverer
brought back good copies of the inscription, which is important both
intrinsically and topographically. The hieroglyphs are incised, and are
arranged in three rows with border and dividing lines. They seem to have
filled a space rather more than five feet long and just less than two
feet wide. The inscription, as translated by Professor Sayce, refers
chiefly to the building of the fortification and the towers thereof;
there is also a remarkable suggestion that the district was subject to
or part of Tyana. If we may make an inference therefrom, it is that the
inscription belongs to a time when Tyana had superseded Pteria as the
Hittite capital, and when Greater Cilicia had taken the place of northern
Cappadocia as the most important Hittite state.
[Illustration: PLATE XLVIII
BOGCHE: HITTITE INSCRIPTION INCISED ON FOUR SIDES OF A ROUND-TOPPED STONE
(_See p. 155._)]
At Bogche, higher up the river, and on the opposite bank, there is a
unique Hittite monument, which, so far as can be judged, stands now
precisely where it did in antiquity. It is a flat round-topped granitic
stone, inscribed on both sides and ends, and standing upon a suitable
plinth or pedestal. The width of the stone is almost exactly four feet,
and its height three feet. At the side it is twenty-one inches wide at
the bottom, narrowing to eleven and a half inches at the top.[347] The
position of the monument is a slope of high ground overlooking the valley
of the river, and isolated amid pastures to the west of the village.
Its nature and situation alike suggest a tribal or village boundary
stone, such as we suspect at Gurun and Bulghar-Madên. The inscription
is arranged in four lines, and seems to commence at the top right hand
of the northern face (which is towards the river). The hieroglyphs are
incised, and include several new and uncommon signs. Though difficult
the inscription is one of the most perfect pieces available for the
decipherer or philologist.
Passing the Bir Geuz bridge, Yamoola is found some little way farther up
the river, upon the northern bank. The village is in open ground, but
just above the valley narrows to a gorge, which is practically continuous
as far as Chok Geuz Keupru.[348] A pathway follows the river-side for
the most part, winding along the narrow strip of soil between the water
and the heights which overlook it. Other tracks take the higher ground,
but they are rendered difficult by the loose stones that thickly cover
the surface, imparting a desolate and wild character to the region. About
forty minutes’ journey above Yamoola, or two and a half hours below Chok
Geuz Keupru, the monument is found upon gently-sloping ground near the
brink of a steep knoll about five hundred feet in height. The spot does
not command an extensive view of the river, though only a hundred yards
away, because the ground rises slightly in between; but a little way up
stream the banks are more gentle, and the water comes into view at a bend.
The monument is a gigantic eagle of stone,[349] sculptured in the round,
standing upon a solid base carved in bold relief with the design of a
seated lion within each of three panels at the front and sides. The
height over all is seven feet. It now lies upon one side, but it would
appear that it was originally set up some four or five yards distant on
a platform of stones, the front edge of which is slightly raised like a
ridge to prevent slipping.[350]
The head of this great eagle is unfortunately broken away, and has not
been found. Around the neck the feather pattern which covers the body
gives way to a hair-like representation, seen as two clusters of hair
curling finally towards one another. This may, indeed, be only a method
of reproducing the down upon the neck, parallel with the treatment
of the legs; on the other hand, hair may be intended, and it is thus
possible that the bird was human-headed. After due consideration of the
details and probabilities, however, we are disposed to accept the simpler
solution: that the emblem was a simple though gigantic eagle, set upon
a lion-base. Upon the breast of the bird, the plumage is represented by
a leaf-like pattern with a boldness accordant with the great size of
the subject. Upon the back this detail is repeated to some extent, but
for the most part the work is more conventional, consisting of bands of
herring-bone pattern running down the full length of the body, diverging
upon the shoulders, and then converging gradually so as to cross towards
the tail. The legs are shown covered with down, and the talons are
forcefully executed.
[Illustration: PLATE XLIX
YAMOOLA: GIANT HEADLESS EAGLE STANDING ON A SOLID PEDESTAL SUPPORTED BY
LIONS
The background has been removed.]
The base of this monument is also of special interest. In each of the
two visible panels (hence presumably upon the third) a lion is shown in
an attitude not exactly crouching, but as though supporting the weight
upon his shoulders and back. His forequarters are too much raised for
an ordinary recumbent position, though otherwise the attitude of these
animals is reposeful. The left leg in each case crosses over the right,
and the tail curls up from between the legs backward over the thigh. The
right side is presented in each case, and the face looks outwards. The
width of the base, excluding the tail, which projects about five inches,
is three feet nine inches. Framing the panels in which the lions are
shown, and separating the pedestal from the rest of the monument, there
is a curious wavy ridge of stone upon which the eagle is perched. It may
possibly be intended as a branch of a tree, but it is made almost to
resemble a writhing serpent, with its alternate narrowing and widening.
We have departed from the strict lines laid down at the outset of our
inquiry in including this object, which is uninscribed, and bears no
direct evidence of date upon it. We do so because we claim it with some
confidence as Hittite work. Eagles, in relief and in the round, and
lions, are familiar emblems in Hittite religious art, and they are found
in association at Boghaz-Keui;[351] indeed, at this place, which we may
believe to have been the religious centre for the whole Halys basin, a
cult of the eagle seems to have been perpetuated in Hittite times.[352]
Hence, though the character and composition of the monument are unique,
the emblems which it comprises are familiar subjects in Hittite art, and
appropriate to the locality. As to its meaning, however, we can hazard no
opinion; its position near the valley of the river suggests a possible
relationship, and we know[353] that rivers were sacred to some Hittite
tribes.
Leaving now the valley of the Halys, it is a singular fact that there is
no permanent trace of Hittite presence on record within the broad circuit
which that river encloses, except the ruins of the capital at Boghaz-Keui
and of the neighbouring palace at Eyuk. At the former place there is one
monument called _Nishan Tash_, which claims mention independently of the
buildings and sculptures to which we devote a special chapter, inasmuch
as it is a rock-carving unlike anything else on the acropolis where it
is found. It lies between the two fortresses of Beuyuk and Yenije Kaleh,
where the surface of a rock facing to the south has been smoothed for a
space about twenty feet by ten, and carved with a design or inscription
arranged in ten separate lines. It is generally thought that this is an
inscription in Hittite hieroglyphs, and probably that is correct; but
owing to its extremely weathered state, we do not believe it possible now
to recognise the signs with any certainty, though one traveller claims
to have deciphered four lines in comparatively recent years. The rock
lies back at a considerable angle, and is thus entirely exposed to rain
and frost. At the present time the carving simulates a series of animal
forms, arranged in pairs facing one another, and (in the second row)
of winged creatures placed singly and separated by dividing lines from
one another. In the ninth row there is a suggestion of bulls facing one
another in pairs, with lowered heads. Doubtless this is illusion,[354]
but it shows the unfortunate impossibility of recovering the original
inscription with any reliability.
Two further monuments, recently discovered,[355] may be appropriately
mentioned, inasmuch as they have no clear relation to any other buildings
of the site. They are cubical building blocks of granite (similar to
those from Malatia and elsewhere), and the face of each is decorated
with a relief. In the upper part of the stone there is a socket-hole,
from which fact the discoverers argue that they were the bases for
statues, though from the analogy which their other discoveries afford, it
would appear more probable that they supported a building carried up in
timber. The subject of the relief is clearly religious, and it includes
some striking and important features, which appear on each stone.
Indeed, the only difference between the two is found in three out of
five hieroglyphic signs that occur in each case. Otherwise the subject
represented is the same. This shows a priest, clad in toga-like robe
standing in an attitude of prayer before an altar. He wears a skull-cap,
shoes with turned-up toes, and earring. The toga is worn (in one case
plainly) over a short tunic and vest. His left hand is raised towards
the altar, and his left foot is advanced. The altar is of square shape,
and without parallel in Hittite representations.[356] It is decorated
with squares divided by diagonal lines and crosses. There is a little
difference discernible in the arrangement of these decorative details,
the chief point being that on the one they are arrayed in rows (in which
case there are no crosses) and in the other in columns (in which case
the crosses form a partial middle column between two of diagonals). Most
curious of all, upon the altar, seemingly one on the right hand and one
on the left, are two tall loop-like or round-topped objects standing
vertically. Behind the altar there seems to be the cult object, which at
first glance looks very like a harpoon, though the head is bent somewhat
backward. It may, however, be thought to represent some pointed object
(like the Hittite hat) on a pole.
(There is a small ivory object recently obtained at Denek Maden, near
Chesme Keupru, which we may appropriately mention here,[357] as it is
characteristic of a certain class of Hittite objects, though not of
direct use to our present subject. Its form makes it improbable that it
was a seal in the ordinary sense. On the obverse there is the figure of
a god clad in a short tunic; from the hieroglyphs alongside he is to be
recognised perhaps as Sandan, or Sandes. On the reverse there is the
robed figure of a priest holding apparently a long staff in his hand, and
wearing a skull-cap. Certain hieroglyphs accompany this figure also. The
character of the object and treatment of detail have several features of
special interest.)
SECTION D.—MONUMENTS OF THE WEST.
ANGORA, GIAOUR-KALESI, YARRE (CHESME KEUPRU); DOGHANLU, BEY-KEUI;
SIPYLUS, KARA-BEL; ILGÎN (KÖLIT-OGHLU YAILA), (EFLATOUN-BUNAR, FASSILER).
It has already been indicated that the Hittite works in the west
are few in number and of somewhat special character, and that they
are disposed for the most part seemingly along a single line of
road.[358] They betoken a line of conquest rather than a period of
settlement. Nevertheless, if we may permit ourselves to take into
consideration certain sculptures which, though uninscribed, are of
strongly Hittite character, we shall find reason to feel the presence
of Hittite influence, or close contact with Hittite artistic feeling,
in Galatia north-east from Phrygia. In view of the fact which has been
established[359] that the Halys River formed a boundary between peoples
of different racial customs, this evidence, if it may be accepted,
assumes definite importance, inasmuch as such influence was less likely,
under the circumstances, to be the result of neighbourly assimilation. It
would argue, in short, for a definite occupation or suzerainty.
Of such uninscribed works we may single out three in the immediate
vicinity of Angora, the one at Kalaba,[360] which is just eastward of
the town, the others at Amaksiz and Yalanjak,[361] which lie to the west
and south-west respectively. These are uniform slabs of stone, suitable
for the façade of a building, decorated with reliefs of lions.[362] It
is not merely the analogy of motive and of subject, but certain details
of treatment, which give them a Hittite character. The beasts are in
each case represented as advancing, with wide open mouths. The farther
legs are advanced and the tail curls over the back. On the lion from
Kalaba the body is seemingly hairy below the belly and the collar is
suggested. Most characteristic of all is the treatment of the shoulder
muscles, which are drawn in conventional outline, as at Eyuk, Sinjerli,
and elsewhere. (At Chesme Keupru, also, exposed to the weather on the
western side of the bridge, there is a lion sculptured completely in the
round. This is in itself a fashion unknown to Hittite art, and added to
that there must be noticed the seated posture of the animal and uncouth
treatment of the subject. We cannot see in this any semblance of Hittite
influence.)
The sculptures of Giaour-Kalesi, however, are of unmistakably Hittite
origin, even though no inscription seems to have been noticed with them.
Here the subjects are godlike figures, in familiar Hittite guise.[363]
They are carved in relief upon the living rock, and their situation
is particularly noteworthy. A rocky knoll overlooks, indeed partly
overhangs, a narrow pass: upon the summit is a fortress, rectangular in
shape, about eighteen yards by thirty-seven, and supported by an outer
and lower wall at a distance of twelve to thirty yards. The masonry of
the inner wall is rough dry-walling, while the outer is built in the
style of the fortress on Beuyuk Kaleh at Boghaz-Keui,[364] of stones
roughly pentagonal in shape, irregular in size, fitted to one another,
and laid without mortar. In its shape this fortress corresponds to that
of Yenije Kaleh at Boghaz-Keui;[365] in its double wall and rough inner
masonry to that on Kizil Dagh;[366] and in the position of the monuments
near its entrance to that on Kizil Dagh just mentioned, and to another at
Karaburna.[367]
[Illustration: PLATE L
ANGORA: THE ACROPOLIS (_See also p. 36._)]
The sculptures represent two male figures: the one bearded, the other
beardless. Both are clad in the short tunic, tip-tilted shoes, and
conical hat familiar in the god-figures at Boghaz-Keui.[368] A dagger
with crescental hilt is stuck into the belt of each. They are of gigantic
size, seemingly about ten or twelve feet high, and both are posed in
the same way facing in the same direction. They turn to the observer’s
left; their right hands are advanced, as though pointing down the pass,
while their left arms are drawn back. Obedient to convention, the right
legs are advanced, and the shoulders are seen almost in full view.
Something hangs down from the hat of each, falling behind the neck;[369]
and upon the front of the hat worn by the bearded figure there may be
traced a curving object, but whether the upturned brim familiar on the
sculptures at Sinjerli and Boghaz-Keui,[370] or some other emblem, is not
determinable.
There can be little doubt as to the identification of these two figures,
as they are portrayed, with the father-god and the son-god (the two forms
of Attis of later times), seen in exact correspondence on the sculptured
walls of the sanctuary at Boghaz-Keui.[371] Is it merely a coincidence
that, while being a link in the great westerly route from Boghaz-Keui
towards Kara-Bel and Sipylus, they are pointing down the pass which is
thought by many to have led also directly to Pessinus or Pessinous, the
chief sanctuary of the Mother-goddess[372] in this part of Asia Minor?
Whatever may have been the direction of the Royal Road eastward of
Giaour-Kalesi, it would seem to have passed west by way of Yarre, which
is found near a bridge over the Sangarius called _Karanji Keupru_. Here a
sculptured slab has been found[373] decorated with a relief representing
a ceremonial feast. This is an important link, for this class of subject
has a wide distribution, as we have seen,[374] throughout Hittite lands
on both sides of the Taurus. Its appearance west of the Halys betrays the
influence not only of Hittite art but of a common religious institution.
[Illustration: PLATE LI
AYAZÎN: ROCK-HEWN TOMBS AND EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Cf. p. 60.
The church may be recognised on the right by its rounded exterior,
corresponding to the apse.]
The slab is almost exactly thirty inches square and twelve inches thick.
The back is rough, and on the upper side is carved a tongue or ‘joggle,’
for attaching another slab: clearly it formed part of the façade of a
building like the slabs of Angora, Sinjerli, and Sakje-Geuzi. The drawing
of the scene is more angular and less free than is seen on most Hittite
works, but there are several intrinsic Hittite peculiarities. Two figures
are seated, their feet on footstools, at opposite sides of a narrow
table or altar. The head and back of the left-hand figure are missing.
The shoes of both turn upwards at the toes, and their garments seem to
be long, reaching to their ankles. The end of a toga-like garment is
conspicuous on the right-hand figure, falling over the right shoulder
and reaching almost to the seat. The head-dress of this figure resembles
a skull-cap with expanding front, and a short hood or veil falls behind
the neck. The features are sharp, the nose and chin being particularly
prominent. The figure is seated on a stool with two straight legs
which cross. In the left hand (which, as at Sinjerli and elsewhere, is
inaccurately represented with the palm instead of the knuckles towards
the observer) there is grasped a small round-topped object; and in the
right hand, which is partly raised, there seems to be a cup. The opposite
figure is clad alike, so far as it can be seen, and similarly raises
a cup towards the lips. The object between them resembles in form the
narrow tapering altars seen on the sculptures of Fraktin. Upon it there
seem to be a bird, and possibly some other offerings not clearly defined.
In the background between the two heads, and above the ‘altar,’ there
appear certain marks, in relief, which may be the remains of hieroglyphic
signs. It is unfortunate that the whole of this sculpture is not
preserved, a circumstance which makes us hesitate to attempt to explain
its meaning. It is probable, however, that the persons, being both
seated, are in this case on an equality, and both share in the feast,
as at Marash,[375] Boghaz-Keui,[376] and Sinjerli.[377] We infer that
they are man and woman, but that is not clear. The figure on the right,
clad in the toga and long robe, wears also an earring. The seat on the
left is not a stool of the same kind as that on the right, but rather a
square-shaped chair, though, being broken in two, we have only a portion
remaining from which to judge.
In the Phrygian country the rock sculptures of non-Phrygian character
near the Midas-tomb at Doghanlu[378] may be thought to carry on the
line of Hittite highway to the west. These are found on a plateau above
the valley in which are the Phrygian monuments, and they seem to have
been anciently reached by means of a road ascending in a gentle curve,
now partly hidden at the bottom by accumulated earth. There are several
figures of gigantic size carved in relief upon the rocks, but that which
has attracted most attention is a small one in the series, two feet four
inches high, described by the discoverer as a figure of ‘Hermes.’ The
person stands, facing left, his left foot and arm advanced. His hair is
dressed close, or it may be covered by a skull-cap, and a curl is visible
behind the neck. In the left hand a _caduceus_ is held upright, the head
of which is seen like a small disk with horn-like objects projecting from
the top and turned towards one another. Beyond the staff are certain
picture-signs, amidst which a bird[379] may be recognised, with a small
triangular sign below. These signs, in the opinion of the discoverer,
are not the same as the Hittite hieroglyphs. None the less, the monument
is accepted as Hittite by Dr. Messerschmidt[380] and M. Perrot.[381]
We consider their interpretation of the origin of the sculpture to be
extremely doubtful. We do not feel so strongly as Professor Ramsay that
the Phrygians obviously learned this type from the Hittites of Pteria,
as may be seen from a comparison with the youthful god in the sanctuary
of that place. On the other hand, the _caduceus_, the picture-signs, and
the short robe of the figure, are not really those familiar in Hittite
art. We are told, however, that other sculptures of the series with which
the ‘Hermes’ is associated have more in common. The theory of Hittite
influence, though not of Hittite origin, is perhaps easiest reconciled
with history, and we may accept it tentatively as a working hypothesis
explaining their presence, but not as independent evidence.
[Illustration: PLATE LII
AYAZÎN: ROCK-HEWN ROOF OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
Notice the dome and capitals. (_See Pl. LI. and p. 60._)]
The same doubt does not exist, however, in regard to an inscription from
Bey-Keui, which is a definite trace of the Hittites in the west. The
monument is a dressed block of limestone, dug by Professor Ramsay[382]
out of a mound at the entrance to a glen. The hieroglyphs are in relief,
and on the portion of the stone preserved were arranged in rows, of which
two partly remain. The whole was surrounded by a plain border.[383] From
the published copy two or three of the signs may be readily recognised
as distinctively Hittite. The position of the monument has thus a great
interest amid the paucity of evidence in the west.
Those monuments which tell of the Hittite influence in the extreme west
are found on the mountains of Sipylus and Tmolus, not far in either
case from Smyrna. The river Hermus before entering the sea flows about
a mile distant on the northern side of Mount Sipylus. On the other bank
there stretches out a considerable expanse of highly fertile plain. The
road and railway pass between the river and the mountain, and from them
the famous sculpture may be plainly seen. It is several hundred feet
up the slope, involving a sharp climb up the accumulated débris and
soil at the foot of the cliff. Above, the cliffs rise sheer and almost
precipitous.[384]
The monument occupies a recess specially prepared, about forty feet in
height, while the figure itself is over thirty feet high. This gigantic
sculpture, perhaps on account of its accessibility, has been more
noticed in writings, ancient and modern, than any other. Its present
condition,[385] however, leaves us no chance of forming any new opinion
as to its original meaning and character. Fortunately on both points
there remains little doubt, in spite of a considerable controversy, which
is, however, now no longer of interest. As to its meaning, we are guided
by the studied words of Pausanias,[386] read in the light of modern
information, to believe that it was a rock image of the Mother-goddess;
and as to its character, we may see in its present weathered state the
indications of a sculpture in very high relief, almost indeed in the
round, though not disengaged from the rock, which once represented a
female seated, with her feet presumably upon a stool. The head of the
figure is seemingly inclined forward, and the form of the female bust
may still be recognised. Those who previously may have thought the
carving to represent a bust upon a pedestal were deceived by its present
appearance, for certain hieroglyphs[387] in the recess near the head
attest its Hittite origin: the motive of bust and pedestal finds no
place in the category of Hittite art, while the seated figure of the
Mother-goddess has its counterpart in the Hittite sculptures at Eyuk[388]
and Fraktin.[389] The inscription in question is very fragmentary, though
certain characteristic symbols can be recognised, notably the tip-tilted
shoe and the horned (ram’s) head. ‘It contains,’ writes Professor Sayce,
‘the name of the Mother-goddess, with her title “Queen of the Rock,” all
of which signs recur in an inscription from Emir-Ghazi.’[390]
[Illustration: PLATE LIII
MT. SIPYLUS: GIANT IMAGE OF THE MOTHER-GODDESS]
It would seem that classical writers, following generally in the
footsteps of Homer, confounded this image with another object, a natural
rock on the same mountain, which tradition associated with Niobe, and
would seem indeed to have conveyed a suggestion of her weeping form.
Thus Homer[391] sings that ‘Niobe, turned to stone, upon arid Sipylus
broods o’er her sorrows’; and so again Ovid:[392] ‘Fastened to the rock
she weeps, and the marble sheds tears.’ Fortunately Pausanias, himself
probably a native of this country, ascertained the facts and showed how
the confusion had arisen. ‘This Niobe,’ he says,[393] ‘I myself saw
when I ascended Mount Sipylus; close at hand it is merely a rock and a
cliff, with no resemblance to a woman, mourning or otherwise; but if
you stand farther off, you will think you see a weeping woman bowed
with grief.’ This is clearly the Niobe of Homer, Ovid, and Sophocles,
and clearly also the smoothed appearance of the rock above the image
of the Mother-goddess (which is not, it seems, due at all to the action
of the water), was one of the reasons accounting for the confusion. As
to the identity of the image, Pausanias leaves us in no doubt where he
says,[394] ‘Here (at Aeriae) there is a temple of the Mother of the
Gods, with a stone image of her: both are worth seeing. The people of
Aeriae say that it is the most ancient sanctuary of this goddess in the
Peloponnese. The oldest of all her images,[395] however, is on the rock
of Coddinus at Magnesia, to the north of Sipylus: the Magnesians say it
was made by Broteas, son of Tantalus.’ Finally the same writer makes his
distinction apparent by showing that he was aware of the passage in Homer
referring to the story of Niobe.[396]
As in other cases, we do not dwell upon the religious symbolism of the
monument. That the Mother-goddess (Ma) was the prototype of Kybele
remains undisputed, and all that is of interest in the cult of the great
Phrygian goddess has been pointed out by Sir William Ramsay[397] and
others. But the attributes of the goddess in the minds of the Hittites
remain indefinite, and are to be inferred from the rites represented
with her at Boghaz-Keui, Eyuk, and Fraktin, from the ritual described
by Strabo and Herodotus, as surviving at Comana, Tyana, Pessinus, and
elsewhere, and from the inherited attributes of Kybele herself.[398]
The other Hittite monuments of the west on the pass of Kara-Bel are
comparatively near at hand. A stream which feeds the Hermus, flowing
around the foot of Mount Sipylus on the east, comes down from the
valley which separates that mountain on the south from the opposite
slopes of Olympus. The bed of another small tributary leads up these
southern slopes to a narrow wooded glen upon the ridge, in which are
the sources of the Kara Su. Through this glen there passes a track, now
not much used, connecting Ephesus to the south with Sardis or Smyrna
by the northern valley. About seventy feet above this track, in the
perpendicular face of the cliff, a niche of rock encloses a sculpture
in relief. The niche is about six feet wide at the base and nine feet
high, being considerably narrower at the top.[399] The figure within is
that of a warrior, similar to those of Giaour-Kalesi, and resembling the
god-figures at Boghaz-Keui. He stands facing to his left, his left leg
and arm advanced, and his shoulders squared to the observer. He wears a
short tunic and short-sleeved vest and high boots, which in some early
drawings are shown as turning up at the toes.[400] The conical Hittite
hat completes his costume. A triangular-shaped bow is carried over his
right shoulder, and his extended left hand seems to grasp a long staff
or spear.[401] The sculpture, being on the east side of the ravine, is
turned towards Ephesus. There is another similar sculpture on a detached
block of stone some two hundred and fifty yards farther up the pass. This
stone seems to have fallen from the rocks above, and it now lies on the
west side near the stream, about twelve yards below the level of the
path. As it lies the sculptured face is towards the east, and the figure
being turned as in the former case, towards the left, looks to the north.
It is probable, however, from the similarity of the two subjects, that
they originally looked in the same direction.
It is curious that there is no mention of these sculptures by Pausanias.
Herodotus, however, describes them as images of Sesostris,[402] ‘the one
on the way from Ephesus to Phocaea, the other from Sardis to Smyrna. In
both places a man is carved, four and a half cubits high, bearing a spear
in his right hand, and in his left a bow; and the rest of his equipment
is in unison, for it is partly Egyptian and partly Ethiopian. From one
shoulder to the other there extend across the breast sacred Egyptian
characters, incised, which read as follows: “I acquired this region by my
own shoulders.” Who or whence he is he does not here show.’ It is clear
that Herodotus was writing from hearsay: there is just enough general
accuracy in his account to identify the monuments, and enough discrepancy
to make it apparent that he had not visited them himself. The details as
to position we have already noticed; and Professor Sayce has shown[403]
that the inscription, so far from being across the breast of the figure
and in Egyptian characters, is found in the characteristic place, between
the spear and the head of the figure, and consists of a group of Hittite
hieroglyphs, in which certain symbols can be recognised. On the fallen
block no trace of inscription remains, as the sculpture has suffered
mutilation; in fact, a Yuruk’s tent was at one time pitched against
it, and the niche used as a fireplace. But sufficient remains to make
it demonstrable that no Egyptian inscription ran across the breast. We
can hardly hesitate to identify this figure with one of the two forms of
the Hittite national deity, and if the suggested absence of beard be a
guide, he will be in this case the son-god of Boghaz-Keui, the Sandon of
Tarsus, the prototype of Attis the consort of Kybele. We are inclined to
see him here, as at Giaour-Kalesi, in the aspect of a God of Arms. We may
notice once more, and ask, as in a previous case, whether it can be mere
coincidence that the only Hittite monuments surviving in the extreme west
are representations of the Mother-goddess and of the chief male deity of
the Hittite peoples.
[Illustration: PLATE LIV
KARA-BEL: THE HITTITE GOD OF ARMS]
With these monuments of the west we classify also one definitely Hittite
inscription from near Iconium, and two instructive monuments reflecting
Hittite influence, found near the Lake Beyshehr. The inscription was
found near Ilgîn, at a place called Kölit-oghlu Yaila,[404] about three
miles from the latter and eight miles eastward from the former, and about
three hundred yards off the road from Ilgîn to Kadyn Khan. Actually the
spot is about fifty miles north-westward from Iconium. Here there are
traces of an ancient site in a slight eminence upon the plain, and the
ruins of a wall running in a curve for a long distance. It is possible,
Professor Ramsay thinks, that these indications may mark the site of
pre-Hellenic _Tyriaion_,[405] which was one of the three chief cities
of the Phrygio-Lycaonian frontier lands. In Roman times, however,
Tyriaion was placed without doubt at Ilgîn. It is more probable that
the mound indicates a site of antiquity that fell for some reason into
neglect as Tyriaion came into prominence. Out of the top of this there
was dug up a block of limestone, about two feet eight inches high and
six feet long. It is not quite complete; but upon it there may be made
out with some certainty three rows of Hittite hieroglyphs in relief, the
inscription commencing with the right-hand side at the top. The position
of the monument is of special importance, for it seems clearly to have
been found near to its original position, and is the sole witness of
Hittite handiwork in this part of the tableland. And though it stands
alone, it does not seem to be of that class, the isolation of which may
be accounted for and is in itself instructive, like the sculptures of
Sipylus and Kara-Bel. It seems, on the other hand, to be the product of
settled conditions, and its presence implies a whole field and period of
Hittite influence which would otherwise have remained in obscurity.
There are two monuments south-west of Konia which, though not inscribed
nor demonstrably of Hittite handiwork, reflect clearly Hittite
influence and feeling in art. One of them is ‘Plato’s Spring’ at
Eflatoun-Bunar,[406] nine miles northwards from Beyshehr. This consists
of two walls of an unexplained structure, of which about two-thirds
has been destroyed. The façade, which is decorated with sculptures, is
about twelve feet in height and twenty feet in length. It is washed by a
stream which has been partly dammed by stones taken from the building.
The stones are large, almost gigantic, and dressed with care: they are
decorated with human figures in relief, which vary in size with the
stones, though forming a symmetrical group, and each posed with hands
raised, in full view; several of them wear the conical Hittite hat. Two
pairs of wings, enclosing disks, are carved upon a single stone which
spans all but the corner-stones, while a great slab which covers the
whole retains the decoration of a single pair of wings and part of a
central disc. In the side view some of the stones are dressed with a
panel; other stones are lying about, and Professor Ramsay has detected
one on which a lion seemed to have been carved.
There is another remarkable but equally problematical monument at
Fassiler,[407] near the route from Beyshehr to Iconium. It is a gigantic
stela, about eight yards in height, and nearly a yard thick. At the
bottom its width is nearly three yards, narrowing at the top to nearly
two yards. The subject represented upon it is carved in very high relief.
It shows two lions side by side separated only by a figure, clad in a
long robe, with hands folded before the breast. Upon the shoulders[408]
there is posed a greater figure, wearing the short tunic and conical
hat of peculiar form. The right hand is raised, while the left arm is
bent, and some indistinct object is grasped by the hand. Meagre as is
our information about this monument, we do not hesitate to see in it a
reflection of an idea which we see carried out in the Hittite sanctuary
of Boghaz-Keui. The theme seems to us to represent the statue of the
god borne upon the shoulders of his priest; and the lions, as emblems or
guardians of the god, suggest a derived form of the son-god or Attis,
which we discuss in a later chapter.[409] The character of the lions
flanking the monument, with their heads projecting boldly in front, is
also in keeping with Hittite tradition;[410] and the position of the
sculpture between the lions has its counterpart in a monument, equally
of post-Hittite times, which has been brought to light at Sinjerli.[411]
Finally the whole appearance of the monument suggests a columnar
figure upon a lion-base,[412] of which this is a clumsy and ill-carved
substitute. A wonderful gulf separates the drawing and execution of this
monument from the sculptures of Boghaz-Keui.
SECTION E.—MONUMENTS IN THE SOUTH-EAST OF THE TABLELAND.
KARA DAGH, EMIR-GHAZI, TYANA (BOR, NIGDEH, ANDAVAL), BULGHAR-MADÊN, IVRÎZ.
We turn in fine to the south-eastern corner of the tableland, now a
desert tract fringed by the northern slopes and outlying ridges of the
Taurus mountains. Our comparatively intimate knowledge of the monuments
and historical geography of this region is due almost entirely to the
consistent researches of Professor Sir Wm. Ramsay and his school.
We come firstly to the Kara Dagh (Black Mountain), an outlying ridge of
Taurus,[413] which rises three or four thousand feet above the plain,
to a height of seven thousand feet above the sea. At the foot of the
mountain, on the north, the little village of Maden-Shehr marks the
classical site of BARATA, better known, perhaps, as _Bin Bir Kilisse_,
‘the thousand and one churches.’ Professor Ramsay tells[414] of the
great changes that time has wrought in this locality. Here there ‘must
have been in ancient time the summer sanatorium of the Lycaonian plain.
The soil is very fertile, and being volcanic, is specially suitable for
vines. Many kinds of fruit trees also were cultivated. Water is not
plentiful, but there are several springs of remarkably good water. The
needs of agriculture and viticulture were met by a wonderfully elaborate
system of storing the rain and the melted snows of winter.’ But now
‘the site of this ancient city is the most inhospitable in the whole of
Lycaonia. There is no water except filthy half-poisonous puddles stored
in the ancient cisterns. The vines have almost entirely disappeared,
the orchards remain only in a few trees run wild. There is hardly any
cultivation. The water runs rapidly off the steep slopes of the mountain,
and is of no benefit to agriculture except in the lowest parts of the
little sheltered valley where the city was built.’
That the life, and possibly the sanctity, of the place dates back
to remote antiquity is shown by the discovery[415] of two Hittite
inscriptions on the summit of the mountain. The spot called _Mahalich_
is marked by a Byzantine Church, which seems to preserve the ancient
sanctity of a high place of older times.[416] The church is supported on
the north side by rocks in which a passage can now be traced, though it
would seem to have been partly hidden at least by the Byzantine walls.
This passage was to some extent artificial, and on its rock-walls are
two inscriptions, a short one in relief upon the north, and a longer one
incised on the south. The shorter inscription consists of four groups
of signs only, translated by Professor Sayce[417] to mean ‘Tarkyanas,
the supreme king.’ The other inscription is longer, comprising twelve
groups of signs in a row, in addition to the same royal name, which
in the middle recurs with little variation in its hieroglyphic form,
though surmounted in this case by a winged emblem. There appears in this
inscription[418] a hieroglyphic sign otherwise unknown, resembling a
horned altar.
In the same neighbourhood, about eight miles to the north-west, there is
an outlying rocky hill called Kizil Dagh, which rises sharply from the
plain to a height of nearly four hundred feet. The summit of this knoll
is crowned with a fortress, the early character of which is betokened,
says the discoverer,[419] by its style and by three hieroglyphic
inscriptions found near by. We are not yet told the precise nature
of the ramparts, but the position of the fortress recalls those of
Giaour-Kalesi, Boghaz-Keui, and Karaburna. Near a gate in the western
wall, on the right-hand side, the longest inscription of the series is to
be seen upon a sort of rock altar. The hieroglyphs are carved in relief,
and arranged in two rows. As with the inscription on the Kizil-Dagh, the
same royal name appears in the middle of the group of signs, surmounted,
it would seem, by a winged disk. Lower down on the hill, but still upon
the shoulder, there rises a sharp rock, roughly hewn into the form of a
high-backed seat or throne, and on the back of this a bearded figure has
been engraved. The personage is represented as seated on a square-shaped
throne, his feet upon a stool; but the details of the design are unlike
anything else that has been recorded.[420] Much of its peculiarity
may be attributed to the unskilled hand that carved it, but there are
certain features rendered with deliberation that are worthy of note. The
left arm is outstretched, and the hand grasps towards the top a staff
with crescental knob, which is held vertically. The lower end of the
staff stops short above the stool, possibly in obedience to the general
convention of perspective in Hittite art. Were the drawing completed,
indeed, in our own convention, with the vanishing point suitably chosen,
it would be found that the staff seemed to rest upon the stool. In the
right hand, which is just in front of the body, there seems to be a cup
of some kind.[421] The dress is not clearly drawn, but there is the
suggestion, by a simple oblique line, of a loose fold or possibly the
loose end of a toga across the body. The hem of the skirt is fringed. No
footgear is apparent, and the head-dress is apparently a degradation of
the familiar conical hat, reduced in this case to an inverted V-shape
by unskilled drawing. The hair falls straight and backwards upon the
shoulders. The seat is curious, and plainly simulates a substantial
chair of wood. The back is a solid upright piece, square cut, and the
side-pieces which form the arms are lateral strips, connecting the front
legs with the back. The footstool is similar in style. Without other
evidence it would have been difficult to support an argument of Hittite
origins for this carving; but that question does not arise, owing to
the presence of a group of hieroglyphs appearing characteristically
between the top of the staff and the face, and these signs are at once
recognisable as forming the same group which we have met with three
times previously in the same vicinity, namely, the royal name read by
Professor Sayce _Tarkyanas_.[422] The same name appears in two other
places on the same rock. In the one case it is followed by two short
lines of inscription, incised like the rest, and the spelling of the name
seems to illustrate an interchangeability of two hieroglyphic signs.
Surmounting the whole there is a winged emblem, in which the central
portion seems to be composed of two crescents underneath a disk (which is
also divided like a crescent). Above the emblem there appear the symbol
of sanctity (the divided oval) and the hieroglyph which Professor Sayce
interprets as the name of the god Sandes.[423] The same arrangement, with
slight variations, is repeated with the other occurrence of the name,
which in this case, however, is spelt as in the earlier instances. The
centre of the winged emblem may be seen to be a rosette, with a curious
spreading object below. Above, two dots follow the name of Sandes, and
the picture-sign of a human arm bent ‘in adoration’ is by the side.
These two groups of inscriptions, and the carving which accompanies them,
awaken several interesting thoughts. The most important point is one
which might be easiest lost sight of, namely, that these sacred places
are sought on rocky points or hilltops, bearing out the suggestion of
the sculptures near Boghaz-Keui,[424] in which there may be reasonably
suspected the surviving traces of mountain-cults, or cults of mountain
deities, underlying the newer religious symbolism. There the idea is
conveyed in the drawings, here in fact. Who this deity was, in his local
guise at any rate, we do not learn. It would seem, however, that he was
identified at some time or other with Sandes, just as at Boghaz-Keui
most of the various local deities seem to be identified with the chief
national god of the age. The monuments before us, then, probably belong
to the time when the cult of this god was dominant, as under the Hatti
rulers, or during the ascendency of Greater Cilicia (possibly _Kas_ in
the inscriptions) as head-state of the Hittite confederacy. As for the
name repeated in each inscription, the fact that the winged rosette,
or winged emblem of sorts, overspreads it in four instances, leads us
to infer from the analogy of similar Hittite monuments,[425] that the
name is that of the king-priest of the locality. We recognise then in
our _Tarkyanas_ (by whatever name he may have been called) the local
dynast of the period of the sculptures, who was the chief minister and
representative of the local god.
Who, then, is the seated figure? It may be naturally thought that the
group of hieroglyphs repeating the same name decide that fact, but we
are led on further consideration to incline to another conclusion. For
there is no single example in Hittite art where the king is represented
seated or enthroned. On the other hand, it is the god who is found to be
enthroned, and the king appears in such scenes by virtue of his priestly
office. In this case the winged emblem does not accompany the writing of
the name between the figure and his staff; hence it is conceivable that
we have here a representation of the deity called by a name which was
that used also by the priest; if this be so, then it may be assumed that
the priest has really adopted to himself a name similar to, or compounded
of, that by which the god was known in the locality.[426]
There is one further point of importance which these inscriptions
illuminate. It is hardly to be doubted but that they are all
contemporary, especially as we have reason to believe that they each
contain the name of the same living person. Yet the different styles
in which they are carved—some in relief, others incised, some badly
drawn, others outlined with more care—would have otherwise given scope
for argument as to different periods of origin. We may dismiss, at any
rate for the future, the arguments as to period based merely upon the
difference between relief-work and incision, irrespective of style and
details.[427]
The plain is broken between Iconium and Tyana by a low ridge called
the Karaja Dagh. On the northern side of this, an isolated mass of
rocks rises from the plain, and is known as the Arissama Dagh. On one
of its highest peaks an ancient fortress, called naturally Arissama
Kaleh, commands a track which skirts the northern shoulder of the ridge
and looks down on the remains of a village called Eski Kishla (Old
Winter Quarters), about four miles distant to the west. The place is
now hardly inhabited, save for a few half-starving nomads; but there
are considerable traces of an ancient site in the squared stones to be
found among the débris. Here there has been found[428] a remarkable
stone altar of mushroom shape, and inscribed in the Hittite hieroglyphs.
Some three miles south-east is the village of Emir-Ghazi, placed upon
the slope of a considerable mound, where also old worked stones are
excavated in quantity. Here Professor and Lady Ramsay discovered two
further monuments, also inscribed; the one was a fragment of a second
altar of the same form, but the original character of the other object
remains uncertain, as it had been converted into a water-trough and so
considerably damaged.
These three monuments[429] are an important contribution to Hittite
archæology, and their position throws considerable light upon the changed
conditions and economy of the past. The altar is unique and perfect. It
is forty-two inches high, cylindrical in shape, with an expanding top,
the diameter of which is twenty-four and a half inches. The material
is black basalt. The pedestal tapers somewhat from the base upwards,
and the top spreads out sharply like a table. The Hittite hieroglyphs
upon it are in relief, and form a seemingly continuous inscription,
arranged around the top edge and around the shaft in six parallel rows. A
conspicuous feature of the inscription[430] is the _Ædicula_ (so called),
being the grouping of the royal or priestly emblems in the form of a
shrine (or _naiskos_) under the outspread wings attached to a rosette,
and recalling closely the emblems of the priest-king at Boghaz-Keui.[431]
From the second altar, the tray and bottom of which are broken away, one
line of inscription is entirely missing, while the ends of the other
lines (of which there were five originally) are also wanting. As in the
former case the hieroglyphs are carved in relief. This form of altar,
though not found elsewhere in the round, is suggested by the rock carving
of Fraktin,[432] and is clearly and elaborately represented on the
dromos-decorations at Eyuk.[433] In the latter case the altar is placed
before the enthroned bull, and towards it the priests and priestess lead
up rams to the sacrifice.
The remaining monument is so imperfect that but little can be made out
as to its original nature. That it was a corner-stone is certain from
the arrangement of the inscription, and we may compare it with the
monuments from Aintab[434] and from Marash.[435] Dr. Messerschmidt is
inclined to give it the same form as a corner-stone with recessed angle
from Carchemish.[436] However that may be, five lines of hieroglyphs in
relief are partly preserved upon the two inscribed faces, the rest being
cut or broken away; the height is about twenty-five inches, and the width
of the sides seventeen and fifteen inches respectively.
[Illustration: PLATE LV
TYANA: THE RUINED AQUEDUCTS OF ROMAN PERIOD (_See pp. 42, 70._)]
At the eastern limits of the great plains we reach Kilisse Hissar, the
site of the old-time TYANA.[437] It is shut in on three sides by ridges
and low outlying hills, but is open to the plain, and accessible from
Eregli and from Bulghar-Madên. It can hardly be doubted that this was
the chief city for the region we are considering, even in Hittite times,
to judge from its importance in the minds of classical writers and from
the extensive nature of its mounds and ruins. Strabo[438] describes it
as ‘built upon the mound of Semiramis’ which was ‘fortified with good
walls.’ Here, curiously enough, no Hittite monument has been brought
to light, probably because haphazard excavation in the mound is hardly
possible, owing to the fact that it is almost covered by the modern
houses. None the less, a Phrygian inscription of Midas[439] attests the
antiquity of the site; and three separate Hittite inscriptions seen in
the neighbouring places of Bor, Nigdeh, and Andaval may be reasonably
believed, as is supposed, to have come from the same source.
The most instructive and interesting of these monuments is that from Bor,
which is a monumental stela, recovered in two main portions at different
times at an interval of twelve years or more.[440] Even now the stone is
not complete; as may be seen from our illustration the fitted edges do
not quite correspond, so that a small portion is missing from the height,
while the left-hand edge is entirely broken away. The upper part measures
thirty inches by sixteen, with a thickness of eight inches. The lower
part is five inches taller, so that the whole must have been six feet or
more in height. Fortunately, on the fragments that have survived, there
is to be seen nearly the whole figure and face of a man, clearly the
priest-king, as well as an indication of the nature and arrangement of
the inscription. The figure is carved in high relief, with a projection
amounting in places to three inches, while the hieroglyphs are incised
upon the background. The figure occupied a height equivalent to eleven
bands of the hieroglyphs, of which fourteen are indicated. We have no
means of judging how wide the stone was originally, as the bottom is
fractured and the top has plainly been re-dressed since it was broken,
to correspond with the narrower width. We are inclined to think that the
larger and more important portion of the stone is still lacking. For the
attitude of the figure is that of adoration or of a suppliant. The man is
depicted with his back near the edge of the stone, and his hands raised
before his chin, exactly as on the rock monument of Ivrîz.[441] Now on
the stelæ in which one figure alone appears, like those of Carchemish and
Marash,[442] the personage, be he priest or king, occupies the central
position on the stone, and almost its whole height. He stands in those
cases with one arm outstretched grasping his staff, while the other arm
is close to his side; on the one he faces to the left, on the other to
the right, but the pose is the same. In this case the details are all
changed. To judge by certain faint indications on the stone, and by
comparison with the monument of Ivrîz described below, it may be inferred
that the hands are clasped in front of the face; it is at any rate clear
in the photograph that one hand at least is raised before the mouth. He
does not occupy the centre of the stone but the side of it, as may be
judged from the short lines of inscription beginning just opposite the
face. He does not fill the whole monument in accordance with the idea
of ‘exclusive majesty’ so common and so dominant in Oriental art; on
the other hand there are three lines of inscription above his head, and
at least one below. We are inclined from these considerations to regard
these fragments as forming part of a much larger whole, on which the
theme was one of adoration, not much unlike that carved on the rocks at
Ivrîz.[443] The resemblance may well be extended, for on comparing the
two priestly or kingly figures many striking features will be found in
common. The most apparent difference is the arrangement of the cloak,
which on the Bor stone is fastened below the throat, while on the Ivrîz
sculpture it is shown to hang more loosely, so that the front edge of the
fringed border trails on the ground. Otherwise the details correspond
closely; in each case the cloak is embroidered in three bands, and
bordered with a fringe. Even the patterns are similar, the _svastika_
appearing on the stone before us in the middle band between two bands
decorated with _diamond_ pattern (or ‘continuous squares’). The skirt
below is even more sumptuously embroidered; in each case the _svastika_
fills the lowest band, and from this hangs a fringe. On the Bor fragment
other elaborate devices are introduced, including the double or quadruple
Ionic curve, and the rosette; an embroidered waistbelt, collar, and shoes
complete the treatment. Other features, less exceptional, conform to the
old conventions: the turning-up points to the shoes, the bunched curl of
hair behind the neck, the skull-cap, and the straightness of the nose.
The beard is full and curly.
[Illustration: PLATE LVI
BOR: HITTITE INSCRIPTION AND RELIEF
The subject is the King-Priest in adoration of a deity whose figure is
missing. Cf. Pl. LVII.]
The inscription commences with two groups of hieroglyphs which may be
read _Ay-mi-ny-a-s of the land of Tyana_.[444] An earlier reading[445] by
the same decipherer suggested _Ai-m-gal-a-s_, corresponding to the royal
name Αινγαλος occurring in Greek inscriptions of Cilicia. However that
may be, and whatever may be the precise values to be assigned to these
hieroglyphs, the initial group which contains the royal name[446] will be
found to recur on the two famous monuments of Bulghar-Madên and Ivrîz.
On the latter, the name appears in one place written exactly in this
instance, and in another place, as at Bulghar-Madên, with a slight and
evidently grammatical variation. This fact throws a welcome light upon
the local history of the period.
Of the other monuments of the locality, the fragment from Andaval—now
hidden in the Greek church of that place—seems from the description given
of it to have been part of a similar monument, or at any rate of a stone
decorated with human figure and inscription.[447] The stone is broken
and rounded, measuring about thirteen inches across. It shows only
the top and back of the head of the figure, with two lines of incised
hieroglyphs above and the beginnings of two lines behind. The hair on
the head is shown by small curls, while behind the neck it falls in the
characteristic bunch. The eye is seen as usual in full upon the profile
of the figure, which is turned to the observer’s right.
The third monument has been found[448] in late years at Nigdeh, where
it was dug out of the foundations of a house. It is round and moulded,
and in all probability formed part of the base of a column or of a
built-up pedestal of some kind. At the bottom there is a protrusion of
stone for attachment, and in the top there is a square-cut socket hole,
of a width equal to about a third of the whole diameter. The mouldings,
which run around the upper edge only, look almost Roman in style. The
inscription[449] upon it is short, occupying a space only twelve inches
by four, and the letters are incised.
The monument of Bulghar-Madên is an inscription in five lines of incised
hieroglyphs.[450] It may be reached by crossing the outlying ridges of
Taurus between Tyana and Bulghar-Madên (a distance of thirty miles), or
by turning from the main road up the valley of the stream which flows at
the foot of the Bulghar Dagh.[451] In either case the monument is found
near the small village of _Ali Hodje_, two miles below Bulghar-Madên, on
the left (or north) bank of the stream; and it is to be reached only by
a sharp climb up the steep side of the valley, a little way above the
village. A guide is necessary, for the inscription is inconspicuous,
and it is carved on an outcrop of brown rock similar to many others in
the locality. The rock overhangs slightly, and is fairly smooth, though
its rough granitic nature renders it difficult to work with ease. The
inscription is in fair preservation, but it has probably never been
deeply or clearly incised. It occupies a space about four feet high and
rather more than six feet wide, and it is divided off from the rock
around by a border-line incised to about the same depth as those which
separate the rows of hieroglyphs. These rows are not all of the same
length, for the two uppermost are shorter on the left hand than the
others, probably on account of a considerable flaw in the stone which
they thus avoid. The top of the inscription is about ten feet from the
ground, so a ladder is desirable in order to study it closely.
It is generally thought that the vicinity of the silver-mines explains
the presence of this inscription. Yet the mines are some four miles
distant, and a more appropriate spot near the entrance to them could
have been readily found. It seems much more probable that this monument,
like the stone upon a pedestal near to Bogche, marks the boundary to a
territory or state, which in this case, for the reason we have indicated,
would be that ruled from Tyana. The general tendency of the reading
given by Professor Sayce,[452] which is remarkably instructive, seems to
confirm this opinion. Thus ‘A prince am I who has fixed the boundaries,’
and again, ‘This is the prince-god’s sacred stone for the land, set up
here, belonging to the boundary.’ It is only fair to say that Professor
Sayce regards his reading in this case as tentative; he also reads the
name of the prince in this case as a ‘son of Ayminyas’ of Tyana; and
there is another compound form of the word which may be taken for ‘the
land of Ayminyas.’
We come, in conclusion, to the monument of Ivrîz,[453] which is best
approached from Tyana or Iconium by way of Eregli,[454] but is also
accessible to the adventurous traveller from Bulghar-Madên by traversing
the rocky snow-flecked ridge that lies between. From Eregli following up
the bed of the Kodja Su the dreary barren plains are left behind, and a
verdant though neglected valley is unfolded. The pathway lies through
old gardens and vineyards and reaches of corn-land; willows line the
waterside, and the country is cheered by a profusion of trees in which
the hazel and chestnut abound, with here and there a great walnut or a
row of poplars. The valley with its singular fertility and beauty is
in marked contrast to the arid tracts beyond, and the change is only
intensified where, leaving the main stream, the pathway follows up,
on the left bank, a richly wooded vale that trends towards the south.
This new valley leads into the mountain, and after a distance of nearly
three miles it comes to an abrupt end where the wall of Taurus is met,
rising almost precipitously, and encircling the head of the glen where
the hamlet of Ivrîz is found. At the foot of the rock a stream of water,
clear and cool, bursts out in tremendous volume, and, supplemented by
other similar sources, becomes in a hundred yards a raging and impassable
torrent, roaring with a wonderful noise as it foams and leaps over the
rocks in its course. Before joining the main stream of the valley it
washes at a bend the foot of a bare rock, upon which from the opposite
side there may be seen the famous sculptures,[455] the most striking of
all known Hittite works, and one of the most imposing monuments of the
ancient East.
The treatment of these sculptures is all in relief. In composition there
are two persons represented: the Peasant-god, a gigantic figure fourteen
feet in height, distinguished by the bunches of grapes and bearded wheat
which he holds, and the King-priest, an heroic figure eight feet in
height, facing towards the god, with clasped hands raised in adoration or
thanksgiving for his bounty.
The god is clad in the short tunic, short-sleeved vest, pointed cap,
and shoes with turned-up toes, characteristic of the godlike figures on
all Hittite sculptures. But here the sculptor has elaborated his theme,
and has worked into it ideas or conceptions which we may reasonably
suspect were derived ultimately from the East through the intermediary
of Cilicia.[456] The figure is squat and stolid, and the face almost
Semitic. The nose, while straight and prominent, is treated with unusual
fulness. The hair is arranged in ringlets, so too the beard, except
upon the face where it is represented by curls.[457] The left hand is
advanced, holding up the ears of corn; while the right one is by the
body, grasping the vine-branch with pendent clusters. The drawing of
the body obeys the ordinary convention; the left leg is advanced, the
head is seen in profile to the left, while the shoulders are squared to
the observer. There are bracelets on the wrists, and the suggestion of
something undetermined upon the right forearm. The belt is decorated
as if of worked leather, and ends in a curl before the body, possibly
suggesting an attachment on the further side. The boots are high, with a
front flap bound to the ankle by a lace wrapped around, like the boots
of the peasantry of the district and of Cilicia in modern times. Perhaps
the most peculiar and Oriental detail is to be found in the horns which
decorate the helmet, of which four pairs are visible. In front of the
right foot is the suggestion of a bolted implement, possibly a plough.
[Illustration: PLATE LVII
IVRÎZ: GIANT SCULPTURES ON THE ROCK
The subject is the King-Priest in adoration of the Hittite god of
cultivation.
From a plaster cast in the Berlin Museum.]
Facing the god, and posed at a higher level (possibly, as in other
examples of eastern art, so that the relative smallness of the figure
would be less apparent), is the figure of the priest-king, who, if we
mistake not the group of hieroglyphs that denote him, is the same that we
have previously met with near Tyana.[458] In general style and in some
details, the treatment of this figure is similar; but the dress differs
in several ways. The priestly skull-cap is surrounded by three decorated
fillets with a knotted ornament of jewels upon the brow. The long skirt
is a richly woven garment, on which the pattern is chiefly a series of
punctuated squares in parallel rows, with a _svastika_ border edged with
a fringe. Over the shoulders there is thrown an embroidered mantle, with
ample collar, attached in front with a jewelled clasp or brooch. It falls
behind to below the knees, while in front the tasselled or fringed ends
trail on the ground. The pattern is arranged in three bands of continuous
squares or double zigzags. There is a substantial necklace and bracelet.
The boots and features and hair are treated as in the god-figure
opposite; perhaps the hair is bunched in this case a little more thickly
behind the neck. The right leg is advanced, and the two raised hands are
clearly clasped before the face, the fingers and nails of the further
hand being carefully represented.
There are three short inscriptions accompanying these figures. In that
which is carved before the face of the god, Professors Sayce[459] and
Jensen both find the name of Sandes in the first line (the W-like sign
below the divided oval that signifies divinity). In the next line, as in
the overlap of the first and second lines of inscription behind the king,
we find the same name (read Ayminyas)[460] as we have previously seen in
the inscriptions of Bor and of Bulghar-Madên. This point is of importance
in considering the history of the Hittite peoples when, as it seems, the
central authority was no longer at Boghaz-Keui. For the date of these
sculptures, if only from their close analogy in treatment to those of
Sakje-Geuzi, may be put down to the tenth or ninth century B.C. It would
seem indeed that we are here drawn into relation with the kingdom of
(Greater) Cilicia, which, with Tyana probably as capital, took the place
of the Hatti-state within the Halys, as the dominant Hittite state at the
beginning of the first millennium B.C.[461]
This point becomes more probable as we dwell upon the religious symbolism
of the monument. As Professor Ramsay has shown, in the muscular toiling
peasant-god who by his hoe and plough reclaims an arid waste and
makes it bounteous, we have a conception of Hercules, and that he was
the recognised chief deity of the district is evident from the name
_Herakleia_ given by the Greeks to Eregli. Professor Frazer also has put
it beyond doubt that the attributes of this Hercules are to be found
in Sandon of Tarsus. Now the prototype of Sandon we shall find in the
national Son-god (later Attis) portrayed in the sculpture gallery of
Boghaz-Keui,[462] and in this way we are linked at once with the older
Hittite mythology through the intermediary of the Cilician.
IV
THE NORTHERN CAPITAL
A DESCRIPTION OF PTERIA, THE ANCIENT CITY AT BOGHAZ-KEUI, AND THE
SCULPTURES CALLED IASILY KAYA.
PART I.
Fundamental though they are to our inquiry, the isolated monuments which
have been reviewed in the preceding chapter illustrate only certain
aspects of Hittite art, and disclose only incidentally a few details
of features, dress, and armour, with some suggestion of religious
observances and customs. Their disposition, it is true, helps us to
determine the confines of the land we have set forth to examine; but
their _provenance_ tells us little or nothing of where and how the people
lived who fashioned them. Nevertheless, just as these were the first
materials from which scholars have little by little created a science of
Hittite studies, so we may employ them most fittingly as the criteria for
our further investigation; that we may examine, with minds prepared, the
more coherent evidences of the Hittite civilisation, as disclosed by the
ruins of their cities and fortifications, their sanctuaries, and their
palaces adorned with mystic sculptures.
Such places are few indeed; but our knowledge of them is chiefly the
result of recent scientific expeditions, and is therefore the surer and
more precise.[463] The published accounts enable us to select four
sites, which happily afford material for a comparative study. Two of
these, Eyuk and Boghaz-Keui, are towards the north of Asia Minor,[464]
within the wide circuit of the Halys; while the other two are found below
the Taurus at Sinjerli and Sakje-Geuzi in the north of Syria.[465] Three
of these, moreover, are sites superficially similar, being small walled
towns placed on considerable mounds, which contain also the remains of
palace buildings decorated with peculiar sculptures. The fourth, which
covers the hilltop above the village of Boghaz-Keui, is of vastly greater
extent, and includes in its remains many peculiarities not represented
by the others. It has with some certainty been identified[466] with the
Pteria (or Ptara) across the Halys which, according to Herodotus,[467]
fell about 550 B.C. before Crœsus of Lydia, who found it in possession
of a ‘Syro-Cappadocian’ population whom he reduced to servitude.[468]
It has also for some time been linked with the Hittites in the minds of
scholars, both by the nature of the art its ruins illustrate, and by the
doubtful hieroglyphic inscription on the rock called Nishan Tash,[469]
and more particularly by the clear hieroglyphs associated with the
neighbouring sculptures of Iasily Kaya. Recently Dr. Winckler has added
to these links two building-stones decorated with sculptures and with
hieroglyphs[470] in the familiar Hittite style; and has finally riveted
the chain of evidence by the discovery in the ruins of an early palace of
numerous inscribed tablets of brick inscribed in cuneiform characters,
which prove to be from the archives of Hatti kings, including fragments
of diplomatic correspondence with the Pharaohs of Egypt and other
Oriental potentates in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries B.C. It
seems clear, then, that for several centuries at least the ancient city
of this place was the centre of Hittite power and civilisation. In an
earlier chapter[471] we have shown reason to believe that the decline
of this power is traceable to an early movement of a people akin to the
Phrygians, in the twelfth century B.C. We do not know as yet to what
extent the city suffered at their hands, if at all, or indeed during the
later struggles with Assyria. The palace of the fourteenth century B.C.,
however, would seem to have been in ruins some two or three hundred years
later when it was rebuilt.[472] The visible remains of the city, some of
which possibly belong to this period of revival, present no evidence of
any striking changes in the art they typify, and we may assume that they
represent to us the Hittite handiwork, or at least the direct survival
of Hittite art, down to the period of Phrygian domination in the eighth
century B.C., if not to the final overthrow and depopulation of the city
at the hands of Crœsus. These ruins thus claim our first consideration.
Fortunately for the preservation of these remains the village of
Boghaz-Keui lies just below the boundaries of the ancient site, and is
also a day’s journey from the nearest modern towns of any importance,
namely, Yuzghat and Sungurlu. In ancient times, however, the place
seems to have been connected by a system of engineered roads with other
portions of the country. The royal road which traversed Phrygia,[473]
linking, it is supposed, by the Hermus valley with Sardis and the
west, held on towards the Halys[474] without other apparent objective
than to approach this city. To the south also a similar royal road has
been traced for miles,[475] scouring the surface rocks northwards from
Injesu (near Cæsarea), leading towards a ford of the Halys near to
Bogche. The Persian posts from east to west are credited with having
followed this northern route, although the direct road from Carchemish
to Ephesus or Smyrna, whether by way of the Cilician Gates or by one
of the passes leading down on Cæsarea, did not need to approach, much
less to cross, the Halys river at all. It is indeed possible that the
earliest continuation of the route passed eastward by the valley of the
Tochma Su,[476] while a northern objective may be found in the old-time
importance of Sinope as seaport. These considerations however, only
increase the importance of Boghaz-Keui as the focus of the system.
Nowadays, as we have seen,[477] the main routes run differently,
adapting themselves to changed conditions, and the place which was once
the apparent centre of all activities in the interior is now without
economic interest, a wonderful memorial of the past.
The position chosen for this city was one of considerable natural
strength. Its walls surround the broad top of an outlying hill which is
connected with the watershed lying to the south only by the high ground
in that direction. On either side it is cut off by the steep valleys of
two mountain-streams flowing northward, which meet just below the modern
village. These in turn are fed by small tributaries from just behind the
hill, which is thus almost enclosed. From the point where these rise
the fall is about a thousand feet to the confluence of the main streams
two miles away; and though the descent of the latter is necessarily
more gradual, they are still very rapid, and in the winter are foaming
torrents. That on the eastern side in particular, the Beuyuk Kayanin,
has by its force worn down its rocky bed so deeply that where it passes
by the eastern knoll of the citadel, called Beuyuk Kaleh, its banks have
become precipitous cliffs requiring little or no artificial defence.[478]
The Yazîr Daresi, on the western side, flows through more alluvial
ground, and has there scooped for itself a gorge, in the steep bank of
which the harder rocks are left protruding, thus rendering an assault
uninviting on that side also. The engineers who planned the defence
utilised the natural advantages of the position, banking up the slopes,
and bringing their wall wherever practicable to the edges of the rocks,
in which all possible footholds were filled up with masonry.
[Illustration: PLATE LVIII
BOGHAZ-KEUI: SITE OF PTERIA, THE NORTHERN CAPITAL OF THE HITTITES
Beuyuk Kaleh. Sary Kaleh. Yenije Kaleh. The Maiden’s Rock. B. Kayanin
Daresi. The Lower Palace.
The Acropolis covered the whole hill; the line of ancient ramparts forms
the horizon on the right. (_See pp. 32, 200._)]
On the north side, where the line of defence is less clear, the ground
is broken by a third small stream, the Kizlar Kaya Daresi, which rises
within the circuit of the wall in the high ground of the acropolis, and
now joins the Yazîr in the modern village at its foot. On the level
ground, near this junction, there are the traces of an ancient rampart;
but the line of natural defence being somewhat higher, it may reasonably
be suspected that the enclosure was at some time extended in this
direction, possibly in order to include the Lower Palace. However that
may be, the really vulnerable point would seem to have been by way of
the higher ground to the south, and here the artificial protection was
stronger in proportion. The wall seems to have been built on this side
upon a rampart revetted with stone, which in its turn followed the line
of a natural ridge in the ground, giving an almost impregnable appearance
to the enormous mass of the defensive works. So high is this mound that a
narrow subterranean way was constructed through it, giving access to the
interior.
The ground within, which we call the acropolis, is the flat top of the
hill, around which the wall forms approximately three sides of a hexagon
(omitting the northern portion which descends, as we have seen, to a
lower level). The length of the wall upon the acropolis is about one and
a half miles, and the greatest width across from east to west is about
three-quarters of a mile. The whole circuit of the defences, including
the lower portion, is about three miles and a half; while the greatest
length from north to south upon the plan is about one mile and a quarter,
of which about half lies on the upper level.
The city wall, though built without mortar, was constructed in such a
way that it is still traceable continuously around the acropolis, and
is preserved in many places to a height of twelve feet or more. It has
an average thickness of about fourteen feet, made up of an inner and
outer facing each about four feet thick, padded with a core of stone
between. The outer face was especially strong, consisting of large
stones sometimes as much as five feet in length (but averaging from two
feet six inches at the bottom to one foot towards the top), dressed
so as to fit cleanly together, with a preference for an approximately
rectangular or five-sided form. The masonry was laid in courses as far
as practicable with such material, but was liable to be interrupted
by a stone larger than usual, or from other cause. Indeed, in some of
the inner walls, where the masonry is less massive though similar in
character, large stones have been inserted at intervals as a bond and to
give general stability. The contour of the wall was further strengthened
by buttresses or extra-mural towers, placed at intervals which varied
according to the situation, averaging about a hundred feet apart. These
do not seem to have been designed from principles of defence, but solely
as architectural supports.[479]
[Illustration: PLATE LIX
BOGHAZ-KEUI: GORGE OF THE BEUYUK KAYANIN DARESI
On the left, Beuyuk Kaleh. (_See p. 200._)]
Some of the original doorways leading through the wall seem to have been
extremely small, not more than three feet in width. The subway under
the southern rampart is also very narrow, but this was possibly a later
addition. Its exit is a plain doorway, four feet wide, built of three
granite blocks arranged as jambs and lintel; inside, the passage has
a width of about five feet at the bottom, and is lined with stones in
triangular arrangement, with the apex six feet from the floor. It is of
interest to compare the principle of vaulting under pressure illustrated
by its construction with the system of counterpoise employed in the
arches of the larger gateways. These again may have been added since the
original inception of the wall. In the vicinity of the Lion-gate, at any
rate, the regular courses of the outer masonry give way at the corners,
and in their place an arrangement of fitted stones, shaped to receive
the corners and eccentricities of their neighbours, recalls the bonding
of the palace walls in the lower portion of the interior. This may of
course have been a deliberate original variation designed to strengthen
the corners where the recess for the gate intervenes; and it is also
obvious that some gateway wide enough to admit a cart or chariot must
have been necessary at the beginning. Such, however, we are inclined to
see in the unsculptured entrance, of similar character but smaller size,
called Eshuk Tash, on the south-east of the town. The architectural
principle, however, is in each case much the same, and maybe studied
in the photograph of the Lion-gate itself.[480] This entrance is set
back thirteen feet from the road, with an approach twenty feet across,
narrowing to a clear space of thirteen feet between the jambs of the
gateway. These main supports are of great size and weight; and while
tending towards one another in a gentle curve as they rise, are so shaped
and bonded to the wall that they stand in solid equilibrium. The height
of these single stones is about twelve feet, and in the other gate
mentioned about eleven feet. The latter illustrates more clearly the
upper structure, in which the pointed arch was brought to its completion
by repetition of the same principle of counterpoise. Each of the upper
stones projected towards the other, while overhanging sufficiently in
the opposite direction to retain its balance singly. Further details are
not preserved, but the faces of these also must have been dressed to
the curve of the arch, and if they did not approach one another close
enough to touch, then the arch must have been completed by a fifth stone
placed over all, as is indeed suggested in the case of the Eshuk Tash. In
this way we gain a minimum height for the gateway, without superficial
structure, of fifteen or sixteen feet. As the arch was repeated within
at a distance of twenty-five feet, it is probable that the two spans
supported a chamber or sentry-walk continuous with the parapet. Probably
the mass of masonry to left and right indicates a guard-chamber flanking
the approach on either side, in the well-known style later adopted by
Roman engineers and finally transmitted to mediæval architecture.
We have dealt somewhat lengthily with the elementary details of this
stronghold, but none the less deliberately; for the contemplation of
this mass of masonry and the details of its execution is rewarded by an
insight, which perhaps no other monument discloses, into the solidarity,
power, skill and resource of the people whom it has so long survived.
The famous Lions which guard this entrance are further witness to the
standard of their civilisation, and are among the brightest products of
their art. That on the right hand, which is almost perfectly preserved,
illustrates a wealth of detail which the somewhat distant photograph does
not show. The appropriate boldness and realism of the design, however,
are manifest. This fashion of adorning the gateways, particularly
with lions, as also at Sinjerli, Marash, and Sakje-Geuzi, is further
paralleled by the sphinxes of Eyuk, and to some extent by the monstrous
emblems in relief warding off trespassers from the inner gallery at
Iasily Kaya.[481] In another gateway of the same character on this
acropolis, Professor Winckler’s excavations have disclosed a high relief
of a being clad in the Hittite tunic, shoes and hat, supposed at the time
to represent a king,[482] but since recognised as a female warrior or
Amazon.
[Illustration: PLATE LX
BOGHAZ-KEUI: THE LION GATE]
The outer wall was not the only defensive work which the advantages
of the site afforded. Across the enclosure are a series of prominent
crags overlooking the lower ground to the north, and marking by their
alignment the edge of the acropolis which gives access to them.[483] One
may be tempted to presuppose, as indeed we have already suggested, that
these indicate a line of earlier defences and the natural limits of an
earlier city situated entirely upon the hill. They were crowned with
rectangular forts, built of square blocks of masonry arranged in courses,
and constituted in any case a formidable second line of defence against
attack from below. That which is called Yenije Kaleh is illustrated by
our photograph:[484] its position is not naturally so strong, however, as
that of the middle of the three forts of this series, which presents a
precipitous face to the northern side. The largest of these knolls—hence
called Beuyuk Kaleh—is to the east, and overlooks the gorge of the river
on that side.[485] To the north, however, where the slope descends to the
lower part of the enclosure on which lie the famous palace ruins, it is
less abrupt, and it has been fronted accordingly with a stout buttressed
wall, built of large stones roughly pentagonal or squared, the lowest
courses of which are from two to three feet in height.
Hereabouts, in the dip between the two forts last described, is the
weathered rock inscription known as Nishan Tash.[486] Descending thence
to the lower ground, following the course of the stream which flows
through the middle of the enclosure, two further rocks arrest attention
by the fact that they have been worked by hand. The first of these is
called the Maiden’s Rock, and has given its Turkish name of Kizlar
Kaya to the stream which passes just below it. Though of considerable
dimensions, this rock, besides being dressed around the sides and
worked down squarely in two places in the body, has been cleanly cut
across the top with the exception of a small table-like protuberance
remaining towards one end. The other, which lies still further down
and nearer to the Lower Palace, has been cleft in two, to form as it
were a passage through it from side to side. It would be unsafe without
evidence to suggest any definite use for these rocks in ancient times,
and it is possible that their peculiarities may have resulted only from
the quarrying of the stone blocks used for the Lower Palace or other
buildings of the site.
[Illustration: PLATE LXI
BOGHAZ-KEUI: THE FORTRESS CALLED YENIJE-KALEH (_See p. 205._)
BOGHAZ-KEUI: REMAINS OF THE LOWER PALACE]
We use the term Lower Palace to designate the foundations made famous
by the visit of Texier,[487] and the later descriptions of Professor
Perrot,[488] in distinction to those more recently discovered by Dr.
Winckler on the Upper Acropolis, where the ruins of four such buildings
were found, of which three were probably palaces and the fourth a
temple.[489] The lower courses of the first-mentioned palace, however,
are visible above the ground, so that its plan may be readily traced
out; and whether to be identified as palace or as a temple, it presents
an interesting study, and a peculiar link between the architecture of
the East and West.[490] As may be seen in our photograph,[491] that
which remains of it is built in large single blocks of stone about four
feet in thickness and averaging twice that measure in length. Its form
is rectangular, with a length just over two hundred and ten feet down
the main axis, and a width of one hundred and twenty-eight feet. Its
chief entrance is in the middle of the southern side, and, passing small
guard-rooms on either hand, it leads into a large central court, around
which are chambers, a double series at the ends and a single series at
the sides. To the north and to the west a passage or corridor intervenes
between the court and the rooms: that on the north seems to have been
entered by an opening opposite the main entrance, and one chamber (across
the passage and to the left) is filled by a large tank or bath of stone.
These portions of the building may be judged to have been residential,
while the front and east wings were devoted to offices of the palace.
There are few further features of the interior obvious to the eye except
the size and arrangement of the rooms, on which we do not need to dwell.
The central court is paved with rough stones[492] at a depth of three
feet below the present surface, a depth which probably accords with the
foundations of the walls and with the ancient level.
The sloping ground to the north was prepared for this building by a stone
revetment mounting in steps; and special precautions were taken against
slipping in the bonding of the masonry on that side. Not only are the
stones of the upper courses shaped to fit into one another in a scheme
of ‘joggles,’ resembling ‘tongues and grooves,’ to borrow a term better
known, but the lower course is provided with a ridge rising along its
front edges, which further prevented any general movement of the whole in
that direction. As for the upper part of this structure, it is for the
excavators to decide whether it was carried up in masonry, of which there
remains no visible trace, or whether it was of wood and brick, as in the
Hittite palaces across the Taurus. The level nature of the preserved
masonry, and certain features pointed out by Perrot,[493] suggest that
the latter method was employed here also, as is indeed supported by
observations made by Dr. Curtius in one of the upper buildings recently
discovered in the acropolis.[494]
To judge by the foundations disclosed at a greater depth by Dr.
Winckler’s expedition, the palace which we have just described seems to
mark the site of an earlier and somewhat similar building, in the ruins
of which were found numerous precious tablets inscribed in the cuneiform
script. These are long-lost pages in the history of monarchs, of empires
and principalities in Western Asia, and as such their relevance lies with
a later chapter of our work. That which is important for the moment is
the fundamental date they give, overlapping in part the eighteenth and
nineteenth dynasties of Egypt, and coming to an end shortly after the
reign of Rameses II. in the thirteenth century B.C.
[Illustration: PLATE LXII
BOGHAZ-KEUI: BIRD’S-EYE VIEW OF THE LOWER PALACE
With the modern village beyond.]
We have no published means of estimating, from this source or otherwise,
the history of the development of this ancient capital. But some
conjectures, as a working hypothesis, may be made from the probabilities
of the case with this date as a basis, awaiting meanwhile further
illumination from Dr. Winckler and his colleagues. In the first place,
as to the date of the main fortifications, though the period of empire
is not often the time of building home defences, yet in this case the
deliberate and vast nature of the outer walls conveys no impression
of a stricken people hastening to defend themselves, nor even of
precipitation. The scheme and details are carried out with dignity,
thoroughness, and elaboration. It was the product of a prosperous age,
dictated by prudence rather than immediate conscious necessity. Yet
the pride of Hittite power soon passed; even while treating on equal
terms with the courts of Thebes and Babylon, the shadow of the Assyrian
armies already clouded the eastern horizon; and the menace of barbarian
northern hordes was probably ever present, particularly as their
offensive powers weakened. It may safely be supposed that their city
must have been prepared against assault at any rate before the inroads
of the Phrygian Muski, in the twelfth century B.C. And secondly, with
regard to the palace just considered, built as it is upon the ruins of
one which flourished in the time of Rameses the Great, it represents
a reconstruction and re-establishment of royal state at some time
subsequent. As to the date of this revival there is little evidence. From
the plan of the palace it may be conjectured to have preceded any wide
spreading of Assyrian influences; and from our own observations it was
probably contemporary with a certain class of coloured pottery, which at
Sakje-Geuzi[495] was already passing out of vogue at the beginning of the
first millennium B.C. Upon this point it is interesting to notice that
the difference of axial direction between this and the buried palace,
namely, 2½°, would, if astronomically dictated, suggest a difference of
date amounting to about two hundred and thirty years,[496] assigning the
period of restoration to the eleventh century B.C.
Doubtless some clear evidence will be forthcoming with the progress of
excavations; for the present we can only pay due regard to the few items
of circumstantial evidence that are available. The absence of visible
sculptures on the façade of the building, in contrast with the buildings
of Eyuk, Sinjerli, and Sakje-Geuzi, is curiously significant. That phase
of motive seems to be reflected rather in the two sculptured stones
already mentioned as recently found somewhat further up the slope of
Beuyuk Kaleh, at the foot of which the palace stands.[497] Two sculptured
lions indeed are found lying in close proximity to the lower palace,
those which were supposed by Texier and Perrot[498] to be the arms of a
throne, but are now shown[499] to be the end ornaments of a tank, with
a similar pair on the opposite side. These correspond both in style
and in details of art with the lions guarding the palace entrance at
Sakje-Geuzi,[500] which may be dated with some security to the tenth or
ninth century B.C. If then the lions of Boghaz-Keui can be shown to have
organic relation to the palace in the precincts of which they lie, then a
basis for solution to the problem is obtained, and the date depends upon
the range of time during which such sculptures were in vogue. But if, on
the other hand, this tank was an addition to the palace, and of later
date, as its partly exposed situation, above the level of the palace
floor, suggests, then the palace is of earlier date, preceding the period
when such sculptured lions were in fashion, a conclusion which our other
considerations seem to justify. Incidentally we arrive at a possible date
for certain sculptures of like kind, as the lion of Eyuk, and possibly
the Lion Gateway of the acropolis.
[Illustration: PLATE LXIII
BOGHAZ-KEUI: CAMP AT THE FOOT OF BEUYUK KALEH
BOGHAZ-KEUI: THE SANCTUARY OF IASILY KAYA
View of the sculptures on the left side from within.]
In conclusion we tentatively summarise the present possibilities of local
development, which any new item of evidence may profoundly modify:
1350-1300 B.C. Period of the earlier lower palace.
1300-1200 ” Main fortifications built, _temp._ Hattusil.
1200-1100 ” First Phrygian invasions.
1100-1000 ” Lower palace reconstructed.
1000-850 ” Period of Lion-sculptures.
850-700 ” Phrygian domination.
700-600 ” Cimmerians.
_Circa_ 550 ” Fall before Crœsus.
PART II.—THE ROCK SCULPTURES CALLED IASILY KAYA.
The far-famed sculptures named by the Turks simply ‘Inscribed Rock’
are at a distance of about two miles eastward from the village of
Boghaz-Keui. They are not easy to locate. After leaving the village and
crossing the river opposite the lower palace, a footpath rises steeply
to the plateau about six hundred feet above, meeting the roadway, which
skirts the base of this knoll on its northern side, about a mile further
on, where it turns southwards towards Yuzghat. The ancient city is no
longer visible, and there are few landmarks of special character. To
the north-west a number of rolling valleys unfold themselves, while the
gently rising ground to the north-east is partly corn-land and partly
green pasture, splashed as it rises to its crest with dark scrub, and
broken here and there with bare limestone rocks; a typical view of an
Asiatic highland.
The sculptures are found in one of these masses of rock, which is not
the largest or most conspicuous of the series, nor distinguishable in
any general way. Its chief attraction of old was probably the natural
facility which certain irregularities in its formation afforded to the
purpose in view. Towards its west side there is a recess about thirty
yards deep, which opens towards the south-west on to a broad grassy
terrace. The entrance to this rocky chamber, so far as it concerns us,
may be reckoned about seventeen yards wide. Its walls are irregular
with projections, especially on the right hand, but on the whole they
draw gradually together until separated by only six or seven yards at a
distance of about six yards from the end. The farther portion is more
regular in shape, widening slightly, so that the inner face opposite the
entrance is about eight yards in width. This being the largest plane
surface and placed suitably in the depth of the recess, it was prepared
for the central group of sculptures, which are on a scale proportionate
to the relative dignity of the personages they represent. For the rest,
the sides were dressed in short lengths of two or three yards, following
the windings of the rock, in a more or less continuous band about three
feet high. Though the stone was prepared, the smooth surface must have
been fashioned in clearing away the backgrounds of the sculptures, which
are throughout in relief and in the peculiar Hittite style.
[Illustration: PLATE LXIV
BOGHAZ-KEUI: GENERAL VIEW OF THE LARGER RECESS IN THE SANCTUARY OF IASILY
KAYA
Notice on the corner of projecting rock to the right the traces of the
representation of a Ceremonial Feast. (_See p. 226._)]
At the outset it may be noticed that the motive of these sculptures
seems to be commemorative or emblematic rather than decorative: they are
also extremely weathered, being protected only from the violence of the
wind from certain quarters, and not at all from the rain; so that little
need be said as to the artistic composition of the whole, or the details
of its execution. The design, in brief, represents two processions of
beings which meet in the middle (on the inner wall facing the entrance
south). On the right the figures, with two exceptions, are those of robed
females. On the left the persons represented are chiefly male,[501] but
include two females, and are interspersed with certain winged beings of
mythological character, and a group of two monstrosities which have not
been explained. Hittite hieroglyphs and emblems accompany many of the
figures, which are further identified by certain recognisable details of
dress and weapons.
Our chief interest centres naturally in the significance or symbolism
of the leading figures of these processions—those which are carved on
the short wall opposite to the opening: the relative importance of these
is made clearer by a preliminary glance at those which follow in their
trains.[502] The main figures on the left hand are forty-three in number,
of which the first stands upon the shoulders of two others, bringing the
total number on that side to forty-five. The leader is a godlike figure
nearly seven feet high, clad in short tunic and shoes with turned-up
toes. His left leg is forward and his left arm is advanced; the right
arm is drawn back, and, the face being in profile to the left, we have
here an illustration of the convention familiar also in Egyptian drawing,
whereby the front view of the upper part of the body is seen, while the
head and limbs are reproduced in profile. Only in the sculptures before
us we see, whether as an illusion caused by the softening hand of Time,
or whether by the deliberate treatment of the Hittite sculptor, an
infinitely greater freedom, fulness, and suggestion of life imparted to
the figure than we are wont to find in Egyptian funereal sculptures and
temple decorations, notwithstanding the masterly skill with which the
latter may have been executed. The right hand of this figure grasps the
handle of a large round mace which rests upon his shoulder, and a dirk
with crescent-shaped handle hangs at his left side, presumably from a
girdle. Upon his head there is the tall conical head-dress of the Hittite
peoples, though differing slightly from the ordinary representations in
that the vertical ribs or flutings of this hat are connected by rings,
in suggestion of metal work.[503] In the treatment of this feature the
sculptor has realised our own convention of perspective, never adopted
by the Egyptians, in the diminishing distances between the ribs receding
round the sides. The hair at the back was dressed in a long pigtail, the
curling end of which is seen behind the elbow. The face seems to have
been bearded, and it is suggested, but not clear, that a large earring
hung from the lower lobe of the ear. The outstretched left hand holds a
three-pronged emblem and sign towards the advancing figure to which it is
opposed, the two figures being balanced in the composition of the group.
Behind each is a small horned animal, presumably a goat, capped with the
plain conical hat upon its head, and with the forepart and legs advancing
beyond the body of the main figure. The two beings which support the
figure just described wear long robes, bound by a girdle at the waist,
and seemingly fringed or bordered round the bottom of the skirt. Their
clasped hands are raised before their bearded chins, and their heads are
slightly bowed in a natural pose of reverence or adoration. Their hats
are similar to that just described, but seem to be flexible, bending
forwards towards the tip in response to the inclination of the heads;
while lower down there is something projecting, possibly the brim of the
hat upturned, but rather more suggestive of the royal _uraeus_ as in the
crown of ancient Egypt.[504]
[Illustration: PLATE LXV
BOGHAZ-KEUI: THE CENTRAL SCULPTURES IN THE LARGE RECESS AT IASILY KAYA
God with sword. Chief god with lightning-emblem. Mother-goddess.
Son-god. Twin goddesses of the double eagle.]
The figure which follows, though somewhat smaller in stature, would seem
to have considerable importance, being raised on two tall flat-topped
pinnacles, so that his head is on a level with the others of this group.
In details of pose, costume, and armour, this figure resembles that which
precedes it, except that in the left hand a long sword with flat hilt is
held aloft, and the emblems which denote his rank are placed between the
sword and hat. The girdle also is plain in this instance, and the left
elbow seems to rest upon a staff. A third figure follows, on this wall,
but is not shown in our photograph. It is in an exposed corner, and most
of the detail is lost, but it may be seen to resemble the foregoing,
though the emblem held in the left hand seems to differ considerably,
being of feather-like appearance. The right leg also, which is behind as
in all other cases in this scene, may be designedly hidden by the fold of
a cloak descending to the ankle.
Turning now to the left-hand wall, the fourth figure resembles again the
leader of the procession, though on the smaller scale, being only three
feet in height. The fifth is altogether different in character. The
shoes, pigtail, and earrings are repeated; the hat also is the common
one without the rings; but the long shirt or cloak has curious oblique
curving folds, and it trains somewhat behind the right leg. The left toe
alone is visible, and the front edge of the robe is seen as far forward
as the elbow, obviously descending from the shoulder. Most conspicuous
of all are a pair of narrow wings rising from behind the shoulders well
above the top of the head.[505] The objects held by the hands cannot now
be recognised.
Then follow two female figures, clad in long pleated skirts like the
figures in the opposite procession. A belt encircles the waist of each,
but it is not clear whether the upper part of the body is bare or clad
in a tight-fitting garment; the breasts in any case are visible. The
head-dress is not plain; if a cap is worn it must fit closely, while the
hair or wig ends in large distinct curls above the shoulder. The left
hands are not visible, but the right hands fall by the side, holding
by their handles in a reversed position a curved object not very clear,
but which in the rear figure forms a complete disk, suggestive of the
Egyptian mirror.[506] The eighth figure, like the fifth, is winged; and
horns, or a crescent, are conspicuous in the hat, but other details are
obscure. The ninth is clearer and of great interest. The robe, however,
is like a toga, with a tight sleeve to the right arm, and the loose end
flung over the left shoulder, as on certain figures at Eyuk. A dirk is
by the side as before, but in the right hand there appears a new object
in the long curving lituus held reversed. Above the outstretched left
hand is a group of three signs, which may be recognised as a crescent,
a feather or star-like object, and above them the divided oval which
accompanies all such devices.[507] The face is beardless, and the cap
is close-fitting to the skull. Above the head is a composite emblem, in
which the main elements are a rosette surrounded by a horseshoe-shaped
device recalling the shape of the wig on the Eyuk Sphinx,[508] and
reminiscent of the so-called Hathor head-dress of the Egyptian monuments.
The whole is supported by large outspread wings, bound at intervals,
and turning slightly upwards at the ends. This figure closely resembles
the larger one opposite to it, the isolated twenty-second figure on the
right,[509] which is described below.
The six figures just described fill the left-hand wall of the inner
part of the enclosure. The rock now breaks away somewhat sharply, and
the next length is decorated with nine figures on a somewhat smaller
scale. Five of these are similar to one another.[510] Their costume
includes the short-belted tunic, the conical ribbed hat with rings, and
the shoe with upturned toe; and the pose of figures is as previously
detailed. The pigtail is suggested in some cases, though the chins are
beardless. No weapons are discernible, but each carries in his right hand
an object like a sickle or scimitar, which is supported by the right
shoulder. A group of emblems or signs precedes each figure, varying
in each case. Two other figures of the nine differ only slightly from
this model; the one[511] in having apparently a long cloak which partly
covers the right leg, in addition to the tunic; and the other[512] in
the appearance of a wing rising from the left shoulder, a cap of closer
fit, and no object over the right shoulder; but these three distinctions
may be illusions due to the weathering of the stone. With regard to the
remaining pair,[513] however, there is an utterly different _motif_.
These two are nearly alike, and together form a group of monstrous
character. The arms and body of each are human, the legs are those of a
quadruped, and the head, with feline ears, is also that of an animal. To
the right-hand figure a tail is added, while each is represented with a
pigtail. The left-hand figure wears a short plain skirt. The arms of both
are upraised, and bracelets may be detected on the wrists; they support
an object of crescental form, near the lower edge of which are folds or
ridges. The pair are placed symmetrically upon an object (possibly a
wine-press[514]) oblong in form with two rod-like handles projecting from
each side, equally difficult to describe as to explain. It is possible
that monkeys are intended by this group, but if so, the animal was
unfamiliar to the artist; it is more probable that they represent some
composite mythological creature of the imagination.
[Illustration: PLATE LXVI
BOGHAZ-KEUI: GROUP OF TWO MONSTROUS FIGURES STANDING POSSIBLY ON A
WINE-PRESS
In the large recess at Iasily Kaya.]
The three figures following this pair have been described, and with
them the second straight length of wall comes to an end. The next bend
is inwards, and the wall becomes nearly parallel to the axis of the
chamber, containing in this length nine further figures. The leaders[515]
are similar in general appearance to those which precede them, though
the object carried on the shoulder may be thought to resemble rather
the mace carried by the head of the whole procession. The same may be
said of two others[516] of this series, but the condition of the stone
is too bad to enable much detail to be gathered. In regard to the pair
between these,[517] no objects are now visible in their hands, while
their costumes also show some difference of detail. The one seems to have
a long cloak, or possibly a staff, hanging from the arm, while the robe
of the other is striped horizontally over the left leg. The third figure
of the group[518] is peculiar; the arms seem to be thrown forward, with
a cloak or long staff hanging down from below the shoulder, while the
hat also is inclined slightly forward. A horn or peak to the hat is also
traceable. The two last of this series[519] resemble rather the type of
the figures supporting the leader of the procession, both as regards
costume, position of the hands, and the curving forward of the hat, even
though the heads are not inclined as in the earlier instance quoted.
There next follow, on a short return of the wall, three figures[520]
which we found too weathered to describe, though two of them have been
represented by earlier visitors as bearded and wearing embroidered
robes. The next and last turn of the wall, which now resumes its main
parallel direction, is occupied by thirteen figures, of which the
first[521] seems to be a robed and bearded figure of the kind indicated
by those two which precede it. It stands apart from those which follow;
so too do the next two, though not so far, while the remaining ten
figures[522] are close together. These twelve figures are all alike, clad
in tunics, conical hats, and tip-tilted shoes. They carry no weapons, and
their right feet are partly raised, touching the ground only with the
toes, as in the act of running, which is suggested also by the position
of the arms, drawn up at the double, and to some extent by the poise of
the bodies. These figures also, unlike the rest, are not in procession
but in line, for the right elbows and right feet of the more advanced
are hidden by those which are shown behind them, and the left hands of
the latter partly hide the former—a convention of perspective adopted
freely by Egyptian artists also, and repeated in an inner gallery which
has yet to be described. This completes the series of sculptures on the
left.[523]
[Illustration: BOGHAZ-KEUI: PLAN OF THE ROCK SANCTUARY CALLED IASILY
KAYA, WITH THE POSITIONS OF THE SCULPTURES NUMBERED.]
This series of sculptures finds its counterpart in those upon the
opposite side of the recess, which being less numerous, and for the
most part like one another, are more readily described. The figures are
twenty-two in number, of which only two are male; they are represented
likewise in procession, but approaching in the opposite direction with
their faces turned consequently to the observer’s left. The leading
figure, which is opposed to the godlike figure just described, is
likewise of majestic stature. She stands upon the back of a panther,
which in turn is poised upon four low flat-topped pedestals (or
‘mountains’). She is clad in a long pleated skirt with train and
waistbelt; the upper part of the body seems to be bare or clothed in a
tight-fitting garment, and the female breast is suggested in the fulness
of the bust below the outstretched arm. Her head-dress is the ‘mural
crown,’ an upright flat-topped bonnet with vertical supports.[524] Her
long plait of hair and turned-up shoes are conspicuous. Both arms are
forward; with her left hand she holds a long staff on which she partly
leans, and with her right she proffers certain special emblems,[525]
which almost touch those held out by the male figure which meets her.
To complete the balance of composition, the forepart of a goat with a
conical cap upon his head, protrudes from behind her dress also.
[Illustration: PLATE LXVII
BOGHAZ-KEUI: ONE OF THE FEMALE FIGURES OF THE RIGHT-HAND SERIES IN THE
LARGE RECESS AT IASILY KAYA (_See p. 224._)]
The figure that follows, though smaller, is none the less striking and
important. It represents a boy or beardless man, with curling pigtail,
in the now familiar costume, consisting of short tunic, shoes with toes
upturned, and a conical fluted hat. He also stands upon the back of a
panther, which differs only from the former in the position of its tail,
which is held up while the other is kept low.[526] With his outstretched
right hand he clasps the upper end of a staff, and in his left he holds
an axe with double head,[527] the offensive edges of which are curved.
A short dagger with semicircular handle hangs by the belt, but worn in
this case on the right side, doubtless at the discretion of the artist,
so as to avoid breaking the contour of the figure. The symbol which seems
to denote his name is the lower part of the body and legs of a small
being clad in the same fashion as the figure itself, under the usual oval
emblem.
Behind are two female figures, which in all respects resemble that which
heads this series, except that they are smaller, and the emblems above
their right hands are different. These sculptures are comparatively
well preserved, being in a corner sheltered somewhat from the weather.
Their headgear, staves, long plaits (or shawls) down their backs, and
turned-up shoes, are particularly clear. They form a pair, standing as
though supported by a double-headed eagle with outspread wings.[528] The
heads of the eagle face in opposite directions, and the wings, which are
turned upwards towards the tips, are represented, as in a previous case,
by lateral lines bound by vertical bands on each side. An interesting
addition to the design is in the horseshoe-shaped device,[529] the ends
of which only, however, are seen, as though placed over the back behind
the wings: they descend as a thin line on each side of the body and curl
outwards at the level of the top of the legs. The legs of the eagle are
wide apart, and the talons are in the position of resting on something
flat which is not represented.[530] This completes the sculptures on the
main frontage. The figures which follow, as far as the twenty-first, are
nearly alike, and closely resemble the female figures just described.
They all stand, however, on the level; their left hands are upraised
towards the face, and the staff which seems to be held by their right
hands is clearly seen to curve away towards the top. The eighteenth
figure is distinguished by obliquity of the pleats in the skirt, but
it falls none the less naturally into the series. It may be said also
that in not one of these figures is there clear proof preserved that
earrings were worn, though the suggestion is present in several cases.
Their height averages two feet eight inches. Two are found in the recess
formed by the return of the wall to the right, and there is space for
a third on the weathered surface of the rock. Seven others follow in a
somewhat irregular line, which is broken by a small gap in which one more
is found. Two follow on a slight projection, and seven others along the
receding wall bring the series to an end.
[Illustration: PLATE LXVIII
BOGHAZ-KEUI: THE CHIEF PRIEST, POSSIBLY THE KING
Last sculpture on the right in the large recess at Iasily Kaya.]
The twenty-second figure is quite different, and worthy of special study.
It is of much greater size, being eight feet high, and it stands alone
on the inner face of a projection in the rock, thus facing the innermost
portion of the enclosure where the two processions meet. In it we see
again upon a larger scale the details of costume, with toga, skull-cap,
and tip-tilted shoes, which we have already noticed in connection
with the ninth figure on the left, only in this case the figure faces
to the observer’s left; the left arm is thus the one that is sleeved,
and the loose end of the robe hangs over the right shoulder, reaching
almost to the ground and ending possibly in a tassel. The dirk is by
the right side, and the reversed lituus is grasped in the left hand,
which is raised to hold it. The cap has three bands round the edge; a
pigtail is possible but doubtful. The feet rest on two rounded pedestals
with scale-like surfaces;[531] and the extended right hand supports a
series of emblems.[532] These form a somewhat complicated group; in the
middle of it there is a small bearded figure wearing a conical ribbed
hat which tilts forward at the top, and clad in a long robe decorated
with scale-like pattern. At the sides are three protrusions which are
difficult to explain.[533] This little figure rests upon what resembles a
Hittite shoe, the toe of which is prominently upturned. Its left hand is
upraised above the head, and the right arm is outstretched. The outside
elements of this emblem are tapering columns of three flutes capped by
Ionic volutes; between these and the figure a third device intervenes
on each side, consisting possibly of a dirk with its point resting in a
quiver. The whole is covered by a device in which two rosettes form the
central features, the lower one encircled by a horseshoe-shaped object,
and borne on a pair of outspread wings as previously described. This
figure, we shall find, recurs once more in a group in the adjoining
gallery, to which we shall shortly pass.
On the opposite side of the same projection of rock, and therefore
facing to the south, exactly where we have defined the entrance, there
is a group of two figures[534] which have not been previously described,
but are characteristic and of special interest. These are very difficult
to trace on the weather-beaten rock, and to make out the details it is
necessary to examine them in various lights, particularly in the early
morning and again in the early afternoon. By this means it is possible to
make out that the group consists of two females or robed figures seated
at opposite sides of a table in the characteristic attitude seen on the
slabs representing ceremonial feasts, from Marash, Sinjerli, Yarre, and
elsewhere.[535] One of the figures at least has the appearance of a
plait of hair or shawl thrown back; the chair on which she sits seems
to be solid. Certain emblems accompanied each figure, but these cannot
now be identified, except the oval emblem of sanctity or divinity which
surmounts each group.
On the next bend of the wall, some six yards distant, and thus really
outside the main chamber, there are two monstrous winged figures just
over three feet high. They face one another on opposite sides of a narrow
rift in the rock, which seems to have been the ancient approach to an
inner sanctuary adorned also with a series of sculptures. That on the
left hand[536] presents most detail. The body and limbs are human, but
the head is that of a lion, and two short wings are added behind, of
which the right is slightly raised and the left hangs down. The hands are
raised one on each side of the head, and the fingers are extended like
claws, adding menace to the threatening aspect of the jaws, as in warning
to those who dared to approach the entrance over which it watched. A
short tunic tied across the waist reaches barely to the knees, and around
the lower edges a broad fringe may be traced. The upper part of the body
seems also to be clad in a garment fastened down the front. The carving
of the companion figure,[537] on the opposite side, seems hardly to have
been completed in detail, though it reproduces in general the design and
appearance of the former.
[Illustration: PLATE LXIX
BOGHAZ-KEUI: THE SMALL GALLERY AT IASILY KAYA
BOGHAZ-KEUI: HITTITE PORTRAITS
Three figures from the group on the left in the small gallery at Iasily
Kaya.]
The entrance which these creatures guard is now closed by fallen
stones, and access to the interior is gained further to the right by
climbing over stones and rubbish at a place which would seem to have
been originally closed. On entering from this end we find ourselves in a
narrow gallery between vertical walls of rock, which open out slightly
as we advance. By the original entrance, however, the approach would
be from the broader end.[538] On the west side there are carved twelve
male figures[539] side by side, resembling the similar group in the main
chamber already described.[540] In this case, however, the group is low
down, and until recent times was partly or wholly covered with earth, so
that the sculptures are in excellent preservation.[541] The action and
attitude of the figures suggests a quick march in line. The costume and
details in each case are the same, and have already become familiar. Each
wears a short tunic with a fold in front, a belt around the waist, shoes
with upturned toes, conical ribbed hats with brim, and a horn-like emblem
attached to the front. The earring is plain in several cases. The left
arm is forward and turned up at the elbow, the hand being empty. The
right hand holds a weapon like a sickle, which rests upon the shoulder,
the curved part of the blade being upwards. The form is very nearly that
of the sacred _khopesh_ of Egypt.[542] The figures are not unnaturally
stolid, but the faces are heavy and the nose and lips thick, though not
protrusive.
On the opposite wall are two important sculptures, facing in the same
sense. The front one[543] is generally regarded as an heraldic figure. It
is very tall, being about eleven feet in height. The upper part is the
body of a man, face right, wearing the conical hat with ribs and rings.
He is represented as clad in lion-skins, two of which hang from the
shoulders, the heads facing outwards and replacing the arms, which are
not visible or suggested. The other pair hang downwards from the waist,
each suspended by one foot, their other hindlegs being drawn under the
bodies and approaching close to one another. The heads of the lions reach
with the forepaws to the approximate level of knees. The whole design
may be alternatively regarded as composed of lions in this combination,
replacing altogether the body of the man, while reproducing the same
form. Below the knees the legs are replaced by a device which may be
taken for the tapering point of a great dagger or dirk with midrib. The
figure has no visible frame.
[Illustration: PLATE LXX
BOGHAZ-KEUI: THE DIRK-DEITY, CLAD IN LION-SKINS
In the small gallery at Iasily Kaya.]
We come now to the last sculptures of the series, which form a group of
two figures.[544] The one is great and majestic, resembling on a large
scale in all details the youthful figure that stands upon the lioness
in the main series.[545] Only in this case the rings in the conical hat
are prominent, and seem not to lie wholly between the ribs, but to be
bisected by them. The left hand also, which in the other figure holds
the double-headed axe, here grasps the upraised right wrist of a smaller
figure, which his left arm enfolds about the neck. This smaller figure is
in all respects similar to that which we have met with twice previously
in the outer chamber,[546] clad in the toga as before, and carrying the
lituus reversed in the hand which is free. The curled end of a pigtail is
seen behind his shoulder, but this may be judged to belong to the larger
figure, on account both of its large scale and position, and because the
bare neck of the smaller figure is visible. Both figures are identified
by the emblems which accompany them: the greater by the device of a
small body and legs, held up as in its counterpart by the outstretched
right hand; the smaller one by the composite group placed in the bare
space above his head to the right. This is the same as that accompanying
the figure mentioned,[547] except for the small central figure which is
here replaced by a different symbol, thought by some to be a phallus.
The symbols on either side give the impression of _uraei_ crowned with a
disk, seen in full face, but the real motive is doubtful.
* * * * *
So many and so various are the hypotheses that have been put forward
as to the meaning of these sculptures,[548] that it will prove less
confusing perhaps to regard them entirely _de novo_. We are the more
constrained to do so, in that the attention of scholars has been largely
focussed on the identification of the deities in the central group,
without much consideration of the series as a whole, or its relation
to Boghaz-Keui and the Hittite peoples. It seems to us that the whole
series must from its composition illustrate one central idea, on which
any explanation of individual figures should throw some light. Looking
then broadly at the sculptures, it is clear that certain of the figures,
notably those with wings, are of divine aspect, representing gods or
minor deities.[549] The exalted figures which lead the procession must
then be those of gods or of persons held in highest reverence. These are,
on the left, firstly, the great male figure borne on the shoulders of two
ministers, and behind him two other male figures of like kind but lesser
magnitude. On the right are the leading female figure and the youth
borne on the backs of lionesses or panthers. Behind these is a pair of
female figures, clad like their leader, standing upon the emblem of the
two-headed eagle. These two groups are parallel; if the leading figures
are those of gods, as we are led to infer, the pair of figures which
follow on each side should equally be gods or personages of divine rank.
Casting our eyes left and right we find numerous figures clad in like
fashion to their leaders, and we conclude that the gods of the Hittites
at this stage of their art are represented in their national costumes as
they are in human form.[550] The train which follows the goddess and
her youthful companion and the female divinities of the double eagle is
composed of females, many of whom are denoted by special symbols.[551]
In these we see the priestesses of the cult or cults, wearing the dress
and simulating the persons of the goddesses.[552] The common costume on
the left, excluding certain special figures,[553] is the short tunic
characteristic of the Hittite soldiery and people. In these male figures
we readily recognise two classes. First, those who mingle with the main
procession, and are often denoted by special symbols. These seem to
be the priests, though some of the foremost may be demi-gods. Second,
those who form a group of twelve at the end of the procession. These may
represent the populace[554] taking part in the rites represented.
Where now is the king under whose direction these sculptures were made,
and whose figure on the analogy of all the commemorative sculptures
of the ancient East should occupy a place and rank second only to the
gods? On the main façade he finds no place, for the attendant figures
in each case are in pairs, and the youth who follows the leading
goddess to the right shows no insignia of royalty, but seems to be
grouped naturally with his leader. Looking around, we find facing this
scene the majestic figure clad in a toga,[555] accompanied by a whole
group of emblems which indicate his rank. He stands alone, exalted and
distinguished, yet following as it were in the train of the goddess. In
the other procession, to the left,[556] he follows the figures of the
lesser gods. In the inner gallery he is embraced by the godlike figure
of the same youthful deity who, in the outer gallery, accompanies the
goddess; and we are reminded of the Egyptian text[557] which describes
the representation of the god of the Hittites embracing their king as the
design upon the royal signet which was attached to a treaty.[558] Now
this figure is that which is generally regarded as representing the high
priest, and not without reason; it reappears without insignia as leading
in the act of sacrifice before the bull-shrine at Eyuk,[559] and on two
sculptured blocks recently discovered at Boghaz-Keui, we find the same
again ministering before the altar.[560] It mattered little what was the
object of the cult; the costume was evidently that of the priesthood. Now
the same treaty informs us that the great king of the Hittites was also
chief priest of the god. The king-priest indeed was a feature of Hittite
national life, and in this light we are able to interpret their monuments
across the Taurus also.[561] We are led to conclude that such is the
explanation of these sculptures, and that in the figures before us we
have both chief priest and king. The problem is now much simplified. The
kingly figure accompanies both processions: that in which his majesty is
most clear is that of the great goddess and her consort; while on the
other side he seems to embrace or at least to sanction by his presence
the worship of the other deities.
[Illustration: PLATE LXXI
BOGHAZ-KEUI: HITTITE GOD EMBRACING THE PRIEST
In the small gallery at Iasily Kaya Sutekh of the Hittites embracing the
great King. (_See also p. 228._)]
It is possible, however, that when the minutiæ of the royal insignia, the
winged rosette, shall be more thoroughly understood, it will be found
that these two kings are not one and the same person. Who then can they
be? Why are they associated here together with so many different deities?
Who are these deities? What can be the meaning of the whole series of
representations?
Before attempting to answer any of these questions, let us pause
to remind ourselves of several fundamental considerations. Recent
discoveries have made it clear that in the fourteenth century B.C. the
organising centre of the Hatti power—the capital, in short, of the
Hittite peoples—was at Boghaz-Keui. So far as we can see, this was the
greatest period of the Hittite empire, when their arms were not only
contesting the possession of Syria with the Pharaohs, on the one hand,
but had penetrated through Lydia to the Ægean on the other. We are
prepared to believe that the great sanctuary of Iasily Kaya was also the
product of this age, if only from the fact that it is the most imposing
monument which has survived. The intimate correspondence, moreover, in
the nature and treatment of the chief male figures with those which from
their position beyond the Halys must belong to the period of empire,
like the sculptures of Kara-Bel and Giaour-Kalesi, points also to this
period. We are indeed already prepared in our minds for this suggestion
by the clear correspondence of the seal impressed upon the treaty between
Hattusil and Rameses the Great with the design of the sculpture in the
inner sanctuary described above. Now the constitution of the Hittite
power at this period was clearly a confederacy, an alliance of petty
states, the traces of which may be found on both sides of the Taurus. The
‘kings’ of those states were the ‘allies’ or vassals of the great king
who directed their military operations, and whose seat at this time was
at Boghaz-Keui. The archives of the site itself confirm the point, which
was already suggested by the Egyptian monuments, and especially from
the intrinsic evidence of the treaty (which has now, in view of recent
discoveries, become authenticated material for our use).
We have made this digression to establish certain facts, the appreciation
of which seems to us fundamental to a right consideration of the problem
of the sculptures. Briefly put, these are: that Boghaz-Keui marks the
site of the Hittite capital at the time of the greatest Hittite extension
(in the xivth and xiiith centuries B.C.); that the constitution of the
Hittite power at this time was a confederacy of states from both sides
of the Taurus; and that the sanctuary of Iasily Kaya was contemporary
with this period. We may expect then to find the national deities most
prominent in the sculptures. Again, having due regard to the nature of
the states, each ruled by its own king or priest-king, each separated
from its neighbour by the broken nature of the country, developing its
own customs, ritual, and religion, it is not to be supposed that any
common national cult could supplant or greatly change the local worships.
The definite history of later times leads us to infer the contrary; and
we are again confirmed in this conclusion by the evidence of the treaty,
to the sacredness of which the numerous gods of states were called as
witness.[562] With some of the states the national deity, or the national
word for a deity (Sutekh), is associated; others mention their separate
deities by name.
Let us return now to the sculptures. The first two figures on the right
hand, the female and the youth who ride the backs of lionesses, are
recognised almost unanimously by scholars as prototypes of the great
Mother-goddess (MA) of Asia Minor and her Lover-son, identified on
the one hand with Cybele and Attis, as with Istar and Tammuz on the
other. This identification, while it helps us to conjecture the local
attributes of the deities, enables us also to recognise at once the
national character of the leaders in the procession, for the cult of
the Nature goddess was world-wide. Her association with the lioness
is familiar in her many guises, as for instance in Phrygia, where she
rides in a lion-drawn car. Doubtless in the Lion-goddess accompanied
by the Lion-son there is a reminiscence of some primitive worship, the
origins of which perhaps were already lost to view, and which we must
seek somewhere in the hilly borders of the Euphrates valley. The Lion
pair is followed by the twin deities of the Double Eagle, goddesses
both.[563] The significance of the double-headed eagle is unknown. But
that there was a local worship associated with the eagle is indicated
alike by the discovery at Boghaz-Keui of a sculptured head of this
bird, in black stone, larger than natural size,[564] and by a newly
deciphered cuneiform fragment from the same site, on which mention is
made in ideographic writing of the house or temple of the eagle.[565]
That such a cult was general within the circuit of the Halys is suggested
by the great monument which now lies prone in a wild spot overlooking
the river near to Yamoola,[566] and by various smaller objects. At Eyuk
also there is a conspicuous though partly defaced representation of a
priest of the Double Eagle, on a sphinx-jamb of the palace gateway,[567]
a symbolism which we read to imply that the occupant of the palace was
chief priest of the cult. This palace, however, at so short a distance
from the capital, probably marks the site of a royal estate rather than
an independent kingdom. Now we have already come to the conclusion
that the sculptures on the right-hand procession pertain particularly
to the locality of Boghaz-Keui, inasmuch as the chief representation
of the king-priest is associated with this group. Hence we conclude
that, following the images of the national deities on this side (the
Mother-goddess and her Son, the Lion deities), there come the images of
the local cult of this part of Cappadocia, namely, the twin goddesses of
the Double Eagle. The other female figures of this side distinguished by
separate symbols represent probably the priestesses of the cults, which
may have been to some extent allied; while the continued procession of
nameless women recalls to mind the rite of self-dedication practised in
the temples of Istar at Babylon.[568]
The left-hand series of sculptures is more complex, but open to
explanation in general terms on the same line of argument. The leading
figure clearly represents the Father-God (in contraposition to the
Mother-Goddess), the Zeus of the Greeks, the Baal of Tarsus, the
‘Sutekh,’ or national deity of the Hittites. This is shown supported upon
the shoulders of two priestly attendants, who, like the lions opposite,
seem to stand upon the tops of mountains. There is in this detail a
lurking reminiscence or absorption of a mountain-cult, which becomes
clearer in the two figures which follow. These deities we take to be the
local forms of ‘Sutekh’ pertaining to different Hittite states[569] other
than Cappadocian; the first is distinguished by the unsheathed sword,
the second by a detail of his dress, but both are almost identical with
the leader, while both stand upon mountain-tops. It is significant that
the peoples whom we suspect from their dress to have descended from the
mountains should preserve also in this way the unconscious memory of
their ancestral deity. Another figure of like kind follows, but it is
the two winged figures that particularly attract our notice.[570] Here
in Hittite art we have clearly deities from across the Taurus,[571]
claiming place in the ceremony here depicted just as they claim separate
mention in the list of Hittite deities in the Egyptian treaty.[572] There
follows the image of a priest-king; but whether that of the great king
seen on the opposite side, or of a vassal king from beyond the Taurus
similarly accompanying his deities, is not determined. The star-like
emblem and crescent which he bears must be a clue, if only it could be
interpreted. At this point we suspect the list of divine beings gives way
to the sacred; but it may be that the gods of minor states (in all cases
identified with the great god) continue to occur, accompanied in several
cases by their local retinue. Finally there comes the group of moving
beings, which alone tells us that the scene which we are looking on is
the picture of a rite, and not a mere commemoration of an alliance.
What then is this rite? There is little direct evidence to answer
us. In the central group are the images of male and female deities,
accompanied by a youth, Nature’s divine Triad. We cannot hope at this
stage of our knowledge to penetrate the mystery of the symbolism seen
in the mountains, the lions, and the goats. But from what is known of
the cult of Cybele in her various forms, and of Attis, her lover-son,
whose attributes are distinguished yet identified in the separate cults
of Baal and Sandon of Tarsus, there can be little doubt as to the main
object of the ceremony.[573] The rejuvenescence of Nature, symbolised by
the divine nuptials of the Goddess of Earth with the God of Fertility,
is the central motive; and the fruits of the earth are the issue. But
though we recognise the nature of the cult, we do not feel justified in
presupposing anything but a general resemblance between the local worship
and the rites practised elsewhere in later times. That which we do see
in this monument is a national religious ceremony of the Hittites, at
which the local deities of the chief states, or the divine personages
representing them, were present. In this ceremony the image of the
national god was borne upon the shoulders of his priests[574] to the
shrine of the Mother-Goddess, which was found in the local sanctuary
of the capital. The objective was that the earth should be fertile and
yield her produce, that the fruits should ripen and the ears of corn grow
fat. As to the season when this ceremony took place, there is little
suggestion. The spring-time is that which seems to us appropriate; but
if the grotesque figures in the left-hand series[575] really stand upon
a wine-press, and if the group of men[576] on the same side really hold
sickles in their hands, then the harvest-time is indicated. On the other
hand, the ceremony may have been seasonal or irregular, or adapted to
some great date of the Hittite calendar. Speculation on the point is
useless. As to the further nature of the rites we remain likewise in
ignorance, realising only the dance or march of the men and the presence
of the women, and having only the knowledge which has been handed to us
of rites practised at the shrine of the goddess in other places.
If we pass to the inner sanctuary we only find ourselves face to face
with new mysteries. The group of figures on the left is clearly a
counterpart to those depicted in the outer chamber, suggesting the
ceremonies in the act. But on the opposite side the two separate
sculptures are of new and independent character. In the one is seen the
dirk-deity enfolded in lion-skins; in the other the youthful god, now
assuming a greater dignity, embraces the king. It has been suggested,
with much apparent reason,[577] that the symbolism may be interpreted
to mean that the priest-king or his representative is gently guided by
the deity ‘through the valley of the shadow of death’ to sacrifice. But
we know of no parallel for such symbolism in Oriental sculptures, and we
prefer to see in this inner chamber merely a special sanctuary of the
god, with images pertaining to his cult. In the one the king is received
as high priest into the presence and embrace of the god. We have already
seen that such an action in itself was deemed of so great moment that it
formed the subject of the royal signet. Thereby, maybe, the king became
invested with sanctity of person; in any case, his privilege of access
to the god is recognised. In the other sculpture, in our opinion, we see
the god once more, but in another guise, and identified with another
cult, which from its widespread vogue and influence must have been
almost national—namely, that of a sacred dirk.[578] A first attribute
of the kingship, indicating, it would seem, his priestly office, was
the guardianship of the sacred dirk, just as one might say ‘Defender of
the Faith.’ That such a dirk has some original reference to sacrifice
we cannot doubt. Here we find it forming the lower part of a composite
divine figure. The face of the deity may be thought to suggest the
Son-god: we are tempted to believe in this identification by a somewhat
venturesome analogy. For this god is clearly to be identified with the
Sandon of Tarsus, Hercules son of Zeus; and in his early character
Hercules is represented clad in lion-skins, much as we see the deity
before us. Hence it is possible that the sculpture which decorates the
wall of the inner sanctuary commemorates some rite of investiture of the
king with the insignia of his office as high priest of the god. We see,
then, in the inner chamber a separate shrine of the Son-god, to which the
king had access, by virtue of his office as high priest. The outer recess
we regard as a shrine of the Mother-goddess, adorned on the one side with
the symbolism of her cult, and on the other with the representation of
the rite we have described. The further consideration of the historical
aspect of these sculptures belongs to a later chapter.
V
WALLED TOWNS AND PALACES
PART I.—THE PALACE AND SCULPTURES OF EYUK.
In the foregoing chapter it has incidentally become apparent that
the northern capital arose to greatness as the centre of a military
organisation rather than as the geographical or economic focus of a
country. The alliance between the states, though seen to us mainly as
a confederacy in arms, cannot have been without effect in tending to
some extent to unify, if not to nationalise, the local customs and
institutions. On the other hand, they were separated in many cases by
physical boundaries that must otherwise have fostered and emphasised
their natural differences. In passing then to examine such of these
minor capitals as have been sufficiently disclosed to us by excavation,
it will be a special and constant interest to note how far a common
or mutual influence in art and architecture can be traced among their
ruins. The result is, on the whole, surprising. We can only single out
for comparison one site from Asia Minor and two neighbouring sites in
the North of Syria; and though the inquiry is rendered difficult through
insufficient chronological material, and the result complicated by the
intrusion of other influences more potent on the one side than the other,
nevertheless we shall find a correspondence in general features and in
some detail which is sufficient at any rate to stamp them as products
of the same civilisation, all dominated by a common motive, even though
separated by some generations or maybe centuries in point of time.
We begin with the site of Eyuk, a village situated some twenty miles
northwards from Boghaz-Keui, sufficiently near to have been closely
in touch with the activities and culture-progress of the capital,
albeit sufficiently far to have maintained some local peculiarities.
Here the ruins which we now know to be Hittite were lighted upon by
Hamilton,[579] ‘the prince of travellers,’ in 1835; subsequently they
were visited by Barth[580] and Van Lennep.[581] The account of them given
by the last-named, who was for thirty years a missionary in Turkey, was
the first attempt to hand down a reliable and complete description,
accompanied by a rough plan of a building and sketches of the sculptures
which adorned its portico. Then came Professor Ramsay, in 1881, and
in the record[582] of his visit to these monuments we have the first
scholar’s impression of their meaning and significance. M. Perrot visited
the site and incorporated his notes in his great work on _Exploration
Archéologique_,[583] and many inquirers have followed in his wake. The
Liverpool Expedition of 1907 called here and secured a complete series
of photographs and a measured plan;[584] and subsequently in the same
year the Ottoman Government was enabled to make some useful clearances
in front of the now famous portico of sphinxes, adding considerable
information, and bringing to light two interesting sculptures which had
lain previously buried.[585] The accounts of these various writers,
though in the main agreed as to the nature of the ruins, differ to some
extent in their description of details, and very considerably in their
interpretation of the meaning of the sculptures. This being so, we shall
use our own notes and plans as the basis of our description, indicating
so far as possible the places where we differ in our interpretation
from one or other of the more recent investigators. In the plan, also,
we shall omit the present position of those sculptured blocks no longer
_in situ_, but whose original position is known, because they have
been considerably moved in recent years, leading to discrepancies in
successive published plans. We shall also for the same reason use letters
instead of figures to denote the blocks, in order to avoid further
confusion with the various classifications and enumerations that have
been published.
The mound which the little hamlet of Eyuk just covers is more or less
quadrangular in shape with rounding corners; its length from north
to south is about 250 yards, and its width a little more. It is not
prominent as one approaches from Boghaz-Keui, as it rises gently from
the plain on that side, attaining its greatest height of forty to
forty-five feet towards its northern limits, whence it gives way again
somewhat steeply to the level ground. The background on this side is a
range of low hills, from which, however, the mound is quite distinct
and separated. Traces of a wall enclosing the top of the mound may be
seen here and there, and would be readily followed out by excavation.
Near the northern brink the masonry is visible inside a stable with a
low-lying floor; in fact, the new wall has partly used the old one for
a foundation. It is generally similar in construction to some of the
roughly polygonal masonry seen in some interior walls at Boghaz-Keui,
like that which surrounds Beuyuk Kaleh. Hereabouts also a postern-way
is reported, constructed entirely like that on the south slope of the
acropolis at Boghaz-Keui, roofed with corbelled masonry, and sufficiently
high for a man to walk through it upright. It can be followed in a
southerly direction for some fifteen yards, when it turns abruptly
westwards and continues for six or seven yards further.[586] In the ridge
of the roof there may be noted a flat slab of stone perforated with a
circular hole, as for the admission of light, or the drainage of water
from above. We are not told to what depth the roof is now buried beneath
the surface. About twenty yards westward from this spot, on the mound,
there are a number of dressed blocks of stone, one of which at least has
a rounded hole in one face, a feature noticeable in several instances at
Boghaz-Keui.
From these general indications of an ancient walled town[587] we pass to
the more famous sculptures, which are found on the lowest part of the
mound towards the south-east, about twenty yards only from the cultivated
plain. These decorated the lowest course of the façade of a gateway
which in plan resembles closely that of the Lion-gate on the acropolis
at Boghaz-Keui. This plan is shown to scale on the opposite page, so
that we do not need to give detailed measurements of the blocks where
the arrangement involves no reconstruction. Fortunately, though exposed
for long ages, the alignment of the stones remains almost intact, so
that the plan of this interesting gateway may be determined without much
difficulty. It remains also unique hitherto among Hittite works of Asia
Minor.
As in the Lion-gate at Boghaz-Keui this entrance has an outer and an
inner doorway. The nearer one lies back from the frontage of the main
wall a distance of just over thirteen feet. The width between the corners
of the approach (E, G), making allowance for a slight displacement of the
corner-stones, is almost exactly twenty feet: this is reduced between
the great monoliths which form the jambs to a few inches over eleven
feet. The interval between the faces of the outer and inner monoliths on
either side is about twenty-six feet, which must have been approximately
the distance from one door to the other. Between the two gateways the
space widens out to the same width as the approach outside; but inside
the inner gate the walls return at once on either side (II, KK) without
any approach on that side corresponding to that from without. Thus the
projection of the walls flanking the approach beyond the gates becomes
by comparison with the Lion-gate at Boghaz-Keui an established feature
of Hittite military architecture, designed to protect the gateway by
enfilading fire from above.[588]
[Illustration: PLAN OF THE SPHINX-GATE AT EYUK.
References—A, B, C, D, sculptured monoliths forming the jambs of the
two gates; E, F, G, H, line of the outer wall; II, KK, line of the inner
return; X, Y, ends of a lower wall; _a-g_, _l-n_, sculptured blocks
forming the lowest course of the wall on either side of the approach;
_h_, _i_, _k_, _o_, _p_, sculptured blocks not _in situ_, of which the
place of _h_ and _k_ is ascertained; _q_, _r_, sculptures on the sides of
the sphinx-monoliths A, B; _x_, _y_, two sculptured blocks recently found
in excavation.]
The recent excavations conducted by Macridy Bey have thrown light on
several important features not previously determined. From the plan which
he publishes[589] it would seem that the frontage to the approach, on the
left side at any rate (E, F), is really the outer wall of the gate tower
and external to the main wall. We are thus confirmed in our conclusion
that the entrance was flanked on either side by extra-mural towers, as
later well known in Roman military forts and mediæval architecture of
Europe. Unfortunately the excavators did not carry on their inquiry to
ascertain (as might have been done with little difficulty) the line
of frontage of the main wall of the whole building or enclosure. This
we suspect would be in line with the nearer monoliths, though from a
suggestion upon the plan it may have been a little nearer the interior—a
position which from several reasons would not be probable—and, indeed,
such a wall must have been much stouter than anything marked upon the
plan.
From the foundations preserved it would seem that each tower was designed
with chambers. Two other strong oblong chambers or vaults may be noted in
the thickness of the wall, and there seems to be indication in the plan
of a continuation to the series. The excavators were troubled by the fact
that no door openings were found to these rooms.[590] As no section is
given by them to show the relative levels of the different walls, it is
not possible to form an opinion as to whether they are at all preserved
above the lower courses. It is in any case interesting to observe that
in military Roman forts of later days (in the earlier system of the
first and second centuries) the chambers on the lower floors of such
guard-rooms were often merely vaults or cellars, gained from the upper
floor (which was nearly level with the sentry-go upon the wall) by means
of an internal ladder.
There is a still more important fact revealed by this recent excavation,
the full significance of which does not seem to have been noted. This is
the discovery, on the left hand, of a lower frontage wall or foundation
(X, Y), upon which the upper one partly rests. Now between these upper
and lower walls there is, according to the plan, a clear angle of
deviation amounting to five degrees. The masonry of the lower wall
corresponds with the roughly ‘polygonal’ system of walling illustrated
on Beuyuk Kaleh at Boghaz-Keui and elsewhere, while that of the upper
consists entirely of large square blocks of granite, nearly uniform in
height and mostly five or six feet in length, bound together by means
of ‘joggles,’ and backed by a revetment of rough stones, making the
whole about two metres thick. So far as one can judge from the published
evidence, there is clear suggestion of two different building periods, as
we noted in regard to the lower palace at Boghaz-Keui. The earlier one is
seen in a stout military wall of polygonal type, the later in the line of
sculptured blocks which was built partly over the remains of the other.
The monoliths and other sculptures, and the visible remains in general,
belong to this later series.
Before passing on to a consideration of the sculptures there are two
or three architectural points to be noted. In the large cubes for the
frontage wall, it is noticeable, particularly in the interior, that
their faces are dressed only for a width of five or six inches around
the edges, while the rest of the face projects considerably beyond
this dressed line. This seems to have been a regular mason’s method of
treatment, for the same may be noticed in the smaller stones in the
main wall at the approach to the Lion-gate at Boghaz-Keui (Pl. LX.). It
is clear that in the latter case no sculptures were contemplated, hence
this feature does not necessarily imply that such stones were left by
the mason for the sculptor, and remained for some reason unfinished, nor
even that the sculptures were wont to be carved after the stones had been
placed in position.[591] If the latter was true, it must be proved from
other evidence; the contrary conclusion seems to be more probable _prima
facie_, and to be borne out to some extent by the general completeness
of the group of sculptures upon each stone individually, and by the care
with which the bottom-most details of the reliefs are executed, features
which would have tended to be neglected had the stone been already in
position on the ground. Another point is the reconstruction of the
doorway, whether as a cantilever archway, as at Boghaz-Keui, or by a
single massive lintel. The great size of the granite block which marks
the threshold shows that the latter method was possible to the engineers,
and part of the lintel may perhaps be seen in a huge square-cut mass of
granite (_i_), with a few hieroglyphs upon it, which lies, unclaimed for
any other purpose, in front of the gateway, where it might easily have
fallen. On the other hand, the clear space between the jambs is nearly
twelve feet in length, and it may be thought that the jambs are not
designed of sufficient relative proportions to support a mass and weight
so great as would have been required of a single stone that spanned them.
In the preserved upper part of the left-hand monolith also (B) it may
be seen that the horizontal portion declines a little as though to form
the offspring of an arch, while the vertical stop is inclined slightly
outwards, as though designed to receive the direct thrust of an arch,
whether of two large stones or of many small ones. The thrust would be
further taken by a backing of masonry behind the monoliths, which may
be seen from the plan to have been included in the original design.
Notwithstanding these considerations, the material evidence in this case
is in favour of a great stone lintel, of strength and size proportionate
to the width of its span.
A third point is the reconstruction of the upper courses of the building,
and this involves a consideration of the mutual relation of the upper and
lower walls of the frontage (EF and XY). With regard to the upper wall
(EF), a dressed block of the second course remains seemingly not much
out of its original position.[592] This prepares us for the restoration
of the whole course in stone, and possibly another fallen block (lying
just in front of that marked _f_) might be fitted into place to the left
hand of the former. This creates for itself a precedent, for in other
sculptured walls that are known, as at Sinjerli and Sakje-Geuzi, the
wall was carried up in brick. In those cases, however, the sculptures
were carved on facing slabs merely, not on cubical building blocks, so
that for architectural analogy we must look rather to the palace at
Boghaz-Keui. The latter, however, furnishes no direct evidence on the
point, though M. Perrot suspected that it was carried up on a timber
frame. We must, then, accept the suggestion of this single stone _in
situ_; but we must hesitate to accept without clear proof the theory
that there were sculptures also on the second tier,[593] a feature for
which we have no analogy in Hittite works. The two sculptured blocks
(_x_, _y_) recently found at a lower level, in front of the lower wall
(XY), represent subjects entirely different to those _in situ_, and
seem from the published photographs[594] to illustrate a phase of art
as different as the early and later reliefs of Sinjerli. Measurements
taken of stones irregular in outline are apt to be deceptive, and not
until these, when tried, are found to fit accurately into the position
suggested, alongside that which is _in situ_, on the second course of
the upper wall, can we believe that such was their original position.
It has been noted that these blocks were found in the excavation which
disclosed the lower wall. Now there is clear suggestion, in plan and
photograph, that the lower wall was antecedent to the upper, and bearing
in mind the later level, which is best seen in the threshold between the
sphinxes, it is highly improbable that the lower wall remained exposed to
view at the time when the upper one was in use. It was probably already
hidden by débris and ruins. The analogy of the palaces of Boghaz-Keui
is entirely accordant. We are inclined, therefore, to believe that the
two sculptured blocks in question (_x_, _y_), representing scenes of the
chase, belong to the earlier period coeval with the lower wall. However
that may be, the evidence before us tells of two distinct phases in the
history of the Hittite Eyuk: the first when the site was surrounded by a
town wall, possibly with a decorated gateway;[595] the second after the
earlier works had been ruined (like the neighbouring palace of the Hatti
at Boghaz-Keui), and in their place a palace was constructed with its
entrance over the remains of the older gateway. Later in this chapter we
shall find indication in an unplaced corner-stone (_p_) of still a third
building period, to which alternatively the newly found blocks (_x_, _y_)
may possibly be assigned.
[Illustration: PLATE LXXII
EYUK: SCULPTURES DECORATING LEFT FRONTAGE OF PALACE ENTRANCE
(_See pp. 253-261._)]
The sculptures decorating this palatial entrance are of two classes:
there are the great monoliths forming the jambs of the gateway, fashioned
like sphinxes (A, B, C, D), and there are the reliefs with which the
walls of the frontage and the approach-way are adorned. The outer
sphinxes (A, B) are almost identical: each is over seven feet in height,
while the blocks of which they form a part are about ten feet high in
all. The inner sphinxes must have been similar but smaller.[596] Only
the forepart of the sphinx is represented, and that is in bold relief.
The breast and fore legs are those of a large animal; this is generally
supposed to represent a bull,[597] though that on the left has five toes
or claws. There is a bagginess as of pendent flesh between the legs. The
upper part is a human face, surrounded with a wig or head-dress of sorts,
which has the shape of a horse-shoe, ending in front of the shoulders in
a completed outward curve within which is an inner concentric circle. At
the sides of the head this feature comes outwards and forwards like a
hood to protect the ears and neck. It is fitted to the head by a broad
band around the brow; from this there descend in front of the ears two
long attachments to support a collar which forms a band under the chin.
That on the left is plain; but that on the right is ornamented with
three rosettes, each with six hollow loop-like petals. The ears are
human, but large and too low down. The eye-sockets are hollowed as for
insetting the eyes separately. The face is too weathered to preserve much
character; it may be judged to have been full and round, especially in
the upper part of the cheeks. The photograph speaks more clearly than any
length of description.[598]
It has been supposed by early writers,[599] and repeated by many, that
these sphinxes are of Egyptian suggestion. But the sphinx in general is
not necessarily Egyptian: no one has traced any indigenous development of
it as an artistic motive or as a religious symbol. It is much commoner
in the Euphrates valley, where also it is found in greater variety
of form. Its meaning in those more life-like representations becomes
clearer. There the strength and dominion of the monarch are symbolised
by the movement and force of the noble beast upon which his features are
portrayed. But in Egypt the Sphinx is, for the most part, conventional
and lifeless, an adaptation to the religious after-death symbolism which
is the dominant motive of surviving Egyptian art. The familiar posture
in early examples is sitting, and even the face is represented with
so much conventionality and death-like mystery that it has given rise
to an adjective in our language in the word ‘sphinx-like,’ implying
an unvarying aspect of potential and mysterious serenity. Finally, no
example of this class of sphinx, where the body is that of a bull, seems
to have been found in Egypt, which could then hardly have provided the
model for these standing ponderous bull-sphinxes of Eyuk.
The face carved upon the sphinxes may be that of the royal and priestly
law-giver who dwelt within the palace which they guarded, or it may
be a conventional type; upon that point there is no evidence. We have
disclaimed any Egyptian motive in these sphinxes on general grounds,
but there are found two curious and unexplained resemblances when we
come to consider the facial type portrayed and the manner in which it is
adorned. The one is in the portrait-statue[600] of Nefret, a queen of
Egypt in the middle of the twelfth dynasty (before or about 2000 B.C.)
a sculpture which represents a type exceptional, indeed almost unique,
in Egyptian art. There is something to be borne in mind, however, in
making a comparison, namely, that this statue may have been carved in the
Delta, and that ancient monuments of Lower Egypt are so rare that their
standard character is little known. Hence it is not certain whether this
peculiar monument merely reproduces a type of which no other examples
have survived, or whether it was itself worked from a model strange even
to the Delta. In the latter case the interesting explanation offers
itself, that perhaps as early as the twelfth dynasty the Egyptian kings
intermarried with Mesopotamian or Hittite princesses, as was done during
the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties. The other resemblance is found
in an Etruscan monument,[601] which presents a general similarity in
subject and treatment at once striking and noteworthy.
Turning now to the reliefs that adorn the frontage-walls, it is seen
that, as at Iasily Kaya, two main series are opposed to one another in
the composition of the whole. In both the main themes are religious. On
the left-hand side the shrine of a Bull is represented, with priest and
priestess and attendants bringing up smaller animals to be sacrificed.
On the right-hand side the centre of worship appears as an enthroned
goddess, twice depicted; and other stones in the row are decorated with
a bull and lion of magnificent proportions. The cult-deity occupies in
each case the naturally prominent place, namely, the front face of the
corner-stones on either side, facing towards the worshippers and others
who follow in their train.
The bull (_a_), the object of adoration on the left, stands on a panelled
pedestal with projecting cornice. His dewlap, hair, full chest, and
heavy shoulders are delineated, and he seems to bear some special marks
upon his flank and quarter. His generative organs are represented, but
not in exaggeration when allowance is made for the tendency of old-time
sculptors to enlarge on details. He stands the emblem of earthly strength
and virility; and it is reasonable to infer from his counter-position
to the Mother-goddess, that he here separately embodies the essentially
masculine powers of her divine consort, with whom indeed he seems to have
been originally identified.[602]
In front of the bull, the nearest object, on the next stone, may be taken
for an altar, the precise form of which, however, is not apparent. It was
presumably round. Its pedestal narrows towards the top, and is crossed
by lateral bands, the alternate ones being decorated by transverse lines
in alternating series.[603] The figure who leads the worshippers is
the priest-king, a type familiar in the sculptures of Boghaz-Keui and
Malatia, only here he lacks the winged emblem which seems in the former
case to denote his sovereignty. Here, however, his dignity at the head
of the procession is apparent. He wears the same skull-cap, toga-like
robe, earrings, and shoes with upturned toes. In his right hand is the
reversed lituus, while his left, with the thumb prominent, is stretched
out towards the altar. He is followed or accompanied by a female, the
chief priestess, his queen. We do not hesitate in this identification,
derived from general considerations, because this office is associated
with the queen in the description of the seal of the treaty concluded
between the Hittite and Egyptian kings[604] to which we have previously
alluded. Her dress is interesting. She wears a skirt with oblique curving
pleats, and tightly fitting vest. Her hair seems to descend behind as a
pigtail almost to the ground, though some stray plaits may be seen also
falling over the ear. The earring is plain: so too are the turned-up
points of her shoes. The arms are in a curious position, and not easy to
trace upon the stone: it seems probable, however, that the left one is
folded under the right, and that it rests near the elbow upon a staff,
which may be seen to be inclined thence obliquely towards the left foot,
which is advanced. The head of this staff is not visible, and it cannot
be said, therefore, whether it resembles those used similarly by the
priestesses in the right-hand series of sculptures at Iasily Kaya;[605]
it may be seen, however, to be decorated by a series of short transverse
parallel lines down its whole length. The head-dress is broken away. The
face of this figure also is not well preserved, but it may be seen to
resemble that of the leader in the straightness of the nose, which is in
line with the receding forehead, a feature repeated too deliberately and
too often to be accounted for merely as a defect in drawing.[606]
Then here follows a gap from which a smaller stone is missing; to have
escaped from the joggles that fixed it in position it must have been
broken, and has so disappeared.[607] The third stone (_c_) is well
filled by a scene representing a ram and three sheep led forward by a
man as to the sacrifice. The latter holds the ram by the horns, and two
of the sheep appear as an upper register, in the usual convention which
was intended to convey the impression of distance; by this arrangement
it is possible that a flock of sheep is symbolised, as suggested by M.
Perrot, but it is noticeable that the number of animals is the same
as the number of priest-shepherds (or attendants), of whom three more
are shown following this group on the next stone (_d_). These are clad
uniformly in similar fashion to their leader, and the only feature in
this respect that distinguishes them from the chief priest is the fall of
their cloaks, which ends almost in a point behind the foot. One hand of
each is raised before the face, but the other is employed differently in
each case. The leading attendant, it was noted, grasps the horn of one
of the animals. The first figure of the group that follows (_d_) seems
to be holding a cord or whip, the continuation of which cannot, however,
be traced on the stone in front. The second holds up an object which
is worn away at the top, but ends below, level with his elbow, in an
outward curl. The last is represented similarly with both hands raised,
but nothing can now be seen to have been held by them. The head of this
figure, too, is almost wholly obliterated.
Then follows, on the fourth stone, one of the most curious
representations of the series. This consists of two small figures of
men, one of whom is mounting a ladder of twenty rungs, which rises
obliquely from the ground-level and ends at two-thirds of the height
of the stone. M. Perrot suggests that these were clowns, which seems
to be an unnecessary complication: it is more natural to suppose that
there is here commemorated some scene familiar in the rites, or in the
representation of them. The men are clad in short tunics, and other
details noticeable in their dress are the helmet-like hat[608] of the man
upon the ladder, the skull-cap and earrings of the other, the girdle-knot
of both. The position of their hands is very curious and interesting, and
enables us to divine with some certainty the real meaning of the group.
In the several photographs before us,[609] taken from different points of
view in different lights, we get (as is commonly the case) a comparative
effect of great assistance in eliminating the unessential features on
the stone. It may be seen[610] that the man upon the ladder is not
holding the ladder in order to climb up higher. There is plain to careful
scrutiny of the photograph a small thin implement projecting below the
clenched hand, which is just clear of the ladder near the top. The right
hand is raised aloft and grasps a rounded implement (more clearly seen
in another picture), in a natural attitude of striking a blow. He is
working with a chisel and mason’s hammer; it must be the simplicity of
the interpretation that has so long deferred it. Now the courses of this
wall are about four feet in height,[611] so that a ladder of ordinary
tread with twenty rungs would rest approximately against the fourth
course or the fifth. If the man stood about the middle of the ladder,
which was nearly twice his own height, as is suggested in the picture,
he would be working on the third or fourth course, or at the equivalent
height. In either case it is implied that he is dressing the wall face,
as was commonly done after the blocks had been fitted, and this being a
last stage of the building, the completion of the palace is commemorated
by the sculpture. The possibility that the sculptor here represents
himself at work, as was not unknown in Oriental mural decorations, seems
to be excluded by several considerations, the first being the use of a
long ladder, which would have been unnecessary even for a second course
of sculptures, and the second the absence of any design on that part
of the stone where the chisel is at work. The figure standing on the
ground-level is seen to be at work in similar fashion upon the lowest
courses; he is represented in the act of striking his blow, the hammer
being in contact with the chisel.[612]
[Illustration: PLATE LXXIII
EYUK: SHRINE OF THE MOTHER-GODDESS
Sculpture decorating right frontage of palace entrance. (_See p. 262._)
EYUK: MUSICIANS WITH BAGPIPE AND GUITAR]
On the same block there is depicted one of three musicians, all of whom
face in the reverse direction, towards the left. They are presumably
taking part in another scene, not connected at any rate with the groups
of worshippers. The one in question is a trumpeter, his instrument being
a plain straight trumpet with expanding end.[613] His dress is the
short tunic, skull-cap, and tip-tilted shoe. He wears an earring, and
the pigtail is thick and conspicuous, ending in a curl well below the
shoulder. The other musicians are found on the next block (_e_). The
middle one is clad like the former, but his instrument is different. It
is an inflated skin, into which he is clearly blowing, but no pipe is
represented: we must suspect a drone effect, the invariable accompaniment
of Oriental music.[614] The third instrument is again different, being a
fine specimen of guitar, twanged, it would seem, by the fingers. It is
attached by a cord to the waistbelt of the operator, and is decorated by
loose ribbons which flutter from the end.
On the last block (_f_) an ox is represented in outline facing the
original direction. Two round objects accompany the scene, the one
hollowed in the centre, the other a plain disk. Upon the back of the
animal there is a load, the top of which projects. It is impossible to
say what the motive of this sculpture was, but being prepared for a
non-religious interpretation by the scenes which precede it, it may be
explained as a beast of burden, bringing a load towards the building of
the palace. Possibly the round objects represent the wheels of a wagon
which could not be introduced owing to lack of space upon the wall, which
here comes to an end.
The series of sculptures on the right hand, which corresponds with those
we have just described, opens with the representation of a religious
rite. In this case it is a female deity, enthroned, that is the object
of adoration; but we miss any distinctive features among those who
worship. The goddess is presumably to be recognised here, again, as
the prototype of Kybele, the same who is similarly enshrined on Mount
Sipylus,[615] and described by Pausanias as the Mother-goddess. We have
been able to identify her in the representations of Iasily Kaya,[616]
and on the rocks at Fraktin;[617] and on the other side of Taurus she
is found in Hittite mythology at Carchemish. She was plainly a deity
acceptable to all branches of the Hittite peoples, indeed under other
names and guises her worship was almost general throughout the ancient
east. In this case (_l_) we find her seated, facing right, upon a
low-backed chair. Her dress is a long robe reaching to the ankles, and
beneath it, upon a low stone, her feet may be seen, the left advanced,
clad in shoes, the toes of which turn up and back in a completed curve—a
unique instance. She wears a threefold collar, and her hair falls in a
long pigtail reaching to the seat of the chair between its back and her
body. The nose is angular and in line with the receding forehead, but the
head-dress is broken away. With her right hand she holds something to her
mouth, and with her left she holds aloft a drinking-cup in the form of
a goblet, the stem of which is partly hidden by the hand, and not drawn
straight. The chair on which she sits has four legs, the feet of which
turn forward: the seat is slightly curved, and the frame is supported by
a spindle.
The worshippers (_m_) are three in number, and seem to be all similar
to one another; unfortunately their faces are obliterated. They stand
with one foot forward, which is probably the right, as they are turned
to the left towards the goddess. They seem to be clad in the toga-like
garment, as worn by the priest and his attendants in the corresponding
scene on the opposite side. The front edge of this garment, however, is
bordered in some way and so prominently displayed that it has misled
many observers. The right arms of these figures are advanced with
hands uplifted.[618] The left elbow is by the side and bent, and the
hand, opposite the middle of the chest, clasps a straight staff about
its middle, with the upper end resting upon the shoulder in a natural
position. The top end does not curve (as suggested by M. Guillaume’s
drawing), and if there was any embellishment it was in the addition
near the middle of the crescental object seen better on a sculpture
(_a_²) in the left hand of the approach, which is described below. The
feature is not clear in this case, however. This block is followed by a
third (_n_) still _in situ_, on which there may be faintly made out the
representations of three other figures similar to those which precede.
The next block (_o_) is out of place, and somewhat lower than those of
this façade: none the less it is sufficiently near in position and in
size for it to be probable that it followed next in the series. Upon it
there is depicted with magnificent realism a bull,[619] with lowered
head, as in the act of charging or preparing to toss. Another stone
(_p_), though at hand, is separated from its neighbours, and standing now
on end, does duty as the jamb of a doorway into the public wash-house of
the village. This is carved with equally vigorous realism, the subject
being a lion holding down a ram with his forefeet; the hind legs, too,
are outstretched as though he had not recovered from his spring. The
tail is down and curls outwards. The lion faces left, and the ram is
transverse to the latter’s profile. This block must have served as
corner-stone, from the analogy of similar monuments at Sakje-Geuzi[620]
and elsewhere, in which the body of the lion is carved in relief, with
the head and forepart in the round. Upon his back there is to be seen
a squared surface for the reception of the upper corner-stone. In this
case the ram also is in high relief, with head in the round, as the
length of its body corresponds with the thickness of the stone.[621] The
treatment of detail on the flank and quarters of the ram obeys a definite
Hittite convention, which is further illustrated by the two loose stones
recently discovered. These were found[622] below and in front of the
lower frontage-wall on the left (_x_, _y_). Each is carved in an upper
and lower register. On the one, in the upper part, a man is represented
kneeling, taking aim with bow and arrow against a wild boar which is
charging him. His dress is the short tunic and skull-cap; the bow is only
medium length, but the arrow is long and barbed. The animal is depicted
with considerable realism, especially the snout and bristles: the tail
ends in a treble point. In the register below, a stag, facing left, is
nibbling at some herbage; the artist has been short of space in height,
and has squeezed his subject so that the animal seems to crouch. It is
followed in series by another huntsman figure, who was represented in the
same attitude as the one above, but the stone at this place is very much
worn, and only the arrow point and outline can be distinguished. The
second stone is in sequence to the left; in the upper row only a tree can
be plainly made out towards the left, but the remainder may be believed
to have been a continuation of the scene of chase. In the lower register
the herbage (remarkably like gentian) appears to be continued on the
right, and facing it is another standing stag. Two smaller but similar
animals face the other way, and in the distance (shown high in the scene
and small in size) there may be seen another, running left but with head
turned back.
In the treatment of these animals the same peculiar conventions are
observed, particularly in the delineation of the shoulder muscles,
that we have noticed on the small animal under the lion’s paws (_p_)
described above: the three sculptures are not, however, necessarily
contemporary.[623] As stated previously, it seems probable that the newly
found reliefs (_x_, _y_) belong to the earlier building period,[624] by
reason of the circumstances of their discovery and the scenes depicted
upon them. Moreover, the lion block (_p_) is a corner-stone, and fits no
visible position in the palace entrance that we have been considering;
so that there is indication of still a third building period, which was
presumably the latest.[625]
Two sculptured blocks have been displaced from the walls that line
the approach leading to the sphinx-gate (EB, GA), but they have been
recognised from their dimensions among those lying loose about the
entrance.[626] There are only two blocks on either side, whereof the
corner-stones remain _in situ_, with their ends to the line of frontage
(_a_¹ and _l_ in the plan); so that the loose stones fall into place
between the corner-stone and the sphinx on each side (_h_, _k_ in the
plan). On the left hand the faces of both stones are sculptured (_a_²,
_h_). The nearer one is the corner-stone, on the end of which there
appears, as we have seen, the image of the bull upon a pedestal. On the
short side, however, the subject is quite different; and we see two pairs
of male figures, the members of each pair facing towards one another.
On the left each member grasps a staff: the one figure is taller than
the other, so that his hand is found above the other, the staff resting
on the ground and rising vertically between them. Each figure is clad
in a short tunic, but little else can be made out except the earring
and prominent receding nose of the taller. As in the case of the bull
last described (_g_), the carving does not seem to have been executed
in anything but outline, though that is fairly deep, and the background
has been cut away. The smaller figure, which is to the left, has partly
disappeared with the broken corner of the stone, and the upper part has
also been considerably damaged.[627] The group on the right of the same
stone is not quite the same. The taller figure faces left in this case
also, but he is clad in the long toga-like garment, with skull-cap,
earring, and tip-tilted shoes, and he alone touches the staff which he
holds aloft with both hands, the right above the left. Projecting from
the middle of the staff, and at the very place where the left hand grasps
it, there is a crescental object, with interior peak, resembling in the
drawing a certain kind of axe-head found in Egypt, which was affixed
at three points to the staff. It is difficult to form any opinion as to
what this really is intended to represent; an axe-head would hardly be
fixed to the middle of a staff, even though only for ceremonial purposes;
while, on the other hand, by the old conventions of perspective, the
curving outer edge may really represent some solid object that was round
in the plane perpendicular to the surface of the stone, as seen for
example in the trumpet depicted on the outer façade (_d_). The smaller
figure in this case is very indistinct, and is represented as standing
some distance beyond the greater, though facing it (his feet being shown,
that is, on a higher level than the rest).
The next block (_h_) shows six figures.[628] These sculptures are in a
poor state, but some details may be gleaned. The men are in procession or
in line, all turned towards the right, facing, that is, the sphinx and
the entrance to the palace. They seem to be clad in short tunics, and
they wear tip-tilted shoes. Their head-dress is possibly helmet-like,
as worn by the mason on the ladder described above. The knot of their
girdle-rope is seen in some cases. The left hands seem all to be held up
in symmetry, with their right hands near the middle of the waist, and
their right elbows bent.
The counterpart to this group on the opposite side (_k_) is of special
interest, but was not published by M. Perrot. As pointed out by Professor
Ramsay,[629] who first rolled this block over and so found the sculpture,
there is on the right hand of the picture the clear outline of a seated
goddess, resembling in most respects the goddess adored in the front
group (_l_), which we have described and identified with Kybele. In
this case the stone is broken, and only the knees and hands are seen,
with part of the stool, but the analogy is sufficient. Any object that
may have been held in her hand is no longer visible, and a row of points
has been drilled at some time across the stone as though to sever that
end from the block. The next feature of interest is the reappearance of
the chief priest and priestess, whom we suppose to have been the local
king and queen, and whose figures we have seen previously, on the left
front (_b_), conducting the rites at the shrine of the Bull. Only in
this case an oblation scene is represented, such as we have noticed at
Malatia and at Fraktin.[630] In the restored scene the priest pours out
the liquid offering with his left hand into a vase held by the goddess;
while the priestess poises some large object like a pomegranate aloft.
Unfortunately in this case again the head-dress of the queen cannot be
made out. She is followed by two weathered figures, who resemble the
attendants in the previous instance, wearing the same toga-like garment
with prominent front edge.
The inner face of the corner-stone (_l_) on this side is not sculptured
at all; but on the side of the great sphinxes (A, B) that flank the
entrance, there have been considerable reliefs, among which that which
remains on the right hand (_q_) is of special interest. Here we find a
repetition of the double eagle which we last met with in the sculptures
of Iasily Kaya.[631] In this case the talons of the bird are fixed on two
hares, the faces of which turn outwards. There was apparently only one
figure represented upon his back; whether this was male or female it is
difficult to say. The form of the skirt trailing behind would well agree
with those of Iasily Kaya; but there are no vertical pleats. On the other
hand, a scrutiny of the photograph suggests that there may be detected
traces of the loose end of a toga and of the curved end of a reversed
lituus, features which suggest a male figure clad like the priest-king
now familiar in these sculptures. One detail is quite clear, namely the
turned-up toe of the shoe, and this may be seen upon the corresponding
side of the opposite sphinx, together with traces of an eagle’s head.
The inner ends of these monoliths (removed, that is, from the front of
the sphinxes) are too broken to detect any sculptures upon them, but in
the corresponding places on the inner sphinxes (_s_, _t_) there may be
found deep down the feet of a man wearing the tip-tilted shoe, and turned
towards the gateway. There seems to be an analogy to the warrior figures
recently found adorning a gateway at Boghaz-Keui.[632]
There are no other carvings found _in situ_: of those lying about we
may mention a large block with a few hieroglyphic signs[633] upon it,
lying near the threshold (_i_ in Plan); another stone with a border on
two sides, and a figure in high relief upon it, which seems to us to be
possibly the body of a seated goddess, though in another sense it looks
like a crude crouching lion.[634] It lies in a garden not far from the
gateway.[635] There are also a pair of large stones that seem to have
formed part of the local series, but are now irrecognisable.[636] They
lie a mile away on the rising ground, where they have been arranged at
some forgotten date to serve as the jambs of an entrance which may be
still traced below the soil.
PART II.—THE TOWN AND SCULPTURES OF SINJERLI.
Excavations conducted during three seasons at Sinjerli by the German
Orient Committee[637] have thrown a flood of light upon the archæology
of Northern Syria. They have also contributed a great series of
monuments to our list of Hittite works; and the later history of the
city and neighbourhood are further illuminated by the discovery of
several inscribed monuments, which though not dealing with the period of
Hittite domination, nevertheless establish for us definite historical
landmarks from which to work backwards in our argument. The monuments and
architectural remains discovered belong to three main periods, which may
be distinguished, terminologically at any rate, as the Hittite, Aramæan,
and Phœnician. With the monuments of the two later phases[638] we are
not concerned, except so far as they throw light upon the story of the
Hittite occupation of the site: yet even in them the dominant feeling is
derived from the Hittite prototypes.
[Illustration: PLATE LXXIV
COAST ROUTE ROUND THE GULF OF ISSUS TOWARDS ALEXANDRETTA: THE AMANUS
RANGE IN THE BACKGROUND, BEYOND WHICH ARE SINJERLI AND SAKJE-GEUZI]
Many of the buildings, indeed a whole series of sculptures as well as
historical documents, belong to the so-called Aramæan period. At this
time the place was the seat of a principality identified with Samaal
(or Samalla), which in the eighth century B.C. was ruled at different
times by local kings, named Panammu and Barrekub, under the suzerainty of
Assyria. Formerly it had possibly formed part of the Hittite feudal state
of Hattina,[639] which included also Iaudi and Unki; and it was absorbed
by the growing power of Assyria under Tiglath-Pileser III., as would
appear from the name of Panammu, Prince of Samaal, amongst his tribute
lists of B.C. 738 to 735. In the next century, 670 B.C., Esarhaddon seems
to have made the place a temporary residence during his warfare with
Egypt and with Tyre, and he set up there a stela recording victories that
were probably imaginary, showing the kings of Egypt and of Tyre held
captive by a cord.
The ruins unearthed in the course of these excavations disclose to us
a walled citadel or acropolis, enclosing several palaces and other
buildings, and surrounded upon the plain below by a double wall which
marks the limits of the township. There was considerable difference of
opinion, it would seem, amongst the excavators themselves as to the dates
to be assigned to the various features of the site. It is well then to
recognise that the ground for this difference of opinion existed in the
insufficiency of dated materials. This is no criticism of the excavators
themselves, who admirably conducted their pioneer work without the aid of
established local criteria to help in solving the various minor problems
which arise daily in the course of an excavation. One criticism which
may be made is that no systematic record of the finding of the pottery
fragments seems to have been kept, such as might conceivably have helped
to establish the relationship of one part of the site to another, and
more particularly would have been serviceable in future excavations
in the north of Syria, or indeed anywhere in Hittite lands. Such an
investigation, however, would have been one demanding great foresight,
for the buildings were found to have been destroyed and reconstructed at
various times, and to this cause probably must be attributed the fact
that this investigation was not made.
The excavators seem to have been in agreement, however, as to the general
growth of the site from a group of shepherds’ huts into a walled town.
They recognised three different building periods, the first of which may
belong to the latter part of the second millennium B.C., when the site of
the city was wholly confined to the mound which later became the citadel.
In this village the houses were closely packed together, and their outer
walls, being continuous and without windows, presented a line of defence
around the knoll. The foundations of several houses were partly traced
under the sites of the palaces of later times, and though marked as
unimportant, these may really be the ruins of the chieftains’ residences
during the early Hittite period. The entrance to this citadel was to the
south, but the excavators believed it had not yet assumed its final plan,
nor had it yet been decorated with the sculptures that later rendered it
so remarkable.
The next great period is not clearly separated from the first, from
which it may have been derived in our judgment by natural growth: it is
characterised by the laying out of the whole city and township on much
the same lines as it preserved through the succeeding centuries. During
this phase there sprang up a wall surrounding the whole township, an
outer and inner defensive wall to the citadel, a cross-wall which seemed
to have marked some period of renovation, as well as the foundations of
an older palace and several other minor features of rearrangement. The
buildings of this time are characterised by rows of timber with stone
layers between. This phase must be dated in the opinion of the excavators
to twelfth century B.C.; and it is noticeable that the Assyrian king,
Tiglath-Pileser I., is found to have copied the plan of a Hittite palace
(called _Hilâni_),[640] which corresponds exactly with the plans of the
palaces built upon the citadel during the next period.
The third phase is assigned to about the eighth century B.C. The city
was now fully established. On its walls rose eight hundred towers. The
south gate of the citadel was finally built and adorned with sculptures
like the older gateway of the city, but in more elaborate fashion. The
corner-stones of the palaces were architectural lions, and their porticos
were supported by columns placed upon the backs of sphinxes. Of these
palaces there were three in chief, and they conformed to a standard type,
which is distinguished by wing-towers on either side of the portico,
and was approached by steps leading beyond to a hall around which were
several chambers.[641] Thereafter, from about 750 B.C., a date which the
documentary evidence supplies, houses sprang up between the palaces.
There was a departure from the former strict type of the Hilâni, to
admit of greater accommodation, and the purely Hittite character of the
buildings was greatly modified. The city seems to have been burned about
680 B.C., corresponding with the date of Esarhaddon’s stela.
In the absence of more precise historical data, our interest is centred
upon the several series of sculptures which adorned the gateways and
palaces. Those which the excavators believe to be the oldest were found
at the southern gateway of the city. The stones themselves are weathered,
but the subjects upon them have been carefully studied and reproduced.
They are carved in relief upon blocks of dolerite. The drawing is for the
most part crude, but they illustrate to us the standard conventions in
such Hittite works with some interesting variations. Being numerous, we
shall confine ourselves to a brief description of the subjects, noting
here and there details which help us in our comparative study.[642]
Firstly, there is an eagle-headed winged creature with human body and
limbs, clad in a short Hittite tunic, holding up both hands, and standing
with his left foot advanced in the direction towards which he faces.
Though no shoes are visible, the toes upon the sculpture are upturned in
conformity with the Hittite pattern. A lock of hair descending by the
side of the eagle’s head ends in an outward curl, which is a mark of
the earlier Hittite style. A tassel also hangs from the middle of the
girdle. On another block the same representation appears with little
modification. A third stone shows, in crude fashion, a horse-rider; he
holds up with his left hand a mask, the features upon which resemble his
own, being of the usual Hittite character, with straight nose and large
eye seen in profile. He rides with his heels drawn up as though clutching
the horse’s side, for he has no stirrups. He is clad in a short tunic and
short-sleeved vest, and upon his head there is the conical hat, though
not so high as those now familiar in the sculptures of Boghaz-Keui,
while the curling lock or pigtail is prominent behind his neck. By his
left side there is suspended a long knife or dagger, and he holds with
his right hand a diminutive looped object which may be intended for his
bow. The drawing of the horse is even more crude. The head might be taken
for that of a zebra, but in the treatment of the shoulder muscles and the
haunches there is a certain obedience to the Hittite conventions. There
is another stone on which a horse-rider is portrayed in a style which is
very similar, but the details are almost obliterated.
We then come to two monstrous mythological creatures, carved upon a
single stone, the one above the other, to be imagined therefore as side
by side. The lower one has the body of a lion on which the shoulder
muscles are suggested, while the face is that of a human being, and
the curling pigtail is clear behind the neck. The head-dress is a
modification of the conical hat, with a sort of knob upon the top, and
the brim is upturned in front and behind. One wing only is shown, being
that upon the further side. The tail is upright, and ends in the head of
a bird.[643] The upper monster is the same in all respects except the
head, which is purely a product of the artist’s imagination, though from
the hooked bill it may be supposed to be intended for that of a bird.
Both creatures are walking with the left forefoot advanced and in the
air. Curiously, it is the right hind leg of the lower animal that is
advanced, while the corresponding leg of the upper animal is behind. This
monument is perhaps the crudest of the series.
Upon the sixth block of stone there appear two male figures facing
one another: each is clad in a long robe, the hem of which is visible;
each advances the further leg towards that of the other; each grasps
in his nearer hand a short staff, and with his further hand approaches
a cup-like object to his lips. They are distinguished only in that the
right-hand figure has a tassel[644] descending from his girdle. They seem
to wear skull-caps, and the curling pigtail is seen on the left-hand
figure, while the corresponding portion of the stone on the other side is
broken away. The next sculpture is somewhat broader, and shows a hunting
scene in which a bowman is seen in the act of discharging his arrow.
He is clad in a very short fringed tunic; the toes are upturned, and a
pigtail curls away from his neck. A knife hangs, point forward, from the
girdle on the further side, but the detail is obscure. Behind him, poised
in the air head downwards, is an animal resembling a hare, which he may
be supposed to have shot. His aim is probably directed, however, against
a stag seen in the sculpture which precedes. This again is a drawing so
crude as to be almost quaint. The animal stands with his head turned
back towards his pursuer. An arrow has pierced his neck, and the barbs
are visible beyond, while an ill-drawn dog is joining in the chase. In
front of this again two other animals, represented upon a single stone,
are obviously intended to suggest further quarry for the sport. The one
is a stag, drawn in this case in full profile (including his antlers);
while in the lower register there is seen a lion which, though it can be
identified, lacks in the drawing any character that invites comment.
A more interesting, though in part less ancient, series of sculptures
decorated the main door of the citadel. This was placed at the southern
bend of the wall, and, as it appears in its final form, resembled closely
in general plan the gateways of the palace at Eyuk and of the citadel of
Boghaz-Keui, which we have previously described.[645] The approach to
this entrance is protected, as in those other cases, with wing-towers
on either hand.[646] The width at this point of the entrance is about
twelve yards, and the depth of these extra-mural towers before reaching
the first doorway is six yards. The first doorway is met with almost
in alignment with the contour of the wall. Its broad pilasters project
eleven feet, leaving the space between them rather more; this was filled,
as the excavators found reason to believe, by a double door. The space
beyond—lying, that is to say, between the two doorways—forms a separate
chamber the same width as the entrance and with a depth of sixteen feet,
bounded on the inner or northern end by the pilasters which supported
the second doorway. These are almost in alignment with the main inner
walls of the entrance-towers, which thus have a total depth of fifty-five
feet; their breadth is about ten yards. The main wall of the enclosure,
to which they return on either side, has a thickness estimated at about
fifteen feet.
The whole of the face of this entrance, both along the façade of the
towers and around the bases of the pilasters, was decorated with
sculptured slabs. The carving in all cases is in relief; the subjects
represented are various, including deities, mythological emblems, and
scenes of the chase, the treatment of which in all cases corresponds to
the established Hittite motives and presents in other details traces
of Hittite handiwork. The date of this gateway is at least as early
as, indeed probably earlier than, the stela which Esarhaddon set up in
the space between the two doors in B.C. 681. Indeed, the origin of the
gateway was traced by the excavators to the second great building period,
though its final structure and some of its decorations belong to the
later phase. We may assume that its latest sculptures were the work of
the eighth century B.C.
[Illustration: SINJERLI: SKETCH PLAN OF THE GATEWAY, SHOWING BY NUMERALS
THE POSITION OF THE SCULPTURES DESCRIBED IN THE TEXT.]
The sculptures in this case are so numerous that we find it convenient to
attach numbers to them for reference. We begin with the outer approach
to the gateway from the southern end, and describe the sculptures on
each face of the wall east and west, before proceeding to the next
return.[647] At the approach of the doorway and facing south the series
of sculptures begins on the left hand (to the west) with
No. i. Two slabs upon which the subject of decoration is a horse
and chariot. The general scheme recalls the chariots which we have
previously found among the sculptures of Malatia and Sakje-Geuzi,[648]
but there are about this one certain details unique in Hittite art,
while other features previously difficult to explain are now made
clear. The chariot is small and mounted upon a six-spoked wheel.[649]
The two objects upon the panel of the chariot, crossing one another,
are clearly in this case quivers to hold the arrows for the warrior who
stands within. As in the other examples we have noticed, a spear is
placed with point upwards in the back of the car, and leaning backwards.
Outside, on the back of the chariot, there is seen in profile the head
of a small lion, an emblem probably of the royal rank of the owner. As
before, there are two men standing inside, and we see their features
in this case more plainly because the driver is represented somewhat
in advance of the other, who occupies the nearer part of the car, and
in characteristic fashion is bending his bow with the arrow ready for
its flight. This personage, although we must take him for the chief or
prince of the city, wears the national Hittite dress, a short tunic
belted at the waist, and a vest with short sleeves. His head-dress is
more peculiar, but unfortunately it is too weathered for much detail to
be gathered: there may be seen, however, a curling lock of hair upon the
near side, continuous possibly with a wig upon his head, and coming to an
end behind the neck. The figure in the background is similarly clad, but
on his head there is a plain cap which fits tightly to the skull. Both
figures are bearded, but in the latter instance the ringlets of his beard
are not trimmed square. He stands with his arms outstretched, holding
two pairs of reins, which leads us to infer that a pair of horses is
being driven, though, as in previous cases, only one is represented.
This animal bears a jaunty trapping on his head, and just behind the
neck (hence presumably an ornament upon the collar) there is an emblem
which is taken by the excavators to resemble the head of a long-necked
griffin. The trappings of the horse are plainly defined and resemble a
halter firmly fixed behind the ears, though possibly from the position of
the reins a bit also is employed. This point, however, is not certain.
The drawing of the animal as usual is crude; it obeys certain ordinary
rules in that the muscles of the shoulder and the haunch are shown in
outline. Unique, however, in Hittite representations is the picture of a
man prostrate between the fore and hind legs of the animal and pierced by
two arrows, obviously shot by the warrior in the car. With one hand the
victim tries to pluck an arrow from his thigh. The picture is almost a
counterpart to those so familiar upon the walls of Egyptian temples, in
which the Pharaoh may be seen slaying with his arrows his fleeing Hittite
enemies. Here, however, it is not a foreign enemy that is represented.
The prostrate man conforms in general character to the North Syrian
type, such as may be seen even in the charioteer within the car. He is
apparently without clothing except for his cap, which is close-fitting;
the curl of hair behind his neck is shown in outline, and even the toes
of his shoeless feet are represented by the habit of the sculptor as
being upturned.
[Illustration: PLATE LXXV
SCULPTURES FROM SINJERLI (_See p. 284_)
1. CEREMONIAL FEAST
2. WARRIOR]
No. ii. The corresponding sculpture on the opposite face of this
entrance—that is to say, on the eastern side, but still facing south,
is the upright figure of a warrior armed with spear and shield as well
as the customary long dagger or sword.[650] Curiously enough, he faces
in the same direction as the chariot, namely, towards his left, looking
therefore in this instance away from the gateway. The warrior stands with
his left foot and left arm advanced; his body and face shown in profile,
and his shoulders in full view, in obedience to the ordinary conventions
of Oriental art. He is dressed in the familiar short tunic which is
fringed at the bottom, and the overlap of the garment is seen falling
obliquely in front; the upper part of his body is lightly covered with
a short-sleeved vest. A broad girdle passes around the waist, and the
long dagger hanging from his left side seems to have a special attachment
which passes over the right shoulder. His head-dress is the conical hat
of the Hittite peoples with the brim upturned, but with the top expanding
like a ball. On his feet are shoes the points of which are extravagantly
upturned, while around the ankles there is a suggestion of ornaments or
of attachments, for binding on the shoes.[651] The features of the man,
though conventional, are represented with boldness. The long straight
nose in line with the forehead is drawn with deliberation. From the chin
there falls a square-cut beard, and a moustache also is represented. The
eye is shown in full profile, and is also too large in proportion. The
conventional lock of hair, like the survival of a pigtail, falling from
the crown of the head, ends in a broad curl behind the neck. The shield
which he holds up is obviously intended to be of the figure-of-eight
shape,[652] though the perspective of the picture has given the artist
trouble. The spear, which he holds transversely with the point down, is
longer than himself. The shaft is not drawn straight, possibly suggesting
the natural shape of the branch of a tree. The blade is long and pointed,
with indication of a midrib. His short weapon is probably a dagger,
though represented of such length that it might also be a sword. The hilt
is crescental,[653] with a notch on either side of the handle,[654] and
is doubtless enclosed in a sheath; the midrib is well defined along its
entire length.
From the outer face we pass to the sculptures which decorate the flanking
walls of the pilasters in the first doorway.
No. iii. The decoration on the left, facing therefore to the east,
comprises two subjects: the one a large lion, which occupies two slabs,
with its head upon the corner-stone,[655] and the other a monstrous
creature holding up a rabbit. The lion[656] faces to the left, looking
out therefore from the gateway. The picture is poorly drawn; there is
no vigour and little life in the animal, and the artist’s conventions
are exaggerated so as to be no longer artistic. The beast’s mouth is
open. His further legs are advanced, and his tail falls between the two
hind legs as in the standard types. The shoulder muscles are shown by a
border line, which reaches in a broad curve to the back of his neck, and
a collar, whether of hair or what not, is suggested behind the ears. The
claws are curved and prolonged so as to be ridiculous. The body, which is
found on the second stone, is elongated and narrow, and hardly seems to
fit on to the heavy forequarters.
No. iv. The monstrous figure which is his companion faces to the right.
It is called by the excavators the God of the Chase. His body is that of
a human being, clad in a short tunic, vest, and upturning shoes; while
his head is that of a lion, with wide-open mouth and long exaggerated
neck. A slender dagger hangs from his left side. With his outstretched
left arm he holds up a rabbit by the back legs; while borne upon that
hand there is a bird, which cannot be readily described, though its
hooked beak suggests a vulture or a falcon. The right arm is held
aloft behind the head, wielding some short curving implement like a
throwing-stick, and behind that there is seen another bird with open beak.
Nos. v.-vi. The counterpart to these representations, on the opposite
side of the doorway, is practically a repetition of the subject just
described, only that in this case both creatures face to the right,
looking out from the doorway. The leader is a lion represented even
more crudely than in the last instance, and with no further instructive
detail; while the only variation in the upright monster that follows is
in the position of the two birds, which in the former instance were seen
upon his hands, and are now perched upon his arms.
No. vii. We now come to the inner wall of the chamber, which is found
between the doorways. We commence as before on the left-hand side, with
the sculptures that face to the east, continuing subsequently with those
on the return facing south. The first part comprises five sculptured
blocks.[657] The first of these is the picture of a man facing left,
clad in a short tunic and upturned shoes. He wears a close skull-cap,
and behind this the Hittite curl is represented. His beard is long and
square-cut. His arms are aloft, and he bears a kid upon his shoulders,
the head of which is turned as though looking backwards.
No. viii. The next block is filled with the scene of a Ceremonial
Feast.[658] Two figures, clearly man and woman, are seated facing one
another on opposite sides of a low table filled with provisions. The
man is on the left, and his seat is a square-framed chair, with high
back. He wears a close round skull-cap, and the Hittite lock falls
behind his neck. He is represented with both beard and moustache; his
nose is prominent and straight. His dress is a long robe reaching to his
ankles, and the toes of his shoes are upturned as usual. His right arm
is by his side and holds a long crooked staff, while with his left he is
raising some object to his mouth. The figure opposite presents several
differences. Her hat is cylindrical, and is covered with a long slender
wavy object reaching down behind her back almost to the ground; this may
be taken for a veil pushed back from before the face. Her dress also
is a long robe, and her girdle, like that worn by the man, is broad,
and composed of six or more strands, as of cord. Her hair is dressed
in the usual curling lock or pigtail. Her features are sharp, but not
so prominent as in her counterpart. Like him, with her right hand she
holds up some object towards her mouth, and in her left hand, which is
by her side, she holds two seemingly edible objects on stalks. She has
bracelets on both her wrists. Her seat is a low stool, which, in contrast
to that of the man, is seemingly without a back. For want of space
the table between them is set back from the picture. Only two legs are
seen, and these are curved as usual. The top of the table also is curved
downwards, suggesting that it was round; so too are the provisions piled
upon it, which cannot, however, be identified.[659] We have previously
described several sculptures of like kind, and to some extent discussed
their character. The closest analogy to the present instance is one from
Malatia,[660] and here as there we take the subject to be a feast on the
part of the royal pair. In spite of the incongruous scenes around, the
religious origin of this class of sculpture seems to be perpetuated in
the priestly dress in which the male figure is clad.
No. ix. Upon the next stone there are two figures represented, both
facing to the left. The leader is smaller than the other. He is clad in
the usual Hittite fashion, with short tunic and skull-cap. His long,
straight nose, and the curl of hair, are equally characteristic. His
left arm is by his side, and his right, which is seen only in outline,
is advanced, but no further details are distinguishable. The figure
which follows him, facing in the same direction, is somewhat taller.
He is clad differently; his dress being a long robe reaching to his
ankles and ending in a fringe. The usual belt, with upper and lower
border-lines, encircles the waist. The sleeves are short, and the toes
of his shoes upturned. In place of a hat he clearly wears a wig, from
which the Hittite curl descends behind his neck. His beard is long and
conventional, and he is seemingly without moustache. His nose is straight
and exaggerated in length, and the features are poorly drawn. His right
hand is extended, but the left is drawn back, holding a long curving
object, which rests on and reaches beyond his left shoulder. He wears
also a dagger on the further side of his belt.
No. x. A third man follows upon the next stone, clad like the foregoing
in a long robe, which however is not fringed. This is an interesting
figure, for in the place of turning-up shoes he clearly wears
sandals,[661] the straps of which may be traced. His head-dress too is
different: whereas in the sculpture which precedes him the hair or wig
is arranged in conventional concentric bands and curls, or short plaits,
the cap worn by this man is covered with plain ribs passing over from one
side to the other. The Hittite curl descends, however, behind the neck,
and the beard, though receding, is conventionally represented. The face
of this man is striking, even though the drawing is ill done. The long
nose in line with the forehead is represented more deliberately than in
any other instance. The chin is receding, and the lips, though thin, are
prominent and protruding. From his belt there hangs a tassel, which may
be seen to consist of a loop and two loose ends, like a loop of cord
doubled. Among other distinguishing features, a dagger with crescental
hilt is held in his left hand, while his right hand outstretched holds an
upright staff.[662]
[Illustration: PLATE LXXVI
SINJERLI: SCULPTURED BLOCKS (IX.-XV.) OF GATEWAY _in situ_ PREVIOUS TO
EXCAVATION]
No. xi. The stone which follows is small, and the figure upon it faces
to the right. It is the representation of an archer with bent bow. He is
shown with all the common features of male attire—the tunic, turned-up
shoes, skull-cap, curl, girdle, and dagger. He stands upon his left leg
with the right knee bent, in the act of shooting. This stone is set
upon another below it, in order to bring it up to the required height,
and it brings the inner wall of this recess to an end. The adjoining
wall advances eastward, and consists of five stones decorated with four
subjects.
Nos. xii.-xiii. A stag facing to the right occupies the first two
stones. It is badly drawn. The head and neck are utterly mis-shaped; the
conventions of animal representations are exaggerated, and a lifeless
picture is the result. It is preceded on the third stone by a kid looking
backwards, the carving of which is perhaps more successful, though still
displaying little artistic feeling or application. The muscles are
outlined in the usual fashion.
No. xiv. A different picture, better drawn and better carved, fills the
whole height of the block which follows. The subject here is a winged
lion rampant, whose left paw claws the air, while the right paw is
depressed. A wing rises from his near shoulder and passes behind the
neck. The tail is erect behind the back, ending in a stiff curl. The
muscles of his haunches are suggested with some vitality, but the claws
are exaggerated.
No. xv. The next stone brings this series to an end, the corner having
been rearranged in antiquity by the inclusion of a pedestal. Upon the
face we are considering there is the figure of a man carrying over his
right shoulder what seems to be a large double-headed stone hammer, or
a double axe. He is clad in a short tunic, fringed, shoes with upturned
toes, and a skull-cap so high as to be almost conical. The Hittite curl
is prominent behind his neck; the strong nose may be traced, and a
square-cut beard falls from his chin. He is armed also with a long dagger
shown with the hilt behind the girdle and the blade or sheath projecting
forwards. His legs are bare as usual, and his figure is perhaps unusually
powerful and muscular.
No. xvi. Passing across now to the eastern side of this recess, the wall
corresponding to that which we have last described[663] is similarly
adorned with four sculptured blocks, whereof the first is a repetition
in detail of that which we have last described, and needs little further
description. There may be noticed, however, two slight variations in
the treatment of the subject. Firstly, the dagger is now suspended in
the usual fashion, with the hilt shown in front of the body; and the
headgear seems to be higher, more like the conical hat of the Hittites,
with expanding top.[664] It may be noted also that the double axe or
hammer is somewhat broader and shorter, and is marked with four short
lateral lines, while the long handle is somewhat bent as though formed
of the branch of a tree. This handle he grasps with both hands, the left
one holding the end. There is an error of drawing in the delineation of
the left hand; for though the left elbow is advanced and the hand drawn
back towards the body, the palm of that hand is turned outwards, while
the thumb is uppermost, and the fingers are also represented in full,
pressing into the palm, instead of which the mere knuckles should be
shown in front of the handle. This is an error of a kind not uncommon in
oriental drawing.
No. xvii. The next block of stone is larger than the others, bearing two
figures upon it, both facing as in the previous case to the observer’s
right. In front there is a winged sphinx walking, followed by a warrior
with spear and shield in much the same style as that which we have
previously described.[665] In this case the figure is so small and the
surface of the stone so much decayed that no new details can be added,
but with the exception of the dagger or sword, all the features of the
earlier stone seem to be suggested. The upturned brim of the hat in front
is perhaps more prominent. The sphinx is an interesting representation.
The body is that of a lion, and the face, which is somewhat delicate, is
that of a human being. A wing rises from behind the shoulder, sloping
backwards. The muscles of the animal are shown in outline, and the claws
or talons are exaggerated as usual. The tail is erect in the air and
seems to end in the head of a bird,[666] though possibly this appearance
is illusory. The face is beardless and of clear-cut Hittite type; the
head-dress is a skull-cap with brim, the front peak of which upturns.
A double plait falls from under it behind the head, turning upwards
behind the neck and completely round, forming a prominent curl. A second
double plait of hair seems to fall from behind the ear, in front of the
breast of the animal, and halfway to the ground, where it ends in a curl.
The delineation of the wing is unusual, the curving ribs being drawn
together in the middle towards the upper part, as though that were a new
starting-point for a series of feathers.
No. xviii. Another monstrous figure precedes the sphinx, in this case
a griffin, with the body of the lion and the head of an eagle. A wing
rises from the junction of the long neck and the body; the muscles are
shown in outline; the head is ill drawn, and provided with ears; the tail
hangs down behind the body. A double plait falling from behind the right
ear of the animal, as in the previous case, ends in a curl to the left
part of the breast. The drawing, on the whole, is lacking in spirit and
vitality.
No. xix. The last sculpture in this length of wall seems to represent a
man, but the carving has not been carried out in detail, and except that
he is facing to his right, with both arms held backwards, the outline
of his figure conveys little other suggestion than the ordinary Hittite
type. The wall now turns parallel with the opposite face, running north
and south, the sculptures therefore facing westward. There are four of
these;[667] all face towards the right, as in the previous section.
No. xx. The first is an upright monstrous figure with depressed wings;
the body is that of a man, the head that of an eagle. His dress is a
short tunic. His arms are raised aloft as in adoration. Behind the ear,
with which the bird’s head is adorned as in the last instance, there
falls a similar double plait, ending in a curl upon the throat.[668]
No. xxi. In front there is a worn representation of a seated figure,
in which little detail can be discerned. The head-dress seems to be
cylindrical in form, with a long veil falling as usual behind. A curling
lock of hair is suggested beside the neck of the figure. The right arm
is held up by the side. The chair is low and square shaped, and its high
back ends in an outward curl. The general appearance of this stone bears
such a marked contrast to the sharp carving of those on either side of
it, that it seems probable that it was already old when the doorway was
constructed in its present form, and that it formed at one time the
left-hand part of a Ceremonial Feast similar to that which we previously
described (No. viii.), to which it would thus form the counterpart.[669]
No. xxii. It is preceded by a splendid sculpture of the Hittite storm-god
Tessup, or by whatever name he should be called.[670] He wears the
characteristic short tunic and upturned shoes of the Hittite people. His
head-dress is the tall conical hat with expanding top. His beard is long,
square-cut, and depicted as usual in successive bands of short curls or
plaits. The nose is long and straight, and the eyes are large. A long
curling plait of hair, resembling a pigtail, falls behind his neck and
shoulder, and is seen below the right elbow, which is held up. A long
dagger with crescental hilt, and the midrib clearly shown, is slung from
the farther side of the belt, the handle backwards. In his left hand he
holds up an emblem, like a three-pronged trident, representing, it is
supposed, forked lightning, while in his right hand he wields aloft an
axe-hammer with short handle, to which it is bound by threads.
No. xxiii. The next sculpture fills one side of the corner-stone. It
is the representation of a woman, and though broken at the top several
new features may be discerned in it, while other details are more
plainly seen than in cases previously described. Her dress is a long
robe reaching to the ankles, bound at the waist with a rope-girdle of
six strands. This garment seems to be wrapped round the body, joining
down the right side, where it is fringed or bordered in some way. Behind
the figure there is the suggestion of a long veil or cloak, which, from
the numerous serrations in the drawing, may also have been fringed
or embroidered. The top of the hat is not clear, but the front peak
is turned upwards. A double plait and curl are seen as usual behind
the neck, and a necklace also is shown. In her right hand she seems to
grasp something like a feather, while with her left hand she holds up a
round mirror, with handle similar to those frequently found in Egyptian
tombs.[671] The drawing of the right hand, which is in front of the body,
exhibits the same fault as we indicated in a recent instance, where, with
thumb upwards, the palm of the hand is also turned outwards—an impossible
position.
We have now reached the return of the wall, on the inner side of the
pilaster to the outer gateway. This, like the corresponding wall on
the opposite side to the left, was left blank, probably because it did
not strike the eye of any one entering the gateway, and it was also in
comparative darkness to any one going out. We proceed then to describe
the remaining sculptures decorating the pilasters of the inner doorway,
and, in the first place, those which flank the position of the doorway on
either side: the corresponding walls of the outer doorway were decorated
with representations of lions facing outwards.
Nos. xxiv.-xxv. In this case bulls form the leading motive of the
decoration: on the left hand two stones are filled with a representation
of this animal.[672] The drawing, as in the case of the lions, is too
much elongated, and the sculptor has not carried out his work with
realism, obeying only established conventions. The horns of the animal
are both drawn forward; his shoulder muscles are shown in exaggerated
outline, and just above his hoof on each leg there seems to be a ring
or ornament of some kind. The third block of stone bears a new design,
being that of a rider facing in the same direction. The horse is small
and ill-drawn; the trappings seem to be somewhat like a halter, as in the
case of the chariot horses, and the rider holds a pair of reins or ropes,
both of which pass on the near side of the neck. No saddle or stirrup
is visible. The features of the man are not clearly preserved. His
head-dress, however, is plainly the simple conical helmet or hat, and the
Hittite curl may be seen falling behind. Upon his left arm, and covering
his body from our view, there is borne a large round shield. Rising from
behind his back, at a level with his shoulder, is an object which may be
taken for a large quiver.
[Illustration: PLATE LXXVII
1. HITTITE GOD OF THE SKIES WITH LIGHTNING AND A HAMMER IN HIS HANDS
(_See p. 291._)
2. HITTITE GOD OF THE DOUBLE AXE (CF. THE SCULPTURES OF BOGHAZ-KEUI, PL.
LXIV.) (_See p. 283._)]
Nos. xxvi.-xxvii. Corresponding to these sculptures on the opposite
side, the right-hand flanking wall to the inner doorway is decorated by
a similar representation of a bull, facing outwards, and occupying two
stones, and of a man on the left-hand side who faces in the opposite
direction. The latter representation (No. xxvii.) is new. The man
stands, it is evident, with his back to the animal, and probably the two
subjects are distinct. He is clad in a long-fringed skirt and vest with
short sleeves. A close-fitting skull-cap and the Hittite shoes complete
his costume. His beard projects somewhat forward, and the Hittite lock
is seen behind his neck. A long dagger or sword hangs from behind his
girdle, the handle forward. He carries two objects which seem to be
similar to one another, resembling clubs in outline. In his right hand he
holds out one of these, which he grasps just above the level of his head;
in his left hand, however, he holds the other at the end of the handle
which rests in a natural way upon his left shoulder.
Nos. xxviii.-xxix. There remain the sculptures which decorate the inner
frontage-wall of this doorway, that is, the first wall confronting
any one passing out from the citadel. On the right hand, the nearest
sculptures are a pair of deer drawn only in outline, one upon each of
two blocks of stone. The animals are turned towards one another, but the
nearer one is looking backwards, so that both their faces are looking
towards the entrance. On the opposite side, that is to the east, there
are three sculptures on separate blocks of stone.
No. xxx. Of these three the first,[673] which is carved on the same
block as the man with clubs (No. xxvii.) just described, is a complex
monstrous figure. The body is apparently that of a lion, with mouth
open and tail erect. A wing rises from behind the shoulder, and in the
drawing is continuous with the conventional outline of the shoulder
muscles. Upon the neck there rises the head of a human-being wearing
the close skull-cap, the front brim of which upturns. The features are
those familiar in the preceding sculptures, and the Hittite curl behind
the neck is not omitted. A broad band, decorated in three rows, is
shown around the neck. It is unfortunate that the stone shows signs of
weathering, and little detail can be made out, for the representation is
unique; and though the drawing is crude, it is not altogether inelegant.
No. xxxi. The next stone is not decorated, but upon the second from the
corner is the picture of a warrior, with shield and spear similar to
those two previously described (Nos. iii. and xvii.). The only detail
which may be added is the appearance of a tassel hanging from the peak
of his conical hat.
No. xxxii. After a similar interval there appears the last sculpture of
this wall, in which, though much weathered and hardly traceable, we seem
to see the picture of a hunter holding up a rabbit with his left hand and
brandishing a long spear in his right. He seems to wear a tall helmet,
but other details are obscure.
Having now completed a survey of the sculptures decorating the inner
walls of this entrance on either side of the doorway, we pass outside,
where there were found several interesting carvings which seem to
have decorated the outer flanking walls, and were seen therefore in
approaching the entrance to the citadel from the south. On the right hand
side, that closest the corner was decorated with an animal figure now
no longer visible, while on a small stone (No. xxxiii.) placed above it
there seems to be the picture of a dog, which is equally destroyed. The
next four, however, are more plain.
No. xxxiv. The first is the picture of a musician seated upon a stool.
He wears a long skirt with waistband, but the details of his dress and
features call for no special comment. The instrument which he plays,
however, is of interest, being[674] ‘a Tambur of pronounced Assyrian
type, exactly similar to one of the time of Assur-nazir-pal,’ _cir._ 880
B.C.[675] There is a cord for attachment to the shoulder. It has been
suggested, alternatively, that an instrument like a harp seen from the
side is intended; the position of the musician’s hands, however, does not
support this view, as with his left he clasps the stem of the instrument
which he plays[676] with his right. On a small stone placed above this
one there is the outline of an eagle or vulture.[677]
No. xxxv. The sculpture on the next stone shows a man who seems to be in
relation to the musician towards whom he is turned. His dress is a short
skirt, and he seems to have worn, in addition to the upturned shoes,
some prominent ornament around his ankle. The hat is close-fitting and
ribbed laterally. The beard and curl are as usual. His left arm is bent,
and with his fingers he seems to touch his beard; the right hand is
obliterated.
Nos. xxxvi.-xxxvii. The last two sculptures of this side may be taken
together, for they represent the familiar oriental scene of a pair of
goats standing upon their hind legs in order to reach the upper green
shoots of a shrub at which they are nibbling.
The left-hand flanking wall to the approach of this main gateway seems
to have been destroyed previous to excavation, and no sculptures are
on record to form the counterpart to the group last described. In our
description we have endeavoured to record the actual find-spot of
each stone, but we are convinced, from an examination of the original
monuments, and of the excavators’ photographs, that very few of them
were found in the positions for which they were originally intended.
Their varying sizes, the medley and lack of sequence of the subjects
they represent, all contribute to support this point of view. Nor do
we share with the excavators the opinion that all the sculptures of
the outer gate of the town, which we described first, are necessarily
older than those of the gate of the citadel; the former are more
weathered, for they have been more exposed, and the latter are not, in
our opinion, all contemporary with one another. We can distinguish three
or four groups of subjects, which were probably ranged together, as at
Eyuk and Sakje-Geuzi. Among these are the procession of mythological
creatures and representations of the deities (possibly the king himself
impersonating the gods[678]), the scenes of the chase, the musicians,
and the Ceremonial Feast, all of which appear for the most part to be
intermingled haphazard. It seems to us that the warrior-figure (No. ii.)
might be as old as any sculpture of Boghaz-Keui, while others again might
be as late as history sanctions. We believe them to be in the main the
work of the tenth century B.C., and we regard the rearrangement to be due
to one of the later restorations of the site, such as the local documents
show must have been not infrequent, and possibly to the preparation of
the buildings as summer palace of Esarhaddon in the seventh century B.C.
There are several further sculptures of considerable interest, including
two pairs of massive lions which must have served as corner-jambs of
doorways, like those of Sakje-Geuzi.[679] In this case, however, the
lions are of enormous size. One pair is carved only in outline, while
the work of the other is carried out in detail of admirable quality.
Most striking of all, however, are two stone busts in relief, found near
to the lions last mentioned.[680] Here we are face to face with that
remarkable facial type and head-dress which characterises the sphinxes
of Eyuk.[681] The stones are very weathered, but there can be little
doubt, from the front and profile views which have been published, that
they are each decorated with the bust and head of a woman. There can
be distinguished the roundness of face, the high cheek-bones, the band
across the forehead, the curving wig over the head, and finally (but
faintly) the outward curl of the ends of the wig on each side of the
throat, which are plain on the sculptures of Eyuk. The nature of the
sphinx-bases, another series of sculptures of striking character, will
become apparent in the description of the palace-portico at Sakje-Geuzi
which follows.
PART III.—THE MOUNDS AND PALACE-PORTICO AT SAKJE-GEUZI.
We have already described the situation of the neighbouring site of
Sakje-Geuzi, and the nature of some of its surface monuments. There are
several prominent mounds in this locality: the sculptures mentioned and
the palace ruins lately discovered[682] are connected with the smallest
of these. Soundings made in the other mounds have made it clear that
their nature is similar, and their growth collateral: in all probability
they contain inscribed and sculptured monuments, the careful uncovering
of which would contribute new pages, if not volumes, to our knowledge of
oriental history. So far as excavation has proceeded on this site, it
has been sufficient to determine the nature of the main fortifications,
and to disclose within the walls the portico of a palace decorated
with a frieze of sculptured slabs in their original positions and in
fresh unweathered state. It is also demonstrated that here, at any
rate, long ages of local development preceded the period which these
striking monuments have rendered more conspicuous, though historically
not more important. In the story of the decline and fall of the Hittite
power, however, nothing could be more interesting than these sculptured
monuments, with the increasing signs of Assyrian influence upon them, and
the study of them becomes endowed with wider significance by comparison
with those elsewhere. Not only can we measure, by the local differences
and similarities to be seen in the works of Sinjerli and Sakje-Geuzi, the
depth to which Assyrian feeling had already permeated the Hittite arts
in the early centuries of the first millennium B.C.; but by comparing
these again with those of Eyuk, we may realise how far certain features
of architecture and religious symbolism were originally Hittite, and
though here modified by close contact with the all-absorbing Assyrian
power, remained on the farther side of the Taurus free from recognisable
intrusion to the end.
In the small mound excavated at Sakje-Geuzi, the form of the main
enclosure was found to be practically rectangular and four-sided,
enclosing an area about a hundred feet long and eighty feet wide. A
slight modification in form seems to have been made, either at the
time of building the whole wall or later, where the north-western wall
skirts the steep edge of the mound as it approaches the northern corner.
No gateway was found, the lower side of the mound opposite the palace
being almost denuded even to the foundations of the wall, which was
found, in other places, six or eight feet below the surface. Nor did
any outer rampart on the lower level correspond to the wide enclosure
at Sinjerli. The wall was built of small stones revetted together by
stouter facing blocks; these, though laid approximately in courses,
were fitted together without much shaping and without mortar, as in
Beuyuk Kaleh at Boghaz-Keui, and in the fortifications of Sinjerli.
The wall was supported by external buttresses or mural towers, about
thirteen feet wide, and projecting about three feet; these occur at
intervals which decrease considerably around the steeper edge of the
mound. The corners were similarly strengthened by rectangular turrets
of the same projection. The wall was nearly twelve feet thick, and its
foundations were proportionately deep and massive, as though destined
to sustain a height of twenty feet or more, of which some thirteen feet
remained preserved where the soil was deepest. The lowest courses of the
foundations were built of large stones, suggestive of the masonry on
Beuyuk Kaleh at Boghaz-Keui.[683]
Within the enclosure a series of superposed buildings on the higher
ground gave token of successive ages of occupation, and partially
covered the site of a palace, which was found at a depth of seven or
eight feet below the surface. This has not been completely uncovered,
but the details of the portico and the sculptures which adorned its
façade, show that it was generally similar to the chief Hittite palace
(of Aramaic times) at Sinjerli, which was still in use in the eighth
century B.C. Probably most of the construction had been made in unburnt
brick, which had largely been reduced to mud, leaving, as usual, little
trace of original arrangement; but the sculptured slabs which had
adorned the entrance remained standing in position, and enable the plan
of the building to be traced. The doorway seems to have been divided
and supported in the middle by a round column,[684] and to have been
flanked on either hand by a square wing-tower, distantly suggestive of
the Egyptian pylon. It was approached by two broad steps reaching from
side to side, leading up to a platform or threshold paved with large
flagstones. This formed the main threshold, twenty-four feet in width and
seven feet in depth. The pavement was continuous in the wings only far
enough to serve as foundations for the facing slabs of the corner towers:
the ornamental pedestal just mentioned was also set upon it.
[Illustration: PLATE LXXVIII
SAKJE-GEUZI: ENTRANCE TO A PALACE, WITH SCULPTURES _in situ_]
Turning to the scheme of decoration,[685] the main feature is found in
two life-size and realistic representations of lions, one on either
side, guarding as it were the entrance to the building of which they
formed the corner-stones. The forequarters and heads of the animals are
carved in the round, and project beyond the frontage of the wall, while
the body and hindquarters are in high relief, being continuous with the
other sculptures that adorn the flanking walls. In detail of execution
these beasts are fashioned after the models already familiar from earlier
descriptions.[686] The forepaws are side by side and slightly advanced;
the further hind leg is advanced, and the tail droops down and forward,
ending in a curl between the feet. The mane is full, with a ruffle round
the throat, and the hair is specially thick upon the shoulders and below
the belly, as in other instances. That which is striking about these
and, indeed, the other sculptures of this series, is their sharpness
and preservation, which enables us to look upon them with renewed
interest and refreshment, especially after contemplation of the weathered
reliefs from which Hittite art has previously been almost wholly known
and judged. Though ‘provincial’ work, the snarling defiant realism of
these lions has never been surpassed in any specimen of oriental art.
Architecturally, it has been noticed, they formed the corner-stones of
the building, and the line of the front wall is indicated by the stops
across the dressed horizontal surface of the stone above their backs,
upon which they must have seemed to bear the chief weight of the towers,
if not of the door-jambs themselves. The blocks out of which they were
carved were proportionately more massive than the other stones of the
series, in order to bear a superimposed weight as well as to enable the
forepart of the animals to be represented in the round.
[Illustration: PLATE LXXIX
SAKJE-GEUZI: LION CORNER-STONE (LEFT SIDE)]
The subjects depicted on the slabs adjoining the lions, both those by
the side along the frontage and those which immediately follow along the
flanking walls of the portico, were reproduced in duplicate on either
side. The nearest, along the side, shows in each case an eagle-headed
winged deity with human body (a familiar Assyrian design); he stands
erect, with bare feet, facing towards the lion; he proffers with the
extended further hand a seed, and carries a basket in the near hand,
which is held up with elbow bent. His dress is a plain skirt reaching
hardly to the knees. The muscles of the legs are shown with some amount
of detail. The wings are four in number, of which one pair rise up from
the shoulders, while the others are depressed. The head-dress ends upon
the shoulder in a conspicuous curling plait. The next slab is much wider,
but the height remains the same, namely about three feet. On this two
figures, standing and facing towards one another, are represented in the
act of fertilising the sacred tree. The further hand of each holds a seed
aloft, while the near one grasps a curving knife with upturning blade.
The tree is shown conventionally with three pairs of curling branches,
while the stem (but not the foliage) suggests the scaly date-palm.[687]
The figures are clad alike, in a short skirt reaching just to the knee,
covered by a sleeveless cloak cut away in front and falling behind to
the ankles. The lower part is fringed. Their hats are like the fez of
modern times, with a knob in the middle on the top (in the Assyrian
fashion) and a horn upon the sides. Their feet seem (but not clearly) to
be shod with shoes with upturning toes. The features, beard and hair, are
in a conventional Assyrian style. Above the figures, and reaching from
side to side of the slab, is the emblem consisting of a winged rosette
and crescent. There are twelve petals to the rosette, and the crescent
is immediately below it: in these two features we may have a prototype
of the star and crescent of the Turkish peoples.[688] The legs of the
bird[689] survive in the composition of this emblem only as decorative
features, and the talons give place to outward curves or circles, like
those seen on the head-dress of the sphinxes at Eyuk.[690] From these,
slender pistillate objects, with divided or cup-like ends, hang down to
touch the seeds within the uplifted hands of the men. Other objects like
cords, but undefined, hang down from the same place, falling behind their
wrists. It is suggested that possibly the fertilisation of the pistil is
the subject of the scene. However that may be, we notice that, as in the
previous case, the muscles of the arms and legs are strongly shown; the
figures, too, are stolid, and the drawing, treatment, and subject are
alike strongly Assyrian in feeling, with the exception of the peculiar
and distinctive feature of the rosette and crescent. This representation
completes the series of sculptures decorating the frontage of the palace,
but there are others flanking the entrance on either side. Of these the
lion corner-stones come first, and the details of these we have already
examined.
[Illustration: PLATE LXXX
SAKJE-GEUZI: LION AND ADJOINING SCULPTURES (RIGHT SIDE)]
The Lions are followed on each side by representations of winged
sphinxes, the two sculptures, as in the other cases examined, being
practically duplicates of one another. The creatures may be supposed
to have the body of a lion, though the general pose is stiff, and the
position of the front legs even suggests a bird, corresponding to the
wings above; the further details of the monster, however, do not bear out
this suggestion. The treatment of the head and details of this sculpture
again fails to suggest anything distinctively Hittite, but only here
and there the survival of Hittite feeling and tradition. Probably this
art corresponds to an early phase of Semitic influence, such as was
illustrated with more completeness in the excavations of Sinjerli. The
first criterion is to be found in the treatment of the hair, which falls
all around the back of the head in ringlets, and does not curl backward
in a single bunch, in the fashion characteristic of the Hittite figures
of Marash, Carchemish, and Bor. The beard is treated in similar fashion,
while upon the cheeks it is represented by little coils or concentric
circles. The features of the man are also much softer and less pronounced
than those with which we are familiar in Hittite works of Asia Minor. The
head-dress is a sort of helmet, a close-fitting rounded hat with a knob
on the top. The wings of this creature are folded by the side, extending
beyond the tail, and the whole of the breast is covered as it were with
down. The hindquarters of the animal are strongly delineated, and the
treatment here certainly suggests a lion’s body. The tail is held aloft
and comes to an end in the shape of a bird’s head, but whether of a swan
or goose is not clear. Though we fail to comprehend the full meaning
of the symbolism involved in this detail, it is full of interesting
suggestions.[691] This feature is found on each sphinx; and there may
also be traced, more clearly on the right than on the left, the design of
a horn upon the helmet. On the right-hand side the series of sculptures
now terminates, the corner having been disarranged at some time. Two or
three loose slabs, with traces of sculpture upon them, were found in the
neighbourhood, and obviously had completed the decoration of the inner
corner. The sculptures seem to represent men, two of them clad in long
robes with fringed border, and a third presumably clad in a short tunic.
On one of the former, the figure is preserved below the shoulders, and
there may be seen the outline of a long dagger, or knife, in its sheath,
with a fringed tassel[692] probably in attachment with its handle. Owing
to the condition of the stone, it cannot be seen whether this tassel
was attached to a girdle or whether it was independent; nor indeed is
it clear that it hangs actually from the handle of the dirk. The other
stones of this corner are too much weathered and broken for further
instructive details to be made out with certainty.
[Illustration: PLATE LXXXI
1. SCULPTURES DECORATING LEFT-HAND FLANKING WALL
2. SCULPTURES ON THE RETURN WALL CONTINUING THE SERIES]
Upon the left-hand side, however, the series is complete, and remains
in good condition in its original position. Following the sphinx there
comes the figure of a man who, from his position, is the most important
human being of the series, and must be deemed therefore to be the
priest-dynast of the locality. The figure itself faces naturally to our
left, following the direction of the leading sculptures, looking, that
is, towards the outside of the palace. In the treatment of this sculpture
there is revealed an interesting mixture of original Hittite motive
with the change brought about, as we suppose, by Semitic infusion. The
robe in which he is clad is a survival of the toga so familiar in the
sculptures of Asia Minor.[693] The loose folds pass from behind over
the right shoulder and are clasped by his left hand. The garment seems
to hang quite loosely, and numerous folds in it are shown, following
the direction in which it is wrapped around him. The sleeves of the
undervest may also be seen, coming to an end as usual at the elbow.
His feet are shod with sandals, and there are large bracelets upon his
wrists. His hair is dressed in a series of wavy curls, arranged from
side to side across the top of the head, and bound by a narrow fillet,
which is decorated at intervals with concentric circles. The features of
this personage are crudely represented: the eye is shown in full, and
exaggerated in size; the nose, in contradistinction to the usual Hittite
representations, is small and almost Mongoloid; the lips are heavy. The
beard, both upon the cheek and where it hangs freely, is in the style
illustrated by the sphinx figure which precedes, but the hair obeys the
older convention to a certain extent, being bunched together behind the
neck and curling backwards. In his right hand the king-priest holds out
something like a cup with a long stem, the precise nature of which is
not evident. It can hardly be thought that he is offering to either of
the creatures that precede him, inasmuch as they are facing away from
him. It seems more likely, from the sculptures which follow, that he is
simply refreshing himself with wine. The series is continued, but not
upon the same face of the wall; for the stone upon which the priest-king
is carved proved to be the corner-stone, marking the return of the inner
wall of the wing-tower on that side. On this inner wall two further
sculptures are found on two separate slabs. With these the series comes
to an end, though it is not clear that the actual corner of the tower is
indicated by this discontinuity. Both figures are those of men: both are
carved with noticeable skill, and remarkably preserved. They seem to be
attendants in the palace or personal servants of the king, for they are
clad alike and carry in their hands objects for the king’s use. Their
dress is a long robe with a fringe-like band some little way above the
hem. Their feet are shod with sandals, the toes of which are slightly
upturned. They wear no ornaments, and round their heads there is only a
plain fillet ending in a fringed bow. Both stand facing to their right,
following their leader, with their right feet advanced, their right arms
extended, and the left arms held up by the side of the body. The leader
holds up in his right hand what seems to be a fly-whisk, while with
his left he holds a pendent object like a piece of leather or ribbon
ending in a fringe. This probably explains the representation on the
corresponding stone on the opposite side, and it is significant that it
seems to have no connection with the dagger, which is suspended from his
waist by an attachment passing over the right shoulder. It is interesting
to note also that this stone seems to have been carved _in situ_, for
part of the whisk is found upon the corner-stone which precedes it,
while the end of the dagger is found in like manner on the stone which
follows. The second figure holds aloft a bird carved like a vulture, but
from its size and the general nature of the subject it must be taken for
a falcon.[694] In his left hand the falconer holds the ‘lure,’ a sling,
to which there was generally attached a bell or similar object, to be
thrown after the bird to attract it to return. This person also carries a
dagger, suspended in like manner by an attachment which passes over the
right shoulder, and is connected with the sheath appropriately at two
points. The handle of this dagger is peculiar, suggesting a small notch
in the metal between the hilt and the blade.
There remains to be mentioned one striking sculptured object, placed as
we have mentioned in the middle of the portico between the wing-towers,
and clearly defined as the base of an architectural column to support the
doorway. The design, in brief, suggests that the weight of the drum was
borne upon the backs of two sphinxes standing side by side. All round
the top edge the pedestal is decorated with a design of numerous fingers
placed side by side, the nails upwards; a similar object was found, as
we have seen, at Sinjerli, upon which this detail also was clear. The
rest of the sculpture is more simple, but equally striking, not merely
from the nature of the design, but from the beautiful quality of its
execution. The body of each sphinx seems to be that of an elongated lion.
Two paws are seen in front, three from the side and two from behind, so
that we have a new convention illustrated, which seems to be peculiar to
Hittite art. It recalls that of Assyrian art, but nevertheless differs
essentially. In both cases such animals are represented with five legs,
in order to give a realistic effect to each of the three points of view.
But in Assyrian art the front leg on the remote side would have been
repeated in the side view; whereas here it is the hind leg which is
duplicated. The human portrait upon this animal is remarkable, recalling
to a striking degree the head of the sphinx at Eyuk, and to a certain
extent the portrait statue of the Egyptian queen Nefret, to which we have
alluded.[695] It seems without doubt to represent a female. The face is
full, the lips are firm and somewhat severe, the eyes are hollowed as for
the reception of inlaid precious stones. The hair hangs in two ringlets
on either side, between which the ear can be seen. Upon the head there
is placed a close-fitting wig, or head-dress of that character, made, as
we may suspect, of plaited hair or of fine ropework, the strands of which
run from front to back. It ends with the shoulders in a triple border,
and is decorated on either side of the head with horn-like emblems.[696]
As in the case of the sphinx upon the flanking wall, the breast of
this creature is covered with down as though partaking of the scheme
completed by the wings, which as in the former case are folded by the
side. These cover the upper half of the body only, below which the belly
and hindquarters of the animal may be seen, strongly though somewhat
conventionally delineated. As in the former cases of lion sculptures
there is copious hair under the belly, which in this instance recurs
also behind the forepaws and on the hinderquarters. The tail descends
between the hind legs, curling forward towards the ground, where with a
short backward curl its bushy end may be traced. The two sphinxes are
similar in all respects to one another, but the head of one was found
to have been broken away. The whole composition of this sculpture is so
complex that it may be readily believed that it was not designed from
an architectural point of view alone, as the mere support for a plain
column. The excavators indeed found reason to believe that in some
secondary use of the site, after the upper walling of this palace had
been destroyed, the flat top of this pedestal had served as an altar or
its equivalent, and by the side of it they found numerous burnt bones
and cinders. It is clear, however, that in its original inception the
palace doorway must have required a column to help the broad span between
the wing-towers, which amounted to more than twenty-three feet. We are
inclined to believe that possibly such a column, in conformity with the
general design of the building, may have been in the form of a great
statue, similar for example to that of Panammu found at Gerdschein near
to Sinjerli,[697] and more particularly to the round column-figure found
at Palanga.[698] This conclusion is, however, merely hypothetical, based
purely on the elaborate nature of the pedestal, and on the rounded nature
of the statues in question. It would however, be well accordant with the
phase of oriental art to which the sculptures pertain.
[Illustration: PLATE LXXXII
SAKJE-GEUZI: SPHINX-PEDESTAL TO CENTRAL COLUMN OF PORTICO]
Before passing from the subject of this portico, we must mention also
two broad steps which obviously formed part of the same building. They
are decorated chiefly with rosettes, and seem to have given access to
an inner chamber, the connection of which with the threshold is not yet
clear.
In regard to the art illustrated by these subjects in general they lead
us, after careful comparison with other Hittite monuments and with
the ‘Aramaic’ monuments of Sinjerli,[699] to the conclusion that they
represent an intermediate stage between the one and the other.[700] We
cannot, from the internal evidence, decide whether this appearance is
due to the influence of Hittite dominion over an Aramæan population, or
to the supersession of a Hittite stronghold by Semitic rulers.
The excavations which have been made at Sakje-Geuzi have not as yet been
rewarded by any documentary evidence. An effort was made to obtain some
material basis for chronology by cutting a section of the mound down to
the undisturbed ground upon which it had grown. It was found that the
whole mound was artificial, being the accumulated rubbish of continuous
or successive settlements. It began in remote antiquity with the middens
and other traces of a primitive neolithic population, whose flint and
obsidian fragments and black pottery formed a distinct deposit, in
which the excavators thought they detected three strata. That age was
succeeded by two others, during which the neolithic culture remained
predominant. Towards the end of this phase a new style of painted
pottery began to make its appearance, and thereafter for two long ages
painted motives typify the Ceramic art of the locality. The main wall
of the mound was built at the close of the last of these periods, and
it seems to have been contemporary with the construction of the palace
within. Subsequently painted pottery appears only sporadically, and such
fragments as were found are more definitely related to late Ægean art,
while the commoner pottery was the hard burnt brick-like ware familiar on
Assyrian sites.[701]
There can be no doubt that in this record of two thousand fragments of
pottery in their original stratification, there is valuable material for
future comparative study. For the present, however, that which prevents
the immediate application of this material to the problem of chronology
is the remarkable fact that nearly all the early painted fabrics,[702]
which constitute by far the larger portion of objects found in the course
of this section, seem to be local, or at any rate unlike any others upon
record. In the course of future excavations in this and other localities,
doubtless relations will be established which will enable archæologists
to connect the growth of this site with the established chronology of
some civilisation like that of Egypt or Assyria. For the present the only
relations suggested, and these are not clearly established, are firstly,
in regard to the black pottery, sometimes decorated with a white incised
pattern, which resembles in general character that found sparsely in
the Troad by Schliemann[703] and by Dr. Arthur Evans in the neolithic
and earliest ‘Minoan’ strata of Crete;[704] secondly, a few fragments
of a peculiar fabric with black pattern on yellow base, belonging at
Sakje-Geuzi to the neolithic epoch, and corresponding closely to some of
the age of Naram-Sin, found freely by M. de Morgan in his excavations
at Susa;[705] and, thirdly, some general resemblance between individual
fragments of the painted fabrics and those found by Dr. Pumpelly in
Turkestan,[706] by Professor Petrie in the Royal Tombs of the First
Dynasty at Abydos,[707] and more especially by Dr. Evans in the early
Minoan strata of Crete.[708] The precise nature of these suggested
relations is not yet made clear, but for our purpose it is of interest to
realise that it is so remote. So far as its Ceramic art is concerned, the
Hittite civilisation for many ages developed independently. Further, it
is established that the growth of that civilisation may be traced back in
the locality for several thousand years, a fact which these excavations
have for the first time demonstrated.
VI
THE STORY OF THE HITTITES
In this concluding chapter we shall endeavour to relate the material
evidences of Hittite handiwork to the story of their doings. The
monuments have been described, their disposition noted, and in some cases
the materials for dating them have been defined; but the outline of
Hittite history as sketched in the second chapter remains to be filled
in with such details as can be gleaned from the literary sources both
old and new. The old sources are well known. They include the letters
found at Tell el Amarna,[709] the decorative scenes and inscriptions on
the walls of Egyptian temples,[710] and the archives of the Babylonian
and Assyrian kings. In our use of these we must rely on the published
translations and critical discussions of philologists,[711] which we can
do with more reliance in that this branch of investigation is associated
with such names as Maspero, Meyer, Müller, Sayce, Winckler, Hommel,
Knudtzon, Reinach. The new sources are the archives of the Hatti kings,
the first dynasty of the Hittites yet visible to history, discovered
recently amid the ruins of their capital at Boghaz-Keui.[712] These
documents are at the beginning contemporary with the Tell el Amarna
letters, which they supplement and substantiate, and they range in date
practically as far as the Egyptian references, by the side of which they
provide a series of important synchronisms. These new archives have not
yet been published in full, so that we do not reap the advantage of
others’ criticisms in this case. But Dr. Winckler has given the world
the first fruits of his labours,[713] which embody the materials for
many long-lost pages of oriental history. These we have endeavoured to
analyse, for they are difficult and obscurely put forward, and we shall
express them in what appears to us to be their historical sequence and
relationship.
As usual, however, in these investigations, the purely archæological
evidences throw light on the settlement of the Hittites long before
the earliest literary allusions. The mound of Sakje-Geuzi,[714] at the
southern foot of Taurus, illustrates the development of local culture
during a continuous occupation of the site throughout a period which
is not overestimated as beginning before 3000 B.C. and lasting down to
the time of Assyrian domination. We have already seen that the earliest
settlers shared some features of their neolithic culture in common with
Susa on the one hand and the Troad and even Crete on the other.[715] Was
all western Asia and the Ægean infused with a common germ of civilisation
in those days, or was this settlement in remote antiquity an incident
in a migration from one point to the other? Unfortunately we have no
collateral evidence as to the plateau of Asia Minor to help in answering
these questions; yet if the Hittite culture had taken root in the north
of Syria before the second millennium B.C., it may readily be believed
that it had been planted equally long upon the tableland, where in
historic times its chief power is found. The high standard of Hittite
culture, as revealed by their own archives and monuments at the dawn of
their history in the fourteenth century B.C., argues in itself a long
period of settlement and development under civilised conditions; while
a long contact with the culture of the Euphrates valley is indicated
also by the fact that their earliest international correspondence was
conducted in the Assyro-Babylonian language, while their scribes had
sufficient intimacy with the cuneiform system of writing to be able to
apply it to their own language, which was radically different. The great
deities of the Hittite pantheon also have their prototypes in Babylonia.
Of what stock, then, were these early settlers, and whence did they
come? Did they form part of a great migration from the East, like the
Turks in modern history, according to an old school of thought? were
they Semitic? or did they pass like the Phrygian conquerors, from
Europe into Asia, absorbing and adopting Eastern thought and habits, a
veritable _mirage orientale_? That the Hittites were not autochthonous,
if such a term has any meaning, is apparent already, and will become
more clear as we proceed, from the complexity of their pantheon and
the mingled elements of their peoples. We must from the outset beware
also of the pitfall of inconsistent terminology. The name Hittite is
commonly employed in three senses which we must distinguish: it may be
used in reference to the whole confederacy of peoples as depicted in the
Egyptian scenes, or to the smaller and more homogeneous band of Hittite
tribes, or to the dominant tribe of Hatti within the Halys, which seems
to have given its name in antiquity to the whole. The Egyptian artists
indeed recognised the mixed character of the confederates in their day,
and noted some of their peculiarities, but did not distinguish between
them with sufficient clearness or consistency for our purpose. Two types
which we reproduce[716] will serve to illustrate the wide difference of
racial character among the Hittite allies obvious to the Egyptians in
the time of Rameses the Great. The one is Mongoloid, characterised by
a definite pigtail,[717] oblique eyes, high cheek-bones; in short, a
recognisable Tartar type. We are inclined to place it in the vicinity
of Carchemish, if not beyond the Euphrates, upon the main trade route
with the East. The other is a clean-cut proto-Greek type, with a special
form of shield, which we are tempted to assign to Lydia or some part of
western Asia Minor. The Amorites, an Aramæan (Semitic) people, are also
conspicuous among the allies of these times, being distinguished by a
projecting beard, receding forehead, and other features.[718] These vast
differences among the peoples united under the Hatti leadership in the
thirteenth century B.C. are now explained historically, as will become
evident later in this chapter. They reveal to us a population of the
Hittite lands no less mixed than that of Turkey in Asia to-day. They do
not, however, throw any light upon the question of the original race of
the Hittite tribes. These are commonly identified with another type with
a long head, long nose, and receding forehead, deep-set eyes somewhat
obliquely placed, and yellow, wrinkled skin. A sharp, firm line runs down
from beside the nostril on either side of the lips.[719] On the walls
of the Ramesseum, where it is best seen, this type is associated with
Aleppo, and we must recognise in it an element of the Hittite peoples;
but on comparing it with the Hittite sculptures of Sinjerli, Boghaz-Keui,
and elsewhere, we must regard it as still hypothetical whether even
the central Hittite states were strictly homogeneous in race. The
Hatti themselves, indeed, we look on as a dominant conquering element,
differing again, maybe, considerably from other Hittite peoples[720] in a
manner best explained by considering the dominance of the Seljûks or the
Osmanlis in later times, or most analogous perhaps to the position of the
Phrygian rulers in antiquity amongst other peoples of kindred race who
had preceded them.
[Illustration: PLATE LXXXIII
TYPES OF HITTITE ALLIES.
i. Mongoloid.
ii. Proto-Greek.
Temple of Rameses II. at Abydos.]
Though we fail to identify the Hittite race,[721] there is some general
indication of the direction whence they came. We have dismissed the
direct evidence of the pigtailed element amongst the Hittite peoples,
in spite of the temptation of the pigtails on the sculptures of
Boghaz-Keui,[722] and the description of a pigtailed leader as a royal
Hittite, lest we should push the argument there—from further than might
be warranted. We may regard these facts, however, as a general indication
of relationship with the East. The contact with Babylonia has been
already argued, and we must recall the singular relations between the
painted pottery of Sakje-Geuzi with that of Turkestan, extending over a
long range of post-neolithic culture.[723] Another link, not previously
mentioned, is the early employment by the Hittites of the horse, dating
from at least the beginning of the second millennium B.C.,[724] and
the antiquity of the remains of horses found equally in the mounds of
Turkestan.[725] Another item of evidence on this question may be found in
the footgear of the Hittites, which, except in the later sculptures of
North Syria, is always represented, as we have seen, as a shoe or boot
with upturned toe.[726] This feature is now specially characteristic of
the Tartar peoples, and hence another eastward connection is suggested.
But it is not so exclusively; the Arabs (who borrowed it in the Middle
Ages from the Turks) employ it in the desert sands, and in the more
special form in question it may be found in many mountain countries,
for example Greece, and it has long been used in Crete. It is commonly
supposed to be the natural form of snow-shoe for highland regions,
though the shepherds of the Pyrenees, who also use it, believe it to be
specially adapted to walking upon broken and stony ground. However that
may be, most scholars are agreed that it argues a mountain origin for its
Hittite wearers,[727] and this suggestion is borne out by the mountain
cults found in the Hittite pantheon.[728] The mountains by which the
Hittites reached the plateau of Asia Minor are not far to seek; they lie
eastward, in Armenia, the Caucasus, and the Taurus.
[Illustration: PLATE LXXXIV
1. A LIVING AMORITE. (_See pp. 12, 318._)
2. SURVIVING HITTITE TYPE.
From a sketch by Mr. Horst Schliephack. (_See p. 16, note 2, and cf. p.
48._)]
We do not press the argument of these suggestions, but only regret the
paucity of evidence available. For the present we must be content that we
have been able to find some evidence as to the antiquity of the Hittite
settlement. We cannot suppose that the mounds of Sakje-Geuzi stand alone:
indeed a myriad others, that remain unexamined,[729] are evidence to the
contrary, and considerable inference may be made with these as basis from
the disposition of the Hittite tribes as revealed by the first light
of history. One powerful branch must have early seized the position of
Carchemish, while others settled in the plains that lie westward of the
Euphrates. Others again found their homes in the valleys of the Kara
Su and the Orontes, while some branches passed the Lebanon and mingled
with the aboriginal people of southern Syria, where they were gradually
submerged. If we are right in our argument, the habitable valleys of the
Taurus and anti-Taurus regions must have been earlier peopled; and to
judge from the relationship we have indicated, the western extension
of these tribes in Asia Minor must have been considerable even as early
as neolithic times. Whether the Hatti rulers themselves were part of a
later immigration is still open to consideration; upon that point we
await further evidence. The Hittites would seem to have brought with them
(sooner or later) a new cycle of deities, with Babylonian prototypes,
including their national Sandes or Sandan, lord of heaven, a god of
the skies with lightning in his hand, in one of his various forms; and
they seem to have absorbed into their pantheon a number of acceptable
nature-cults, like the worship of mountains and streams and of the
mother-goddess of earth, already practised by an earlier population whom
they overlaid. The sun-god they seem to have received from contact with
the Semite, and to have identified him with their own chief god. With
regard to other aspects of their primitive culture, we can argue from the
one site of Sakje-Geuzi alone, and from the reflected witness of later
times. There is only one general assumption, therefore, that we make,
that once settled in a metal-producing country, in contact with the rich
mines of the Caucasus,[730] and the copper sources in Cyprus and the
Taurus, their civilisation would share to the full in the stimulus of the
copper and bronze ages as these arose. It is at the latter stage that
they emerge into the full light of history[731] in the fourteenth century
B.C.
[Illustration: PLATE LXXXV
THE WESTWARD DRIFT: NOMADS PASSING INTO ASIA MINOR THROUGH THE CILICIAN
GATES.]
The earliest allusions to the Hittites, however, in oriental records
take us back to the period of the great movements in western Asia some
five or six centuries before. These references are naturally scanty,
but they occur in the records of three different peoples, and are in a
sense parallel to one another, so that the main facts bear the stamp
of historical accuracy. From the Babylonian archives it appears that
about 1800 B.C., or before, the Hittites were chiefly responsible for
the overthrow of the first dynasty that ruled at Babylon;[732] while
of even earlier date in the same dynasty are references to the king of
the Hittites and his doings, contained in the great Babylonian work
on astrology,[733] and there is an allusion of possibly much older
date.[734] The mention of the Hittites at the beginning of the second
millennium is almost synchronous with the earliest dated reference
from Egyptian sources, in an inscription of the twelfth dynasty,[735]
from which it would appear that settlements of the Hittites had been
established in southern Syria, and that these were among the objectives
of a military expedition. The historical setting of this record is
apparent, and it is confirmed and amplified by the references in Hebrew
history, which claim our consideration no less than the inscriptions
carved by loyal subjects of the Pharaoh. These passages show us that in
local tradition of the time of the Patriarchs the Hittite settlements
were no matter for special comment.[736] On the other hand, their name
was practically synonymous with that of Canaanites,[737] and, like the
Amorites, they were long looked upon as one of the settled peoples of the
land.[738] For some centuries, however, we are without dated records,
nor is there any direct evidence as to the history and doings of the
Hittites until the eighteenth Egyptian dynasty. One thing, however, is
clear, that the ‘Hyksos’ peoples who overran Egypt in the meanwhile were
deeply imbued with the elements of a culture which, if not purely Hittite
nor directly traceable to them at this date, was still largely shared by
the Hittites in historic times.[739] The people that had overthrown the
dynasty of Babylon was clearly an established power already organised.
Though the earliest kings[740] and dynasties of the Hittites remain
unknown, the nature of the Hittite organisation in the thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries B.C. is now made clear by the archives recently
discovered at Boghaz-Keui. These cover the reigns of six generations of
the Hatti dynasty of kings, making allusion in all to eight of their
sovereigns. They include treaties with internal states in Syria and
elsewhere, with Mitanni, with the Amorites, and with Egypt, most of them
prefaced by historical notes of events leading up to the conclusion of
the treaty in question. There is also correspondence of a diplomatic
character with the courts of Thebes, of Babylonia and of Mitanni, and
other documents of varied sorts. These are written in cuneiform, and the
language employed in foreign affairs is the Assyro-Babylonian: only in
some internal matters the Hittite language is used. Though the documents
have not yet disclosed the full nature of their contents, the archives as
a whole[741] have already thrown as much light upon the history of the
Hittites at this period as did the Tell el Amarna tablets, with which
they are in part contemporary, on the foreign affairs of Egypt during the
eighteenth dynasty.
The story opens with a bid for empire under the Hatti leadership in the
person of Subbi-luliuma.[742] This ruler (known in Egyptian records as
Sapalulu) had inherited only the kingship of his city-state of Kû-sar
[or Sû-sar], which was possibly at Boghaz-Keui itself, from his father,
Hattusil I.; but so well were his plans laid, and so accomplished his
military leadership, that before his death he had won for himself the
title of Great King.[743] We cannot follow the story of his doings in
Asia Minor, for unfortunately the names of the places mentioned in
Hittite in this and the succeeding reign cannot yet be identified; but
it will be clear from what follows that his western frontiers, if not
already peopled by Hittite tribes and subject to his authority, must have
claimed his first attention. In other directions his policy and movements
are revealed more clearly. Among his own peoples he seems to have
arranged a series of alliances; other lands which he overran he parcelled
out among his followers, while to some non-Hittite tribes he granted
terms of vassalage.
Though we have no clear allusion to the kingdoms in the Taurus regions at
this time, we may infer that the two great Hittite states of Arzawa[744]
and Khali-rabbat,[745] which lay on either side of his pathway, were
already allied with him in one or other of these ways, before he
descended to the north of Syria, and ventured to enter the political
arena of western Asia, where the older powers were stationed to resist
his oncoming. The whole of Syria as far northward as Aleppo had indeed
for something like a century been within the sphere of influence of the
Pharaohs. It is claimed for the Egyptian monarch Thothmes I. that before
the close of the sixteenth century B.C. he had set up the boundary of
his empire somewhere near Carchemish on the Euphrates, in the ‘land of
Naharain.’ Three of his successors by occasional expeditions, beginning
with that of Thothmes III. about 1469 B.C.,[746] had sought to retain
this boundary, and had come into conflict with the Hittite tribes already
settled in these regions. These seem to have submitted like other
northern states, nominally at any rate, to the Egyptian supremacy, and to
have regularly sent their tribute to the Pharaoh. But though Amenhetep
III. inherited the full power and dominion of his predecessors, he seems
to have found it necessary to send an expedition at the beginning of his
reign to maintain his suzerainty.
These frontier states indeed occupied at this time a position of
considerable difficulty, where all the diplomacy of their chieftains
was required to maintain the security of their inheritance. The reins
held by the Pharaoh on his distant throne at Thebes may, it is true,
have been only lightly felt: an occasional present or diplomatic letter
to the court would generally secure respite from that direction; but
their anxieties were not thereby ended, for in the East a nearer power
claimed their allegiance also, before the arrival of the Hatti leader
added to their perplexities. This power was the kingdom of Mitanni,
which was firmly established in northern Mesopotamia, from the Euphrates
to the Tigris. Tushratta, who now occupied the throne, represented the
fourth generation of his illustrious house,[747] the authority of which
had been strengthened through the foresight of his predecessors by
intermarriage with the royal family of Thebes. His father’s sister had
been wife of Thothmes IV., and his own sister was married to the ruling
Pharaoh. He clearly realised that the continued support of Egypt would
be necessary to him if he was to save his kingdom from being crushed by
the increasing pressure of Assyria on the one hand and of the Hittite on
the other; so that with some alacrity on his part[748] his daughter was
sent to Egypt to become the wife of the heir-apparent. Propped up in this
manner, the Mitannians had not only established a formidable barrier at
the Euphrates against Hittite expansion eastward, but had even extended
their own influence westward of that landmark, so much so that some of
the princes of northern Syria first encountered by the Hittites hardly
knew to whom they owed their allegiance, and were conquered as vassals
of Mitanni while professing in their letters to be loyal subjects of the
Pharaoh.[749]
TABLE SHOWING CONTEMPORARY RULERS AND ROYAL ALLIANCES
_Compiled from the Hittite Archives and the Tell el-Amarna Letters._
HITTITE
[Hatti.]
B.C. Hattusil I.
1400 |
|
SUBBI-LULIUMA.
|
1350 +------------+----------+
| |
Arandas. MURSIL.
|
+---------------+-----------------+-----+----------+
| | | |
1300 Khalpu- MUTALLU. HATTUSIL II. A daughter.³
Sulubi(s). | _m._ Putukhipa. [_Ilani-irina._]
Urkhi-tessub. |
+------------------+------+------------+
| | |
1250 DUDKHALIA. Nerigga-Shems.² A daughter.³
_m._ Tawâssi (?) [_Gashuliawi._]
|
+------------------+-------------------+
| | |
1200 ARNUANTA. Eldest daughter (?) A daughter.
_m._ Munidan. [Maat-neferu-Ra.]⁷ [Name lost.]
AMORITE
[E. of Lebanon]
B.C. Ebed-Asherah.
1400 |
Aziru.
|
+------+-------+
| |
1350 [Abu-Martu.] Du-Tessub.
|
+-------------+
|
Abbi-Tessub.
|
1300 Put-Akhi³
[_Banti-shinni._]
|
+------+-----------+
| |
1250 Shabilis. A daughter.²
MITANNI
[N. Mesopotamia]
Sa-us-sa-tar.
|
B.C. ARTATAMA I.
1400 |
+------------+-------------+
| |
SUTARNA I. A DAUGHTER.⁴
|
1350 +----------+---------+--------------------------+
| | |
TUSHRATTA. GILUKHIPA.⁵ ARTATAMA II.
| |
+---+------------------------+ |
| | |
1300 MATTIUAZA.¹ TADUKHIPA.⁶ SUTARNA II.
[Sutatarra.]
EGYPT
[Thebes.]
Amenhetep II.
B.C. { B.C.
1400 ⁴THOTHMES IV. { 1420
{ 1411
{
⁵AMENHETEP III. {
{
{ 1375
1350 ⁶AMENHETEP IV. { 1350
[_Akhenaten._] {
Horemheb.
Rameses I.
{ 1313
1300 SETY I. {
{ 1292
1250 ⁷RAMESES II. {
{ 1225
{
MERENPTAH. { 1215
1200 Five Rulers.
Rameses III. 1198-1167
NOTE.—The numerals indicate the marriages.
With these two allied powers arrayed against him, Subbi-luliuma must
have had confidence in the unity and valour of his forces when he
crossed the Taurus to throw down the challenge. We cannot tell whether
he employed any new method or weapon of war that encouraged him in his
aspirations. As seen by us now, in unravelling the tangled record of his
rapid movements and effective victories,[750] his successes appear to
be attributable to the hardihood and mobility of his troops and to his
own able generalship. As to his forces, we may assume from the absence
of contrary evidence, that the whole region behind him, northwards and
westwards from Marash, as well as the states round Carchemish and in the
valley of the Kara Su, already acknowledged his supremacy, and united
with him in this enterprise.
His first operations were thus directed against Nukhasse, a region which
we suppose to have extended northwards of Aleppo as far as Killiz,
including some of the ancient cities of the plain. He took all the lands
of the several states[751] that were included in this district. The king,
Sarrupsi, fled, but his relatives were made prisoners, and a servant of
the dethroned king was set up in his stead, doubtless as a vassal. The
conqueror was turning his attention to the district of Abîna, being
disposed to leave Kinza unmolested, when the king of the latter district,
Sutatarra, and his son Aitakama, with their war chariots, bore down
upon him and gave battle. Though he had been prepared to respect these
adversaries, Subbi-luliuma was not slow to respond to and punish this
provocation: the king and his son, together with many of the chiefs,
were taken prisoners and sent in triumph to the capital. The fate of
Sutatarra is unknown, but Aitakama reappeared later, reinstated in his
kingdom, and a faithful ally of the Hittite, who entrusted him with
the command of the Syrian armies.[752] The land of Kinza is unplaced,
but it seems to have lain westward, possibly on the lower Orontes,
corresponding with the district of Hamath or the kingdom of the Hattina
in later times. It was probably peopled with a Hittite tribe, to judge
from the nature of these chieftains’ names and the position subsequently
accorded to Aitakama. Realising in these incidents the constant influence
of Mitanni, and attributing them to the hostile attitude of Tushratta,
Subbi-luliuma now deemed it desirable to establish his prestige, and so
turned eastward, ready, if necessary, to join issue with Tushratta. In
a single year he added to his territory the whole region of the plains
lying between the mountains and the Euphrates.[753] In this campaign he
seems to have overrun the Aramæan district of Am (or Amma), and with the
aid of his allies to have captured several cities.[754] But the real
objective of the Hittite leader was the destruction of the Mitannian
supremacy and power. Therefore crossing the Euphrates[755] he ‘went forth
against the might of the king Tushratta,’ and marched against the lands
of Isuwa, which are supposed to have bordered on the Tigris, bringing its
people into subjection, as it would appear his father had done in some
previous campaign hitherto unrecorded.[756] This record is difficult to
understand, but we are led to infer that Tushratta did not actually give
battle to him on this expedition, and even when the conqueror made his
way northwards into the mountainous region of Alshe, the Mitannian king
still hesitated to join issue with him.[757] The newly acquired territory
was handed over to a confederate, Antaraki, ‘as a present.’
The power of Tushratta would seem, indeed, to have been crushed by these
irresistible exploits;[758] the kingdom fell into anarchy, and the king
himself was shortly afterwards murdered, giving the Hittite a further
occasion for interference in its affairs, an opportunity which we shall
find he was not slow to seize. Meanwhile, however, disaffection had shown
itself in the North of Syria, seemingly as a result of the overtures
of Pharaoh’s emissaries.[759] ‘Wheeling about,’ the record says,[760]
Subbi-luliuma recrossed the Euphrates and descended on Aleppo. His route
lay probably from Malatia by way of Samsat or Marash, and the absence
of comment at this stage confirms our impression that this region was
already subject to him, though there is a suggestion that a generation
previously it had been for a time in the hands of the Mitannians.[761]
The subjection of Aleppo[762] and the neighbouring lands and cities of
Nî and Katna[763] was swiftly effected, and at first these districts
were placed under the rule of one Akia, king of Arakhti; but on the
disaffection of this chief they were reduced to direct government by
Hittite officials and became a province of the kingdom. A chieftain who
remained loyal to Egypt made an effort about this time to recover the
land of Am for the Pharaoh, but he was repulsed by Aitakama with the
Hatti.[764] Aitakama thus reappears on the scene, and from the same
record it is clear that he had been reinstated in his father’s kingdom.
He now appears as the most influential agent of the Hittite king in the
north of Syria, entrusted with the conduct of missions and command of
troops, even while protesting to the Pharaoh[765] that he was maligned by
those who accused him of infidelity. His attempts to seduce the frontier
states from their old allegiance had been reported to the Pharaoh by
Akizzi,[766] who wrote from Katna, apparently on the eve of the events
we have just recorded, appealing at the same time in despair for help
against the catastrophe that threatened. To Aitakama’s proposals Akizzi
replied that though he should die he would not go over to the king of
the Hatti. With him there remained faithful the kings of Nukhasse, of Nî,
of Zinzar, and of Tunanat, all city-states near Aleppo, while with the
Hittite there were leagued the kings of Rukhizi and Lapana, whose names
were Arzawia and Teuwatti. We have seen that Akizzi’s appeal and his
fidelity were alike in vain. The Pharaoh was powerless or unwilling to
interpose; resistance unsupported was impossible; and Subbi-luliuma with
his generals easily made good his victories. Akizzi himself seems to have
escaped from Katna before that city fell,[767] but the king of Nî, by
name Takua,[768] and his brother Aki-tessub were among the prisoners.
[Illustration: PLATE LXXXVI
CÆSAREA: TYPES OF SEMITIC SETTLERS. (_See pp. 12, 23, 33._)]
The triumph of the Hittite arms in these, and doubtless other minor
expeditions, had now established the authority of the Hittite king
throughout the region of northern Syria, and had extended his frontier
until it bordered on that of the Amorites, hitherto professed allies
of the Pharaoh. These early settlers have recently been recognised as
of Aramaic (Semitic) stock; in records of Babylonia as old as the time
of Hammurabi, from which this inference is made, they are described as
living in the western deserts, and now appear to have pushed gradually
northward, until they had occupied, like Bedouin, all the habitable
fringe of the tongue of desert lying between Mesopotamia and the Lebanon.
Their patriarch, Ebed-Asherah, now found himself in the same dilemma as
Aitakama and other northern chieftains had before him, but the rapid
advance of the Hittite power left him little time for hesitation.[769]
He and his sons were the recognised leaders of the Amorite tribes in
peace and policy and war. They had watched with anxiety the approach of
the Hittite leader on Tunip from Nukhasse,[770] and the failure of the
Pharaoh to send them support could not but have added to their concern.
Quick by instinct to read the signs of the times, they covertly came
to an understanding with the chief of Kadesh, a city already under the
Hittite suzerainty, if not actually within the domain of Aitakama. At
the same time Aziru, the most active of the sons of Ebed-Asherah, making
pretence of still serving his old master, cast his eye upon the city of
Sumur as his nearest prize. The change of attitude and subtle dealings
of the Amorites did not escape the notice of the Pharaoh’s emissary,
who reported Sumur to be in great danger though not yet fallen, and
Ebed-Asherah’s sons as minions of the new northern power.[771] The
Egyptian sovereign was grieved but inactive. In a letter addressed to
the Amorite chief[772] he charged them with their duplicity, and ordered
the appearance of Aziru as a hostage at his court. The latter, however,
evaded the command. He would seem to have already brought about the
downfall of Sumur and other cities, and felt some natural hesitation
in accepting his sovereign’s invitation. He found also a pretext for
postponing the rebuilding of Sumur as commanded,[773] and still protested
his fidelity. In response, however, to a more peremptory summons, in
spite of shifts and subterfuges, Aziru appeared ultimately at Thebes[774]
for the judgment of his case. But the Amorites had influence at court, as
appears from a letter of their patriarch to one of the officials asking
for his son’s release.[775] Amon ‘passed sentence’ on Aziru and ‘granted
him his life.’[776] The mercy extended to Aziru, however, was unavailing;
and further allegiance to the Pharaoh could only have proved fatal to the
best interests of his people. The Hittite cause was clearly triumphing,
indeed the Egyptian made no apparent effort to resist his oncoming; in
any case the Amorite hastened to take the winning side. Betaking himself
to the Hittite, Aziru ‘cast himself under the feet of Subbi-luliuma,’ who
‘granted him grace.’[777] The price of the Amorite vassalage appears in
another record as three hundred shekels of gold paid yearly.[778]
With the Amorites on his side it would appear that the Hittite leader
might now have swept onwards to the frontiers of Egypt, but at this stage
the southerly progress of the Hittite arms seems to have been stayed.
Occupied probably with other campaigns of similar character for the
expansion of his power in Asia Minor, Subbi-luliuma had been obliged
to entrust the conduct of much of his Syrian wars to Aitagama, and
possibly he found that the region of the Lebanon was a frontier already
distant enough for effective control. However that may be, he found it
desirable to come to terms with the Pharaoh, and concluded with him an
alliance,[779] which brought their struggle for some time to an end.
Some of the events which we have described seem to have happened with
a swiftness surprising even in oriental history, but the Great King
probably foresaw that a sterner task lay before him in the consolidation
of his empire. Here again fortune proved to be on his side, by removing
the two chief sources of inquietude on his Asiatic frontiers. In Egypt,
Amenhetep IV., who had succeeded to the throne about 1375 B.C., was
too young or too busily occupied with home affairs to take any active
interest in the possession of Syria, and was only too glad to renew
the Hittite treaty in due course.[780] Babylonia, where the kings of
Karduniash sat upon the throne, was too distant to give occasion for
anxiety, and in addition the broad tract subject to the Amorite régime
was wedged between their respective spheres of influence. In the East
the tragic development of affairs among the Mitannians,[781] the murder
of Tushratta, the flight of the heir-apparent from the usurper and
patricide, Sutatarra, and the invasion of the land by the Assyrians and
by the mountaineers of Alshe, were a series of events all favourable to
the Hittite cause. The armies of Subbi-luliuma crossed the Euphrates
to make good his claim to a portion of the disintegrated kingdom, and
when he realised the distressful condition which the anarchy of these
times had brought about, he even sent his administrators with cattle,
sheep, and horses to re-establish the population.[782] Finally, when the
fugitive Mattiuaza, after a vain appeal to the court of Babylon,[783]
turned to him for protection, he saw and grasped his opportunity. The
oracle was consulted, and ‘the Hittite god gave judgment in favour
of Mattiuaza, Tushratta’s son’ (as against Sutatarra, whom he had
previously supported). Taking, therefore, the unhappy prince by the
hand, Subbi-luliuma gave him one of his daughters to wife, and set him
upon the remnants of his father’s throne. Terms of allegiance were
defined, and the new but reduced kingdom of Mitanni was created a special
Protectorate.[784] The gods of both peoples were invoked as guardians
of the treaty. The frontier of Subbi-luliuma on the Euphrates was amply
secured by the gratitude of the re-established king.
The empire of the Hittites beyond Taurus had now reached, under
Subbi-luliuma, its furthest historical extent; and in Asia Minor, though
direct evidence is not yet available, we may infer that his sway had
been extended westward far beyond the confines of the Halys, even if his
arms had not already penetrated to the Lydian coast.[785] We thus see
in Subbi-luliuma the founder of the Hittite empire under the dynasty of
the Hatti, which for nearly two hundred years continued to hold its own
amid the constant tremblings of the balance of oriental power throughout
this time. Relieved for the present from their frontier campaigns, the
Great King and his allies seem to have reaped the reward of their good
fortune and prosperity. In the capital at Boghaz-Keui, ‘the city of the
Hatti,’ the royal palace seems to have stood on the northern crest of
Beuyuk Kaleh.[786] At Malatia, the palace of his vassal or ally, the king
of Khali-rabbat (the _Milid_ of later Assyrian records), was decorated
with sculptured blocks showing the ruler and his consort as high priest
and high priestess, making oblations before Sandes (the Hittite national
deity), and to the winged deity who seems to have been the guardian of
the tribe.[787] To the same phase of art, though not necessarily the
work of this generation, we must assign the similar oblation scenes of
Eyuk[788] and Fraktin[789]; in the former case, moreover, the forms of
the sacred vessels are the same as those seen at Malatia. It is true that
such vases may have continued in use for ceremonial purposes after their
common vogue had passed; but in any case the lower buildings at Eyuk,
the existence of which we have pointed out,[790] must be as old as these
times; while in the rock-sculptures of Fraktin we recognise a phase of
art and motive as early as that of any recorded Hittite works.
It is a singular fact that notwithstanding the great deeds of
Subbi-luliuma and his successors, no sculpture of any kind has come
down to perpetuate the Hittite triumphs. The Hittite monuments of Asia
Minor are all of primarily religious signification. The royal palaces
were decorated with religious scenes, while even the warrior deities of
Giaour-Kalesi and Kara-Bel are identified with forms of the national god
Sandes. The king is always spoken of as The Sun, and this fact may be
reflected in the terms of address to the Pharaoh by his Syrian subjects
at this time,[791] who otherwise is invariably styled the Horus. At
Malatia the local king and queen are already seen as high priest and high
priestess of the gods.[792] In these early suggestions we see the first
traces of ideals so clear in later history, namely, priest-kingship and
the high status of the woman,[793] with all the ramifications which the
maintenance of these principles involved.
The nature of the Hittite constitution as a whole becomes more clear
in later reigns, but we have already seen something of the nature of
the kingdom and confederacy in watching the tying of its bonds. Three
distinct grades of allegiance can be recognised already:[794] the allies,
the vassals under tribute, and the conquered states administered by
the crown. The special protectorate of Mitanni may be classed with the
first of these. Each subject state would seem to have been bound to the
Great King by special treaty: that with the Amorites has been already
mentioned, while even the petty kingdom of Nukhasse seems to have its
special firman granted when first conquered, previous to the disaffection
of its chief.[795]
[Illustration: PLATE LXXXVII
YENI HAN, NEAR SEKKELI: GROUP OF NOMAD WOMEN. (_See p. 29._)]
Subbi-luliuma died,[796] and ‘mounted the hill,’[797] where on the
sacred high place he was gathered to his god. Thereafter for over a
century and a half, notwithstanding the constant development of new
historical situations, the dynasty of the Hatti sat firmly on the
throne, throughout the greatest visible period of Hittite power. His
son Arandas, who nominally succeeded after a short interregnum, seems
to have been without effective power, and was shortly replaced by his
brother Mursil, the _Maurasar_ of the Egyptian texts. During the earlier
part of an apparently long reign, this monarch seems to have had leisure
and tranquillity to enjoy the empire which he had inherited from his
father. During the first ten years at any rate, the annals of which
are preserved, there seems to have been no incident of foreign affairs
more noteworthy than a series of minor troubles on the frontiers. His
relations with a number of states are mentioned, but the Hittite names
of these are not yet recognisable.[798] The governorship of various
frontier lands was apportioned, or possibly these were now for the first
time brought under Hittite rule. One _Barkhu-izuwa_ was appointed to the
land of Mira, _Manapa-Tessub_[799] to Amaskhe-haku, and _Targâs-nâli_
to Happalama. The terms of the Amorite vassalage were renewed in a
special treaty with Abbi-Tessub, who now appears as chieftain of that
people.[800] In the period of apparent calm in the early part of this
reign, we may see historically the opportunity when in the security of
his kingdom the monarch built a new royal palace at Boghaz-Keui on the
lower ground to the north of the acropolis, outside the main line of the
defences.[801]
But inactivity in these empires of the sword was always fraught with
danger. Towards the close of his reign, if we read the somewhat obscure
chronology of this period rightly, the eastern frontiers of his empire
suffered several shocks. The Assyrian kingdom had been steadily
gathering strength, and soon after 1320 B.C. Shalmaneser I. seems to
have dispossessed the Hittite entirely of his suzerainty eastward of
the Euphrates, ravaging all the kingless country of Mitanni as far as
Carchemish.[802] Further north he even crossed the Euphrates and entered
Khali-rabbat, capturing Malatia, just as a previous Assyrian monarch
had done a hundred years before. In this campaign the Hittite forces
sent against him seem to have been definitely defeated, and Shalmaneser
penetrated as far as Muzri,[803] while his successor also invaded the
district of Kummukh, which lay on the Hittite side of the Euphrates
around Samsat. Egypt also, rejoicing in the re-establishment of a strong
line of kings, was not long in taking advantage of this temporary
weakening. Sety I. had hardly ascended the throne of the Pharaohs when
he initiated a series of campaigns in the south of Syria, and erelong
found himself able to beat back the Hittite forces, and to penetrate
northwards as far as Tunip and the land of Naharain,[804] reaching
possibly to the Euphrates. The early operations of his successor, Rameses
II., however, seem to have extended only as far as the Lebanon,[805]
where the Hittites were encountered; hence we may conclude that the
latter had been able to regain their ascendency in northern Syria. In
these critical times, with a great struggle inevitable and even imminent,
Mursil died, and his son Mutallu succeeded to the Hittite throne.[806]
The new monarch was not slow to realise the critical state of affairs
that had arisen on his eastern frontiers. Assyria, indeed, seems to have
withdrawn temporarily, through internal reasons, from her efforts to
obtain a footing in the Hittite lands, but the repeated incursions of
the Egyptian armies, and the evident intention of the Pharaoh to regain
his dominion over Syria, called forth a mighty effort on the part of
Mutallu to retain the empire which his great ancestor, Subbi-luliuma,
had established, if not even to extend its boundaries. The call to arms
was sounded through the Hittite lands, and the response from every
side showed how deeply and widely the power of the Great King had been
established. Practically all parts of Asia Minor are represented in
this splendid rally round the Hittite leader. United in this common
enterprise, the states of the centre, like the Hatti (_Kheta_), Arinna,
Pisidia, were joined by Dardanians and Mysians from the furthest portions
of the peninsula, as well as by Lycians of the southern coast, and
Kataonians from the anti-Taurus.[807] Northern Syria, from Carchemish
to Kadesh, sent also its contingents, for the Hittite leader ‘left no
people on his road. Their number was endless, nothing like it had ever
been seen before. They covered the mountains and hills like grasshoppers
for their number.’ The Pharaoh valiantly went out to meet this formidable
enemy before it entered his own dominions, and the fateful battle was
joined not far from Kadesh. The opening stages were favourable to the
Hittite, who made a strategic and unforeseen onslaught on the enemy’s
flank, and for a time disorganised the Egyptian forces. The Pharaoh’s
position, indeed, at one moment seems to have been almost desperate,
but in the issue he managed to recover his formation and claims to have
pursued the Hittites from the field.[808] The Egyptian losses were so
great that they were unable to follow up their advantage: even Kadesh
remained unassailed, though the Hittite king had taken refuge within
its walls; so that the battle must be regarded as indecisive. The moral
effect, however, on both sides was sufficient. Mutallu made overtures for
a truce, which the Pharaoh readily accepted,[809] and the Egyptian forces
were withdrawn.
[Illustration: PLATE LXXXVIII
BATTLE OF KADESH: HITTITE CHARIOTRY CHARGING A HILL.
Temple of Rameses II. at Abydos.]
The result of this battle proved indeed an effective rebuke to the
ambitions of the leaders on both sides. Thereafter Rameses confined
his military operations to southern Syria. With the Hittites the issue
was more serious, and the consequences more immediate. Two princes of
the royal blood, Sipa-zar (? Subbi-sil) and Mazarima, several chiefs,
soldiers, and charioteers had been counted among the slain. The Kataonian
chief also perished in the battle, and the king of Aleppo was drowned
while attempting to cross the moat and marshes that protected Kadesh.
The great army had to be disbanded, dismayed and disappointed, when
victory had been so nearly within their grasp. The Amorites, whose home
lands had suffered perhaps most of all in this warfare, and who were
at all times watchful of the balance, threw off their allegiance.[810]
Their chief, Put-akhi,[811] was deposed, but escaped the punishment of
his offence. The disaffection spread among the troops: a mutiny took
place, in which the chief general figures conspicuously, and Mutallu was
assassinated.[812] The zenith of Hittite power was passed; the Hittite
Sun had reached its highest point, and the shadows at that same moment
began to lengthen. Never again, it would seem, could the Hittite leaders
call up in their special enterprise so many allies drawn from such varied
peoples.
The dynasty of the Hatti none the less retained the throne; Hattusil,
brother of the ill-starred leader, whose end we have described, now
became Great King, and Putukhipa, Princess of Qizwadna, was his queen. As
daughter of the city of Arinna, the home of the sun-god, this lady was
probably the foremost of the land, and her union with the Prince of the
Hatti was one of the events that contributed to restore the prestige of
his house. As Khetasar this monarch looms big in the pages of Egyptian
history, and indeed his reign was one of considerable importance and
duration. But, as with his compeer upon the throne of Egypt, the actual
tendency of events throughout this reign shows signs of weakening in
the Hittite power and the gradual dismemberment of their empire.[813]
As with Egypt also from this date, this reign was free from serious
conflict or disturbance in Syria. Assyria had fallen temporarily behind
in the bid for empire, the Mitannians were utterly submerged, and neither
of the other two powers was yet disposed to resume hostilities. One of
Hattusil’s first acts contributed indeed to secure the tranquillity of
his frontier in this direction, by the reinstatement of Put-akhi as Chief
of the Amorites, under the same terms of vassalage as of old.[814] It
was indeed to Hattusil’s intervention that the Amorite prince owed his
life at the time of his disaffection; and now, with a Hittite princess
(Gashuliawi) for wife, Put-akhi was united in his allegiance by a double
bond.
Later in his reign, about 1271 B.C., Hattusil succeeded in bringing about
a definite offensive and defensive alliance, and treaty of extradition,
‘a good treaty for friendship and concord, which was to assure peace,
for a longer period than beforetime’ with the Pharaoh. The preliminary
negotiations occupied many months, and were carried out with a full
measure of oriental dignity. The queens on either side took part in the
negotiations, and the chief wife of Rameses wrote to Putukhipa specially
expressing her satisfaction when the affair was concluded. The first
draft of the treaty was clearly prepared by the Hittite diplomatists; not
only does the name of the Hittite king come first in all cases where both
names occur, but a summary has been found among their archives which does
not contain all the clauses finally incorporated.[815] It is prefaced
with an historical preamble, after the well-established precedent
found in the Hittite treaties with the Amorites and the Mitannians, as
well as with minor vassal states. Only in this case, the treaty being
one of equity, no pointed allusion was made to the first conquest of
Subbi-luliuma on the one side, or to the exploits of Sety on the other:
the fact of past wars and of the previous interim treaties was mentioned,
but now the two kings were to be as allies, friends, and brothers,
with a good understanding between them for evermore. Neither should
henceforth invade the other’s lands, the boundary between them being the
northern Lebanon; on the other hand, if either was in distress of war,
and appealed to the other for assistance, then troops should be sent
accordingly; their warfare should be in common.[816] Minor matters, such
as the question of fugitive servants and refugees, were also arranged.
We do not know whether duplicate copies of this treaty were actually
exchanged, but this may be inferred from the fact that an Egyptian
embassy was received in the Hittite capital.[817] The Egyptian record
of this affair, inscribed on the walls of the temple of Karnak, only
makes it known that two Hittite ambassadors, by name ‘Tal-tisebu’ and
‘Rameses,’ accompanied by a goodly retinue, presented the Hittite copy
engraved on a silver tablet to the Pharaoh.
The gods of all the Hittites were separately invoked, after their
time-honoured custom, as guardians to the inviolability of this treaty.
The sun-god, lord of heaven, takes first place, followed by the sun-god
of Arinna. Then come the various localised forms of Sandes,[818] called
Sutekh by the Egyptians, and associated here with nine chief states,
in which we seem to recognise three,[819] Arinna, Aleppo (Khilpa), and
Sarisu, possibly the classical Sareisa. A list of the tutelary deities
follows, including seven gods and three goddesses,[820] but possibly
the gaps in the text betoken others. Finally, the god of the land, the
queen of heaven, the goddess of the soil, the mistress of the oath, the
goddess (Askhir) of the mountains, and the rivers of the Hittite lands,
are appealed to; with a last reference to the gods of Qizwadna, the
home of the Hittite queen, and to those of Egypt, who are all covered
by one clause. The designs and inscriptions of the seals are of special
interest: upon the tablet itself these were naturally engraved. On the
obverse, we are told, there was the image of the Hittite national god
embracing the Great King,[821] surrounded by an inscription rendered,
through the medium of the Egyptian text, ‘The Seal of Sutekh, Prince of
Heaven,’ and ‘the seal of the treaty made by Khetasar (Hattusil) son of
Maursar (Mursil), the great and powerful king of the Hittites.’ This
was the seal of the Hittite god of the skies. The reverse was parallel,
only in place of the figure of Sandes was that of the sun-god of Arinna,
lord of the whole earth, and the Great Queen was shown in the deity’s
embrace. Around was an inscription, ‘The seal of the sun-god of the city
of Arinna, lord of the earth,’ and ‘The seal of Putukhipa, Great Queen of
the Hittites, daughter of the land of Qizwadna ... of the land of Arinna,
the mistress of its territory, the priestess of its goddess.’
The fame of this treaty was noised abroad, and an inquiry was
received from the king of Babylonia as to its purport. The Hittite
king replied[822] with firmness and obvious exultation: ‘I will
inform my brother: the king of Egypt and I have made an alliance, and
made ourselves brothers. Brothers we are and will [unite against] a
common foe, and with friends in common.’ The letter continues with an
explanation of the previous warfare between the nations that had rendered
this compact desirable, and allusion is made to the inroads of the
Pharaoh on the Hittite lands.
Though relations between Egypt and Babylonia at this time were well
established, it might have been thought that Babylon was too distant
to have been much concerned with the Hittite seated in the north of
Asia Minor. Yet in fact at this time only the eastward extension of the
Amorite realm divided the two powers, just as the same people formed
the frontier with Egypt further west. Diplomatic relations had indeed
been opened between them for fully a generation, and several long
letters have been recovered. They refer chiefly to the brigandage of the
Amorites, whom the Hittite king is asked to keep in order, and punish as
being his vassals. It is interesting to notice also the influence which
Hattusil exerted, through the forceful language of his ambassador at the
Babylonian court, and his own almost threatening diplomatic letters,
interfering even in the settlement of the succession to the Babylonian
throne. This subject might well be regarded as outside the sphere of
international politics, and the Babylonian king found reason to object
also to the terms of the communication on this matter, which would have
been addressed more fittingly to a vassal rather than a compeer. But
Hattusil’s reply is worthy of record: ‘I only wrote this, “If you do not
acknowledge the son of your lord, will it not happen that if an enemy
attack you, I will not come to your aid?” for my brother was then a
child, and he is an evil man who deals according to evil thoughts.’
Questions of foreign policy also were discussed by these two powers in
several letters. One fragment from Babylon shows that the increasing
power of Assyria[823] was the problem of the moment, and a reply of
Hattusil[824] shows that they were being drawn together on this matter,
which was of grave concern to them both. His advice to the younger king,
expressed in flattering terms, to ‘go and plunder the land of the foe,’
indicates the astute politician’s anxiety to get the sword that hung
menacing over his own head removed. The situation that now developed is
one of considerable historical interest. Like Tushratta of Mitanni on
the approach of the Hatti, so now the Hittite king at this crisis took
special means to ensure the support of Egypt, where Rameses the Great
still sat upon the throne of Thebes beside the tranquil Nile. Formerly
Tushratta had granted a daughter in marriage at the first time of asking,
contrary to precedent; but now not only was the first Hittite princess
seemingly offered to Rameses, to take a place among the other royal
wives, but the Hittite king himself with great state accompanied her to
Egypt, and, escorted up the Nile, visited the Egyptian monarch in his
capital, an event without parallel in oriental history. Naturally Rameses
made adequate record of this incident,[825] and the beauties of his new
bride received the praises of his courtiers.
Little is known of the two successors of Hattusil, Dudkhalia, and his
son Arnuanta, under whom the dynasty of the Hatti kings was prolonged
into the twelfth century, B.C. An edict issued by the former concerns the
organisation of the empire and the position of the greater vassals.[826]
The names of some of the chieftains transpire among the witnesses to the
document: Eni-Tessub[827] appears at this time as king of Carchemish,
which was probably the second state of the empire. Another event in the
reign of Dudkhalia is a ‘treaty’ with the king of Aleppo, doubtless a
ratification of the terms of vassalage, but the name of that chieftain is
not revealed.
The name of Arnuanta, his son, who in turn became Great King, is the last
of the dynasty that has come to light, and circumstances tend to show
that the day of Hatti dominion was really over. He is known only from two
fragments of royal edicts, and a more complete document (found in the
débris of a gateway), seemingly an elaborate land register or cadastral
survey.[828] This is rendered of special interest by the seals, which,
like the famous boss of Tarkudimme, were inscribed in Hittite hieroglyphs
and in cuneiform. The Hittite inscription on one seal is defaced, but the
cuneiform can be read in both cases. The first seal is that of Arnuanta
himself, the Great King, son of Dudkhalia. The second gives the names of
the royal ladies, namely, the Queen-Mother Tawâssi,[829] and his wife,
the Great Queen, Munidan; while a daughter of Dudkhalia is mentioned,
though her name is lost.
The appearance of these royal women side by side with the monarch in
the transaction of state affairs reawakens a whole series of interesting
allusions which transpire in the earlier archives of this dynasty,
indicating a clear position of authority held by the female side, and
even suggesting a matriarchal system of succession to the throne. In
the edict of Dudkhalia the Queen-Mother, Putu-khipa, is mentioned as
co-ruler; and we have seen above that she separately placed her seal
upon the treaty with Egypt, wherein she is described as Great Queen
of the land of the Hittites, ... of the land of Arinna, the mistress
of its territory.’ Further, the son of this powerful lady succeeded
to the throne upon the death of Mutallu, even though the latter’s son
was still alive (being mentioned in documents of Hattusil). During the
interregnum[830] she maintained the continuity of the government, with
sole powers in her hands, as appears from her correspondence at this time
with Rameses. The title of Hattusil himself to the throne can best be
explained in view of these facts, by his marriage with this lady, a first
princess of the land;[831] and that her son would succeed seems to have
been foreseen by Rameses II. when he wrote to her diplomatically, wishing
him ‘good health.’ The part taken by royal women in state affairs in the
East can be illustrated from modern events in China, which under its
Mongol rulers presents us with so much interesting comparison, no less
than from the records of the correspondence between Egypt and Mitanni in
the age with which we deal.
This respect of the worshippers of the Mother-Goddess for the female was
inculcated by them among various branches of their peoples. It will not
be forgotten that the founder of the Hatti dynasty, when he admitted
the fugitive Mitannian prince to his family and extended to him his
protection, laid down the condition of a monogamous marriage. So, too,
Hattusil, in granting his daughter to the Amorite chieftain, Put-akhi,
whom in like manner he re-established in his authority, inserted in
the document recording the alliance a clause to the effect that the
sovereignty over the Amorite should belong to the son and descendants of
his daughter for evermore.
These indications all agree with the impression that Greek tradition
and the Hittite monuments have already left upon our minds. The worship
of the Mother-Goddess, to which we have alluded, would seem, indeed, to
have been paramount throughout the Hittite lands, from Carchemish to
Ephesus, from Kadesh to the coast of the Black Sea. Originally a nature
cult, derivable from the productivity of the earth, this had now taken
divine form with the quality of self-reproduction, to develop later into
the conception of a universal mother. Though this worship was general
throughout western Asia, its introduction into Asia Minor is traceable to
the Hittites, upon whose monuments its symbolism appears earlier than it
is known elsewhere, notably at Boghaz-Keui,[832] Eyuk,[833] Fraktin,[834]
and on Sipylus.[835] We do not wish to imply a local development of the
cult, though that may be admitted as a possibility when we consider
the simple and general nature of its origins, and the power of the
human mind then as now to attain in a few years the standpoint reached
only by generations of ancestral experiences, and thereon to build
up new conceptions, to be transmitted in like manner together with
those inherited. Yet on the fertile plains of Babylonia the seasonal
productivity of nature was more conspicuous and almost spontaneous;
there indeed, as it seems, man was earlier able to give up his wandering
life and settle, noting with satisfaction and gratitude that earth and
sunshine with other elemental forces provided him with the means of
living. Taking also the evidence as it stands, it would seem that the
embodiment of these conceptions in divine form (under the name Istar)
is earliest attributable to Babylonia; and from there consequently we
are disposed to derive her when found in Asia Minor, whether by general
contact, as is historically admissible, or introduced, as seems more
probable, by some early migration of Hittite peoples that had already
assimilated her to themselves.
The worship of a goddess with virtues so natural and with powers that it
was so desirable to propitiate would, in any case, it may be thought, be
readily acceptable to a peasant people. It became deeply rooted, and in
certain localities took special forms, reflected many centuries later in
rites like those of Ma at Comana, Kybele in Phrygia, Artemis at Ephesus,
and, latest of all, Semiramis at the post-Hittite city at Carchemish.
From the sculptures of Boghaz-Keui[836] it may be seen that, as in
Babylonia, there was already associated with her a youth, whose male
powers were necessary to complete her own. With her also there appears a
lioness or panther whose force and character seemed to be emblematic of
hers. Though clearly attributable to an earlier phase of thought, this
association may have been made before the cult was localised. There
are, however, traces in these sculptures of more primitive conceptions,
attributable to older strains of population. From the evidence in
general, four or five strata, indeed, may be discerned in the Hittite
pantheon. In the lowest of these there appear the purely elemental
forms, mountains and streams,[837] earth,[838] sun,[839] moon[840]
and star.[841] Passing from the inanimate to the animate, we find the
lion,[842] the bull,[843] the eagle,[844] the falcon or dove,[845] the
goat,[846] the stag, the serpent[847] and other living creatures, some
of them possibly adopted as tribal totems, and all no doubt representing
some special virtue or power that later became embodied in the deities
associated with them. Upon these substrata the gods of human form appear
to be imposed, and first among these the Mother-goddess. Already, as we
have noticed in these sculptures,[848] her supreme powers in life and her
unfathomable actions had found expression in the semblance of a lion,
before she was adopted by the mountain-worshippers; and another class of
monument, possibly of later evolution, seems to reveal her in another
aspect, as a goddess to be propitiated at death. The two ideas in her
case are not far separated; for just as in the simplest conception of her
powers through her the dead earth revived, while in her developed cult,
her dead son yet lived in her offspring (through her unnatural union
with him), so the instinctive belief of humanity in the incompleteness
of death found expression in offerings to her for the dead,[849] and in
communion of the dead at her table.[850] The idea of a future life after
death was inseparable from her worship.
In the sculptures[851] of these times there are associated with the
goddess a number of divine attendants and priestesses, each holding as it
seems a bent staff upon which she leans. These are not armed, but in them
we may see the prototypes of a class of women devoted to the goddess, who
in later centuries, on the decline of the Hittite power, at the coming
maybe of the Phrygians, at first for the defence of their religion, and
later separating in independent action, developed into armed priestesses,
and possibly the Amazons of tradition.[852] But that was not yet; nor
do we see in any of the shrines of the goddess of this age any sign or
suggestion of the orgies and carnal festivals that a thousand years later
were celebrated in her name. On the other hand, we see the cult at this
age in its simplicity; in some cases the goddess worshipped alone, in
others accompanied by the son-consort, whose position in legend and at
Boghaz-Keui is secondary to her own. In the latter case, however, she
is face to face with another god who is her equal. We have been able to
trace in these sculptures to some extent the merging of this religion
with the old conceptions, and now we pass to consider its union with the
new.
In this fourth phase the male predominates. The new divinity was a god
omnipotent, with lightning in his hand. We call him Sandes, from a name
surviving in Greek tradition in Cilicia and Lydia; but his real name is
unknown. Possibly Tarku was one Hittite form of it; but at this period of
his conspicuous individuality Baal or Zeus would suit him better. Like
the goddess, he was well known in western Asia under various guises, the
Tessub of Mitanni, the Hadad of Syria, the Rimmon of Babylonia. He came
into Asia Minor, it seems to us, as guardian deity of the conquering
Hatti, clad like their warriors; and in their wake came a limited number
of kindred tribes, among whom also he was worshipped under various
forms,[853] notably as a God of War with sword in hand.[854] By them he
was transmitted as the national god to the other Hittite peoples, whose
tutelary deities, however, seem to have been various.[855] In him, the
embodiment of manly strength, the nature worshippers saw the sun, ruling
in the skies,[856] supreme, a fitting husband for their Mother Earth.
It was not hard to reconcile the cults. Just as the sun’s return in
spring-time to shine upon the earth was necessary to revivify the dead
year; so was the periodic union of the god with the goddess natural and
appropriate, that the earth might bring forth her fruits in due season.
The sculptures[857] illustrate the rite that arose upon this new ideal,
where we see the statue of the god borne upon the shoulders of his
priests to the open-air sanctuary of the goddess, and the divine nuptials
celebrated with the dancing and revelry that have accompanied marriage
festivals through all time.
The conception of Fatherhood, hitherto submerged, now found expression
in independent form, wherein the new god was identified with the Bull,
the emblem of virility. At Malatia[858] the god rides upon the animal’s
back; at Eyuk[859] the animal alone is found, in a scene where his
ministers are the royal high priest and priestess, the counterpart to
the worship of the goddess herself on the other side of the gateway. In
this character food and music and revelry were his delight. There were
present all the elements which under other conditions might have led
to the development of a special and exaggerated worship of masculine
powers. But here the circumstances were unfavourable. So long, indeed,
as the warrior kings maintained the throne, their god also retained his
individuality,[860] amid an environment, however, too deeply imbued with
the older ideals to maintain his separate worship after their downfall.
Already we see one way in which his cult was liable to be submerged; for
the part he now claimed, as it were, by force, had been hitherto played
in esoteric fashion by the son. Hence a new identity arose, in which the
attributes of the father-god and the son-god became confused and merged
in one.[861] This fact seems to be reflected even in the sculptures of
Boghaz-Keui, where the cult of a dirk, which each important male figure
wears, becomes endowed with a separate ritual.[862] Possibly, however,
this may be more particularly an aspect of the son-god, and associated
with the ritual of the Mother-goddess. It was, moreover, a national
cult, widespread, and revered.[863] In any case the association of the
Father-god with the Son-god in the cult of the Mother-goddess, nature’s
divine triad, seems to us an essential feature of the religion of these
times.
The part played by the king and his queen in this worship is clear in
the sculptures of Eyuk[864] and Malatia,[865] and their position as high
priest and priestess of the god is defined in the text of the Egyptian
treaty.[866] Whether the king himself took an official position in the
worship of the goddess is still open to conjecture; for the pictures
of the high priest at Boghaz-Keui,[867] though accompanied by the royal
insignia, are open to another interpretation,[868] and possibly in her
festivals the king’s place was taken by a eunuch-priest of considerable
authority, in accordance with a ritual long established and surviving in
later times. At Sinjerli there is an interesting suggestion in a certain
series of sculptures[869] belonging possibly to this era. In comparing
these it seems to us that the king himself is shown impersonating his
gods or god in various characters; in one he is the warrior with shield
and spear, in another he holds aloft the lightning trident, and in a
third we see him like Thor with a magic hammer. In the rites of the
various deities the king may possibly have carried these sacred emblems
ceremonially.
The position of the Hatti kings in state affairs, the nature of their
kingdom and their empire, has been already disclosed in watching how
their power was won.[870] The army was the mainstay of their empire, yet
no martial scenes decorate the walls of the palaces and temples that have
been hitherto unearthed. This may be accounted for by the essentially
feudal nature of the constitution, whereby the bulk of the forces would
be composed of troops under the more direct command of the vassal kings
and chieftains. Within the domain of his own tribe or tribes, though
doubtless a royal bodyguard was maintained, it would almost seem that the
power of the Hittite king was sustained rather by constitutional rights
such as have been indicated. Some of the religious sculptures, however,
give an indication, though in somewhat conventional and maybe antiquated
form, of the dress and armour of the Hittite infantry; while the general
character of their chariots and arms may be gathered from the hunting
scenes of later date in Syrian towns. Where the home sources fail, the
Egyptian carvings supply a wealth of detail illustrating all branches
of the Hittite forces;[871] and these, though drawn as it were from
afar, have none the less the advantage of being contemporary evidence,
recorded, too, by past-masters in this branch of archivism, who allowed
no characteristic detail to escape them.
The freest drawing of a foot-soldier is that from Sinjerli,[872]
wherein a warrior is seen armed with a spear and shield; the head of
the spear is narrow and ribbed down the middle, and the shaft is about
the length of the man; the defensive weapon is of the figure-of-eight
shape traditional in Asia Minor, and associated with some branches of
the Hittites in Egyptian sculptures.[873] The dirk which is worn, an
invariable side-arm of the Hittites, is here shown so long that it looks
almost like a two-edged sword; from other sculptures, however, like those
of Giaour-Kalesi[874] and Boghaz-Keui,[875] we may be sure that a dirk or
dagger is indicated. The crescental hilt and the midrib are noticeable
features. That the sword was used, however, may be gathered from other
scenes.[876] The dress of the Hittite warrior, like that of his gods,
was uniformly the short tunic, short-sleeved vest, shoes with turned-up
points, and tall conical hat; the last named is seemingly padded in
this instance at the top. Equestrians and charioteers seem to have
modified or discarded this head-dress[877] as being unsuitable for rapid
motion. In addition to the spear, the bow was doubtless used by both
infantry[878] and chariotry;[879] but other implements, originally of an
offensive character, like the club, double-axe,[880] mace, and curved
dagger,[881] are found only in religious symbolism in such connection
that it must be considered doubtful whether they continued to be used
in war. The throw-stick is, however, admissible, though found only in
sporting scenes.[882] As to the Hittite cavalry the local sources almost
fail us. Two stones from Sinjerli show a rider armed with bow and dagger,
and possibly a shield decorated with a human face;[883] and a third
sculpture from the same site introduces a large round shield and possibly
a quiver.[884] There is also a fragment, possibly from Marash, showing a
horse rider,[885] though apparently not in that instance a fighting man.
In another case a led horse is shown, with attendant groom, as though
awaiting his royal master’s pleasure.[886] In Egyptian scenes,[887]
however, the Hittite horse-rider is conspicuous, fleeing before the
Pharaoh’s arrows, himself armed with a lance; and in two literary
passages at least, clear reference is made to the Hittite cavalry.[888]
The chariotry of the Hittites was, however, their chief arm of offence.
Unfortunately only one war-chariot is shown in their own sculptures,[889]
and this is apparently of later date and employed in an inter-tribal
struggle. In this case two persons are shown in the car, the warrior
and his driver. The wheel has six spokes, the car is lightly built, and
a pair of horses are harnessed to it.[890] The warrior’s arms are the
bow and spear. Other chariots appear in hunting scenes, showing little
variation except the eight-spoked wheels; but it may be thought from
the Egyptian representations that a somewhat heavier car with panelled
sides was employed for war. The magnificent appearance of the massed
Hittite chariots in attack excited the admiration of their enemies, the
Egyptians, who have handed down vivid pictures of them taken from their
wars: the assault on a hill,[891] an incident in the battle of Kadesh,
shows excellent formation in close order while advancing at a gallop.
The Egyptians were unanimous in representing three Hittites in each
car, a practice which differed from their own, and so attracted their
attention. The third man was a shield-bearer, whose absence from the
hunting scenes of the Hittite sculptures is self-explanatory. A square
shield, mostly associated with the Syrian allies, makes its appearance in
the scene before us; but the Egyptian artists were so much perplexed by
the necessity of crowding and showing three men within the tiny car, that
they forgot or found no room for the offensive arms of their redoubtable
enemy.
For transport in war the Hittites seem to have employed freely a covered
wagon on four wheels, a characteristic vehicle throughout western Asia
to-day, and drawn then as now either by bullocks or a pair of horses. In
addition, the hardy ass was also requisitioned, represented as struggling
with the weight of his panniers.[892] Though for the frontier wars with
Egypt, fought out mostly near the Lebanon, the Hittite doubtless employed
a strategic base in northern Syria, such as Carchemish, yet for his
Syrian campaigns, and for the general control of his Syrian dependencies,
it becomes almost self-evident that there must have been one route
at least available for wheeled traffic connecting with the interior
and the capital. But it is by no means easy to determine which of the
several passes may have been used for this purpose.[893] The history
of these times leads us to infer a system of communication throughout
the empire, with Boghaz-Keui as its focus. From this centre, to judge
by the disposition of the earlier monuments and other evidence, roads
already radiated in several directions. To the north was Sinope,[894]
which seems at one time to have been the first port of the country, but
to have fallen into decline with Boghaz-Keui itself. To the east we must
infer a road connecting the valley of the Halys, whether by way of Sivas
or otherwise, with that of the Tochma Su,[895] and so leading down to
the frontier at Malatia. A southerly bifurcation of this route led by
Albistan down the passes of the Pyramus to Marash,[896] communicating
thence severally with Carchemish, Aleppo, and the valley of the Kara Su,
wherein lay the cities of Sakje-Geuzi and Sinjerli. A more direct track
over the mountains from Mazaca (Cæsarea) to Marash passed by Kuru-Bel
near old-time Comana,[897] whence also Dastarkon (near Ferakdin)
might be approached. The line of communication from Boghaz-Keui to
Mazaca is not known, but a direct road from the former towards Tyana
is traceable, and possibly it sent off a branch corresponding with the
modern route from Injessu to Cæsarea. Whether in its direct southerly
line it continued as a wheel track thus early through the Cilician gates
to Tarsus is open to question, though it was clearly open some three
centuries later.[898] Westward also there must have been established
now or shortly afterwards an embranchment connecting Tyana by way of
Ardistama with Iconium; while, as we have already noted,[899] the
existence of a main westerly route from Boghaz-Keui to the Lydian coast
is testified by the contemporary sculptures of Giaour-Kalesi and Kara-Bel.
Of the cities which these roads connected there remains little
trace. At Boghaz-Keui only the buried remains of the palace built by
Mursil[900] and the sculptured sanctuary which we have dated to the
age of Hattusil[901] can be assigned with any security to the two
centuries that we have been considering. At Eyuk and Malatia the
cubical building blocks decorated with sculptures seem to indicate the
existence of palaces as early as the reign of Subbi-luliuma.[902] The
site of Sakje-Geuzi was already occupied by Hittite people, and probably
counted six walled townships and citadels within its neighbourhood;[903]
we suspect it to be the centre of the state that later becomes known in
the Assyrian records by the name of Iaudi. Sinjerli was also a large
and flourishing city,[904] the capital of the kingdom later called by
the Assyrians Samalla. Carchemish,[905] Aleppo,[906] and Hamath[907]
are also known as Hittite cities from the history of these times, but
no remains of buildings have been found within their areas that can be
assigned to this period.[908] We may infer, however, from the evidence of
the excavations at Sinjerli, and from contemporary Egyptian sculptures,
as well as from the designs of late fortifications, that the cities of
this age were already surrounded by masoned walls, supported by numerous
external towers, and entered through gateways barred by a pair of double
doors and guarded by wing towers on either hand. But most of the visible
architectural remains of Boghaz-Keui, and nearly all those that have come
to light in Syria, including those of Marash, belong upon our evidence to
a later period after the disintegration of the empire, when for a while
in the development of history the opportunity occurred for a revival of
local arts upon the old models among the small kingdoms that survived.
The disintegration of the Hittite empire introduces a new phase of their
history. With it was involved the downfall of the Hatti rulers, indicated
by the failure of the archives of Boghaz-Keui after the reign of
Arnuandas, two generations after the time of Hattusil, and hence probably
about 1200 B.C. In the great combine of land and sea powers against
Egypt, which Rameses III. resisted and dispersed,[909] the Hittites
again figure among the confederates, but this time no longer as leaders;
and subsequently they appear no more in Egyptian history. They had held
sway over Asia Minor for about two centuries, a lengthy period for an
oriental dynasty, and now they were submerged by historical movements,
of which the details are wanting so far as it affected them, though the
development of events may be traced in outline. As often in the history
of Asia Minor, the tide of immigration that had formerly set westward
had now turned, and, sweeping irresistibly from Europe southward and
eastward over the Greek world and the Ægean Islands, traversed also the
peninsula.[910] The wave which Rameses III. turned away from the Egyptian
frontier had swept away the Hatti power, and it may be thought that their
part in the movement, like that of others, was migratory rather than
warlike, pressed onwards by newcomers from beyond.
In the redistribution of power that followed the dispersal of these
peoples, the dominant position in Asia Minor seems to have been held
by the Muski,[911] whom we presume to be a European people, akin to
the Phrygian conquerors of later times.[912] With these newcomers at
any rate the Assyrian kings were occupied for half a century. By 1170
B.C., it would appear, they had traversed Asia Minor and descended upon
Kummukh, the Hittite state lying around Samsat, between Carchemish and
Malatia, upon the Assyrian frontier; and it was not until 1120 that they
were driven back by the valorous expeditions of Tiglath-Pileser I. It
is possible that the Assyrian king followed up his victories as far as
the Black Sea;[913] but in any case the power of the Muski would seem
to have been broken and to have gradually declined until reinforced by
the Thracian immigrants of the ninth and eighth centuries B.C.[914] In
the meanwhile the Hittite states found the opportunity for a remarkable
revival. The readiness of these peoples, though no longer politically
united, to combine against a common enemy is well shown by the
experiences of the Assyrian king, who had no sooner crossed the frontier
at Malatia, than he was assailed on his right flank by twenty-three
chieftains,[915] while in front lay sixty others whose domains extended
to the Upper Sea. Though possibly this expedition lay eastward of the
boundary of the Hittite lands, the central Hittite states did not
escape from the ambitious raids of the Assyrian king, who crossing the
Euphrates on rafts of skin, this time nearer to Carchemish, put Mount
Bishri[916] to the sword, and advancing northwards, devastated the
frontier lands (Muzri), which lay now, as we have seen, beyond Kummukh,
nearer to the kingdom of Malatia. The Kumani, dwelling probably in the
mountainous region round Comana (Shahr), seem to have gone out to the
assistance of their kinsfolk, harassing the Assyrian probably on his left
flank. But their native fastnesses and walled cities did not protect
them from the vengeance of the Assyrian. Their advanced troops were
overcome and imprisoned in the fortress of Arinni; while the remainder
of their fighting men, some 20,000 strong, who lay entrenched on Mount
Tala, were driven out and pursued as far as the range of Kharusa, on the
frontiers.[917] Kibshuna, the capital of the Kumani, surrendered. The
states of Syria were the next to fall to the Assyrian conqueror, for a
fresh expedition passing up the Orontes seems to have crossed the Lebanon
and reached the Mediterranean coast northward from Beyrout.[918]
Though the expeditions of Tiglath-Pileser I. were far-reaching, they do
not seem to have established anything like a permanent hold over the
Hittite states of Syria. Carchemish, upon the frontier, does not seem to
have lost any of its independence, and it may be suspected that after
the decline of the Hatti, this state remained the chief centre of the
Hittite power.[919] There is indeed a suggestion that its kings were
descended from, or early related to, the Hatti rulers,[920] and that
at one time, perhaps in the eleventh century, they held sway as far as
Gurun,[921] in the valley of the Tochma Su, indicating a kingdom which
embraced all the central Hittite states. However that may be, some names
of the early kings of Carchemish have been handed down among the archives
of the Hatti,[922] under whom it seems clearly to have been already a
state of major importance; and its independence was maintained, in name
at least, as late as any of which the history is known.
The apparent independence of Carchemish throughout the reign of
Tiglath-Pileser is not only a testimony to its own military resources,
but an indication that the Assyrian conquests were not secured. The time
of the great Assyrian empire was not yet, and as the Assyrian power
gradually weakened for a while, so did that of the Hittite states revive.
For something like a century and a half, until about 950 B.C., some
semblance of Assyrian authority may still be traced on the near side of
the Euphrates,[923] but in view of the history of these times it may be
said that during the tenth century B.C., until the renewal of Assyrian
invasions (about 850 B.C.), the Hittite states of Syria were free, and
their works illustrate to us their latent vitality and the revival of
their traditions.
It was not only in Syria that this opportunity was afforded, for a
parallel development of circumstances upon the plateau of Asia Minor
seems to have encouraged the revival of the chief states also by the
removal of their embarrassments. The Assyrian invasions had broken the
strength of the Muski, who had for some time threatened to overwhelm
and submerge the Hittite peoples; and now the gradual withdrawal of
both enemies was marked by a cycle of Hittite works which proved how
deep-rooted was their civilisation, and later history shows how radical
must be the changes that would supplant it in their mountain homes. At
Boghaz-Keui a new palace, unadorned, however, with sculptures, sprang
up on the site of that of the Great Kings, which was now completely
ruined. It is possible that the great walls of the citadel as they are
now seen were the product also of this age.[924] They would seem to have
been furnished, now or within a few generations, with the great arched
gateways decorated with sculptures[925] which are one of their most
striking features. Incidentally there is disclosed in the representation
of a female warrior upon one of the great jambs[926] the development of,
or union with, the Amazons,[927] whose fame lived in Greek history and
tradition while the deeds of the old Hatti kings were already buried in
oblivion. At Eyuk we have seen there is indication of a corresponding
phase of local buildings, involving details of architecture and sculpture
peculiarly Hittite.
It would seem, however, that it was not in the old centre of
administration that the dominant Hittite spirit most revealed itself.
The sculptures of Bor[928] and Ivrîz,[929] and the related inscriptions
of Bulghar-Madên[930] and Karaburna,[931] with others on the Kara Dagh
and at Bogche, as well as numerous minor works, are all indications
of a considerable area united as a single kingdom, the centre of
which was Tyana. The Assyrian records of later times tell indeed of a
powerful tribe or people named by them the Khilakku, whose geographical
disposition seems to correspond with this area. These two facts in
association recall the tradition of a great ‘Cilician’ empire, mentioned
by Solinus,[932] which was said to have embraced within its sway most
of the great states of Asia Minor and of Syria that had formerly
acknowledged the rule or suzerainty of the Hatti kings.[933]
Though this renaissance of the Hittite kingdoms may have been
short-lived,[934] it was none the less real and general, as the peculiar
features and relationship of the monuments of this age testify.
Practically nothing is known, however, of the history of this period:
their own inscriptions seem to be mostly theocratic or religious, while
Egypt and Assyria were too much engaged with home affairs to send
expeditions into Hittite-Syria, the records of whose adventures might
otherwise have enabled us to penetrate into the obscurity which hides
this brilliant epoch from our view. The period falls, however, within
the first pale glimmer of Greek tradition, which enables us at any rate
to interpret more clearly some aspects of the local monuments of these
times. The map of the Hittite world[935] in the tenth century B.C.,
deduced from the disposition of their monuments, and from the records of
the Assyrians when they came again into contact, is also instructive, and
seems to us to indicate the home-lands or settling-places of the real
Hittite peoples more clearly even than a map of the Hittite empire, based
as that would necessarily be on the whole range of Hittite works[936]
and the uncertain identification of Egyptian names. Eastward of the
Khilakku,[937] the kingdom known by the Assyrians as Tabal seems for part
of the time to have embraced most of the cities of the Anti-Taurus from
Fraktin to Comana, extending northwards possibly as far as Ekrek and
Mazaca (Cæsarea). It included numerous small states,[938] some of which
at various times became separately prominent, among which Kammanu seems
to be recognisable in Komana (identified with the modern Shahr), while
the principality of Shinukhta and the city of Tynne[939] lay nearer to
Tyana. On the Tochma Su, Guriania was the name of a minor kingdom seated
at Gurun, while lower down old Malatia was the chief town of the kingdom
of Milid (Miliddu), which still retained its great importance.[940]
Gurgum lay seemingly around Marash, then known as Marghasi, to which we
refer below, while Kummukh[941] extended, as we have seen, north-eastward
up the near bank of the Euphrates. Several states lay in the valley
between the Kurt Dagh and the Giaour Dagh,[942] like Mikhri, bordering
on the Pyramus; Iaudi, with its centre (Kullani) possibly at Sakje-Geuzi
or at Killiz; and Samalla, farther south, with its capital at Sinjerli;
while lower down on the Kara Su was Unki,[943] which probably included
Kurts-oghlu and the site of the classical Gindarus. The boundaries of
the small states and larger kingdoms alike cannot be fixed, and probably
varied continually with the ascendency of this chief or the other. The
region last mentioned, for example, seems at one time to have been mostly
subject to Samalla,[944] while at other times it was divided between
Gurgum and the Hattina, or subject to one or other of these powers.
The latter, as their name implies, were a Hittite folk, whose numerous
principalities[945] lay in the valley of the Orontes,[946] with Hamath
doubtless as their capital. Lastly, the Hatti themselves seem to be
represented by the powerful kingdom of Carchemish on the Euphrates,[947]
the boundaries of which were indefinite, but reached at any rate to the
Khabour River on the south.
[Illustration: THE HITTITE STATES after the Revival of the Xth Century
B.C.]
On the outskirts of the Hittite kingdoms there were already present most
of the elements of the powers that later were to submerge them. In the
immediate West we place the Muski-Phrygians, but the mutual boundary is
indefinable and probably varied constantly.[948] East of the Euphrates,
Mitanni was no more, and Assyria was recruiting; while from the south
and south-east there had already begun the steady infiltration of
Aramæan peoples, who now occupied most of the tongue of land between the
Orontes and the Euphrates.[949] Damascus was their centre, and within
the Hittite-Assyrian sphere they had already planted strong settlements
in the plains westward of the Euphrates. Even the kings of Samalla are
early found with Semitic names,[950] a fact which corresponds with the
character of a whole series of its monuments.[951] We may suspect from
the name in like manner the Aramæan extraction of the dynasty of Bit
Adini, which ruled over a broad and numerously peopled Hittite tract
extending from south of Carchemish even across the Euphrates, including
probably the site of Tell-Ahmar. Shugab lay also on both banks of the
river, somewhat further north. In the north-east a new and formidable
power akin to the earlier Hittites was gathering strength in the vicinity
of Lake Van, by name Urartu; but the Cimmerian hordes had not as yet
appeared in the north.
Many of the surface monuments of the Hittites seem to belong to this
period of revival: they are linked by various common features in detail,
and illustrate at the same time the development of new motives in art.
The increasing power of the priest-king is reflected in the prominence
now given to his portrait as a chief subject for the sculptures.[952]
His dress has now assumed a magnificence of embroidery and tapestry
unknown in earlier times, though clearly derived, as regards the close
cap, long robe, mantle, and shoes, from the priestly dress of the bygone
age. On the rock carving of Ivrîz he pays his devotions to a god of
agriculture, who presents so many new features that he might at first
sight be taken for an entirely new conception, notwithstanding that his
dress is obviously a direct modification only of the time-honoured and
sacred costume of the Hatti gods. Yet he is a descendant of the Son-god
of Boghaz-Keui,[953] and his new virtues are a product of the Hittite
lands. Now he has become the peasant’s god, the patron of agriculture,
himself rewarding toil with fruit and corn. In Babylonia, where the grain
grew wild, and the harvest was a gift of nature varying only in degree,
the function of the consort to the earth-goddess, as the fertiliser,
had been a secondary consideration. In the prominence of manhood under
the Hatti kings, the god had received his separate local attributes and
sanctuary. Now he appears, alone, in a third phase clearly developed
upon a soil where the goddess was benign only to those who toiled.
Here the clearing of the ground, irrigation, ploughing, sowing, and
constant tending were necessary before the harvest could be won; and in
this attribution the god is worshipped. The Greeks, when they arrived
upon the scene, saw in him their own Hercules as the god of toil. His
dress, however, as we have mentioned, betokens his Hittite origin. The
tunic and turned-up shoes, though more elaborate, remain essentially
the same as of old. The national hat, however, has lost its height,
and is also broader; and the same difference may be noted in the newly
found Amazon figure at Boghaz-Keui. This change, indeed, may be traced
back to the later years of the Hatti period, if reliance may be placed
on the Egyptian representation[954] of the Hittite monarch who visited
Rameses II. The pigtail, moreover, has disappeared, and from the source
last quoted and other considerations we are inclined to believe that
even in the Hatti period it was already antiquated, surviving only in
religious representations as sanctified by time. For civil purposes it
may even then have been replaced by the new style, which at any rate
is characteristic of the monuments of the age we are considering, in
which the hair is gathered in a thick bunch curling backward behind the
neck.[955]
The range of these changes in detail on both sides of the Taurus is
another indication of close bonds between the various branches of the
Hittite peoples. In the architecture of these times there appears a
new and striking motive, equally wide in its distribution, in the lion
corner-stone.[956] The lion itself we have seen to have been early
introduced into Hittite symbolism, but the earliest examples in the round
seem to be the product of this age. The carvings of Sakje-Geuzi, which
show the Hittite style just tinged with Assyrian or Aramaic (Semitic)
influence, can be assigned with some certainty to the period 900-850 B.C.
At Sinjerli the great lions seem to be of earlier date,[957] but in any
case there is a remarkable coherence in design and method of employment
between all the recorded specimens; as well as a correspondence in
treatment of detail with the lions which decorate the chief gateway and
the tank at Boghaz-Keui.[958]
One of the lions of Marash is covered with an inscription, the nature of
which seems to conform entirely with the dominant theocratic ideals of
the age.[959] The monuments and ruins of this place are in themselves
evidence of a city of remarkable strength and of conspicuous importance
in the Hittite world,[960] of which it was one of the last surviving
members. Unhappily for history we must still wait here as elsewhere for
the evidences which the excavator’s spade alone can satisfactorily bring
to light. The bare references in the Assyrian annals to the capture of
this or that city, or to the various desperate coalitions of the Hittite
states against the power that threatened their independence, if not their
existence, tell us little but the date and manner of their downfall.
If one could but penetrate the gloom that enshrouds the story of the
Hittites in these stirring times, how many Iliads could be written to
delight their readers!
We pass then to the last phase, which covers the period 850-700 B.C.,
during which the Hittite states were one by one submerged by the various
powers that encircled them, and finally the Cimmerians blotted out from
Asia Minor the memory of the past. The story is soon told; for we have
only the record of the Assyrian[961] and Vannic[962] inscriptions to
help in filling the outline of the Hittite story of these last centuries
which was sketched in an earlier chapter. These records also are usually
either brief and formal, or expressed in terms obviously exaggerated and
partial; and the operations of which they tell were for the most part
confined to the eastern Hittite states. Such as they are, however, they
are welcome.
The story opens about 884 or 885 B.C., with the loss of Tul Barsip, a
chief stronghold of the Bit Adini. This was, as it were, the warning of
a long series of incursions by the Assyrian forces under Assur-nazir-pal
and his successor, Shalmaneser II. The Euphrates was crossed by them on
rafts of skin as aforetime. Shangara, King of Carchemish, was awed into
sending a handsome tribute to secure the safety of his crown and life.
Among his gifts were a royal chariot, objects of gold, silver, copper and
iron, bulls of bronze, decorated cups and carvings in ivory. The route
of the Assyrian leader lay by way of the Orontes valley, and for a brief
moment, Lubarna, who at that time was head of the principalities of the
Hattina, seems to have contemplated resistance. Realising, however, the
inutility of such a course, he followed the example of Shangara, and
paved with presents the way of the Assyrian king, who, with the route now
open, passed onwards beyond the Lebanon. But the Hittite leaders were not
yet conquered. Somewhere about 860 B.C. nearly all the Hittite states of
Syria, including Carchemish, Bit Adini, Gurgum, Samalla, Quë, and the
Hattina, leagued themselves in a determined effort to resist, if not to
rid themselves of, the Assyrian menace. Taking advantage of the absence
of Shalmaneser’s army in the north, where he was assailing the fastnesses
of the Urartu, they even crossed the frontier and made considerable
inroads upon the Assyrian lands. The vengeance of the Assyrian was
swift. The towns of Bit Adini were taken by storm, and the Euphrates was
crossed. Gurgum, one of the states first open to attack, seceded from
the confederates and submitted. The combined army of Adini, Samalla,
and the Hattina was next defeated, and the Assyrian forces pressed once
more up the valley of the Orontes, this time in pursuit of the King
of the Hattina, Shapalulme, who had escaped. Seizing the opportunity,
the King of Samalla collected his troops, and being joined by the King
of Carchemish, with reinforcements also from Quë and further west, he
prepared to defend his country against the invader. The effort, however,
was vain. The fortress of Shapalulme was burnt. It is even possible
that the Assyrian passed over the Amanus into Cilicia,[963] being only
stopped on the frontiers of the chief Hittite state by ambassadors and
presents.[964] Hittite prisoners graced this triumph of the Assyrian
conqueror, in his capital, being distinguished by their long robes and
cumbrous hats.[965]
Though in the following year Bit Adini once more rebelled, with the
result that two hundred villages and six fortresses were taken or
destroyed, and Tell Barsip was garrisoned by Assyrian troops, it would
seem that five years later the states of Carchemish, Kummukh, Milid,
Samalla, Hattina and Gurgum[966] still acknowledged, however unwillingly,
the suzerainty of their all-powerful neighbour, and their respective
kings attended a conference at his bidding. Aleppo alone stood aloof,
and was persuaded accordingly by force of arms. Satisfied apparently
with their submission and attitude, the Assyrian king determined to try
conclusions with the Aramæan power seated at Damascus. The Hittites of
Hamath, Quë, and the Taurus fought against him in the great battle which
ensued at Qarqar.[967] The issue was indecisive, but the Assyrian, as
the attacker, lost prestige by his lack of success. Carchemish and other
vassal states promptly refused to renew their tribute. Shalmaneser was a
whole year suppressing this rebellion, and thereafter found it desirable
to send an expedition to the frontier each year to maintain his authority.
Thus far, it is clear, the incursions of the Assyrians into the Hittite
territory had been rather of the nature of raids for booty and the
exaction of tribute; no serious effort had been made as yet to bring the
states within the direct government of Assyria, and the operations had
been confined practically to the north of Syria. There is a record of
850 B.C. from which it may be thought that a first blow was now aimed at
the central Hittite states.[968] In the next year, however, after the
Assyrian forces had passed Carchemish and reached the Amanus, and then
turning southward had held Hattina to ransom, a league of twelve Hittite
kings in the vicinity of Hamath seems to have barred their further
progress. These kings are no more mentioned, and possibly their territory
was absorbed by Damascus, which had obviously gained influence after
the battle of Qarqar. The King of Hamath, however, paid homage to the
Assyrian when he once more entered the valley of the Orontes in 842 B.C.
Turning for a moment from the affairs of Syria, the kingdom of Tabal
was for the first time invaded in 838 B.C., and the Assyrian claims to
have reduced twenty-four of its chieftains to subjection. In Quë the
king, Kati, was dethroned and replaced by another named Kirri; while
further west Tarsus also fell into the Assyrian hands. At this stage
Shalmaneser gave up his military command; for a while the Hittite states
had respite, and some of them, like the Hattina, resumed an attitude of
independence.
[Illustration: Submergence of the Hittite States in the Eighth Century
B.C.]
Meanwhile, however, the Vannic kings had been steadily gaining strength
and now found themselves powerful enough to more than hold their own.
Erelong they began to cause the Assyrians considerable inquietude on
their northern frontier, and about 804 B.C. Menuas drove back the
Assyrians and attacked the Hittites. Crossing the Euphrates the Urartians
exacted tribute from Malatia.[969] The events of the next generation are
obscure; but in 776 the Hittite tribes of Syria, notably those under
the Amanus, took advantage of the discomfiture of the Assyrians at the
hands of the new Urartian king, Argistis of Ararat, to throw off their
allegiance; and within a few years most of them were free of the Assyrian
yoke. But their freedom was transient. Argistis looms in the history of
these times as a great conqueror, and the Hittite states on his immediate
frontier, including not only Malatia and Kummukh, but possibly a great
part of Tabal, yielded to his authority. After a temporary withdrawal, it
would seem, the whole of northern Syria was swiftly brought within the
domain of the new power. In 758 B.C. the kingdom of Malatia, which under
Khite-ruadas had regained a momentary independence, was invaded once more
by the hardy mountaineers: the capital, as well as fourteen castles and
a hundred towns, fell into their hands.[970] By 756 B.C. Marash also had
probably fallen, for the conquests of the Vannic power extended as far
south as had the Assyrian, and the Hittite states of northern Syria were
all forced into allegiance. Previous to the year 744 B.C. at any rate,
when the Assyrian king, Tiglath-Pileser III., with a reinvigorated army,
prepared to repel the invaders, Carchemish, Gurgum, Kummukh, Unki and Quë
all acknowledged the suzerainty of Sharduris.[971]
The details of the struggle for Syria between two foreign powers can
hardly be regarded as Hittite history. The Hittite strength was already
gone; their kingdoms in Syria and the Taurus had been broken, ravaged,
and weakened by the scourge of constant wars; while in Asia Minor a
similar but more vital struggle, all unknown to history, was being waged
between the advancing Phrygians and the chief Hittite kingdoms of the
interior. All hope of general union was at an end. Yet in the records of
the Syrian side of these affairs, it is wonderful to see how the spirit
of independence lived on in the old Hittite centres, ready at any time to
break out in open rebellion. No ordinary military punishments seemed able
to crush it. In 743, Tiglath-Pileser met and routed the great confederate
army of Sharduris, with whom fought the Hittite contingents from Agusi,
Gurgum, Kummukh, and Malatia.[972] The issue was decisive and momentous.
Both kings led their armies in person, and the Assyrian record[973]
states that 73,000 of the enemy were slain in battle. Yet undismayed,
Matîlu of Agusi, the centre of which was Arpad, seems to have asserted
his freedom and to have resisted the Assyrian for nearly three years,
when he was overcome and slain in 740 B.C. The downfall of Arpad and
the death of its king were not without a reactive effect upon the other
states, so that the kings of Kummukh, Gurgum, Carchemish, and Quë came to
the victors to humbly tender their formal submission. The Hattina still
held out, but the Assyrian moved on their capital, Kinalua, which was
carried by assault; and in order to avoid further disturbance in these
rebellious quarters, both Agusi and Unki were hereafter administered by
Assyrian officers and garrisoned by Assyrian troops. The policy thus
initiated, coupled with that of deportation of the natives in large
numbers, proved more fateful to the Hittites than the long series of
punitive expeditions sent against them.
Samalla was next in arms. Profiting by the absence of the Assyrian
forces on their own north-eastern frontiers, Azriyahu, who appears to
have been a native prince, laid claim to the throne, though it was
occupied by Panammu II.,[974] a Semitic ruler who had been set up by
the Assyrian king. Tiglath-Pileser hastened back to restore order,
laying waste Kullani[975] on his way. He then passed southwards up the
valley of the Orontes, ravaging as he went. Hamath yielded, and the
kings of Carchemish, Malatia, and Tabal, with others, were convinced by
these exploits that it was their best policy to tender their complete
submission and to send their tribute. The Assyrian supremacy was now
complete, and it was demonstrated by an arduous expedition which
penetrated to the walls of the Urartian capital, in the mountains of the
north. The Vannic power was broken, and thereafter its warriors only
appear like those of the Hittites, in a series of vain struggles against
the greater power that was steadily overwhelming them. In 732 B.C.
the fall of Damascus at last laid open the way to the founding of the
greatest Assyrian empire.
Our tale is nearly told; the inevitable issue is traceable in a bare
statement of the chief events of a dozen years. A last combine in
720 B.C. of the Hittites of Tabal and Carchemish, reinforced by the
Urartians, only tended to precipitate the end. In 718 the troops of
Sargon passed northwards through the Cilician gates,[976] beyond which
Tyana no longer represented the chief Hittite centre, but was now
a frontier stronghold of the Phrygian Midas.[977] This monarch was
obviously perplexed by the Assyrian advance, and made overtures to
Pisiris of Carchemish, who openly revolted. But Midas failed him: his
kingdom became an Assyrian colony, and the greatest Hittite stronghold of
Syria, that had so long retained a semblance of real independence amid
the submergence of the states around, was now garrisoned with Assyrian
soldiers.[978] The Tabal were again in arms in 713 B.C., though the rebel
leader was a protégé of Assyria.[979] He was duly punished, and his fief
was annexed to the Cilician province. Following an incursion led by
Tarkhunazi of Malatia, the eastern portion of the Tabal, around Comana,
was in 712 B.C. fortified as an Assyrian frontier state, with five forts
on the Urartian side, two towards the north, and three as protection
against the Phrygians. The kingdom of Malatia itself was in 710 put under
the rule of Mutallu of Kummukh, and the whole mountain region was renamed
Tulgarimme. Gurgum, with its stout fortress of Marash, was the last to
succumb. For something like thirty years its last king, Tarkhulara,
had retained his throne by diplomatic presents and submission first
to the Urartian, and then to the Assyrian. Upon the outbreak of local
hostilities, however, in 709, this state also was created an Assyrian
province, and with that event the last element of Hittite freedom
disappeared.
In the mountains of Taurus, in the kingdom of Tabal, the smouldering
fire might still burst from time to time[980] into a flame. But the
Cimmerian hordes put out that spark, as they had done for the Urartu,
and did in due time for the Muski; and before they could be driven back
the course of history was changed. The story of the Hittites was ended;
‘Meshech and Tubal’[981] were destroyed, and ‘the Land of the Hittites’
became a memory of the past.[982]
[Illustration: MAP OF HITTITE SITES IN ASIA MINOR AND N. SYRIA.]
EPOCHS OF HITTITE HISTORY
2000 B.C.[983] Settlements in southern Syria; overthrow of the
1st Dynasty of Babylon (p. 323). Horse and chariot used in Asia
Minor (p. 320).
1400 B.C.[983] Hatti kings established at Boghaz-Keui (p. 326).
1380 B.C.[983] Subbi-luliuma annexes N. Syria (p. 330) and
invades Mesopotamia (p. 331).
1370 B.C.[983] Amorite vassalage (p. 336); Treaty with Egypt
(p. 337); Mitanni a protectorate (p. 338).
Empire in Asia Minor and N. Syria.
Palace[984] on Beuyuk-Kaleh at Boghaz-Keui;
local palaces at Eyuk and Malatia; sculptures
of Fraktin and (?) Sipylus (p. 339).
1350 B.C.[983] Reign of Arandas. 1340 B.C.[983] Accession of
Mursil (p. 341).
1330 B.C.[984] Lower palace at Boghaz-Keui constructed (p. 342).
1320 B.C.[983] Assyria takes Mesopotamia and Malatia (p. 342).
1310 B.C.[983] Egypt reconquers N. Syria (p. 343).
1295 B.C.[984] Accession of Mutallu (p. 343).
1288 B.C.,[983] Battle of Kadesh (p. 343).
1271 B.C. Hattusil concludes treaty with Egypt (p. 347).
Diplomatic relations with Babylonia (p. 350). [984]Sculptures
of Iasily Kaya, Giaour-Kalesi, and Kara-Bel (p. 366). [?
Fortifications of Boghaz-Keui constructed] Hittite cities at
Hamath, Aleppo, Carchemish, Sinjerli, Sakje-Geuzi, Marash,
Malatia, Comana; confederate states in western and southern
Asia Minor.
1258 B.C. Hittite king (? Dudkhalia) visits the Pharaoh (p.
351).
1220 B.C.[983] Arnuanta, cadastral survey (p. 352).
1200 B.C.[983] Invasions by the Muski-Phrygians; fall of the
Hatti and (?) Boghaz-Keui (p. 368).
1170 B.C.[983] Muski reach the Assyrian frontier; 1120,
repelled (p. 368).
1120 B.C. _et seqq._ Assyrian invasions of N. Syria and Taurus
(p. 369).
1000 B.C.[983] to 900 B.C. Revival of the Hittite kingdoms.
[984]Sculptures of Bor, Ivrîz, Eyuk, Malatia, Marash, Sinjerli,
Sakje-Geuzi; inscriptions of Bulghar-Madên and Karaburna (p.
373). Road opened through Cilician Gates (p. 366). Palace
reconstructed at Boghaz-Keui; Amazon sculpture (p. 372).
885 B.C. Invasions by Assyria as far as (838) Tabal and Tarsus
(p. 384).
750 B.C.[983] N. Syria and Taurus subject to the Vannic kings
(p. 386). [984]Plateau of Asia Minor subject to Phrygia.
743 B.C. Assyrian supremacy re-established (p. 387).
718 B.C. Fall of Carchemish; Assyrian troops enter Asia Minor
(p. 388).
712 B.C. Tabal (Taurus) conquered; 709, fall of Marash (p. 389).
FOOTNOTES
[1] We regard, however, the sculptures of Mount Sipylus (Pl. LIII.) and
of Kara-Bel (Pl. LIV.) as witnesses to the possession of inland passes
leading to the Lydian coast.
[2] In particular the Lycians (Lukki), who appear among the Hittite
allies in the time of Rameses II., and later with the sea-peoples in the
reign of Merenptah.
[3] There is no evidence to enable us to include the ‘Vannic’ monuments.
Cf. Sayce’s _Herodotus_ (London, 1883), App. iv. p. 424 and below, pp.
54, 385; we exclude also as capable of other interpretation isolated
discoveries of moveable monuments, like those at Kedabeg (Messerschmidt,
_Corpus Inscrip. Hettiticarum, Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen
Gesellschaft_, 1900, Pt. v. No. 1.), at Babylon (_op. cit._, Nos. 3, 4,
5), and Nineveh (_ibid._, Pl. XXXIX. Nos. 2-9), etc. The inscribed stone
reported as found near Erzerum, now in the museum at Constantinople, No.
1193, is of doubtful provenance (_op. cit._, 1906, Pt. v. pp. 7, 8).
[4] These Hittite sites are shown on the map, to face p. 390.
[5] Mr. Hogarth, writing in the _Recueil de Travaux_, xvii., records that
during his journeyings up through the valley he never saw nor heard of
any pre-Hellenic monuments on the north side of the river.
[6] For these routes see Hogarth, _Recueil de Travaux_, XV. p. 29, and
in Macan’s _Herodotus_ (1895), App. XIII. § 9; also Ramsay, _Historical
Geography_, pp. 35, 46 ff.
[7] For the modern condition and ancient importance of this region, see
further: Layard, _Nineveh and Babylon_, p. 94; Peters, _Nippur_, i. p.
81; Maspero, _The Struggle of the Nations_ (London, 1896), pp. 144 and
ff.; and _The Passing of Empires_ (1900), p. 35, with an illustration.
[8] Here also the Euphrates is still our eastern boundary; for
Tell-Ahmar, the scene of Mr. Hogarth’s recent discoveries (p. 129),
though on the further side, is on the water’s edge; and the few monuments
found further east, like the seal from Urfa (Messerschmidt, _op.
cit._, _C.I.H._ 1900, Pl. XLI. No. 3), and the palace sculptures of
Tell-Halaf (Von Oppenheim, _Der alte Orient_, 1908, Heft 1), which owe
something to Hittite influence, are not definite enough to imply Hittite
occupation. That the river separated the land of Mitanni from the Hatti
is substantiated by the archives of Boghaz-Keui (Winckler, _Mitteilungen
der D. Orient._-Ges. 1907, No. 35). On the relation of Mitanni to Hittite
see below, pp. 58, note 1, 324, note 2.
[9] Pronounced _Afreen_.
[10] See Plates XXXV., XLIII.
[11] We noticed this effect especially at Karadinek, August 1907.
[12] Pl. LXXXIV. (i), p. 320. This is clearly the old Amorite-Hittite
type as represented on the Egyptian temple sculptures, _temp._ Rameses
II., then apparently most prevailing in the Lebanon region. See Petrie,
_Racial Types_, No. 147, and Maspero, _The Struggle of the Nations_, p.
147 and fig.; cf. also W. Max Müller, _Asien und Europa_, pp. 229, 233,
and the Book of Joshua, x. 6, and xi. 3. The type is now more widely
dispersed, as seen from this example and Pls. XV. (ii), LXXXVI. below.
[13] A local tradition says that 120,000 men were drawn from this region
in the time of Alexander.
[14] Von Luschan, _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, i.; and _Liverpool
Annals of Archæology_, i. p. 99.
[15] Including the kingdoms of Unki, Samalla, and Jaudi: see the map, p.
375.
[16] Cf. Plate LXXIV.
[17] The coast route to Alexandretta was in course of reconstruction in
1907. Formerly the rocky promontory known as _Pylæ Syriæ et Ciliciæ_
presented a formidable obstacle, over which carts could pass only with
great difficulty; while for travellers on horseback the easiest passage
was by wading in the sea at the foot of the cliffs. The Bogche route is
that contemplated for the new section of the railway heading for Baghdad.
[18] A silvered copper seal, cylindrical in shape, is recorded as from
Haifa (_C.I.H._ 1900, Pl. XLI. 2), but no argument can be based thereon.
Other small objects from this region are a seal and archaic bronze figure
from Latakia (_C.I.H._ _loc. cit._ No. 6, and Peiser, _Die Bronze-figur
von Schernen_, aus _Sitzungsber. der Altertumsges. Prussia_, Heft 22, p.
428), and a similar archaic bronze from Homs, said to have been found in
the Orontes (Peiser, _op. cit._).
[19] See Plate LXXXIV. (ii), reproduced from a sketch by Mr. Horst
Schliephack. The subject was an Arab-speaking carriage driver, resident
in Hamath, who said that his birthplace was Urfa. Cf. the types Pls.
LXXV., LXXVII.
[20] Ramsay, _Journ. Roy. Asiatic Soc._, xv. p. 100.
[21] Cf. Livy, Bk. xxxviii. 18, etc., for the contrast between Phrygia
and the plains.
[22] This feature also is historic. Cf. Strabo XII. viii. 8.
[23] For the general geographical conditions affecting life on the
plateau, cf. Hogarth, _The Nearer East_ (London, 1902), pp. 246 ff.
[24] For mineral and other resources consult _inter alia_, Hamilton,
_Researches in Asia Minor_ (London, 1842), vol. i. chs. xvi., xx.,
xxiii.; likewise Van Lennep, _Travels in ... Asia Minor_ (London, 1870).
[25] It is of interest in this connection to notice that one of the
earliest historical references to the Hittites occurs in the Babylonian
chronicles (King, _Chronicles of the Early Babylonian Kings_, London,
1907, pp. 72 and 148).
[26] Witness the group of monuments in the Kara Dagh, p. 90.
[27] A barrier, that is, to general migration in ancient times. As a
political boundary its importance is clear from the fact that it divided
the Median and Lydian empires (Herodotus, i. 72).
[28] _Loc. cit._, Strabo (XII. iii. 9) speaks of ‘the “Leuco-Syrians”
whom we call Cappadocians.’ See also p. 92; and Ramsay, _Historical
Geography_, pp. 32, 33.
[29] Hamilton, _Researches in Asia Minor_, vol. ii. ch. xliii.
[30] _Liverpool Annals of Archæology_, i. (1908), p. 6, Pls. VIII., IX.
[31] It is noteworthy that Strabo (XII. ii. 7), describes Mazaca (then
the capital of the Cilician province) as being in a ruinous state without
walls, while its land remained unfertile and uncultivated.
[32] See Pl. IX.
[33] See Pl. LXXXVI.
[34] Professor Ramsay (_Historical Geography_, p. 35) already argued the
necessary antiquity of such a route before the Hittite monument on the
mountain pass was brought to light.
[35] See below, pp. 45, 366, note 2; and cf. Macan’s _Herodotus_, App.
XIII. §§ 7, 8, 9.
[36] _Liv. Annals of Arch._, i. (1908), p. 11.
[37] Cf. Pl. XXIV. (i).
[38] See below, Pl. XXV. (iii); and _Liverpool Annals of Arch._, i. pp.
10, 13.
[39] At Andaval, _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XXXI.; and at Bor, _ibid._ (1906),
Pl. XXXIII. See below, p. 91.
[40] See p. 233.
[41] See pp. 33, 38.
[42] See p. 143.
[43] See Pl. II. (ii).
[44] Cf. Strabo, XII. xi. 8.
[45] We noticed in passing an aged pair working together in their small
garden of vegetables. It was summer-time, and their sleeping-place was a
bower of branches and twigs covered entirely with pink roses.
[46] To be distinguished from the Bogche, which gives its name to the
pass over the Giaour Dagh (p. 14).
[47] Herodotus, i. 75, and v. 52; Ramsay, _Historical Geography_, p. 29;
but see below, p. 38, note 1.
[48] Cf. Pls. XII., XIII. (ii). We are alluding to the poorer classes.
There is a considerable degree of refinement and simple luxury among the
more prosperous Turkomans. See, for example, Davis, _Life in Asiatic
Turkey_, pp. 223-4.
[49] Pl. XVII.
[50] Cf. Pls. XIV., XVIII.
[51] The Yazîr Daresi.
[52] The Beuyuk Kayanin Daresi. See Pl. LIX.
[53] Herodotus, i. 76, says that Crœsus enslaved the inhabitants, and
took also the adjacent places, expelling the population.
[54] We do not attempt to distinguish any but the types that recall the
various Hittite representations in contemporary sculptures, particularly
those which decorate the walls of Egyptian temples. Such resemblance may
be accidental, but it is of interest. In the deeper inquiry, there is
a wonderful field of material for a trained ethnographist. Probably no
‘nation’ on earth to-day is composed of so many and varying elements as
is that of the Turks. A walk through any market town, where the people
are brought together, or even a glance out of the carriage window at
the people on the platform of a busy railway station, will bring forth
visions of Tartars and Mongols, Greeks and Jews, even occasionally
Hindoos and Arabs, as well as the dominant Turkoman, Circassian and
Armenian types, all of which under Nature’s gentle and wonderful
influence seem to blend quite fittingly together. There is nothing,
moreover, that astonishes the reason; for this country was not only the
battlefield of nations, but the natural pathway between two continents.
Cf. Pls. XV., LXXXV.-LXXXVII.
[55] Cf. Pls. LXXXIV., LXXXVI. (i). On the subject of surviving types,
cf. Wilson (Sir Charles) in the _Quart. Statement Pal. Expl. Fd._, Jan.
1884.
[56] And thence in ancient times to Sinope. Ramsay, _Hist. Geog._, p. 28;
see also Curtius, _Griech. Gesch._, ed. 5, i. 408, and Herodotus, i. 76,
in reference to which cf. Perrot and Chipiez, _History of Art in Sardinia
... Syria and Asia Minor_ (Engl. ed. 1890), ii. p. 103.
[57] _E.g._ Herodotus, ix. 27; and Strabo, XI. ch. v. 4.
[58] See Pl. L.
[59] Ramsay, _Historical Geography_, p. 31, and _Jour. Roy. As. Soc._,
XV. pp. 100-112; also Crowfoot, _Jour. Hell. Stud._, XIX., i. p. 50.
[60] Herodotus, i. 72. But cf. also Homer, _Iliad_, iii. 187, and xvi.
719.
[61] Ramsay, _Historical Geography_, pp. 29, 30. See Pl. XXIV. (i).
[62] Herodotus, i. 75, quotes a general doubt (in which, however, he does
not share) that the Halys was not yet bridged in the time of Crœsus.
There are, however, suitable fords northward from Cheshme Keupru still
freely used for the summer routes leading from Angora across the river
eastward; and that the bridge was in use in Persian times seems to be
clear (_ibid._, v. 52).
[63] _Vide_ Ramsay, _Studies in the History and Art of the Eastern
Provinces of the Roman Empire_ (Aberdeen, 1906), pp. 177-180.
[64] The Hittite horses were called by the Egyptians _abari_, strong or
vigorous (_Anastasi Pap._, iv., Pl. XVII., ll. 8-9), but we may suspect
that the reference here and elsewhere is to the breeds of Syria (vide
_Annals of Thothmes_ III.); Maspero (_Struggle of the Nations_, p.
215, note 4, and p. 352, note 4) seems divided in his view, referring
the passage in one place to Cappadocia and in the other to Syria. Cf.
also his _Passing of Empires_ (1900), p. 205. There was a special breed
in Cilicia, it would appear, in Persian times, from the reference in
Herodotus, iii. 90.
[65] It is, however, full of interests, as any student of Professor
Ramsay’s researches will know.
[66] Professor Ramsay’s _Luke the Physician_, pp. 129 ff., tells of
numberless neglected irrigation works in the desert and on the slopes of
Taurus. The country must, at one time, have presented quite a different
appearance.
[67] See below, p. 56, and Pl. XXV. (iii).
[68] Cf. Ramsay and Hogarth, _Recueil de Travaux_, xiv. (1893), pp. 74
and ff.
[69] See Pl. LV.
[70] Locally called the _Bozanti Su_ or _Ak Su_, from the names of
important points along the route; it is a main tributary of the Sarus,
which it joins after uniting with the Korkun as it nears the plain.
[71] See frontispiece.
[72] It is stated, however, by Aucher-Eloy, _Relations de Voyages en
Orient de 1830 à 1838_, i. p. 160, that a rock sculpture (of uncertain
character) which he had seen in the Cilician Gates was destroyed in 1834.
[73] We may reasonably suspect that this dates from the revival of the
Hittite state with Tyana as its centre, in the tenth century B.C. (See
above, p. 24, and below, p. 373.) On this question see Ramsay, _The
Cities of St. Paul_ (London, 1907), pp. 114 and ff., also _Pauline and
other Studies_ (London, 1906), ch. xi.; cf. also, for a description of
the route, Davis, _Life in Asiatic Turkey_ (London, 1879), ch. viii.
[74] Roadside rest-houses. Cf. Pls. XIII., XX.
[75] Built or rebuilt it would seem by Ibrahim Pasha.
[76] We cannot accept as Hittite, from the evidence before us, the
doorway and carved lintel from Lamas near Aseli-Keui; Langlois, _Voyage
en Cilicie_, p. 169; Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p.
57; Messerschmidt, _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XXXIII. B.
[77] Among works readily accessible, we may refer the reader to Mr.
Hogarth’s summary in the introduction to Murray’s _Handbook_; to the
articles by Winckler and Brandis in vols. iii. and iv. of _The World’s
History_, Ed. Helmolt (London, 1902); and for the materials to Ramsay,
_Historical Geography of Asia Minor_ (London, 1890).
[78] For a detailed account, with the sources, see below, Chapter VI.
[79] The identification of Mita of Muski with Midas of Phrygia was first
pointed out by Winckler, _Ostorientalische Forschungen_, ii. 71 ff.
Our inference is that the Muski of the Assyrian Annals, the Moschoi of
Herodotus (iii. 94), were really akin to the Phrygians of later history.
[80] About 1170 B.C.
[81] Fifty years later, in the reign of Tiglath Pileser I.
[82] See the Maps accompanying Chap. VI. pp. 375, 385.
[83] Hamilton, _Researches in Asia Minor_, i. p. 383; Ramsay, _Jour. Roy.
As. Soc._, XV. p. 123.
[84] See Pl. XXV. (iii), from _Liv. Annals_, i. Pl. XIII. The name of
Midas in this inscription was first recognised by Prof. Myres, _op.
cit._, p. 13.
[85] Cf. Maspero, _The Struggle of the Nations_, pp. 591, 643.
[86] In the reign of Assur-Nazir-Pal; cf. Maspero, _The Passing of
Empires_, p. 16.
[87] Regarding, that is, the successive appearance of the Mitanni, the
Hittites, and the Urartu (the Vannic power) as analogous movements. Cf.
Winckler, _Mitteil. d. Deut. Orient-Ges._, December 1907, pp. 47 ff.; and
in _The World’s History_, vol. iii. p. 113 etc.
[88] See especially Ramsay, ‘A Study of Phrygian Art,’ in the _Jour.
Hell. Stud._, ix. (1887-8), pp. 350-352, and an earlier article in vol.
iii. pp. 1-32; and Maspero, _The Passing of Empires_, pp. 328-335.
[89] Cf. Homer, _Iliad_, iii. 187; xvi. 719.
[90] On this point, see Ramsay, _Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia_
(Oxford, 1895), i. p. 7.
[91] Ramsay, _loc. cit._ Cf. the central group of Hittite sculptures at
Iasily Kaya, Pl. LXV., where, however, the Father-god, the consort of
the Mother-goddess, is seemingly derived from Babylonian origins. So,
too, the Storm-god of the Hittites has clearly a Babylonian prototype in
Hadad. On the subject of the Hittite deities, see below, pp. 356 ff.
[92] Herodotus, ii. 2.
[93] Homer, _Hymn. Aphr._ 111 and ff.
[94] Φρυγίης εὐτειχήτοιο. Cf. Ramsay, _loc. cit_.
[95] In this opinion we may appear to differ from Hogarth, _Ionia and the
East_ (Oxford, 1909), p. 70, but the standpoints are different.
[96] In addition to the Phrygian inscriptions at Eyuk, cited above, the
story of Daskylos, the fugitive Lydian prince (B.C. 720), indicates close
political relation between the two sides of the Halys at this time; for
when fearful of remaining in Phrygia at the accession of Myrsos to the
Lydian throne, for greater security he crossed the Halys and took refuge
with the ‘White Syrians.’ Cf. Nicholas of Damascus, _Fragm. Hist. Grec._
(ed. Müller-Didot), No. 49. On the relationship with Pteria and the
Chalybes see also Radet, _La Lydie et le Monde Grec_, pp. 63, 111.
[97] Pls. XXIV., XXV.
[98] Cf. Pls. LX., LXXVIII.
[99] Pl. XXIV. (ii); cf. pp. 121, 265, 289.
[100] Our newest authority for this period is Olmstead, _Western Asia in
the Days of Sargon_ (New York, 1908).
[101] If the _Tuna_ of the Assyrians be really _Tyana_, there is clear
evidence of Phrygian supremacy there in 714, in the fact that Matti
of Tuna disclaimed his allegiance to Assyria and turned to Midas. If,
however, Tuna is to be located somewhat further east (cf. the _Tynna_ of
Ptolemy V., 6, 22, and Maspero, _The Passing of Empires_, p. 239, note
2), or south-east at Faustinopolis (Ramsay, _Hist. Geog._, p. 68), then
the inference is equally clear that the Phrygian sphere reached at least
to Tyana, if not beyond. This evidence is supplementary to that of the
inscription already mentioned (Pl. XXV.).
[102] Herodotus, iv. 11, 12. We follow the story as worked out by
Maspero, _op. cit._, p. 345.
[103] Strabo, XIV. i. 40.
[104] Cf. Maspero, _op. cit._, p. 336; also Sayce, _Empires of the East_,
i. p. 427.
[105] Herodotus, i. 7. On the way in which the date is derived, see
Schubert, _Gesch. der Könige von Lydien_, p. 8.
[106] For the character of the early names and their relation to
the Hittite see Sayce, _loc. cit._; cf. also Hall on _Mursil_ and
_Myrtillos_, _Jour. Hell. Stud._, xxix. (1909), pp. 19-22; and on the
same point, Winckler in the _Orientalistische Litteratur-Zeitung_, Dec.
1906.
[107] Gelzer, _Das Zeitalter des Gyges_, Rheins. Mus., vol. xxxv. (1880),
pp. 520-524; cf. Radet, _La Lydie et le Monde Grec_, etc., pp. 90, 91.
[108] Cf. the position of the Hatti kings, pp. 340, 361 ff.; and of the
kings of Comana, of Pontus, and other states (Strabo, Bk. XII. ch. iii.
sec. 32). On this subject see also Ramsay, in _Recueil de Travaux_, vol.
xiv. pp. 78 ff., on ‘The Pre-Hellenic Monuments of Cappadocia.’
[109] For the double axe in Hittite symbolism, see Pl. LXV.; and for the
relation of the God-of-the-double-axe to Hercules, see pp. 195, 240.
[110] On this question, and on the whole subject of Hittite influence
surviving in the civilisations of the western coast, see the brilliant
survey by Hogarth, _Ionia and the East_, especially pp. 74 ff. and 101-2.
[111] _Op. cit._, pp. 101-2.
[112] _Excavations at Ephesus_: I. _The Archaic Artemisia_ p. 173.
[113] Above, p. 37; see also below, p. 338, and Pls. LIII., LIV.
[114] Herodotus, i. 76.
[115] On this subject see Mommsen, _The Provinces of the Roman Empire_
(London, 1909), pp. 120, 123.
[116] Pl. LV.
[117] Pl. XXVII.
[118] This place was visited by Drummond, _Travels ... in Parts of Asia
to the Euphrates_ (London, 1874), who gives a sketch plan (No. 9 to
f. p. 201). Theodoret in his _Ecclesiastical History_ mentions three
inscriptions over the gate, as well as a castle, a ‘very superb’ Theatre,
a Basilica, Temple, and other buildings; cf. also Maundrell, _A Journey
from Aleppo to Jerusalem_ (ed. 1799), p. 158.
[119] For these see a paper by the Rev. W. M. Linton Smith, in the _Liv.
Annals of Arch._, 1910.
[120] Pl. XXVIII. Cf. the _Mausolée Pyramidal de Maktar_, published by
Gauckler, _Les travaux d’Art ... en Tunisie_, in _Revue Générale des
Sciences_ (Paris, November 30, 1896), p. 971, fig. 15. Also tombs at
Arles and in Algeria, published by Gsell in _Les Monuments Antiques
d’Algérie_ (Paris, 1901). For these references we are indebted to
Professor Bosanquet.
[121] Pls. XXIX., XXX.
[122] The old Aramæan name for Heliopolis; it is really just south of the
historic Hittite frontier in the Lebanon.
[123] For photographs of the ruins and city of Tarsus see Pl. XXII.,
XXIII.; cf. also Ramsay, _Cities of St. Paul_, Part II., with Pls. II.-V.
[124] See Pl. XXXIV. (ii).
[125] Pls. XXXII., XXXIII.
[126] On the importance of this aspect of study, cf. Frazer, _Adonis,
Attis, and Osiris_, in the Preface; and Hogarth in _Authority and
Archæology_, 2nd ed. (London, 1899), Preface, vii.
[127] Sayce, _The Hittites_ (London, 1888), 3rd ed., 1902, p. 67.
[128] As well as other sculptured and inscribed stones; see Winckler:
Preliminary Report of Excavations at Boghaz Keui, 1907. (_Mitteilungen
der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft_, No. 35, Dec. 1907), figs. 6, 7, pp.
57, 58.
[129] Hist. Relations of Phrygia and Cappadocia (_Jour. Roy. Asiatic
Soc._, xv., Pl. I.), p. 124.
[130] Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. etc., pp. 214 and
ff.; also Hamilton, _Researches_, etc., ii., pp. 350, 351; and _Revue
Arch._, 3, v. pp. 257-264, and Pls. XI., XII.
[131] (_a_) A Hittite invasion preceded the overthrow of the First
Babylonian Dynasty. The date in the eighteenth century B.C. assigned
by King (_Chronicles_, etc., i. p. 137) is accepted by Meyer, but
thought by Sayce and others to be too late. (_b_) The Egyptian annals,
diplomatic letters, mural decorations, etc., make frequent mention of
the Kheta from the 33rd year of Thothmes III. (about B.C. 1471) until
the time of Rameses III., early in the twelfth century B.C. There is an
early appearance of the group of signs reading ‘Kheta’ on a stela of
the Twelfth Dynasty (Louvre, CI.); some philologists are disposed to
regard the group in this instance as forming part of a longer word—a
unique instance which implies at any rate familiarity with the word
Kheta in the Twelfth Dynasty. It is more probable, Mr. Griffith tells
us, that the group is really to be translated ‘Kheta’ though written
(under circumstances that can be explained philologically) with a false
determinative. The Babylonian evidence now prepares us for this early
appearance of the name. (_c_) In the Assyrian records the earliest
reference to the Hatti seems to be in the reign of Shalmaneser I., about
1320 B.C., but the name is not found recurring until the time of Tiglath
Pileser I., about 1120 B.C.: Sargon (B.C. 721-704) seems finally to have
subjected and disunited their principalities in N. Syria.
[132] Winckler, _Report_, _cit._, especially pp. 27 and ff.
[133] See chap. v., Part 3, pp. 299, 314.
[134] See chap. v., Part 2, pp. 271-273.
[135] See above, pp. 55, 56; cf. also Xenophon, _Anabasis_, v. 4-30.
[136] The inscriptions still largely hold their secrets. The cause would
seem to be chiefly the imperfections in our copies, for Professor Sayce’s
system (described in the _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._, 1904, _et seqq._) has
consistently developed geographical and local names corroborated by the
circumstances of discovery. The language seems to be unlike any that is
known, and to vary in localities.
[137] The inscribed round-topped stone on its pedestal, on a rise of
ground near Bogche, overlooking the Halys. See Pl. XLVIII.
[138] Like the massive altar on the pass of Kuru-Bel. See p. 147.
[139] _E.g._ the lions found near Derendeh; the obelisk of Izgîn, and the
columnar figure from Palanga. See pp. 141, 145.
[140] _E.g._ the monuments of Jerablus, the site of CARCHEMISH; and
of Marash, the ancient MARGHASI; also those found at Emir-Ghazi near
ARDISTAMA; or at Bor, Nigdeh, and Andaval near TYANA.
[141] Like the lions of Sakje-Geuzi, Marash, Eyuk, etc.
[142] _E.g._ at Kurts-oghlu and Marash. See pp. 98, 113.
[143] _E.g._ from Kara-burshlu, Sinjerli, Sakje-Geuzi, Marash, Malatia.
[144] _E.g._ from Jerablus, Marash, etc. See the readings of Professor
Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._, 1904, Nov. _et seqq._
[145] These are marked upon the map, p. 390. A more detailed place-index
to these monuments, with a bibliography, is given in Appendix B.
[146] Sculptures decorate the three last-named palaces.
[147] May be inferred from analogy of sculptured blocks and locality.
[148] A careful scrutiny might reveal some signs.
[149] Eagle monuments, presumably Hittite.
[150] Lion monuments, head only in the round.
[151] Statuettes in the round; at Marash, Lion monuments also.
[152] Altar.
[153] Built into the gate façade.
[154] Seemingly biographical or memorial.
[155] Objects easily portable.
[156] Columnar statue.
[157] _Provenance_ doubtful.
[158] Cf. below, ch. v. p. 313.
[159] Messerschmidt, _C.I.H._ (1900), Pls. XXXIX.-XLV.
[160] _E.g._ from Bor, _Recueil de Travaux_, xiv. p. 88.
[161] _E.g._ from Aintab, _op. cit._, vol. xvii. p. 26.
[162] See below, p. 160, Pl. XL. (ii).
[163] Perrot in _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p. 83.
[164] See later, p. 321.
[165] To face p. 390.
[166] Khalabu in _Annals of Thothmes III._, 33rd year; Khalman in the
Assyrian records; Khalpa in Hittite, and Haleb in Arabic.
[167] Except a small archaic bronze figure procured from Homs (Ménant:
_Revue Arch._, 1895, p. 31); another bronze figure and a cylinder seal
of ironstone purchased at Latakia upon the coast. (Longpérier _Musée
Napol._, Pls. XXI.-XXII.; and _American Jour. Arch._, 1898, p. 163,
and 1899, p. 18.) Addendum: an inscription of two lines in relief has
recently been found at Restan by the Rev. Father Ronzevalli of Beyrout.
[168] See, for instance, Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii.
p. 18; Breasted, _The Battle of Kadesh_ (Chicago, 1903), pp. 13, _et ff._
[169] See pp. 128, 130; and the list of monuments in Appendix B.
[170] See Pl. XL. (i).
[171] Ramsay (_Hist. Geog._, p. 35; also _Recueil_, xv., p. 28) believes
in a main eastern route passing through Malatia, and connecting with
the Royal Road. The place was, of course, the site of a Roman frontier
fortress.
[172] _Liverpool Annals of Arch._, i. p. 9.
[173] _Ibid._, p. 11, and Pl. XIV., fig. 1. See below, Pl. XL. (ii).
[174] See above, p. 38, and Ramsay, _Historical Geography of Asia Minor_,
pp. 30, 31.
[175] Pausanias, I. iv. 5.
[176] _Journal Hellenic Studies_, xix., Part I., 1899, p. 50.
[177] Or perhaps discrediting it. Cf. _J.H.S._ _loc. cit._, p. 45, at the
top.
[178] Our relatively large material for this region is mostly due to the
consistent researches of Professor Sir William Ramsay and his school.
[179] Ramsay, _Luke the Physician_, p. 174, footnote.
[180] See above, p. 56, and Pl. XXV.
[181] This uncertainty, however, forbids us to use their _provenance_ as
evidence, though in themselves objects with special features of interest.
[182] Herodotus, i. 76, and i. 72; see also above, pp. 21, 22.
[183] Ramsay, _Historical Geography of Asia Minor_ (London, 1890), p. 32.
[184] Professor Ramsay points out the neglected irrigation works, _Luke
the Physician_, p. 129.
[185] Thought by Miss Gertrude Bell to have been artificially separated
from the ridge, of which it seems like a projecting headland. See _The
Desert and the Sown_ (London, 1905), p. 223. The same work may be
consulted for modern interests of this remarkable Arab town. So also
Tyke, _Dar el Islam_ (London, 1907).
[186] See p. 85, note 2 (addendum); and Sayce in _Proc. S.B.A._ (1909),
p. 259.
[187] Burckhardt, _Travels in Syria and the Holy Land_, (London 1822), p.
149.
[188] For the progress and vicissitudes of the attempts to obtain
a record of the Hamath stones, consult Wright, _The Empire of the
Hittites_; Burton, _Unexplored Syria_, and the Quarterly Statements of
the Palestine Exploration Fund (1871-2-3); and for a connected account,
Sayce, _The Hittites_ (1905); pp. 60-64.
[189] One in particular, which was long, had virtues for the rheumatic,
who stretched themselves upon it. The Aleppo stone was regarded as
effective for ophthalmia; and some superstition clings to nearly all
such remains when they have long been known to village communities. In
Egypt any monuments of stone, even a stela newly found but of guaranteed
antiquity, is particularly sought out by barren women, who seem to have a
definite formula and ritual to observe—one of these acts is to cross and
recross the stone, if possible, seven times each way without turning the
eyes to right or left.
[190] _C.I.H._ (_Mitteilungen_, etc., 1900, 5), Pls. III. B; IV. A, B;
V., VI., and text (1900, 4), pp. 6-8. Also Wright, _op. cit._, Pls.
I.-IV., pp. 139-141.
[191] Being a characteristic specimen and of historical interest we
reproduce this monument in Pl. XXXVII.
[192] Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._, 1903, March.
[193] This feature distinguishes this sign from the determinative of a
district, represented as a conical hill.
[194] See for example the groups of symbols accompanying the divine
figures at Boghaz-Keui, Pls. LXV., LXII.
[195] A reading of No. 1 was tentatively put forward by Sayce, _Proc.
S.B.A._ (1903), p. 354; but this must be revised in the light of the new
reading of No. 2, and the note on one of the signs of No. 1, in _Proc.
S.B.A._, 1905, Nov., p. 218.
[196] Cf. the Aintab stone below, p. 107, and Pl. XLI. Also the
corner-stones _in situ_ at Eyuk, Pls. LXXII., LXXIII.
[197] These monuments are now to be seen at Constantinople, in the
Ottoman Museum. (Nos. 831, 832, etc.)
[198] _C.I.H._, Pl. III. A, Text, p. 4 (_Mitteilungen_, etc., 1900, 4,
5), and _Proc. S.B.A._, v. (1883), p. 146.
[199] By the Liverpool Expedition of 1907. See _Liv. Annals of Arch._,
i. p. 8, Pl. IX., 3; and cf. _Proc. S.B.A._, June 1908. For three
uninscribed but presumably Hittite sculptures from Aleppo, see _Liv.
Annals_, ii. p. 184, and Pl. XLII.
[200] See Pl. XXXVIII., to face.
[201] _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. VII. and p. 8.
[202] _Vorderasiatische Abteilung_, No. 3009.
[203] _Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, 1900, pt. 4, p.
8. There is another inscribed object coming from this region now in the
museum at Alexandretta, but it seems to have come originally from Marash.
It is a small stone inscribed on both sides, of which one is flat and
the other convex. The four rows of hieroglyphs in relief are preserved
on either side, while portions of a fifth are visible, for a part of the
object is broken away. Its width is 9½ inches, and the height of what is
preserved 14 inches (_ibid., loc. cit._).
[204] _C.I.H._ (1900, 5), Pl. XXVI. 1, 2, and do. (1900, 4), p. 20.
[205] The illustration of the Sinjerli scene, Pl. LXXV., explains the
subject in general: only at Sakje-Geuzi one of the figures is standing,
in the other cases both are seated.
[206] Compare in shape and subject the ‘gravestone of an Aramaic Queen,’
eighth century B.C., Berlin Museum (_Vorderasiatische Abteilung_, No.
2995). The shape corresponds also with that of the monument from Samsat
(below, p. 130); and of the stela of Nabonidus from Mujelibeh now at
Constantinople, published by Scheil, _Recueil de Travaux_, xviii. 1, 2
(Paris, 1896).
[207] Such as are to be seen at Sakje-Geuzi and in one instance at Marash.
[208] Unfortunately there seem to have been no soundings made for a
much-wanted Hittite necropolis. On the possible evolution of the motive
in general, see below, p. 357.
[209] On this point see p. 357, and cf. Jensen, _Hittiter und Armenier_
(Strassburg, 1898), p. 166; and Crowfoot, _Jour. Hell. Stud._, xix., pp.
42, 43.
[210] _Liv. Annals of Arch._, i. pp. 97-117, and Pls. XXXIII.-XLIX.
[211] Publ. in _Liv. Annals of Arch._, i. Pl. XLV., and pp. 101-2. There
is a cast at the Liverpool Institute of Archæology.
[212] Cf. the monuments of this class from Marash, described below, and
the stela of Nerab, a Phœnician monument of the ninth century B.C. (of
which a good photograph is published by Ball, _Light from the East_, to
face p. 236). These sculptures should be compared with representations
of shrines, or offerings at the altar, like the reliefs at Fraktin, Pl.
XLVII. (_Recueil de Travaux_, xiv., Pl. VI., and Chantre, _Mission en
Cappadoce_, Pl. XXIII.); also a scene at Eyuk, Pl. LXXIII. (i).
[213] Cf. the similar sculpture from Marash, p. 111, and _C.I.H._ (1900,
5), Pl. XXII., and from Malatia, below, p. 135.
[214] _Vorderasiat. Mus._, No. 971.
[215] Pl. XXXIX.; cf. also Humann and Puchstein, in _Reisen in Kleinasien
und Nord Syrien_ (Berlin, 1890): _Atlas_, Pl. XLVI. Perrot and Chipiez,
_Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p. 64, and fig. 279.
[216] Cf. the similar composition of another sculpture from the same
site. _Liv. Annals_, i. (1908), Pl. XV., fig. 2.
[217] Cf. the lion of Marash, Pl. XLII., and the newly found lion of
Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXIX.
[218] Cf. _Liv. Annals_, i. (1908), Pls. XXXIV. 2, XXXV. 2.
[219] Attributed by Puchstein, _Pseudo-hethitische Kunst_ (Berlin, 1890),
to the age of Sargon.
[220] Pl. XL. (i). From _Liv. Annals_, i. (1908), figs. 2, 3, Pl. XIV.
[221] Cf. _inter alia_ Chantre, _Mission en Cappadoce_, Pl. XXIV.; also
(Bezzenberger und) Peiser, _Die bronze Figur von Schernen_ (_Sitzungsber.
der Altertumsges. Prussia_, Heft 22), where the distribution of this
class of bronze figure is thoroughly examined. Among the sites of Asia
Minor there appear Yuzgat, Angora, Amasîa, Karashehr, Iconium, and ten
unnamed places of Cappadocia. On the Syrian side, Marash and Homs and
the Lebanon region are noticeable. The distribution thus includes many
Hittite sites, but not exclusively.
[222] Pl. XLI.; cf. _Liv. Annals Arch._, i. (1908), Pls. X., XI., p.
8, and fig. p. 7. Several important small objects have been secured at
Aintab.
[223] Cf. the monument recently discovered at Marash, described below,
pp. 114 ff.
[224] As at Sakje-Geuzi. See Pl. LXXVIII.
[225] Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii., fig. 268.
[226] Humann and Puchstein, _Reisen, etc., Atlas_, Pls. XLVII.-XLIX.
[227] Other sculptured fragments are described on pp. 118-122.
[228] Pl. XLII. from a photo of the Imperial Ottoman Museum at
Constantinople, by courtesy of H. E. Hamdy Bey.
[229] Below, Pls. XXXVIII., LXXIX.
[230] The original is now at Constantinople Museum, No. 840; a cast may
be seen in the British Museum.
[231] _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._ 1905, Nov., p. 225.
[232] _E.g._ at Comana of Pontus, Strabo, XII. iii. 32; _ibid._, and of
Cappadocia, where the priest was second in rank, _ibid._, XII. ii. 3;
also at Pessinus, _ibid._, XII. vi. 3.
[233] Cf. the sculpture No. 72 at Iasily Kaya, Pl. LXX., and p. 228; also
p. 360.
[234] Messerschmidt, _C.I.H._ (1900, pt. 5), Pl. XXII., and _ibid._, 4,
p. 18.
[235] Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p. 64.
[236] Cf. the similar feature in a sculpture from Carchemish, p. 127.
[237] Cf. the photograph Pl. V. (ii) of women at Kartal, which is in the
Kurt Dagh to the south of Marash. A suggestive general resemblance is to
be found on certain Etruscan monuments.
[238] Cf. Pls. LXXV., LXXVII.
[239] C.I.H. (1900-5), Pl. XXIII, A-B. Original in the Berlin
Vorderasiatisches Museum, No. 973.
[240] Hogarth, _Recueil_, etc., XV. p. 32, and Pl. II., fig. B.
[241] Berlin Vorderasiatisches Museum, No. 972.
[242] _C.I.H._ (1900-4), p. 20; _Ibid._ (1900-5), Pl. XXV.
[243] It is now in the Metropolitan Museum, New York; (Cesnola Coll., No.
1904), and there are impressions in the Berlin Museum.
[244] _C.I.H._ (1906), pp. 12-15, and Pl. LII.
[245] _Op. cit._, p. 13. The original is at the Constantinople Museum,
No. 1625.
[246] After inspection of the object we believe this to be the real
explanation. We are confirmed also in our impression that the inscription
and carving are contemporary with the original monument.—March 1910.
[247] See, for example, fig. No. 72 in the small gallery at Iasily Kaya,
below, Pl. LXX.; also pp. 110, 360. For the tassel cf. pp. 306, 308, and
Pl. LXXXI. (ii).
[248] _C.I.H._ (1900-4), p. 19; and (1900-5), Pl. XXIV.
[249] Humann and Puchstein, _Reisen, etc., Atlas_, Pl. XLVII., No. 2;
Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii., fig. 281. Metrop. Mus.
of Art, New York, No. 1906.
[250] Thought by Perrot to be a high stool.
[251] Cf. the lyre held by an Asiatic immigrant into Egypt about 2000
B.C. Newberry, _Beni Hasan_ (London, 1893), Pl. XXXI.
[252] As a cult object this bird provides a wide and interesting range
of study. Cf. for example, an Archaic Greek statue of the sixth century
B.C., from Asia Minor, in the Berlin Museum (Stehende Frau), No. 1597.
[253] Humann and Puchstein, _Reisen, etc., Atlas_, Pl. XLVII., fig. 4.
There is a cast in the Berlin Museum, No. 61.
[254] _E.g._ at Kara-Bel, Pl. LIV.; and at Malatia, Pl. XLIV. Cf. also
the scene of the storming of Dapur in the Ramesseum at Thebes.
[255] A cast is in the Berlin Vorderasiatisches Museum, No. 63, V.A.G.
[256] Humann, etc., _op. cit._, XLVII. 5; Perrot, etc., _op. cit._, fig.
282. The original is in the Metropolitan Museum, New York, No. 1905; and
there is a cast in the Berlin Museum.
[257] Cf. pp. 265, 282.
[258] Humann and Puchstein, _op. cit._, Pl. XLVII. 1. Berlin
Vorderasiatisches Museum, 62.
[259] Cf. similar sculptures of Malatia, p. 133; Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. XXXIX.
[260] Original Berlin Vorderas. Mus., No. 974; Perrot and Chipiez, _op.
cit._, ii. p. 77, fig. 290.
[261] See below, p. 380.
[262] Cf. below, p. 371, and Maspero, _The Struggle of the Nations_, pp.
145 ff.
[263] See Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, ii. p. 281, for summary of a
report printed in the _Graphic_. Consult also Drummond, _Travels ...
to the Banks of the Euphrates_ (1754), p. 209; and Maundrell (Hy.), _A
Journey ... to the Banks of the Euphrates_ (Oxford), 1749.
[264] See p. 263; and cf. Pl. LXV. (Iasily Kaya), Pl. LXXIX.
(Sakje-Geuzi), and Pl. XLII. (Marash). For a discussion of the motive in
general, see _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, _cit._, p. 270, note 1.
[265] As represented by Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii.
p. 62, fig. 276. For the photo from which we write we are indebted to
the courtesy of the Mission at Cæsarea. This object is illustrated by an
ill-printed photograph in Sayce’s _The Hittites_, to face p. 58, where it
is described by oversight as from Marash.
[266] British Museum, _Guide to Babylonian and Assyrian Antiquities_, p.
27, No. 3; Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii., fig. 277;
Messerschmidt, _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XII. A photograph in Ball, _Light
from the East_, p. 142.
[267] Cf. also the sculpture found at Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXX.; and _Liv.
Annals Arch._, 1908 (4), Pl. XLI., No. 2, where the deity has four wings.
[268] Cf. the sculptures of Bor, Pl. LVI.; and Ivrîz, Pl. LVII.
[269] _C.I.H._, 1900, Pl. X.; _British Museum Guide_, _cit._, p. 27, No.
8. Rendering by Sayce in _Proc. S.B.A._, 1905, Nov., p. 201, beginning
‘the dirk-bearer of Carchemish.’ The repetition of the geographical
word Kar-ka-me-is (Assyrian Gargamis) is a remarkable corroboration of
Professor Sayce’s system of translation.
[270] Cf. for this feature the Bor sculpture, Pl. LVI.
[271] On the importance of this detail as a criterion, see p. 379.
[272] Boscawen in the _Graphic_, Dec. 11, 1880; Perrot and Chipiez, _op.
cit._, ii., Additions, fig. 390; _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XV. 13, and Text,
p. 12.
[273] Cf. _Baruch_, vi. 43. ‘The women having cords around their body
sit; and one says ... why was I not chosen and my cord broken?’
[274] _Brit. Mus. Guide_, p. 27, No. 6; _C.I.H._ (1902), Pl. XIV., No. 7.
[275] _British Museum Guide_, p. 27, No. 1, where ‘portion of a building’
is the sum of information available; _C.I.H._, Pl. IX., and Text, p. 9;
Ball, _Light from the East_, p. 143; Sayce in _S.B.A._, 1905, Nov., p.
204.
[276] _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XI., 2, and Text, p. 10; _British Museum
Guide_, p. 27, No. 2; Sayce in _S.B.A._, 1905 (Nov.), p. 206.
[277] Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, fig. 390. _Addendum_, 1910: our
information about these sculptures is now supplemented by Mr. Hogarth’s
account, _Liv. Annals of Arch._ (Dec. 1909), ii. pp. 165-172, and Pls.
XXXV., XXXVI. (i). See also _Kellekli_ in Appendix B.
[278] Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, fig. 391.
[279] Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, ii. p. 62, fig. 278.
[280] Since published, see App. B, and _Liv. Annals of Arch._, ii. pp.
177-183, and Pls. XXXVII.-XL.
[281] _Op. cit._, fig. 283. First published in _Gazette Arch._, 1883. Pl.
XXII.
[282] Humann and Puchstein, _Reisen in Kleinasien und Nord Syrien_
(Berlin, 1890), _Atlas_, Pl. XLIX., No. 1-3. Also Messerschmidt, _C.I.H._
(1900), Pl. XVII., and Text, p. 14.
[283] Humann and Puchstein, _Reisen_, etc., p. 355, fig. 50. ‘Felsrelief
bei Gerger.’
[284] _Recueil de Travaux_, xvii. p. 26.
[285] Constantinople Museum, No. 846. Hogarth, _loc. cit._, with Plate,
fig. 3. Hilprecht, _Explorations in Bible Lands_ (Philadelphia, 1897),
fig. 159; Messerschmidt, _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XVI. A., and Text, p. 13.
[286] Discussed by Sayce, _S.B.A._, 1905, Nov., p. 212. Hand copy,
Hogarth, _loc. cit._, p. 25.
[287] Cf. the sculptures, Pls. XLII. and LXXIX.
[288] Constantinople Museum, No. 847. _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XVI. B.
Hogarth, _Recueil_, xvii. p. 25.
[289] See pp. 99, 103, 111.
[290] Cf. Pl. LXXV. (i), and p. 111.
[291] Cf. the epilogue to the treaty between Rameses II. and Hattusil, p.
349.
[292] Cf. Pl. LXXII. On this question in general see below, p. 360.
[293] In the Louvre Museum, Paris. Publ. Heuzy, _Les Origines Orientales
de l’Art_, Pt. i. (Paris, 1892), Pl. X. Messerschmidt, _C.I.H._ (1906),
Pl. XLVII., and p. 7.
[294] First published and discussed by Sayce, _P.S.B.A._ xxvi. (1904,
Jan.), p. 13, with drawing. Prof. Sayce’s rendering is: ‘of this
gateway the carver-out is Lie ... s, the lord of ... the ... ian,’ but
Messerschmidt disputes the reading ‘gateway,’ _loc. cit._
[295] Cf. Pl. LXXII., and pp. 256, 265.
[296] Pl. LXXIX., and p. 301.
[297] See Pl. XLIX. from _Liverpool Annals of Archæology_, i. (1908),
Pls. IV., V. More recently Mr. Hogarth (_ibid._, 1909, Pl. XLI.) has
secured a new set of photographs which show the details much clearer.
[298] Cf. the head-dress of the god at Boghaz-Keui, Pls. LXV., LXXI.
[299] He corresponds, Professor Sayce points out, with the Syrian Hadad,
who similarly stands on the back of a bull which he guides with a cord.
Cf. also the statement of Lucian (_De Dea Syria_), that the chief god of
Hierapolis, which replaced Carchemish, was supported on a bull. On the
position of the god in the Hittite Pantheon, see p. 359.
[300] Cf. sculpture of Kara-Bel, Pl. LIV., also p. 119.
[301] For this object cf. a sculpture of Sinjerli, Pl. LXXVII. (ii); and
for a formal representation, the leading god at Boghaz-Keui, Pl. LXV.
[302] Pl. LXXII., p. 256.
[303] Cf. the winged deity of Boghaz-Keui (Iasily Kaya), No. 5 L., p. 216.
[304] For the types of vases cf. the Syrian tribute in Maspero, _The
Struggle of the Nations_, p. 263; and especially the Hittite tribute,
_temp._ Akhenaten, published by Davies, _El Amarna II._, Pl. XL., and p.
41; cf. also the oblation scenes of Eyuk (_k._, p. 268), and of Fraktin,
Pl. XLVII.
[305] On the question of date, see p. 339.
[306] See pp. 277, 301.
[307] _Recueil de Travaux_, xv. p. 27, Pt. iv.
[308] Ramsay and Hogarth, _Recueil de Travaux_, xv. Pl. III.,
Constantinople Museum, No. 1215 (630); Messerschmidt, _C.I.H._ (1900),
Pl. XX., and revised copy, 1906, Pl. XX.
[309] Cf. _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, vol. xii. Pl. IX.
[310] Hogarth, _loc. cit._, p. 31.
[311] Vorderasiat. Mus., Berlin, No. 2882, _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_,
i. (_Mitt. aus den Orient. Sammlungen_, 1893, Berlin, Heft xi.), Pl. VI.
[312] Messerschmidt, _C.I.H._ (1906), p. 13. The base of the statue
appears to be a survival of the columnar bases of Sinjerli and
Sakje-Geuzi (Pl. LXXXII.), in the design of which two sphinxes support
the drum of the column upon their backs. In this case the design is
modified, but retains striking features surviving from the older
prototype. The sphinxes are replaced by lions, in the style of the
corner-stone lions of Sinjerli (_Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iii., Pl.
XLVII.), and between their fore-parts there appears the figure of a man
carved in relief. He is in a crouching attitude, dictated probably by
the small space at the sculptor’s disposal; his hands are stretched out
to the collars of lions on either side; his face is shown in full, with
square-cut ridged beard, and a curl of hair prominent on either side of
his head, attached clearly to a wig. His dress is a short fringed tunic
and short-sleeved vest; a belt is round his waist, to which a dagger is
attached. His legs are turned towards his left; upon his feet there seem
to be bands or anklets, possibly to bind on his footgear. Though no shoe
is visible, the toes are prominently upturned. It is a striking object.
The rim of the drum is not decorated in any way, but on the top there is
a large square-cut socket, corresponding to the tongue upon the bottom of
the statue. (Orig. Consple. Mus., No. 1519.)
[313] By Sir Charles W. Wilson; Wright, _Empire_, etc., p. 57. Ramsay and
Hogarth, _Recueil_, etc., xiv. and Pl. IV. _C.I.H._, 1900; Pl. XVIII.,
and p. 15.
[314] Cf. Pls. LXV., LXXI.
[315] The name means ‘Lion-stone,’ and is familiar wherever such
monuments are found.
[316] Ramsay and Hogarth, _loc. cit._ Pl. II., A.
[317] See below, p. 297, and _Mitt. a. d. Orient. Samm. Sendschirli_,
iii. (Berlin, 1902), Pl. XLVI. Originals in the Berlin Vorderas. Mus.,
Nos. 2718, 3001.
[318] Cf. the lions of Marash and Sakje-Geuzi, Pls. XLII., LXXIX.
[319] Sterrett, _Epigraphical Journey_ (1884), p. 299.
[320] Ramsay and Hogarth, _Recueil, etc._, xv. p. 30 and Pls. I.-II.
[321] G. de Jeraphanion, _Proc. S.B.A._, 1908 (Feb.), p. 42 and Pl. I.
For the two photographs before us as we write we are indebted to the
members of the American Mission at Cæsarea.
[322] Pp. 180, 181.
[323] P. 237.
[324] Pl. XLVI.; _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XXXI. p. 26; _Ibid._ (1906), Pl.
XXXI. A and p. 23. Constantinople Museum, No. 1217.
[325] Hans Rott, _Kleinasiatische Denkmäler_ (Leipzig, 1908), p. 178,
fig. 3; Jeraphanion, _Proc. S.B.A._, xxx. (1908) pp. 43, 44, and Pl. II.
[326] Murray’s _Handbook for Asia Minor_, p. 273.
[327] Ramsay and Hogarth, _Recueil, etc._, xiv. p. 81, and Pl. VI.;
_C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XXX. and p. 25; Chantre, _Mission en Cappadoce_
(Paris, 1898), Pl. XXIII and p. 125.
[328] _Hist. Geog._, pp. 288, 312. The identification probably remains
unshaken by the discovery at Tashji. Cf. Strabo, xii. 2-6. The word seems
to involve the name TARK....
[329] Pl. XLVII.
[330] Cf. the god-figures of Boghaz-Keui, Pl. LXV.
[331] This position is unique; cf. the priest-figures in Pls. LVIII.,
LXXII.
[332] Cf. the god-figures of Kara-Bel, Pl. LIV.; Malatia, Pl. XLIV.
[333] Cf. the oblation scenes of Malatia, Pl. XLIV., p. 138, and of Eyuk,
p. 268.
[334] Cf. Eyuk, Pl. LXXIII. (i); Sipylus, Pl. LIII.
[335] Cf. the female figure at Boghaz-Keui, Pl. LXVII.
[336] Cf. the tassel at Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXXI. (ii); and Marash, p. 115;
also the oblation-scene at Malatia, above, Pl. XLIV.
[337] Cf. the sculptures from Marash, p. 118, and Yarre, p. 165.
[338] Cf. p. 241.
[339] _Liverpool Annals of Archæology_, vol. i., No. 1, p. 6, and Pls.
VIII. and IX. (i.).
[340] See above, p. 24.
[341] Hans Rott, _Kleinasiatische Denkmäler_ (Messerschmidt in the same),
pp. 175-179 and figs. 1, 2.
[342] See above, p. 24.
[343] It is described by Anderson, _Jour. Hellenic Studies_, xxi.
(1901), pp. 328-332 as six miles north-north-west of Tuz Keui, hence is
probably the _Karapunar_ of Kiepert’s map, and to be distinguished from
_Karapurna_, north-west of Arapison.
[344] Cf. the fortress and inscription of Kara Dagh, below, p. 178.
[345] Cf. _Jour. Hellenic Studies_ (1899), p. 55 ff.
[346] Discovered by Anderson, cf. _op. cit._ and Plate; also Sayce,
_Proc. S.B.A._, 1905 (Nov.), p. 217; _C.I.H._ (1902), Pl. XLVI.
[347] See Pl. XLVIII. for our photo of the southern face. Cf. _C.I.H._
(1906), Pl. LI. and pp. 11, 12.
[348] Cf. p. 27, above.
[349] See Pl. XLIX. Cf. Robinson, _Proc. S.B.A._, 1908 (Jan.), p. 27 and
fig. 1, 2; and _Liv. Annals of Arch._, 1, i. Pls. VI., VII. and p. 5.
[350] Cf. the constructive details of the Lower Palace at Boghaz-Keui,
below, p. 208.
[351] Cf. Pl. LXV.
[352] See pp. 235, 236.
[353] From the treaty between Hattusil and Rameses II., see below, p. 348.
[354] Especially as some hieroglyphs are visible in M. Perrot’s
photograph.
[355] Winckler, _Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient. Gesellschaft zu
Berlin_, Dec. 1907, No. 35, pp. 57, 58, figs. 6, 7.
[356] Though found in hieroglyph at Emir Ghazi; and in the round at
Kuru-Bel (above p. 147).
[357] See Pl. XL. (ii), and _Liv. Annals of Arch._, 1, i. p. 11, and Pl.
XIV. (1).
[358] See pp. 37, 38.
[359] See pp. 21, 92.
[360] Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p. 198, fig. 350.
[361] Crowfoot, _Jour. Hellenic Studies_, xix. pp. 45-48, fig. 5.
[362] Cf. the construction at Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXVIII.
[363] Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, ii. p. 202 fig. 352.
[364] See p. 205.
[365] See Pl. LXI. (i).
[366] See p. 178.
[367] See p. 154.
[368] See Pl. LXV.
[369] It is interesting to compare this head-dress with that of the
Scythians (cf. the designs on the Electron Vase from Kul-Oba, Reinach,
etc., _Antiquities of Southern Russia_).
[370] See p. 215, note.
[371] See Pl. LXV.
[372] Strabo, XII. v. 3; for the route cf. Perrot and Chipiez, _op.
cit._, p. 202; Anderson, _Jour. Hell. Stud._, xix. p. 95; Ramsay, _Hist.
Geog._, p. 31; and _Jour. Roy. Asiat. Soc._, xv. (1883), p. 109.
[373] Crowfoot, _Jour. Hell. Stud._, xix. Pt. 1 (1899), pp. 40-45, and
fig. 4.
[374] See pp. 99, 100, and Pl. LXXV. (i).
[375] P. 111.
[376] P. 226.
[377] P. 284 and Pl. LXXV. (i).
[378] Ramsay, _Jour. Hell. Stud._, iii (1883) pp. 6-11 and fig. 2. For
the Phrygian monuments in brief see Murray’s _Handbook_, p. 142, etc.
[379] Cf. the sculpture from Marash, p. 119, and at Fraktin, p. 151.
[380] _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XXXVI. B, and text, p. 32.
[381] _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p. 206 and fig. 353.
[382] _Mitteilungen der Deutschen Arch. Inst. Athen. Abtlg._, xiv.
(1889), p. 181; _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XXXVI. A, and text, p. 32; Murray’s
_Handbook_, p. 135.
[383] Cf. the original appearance of the inscription from Ekrek, Pl. XLVI.
[384] For a description of the mountain, and a comparative study of the
religion of the famous monument, see a paper by Ramsay, ‘Sipylus and
Cybele,’ in _Jour. Hell. Stud._, iii. pp. 33-68. Cf. Perrot and Chipiez,
_Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p. 234 and ff., and fig. 365; Weber, _Le
Sipylus et ses monuments_ (Paris, 1880); _C.I.H._ (1900), Pls. XXXVII.,
XXXVIII., and text, p. 33.
[385] See Pl. LIII., to face.
[386] Pausanias, III. xxii. 4, quoted below.
[387] Dennis, _Proc. S.B.A._, iii. p. 49; Sayce, _ib._, vol. vii. Pl. V.;
_C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XXXVIII.
[388] Pl. LXXIII. (i).
[389] Pl. XLVII.
[390] Below, p. 184.
[391] _Iliad_, xxiv. 615.
[392] _Metamorphoses_, vi. 310.
[393] Pausanias, trans. Frazer, I. xxi. 3.
[394] Pausanias, trans. Frazer, III. xxii. 4.
[395] Cf. Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, ii. p. 236, where this passage
is translated: ‘A statue of the Mother of the Gods, the oldest goddess of
all.’ The Greek runs: μήτρος θεῶν ἀρχαιότατον ἁπάντων ἄγαλμα. There can
be no doubt, however, as to the identity of the monument.
[396] Pausanias, VIII. xxxviii. 10.
[397] _J.H.S._ (_loc. cit._), iii. p. 41, etc., p. 54. Cf. also
Rawlinson, _Ancient Monarchies_, i. p. 494.
[398] On the place of this cult in the Hittite religion, see pp. 354 ff.
[399] See Pl. LIV., taken from Sayce, _The Hittites_ (1903), p. 68, and
republished by courtesy of the author and the S.P.C.K.
[400] Texier, _Description_, vol. ii. Pl. CXXXII.; Perrot and Chipiez,
_op. cit._, ii. p. 229, fig. 362.
[401] Alternatively a sword held aloft; the markings on the stone above
and below the hand are not in line. Cf. the God 2 L. at Boghaz-Keui, Pl.
LXV.
[402] Herodotus, ii. 106.
[403] _Trs. S.B.A._, vii. pp. 266, 439, and _Proc. S.B.A._, xxi. p. 222;
also in _The Hittites_, pp. 67 ff. Cf. _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XXXIX. and p.
38.
[404] _Recueil de Travaux_, xiv.; _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XXXV. and p. 31;
Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, ii. p. 213 (where the name is incorrectly
given as Kosli-Tolu). The inscription was first published in _Revue
Archéologique_, 3ᵉ série, 1885, v. p. 262. Revised copy of Sayce in
_Proc. S.B.A._, Jan. 1904, p. 24, with Plate.
[405] Xenophon, _Anabasis_, I. ii. 14.
[406] Hamilton, _Researches in Asia Minor_, ii. pp. 350, 351; Perrot and
Chipiez, _op. cit._, ii. p. 214 and fig. 356; _Revue Archéologique_, 3ᵉ
série, vol. V. pp. 257-264, Pls. XI., XII.
[407] Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, ii. pp. 222, 223; illustration in
Ramsay, _The Cities of St. Paul_ (London, 1907), p. 134, fig. 7.
[408] This is an inference from the omission of the feet; actually the
legs come to an end upon the head of the lower figure.
[409] Cf. pp. 235, 239.
[410] Cf. especially the lions and sphinx-base of Sakje-Geuzi, Pls.
LXXIX., LXXXII.
[411] See p. 142 above, note 4.
[412] Cf. below, p. 311.
[413] Cf. chap. i. p. 41.
[414] _Luke the Physician_, pp. 163, 164.
[415] By Miss Gertrude Bell, 1907.
[416] Ramsay, _op. cit._, Pls. XIV., XV.
[417] _Proc. S.B.A._ (March 1909), xxxi. p. 86, Pl. VII. No. 5.
[418] Sayce, _op. cit._, Pl. VIII. No. 6.
[419] Ramsay, _op. cit._, p. 160 and Pl. XVI.
[420] _Proc. S.B.A._ (March 1909), Pl. VII.
[421] Professor Sayce does not agree with Professor Ramsay’s
interpretation, which we adopt in lack of an alternative explanation, and
especially in view of the parallels afforded by the sculptures of Eyuk
(Pl. LXXIII. (i)) and of Sakje-Geuzi (Pl. LXXXI.).
[422] Professor Ramsay (_op. cit._, p. 160) reproduces the name as
Tarkuattes; but the form given by Professor Sayce (_S.B.A._ _loc.
cit._, p. 84) corresponds closely with the name of a Hittite leader,
_Targannas_, recorded by Rameses II.
[423] The sign is ideographic, and the reading Sandes (or Sandon) is
corroborated in various ways. The same sign seems to denote the storm-god
(the Babylonian Hadad, and Tessup of the Mitanni) on the Hittite monument
found at Babylon (Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._, 1904, p. 306). Dr. Winckler,
however, in discussing the archives of Boghaz-Keui, believes that Tessup
was the name of the national Hittite deity. See also p. 358.
[424] Below, Pl. LXV. and p. 237. Notice also the altar on the Pass of
Kuru-Bel, above, p. 147.
[425] Cf. pp. 129, 232. Among the Hatti, it appears from the archives of
Boghaz-Keui, the King was called the Sun-God. Winckler, _Mitteil. der D.
Orient-Ges._, No. 35, Dec. 1907.
[426] In this conclusion we differ somewhat from Professor Sayce, and
agree partly with Professor Ramsay. Our argument, however, is only based
on somewhat distant analogies. Cf. also Ramsay in the _Recueil_, etc.,
xiv. pp. 74 ff. on the priestly office.
[427] Cf. Ramsay and Hogarth, _Recueil de Travaux_, xv. p. 26.
[428] By Mr. T. Callander, a member of Prof. Ramsay’s expedition of 1904.
[429] Ramsay, _Studies in the History and Art of the Eastern Provinces
of the Roman Empire_ (Aberdeen, 1906), p. 178 and Pls. IX., X., XI.;
_C.I.H._ (1906), p. 9 and Pls. XLIX., L. Professor Ramsay found still
another altar in 1907.
[430] For an exhaustive comparative study of these inscriptions see a
paper by Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._ xxvii. (1905), pp. 21-31 and Pls. I., II.,
III., and revised note, _ibid._, vol. xxviii. (1906), May, p. 134.
[431] See below, Pls. LXVIII., LXXI.
[432] Above, Pl. XLVII.
[433] Below, Pl. LXXII.
[434] P. 107, Pl. XLI.
[435] Pp. 114 ff.
[436] P. 127.
[437] See above, p. 41.
[438] xii. 2-7.
[439] Above, p. 56.
[440] Constantinople Museum, No. 857. Hogarth, _Wandering Scholar_, p.
16.; Ramsay and Hogarth, _Recueil_, xiv. Pl. I.; Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._
xxviii. (1906), p. 94 ff. and Pl. III.; Messerschmidt, _C.I.H._ (1906),
Pl. XXXIII. and p. 3. For our photo, Pl. LVI., we are indebted to the
authorities of the Imperial Ottoman Museum.
[441] See below, Pl. LVII.
[442] Above, p. 126 and p. 113.
[443] Pl. LVII.
[444] Letters from Professor Sayce dated Oct. 2, Oct. 9, 1909.
[445] Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._ 1905, p. 200; and 1906, p. 94, with Pl. III.
[446] The first five signs on the right of the first column.
[447] _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XXXI., c. and text, p. 27. Ramsay and Hogarth,
_Recueil_, xiv., Pl. I. p. 84.
[448] By a botanist, Herr Walter Siehe, _C.I.H._ (1906), Pl. LIII. p. 15.
[449] Professor Sayce suggests to us the following translation: ‘This
stone was set up by the king, the Prince of Kas.’
[450] _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl. XXXII. and p. 27; Hogarth and Ramsay,
_Recueil_, xiv. Pl. II. and p. 85; Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._ 1905, p. 229. In
the Liverpool Institute of Archæology there is an enlarged photo of the
original, which has been collated with the cast in the Ashmolean Museum.
[451] See frontispiece and p. 43.
[452] _Op cit._, p. 230, line 3 and line 5.
[453] We pronounce this word Ivreez; though locally it is commonly
pronounced Ibreez, owing probably to racial difficulty with the letter
_v_.
[454] See Chapter I. p. 41.
[455] There is a plentiful literature on the subject. See _inter alia_
for a picturesque description of the country, Davis, _Life in Asiatic
Turkey_, pp. 245-248. For an account of the monument in relation to
its environment, with much beauty of thought and written with charm
of expression, see Ramsay, _Luke the Physician_, pp. 171-179, and Pl.
XXI.; also a note in _Pauline and other Studies_, pp. 172, 173. For a
comparative study of the religious symbolism of the monument, Frazer,
_Adonis, Attis, and Osiris_ (1907), pp. 93-97. For our photograph, Pl.
LVII., taken from a plaster cast in the Asia Minor Museum at Berlin, we
are indebted to Dr. Messerschmidt, who describes his visit to the spot,
_C.I.H._ (1906), pp. 5, 6, and Pl. XXXIV. This photograph shows more of
the delicate detail than any of the originals that have been published,
in which the shadows are usually too violent.
[456] On the development of the route through the Cilician Gates, see
above, p. 45.
[457] Cf. the treatment of the priest-king and other monuments at
Sakje-Geuzi. Pl. LXXXI.
[458] Cf. Pl. LVI.
[459] Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._, May 1906, pp. 133, 134, and Plate.
[460] In the former instance in a compound or variant, _Ay-mi-ny-a-si-s_
(? son of Ayminyas); in the latter instance exactly as at Bor,
_Ay-mi-ny-a-s_. The signs are the two last of the first row, and the
three below them in the second row, of the inscription behind the king.
Cf. the first five signs of the Bor inscription, Pl. LVI.
[461] See what is said on this subject in the previous chapter, p. 54.
[462] Cf. pp. 238, 240. On the origins and development of this conception
of the god, see below, pp. 378, 379.
[463] We may pay special tribute to the pioneer work of the Berlin
expedition at Sinjerli, to the explorations of Sir Wm. Ramsay and
his school in Phrygia and Lycaonia, and to the organised labours of
Dr. Winckler at Boghaz-Keui. We shall incorporate also some of the
preliminary results of the excavations of the Liverpool Institute at
Sakje-Geuzi.
[464] _Vide supra_, p. 32.
[465] _Vide supra_, p. 13.
[466] See _inter alia_, Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii.
pp. 103 _et seq._ The name Ptara is suggested by Ramsay, who accepts the
identification (_Luke the Physician_, p. 215, note).
[467] Herodotus, i. 76. The situation of Pteria is indicated vaguely as
κατὰ Σινώπην which is read to mean ‘opposite’ or ‘over against Sinope’;
the full context is: ἡ δὲ Πτερίη ἐστὶ τῆς χώρης ταύτης τὸ ἰσχυρότατον
κατὰ Σινώπην πόλιν ... μάλιστά κῃ κειμένη.
[468] We prefer the term ‘Syro-Cappadocian’ to ‘White-Syrian,’ or
‘Leuco-Syrian,’ as a more comprehensive equivalent in our days of the
original name Suri.
[469] _Supra_, p. 158.
[470] Winckler, ‘Preliminary Report on Excavations at Boghaz-Keui,
1907’ (_Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft_, Berlin, 1907),
p. 57-58. See also above, p. 160. See also an earlier article in
_Orientalistische Litteratur-Zeitung_, Dec. 1906.
[471] See above, p. 53.
[472] It had probably been destroyed, as the archives were not
transferred to the new building which was placed upon the ruins of the
old. The date is based on a calculation of difference in axial direction
kindly supplied by Sir Norman Lockyer, _vide infra_, p. 210.
[473] _Supra_, p. 37.
[474] Herodotus, v. 52.
[475] _Supra_, p. 24.
[476] As suggested by Kiepert, cf. pp. 143, 366.
[477] _Supra_, pp. 33, 34.
[478] See Pl. LIX.
[479] Cf. however the mural towers so characteristic of the Syrian
fortresses, _infra_, pp. 273, 300.
[480] Pl. LX.
[481] Cf. _infra_, p. 226.
[482] Report _cit._, Pl. XII. Cf. below, p. 357.
[483] A plan is published in Humann and Puchstein, _Reisen in
Kleinasien_, Pl. XIV., and a revised version in Murray’s _Handbook_, p.
21.
[484] Cf. the Forts of Giaour-Kalesi, p. 163, Karaburna, p. 154, and
Kizil Dagh, p. 178.
[485] _Vide_ the photograph on Pl. LVIII., where these features may be
seen in the distance.
[486] _Vide supra_, p. 158.
[487] Texier, _Description of Asia Minor_, i. Pl. LXXX.
[488] Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, pp. 108 _et seqq._
[489] Winckler, _Report cit._, pp. 62 and ff.
[490] The best plan was published by Barth, _Reise von Trapesunt ... nach
Scutari_, p. 48.
[491] Pl. LXI. (ii).
[492] We are indebted to the courtesy of Dr. Winckler and his colleagues
for the facilities which enabled us to study this site during the
progress of the excavations.
[493] Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, p. 115.
[494] Winckler, _Report cit._, p. 64 and ff.
[495] See _infra_, p. 312.
[496] From calculations supplied from our rough data by Sir Norman
Lockyer.
[497] Above, p. 159; for our date, see below, p. 339.
[498] Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, p. 114.
[499] By Dr. Winckler’s excavations, _Report cit._, figs. 3, 4; pp. 54-55.
[500] _Infra_, Pls. LXXIX., LXXX., and p. 311.
[501] Ramsay (_Luke the Physician_, p. 203, in a chapter largely
reprinted from a paper in the _Jour. Roy. Asiatic Soc._ 1882) makes the
remarkable suggestion that most of the figures apparently male are those
of females in disguise (_e.g._ of Amazons); but we have found nothing in
our study of these sculptures to support this view. With all deference to
a great scholar’s first impressions, we believe that if he revisited the
monuments, and viewed them in the light of the new comparative material,
he would find no reason to maintain the point of view which may have
seemed warranted twenty-seven years ago. One of the chief arguments is
the delicacy and femininity of face seen in some of the sculptures;
yet on the same argument several of the Pharaohs of the eighteenth and
nineteenth dynasty would appear to have been female. The refinement
is clearly that of the sculptor. The same point of view is taken in
reference to the Amazon sculptures recently discovered (_Expository
Times_, Nov. 1909), in an article on _The Armed Priestesses of the
Hittite Religion_; but in our judgment these belong to a phase of art
quite distinct, and several centuries later in date. On this point, see
below, p. 357.
[502] See the plan, p. 221, and Pls. LXIII.-LXVIII.
[503] Cf. Malatia sculptures, etc., Pl. XLIV.
[504] This is a common feature on Hittite sculptures, and on several
well-preserved instances from here [cf. Pl. LXIX. (ii)] and elsewhere,
notably from Sinjerli [cf. Pl. LXVII. (ii), and Berlin V.-A. Mus.,
Cast No. 199], it seems to be due to a plain metal or otherwise stiff
attachment rising from or continuous with the brim of the hat.
[505] Compare the winged deity of Malatia, Pl. XLIV. and p. 139.
[506] Cf. pp. 111, 118.
[507] Presumably a sacred stone; _vide_ Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._, 1903, p.
154, No. 11.
[508] Pl. LXXII. and p. 255.
[509] See Pl. LXVIII.
[510] Namely, Nos. 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, in the plan, p. 221. For position
of the group, see the photograph, Pl. LXIV.
[511] No. 17.
[512] No. 12.
[513] Nos. 14, 15.
[514] Resembling a large double bellows. Professor Sayce points out the
analogy with a Hittite hieroglyph in an inscription from Emir-Ghazi. (See
above, p. 183.)
[515] Nos. 19, 20.
[516] Nos. 22, 25.
[517] Nos. 23, 24.
[518] No. 21.
[519] Nos. 26, 27.
[520] Nos. 28-30.
[521] No. 31 of the whole series.
[522] Nos. 32-43.
[523] A schedule of the figures with our reference numbers may be of use:
LEFT.
⎰ 1 L. One standing on two others, bearded and exalted. ⎱ Pl. LXV.
⎱ 2, 3. Two others, younger, on pinnacles. ⎰
⎧ 4. One similar, but not raised aloft.
⎪ 5. One winged. ⎫
⎨ 6, 7. Two females as a group. ⎬ Pl. LXIII. (ii).
⎪ 8. A second winged. ⎭
⎩ 9. One with lituus and toga; winged rosette above (cf. 22 R.).
⎧ 10-13. Four with scimitars, of which one is winged. ⎱ Pl. LXIV.
⎨ 14, 15. Two monsters as a group (Pl. LXVI.). ⎰
⎩ 16-18. Three with scimitars.
⎧ 19-20. Two with maces like the leaders.
⎪ 21. One with arms and hat forward.
⎪ 22. One with mace.
⎨ 23, 24. Two with no weapons visible.
⎪ 25. One with mace.
⎩ 26-27. Two with arms and hat forward.
⎧ 28. One indistinct (tunic and hat).
⎨ 29-31. Three robed and bearded.
⎩ 32-43. Twelve in line, running.
RIGHT.
⎧ 1 R. One female on back of panther. ⎱ Pl. LXV.
⎨ 2. One youthful male with double axe. ⎰
⎩ 3, 4. Two similar to first, forming a group on double eagle.
5-21. Seventeen in procession resembling 1 R. (Pl. LXVII.).
22 R=65. One with lituus, toga, and winged rosette, etc., in hand,
standing on two stony mounds (Pl. LXVIII.).
[524] See the photograph, Pl. LXV. The head-dress was commonly employed
by the Phrygian women. Its shape is recalled by the modern hat of the
Turkoman women, which is worn covered by a shawl to serve at times as a
veil.
[525] These emblems are composed in each case of pictorial or
hieroglyphic signs, and in them doubtless lies the clue to the
identification of the figures. A sign like a divided oval (which
Professor Sayce believes to represent a sacred stone) is found at the
commencement of each group accompanying a divine or exalted personage.
[526] A similar detail is noticeable on a familiar Etruscan design.
[527] Cf. the sculpture from Sinjerli, Pl. LXVII. (ii). See also p. 104.
[528] Cf. the sculpture at Eyuk, Pl. LXXII.
[529] Cf. a similar detail ornamenting the emblem above figs. No. 9 L.
and 22 R. (Pl. LXVIII.).
[530] At Eyuk they clutch hares, Pl. LXXII. and p. 268.
[531] Clearly stony hilltops, as on the gates of Balawat.
[532] Arranged, as Professor Ramsay suggests (_Luke the Physician_, p.
212) to resemble a ναΐσκος.
[533] Possibly, suggests Prof. Sayce, a sort of fringe.
[534] Nos. 66-67. The presence of sculptures at the spot was noted by
Perrot and Chipiez.
[535] Cf. pp. 101 ff. and Pl. LXXV. (i).
[536] No. 68.
[537] No. 69.
[538] The broad end is not altogether enclosed, but leads to rocky broken
ground.
[539] Nos. 70-81.
[540] Nos. 32-43 L.
[541] Pl. LXIX. (ii).
[542] Cf. The weapon carried by the men on the Phaestus cup.
[543] No. 72.
[544] Nos. 73, 74.
[545] No. 2 R.
[546] Nos. 22 R., 9 L.
[547] No. 22 R.
[548] See particularly Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii.
pp. 149-153; Ramsay, _Luke the Physician_, chap. vi.; and _Journal Royal
Asiatic Society_, vol. xv., New Series (1885), pp. 113-120; Hamilton,
_Researches_, etc. (i.) p. 394; and for an illuminative anthropological
point of view, Frazer, _Adonis, Attis, and Osiris_ (_Golden Bough_, iv.
2nd ed.), bk. I. chap. vi., § 4, pp. 105-110.
[549] These, it seems to us, have been too much neglected in attempts
which have been made to elucidate the meaning of the sculptures.
[550] Frazer, _Adonis, Attis, and Osiris_ (_The Golden Bough_, iv.,
2nd ed.), p. 107, reminds us that the deities associated with animals
are probably derived from a more primitive conception when the god
was indistinguishable from the beast. Doubtless the lioness (or
panther) and the eagle were cult objects, if not totems, before they
were humanised. In fact, in the sphinx and human-headed eagle, there
is seen the intermediate anthropomorphic stage. The human forms were
already developed in Babylonia, whence they may have been derived,
being superimposed on the pristine native beliefs and fetishes. (On the
relations with Babylonia and kindred cults, see pp. 323, 355 ff.) We
may assume that the evolution of the mountain-god was similar, though
inanimate. The ‘high place’ on Kizil Dagh, with image of the god carved
on the rock, (p. 181) is an illustration. Probably also the altar on Kuru
Bel (p. 147), may be most naturally explained as dedicated to the spirit
of the mountain or of the pass.
[551] We do not deal with these symbols in detail, as the reading of some
of the signs is doubtful, and being isolated groups, they present special
pitfalls to attempts at translation. It is interesting to note, however,
that such priests and priestesses commonly received a special sacred name
as a mark of their office.
[552] Cf. Ramsay, in _Recueil de Travaux_, xv. (1890), p. 78, on the
priest-classes of Asia Minor.
[553] _E.g._ excluding Nos. 29-31 from the whole series, 19-43.
[554] Or servants of the temple. Cf. Strabo on the rites at Comana, bk.
XII. chap, xi., § 3.
[555] No. 22 R.
[556] No. 9.
[557] The treaty of Rameses II. with Hattusil.
[558] This analogy was first pointed out by the late De Cara, _Gli Hethei
Pelasgi_ (Rome, 1894), i. p. 192.
[559] Cf. below, p. 257 and Pl. LXXII.
[560] Winckler, _Report cit._, pp. 57-58; above, p. 159.
[561] Cf. Pls. LXXXI. (i) (Sakje-Geuzi), and LXIV. (Malatia).
[562] Cf. Winckler, _Report cit._, p. 36 (below, p. 338), where the same
custom is illustrated in a treaty with the Mitanni.
[563] Incidentally it is of interest to note that an eagle was associated
with the rites of Sandon of Tarsus, identified with the Son-god, who here
precedes the eagle-deities. Cf. Frazer, _op cit._, p. 99.
[564] Berlin Vorderasiatisches Museum (Königl. Mus.), No. 977.
[565] Letter from Professor A. H. Sayce, July 23, 1909.
[566] See above, p. 155 and Pl. XLIX.
[567] See p. 269.
[568] Cf. Herodotus, i. 199; Strabo, XVI. i. 20.
[569] Independently Professor Sayce informs us that he has recognised in
the symbol accompanying the first of these the emblem of the kingdom of
Kas, the second state of the confederacy.
[570] Nos. 5, 7.
[571] Compare especially No. 5 with the winged deity of Malatia. Pl. XLIV.
[572] In view of the proposition of Sayce (_Proc. S.B.A._ 1904) that
there were nine chief Hittite states, it is remarkable to notice that
the figures preceding this priest may be regarded as representing seven
different gods or cults, while two are represented in the opposite
series. On this subject see also below, p. 348.
[573] For a full insight into these cults see Frazer, _op cit._, pp. 97,
110.
[574] Cf. the rites of Comana (Pontus), Strabo, bk. XI. chap. iii. § 32;
and in the temple of Mabog, Lucian, _De Dea Syria_.
[575] Nos. 14, 15.
[576] Nos. 32-43.
[577] Professor Frazer, _op. cit._, p. 108.
[578] Cf. Sculpture of Marash, p. 110, also the translations of Professor
Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._ 1904-5.
[579] _Researches in Asia Minor_, etc. (London, 1842), i. pp. 382-3.
[580] _Reise von Trapesunt nach Scutari_, pp. 42 and 43; also _Über die
Ruinen bei Hejuk_ (_Arch. Zeit._ 1859, pp. 50, 59).
[581] _Travels in Little-known Parts of Asia Minor_ (London, 1870), pp.
129-148.
[582] Ramsay on _The Early Historical Relations of Phrygia and
Cappadocia_, Pt. 11 (_Journal Royal Asiatic Society_, xv., London, 1883),
pp. 116.
[583] Also Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, vol. ii. pp.
153-158.
[584] _Liv. Annals Arch._, i. (1908), p. 3, and Pls. II. and III.
[585] Macridy Bey, _La porte des sphinx à Euyuk_ (_Mitteilungen der
Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, 1908, 3).
[586] First noticed by Macridy Bey, _op. cit._, p. 2.
[587] A town Teiria, of the ‘Leuco-Syrians,’ is mentioned by Hecatæus of
Miletus (_Fragm. Hist. Graec._, ed. Müller-Didot, No. 194). M. Maspero
inclines to the identification of this place with Eyuk (_The Passing of
Empires_, p. 338).
[588] Cf. the citadel gateway of Sinjerli, p. 278.
[589] _Op. cit._, Pl. I. fig. 10.
[590] Macridy Bey, _op. cit._, p. 6.
[591] In this conclusion we differ from Macridy Bey, _op. cit._, pp. 11,
13.
[592] It may be seen in the photograph, Pl. LXXII., and covers the
sculptured block marked _e_ in the plan, extending a little way on either
side.
[593] The restoration suggested by Macridy Bey, _op. cit._, p. 11.
[594] Macridy Bey, _op. cit._, figs. 23, 24.
[595] Cf. the ‘Stadt-thor’ at Sinjerli; Von Luschan, _Ausgrabungen in
Sendschirli_ (Berlin, 1902), Pls. XXIX., XXXIV.; and below, p. 274.
[596] The recent excavators failed to see the remains of these sphinxes,
_op. cit._, p. 11, but they are quite plain in profile after the earth
has been cleared away; see a photo, _Liverpool Annals of Archæology_, i.
(1908), Pl. III.
[597] Cf. for example, Murray’s _Handbook for Asia Minor_, p. 27.
[598] Pl. LXXII. Cf. the details of the Sphinx from Sakje-Geuzi, Pl.
LXXXII.
[599] Cf. Maspero, _The Struggle of the Nations_, p. 648.
[600] See the photograph in Newberry, etc., _Short History of Egypt_ (ed.
1907), frontispiece. The special feature of the horseshoe-like head-dress
occurs on scarabs of the Hyksos period (cf. the same writer’s _Scarabs_,
London, 1906, Pl. XXV. No. 30), another suggestion of Asiatic origins.
[601] Berlin Mus., Etruscan Rooms, No. 1251. Compare also some weathered
statues from Sinjerli described below, pp. 297, 298.
[602] Cf. Pl. XLIV. See also what is said about this cult on p. 359.
[603] Cf. the round altars of Emir-Ghazi, p. 183, and the representations
at Fraktin, Pl. XLVII. p. 150.
[604] Cf. Sayce, _The Hittites_ (1903), p. 39, for revised translation of
this passage in the treaty: cited below, p. 349.
[605] Cf. Pl. LXVII.
[606] Cf. Pls. LXV.-LXVII.
[607] We cannot accept the theory of an intentional opening (Macridy Bey,
_op. cit._, p. 11).
[608] Cf. p. 105, Pl. XXXIX.
[609] At the Liverpool Institute of Archæology.
[610] Pl. LXXII.
[611] The stones of the lower course vary from 3 ft. 11 in. to 4 ft. 2 in.
[612] This is more clearly suggested in a second photograph taken in the
afternoon, with the shadows to the right hand.
[613] Traceable easily on the stone, but usually in shadow, owing to the
projection of the stone of the upper course.
[614] ‘The bagpipe consists of the skin of a dog apparently, the
insufflation pipe being at the tail end, while the drone pipe was
probably concealed within the dog’s head, with the vent through its
mouth. The same idea was carried out in the Middle Ages in Europe. Cf.
Aristophanes, _Acharnians_ (i. 866): ‘you flute-players who are here from
Thebes blow the dog’s tail with your bone-pipes’ (Extract from a letter
from Miss K. Schlesinger).
[615] Pl. LIII.
[616] Pl. LXV.
[617] Pl. XLVII.
[618] MM. Perrot and Guillaume in particular seem to have fallen before
the pitfalls of perspective in the picture, and their drawing is
misleading (_Exploration Archéologique, Cappadoce_, Pl. LXIV.; _Art in
... Asia Minor_, ii., fig. 338). They have been followed by others.
[619] Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, p. 174, fig. 339.
[620] See below, Pls. LXXIX., LXXX.
[621] See Perrot, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii., fig. 341 and fig. 340;
_Exploration_, Pl. LVII.
[622] Macridy Bey, _op. cit._, figs. 23, 24.
[623] These details were in vogue throughout the whole range of Hittite
art at Sinjerli: see pp. 275, 289. Cf. also Pl. XXIV. (ii).
[624] P. 252: on the question of date, see below, p. 367.
[625] There is no analogy to date this object earlier than the ninth or
tenth century B.C. Cf. pp. 210, 301.
[626] Ramsay, _Jour. Roy. Asiatic Society_ (N.S.), xv. p. 116, with
sketch plan.
[627] Perrot, _op. cit._, fig. 335, represents the right-hand figure with
head-dress serrated, but this marking seems to be the weathering of the
stone.
[628] Perrot, _op. cit._, fig. 336, Pl. LXIII.; Macridy Bey, _op. cit._,
fig. 28, p. 21.
[629] _Loc. cit._, also _Recueil de Travaux_, xiv. p. 91 and fig. 5.
[630] Cf. Pls. XLIV. and XLVII.
[631] Pl. LXV., p. 223 (Nos. 3, 4, R.).
[632] Winckler, _Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft_ (Berlin,
1907, No. 35), p. 70. Abb. 12, Das Ost-tor. See also above, p. 205.
[633] Messerschmidt, _C.I.H._, Pl. XXIX., No. 17.
[634] Taken by Perrot for part of a sphinx, and by Macridy Bey for the
lower part of a standing upright figure (_op. cit._, p. 25).
[635] No. 16 in M. Perrot’s Plan, _op. cit._, fig. 324 (Pl. LV.).
[636] We do not agree with any of the suggested restorations of these
motives. Cf. Macridy Bey, _op. cit._, pp. 27, 28; Chantre, _Mission en
Cappadoce_ (Paris, 1898), p. 9.
[637] Von Luschan and others: _Mitteilungen aus den Orientalistischen
Sammlungen_, Hefte xi., xii., and xiii.; _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_,
i., ii., iii. (Berlin, 1893, 1898, 1907).
[638] Published under the same auspices. _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_,
iv.
[639] See the Map on p. 375.
[640] Not much can be inferred from this fact, inasmuch as the Hittite
palaces even of the Aramæan phase were probably based upon earlier models
and of much the same plan. There are references to the _Hilâni_ in the
time of Sargon.
[641] Compare the plan of the lower palace at Boghaz-Keui, p. 207.
[642] Cf. _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iii. Pl. XXXIV.
[643] Compare with the tail of sphinx of Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXXI.
[644] Cf. a sculpture from Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXXI. (ii), and one from
Marash, p. 115. So also the eagle-headed monster described above.
[645] See above, pp. 203, 253, and Pl. LX., and plan, p. 247.
[646] _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, ii. p. 122 (Koldewey).
[647] Corresponding in the main with the scheme of publication in
_Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iii. pp. 208-229, to the illustrations of
which we refer in the footnotes.
[648] Pp. 133, 134; Pl. XXXIX. and p. 105.
[649] _Op. cit._, iii. Pl. XXXIX.
[650] See Pl. LXXV. (ii), reproduced by courtesy of Dr. Messerschmidt.
Cf. _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iii. Pl. XL.
[651] As the band is in each case doubled, it does not seem probable that
this is merely the detail of an upper part to the shoe. Cf. the monument
of Ivrîz, Pl. LVII.
[652] Compare the shield of the Hittite warrior shown on the north wall
of the temple of Rameses II. at Abydos, Egypt; below, Pl. LXXXIII. (ii).
[653] Compare Pls. LXV., LXVIII., LXXI.
[654] Compare Pl. LXXXI.
[655] But not projecting beyond it as with the lions of Eyuk, p. 263, and
Marash, Pl. XLII., Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXIX.: compare the lion reliefs of
Angora, p. 162.
[656] _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iii. Pl. XLIV. (ii).
[657] For Nos. vii.-xv. see _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iii. Pl.
XXXVII.
[658] See Pl. LXXV. (i) (by courtesy of Dr. Messerschmidt).
[659] Cf. pp. 101, 111.
[660] P. 135.
[661] Compare a sculpture from Sakje-Geuzi, p. 105; also Pl. LXXXI.
[662] For a photograph of the sculptures ix.-xv., _in situ_, see Pl.
LXXVI., reproduced by courtesy of Professor A. H. Sayce and the S.P.C.K.,
from _The Hittites_, p. 70.
[663] This wall, it will be borne in mind, faces to the south, being the
inner wall of the inner pilaster. For the sculptures xvi.-xxxii., see
_Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iii. Pl. XXXVIII.
[664] Cf. No. ii. above, Pl. LXXV. (ii).
[665] No. ii., Pl. LXXV. (ii).
[666] Compare the sphinx from Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXXI. (i).
[667] _In Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iii., Pl. XXXVIII., at the top,
these sculptures are aligned artificially with others for the photograph.
[668] Cf. the eagle-headed deity at Sakje-Geuzi, below, Pl. LXXX.
[669] On the general question of rearrangement of these sculptures, see
below, p. 296.
[670] See Pl. LXXVII. (i); and _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, ii., Pl.
XLI. (i).
[671] Cf. the sculptures of Marash, p. 111, and of Boghaz-Keui, p. 217,
Pl. LXIII. (ii).
[672] _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iii., Pl. XLIV.
[673] _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iii., Pl. XLIII. No. 1.
[674] Letter from Miss K. Schlesinger, October 4, 1909.
[675] In the Camp Scene, Brit. Mus.
[676] Cf. the musicians of Eyuk, Pl. LXXIII. (ii).
[677] Cf. the sculpture of Marash, p. 118.
[678] Compare the features of the warrior, No. ii., Pl. LXXV. (ii), with
the god-figures, Pls. LXXV. (ii), LXXVII.
[679] Below, Pl. LXXIX.; and _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, iii., Pls.
XLVI., XLVII.
[680] _Op. cit._, iii. p. 236 (with figs. 142, 143, 144, 145), where they
are ascribed to Byzantine origins.
[681] Above, p. 254 and Pl. LXXII.
[682] By the Liverpool expedition of 1908. _Liv. Annals of Archæology_,
i. (1908), pp. 97-117, and Pls. XXXIII.-XLIX.
[683] Cf. p. 205.
[684] Only the base or pedestal of the column was preserved, and the
excavators found reason to believe that, after the destruction of the
building, it had served some other purpose, possibly as an altar.
[685] See Pls. LXXVII., LXXXI.
[686] See Pls. LXXIX., LXXX.; and compare the lions of Marash (Pl.
XLII.), of Eyuk (p. 263), and of Sinjerli (p. 297). Also of Boghaz-Keui,
Pl. LX. and p. 210.
[687] Compare the treatment of the mounds upon which stands the
priest-dynast in the sculptures of Iasily Kaya, No. 22 R., Pl. LXVIII.
[688] On the subject of this emblem, cf. Ridgeway, ‘The Origin of the
Turkish Crescent,’ _Jour. Roy. Anthrop. Inst._, vol. xxxviii., ii.
(1908), p. 241.
[689] Cf. the double eagles of Iasily Kaya and Eyuk, Pls. LXV., LXXII.
[690] Cf. p. 253 and Pl. LXXII.
[691] In the Liverpool Institute of Archæology there is a small stela
of Egyptian work dating from about the twenty-eighth dynasty, on which
a standing sphinx is portrayed; the tail of this creature is made to
represent the head of a cobra. Compare also a sculpture from Sinjerli, p.
275.
[692] Cf. the tassel and dirk upon the stone recently discovered at
Marash, p. 115.
[693] Especially in representations of the priesthood. Cf. Boghaz-Keui,
(Pl. LXVIII.), Eyuk (Pl. LXXII.).
[694] The treatment of this bird is very similar to that on the small
monument from Marash, p. 118, illustrated in Humann and Puchstein,
_Reisen in Kleinasien_, Pl. XLVII., fig. 2; and Perrot and Chipiez, _Art
in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p. 68, fig. 2, and p. 181. It is interesting to
compare it also with the bird sculptured on an archaic statue from Asia
Minor of the sixth century B.C., No. 1577, Berlin Museum, _Stehende Frau_.
[695] See p. 255, Pl. LXXII.
[696] Compare the head-dress of the priest-king just described. The horns
are wanting on the similar sphinx-base from Sinjerli (_Ausgrabungen
in Sendschirli_, ii., Pl. XXXIII.), and in this case an extra short
wing is shown descending behind the shoulder: otherwise the details of
treatment correspond. It is interesting to compare these bases with one
of purely Assyrian style, published by Layard (_Monuments of Nineveh_,
i. Pl. XCV.); in the latter case there are three pairs of horns, and the
rendering of the idea differs in nearly every detail.
[697] See _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, i., p. 54, fig. 16; and Berlin
Vorderas. Mus., No. 3012.
[698] See Chapter III., p. 141, and Pl. XLV., and cf. p. 142, note 4.
[699] In the Berl. Vorderas. Mus., vide _Ausgrabungen_, etc., iv.
[700] In this opinion we differ somewhat from Dr. Messerschmidt,
_Orientalistische Litteraturzeitung_, Sept. 1909, pp. 378, 381, where he
reviews the results of the excavations made by us at Sakje-Geuzi.
[701] See _Liverpool Annals of Archæology_, vol. i., No. 4, Pl. XLIII.,
and p. 112, etc.
[702] The later painted fabrics have a clear relation to those of Kara
Eyuk (Chantre, _Mission_, Pls. III., X.-XIII.), Boghaz-Keui, and the Kara
Dagh. These, however, are not earlier than the first millennium B.C.
[703] Schuchhardt, _Schliemann’s Excavations_ (London, 1891), p. 41,
figs. 18, 20, 21.
[704] Ashmolean Museum, the black, red-black, and red-brown wares, also
the _pointillé_.
[705] _Les Premières Civilisations_ (Paris, 1909), p. 198, _note 5_.
[706] R. Pumpelly, _Explorations in Turkestan_ (Washington, 1908), Pls.
XXIX.-XXXIII., specimens to be seen in the Völkerkunde Museum, Berlin.
[707] _Royal Tombs_, ii. (1901), Pl. LIV., specimens to be seen in the
Ashmolean Mus., Oxford.
[708] _E.g._ Ashmolean Mus., Class Æ. 757 (various kinds), Æ. 753 (red on
buff), and Æ. 758 (mottled red). After early Minoan II. the resemblance
ceases.
[709] _Temp._ Amenhetep III. and IV., overlapped by Subbi-luliuma of the
Hatti and Tushratta of Mitanni. We use the edition of Winckler (referred
to in the notes as Winckler, _T. A. Letters_), with some amendments by
Knudtzon.
[710] In particular those of Karnak (_temp._ Seti I. and Rameses II.),
the Ramesseum at Thebes, Abu Simbel and Abydos (_temp._ Rameses II.,
overlapping Mutallu and Hattusil of the Hatti), and Medinet Habu (_temp._
Rameses III.).
[711] For bibliography, etc., see the Appendices, pp. 392 ff.
[712] See above, p. 208; also an article in _Liv. Annals of Arch._, i.
pp. 41 ff.
[713] _Ausgrabungen in Boghaz-Köi_, 1907, by Hugo Winckler; _Mitteil. der
Deuts. Orient-Ges._, 1907, No. 35. Also an article, _Die in Sommer 1906
... Ausgr._, in _Orient. Lit.-Zeitung_, ix., No. 12, pp. 621 ff.
[714] See above, p. 312.
[715] See above, p. 313.
[716] Pl. LXXXIII., from the north wall of the temple of Rameses II. at
Abydos.
[717] In this case the head is shaved. There is another form of pigtail
which must be distinguished from this, being in fact only the hair so cut
and drawn together behind the head that it ends in the same way. Cf. De
G. Davies, _Tell el Amarna_ II. (_temp._ Amenhetep IV. Akhenaten), Pl.
XL. (bottom row); also ‘the people of Dapur in the land of the Amorites,’
S. wall of the great hall in the Ramesseum (T in Murray’s _Handbook for
Egypt_, 1907, p. 414), where also the square shield and triangular bow
should be noted.
[718] This type may be freely recognised, _e.g._ in the Ramesseum and at
Abydos, Petrie, _Racial Types_, pp. 146-148, republished in his _History
of Egypt_, iii. p. 48, fig. 17. Cf. our ‘living Amorite,’ Pl. LXXXIV. and
p. 12, n. 1.
[719] Petrie, _Racial Types_, pp. 55, 143-145, in his _History_, iii. p.
48, fig. 17 (i); Maspero, _The Struggle of the Nations_, p. 353; Sayce,
_The Hittites_, 1903, p. 11.
[720] Cf. Pl. LXIX. (ii), and compare the type with that from Sinjerli,
Pl. LXXV. (ii).
[721] Their language, which might have formed a clue, is equally
problematical. There is strong temptation to regard both as Caucasian.
[722] Cf. Pls. LXV., LXXI.
[723] Cf. p. 313.
[724] Cf. the addresses of some case tablets from Asia Minor, published
by Pinches, _Liv. Annals of Arch._ i. pp. 49 ff., assigned by that
scholar to 2000 B.C.; also a Cappadocian tablet of the same period, now
in the Royal Scottish Museum of Art and Science. Horses and chariots
were employed by Aitagama in the early fourteenth century; while Hittite
cavalry are mentioned in the treaty with Rameses II., and are depicted on
the north wall of Karnak.
[725] Though we await some revision of Dr. Pumpelly’s chronology,
we cannot doubt the antiquity of the deposits in question. See his
_Explorations in Turkestan_, i. p. 38.
[726] Cf. Pls. XLVII., LVII., LXV., LXXI., LXXV. (ii), etc.
[727] Cf. W. Max Müller, _Asien und Europa_, pp. 328, 372; Lenormant,
_Les Origines d’Histoire_ (who infers a northern origin), iii. p. 299.
[728] Cf. p. 237, and Pl. LXV.
[729] Cf. pp. 13, 298.
[730] We suspect tin from this direction. Cf. description by Belck
(_Verhandl. der Berl. Ges. für Anthropologie_, 1893, pp. 61 ff.), of
tombs at Kala-Kent near Kedabeg. For this reference we are indebted to
Mr. H. Schliephack.
[731] Cf. the bronze figure, Pl. XL.; the bronze axe and trappings of
Boghaz-Keui, Winckler, _op. cit._, pp. 7 ff. and fig. 1.
[732] King, _Chronicles_, i. pp. 168, 169.
[733] Of the date of Khammu-rabi; for this reference we are indebted to
Professor Sayce.
[734] In the Book of Omens (Hommel, _Die Semit. Völker und Sprache_, pp.
176 ff.), cited by Maspero, _Struggle of the Nations_ (1896), p. 19.
The extract is supposed to date from the time of Sargon (of Akkad) and
Naram-Sin, but more probably belongs, Professor Sayce tells us, to that
of Khammu-rabi. (Cf. also Winckler, _Alttestament. Forsch._, p. 162, note
1; Hommel, _Gesch. Bab. und Ass._, p. 271, note 6.)
[735] Stela, C. 1, Musée du Louvre. See above, p. 77, note 1 (_b_). There
is, however, considerable difference of opinion among philologists as to
this reading.
[736] Cf. Genesis xxiii., xxv. 9, xxvi. 34, xlix. 29, 32.
[737] Genesis xxvii. 46, xxviii. 1. (Also xxxvi. 2, but the text is
subject to amendment.) Cf. also Meyer, _Gesch. des Alterthums_, i. pp.
213, 214.
[738] Ezekiel xvi. 3, 45. Messerschmidt also points to the analogy of the
name of a king of Jerusalem, _Abd-khipa_ (_T. A. Letters_), with those
of _Putu-khipa_ (wife of Hattusil the Hittite) and _Tadu-khipa_ (wife of
Tushratta of Mitanni). Winckler (_Mitteilungen D.O.G._ 1907, 35, pp. 47
ff.) attributes these early references and the appearance of the Hittites
in these times in southern Syria and Babylonia, to the settlement of the
Mitannians, whom he regards as a kindred but earlier stock. Among these
he finds an Indo-Germanic element (_op. cit._, p. 51); but with the
controversy on this point we are not concerned.
[739] On the relation of Hyksos and Hittites, see Maspero, _The Struggle
of the Nations_ (1898), p. 57. For us, in the recent recognition of the
Amorites as an Aramæan people, coupled with the Semitic names of the
Hyksos leaders, and the vassalage of the Amorite to the Hittite in later
centuries (see below, p. 336), the problem is nearing solution.
[740] On this point Professor Sayce kindly supplies the following
note:—‘In the fourteenth chapter of Genesis we are told that one of the
vassal allies of Chedor-laomer in his campaign against his revolted
subjects in the naphtha-bearing district of southern Canaan was Tidᶜal,
king of the Goyyim or “Nations.” In the fragments of the Babylonian story
of Chedor-laomer published by Dr. Pinches, the name of Tidᶜal is written
Tudkhul, and he is described as king of the Umman Manda or Nations
of the North, of which the Hebrew Goyyim is a literal translation.
Now the name is Hittite. In the account of the campaign of Ramses II.
against the Hittites it appears as Tidᶜal, and one of the Hittite kings
of Boghaz-Keui bears the same name, which is written Dud-khaliya in
cuneiform. The name is evidently a compound of Dud or Tud—with which we
may compare Tadu-Khipa—and the territorial divinity Khaliya (Greek Halys;
cp. the Lydian Alyattes).
‘In the Bogche inscription [p. 155] the king who erected the monument
is called Khaleis “the Khalian,” and we probably have the same name in
Khulli, the father of the Cilician Amris.
‘The important fact which results from this is that the Hittite king was
already serving as an ally or vassal under the king of the Babylonian
empire in the age of Abraham and Khammu-rabi, the Amraphel of the Old
Testament.’—A. H. S., December 1, 1909.
[741] We refer to these archives henceforward for brevity as the _B. K.
Tablets_, with a reference to the page of Dr. Winckler’s preliminary
publication of them in _Mitteilungen der Deut. Orient-Gesellschaft_,
Dec. 1907, No. 35, pp. 1-71. The most important documents of which
translations are given are—1. Treaty with Mitanni, _temp._ Subbi-luliuma,
with historical preamble describing previous relations with Tushratta,
Isuwa, Alshe, Aleppo, and finally the terms of alliance with Mattiuaza.
2. A treaty fragment of the same reign referring to Nukhasse and
Aitagama. 3. Treaty with Amorites, _temp._ Mursil. 4. Treaty with
Amorites, _temp._ Hattusil, with historical preamble covering the reigns
of Subbi-luliuma, Mursil and Mutallu. 5. Correspondence of Hattusil with
Babylonia _re_ the succession, the Egyptian treaty, the Amorites and
Assyria. 6. Edict of Dudkhalia, relating to internal affairs; and 7. A
document of same king in Hittite relating to an Amorite revolt, _temp._
Mutallu. 8. Cadastral survey, _temp._ Arnuanta, signed by the royal
ladies.
[742] Treaty with Mitanni, Winckler, _op. cit._, pp. 32, 33, 34, 36.
[743] And is once so named, Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 17.
[744] That Arzawa was a vassal state would appear from the fact that its
archives are found at Boghaz-Keui; but that it retained its own kings
is seen from the letter addressed to Tarkundaraus by Amenhetep III.
(Winckler, _op. cit._, pp. 40, 41), as well as from the former to the
latter (_Proc. S.B.A._, xi. p. 336). It seems, according to Sayce, to
have been in N.E. Cilicia, corresponding therefore to the district of Quë
in the Assyrian texts. Its tutelary deity is clearly Tarqu or Tarkhu,
found also in the name of Tarkon-demos, the Tarku-dimme of the well-known
silver boss (_C.I.H._, 1900; xlii. p. 9). Possibly Tarsus and Dastarkon,
the latter identified by Ramsay with Fraktin (p. 149), embody the stem of
this name: in this case a wider area of influence is indicated: that the
state was wide and comprehensive appears from the fact that another king,
Alakshandu, is mentioned as a vassal of Tarkundaraus; while a third king
sent presents to the Pharaoh through the latter’s ambassadors.
[745] This reading is due to Professor Sayce, being based on an
inscription recently found by De Morgan at Susa. Its position was on the
Tochma Su, for Schrader (_Keilinschriften u. Geschichts-forschung._, pp.
151 ff., 530) has shown that it included Malatia. The same writer gives
the reading Khanigalbat; while W. Max Müller (_Asien und Europa_, p. 320)
uses Khani-rabbat, and points out an analogy between Khani-the-Great
and Kheta-the-Great of the Egyptian texts. Jensen (_Zeitschrift für
Assyriologie_, v. p. 177, note 1) and Winckler (_Gesch. Babs. und
Assyrs._, pp. 174, 259) support Schrader. That it was an important state
appears from its name, and from its independent correspondence with Egypt
(Winckler, _T. A. Letters_, Nos. 1, 15); and that it was allied to the
Hatti must be inferred from the account of the campaigns of Subbi-luliuma
which follows.
[746] Annals of Thothmes III., 33rd year.
[747] See the Genealogical Table, p. 329.
[748] Winckler, _T. A. Letters_, No. 21.
[749] Winckler, _Ausgrabungen_, 1907, p. 35.
[750] In what follows we attempt to reconstruct the campaigns of
Subbi-luliuma from the new records read side by side with the Tell
el-Amarna letters, basing the sequence of events, where no clue is
provided, on the gradual movement of the scene from north to south.
[751] Fragment of treaty, Winckler, _B. K. Tablets_, p. 35.
[752] See below, and cf. Winckler, _T. A. Letters_, Nos. 132, 139.
[753] Winckler, _loc. cit._
[754] Winckler, _T. A. Letters_, No. 125. The alternative reading Am in
place of the more familiar Amki is proposed by Sayce (cf. _The Hittites_,
p. 164), and corresponds closely with the Amma or Ammiya of the Tell
el-Amarna texts. He points out that the reading Amki is inadmissible, as
_ki_ is really the ordinary determinative.
[755] Mitanni treaty preamble, Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 32. Cf. Maspero,
_Struggle of the Nations_, pp. 358 ff.
[756] Unless it be that which Tushratta claims in a letter to the Pharaoh
to have successfully resisted. Winckler, _T. A. Letters_, No. 16.
[757] Winckler, _B. K. Archives_, _op. cit._, pp. 33, 34.
[758] We may suspect that, as the fashion was, numbers of the conquered
Mitanni people were drafted off to the Hatti-land and settled on the
soil, where they appear in later times as the Matieni (Herodotus, i. 72;
v. 49, 52). Cf. Th. Reinach, _Un Peuple oublié, les Matiènes_ (_Rev. des
Études Grecques_, ’94, pp. 217, 218).
[759] The fact seems to transpire in the _T. A. Letters_: cf. the story
of Akizzi which follows.
[760] Winckler, _B. K. Tablets_, _op. cit._, p. 34.
[761] An Assyrian king, Ashur-uballit II. (? _c._ 1420 B.C.), claims to
have wrested Malatia from the Mitannians; cf. Johns, in Hastings’ _Dict._
(1909).
[762] _Khalpa_ in Hittite, _Khalman_ in Assyrian.
[763] Katna lay on the Khabour, tributary of the Euphrates; Nî must have
been somewhere N.W. of Aleppo.
[764] Winckler, _T. A. Letters_, No. 132.
[765] _Ibid._, No. 146.
[766] Winckler, _T. A. Letters_, No. 139; Winckler, _B. K. Tablets_,
p. 34. The parallelism between the archives of Tell el-Amarna and
Boghaz-Keui is remarkable and instructive.
[767] For he addressed a letter to the Egyptian court in the third year
of the reign of Amenhetep IV., about 1373.
[768] Further information about this chieftain also transpires in the
letters (Winckler, No. 7; Knudtzon, No. 51) in reference to Nukhasse.
[769] That his action followed closely on the events just described is
clear from _Letter_, Winckler, No. 119, where the defection of his son
Aziru and his destruction of Sumur are reported to the Pharaoh at the
same time as the annexation of Am(ma) by Aitakama.
[770] Winckler, _T. A. Letters_, No. 27.
[771] _Ibid._, No. 87.
[772] _Ibid._, No. 50.
[773] _Ibid._, No. 51.
[774] All these events seem to have preceded the conversion of Akhenaten.
[775] Winckler, _T. A. Letters_, No. 52.
[776] Winckler, _Ausgrabungen_, etc., 1907, p. 42.
[777] Preamble Amorite treaty, _temp._ Hattusil, Winckler, _B. K.
Tablets_, _op. cit._, p. 43.
[778] Preamble Amorite treaty, _temp._ Mursil; _ibid._, p. 44.
[779] The treaty with Sapalulu mentioned in that with Khetasar (Hattusil
II.), _temp._ Rameses II.
[780] With Maurasar (Mursil), who succeeded, _ibid._
[781] Hittite-Mitanni treaty; Winckler, _B. K. Tablets_, p. 36.
[782] _Ibid._
[783] When he appears under the name of Abu-Tessub, Winckler, _op. cit._,
p. 38.
[784] Hittite-Mitanni treaty; Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 36.
[785] Such evidence as there is on this point (pp. 163, 199) seems to
link the monuments of the west, at Giaour-Kalesi and Kara-Bel, with the
reign of Hattusil II., by analogy with the sculptures of Boghaz-Keui;
but historically the opportunity for westward expansion was now open.
Hattusil, like his Egyptian compeer, seems to have been mostly concerned
with retaining what he had inherited.
[786] See pp. 159, 205.
[787] See Pl. XLIV., and pp. 138, 139. Our date is based on the
resemblance of the oblation vases (more clearly seen in Miss Bell’s
photographs published by Hogarth in _Liv. Annals of Arch._, 1909)
to those found in the hands of Hittite prisoners in Egypt, temp.
_Akhenaten_; see De Garis Davies, _El Amarna II._ (London, 1905), pp.
41, 42, and Pl. XL. (bottom row). Such vases were common in Hittite
Syria during the fifteenth century B.C. (cf. Maspero, _Struggle of the
Nations_, fig. on p. 263), and the date of the sculptures is therefore
liable to modification from various considerations, such as the range of
time such types were in use, the probability of antique forms surviving
in religious practices, and the possibility of special forms being sent
as tribute to the Pharaoh.
[788] P. 268. But see Puchstein, _Pseudo-hethitische Kunst_, who assigns
it to the ninth century B.C.
[789] P. 151, Pl. XLVII.
[790] P. 249.
[791] Though Akhenaten himself may have claimed the title, it was
employed before his conversion.
[792] Cf. the position of Hattusil and Putukhipa, in the seal of the
treaty with Rameses II., below, p. 349.
[793] On this point see below, p. 353.
[794] See what is said above (p. 64) about the surviving elements of the
Hittite constitution in the state of Lydia.
[795] Winckler, _B. K. Tablets_, _op. cit._, p. 35.
[796] We infer, from the synchronisms with Egypt and Mitanni, between
1360 and 1340 B.C.; he and his successor overlap by their reigns those of
Amenhetep III. and Sety I. Mutallu and Hattusil were contemporary with
Rameses II.
[797] On this interesting expression, occurring in the preamble to the
Amorite treaty, _temp._ Hattusil, see Winckler, _Ausgrabungen_, etc.,
1907, p. 43, note. We have still to learn the nature of the Hittite
burial rites, but this reference is significant.
[798] E.g. _Gasga_ (Assyrian Kaskâ), _Tibia_, _Zikhria_; cf. Winckler,
_op. cit._, p. 18.
[799] ? Manapa-_Sanda_.
[800] Winckler, _op. cit._, pp. 19, 44.
[801] See above, pp. 207, 208; cf. Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 14.
[802] Maspero, _Struggle of the Nations_, p. 608; Johns, in Hastings’
_Abridged Dictionary_ (1909). We adopt the latter’s chronology.
[803] See the map, p. 375. _Muzri_ is a term meaning ‘the frontier
lands,’ and hence not fixed, _vide_ Hommel, _Gesch. Bab. und Assyr._,
p. 530, note 2; Tiele (_Bab. Assyrische Gesch._, p. 201) regarded this
Muzri as referring to the border-lands of Cilicia, while Winckler
(_Alttestamentliche Untersuch._, p. 172) thinks it applies at this time
to the whole of North Syria.
[804] The argument of Petrie, _History_, iii. (1905) p. 17, as to the
reliability of the Egyptian sources in this matter seems to be supported
historically by the new light upon the period.
[805] Though Professor Sayce has detected at Karnak a scene which may
refer to the northern districts.
[806] We place this event about the time of the accession of Rameses II.,
_c._ 1292 B.C. (following the chronology of Breasted, based on Meyer).
The battle of Kadesh, which is reflected in the Hittite treaty of Rameses
II. (cf. Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 45), links the two reigns, and would
fall under this system of dates about 1288-1289 B.C. Mutallu’s short
reign (Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 20) would thus end shortly afterwards: he
is the Mautenel or Mautal of the Egyptian texts.
[807] For a summary of the Egyptian sources, see de Rougé, _Revue
Égyptologique_, iii. p. 149; vii. p. 182. For discussion of the identity
of the peoples, with the authorities, Maspero, _Struggle of the Nations_,
pp. 390, 398. Time has brought respect for the latter’s common-sense
principle of inquiry, and for the insight of Professor Sayce (_The
Hittites_, 1903 ed., p. 26) in this matter. The argument of Professor
Petrie, based on the improbability of troops, ‘three men in a car,’ being
able to cross ‘so rough a country as Asia Minor’ (_History_, iii. p. 47),
breaks down at the first name on the lists, and we may regard the main
subject of this controversy practically closed. So, too, new evidence
makes it unnecessary to discuss in detail the attitude of Hirschfeld,
_Die Felsenreliefs in Kleinasien und das Volk der Hittiter_ (Berlin,
1881), and O. Puchstein, _Pseudo-hethitische Kunst_ (Berlin, 1890),
though we notice special points of criticism. For a review of the whole
situation down to 1896, see Reinach, _Chroniques d’Orient_, especially i.
pp. 372 ff. and pp. 772 ff.
[808] For an exhaustive study of the strategy of the Egyptian leader, and
a critical examination of the authorities, see Breasted, _The Battle of
Kadesh_ (Chicago, 1903). Cf. also E. Meyer, _Geschichte des Alterthums_,
pp. 288 f.; Maspero, _Histoire_ (1875), pp. 220 ff., and _Struggle of the
Nations_, pp. 392 ff.
[809] Müller (_Asien und Europa_, p. 216, note 1) thinks this passage in
the poem of Pentaur must refer to the overtures of Hattusil II. sixteen
years afterwards; but the preamble to the treaty with the latter, read
in the light of the new synchronisms, leads us to accept the text as
historical.
[810] Winckler, _B. K. Tablets_, _op. cit._, p. 45.
[811] Professor Sayce notes that this rendering of the name, which is
written ideographically, must be considered doubtful. The same person
appears as Banti-shinni in other texts.
[812] The facts alone transpire (Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 19); this
sequence is our interpretation of them.
[813] Cf. Winckler, _Ausgrabungen_, etc., 1907, p. 27.
[814] Winckler, _B. K. Tablets_, _op. cit._, p. 24.
[815] Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 21.
[816] See the translation into English by Professor Sayce, _The
Hittites_, pp. 31-39; also trans. from text of Müller (_Der
Bündnis-vertrag Ramses II. und des Chetiterkönigs_, Berlin, 1902) in
Messerschmidt, _The Hittites_.
[817] Winckler, _B. K. Tablets_, _op. cit._, p. 23.
[818] The sculptured figures of the god at Malatia, Pl. XLIV.; at
Sinjerli, Pl. LXXVII.; and at Boghaz-Keui, No. 1 L., Pl. LXV.
[819] The others are: Zanu-arnda, Pirqa, Khisa-sapa, Rukhasina, Tonisa,
Sakhepaina, all unrecognisable in their Egyptianised forms.
[820] Cf. the arrangement of the seven god-figures and three divine
female figures left and right in the sculpture of Boghaz-Keui, p. 215,
Pls. LXIII. (ii), LXV.
[821] Cf. Pl. LXXI. and pp. 228, 239.
[822] Winckler, _B. K. Tablets_, _op. cit._, pp. 23, 24.
[823] Winckler (_op. cit._, p. 21) identifies _Katashman-turgu_ of the
letters with _Katashman-buriash_, and hence synchronises these events
with the period of Shalmaneser I., which we have treated as earlier.
Possibly we have here new material for a revision of Assyrian chronology.
[824] Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 26.
[825] The only surviving record is found in the rock-temple of Abusimbel,
high up on the southern side. Unfortunately the name of the Hittite king
could not be made out by Lepsius, who first noticed the scene. Probably
he was Hattusil’s successor, for the princess offered to Rameses was
apparently his eldest daughter, and on all precedent could not well have
been older than fifteen or sixteen years if she was to prove acceptable.
Yet Hattusil was already of mature age when he succeeded to the throne,
for it will be recalled that his father’s reign was a long one, and his
brother’s short reign also intervened. The date of the event was about
B.C. 1258, in the thirty-sixth year of Rameses’ reign, thirteen years
after the treaty with Hattusil, twenty-nine years after the battle of
Kadesh—three events without historical connection.
[826] Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 28.
[827] Alternatively read _Eni-Sanda_ by Prof. Sayce, the last group being
ideographic.
[828] Winckler, _B. K. Tablets_, _op. cit._, p. 15 and p. 19.
[829] Winckler (_loc. cit._) interprets these relationships otherwise,
and sees in them the traces of family intermarriage.
[830] A similar short interval seems to have occurred before the
succession of Arnuanta, and probably of Mursil previously. (Winckler,
_op. cit._, p. 18.)
[831] Qizwadna seems to have held an autonomous position exceptional
among the Hittite states. Cf. Winckler in _Orient. Lit.-Zeit._, _loc.
cit._
[832] P. 235, Pl. LXV.
[833] P. 262, Pl. LXXIII.
[834] P. 151, Pl. XLVII.
[835] P. 168, Pl. LIII.
[836] Pl. LXV.
[837] Cf. p. 348 and Pl. LXV.
[838] Cf. p. 348 and Pl. LXVIII. The boot in the design of the ædicula
may be taken to be emblematic of the earth.
[839] Cf. Pl. LXVIII.
[840] Pp. 217, 303; cf. Pls. LXVIII., LXXX.
[841] _Ibid._
[842] Cf. pp. 157, 235, and Pl. LXV.
[843] Pls. XLIV., LXXII., p. 256.
[844] Pls. XLIX., LXV., p. 236.
[845] Pp. 118, 151, 165.
[846] Pl. LXV. and p. 215.
[847] The two latter only appear upon small seals, _C.I.H._ (1900), Pl.
XLI. (i), which, though Hittite, we must regard as beyond the scope of
this volume.
[848] Pl. LXV., p. 235.
[849] Cf. pp. 102, 119, and Pls. XLVII., LXXIII. (i).
[850] In this way we explain the development of the funerary symbolism
of the Ceremonial Feast (p. 100), which became a stereotyped design (Pl.
LXXV. (i), pp. 111, 135, 164, 226, 284, 290).
[851] Pl. LXVII.
[852] As we differ on this question in our interpretation of the
sculptures of Boghaz-Keui from Professor Ramsay (see p. 213), who _inter
alia_ ranks what we regard as male figures [Pl. LXIX. (ii)] among the
female bodyguard of the cult, we feel it due to him to recapitulate our
argument. _a_ (i) In Egyptian art down to 1200 B.C., though there are
detailed descriptions of Hittite allies (cf. Pl. LXXXIII.), and down to
1150 B.C. of Asiatic-Ægean coalition (p. 368), there is no suspicion of
women warriors; (ii) In Greek tradition there is no memory of the Hatti
power, but the Amazons appear. _b_ (i) These sculptures seem to belong
to the great Hatti period, and in particular to the age of Hattusil
(cf. the argument on p. 233), being somewhat more conventionalised than
those of probably earlier phase (compare the lightning emblem of fig.
1 L, Pl. LXV., with that of the Malatia god, Pl. XLV., which is freely
drawn like that of Sinjerli, Pl. LXXIII.); (ii) the sculptured gateway,
newly recognised as decorated with an Amazon figure (p. 205), has been
independently dated by us (pp. 210, 211, 380) by a series of direct
analogies in æsthetic treatment, to a period probably some centuries
later. Thus far we are possibly agreed, but at the next point we differ.
_c_ (i) In the sculptures of Iasily Kaya, the males and females seem to
us to be as distinct as ever man and woman were in art; the former are
characterised by their short tunics, muscular athletic figures, firm
thighs, and masculine chests, not to speak of their arms; the latter are
disclosed by their long robes, their full breasts, and other ordinary
feminine characteristics. (ii) In view of the emphatically female
character of the Amazon figure of the gateway, stamped by the conspicuous
breasts, the feminine thighs, and long hair, we think it unreasonable
to suppose any concealment of sex in the warrior figures of the earlier
sculptures. We conclude then (_d_) that in neither the contemporary
records nor monuments, so far as known, is there any trace of female
warriors, before 1200 or 1150 B.C.; that the whole cycle of the Amazon
legends belongs historically to a later age, subsequent to the downfall
of the Hatti warrior-kings. On the eunuch-priest, however, see p. 361,
note 2.
[853] Cf. The Sutekh cycle of the nine states in the Egyptian treaty, p.
348.
[854] Cf. figures 2 L and 3 L at Boghaz-Keui, Pl. LXV., and at Kara-Bel,
Pl. LIV.
[855] The second cycle mentioned in the Egyptian treaty; cf. the
sculptures of Malatia, where the chief god and a winged deity are
worshipped with different rites.
[856] Sutekh and the sun-god are both called lord of heaven in the
Egyptian treaty (pp. 348, 349). Cf. the identification of Sandes with the
sun-god (p. 322).
[857] Pl. LXV.
[858] Pl. XLIV.
[859] Pl. LXXII. The bull figure, unfortunately, is not wholly shown in
these photographs.
[860] At Boghaz-Keui (Pl. LXV.), and Giaour-Kalesi (p. 163) he is
represented with a beard in contradistinction to the beardless Son-god.
[861] Cf. the legends of Baal and Sandan of Tarsus, above, pp. 195, 238.
[862] Pl. LXX., p. 240.
[863] Cf. p. 170.
[864] Pl. LXXII., p. 268.
[865] Pl. XLIV., p. 139.
[866] P. 349.
[867] Pls. LXVIII., LXXXI.
[868] We have given our reasons (p. 231) for preferring to see in them
the person of the king; but if certain emblems in the _naiskos_ are
really phallic, they may be read as indicating the sacrifice of these
organs. On the other hand, like the bull, they may be merely emblematic
of the king’s position as chief representative of the virile god. The
evidence seems to us insufficient to solve this point.
[869] Above, p. 297.
[870] Above, pp. 326 ff.
[871] See Maspero, _The Struggle of the Nations_, pp. 356 f.; and cf. W.
Max Müller, _Asien und Europa_, pp. 324-329.
[872] Pl. LXXV. (ii).; cf. p. 281.
[873] Cf. Pl. LXXXIII. (ii).
[874] P. 163.
[875] Pls. LXV., LXX.
[876] Cf. Boghaz-Keui, Pl. LXV., No. 2 L., and Kara-Bel, Pl. LIV., p.
171, note 3.
[877] Cf. pp. 274-5.
[878] Cf. Pl. XLIV. (Malatia) and Pl. LIV. (Kara-Bel).
[879] Cf. Pl. XXXIX. (Sakje-Geuzi), and there are earlier confirmatory
scenes described on pp. 133, 134.
[880] Pl. LXV. and p. 287.
[881] P. 140; _Liv. Annals of Arch._, i. Pl. V.
[882] P. 283.
[883] Pp. 274-5.
[884] P. 293 (No. xxv.).
[885] P. 122.
[886] P. 121.
[887] Cf. N. wall of the temple of Karnak, the rout after the battle of
Kadesh.
[888] Treaty with Egypt, _temp._ Hattusil, p. 347; Preamble to treaty
with Mitanni, _temp._ Subbi-luliuma, cf. p. 331.
[889] P. 279.
[890] On the antiquity of the horse and chariot, see what is said above,
p. 320, note 3.
[891] Cf. Pl. LXXXVIII., from the north wall of the temple of Rameses II.
at Abydos.
[892] Abydos temple, N. wall, the Hittite prisoners.
[893] Cf. p. 5, note 1.
[894] See p. 34, note 2.
[895] See p. 143.
[896] See pp. 6, 24.
[897] _Cappadociæ_, later distinguished always from Comana of Pontus.
[898] See pp. 24, 45. As to the problem of the direction followed by
the Persian Posts in later times, we have formed no opinion, and it is
beyond our subject. The suggestion made by Prof. Kiepert that it led
over by Sebasteia to the valley of the Tochma Su, and so past Malatia,
seems to be supported by the fact that no second crossing of the Halys
was considered noteworthy in the record. Mr. Hogarth’s summary (Macan’s
_Herodotus_, 1895, vol. ii. App. xiii. §§ 8, 9) in favour of a route by
Mazaca and Comana, descending on Samosata (Samsat), satisfies all the
conditions, but seems to us to be improbable owing to its difficulties
and to a lack of internal evidence of its importance. Prof. Ramsay’s
original preference for a route by the Cilician gates is seemingly
substantiated by our new evidence of a visible section northwards from
Injessu, which corresponds so nearly to that portion of the Royal Road
which he has traced on the Phrygian uplands (Pl. XXIV.). We do not think
the material at present sufficient to solve the problem, which we believe
must in any case be attacked upon the lines laid down by Prof. Myres in
a paper read before the Roy. Geog. Soc. 1896, in which he attempted to
reconstruct the Maps of Herodotus.
[899] Pp. 37, 38.
[900] Pp. 208, 342.
[901] P. 233.
[902] See p. 339, note 2.
[903] P. 298, and _Liv. Annals of Arch._, i. Pl. XXXIII.
[904] P. 272.
[905] See p. 123.
[906] See pp. 7, 97, and Pl. XXXVIII.
[907] See p. 94.
[908] In regard to an inscription from Carchemish, see, however, p. 371.
[909] Inner wall of the second pylon of the temple _Medinet Habu_ at
Thebes.
[910] On this subject, cf. Maspero, _The Struggle of the Nations_, pp.
468 and 587.
[911] Cf. Winckler, _Ausgrabungen_, etc., 1907, p. 30.
[912] Cf. above, p. 53, note 1.
[913] Ed. Meyer, _Gesch. des Alterthums_, i. p. 331. See, however,
Schrader, _Bab.-Ass. Gesch._, pp. 162-3, who identifies the ‘Upper Sea’
of the text (published by Winckler, _Inschriften Tigl.-Pilesers I._) with
Lake Van; he is supported by Sayce and others. Ménant thought that the
Caspian was referred to, and Rawlinson the Mediterranean, but neither of
the latter theories agrees with the geography of the expedition, on which
see Maspero, _Struggle of the Nations_, pp. 653-4.
[914] See what is said on this subject above, pp. 57-8.
[915] The Annals of the Xth year record the number as 30, Winckler, _op.
cit._, p. 28, l. 10.
[916] (?) Tell Bashar, in difficult country between Aintab and Carchemish.
[917] We are inclined to place this range in the Amanus, on the Cilician
frontiers. The treble-walled city of Kibshuna (Maspero, _Struggle of
the Nations_, pp. 655-6) recalls strongly the defences of Sinjerli (see
above, p. 272); possibly it is to be identified with Kabessus on the
Sarus. The route of the Assyrian army, descending southward by the passes
of the Pyramus, might easily avoid Marash, which is not mentioned in the
record.
[918] Maspero, _op. cit._, pp. 657-8. The inscription on the rocky sea
front at Nahr-el-Kelb is hardly legible; and our photograph yields no
fresh evidence on this point.
[919] Cf. Schrader, _Keilinschriften und Geschichts-forschung_, pp.
225-236. Maspero, _Struggle of the Nations_, pp. 589, and note 3.
[920] Sayce, translation of a Hittite inscription of Carchemish, above,
p. 126.
[921] Sayce, inscription of Gurun, above, p. 144.
[922] Biyassili (? _Kasyas-sil_, suggested by Professor Sayce), _temp._
Subbi-luliuma; and Eni-Sanda, _temp._ Dudkhalia. Other kings of later
history are: Shangara (or Sangar), _circa_ 860 B.C., and Pisiris, the
last of all, _circa_ 740-717 B.C.
[923] Assur-bel-kala seems to have retained possession of Kummukh, and
later Assurirba claims to have penetrated to Mount Amanus and the sea,
_circa_ 950 B.C. Cf. Hommel, _Gesch. Bab. und Assyr._, p. 540.
[924] The visible lower palace (p. 207) and the main defence of the upper
city (p. 201) are related by the feature of joggles and fitted stones
(cf. p. 208).
[925] Cf. Pl. LX. and p. 203. The treatment of the lion’s face is an
important factor in the date, as it corresponds to the works of this
period at Sinjerli and Sakje-Geuzi (p. 311). The lion tank of Boghaz-Keui
(p. 210) is related in like way, and this from its position helps to
give a date to the lower palace (p. 211). The unplaced lion corner-stone
of Eyuk (‘p’ on the plan, p. 247) belongs to the same class and phase
of art, and is indicative of an upper series of buildings that have
seemingly disappeared.
[926] See above, pp. 205, 357. The importance and nature of this
sculpture were first pointed out by Miss Dodd, having been apparently
overlooked by the members of Dr. Winckler’s expedition, under whom it was
brought to light (_Ausgrabungen_, etc., 1907, Pl. XII.). At the time of
writing we have only seen Miss Dodd’s sketch and memoranda, for which we
are indebted to the courtesy of Professor Sayce.
[927] A passage from Pindar, quoted by Strabo (XII. iii. 11), seems to
imply that in the old Hatti state within the Halys the Amazons became
the recognised leaders in warfare. There is also a suggestion that these
developments were coeval with the rise of the Iron Age.
[928] Pl. LVI., p. 186.
[929] Pl. LVII., p. 191.
[930] P. 190.
[931] P. 154.
[932] Quoting Hecatæus of Miletus (_Polyhistor._, ed. Mommsen, p. 129, c.
38, § 1 and ff.). This tradition formed the basis of many old theories
about the Hittites, notably those advanced by Mordtmann, Lehmann, and
Jensen, upon which we need no longer dwell.
[933] Professor Maspero (_Struggle of the Nations_, p. 668) seems to us
to have traced the origin of the tradition in a confusion between the
memory of the great kingdom of Khilakku and the fabled dominion of the
Hatti kings.
[934] The inscriptions of Bor, Bulghar-Madên, and Ivrîz are clearly
confined to two generations at most; cf. p. 188.
[935] P. 375. In this map the Assyrian names of the states are used, and
modern names are quoted in some cases where identification is possible.
Capitals denote modern towns not necessarily Hittite but useful as
landmarks.
[936] Cf. the map to face p. 390.
[937] With Khilakku we incline to include Cilicia with Tarsus;
Northeastern Cilicia seems to have been distinct under the name of Quë;
see above, p. 326, note 3.
[938] ‘Twenty-four kings’ are mentioned, _c._ B.C. 838.
[939] Identified by Ramsay with Faustinopolis, see above, p. 61, n. 4.
The record is dated B.C. 718, by which time the power of the ‘Cilician’
kings in Asia Minor had probably been broken by the Phrygians.
[940] See the note on Khali-rabbat, p. 327, note 1; and the description
of monuments, pp. 132 ff. Names of kings found in Assyrian sources are:
_c._ 800, Lalle (which seems to lack the god-name usually prefixed, cf.
Subbi-luliuma); 758, Khite-ruadas; 717, Tarkhu-nazi; and 672, Mugallu,
who seems to have ruled also the Tabal.
[941] The names of three kings appear in the Assyrian records: Kundashpi,
_c._ 859 B.C.; Kushtashpi, _c._ 743 B.C.; and Mutallu, _c._ 717 B.C.
[942] See p. 13.
[943] The name of one king, Tutammu, appears _c._ 740 B.C., whose capital
was at Kinulua. Earlier, _c._ 884, Lubarna, King of the Hattina, had his
palace at the same place, which is identified with Gindarus. Cf. Maspero,
_Passing of Empires_, p. 38, and Tomkins, _Bab. and Oriental Record_,
iii. p. 6, who points to the name surviving in _Tell-Kunana_. It was a
riverine country, with woods and mines; cf. Polybius, v. 59.
[944] These local struggles are reflected in one of the monuments
described above, p. 280.
[945] ‘Twelve kings’ are referred to, _c._ 849 B.C. (Maspero, _Passing
of Empires_, p. 78). Three names of kings found in Assyrian texts are
Lubarna, _c._ 880 B.C.; Shapalulme, _c._ 860 B.C.; and Garparunda, _c._
859 B.C.
[946] Cf. Winckler, _Altorient. Forsch._ i. p. 3; Delattre, _L’Asie
Occid. dans les Inscr. Assyr._, pp. 44-52.
[947] Cf. Schrader, _Keilinschriften und Geschichts-forschung_, pp. 221,
236.
[948] See what is said, pp. 83, 84, on the archæological problem of the
plateau.
[949] Cf. Maspero, _The Passing of Empires_, p. 589.
[950] E.g. _Akhuni_, _c._ 860 B.C., and _Khaiani_, _c._ 859 B.C.; see
also p. 272.
[951] See above, p. 273. Cf. also a sculpture of later date from
Sinjerli, now in the Berlin Vorderasiat. Museum, No. 2996, where a
Hittite is seen placed between two Semites, the former distinguished
_inter alia_ by the typical bunch of hair curled behind his neck, the
latter by the equally characteristic designing of the hair in ringlets.
On this interesting criterion see below, p. 380.
[952] Cf. the monuments of Bor, Pl. LVII., Ivrîz, Pl. LVII., Marash, p.
113, Sakje-Geuzi, Pl. LXXXI.
[953] Cf. pp. 222, 240.
[954] Temple of Abu Simbel, N. wall.
[955] See also above, pp. 188, 194.
[956] Cf. Pls. XLII., LXXIX., and pp. 109, 265, 297, 301.
[957] Cf. above, p. 297.
[958] Pp. 203, 210.
[959] See above, pp. 110, 111, and cf. Strabo, XI. iii. p. 32.
[960] Cf. above, pp. 108-122. Only two kings are known, namely,
Garparunda, _c._ 859 B.C., and Tarkhulara, _c._ 740 B.C.
[961] Our work of constant reference at this stage is Maspero, _The
Passing of Empires_, coupled with various articles by Johns, Winckler,
and others cited in the footnotes.
[962] Published by Sayce, _Jour. Roy. Asiatic Soc._, xiv.
[963] _Tarzi_ (Tarsus) was among the cities that fell.
[964] We place Muzri in this instance in the Taurus, in the vicinity of
the Cilician gates, partly because of the nature of the presents—claimed
in the Assyrian records as tribute—which included silver (derivable from
Bulghar-Madên and Bereketli Maden) and salt (obtainable from Tuz Geul and
elsewhere in the plain of Konia). Cf., however, the opinions of Tiele,
_Babylonisch-Assyrische Gesch._, p. 201, note 1; Hommel, _Gesch. Bab. und
Ass._, p. 609, and Winckler, _Alttestament. Forsch._, p. 172.
[965] Maspero, _op. cit._, p. 64.
[966] There is probably some confusion in the text at this point where
Garparuda appears as king of both Gurgum and Hattina, since Khaiani ruled
at Samalla, which intervened. Cf. Winckler, _Gesch. Bab. und Ass._, p.
193.
[967] Cf. Maspero, _op. cit._, p. 71.
[968] Maspero, _op. cit._, p. 28. Tiele, _Bab.-Ass. Gesch._, pp. 187,
201. Winckler, _Gesch. Bab. und Ass._, p. 197.
[969] Sayce, _op. cit._, pp. 558-592, No. xxxiii.
[970] Sayce, _The Cuneiform Inscr. of Van_; _op. cit._, xiv. p. 642-649,
also xx. pp. 18, 19.
[971] This must be regarded as the minimum extent of the Urartian
conquests, inasmuch as the source of information is Assyrian, being drawn
from _Annals of Tiglath-Pileser_, p. 743, ll. 59-62.
[972] Maspero, _op. cit._, p. 146 and note 3.
[973] _Annals of Tiglath-Pileser_, iii. ll. 59, 73.
[974] Cf. p. 271. He was the grandson of the earlier ruler of that name,
and son of Barzar. For a reflection of these local wars, cf. the monument
of Sinjerli described on p. 280. For a full discussion and bibliography
of these incidents, cf. Maspero, _op. cit._, p. 150.
[975] From local geographical considerations, this place may perhaps be
identical with Killiz. But cf. Tiele, _Bab. Ass. Gesch._, p. 230; Hommel,
_Gesch. Bab. und Ass._, p. 660; Winckler, _op. cit._, p. 225.
[976] The objective of this expedition was the punishment of Kiakku of
Shinukhta, whose principality was given to Matti of Atuna or Tuna. On
the possible identification of this place with the Tynna of Ptolemy (v.
vi. 22), see above, p. 61, note 4, and with Faustinopolis, see Ramsay,
_Hist. Geog._, p. 68. Olmstead (_Western Asia in the Days of Sargon_,
p. 83, note 9) places it at Tyana itself, which opens up interesting
possibilities.
[977] On the identification with ‘Mita of Muski’ of the Assyrian texts,
see above, p. 53.
[978] On the organisation of the Assyrian provinces in these times, see
Winckler, _Gesch. Bab. und Ass._, pp. 210 ff.; Tiele, _Bab. Ass. Gesch._,
pp. 497-499. Cf. also Olmstead, _op. cit._, pp. 163 ff.
[979] On these events which concern Uassarmi, chief of Tabal in 740 B.C.,
and others, cf. Maspero, _op. cit._, p. 251.
[980] As in 706 B.C., Pinches, _Bab. Chron._, col. 2, l. 9; and later in
672 B.C., Winckler, _Alt. Forsch._, ii. pp. 125 ff.
[981] Cf. Ezekiel xxxii. 26, 27.
[982] Cf. Egyptian inscription, _temp._ Taharqa, B.C. 673, which mentions
Mitanni also; and an Assyrian record, _temp._ Esarhaddon, B.C. 672
(Maspero, _op. cit._, p. 370).
[983] Date approximate.
[984] Date inferred.
APPENDIX A.—BIBLIOGRAPHY
WORKS ON HITTITE ARCHÆOLOGY QUOTED
_For Works of History, Travel, and General Reference, see Author Index._
ANDERSON, Journal of Hellenic Studies, xxi. (1901), p. 322.
BARTH, Reise von Trepesunt nach Scutari. Über die Ruinen bei Heyuk (Arch.
Zeit., 1859).
BELCK, Verhandlungen der Berliner Anthropologischen Ges. (Dec., 1901.)
CALLANDER, See RAMSAY.
CHANTRE, Mission en Cappodoce. (Paris, 1898.)
CROWFOOT, J. W., Jour. Hell. Stud., xix. 1 (1899), pp. 34-51, figs. 4, 5.
DAVIS, E. J., On a New Hamathic Inscription at Ibreez. (Trs. Soc.
Biblical Arch., vol. iv. 1876.)
—— —— Life in Asiatic Turkey. (London, 1879.)
DAVIES, DE GARIS, El Amarna II. (London, 1905.)
FRAZER, PROF. J. G., The Golden Bough, iv.; Adonis, Attis, Osiris, 2nd
ed. (London, 1907.)
HAMILTON, W. J., Researches in Asia Minor. (London, 1842.)
HILPRECHT, Research in Bible Lands. (Edinburgh, 1905). Professor P.
Jensen in same: ‘The so-called Hittites and their Inscriptions’ (755-793).
HIRSCHFELD, Die Felsenreliefs in Klein-Asien und das Volk der Hittiter
(Abhandlungen der Akademie in Berlin, 1887).
HOGARTH, D. G. (i), Recueil de Travaux, ... xvii. [See also Ramsay.]
—— —— (ii) Appendix xiii., § 9, in Macan’s ed. of Herodotus. (Oxford,
1895.)
—— —— (iii) Ionia and the East. (Oxford, 1909.)
—— —— (iv) Liv. Annals of Arch., ii. (1909).
HUMANN and PUCHSTEIN, Reisen in Kleinasien und Nord-Syrien (with Atlas),
1890.
JENSEN, P., Hittiter und Armenier (Strassburg, 1898).
JERAPHANION (GU. DE), Two new Hittite Monuments in the Cappadocian
Taurus. Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., XXX. (1908, Feb.).
Liverpool Annals of Archæology, vols. i. ii. iii. (Liverpool, 1908 _et
seqq._) [Abbr. _Liv. Annals_.]
LENNEP, VAN, Travels in ... Asia Minor. (London, 1870.)
LUSCHAN, VON, and others, Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, i. ii. iii.
(Mitteilungen aus den Orientalistischen Sammlungen, K. Museen zu Berlin.)
Berlin, 1893, ’98, 1902.
MACRIDY BEY, La porte des Sphinx à Euyuk. (Mitteilungen der
Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, 1908, 3, Berlin.)
MASPERO, The Struggle of the Nations. (London, 1896.)
—— The Passing of Empires. (London, 1900.)
MESSERSCHMIDT, (i) Corpus Inscriptionum Hettiticarum. (Mitteilungen der
Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft.) Berlin, 1900, 4 and 5; 1902, 3; 1906, 5.
[Abbr. _C.I.H._]
—— (ii) The Hittites. (Ancient East Series VI.) (London, 1903, being
transl. of Die Hittiter, Der alte Orient, Leipzig, 1903.)
—— (iii) Orientalistische Litteraturzeitung (1909, Sept.).
MEYER, ED., Geschichte des Alterthums. (Stuttgart 1884, _et seqq._)
MÜLLER, W. MAX, (i) Asien und Europa. (Leipzig, 1893.)
—— (ii) Der Bündnis-vertrag Ramses II. und des Chetiter-Königs. (Berlin,
1902.)
MURRAY, Handbook for Asia Minor, etc. (London, 1895.)
MYRES, PROF. J. L., (i) Midas beyond the Halys. (Liv. Annals, i, 1908.)
—— (ii) Geography of Herodotus (Roy. Geog. Soc., 1896).
OLMSTEAD, Western Asia in the days of Sargon of Assyria, 722-7 B.C. (New
York, 1908.)
VON OPPENHEIM, Der alte Orient, 1908. Heft. i.
PEISER, Die Bronze-figur von Schernen (Sitzungsber. der Altertumsges.
Prussia. Heft 22.)
PERROT AND CHIPIEZ, History of Art in Sardinia ... Syria and Asia Minor
ii. (Engl. ed. London, 1890). [Abbr. _Art in ... Asia Minor_.]
—— AND GUILLAUME, Exploration Archéologique (Cappadoce, etc.)
PUCHSTEIN, O., (i) Pseudo-hethitische Kunst, ein Vortrag (Berlin, 1890).
RAMSAY, PROF. SIR WM., (i) On the early Historical Relations between
Phrygia and Cappadocia, i. ii. iii. (Jour. Roy. Asiatic Soc. N. S. XV.,
1883.)
—— AND HOGARTH, Recueil de Travaux relatifs à la Philologie et à
l’archéologie Égyptiennes et Assyriennes, xiv. xv. xvii. [Abbr. _Recueil
de Travaux_.]
RAMSAY (ii) Studies in Asia Minor, i. and ii. Jour. Hellenic Studies,
iii. (London 1883), also _ibid._, ix. p. 372.
—— (iii) The Historical Geography of Asia Minor. (London, 1890.) Royal
Geog. Soc. Suppl. Papers. Vol. iv. [Abbr. _Historical Geog._]
—— (iv), Studies in the History and Art of the Eastern Provinces of the
Roman Empire (Aberdeen, 1906); V. T. CALLANDER. Exploration in Lycaonia
and Isauria, 1904. [Abbr. _Stud. History and Art_].
—— (v) Pauline and other studies. (London, 1906.) Esp. Chs. VI. XI.
—— (vi) The Cities of St. Paul. (London, 1907.)
—— (vii) Luke the Physician (London, 1908). Esp. Chs. V. VI.
REINACH, Chroniques d’Orient. (Paris 1891, 1896.)
ROBINSON, W. A., A monument from Tsok-Goz-Kupruköe. Proc. Soc. Bibl.
Arch., XXX. 1. (1908, Jan.)
ROTT, HANS, Kleinasiatische Denkmäler (Leipzig, 1908), Messerschmidt in
do., pp. 175-8, figs. 1, 2, 3.
SAYCE, the REV. PROF. A. H.
—— (i) The Hittites. (3rd ed., London, 1903.)
—— (ii) Monuments of the Hittites, _Trs. S.B.A._, vii.
—— (iii) The Hittites Inscriptions, in the Proceedings of the Society
of Biblical Archæology; 1903, March, May, June, Nov., Dec.; 1904, Jan.,
Nov.; 1905, Nov.
—— (iv) Inscriptions from the Kara Dagh. (_Ibid._, vol. xxxi., 1909,
March.)
SAYCE, A Hittite Cuneiform Tablet from Boghaz-Keui. (Publ. jointly by the
Royal Asiatic Society, London, and Liv. Inst. of Arch., Oct. 1908.)
VAN LENNEP. See LENNEP.
VON LUSCHAN. See LUSCHAN.
WINCKLER, H., Vorläufige Nachrichten über die Ausgrabungen in Boghaz-Keui
in Sommer 1907. (Mitteilungen der deutschenorient. Gesellschaft zu
Berlin. No. 35, Dec. 1907.) [Abbr. _Ausgrabungen in Boghaz-K._, 1907.]
—— Note on Ausgrabungen in Boghaz-K., 1906, Orientalistische
Litteraturzeitung, ix.
WRIGHT, WM., B.A., D.D., The Empire of the Hittites. (London, 1884.)
APPENDIX B
INDEX OF HITTITE MONUMENTS, WITH BIBLIOGRAPHY
[_C.I.H. = Corpus Inscriptionum Hettiticarum_ (Messerschmidt). For other
abbreviations see Appendix A; and for full titles of the books of travel
and general reference see the footnotes.]
Aintab: Sculptured and Inscribed Corner-stone, pp. 106, 107, Pl. XLI.
BIBL.: _Liv. Annals of Arch._, i. (1908), p. 8 and fig. p. 7;
Pls. X., XI.
Albistan: Inscribed Obelisk from Izgîn, pp. 145, 146.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1902), pp. 13 and Pl. XIX.; _Recueil de
Travaux_, xv. p. 30 and Pls. I., II. Now in the Constantinople
Museum.
Aleppo: Inscribed Stone, p. 97.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), p. 4, Pl. III. A; _Quart. St. Pal.
Expl. Fd._, 1873, p. 73; Wright, _Empire_, p. 142, Pls.
V.-VII.; _Proc. S.B.A._, v. (1883), p. 146, and 1908 (June);
_Liv. Annals of Arch._ i. (1908), p. 8 and Pl. IX. (iii).
—— Sculptured Lion and Eagle; relief of Ceremonial Feast, uninscribed.
BIBL.: _Liv. Annals of Arch._, ii. p. 184 and Pl. XLII. (i, ii,
iii).
Alexandretta: Small Stone, inscribed both sides, possibly from Marash, p.
99, note 1.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), p. 8 and Pl. VIII.
Amaksiz. See Angora.
Andaval: Top of Inscribed Stela with figure, pp. 188, 189.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), p. 27 and Pl. XXXI. C.; _Recueil de
Travaux_, xiv. p. 84 and Pl. I.
Angora: Reliefs of Lions from Amaksiz, Kalaba, and Yalanjak, pp. 161, 162.
BIBL.: Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in Asia Minor_, ii. p. 202 and
fig. 352; _Jour. Hell. Stud._, xix. pp. 45-48 and fig. 5.
Asarjik: Inscription on Rock, p. 153.
BIBL.: _Liv. Annals of Arch._, i. p. 6 and Pls. VIII., IX. (i).
Bey-Keui: Inscription on Black Stone, p. 167.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), p. 32 and Pl. XXXVI. A; _Mitt. d. Deut.
Arch. Inst. Athen._, xiv. (1889), p. 181; _Jour. Hell. Stud._,
ix. p. 372; _Murray’s Handbook for Asia Minor_, p. 135.
Bogche: Inscribed Stone _in situ_, p. 155 and Pl. XLVIII.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1906), pp. 11, 12, and Pl. LI.
Boghaz-Keui: (i) Rock Inscription (Nishan Tash); (ii) Two Sculptured
Blocks with hieroglyphs, pp. 158, 159. (iii) Remains of Pteria, pp.
196-211, with Pls. LVIII.-LXII. (iv) Sculptures of Iasily Kaya, pp.
211-241, with Pls. LXIII.(ii)-LXXI., and Plan, p. 221.
BIBL.: (i) _C.I.H._ (1900), p. 22; Perrot, _Exploration_, ii.,
Pl. XXXV.; _Mitteil. d. Deutsch. Arch. Inst. Athen. Abtlg._
(1889), xiv. p. 170. (ii) _Mitteil. d. Deutsch. Orient. Ges.
Berlin_ (1907), 35, pp. 57, 58, and figs. 6, 7. (iii) The
Name: Herodotus, i. 76; Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia
Minor_, ii. p. 103; Ramsay, _Luke the Physician_, p. 215,
note. Excavations: Chantre, _Mission en Cappadoce_, pp. 13
ff.; Winckler, _Mitteil. der Deutsch. Orient. Ges._ (1907),
pp. 57, 58; Winckler, _Orientalistische Lit. Zeitung_ (1906),
Dec. (iii and iv) Descriptive: Barth, _Reise ... nach Scutari_,
pp. 44-52; Humann and Puchstein, _Reisen in Kl. A._, pp. 54
ff. and Pls. VII. ff.; Perrot, _Exploration Archéol._, ii.
Pls. XXXV. ff.; Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, pp. 108 ff.;
Texier, _Description de l’Asie Mineure_, i. Pls. LXXX. ff.
(iv) Religion: Perrot and Chipiez, _op. cit._, pp. 149-153;
Ramsay, _Luke the Physician_, ch. vi.; Ramsay, _Jour. Roy.
As. Soc._, xv., N.S. (1885), pp. 113-120; _Expository Times_,
Nov. 1909; Hamilton, _Researches in A.M._, i. p. 396; Frazer,
_Adonis, Attis, and Osiris_, i. vi. pp. 105-110. Sculptures and
Hieroglyphs: _C.I.H._ (1900), Pls. XXVII.-XXIX.
Bor: (part of) Inscribed Adoration Scene, pp. 185-188 and Pl. LVI.
Bibl.: _C.I.H._ (1906), p. 3 and Pl. XXXIII.; _Recueil_, xiv.
Pl. I.; _Proc. S.B.A._, xxviii. (1906), p. 94 and Pl. III.;
Hogarth, _Wandering Scholar_, p. 16. Now in Constantinople
Museum, No. 857.
Bulghar-Madên: Rock Inscription, pp. 189, 190.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), p. 27 and Pl. XXXII.; _Recueil_,
xiv. p. 85 and Pl. II.; _Proc. S.B.A._ (1905), p. 229. Casts
at Oxford (Ashmolean Mus.) and Berlin (Vorderas. Mus.).
Large-scale photographs at Liverpool (Inst. Arch.).
Carchemish. See Jerablus.
[Denek Maden: Ivory Seal, p. 160 and Pl. XL. (ii).]
Derendeh. See Palanga, Haüz.
Doghanlu; Hermes and other Rock Sculptures, pp. 166, 167.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), p. 32 and Pl. XXXVI. B; _Jour. Hell.
Stud._, iii. (1883), pp. 6-11 and fig. 2; _Mitteil. d. Deutsch.
Arch. Inst. Athen. Abtlg._ (1889), xiv. p. 182, Pl. VI.; Perrot
and Chipiez, _op. cit._, ii. p. 206 and fig. 353.
Eflatoun-Bunar: Sculptured ‘Lycaonian’ Monument, pp. 174, 175.
BIBL.: Hamilton, _Researches_, ii. pp. 350, 351; _Revue Arch._,
3ᵉ ser. vol. v. pp. 257-264 and Pls. XI., XII.; Perrot and
Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p. 224, fig. 356.
Ekrek: Inscribed Stone (re-dressed), p. 148 and Pl. XLVI.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), p. 26, Pl. XXXI., and _ibid._ (1906),
pp. 2, 3, Pl. XXXI. A. Now in Constantinople Museum, No. 1217.
Emir-Ghazi: Three Inscribed Altars and an Inscribed Corner-stone, pp.
183, 184.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1906), p. 9 and Pls. XLIX., L.; _Proc.
S.B.A._, xxvii. (1905), pp. 21-23, Pls. I.-III., and _ibid._,
xxviii. (1906), p. 134; Ramsay, _History and Art of the Eastern
Provs. of Rom. Emp._, p. 178 and Pls. IX., X., XI.
Eski-Yapân: Uninscribed Sculptured Lion, p. 88.
BIBL.: _Liv. Annals of Arch._, i. (1908), p. 9.
Eyuk: Foundations of Walled Town. Palace Gateway with Sculptures, pp.
242-269, Pls. LXXII., LXXIII., Plan, p. 246.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), pp. 24, 25; Hamilton, _Researches_,
i. pp. 382, 383; Barth, _Reise ... nach Scutari_, pp. 42, 43;
_Arch. Zeit._ (1859), pp. 50-59; Van Lennep, _Travels in ...
Asia Minor_, pp. 129-148; Perrot, _Exploration_, ii. Pls.
LIII. ff.; Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii.
pp. 153-158; Chantre, _Mission_, p. 1; Maspero, _Passing of
Empires_, p. 338; _Struggle of Nations_, p. 648; Humann and
Puchstein, _Reisen_, p. 82, Pl. VII.; _Recueil de Travaux_,
xiv. p. 91, fig. 5; _Jour. Roy. As. Soc._, xv. p. 116;
_Mitteil. d. Vorderas. Ges._ (1908), 3; _Liv. Annals of Arch._,
i. (1908), p. 3, Pls. II., III.
Fassiler: Sculptured ‘Lycaonian’ Monument, pp. 175, 176.
BIBL.: Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. pp.
222, 223. ILLUSTR.: _Cities of St. Paul_, p. 134, fig. 7.
Fraktin: Rock Sculptures, pp. 150, 151, and Pl. XLVII.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), pp. 25, 26, and Pl. XXX.; _Recueil de
Travaux_, p. 87 and Pl. XIV.; Chantre, _Mission_, p. 125 and
Pl. XXIII.
Gerger; Rock Sculpture (doubtful origin), p. 131.
Giaour-Kalesi: Fort and Rock Sculptures, pp. 162-164.
BIBL.: Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p. 202,
fig. 352.
Gurun: Rock Inscriptions, pp. 143, 144.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), p. 15 and Pl. XVIII.; _Recueil de
Travaux_, xiv. p. 86 and Pl. IV.; Wright, _Empire_, p. 57;
Sayce, _Trans. S.B.A._, vii. p. 305; _Proc. S.B.A._ (1903), p.
148.
Hamath: Five Inscribed Stones, pp. 95-97 and Pl. XXXVII.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), pp. 6-8 and Pls. III. B-VI.; Wright,
_Empire_, pp. 139-141 and Pls. I.-IV.; Sayce, _Hittites_, pp.
60-64; Burckhardt, _Travels in Syria ..._, p. 146; Burton,
_Unexplored Syria_, p. 335; _Palestine Expl. Fund_, Q. S.,
1871, p. 173; _ibid._, 1872, pp. 74, 199; _ibid._, 1873,
pp. 35, 61, 74; _Amer. Pal. Expl. Soc._ (1871), p. 31; _Trs.
S.B.A._, vii. p. 429; _Proc. S.B.A._ 1903 (March), _ibid._,
1905 (Nov.), p. 218. Now in the Constantinople Museum, Nos.
831-834.
Ilgîn. See Kölit-oghlu.
Ivrîz: Rock Sculptures with Inscription, pp. 191-195 and Pl. LVII.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), p. 30 and Pl. XXXIV.; _ibid._ (1906),
p. 5 and Pl. XXXIV., and pp. 19, 20; Davis, _Trs. S.B.A._, iv.
(1876). pp. 336, 346; _Life in Asiatic Turkey_ (1879), pp.
245-260; Hamilton, _Researches_, ii. pp. 304-307; Ramsay and
Hogarth, _Recueil_, xiv. pp. 71-85, Pls. III.-IV.; Ramsay,
_Luke the Physician_, pp. 171, 179, and Pl. XXI.; Ramsay,
_Pauline_, etc., pp. 172, 173; Sayce, _Proc. S.B.A._ (1906),
pp. 133, 134, and Pl.; Frazer, _Adonis_, etc. (1907), pp.
93-97. Cast in the Berlin Vorderas. Museum.
Izgîn. See Albistan.
Jerablus, Site of Carchemish. Inscribed Stela with relief and fragments
of the others. Inscription with Winged Figure. Inscribed Corner-stone:
Inscribed Column. Inscribed Fragments of Stone. Relief showing Figures on
Lion’s Back. Relief showing ‘Adoration of Kybele.’ Relief showing Priest
between Warriors, pp. 123-129.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), pp. 9-12 and Pls. IX.-XV.; _ibid._
(1902), pp. 2-12 and Pls. X.-XV.; Wright, _Empire_, pp. 143,
148, Pls. VIII.-XIII., also XIX.-XXII.; _Trs. S.B.A._, vii.
p. 435; Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p.
62, figs. 276, 277, and p. 281, with figs. 390, 391; Ball,
_Light from the East_, pp. 141-143; _Proc. S.B.A._ (1905),
pp. 201 ff.; _The Graphic_, Dec. 11, 1880; _Liv. Annals of
Arch._ (1909), ii. pp. 165-171, with fig. 1 and Pls. XXXV.,
XXXVI. (i); Maspero, _Struggle_, p. 145; Maundrell, _Journey to
Euphrates_ (1749); Drummond, _Travels to ... Euphrates_ (1754),
p. 209. The Inscriptions now in British Museum (_Guide_, p. 27).
Kalaba. See Angora.
Kara-Bel. Rock Sculptures, pp. 171-173 and Pl. LIV.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), p. 37, Pl. XXXIX.; Sayce, _Hittites_
(1903), p. 67, with Pl.; Texier, _Description_, ii. Pl.
CXXXII.; Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p.
229 and fig. 362; Wright, _Empire_, p. 155 and Pl. XVIII.;
_Revue Archéol._ (1866), xiii. Pl. XII.; _Trs. S.B.A._, vii.
pp. 266, 439; _Proc. S.B.A._, XXI. p. 222; Herodotus, ii. p.
106.
Karaburna: Rock Inscription, pp. 154, 155.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1902), pp. 17, 24, Pl. XLVI.; _Jour. Hell.
Stud._, xxi. (1901), pp. 328-332, with Pl.; _Proc. S.B.A._
(1905), p. 217.
Kara-burshlu: Inscribed Sculpture, Ceremonial Feast, pp. 99-101.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), p. 20 and Pl. XXVI. (1, 2).
Kara-Dagh: Rock Passage, with two Inscriptions. (Kizil-Dagh): Fortress,
with three Inscriptions; Rock Altar, with Inscription: Rock Throne, with
Figure and Inscription, pp. 177-181.
BIBL.: Ramsay, _Luke the Physician_, pp. 160 ff. and Pls.
XIV.-XVI. _Proc. S.B.A._ (1909), xxxi. p. 86 and Pls. VII. and
VIII.
Kellekli: Eight miles north of Jerablus. Recently found: (i) Relief of
Human Figure in long robe. (ii) Stela showing relief of two Figures
facing, inscribed on face and two sides.
BIBL.: Hogarth in _Liv. Annals of Arch._ (1909), ii. p. 172,
figs. 2, 3, and Pl. XXXVI. (ii, iii).
Kizil-Dagh. See Kara-Dagh above.
Kurts-oghlu: Fragment of Statuette inscribed, pp. 98, 99.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), p. 8 and Pl. VII. Now in Berlin
Vorderas. Museum, No. 3009.
Kuru-Bel: Inscribed Altar with Lions, pp. 146-148.
BIBL.: _Proc. S.B.A._ (1908), xxx., Pt. II., p. 42 and Pl. I.
[Remains _in situ_.]
Malatia: Three Reliefs of Lion Hunt, Stag Hunt, and Ceremonial Feast,
with Inscriptions. Four Reliefs with Deities and Oblation Scenes, etc.,
pp. 135-140 and Pl. XLIV.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), p. 13, Pl. XVI. (A, B); _ibid._ (1906),
p. 7, Pl. XLVII.; Heuzy, _Les Origines Orientales d’Art_,
i. Pl. X.; _Liv. Annals of Arch._, i. (1908), Pls. IV., V.;
_ibid._, 1909, p. 180 and Pl. XLI.; Hogarth, _Recueil_, xviii.,
with Pl., p. 25; _Proc. S.B.A._ (1905), p. 212; _ibid._ (1904),
xxvi. p. 13. Lion Hunt and Feast now in Constantinople Museum,
846, 847; Stag Hunt in the Louvre Museum, Paris.
Marash: (_a_, _b_) Two Lion Corner-stones (one Inscription), pp. 108-111
and Pl. XLII.
Inscribed:—(_c_) Relief of Ceremonial Feast, pp. 111-112. (_d_)
Portion of a Statue, p. 113. (_e_) Fragment of a Statue, p.
113. (_f_) Royal Stela, p. 114. (_g_) Four-sided Monument, pp.
115-117. (_h_) Fragment of Basalt, p. 118.
Uninscribed Reliefs:—(_i_) Woman seated with Child, p. 118.
(_k_) Ceremonial Feast, p. 119. (_l_) Warrior before Table, p.
119. (_m_) Adoration Scene, p. 120. (_n_) Chariot and Horse, p.
121. (_o_) Musician with Pipes, p. 122. (_p_) Horse-rider, p.
122.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), pp. 18, 19, and Pls. XXII.-XXV.;
(1902), pp. 15, 16, and Pl. XXI.; (1906), p. 2 and Pl. XXII.;
Humann and Puchstein, _Reisen_, Atlas, Pls. XLVII.-XLIX.;
_Recueil_, xv. p. 32 and Pl. II. B; Wright, _Empire_, p. 162
and Pl. XXVI.; Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii.
fig. 268 and pp. 64 ff.; _Proc. S.B.A._ ix. (1887), p. 374;
(1905), p. 225.
Now _a_ at Constantinople Museum, No. 840; Cast at British
Museum; _d_, _n_, _o_ at Berlin (V.A. Museum, Nos. 973, 974);
_f_, _h_, _l_ Metropolitan Museum, New York, Nos. 1904-6-5;
_l_, _k_, _m_ Casts at Berlin (V.A.G., 61, 63, 62); _g_ at
Constantinople Museum, No. 1625.
Nigdeh: Inscribed Altar or Moulded Base, p. 189.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1906), p. 15 and Pl. LIII.
Palanga: Carved Lion. Columnar Figure inscribed, pp. 141, 142, and Pl.
XLV.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), p. 17 and Pl. XX; _ibid._ (1906), pp.
1, 2, and Pl. XX.; _Recueil_, xv. p. 95 and Pl. III.; _Proc.
S.B.A._, xxviii. pp. 93, 94, and Pl. II. Now in Constantinople
Museum, No. 1215.
Restan: Inscribed Stone, p. 85, note 2, and p. 94.
BIBL.: _Proc. S.B.A._ (1909), p. 259.
Sakje-Geuzi: (_a_) Reliefs of Lion Hunt, Ceremonial Feast, and fragments
of Lions, etc., pp. 102-105 and Pl. XXXIX. (_b_) Walled Mounds, Palace
Ruins, and Reliefs, pp. 298-314 and Pls. LXXVIII.-LXXXII.
BIBL.: (_a_) Humann and Puchstein, _Reisen_, Atlas, Pl. XLVI.
Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. p. 64 and fig.
279; _Liv. Annals of Arch._, pp. 101, 102, and Pl. XLV.; (_b_)
_ibid._, pp. 97-117 and Pls. XXXIII.-XLIX. Now _Lion Hunt_ at
Berlin; casts of _a_ at Liv. Inst. of Arch.
Samsat: Inscribed Stone with Pedestal, pp. 130, 131.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), p. 14 and Pl. XVII.; Humann and
Puchstein, _Reisen_, Atlas, Pl. XLIX. (1-3).
Sinjerli: Walled Town and Citadel: Gate Sculptures, Ruins of Palaces,
Carvings, pp. 270-297 and Pls. LXXV.-LXXVII.
BIBL.: Luschan and others, _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_. Now
half gate sculptures at Berlin and half at Constantinople.
Sipylus: Rock Sculpture of Mother-goddess, with Inscription, pp. 168-170
and Pl. LIII.
BIBL.: _C.I.H._ (1900), pp. 33-36 and Pls. XXXVII., XXXVIII.;
Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in ... Asia Minor_, ii. pp. 234 ff.
and fig. 365; Weber, _Le Sipylus_, pp. 36 ff.; _Jour. Hell.
Stud._, iii. pp. 33-68; _Proc. S.B.A._, iii. p. 49; _ibid._,
vii. Pl. V.; _Academy_ (1879); Pausanias, III. xxii. 4.
Gerger: Rock Sculpture resembling Hittite, p. 131.
BIBL.: Humann and Puchstein, _Reisen_, p. 355 and fig. 50.
Suasa: Inscription on Stone, p. 153.
BIBL.: Rott, _Kleinas. Denkmäler_, pp. 175-179 and figs. 1, 2.
Tashji: Rock Carvings and Inscription, p. 149.
BIBL.: Rott, _Kleinas. Denk._, p. 178, fig. 3; Jeraphanion,
_Proc. S.B.A._, xxx. (1908), pp. 43, 44, and Pl. II.
Tell-Ahmar: Mounds of Hittite Site, East Bank of Euphrates, south of
Jerablus, pp. 129, 130. (i) Stela in Black Basalt, round topped, upper
half; figure wearing polus, and clasping object. (ii) Six broken Blocks
of Basalt, with hieroglyphs, forming a four-sided monument, with male
Hittite deity standing on bull upon the face, and an inscription in eight
lines of hieroglyphs in relief upon the sides and back. [Measures about
200 × 90 × 90 cms., tapering slightly.] (iii) Broken Slab, two draped
figures, with fringed robe and upturning shoes. (iv) Broken Slab with
two figures in relief, clad in tunics and upturned shoes with objects
in hands. (v) [Gigantic Lion sculptures, inscribed in cuneiform.] (vi)
[Uninscribed large Block, with relief of two rampant horse-demons.] (vii)
[Slab, T-shaped, with relief of a bull.] (viii) [Broken Block, relief of
forearm and hands.] (ix) [Basalt Block, relief of eagle-headed winged
deity in Assyrian attitude.]
BIBL.: Hogarth, _Liv. Annals of Arch._ (1909), ii. pp. 177-183
and Pls. XXXVI.(iv)-XL.
Yalanjak. See Angora.
Yamoola: Sculptured Eagle on Lion Base, pp. 155, 156, and Pl. XLIX.
BIBL.: _Proc. S.B.A._ (1908), p. 27 and figs. 1, 2; _Liv.
Annals of Arch._, i. p. 5 and Pls. VI., VII.
Yarre: Relief Ceremonial Feast, pp. 164, 165.
BIBL.: _Jour. Hell. Stud._, xix. pp. 40-45 and fig. 4.
Yapalak: Inscription seen, p. 145.
BIBL.: Sterrett, _Epigraph. Journey_, p. 299.
AUTHOR INDEX
Anderson, 154, 164.
Ball, 102, 125, 127.
Barth, 207, 243.
Belck, 322.
Bell, 94, 177, 339.
Bosanquet, 71.
Boscawen, 127.
Brandis, 52.
Breasted, 85, 344.
Burckhardt, 95.
Burton, 95.
Callander, 183.
de Cara, 232.
Chantre, 102, 106, 149, 269, 313.
Chipiez, 34, 49, 76, 85, 103, 108, 112, 122-125, 127-129, 161, 162,
164, 168, 170-174, 197, 206, 208, 210, 226, 229, 243, 264, 266,
267, 269, 308.
Crowfoot, 36, 102, 162, 164.
Curtius, 34.
Davies, 139, 318, 339.
Davis, 45, 192.
Dennis, 169.
Didot, 60.
Dodd, 372.
Drummond, 71, 123.
Eloy (Aucher-), 45.
Evans, 313.
Frazer, 74, 169, 170, 192, 229, 230, 235, 238, 239.
Gelzer, 64.
Gauckler, 71.
Griffith, 71, 77.
Gsell, 71.
Guillaume, 263.
Hall, 63.
Hamdi Bey, 109.
Hamilton, 20-22, 56, 76, 174, 243.
Heuzy, 36.
Hilprecht, 133.
Hirschfeld, 344.
Hogarth, 4, 5, 7, 19, 42, 52, 59, 64, 65, 74, 102, 113, 132-134, 138,
141-144, 145, 149, 182, 185, 188, 366.
Hommel, 342, 371, 383, 388.
Humann, 103, 108, 118-121, 130, 131, 205, 308.
Jensen, 102, 323, 373.
Jeraphanion, 146, 148.
Johns, 333, 342.
Kiepert, 154, 366.
King, 20, 323.
Knudtzon, 315, 334.
Koldewey, 277.
Langlois, 49.
Layard, 6, 310.
Lehmann, 373.
Lennep (Van), 20, 243.
Lepsius, 351.
Lockyer, 198, 210.
Longpérier, 85.
Luschan (Von), 13, 124, 144, 252, 270, 274, 278, 279, 281-3, 288,
290, 291-3, 297, 310, 311.
Macan, 24, 366.
Macridy Bey, 244, 245, 248, 250-252, 258, 263, 264, 267, 269.
Maspero, 6, 12, 39, 57, 58, 62, 63, 123, 139, 245, 254, 319, 323,
324, 339, 342, 344, 368-371, 373, 377, 381, 383, 384, 387, 388,
390.
Maundrell, 71.
Ménant, 85, 369.
Messerschmidt, 3, 7, 16, 49, 83, 97-99, 103, 111, 114, 118, 125, 127,
128, 130, 133, 134, 136, 141, 142, 143, 153, 166, 184, 185,
192, 269, 284, 311, 324, 348, 362.
Meyer, E., 77, 324, 344, 369.
Mommsen, 70.
de Morgan, 313, 327.
Mordtmann, 373.
Müller (W. Max), 12, 60, 321, 327, 345, 348, 362.
Myres, 56, 366.
Newberry, 118, 255.
Olmstead, 61, 388, 389.
Oppenheim (Von), 7.
Peiser, 16, 105.
Perrot, 34, 46, 76, 85, 103, 108, 112, 118, 120, 122-125, 127-129,
159, 161, 162, 164, 166, 168, 170-174, 197, 200, 206, 208, 210,
225, 229, 243, 263, 264, 266, 267, 269, 308.
Petrie, 12, 313, 318, 319, 343, 344.
Pinches, 320, 390.
Puchstein, 103, 105, 108, 118, 119, 121, 130, 131, 205, 339, 344.
Pumpelly, 313, 320.
Radet, 60, 64.
Ramsay, 5, 17, 22, 24, 28, 34, 36, 37, 39, 41, 42, 45, 52, 58, 59,
62, 64, 72, 76, 87, 89-92, 102, 141, 143, 144, 145, 149, 164,
166-168, 170, 173, 175, 177, 179, 182, 183, 185, 188, 192, 196,
197, 210, 213, 225, 229-231, 243, 265, 267, 357, 376, 388.
Rawlinson, 170, 369.
Reinach, 163, 332, 344.
Ridgeway, 303.
Robinson, 156.
Rott, 148, 153.
de Rougé, 344.
Sayce, 3, 63, 74, 77, 80, 94, 95, 96, 97, 124, 126, 128, 133, 137,
138, 154, 169, 171, 172, 173, 177, 179, 182, 184, 185, 188,
189, 194, 217, 218, 222, 225, 226, 227, 229, 257, 286, 319,
323, 324, 331, 343, 344, 348, 371, 372, 381, 386.
Scheil, 100.
Schlesinger, 261, 295.
Schliemann, 313.
Schrader, 327, 369, 371, 377.
Schubert, 63.
Schuchhardt, 313.
Smith (C.), 65.
Smith (M. L.), 71.
Sterrett, 145.
Texier, 171, 206.
Theodoret, 71.
Tiele, 342, 383, 384, 388.
Weber, 168.
Wilson, 34, 143.
Winckler, 7, 52, 53, 58, 63, 76, 77, 159, 181, 196, 197, 198, 205,
206, 207, 208, 210, 232, 235, 269, 315, 316, 322-328, 330-343,
345-353, 368, 369, 372, 377, 383, 384, 388, 390.
Wright, 95, 143.
CLASSICAL AND BIBLICAL WRITINGS, ETC., QUOTED.
Aristophanes, 261.
Baruch, 127.
Ezekiel, 324, 390.
Genesis, 323, 324.
Hecatæus of Miletus, 245, 373.
Herodotus, 21, 22, 28, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 53, 59, 62, 63, 66,
92, 172, 197, 199, 236, 332.
—— (ed. Sayce), 3; _ibid._ (ed. Macan), 5, 24, 366.
Homer, 36, 59, 169.
Joshua, Book of, 12.
Livy, 19.
Lucian, 138, 239.
Nicholas of Damascus, 60.
Ovid, 169.
Pausanias, 89, 168, 169, 170, 172.
Pindar, 373.
Ptolemy, 61, 388.
Sophocles, 169.
Strabo, 19, 22, 23, 26, 35, 62, 64, 110, 149, 231, 236, 239, 372, 380.
Xenophon, 79, 173.
GENERAL INDEX
For works of reference cited in the footnotes, see Author Index and App.
A.
Abîna, 331.
Aboriginal people of southern Syria, 321.
Abusimbel, rock-temple of, 351, 379.
Abu-Tessub, 338.
Abydos, Hittite warrior in a relief at, 281 _n._
—— royal tombs of, 313.
Adana, 15.
Ædicula, 184.
Ægean Archipelago, 3.
—— coast, 17.
—— Islands, 368.
—— pottery, 312.
Aeriae, temple of the mother of the gods at, 170.
Afrîn River, 8, 12, 15, 86, 71, 98.
Agron, king of Lydia, 63.
Agusi, 387.
Aintab, 4-7, 11, 14, 86, 97 _n._, 106, 106 _n._, 184.
Aitakama, 331, 333, 334.
Ak Dagh, 29, 35.
Ak Geul (White Lake), 40.
Akhenaten, 336.
Akia, king of Arakhti, 333.
Akizzi, story of, 332, 334.
Akkar-tchai, 37.
Akserai, 39, 154.
Ak Su, 41, 42 _n._
Ala Dagh, 42.
Alakshandu, vassal of Tarkundaraus, 327.
Albistan, 5, 145.
—— monuments near, 143.
Aleppo, 4, 7, 8, 15, 16, 53, 67, 85, 97, 106, 319.
—— description of, 7.
Alexander in Asia Minor, 56, 67.
Alexandretta, 14, 15, 49.
Algeria, 71 _n._
Ali Hodje, near Bulghar-Madên, 189.
Alliance between Hattusil and the Pharaoh, 347.
Alshe, 332.
Altar, 150.
—— of stone, 146, 183.
Altars on sculptures of Fraktin, 165.
Am, 331.
Amanus, 14, 49, 99, 213, 370, 383.
Amasîa, 34, 35, 106 _n._
Amazon figure at Boghaz-Keui, 205, 357, 373.
Amazons, 213, 357, 373.
—— on the Thermodon River, 35.
Amenhetep III., 327.
—— IV., 337.
Amk, statue at, 98.
Amon, 336.
Amorite face-type, 12 _n._, 34.
—— vassalage and tribute, 336.
Amorites, an Aramæan (Semitic) people, 318, 324.
Amraphel of the Old Testament, 325 _n._
Andaval, 41, 42, 80 _n._, 185.
—— inscription of, 25 _n._
Angora, 21, 24, 28, 34-36, 66, 89, 106.
Annals of Tiglath-Pileser, 386.
—— of Thothmes III., 327.
Antaraki, 332.
Anti-Lebanon, 16.
Anti-Taurus, 2, 4, 17, 19, 21, 24, 44, 87.
Antioch, 8, 15.
—— taken from Saracens, 72.
Apis, worship in Egypt, 256.
Arabli, 42.
Arabs in Asia Minor, 72.
Aramæan district of Am (or Amma), 331.
—— monuments at Sinjerli, 277 ff.
—— peoples, 55.
Aramaic influence in Hittite art, 311, 312.
—— period at Sinjerli, 122.
Arandas, son of Subbi-luliuma, 341.
Ararat, Mt., 3.
Arched gateways decorated with sculpture, 372.
Architectural remains of Boghaz-Keui, 367.
Archives of the Babylonian and Assyrian kings, 315.
—— of the kings of Hatti, 315.
—— recently discovered at Boghaz-Keui, 3.
Ardistama, 39, 80 _n._, 90-92, 154.
Argæus, Mt., 5, 17, 18, 23, 28, 42, 88, 146, 152.
Argistis of Ararat, Urartian king, 385.
Ariarthes, 68.
Arinna, the home of the sun-god, 344, 346, 353.
Arissama, 39, 90.
—— Dagh, 183.
Arles, 71 _n._
Armed priestesses, 213, 357.
Armenia, 66.
—— Greater, 3.
—— southern, 62.
Armenian hills, 17, 26.
Arnuanta, son of Dudkhalia, 329, 351, 352.
Arpad, downfall of, 387.
Arslan Boghaz, 99.
—— Tash, sculptures at, 87, 141, 144.
—— Tepe, mound of, 132 ff.
Artemis, 65.
—— at Ephesus, rites of, 355.
Aryan immigration, 57.
Arzawa, great Hittite state, 326.
Arzawia, king of Rukhizi, 334.
Asarjik, 23, 88, 152.
Askhir, goddess of the mountains, 348.
Asia, Roman province, 70.
Asia Minor, geography of, 17 ff.
Asia Minor, tableland of, 17, 18.
Ass with panniers for transport, 365.
Assur-ballit II., Assyrian king, 333.
Assurbanipal, 65.
Assur-belkala, 371.
Assurirba, 371.
Assur-nazir-pal, 57 _n._, 295, 381.
Assyria, 271.
—— revival of power of, 55.
Assyrian influence in Hittite art, 299.
—— invasions, 371.
Assyrians invade Mitanni, 337.
Assyro-Babylonian language used in earliest international
correspondence, 31, 325.
Astarte, 128.
Astrology, great Babylonian work on, 323.
Attis, 151, 238.
Atyadae, 63.
Authors. See App. A.
Axe with double head, 223.
Ayazîn, sculptures of, 60.
Ay-mi-ny-a-s of the land of Tyana, 188.
Azriyahu, 387.
Baal, 237, 238.
Ba’albec, 71.
Babylon, 3 _n._, 53, 209.
—— archives, 323.
—— sacked by Hittites, 52.
Baghdad, 39.
—— railway, 15 _n._
Bakshish, 38.
Banti Shinni, 329, 345.
Barbarian northern hordes, 209.
Bargylus mts., 15.
Barkhu-izawa, 341.
Barrekub, king of Samaal, 271.
Bayal, 43.
Bedouins in Syria, 6.
Beilan Pass, 15.
Bell, Miss, 339.
Birejik, monument at, 129.
Bereketli, 383.
Berlin Expedition at Sinjerli, 196.
Beuyuk Kaleh, 200, 205, 300.
—— —— walls at, 245, 249.
—— Kayanin, 200.
—— —— Daresi, 32.
Bey-Keui, inscription at, 25, 37, 38, 84, 89, 93, 167.
Beyrout, 15, 370.
Beyshehr, lake and village of, 40, 174.
Bin Bir Kilisse, ‘the thousand and one churches,’ 177.
Bird, 151.
—— offering on altar, 165.
—— -sign, 166.
Birejik, ford of Euphrates at, 7.
Bir-Geuz, 24, 27.
—— Bridge, 153.
Bishopric of Kiskissos, 149.
Bit Adini, 378, 382, 383.
Bithynia, Pontus, Roman province, 68, 69.
Biyassili (? Kasyas-sil), 371.
Black Basalt, altar of, 183.
—— Sea coast, 28, 34, 37, 195.
Bogche, 49, 80 _n._, 88, 155, 199.
—— pass near, 14, 15 _n._, 373.
—— Su, 14.
Boghaz-Keui, 7 _n._, 24, 25, 27, 28, 32, 33, 64 _n._, 65, 67, 79, 84,
88, 89, 93, 96 _n._, 100, 107, 158, 277, 292 _n._, 297, 300,
306 _n._, 244-256, 269, 273, 275.
—— priest-king in sculptures of, 256.
Book of Omens, 323.
Bor, 41, 42, 80 _n._, 91, 305.
—— aqueducts of, 70.
—— inscribed sculptures of, 373.
—— inscription from, 25 _n._, 185.
Bosphorus, 37, 62.
Boss of Tarkudimme, 352.
Boundary stone, 155.
Bow, triangular, 150, 171.
Bozanti Han, 46.
—— Su, 42 _n._
Bracelets on wrists of peasant-god, 193.
Brigandage of the Amorites, 350.
Bronze axe and trappings of Boghaz-Keui, 322.
Building blocks, cubical, 159.
Bulghar Dagh, 41, 46, 90.
Bulghar-Madên, 43, 44, 54, 91, 185, 188, 373, 383.
Bull, shrine of Eyuk, 256.
—— identified with father-god, 359.
Buttresses of extra-mural towers, 202.
Byzantine church at Mahalich, 177.
—— period, 70, 72.
Cadastral survey, 352.
Caduceus, 166, 167.
Cæsarea, 5, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 34, 39, 42, 88, 366.
Calvary, 148.
Campaigns of Subbi-luliuma, 330.
Canaanites, 324.
Cappadocia, 36.
—— Phrygian influence in, 61, 69, 106 _n._, 110 _n._
Carchemish, Kybele represented at, 53, 61, 80 _n._, 85, 262.
—— early Hittites at, 52.
—— monuments at, 122 ff., 305, 318, 327, 330.
—— stele at, 113, 117.
Carvings of Sakje-Geuzi, 380.
—— in ivory, 382.
Caspian Sea, 3.
Caucasus, 3, 62, etc.
Cavalry, Hittite, 320.
Cayster River, 37, 39.
Ceremonial Feast, 164.
Chair, square shaped, 166.
Chakia Su, 42, 43.
Chalybes, 60 _n._
Chariot with panelled sides, 364.
Chekerek, 32, 35.
Cheshme Keupru, 24, 28, 34, 36, 38, 38 _n._, 89, 162, etc.
Chok-Geuz, 26.
—— Keupru, 24, 25, 27, 155.
Chorum, 34, 35.
—— road to, 88.
Christian churches, 148.
Christianity, spread of, 70.
Cilicia, 14, 21, 67, 68, 72.
—— Roman province, 69.
—— under the Hittites, 53.
—— western plain of, 48-50.
Cilician face-type, 48.
Cilician gates, 24, 25, 39, 42, 383, 388.
—— description of, 45-48.
—— horses, 39 _n._
—— pirates, 69.
—— plain, 4, 6, 14.
—— —— aqueducts of, 70.
Cimmerians in Asia Minor, 55, 58, 62, 64, 378, 381.
Classical writings cited. See App. A.
Cloak with fringed border, 187.
Club, 363.
Colophon, 65.
Comana (Komana), 87, 110 _n._, 146, 366.
Combine of land and sea powers against Egypt, 368.
Confederacy, 318.
Conical Hittite hat, 171, 215, 223, 362.
Constantinople, 36, 72.
Constitution of the Hittite power, 234.
Contemporary rulers and royal alliances, 329.
Convention in art, 145.
Crescent, 217, 238, 303 _n._
Crete, early Minoan pottery of, 31.
—— neolithic pottery of, 313, 320.
Crœsus, 22, 33 _n._, 38, 38 _n._, 55, 65, 66, 92, 197, 199.
Crosses carved on Hittite monument, 148.
Crusaders, 45.
Cubical building blocks decorated with sculptures, 367.
Cult of the Nature-goddess, 235.
Cuneiform system of writing, 317.
—— documents found recently at Boghaz-Keui, 325.
Curtius, Dr., 208.
Curved dagger, 363.
Cybele. See Kybele.
Cybistra, 90.
Cydnus, 46.
Cyprus, copper sources in, 322.
—— terra-cotta statuette from, 142.
Cyrus, 66, 67, 68.
—— annexes Hittite country, 56.
Dagger, curved, 363.
—— with crescental hilt, 163.
Dagger with semicircular handle, 223.
Damascus, 16, 377, 383, 384.
—— fall of, 388.
Dardanians, 344.
Daskylos, Lydian prince, 60 _n._
Dastarkon, 149, 366.
Delije Irmak, 29, 30.
Deli Su, 153.
Delta of Egypt, 2, 255.
Denek Maden, 160.
—— —— mines at, 34.
Derendeh, 5, 80 _n._, 87, 141 ff.
Develi Karahissar, 42.
Diocletian, 70.
Dirk, the sacred, 118.
—— with crescent-shaped handle, 214.
—— with midrib, 228.
—— deity, 239.
—— —— cult of, 360.
Dimerli, ‘lion tomb’ at, 60.
Disintegration of the Hittite Empire, 368.
Disk suggestive of mirror, 217.
Doghanlu, 25, 84, 166.
—— Daresi, 37, 38, 89, 93.
—— ‘tomb of Midas,’ at, 60.
Double-axe, 363.
—— god of the, 64 _n._
Double Eagle, 235.
—— —— at Eyuk, priest of the, 236.
Downfall of the Hittite rulers, 368.
Dress of Hittite warrior, 362.
Dromos, decoration at Eyuk, 184.
Dudkhalia, successor of Hattusil, 351, 352.
Dud-khaliya, 324.
Eagle, double-headed, 223.
—— gigantic stone, 156.
—— monument at Yamoola, 236.
Eagles in Hittite religious art, 158.
Earring, 215, 227.
Ebed-Asherah, Amorite patriarch, 328, 334, 335.
Edict of Dudkhalia, 326, 352, 353.
Eflatoun-Bunar, 40, 90, 174.
Egypt, Delta, 2, 255.
—— early Hittite settlements on frontiers of, 52.
Egypt, war of Esarhaddon with, 271.
Egyptian artists, 318.
—— face-type in Syria, 12, 16.
—— influence in the sphinxes of Eyuk, 254.
Ekrek, 5, 24, 54, 148.
—— inscribed stone at, 87.
Emblems in form of a shrine under outspread wings, 84, 217, 225.
Emir-Ghazi, 39, 40, 41, 80 _n._, 91, 169, 183.
—— round altar at, 256.
Eni-Tessub, 352.
Ephesus, 37, 65, 66, 71.
Eregli, 24, 29, 40, 41, 43, 90, 185, 191.
Erzerum, 3 _n._
Esarhaddon, 78, 271, 273, 278, 297, 390.
Eshuk Tash, 203, 204.
Eski Andaval, sculpture at, 91.
—— Kishla (old winter quarters), 183.
Eski-Yapân, stone lion at, 88.
Eunuch-priest, 361.
Euphrates, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 _n._, 15, 21, 39, 85, 106, 318.
—— valley, 317.
Eyuk, 35, 80 _n._, 84, 102, 107, 277, 282 _n._, 296 _n._, 297, 301
_n._, 303 _n._, 306 _n._, 339.
—— Hittite site at, 33.
—— mound and palace at, 88, 93.
—— palace and sculptures of, 242 ff.
—— Phrygian inscriptions at, 56, 60 _n._
—— sphinx at, 298, 309.
Ezekiel, 45, 390.
Fassiler, 40, 90, 175.
Father-god, 237, 359, 360.
—— of the Phrygians, 59.
Faustinopolis, 388.
Feather-like emblem, 238.
Female warrior, 372.
Ferak-Din. See Fraktin, 149.
Fish hieroglyph, 153.
Flexible hats, 215.
Footgear of the Hittites, 320.
Fortress, ancient, 154.
—— at Arissama Dagh, ancient, 183.
—— at Giaour-Kalesi, 162.
—— on Kizil Dagh, 178.
Fortress of Arinni, 370.
—— of Shapalulme, burnt, 383.
Fraktin, 5, 24, 54, 87, 149, 256, 262, 339.
Fringed skirt, 215.
Galatia, Roman province, 69.
Garparunda, 377, 380, 383.
Gashuliawi, a Hittite princess married to Put-akhi, 347.
Gauraina. See Gurun, 143.
Genealogical table, 329.
Gerdschein, statue at, 311.
Gerger, 4.
Gerger Kalesi, 85.
Gerger Kalesi, monument at, 131.
Giaour Dagh, 2, 13, 27.
Giaour-Kalesi, 36, 38, 84, 89, 90, 93, 338.
—— sculptures at, 162.
Gindarus, 98, 378.
Girdle, 214, 215.
Goat, 215.
—— with conical cap on head, 222.
God of Arms, 173.
God of the Mountain, 147.
Gordius, 61.
Goyyim, 324 _n._
Graffiti, 153.
Greek colonies in Asia Minor, history of, 58, 65 ff.
—— face-type, 31.
—— influence in Asia Minor, 68, 70.
Gurgum, 376, 377, etc.
Guriania. See Gurun, 143, 376.
Gurun, 4, 51, 87, 143, 371.
Gyges of Lydia, 65.
Hadad, statue of, 142.
—— the Syrian god, 59 _n._, 138 _n._
Haifa, seal from, 16 _n._
Halys Basin, monuments of the, 152.
—— description of, 18, 22, 26 ff.
—— River, 2, 4, 5, 18, 21, 26, 28, 29, 34, 35, 36, 38, 54, 56, 64,
65, 66, 84, 88, 89, 92, 318, 338.
Hamath, 53.
—— inscriptions of, 75.
—— kingdom of the Hattina, 331.
—— remains at, 93 ff.
Hammurabi, 334.
Harpoon cult object, 160.
Hat with flutings, 214.
Hathor head-dress, 217.
Hatti, the dominant tribe, 318, 319.
Hattina, feudal state of, 271, 377, etc., 382.
Hattusil, 136 _n._
Hattusil I., 326.
—— II., 338.
Havanda, tomb of, 73.
Heliopolis, 71 _n._
Helmet decorated with horns, 193.
Hera of Samos, the, 142.
Heraclidae of Lydia, 63.
Herakleia, 195.
Heraldic figure, 228.
Hercules, 63, 64, 64 _n._, 195, 240.
Hermes, 167.
Hermus, 2, 37.
Hermus valley, 199.
Herodotus, 22, 170, 197.
Hilâni, 99, 273.
Hilt of sword, flat, 215.
Hittite routes, 154, 365.
—— sites and monuments. See Appendix B.
Hogarth, D. G., 145, 339.
Homer, 169.
Homs, 16, 85, 85 _n._, 106 _n._
—— bronze figure from, 16 _n._
Horned altar, 178.
Horse, early use by the Hittites of the, 39 _n._, 320.
Horses and chariots employed by Aitakama, 320.
Horus, the, title of the Pharaohs, 340.
Huda Verdi, spring, 41.
Human-headed bird, 157, 230.
Huru Pegamber, 71.
Hyksos period, 255 _n._, 324.
Iasily Kaya, sculptures at, 59 _n._
—— —— carved walls at, 124, 126.
—— —— reliefs at, 196, 205, 255, 257, 262, 268, 269, 303 _n._
—— —— sanctuary at, 88, 110.
Iaudi, 271, 367, 376.
Iconium, 20, 38, 67, 90, 106 _n._
—— inscription from near, 173.
—— traces of ancient site near, 173.
Ilgîn, 3, 67, 90.
Imperial Ottoman Museum, 185.
Incursions of the Assyrians, 384.
Indo-Germanic element, 324.
Injesu, 24, 25, 42, 199, 366.
Inscribed Rock (Iasily Kaya), 211.
Inscriptions, Hittite. See App. B.
—— on walls of Byzantine church, 178.
Ionia, 65.
Ionic volutes, 225.
Iris River, 35.
Istar, 236, 355.
Isuwa, land of, 332.
Ivory object, 160.
Ivrîz, monument of, 41, 43, 187, 191, 281 _n._
—— sculpture at, 90, 373.
Izgîn, 5, 80 _n._, 87, 146.
Jebel Ansarîa, 15.
Jensen, 19.
Jerabis, reliefs at, 113.
Jerablus, 80 _n._, 84, 85.
—— monuments at, 122 ff.
Jewish face-type, 34.
Jobba Eyuk, relief at, 102.
‘Joggle,’ 164, 208.
Kadesh, 16.
—— site of, 85.
—— the battle of, 343, 344, 345, 364.
Kalaba, 161.
Kara-Bel, 2 _n._, 37, 63, 66, 75, 84, 89, 93, 233.
—— pass of, 170, 338.
Karaburna, 28, 54, 153, 154, 373.
—— inscription at, 88, 100.
Kara-burshlu, 80 _n._, 111, 86, 108.
Kara Dagh, 41, 54, 84, 90, 176, 373.
—— —— pottery of, 313 _n._
Karadinek, 10 _n._
Kara Eyuk, pottery of, 313 _n._
Karaja Dagh, 41, 183.
Karakul, 9.
Karanji Keupru, 164.
Karashehr, 106 _n._
Kara Su, 12, 13, 16, 85, 99, 153, 171, 321, 330, 376.
Karduniash, 337.
Karmalas, 149.
Kartal, 11, 23, 34, 106.
Kas, 110.
Kataonians, 344.
Katashman-turgu identified with Katashman-buriash, 350.
Kati, king of Quë, dethroned, 384.
Katna, 33.
Kedabeg, 3 _n._
Khaiani, king of Samalla, 383.
Khaleis ‘the Khalian,’ 325.
Khali-rabbat (the Milid of late Assyrian records), 326, 339.
Khalpa (Aleppo), 333, etc.
Khammu-rabi, 323.
Khanigalbat. See Khali-rabbat.
Kharusa, range of, 370.
Kheta, 77 _n._, 344.
Khetasar (Hattusil II.), 337, 346.
Khilakku, kingdom of, 54, 373, 375.
Khite-ruadas, 376, 386.
‘Khopesh,’ 228.
Kiakku of Shinukhta, 388.
Kibshuna, 370.
Kibshuna, treble-walled city, 370.
Kilisse Hissar (Tyana), 39, 41, 90.
—— —— site of the ancient Tyana, 185.
Killiz, 7, 8, 86, 106, 330, 388.
Kinalua, 376, 387.
King-priest, 192.
Kinza, 331.
Kirchuk Yapalak, inscribed stone at, 87.
Kirri, king of Quë, 384.
Kiskeui, 149.
Kizil Dagh, 90, 178.
—— Irmak, 26.
Kizilja Su, 41.
Kizlar Daresi, 201.
Kodja Su, 41, 43, 191.
Kölit-oghlu Yaila, 90.
—— —— inscription found at, 173.
Komana (Comana), 5, 24, 54, 64 _n._, 70.
—— (identified with modern Shahr), 376.
Konia, 18, 21, 24, 38, 40, 66, 174.
Korkun, 42 _n._
Kuchuk Kizil-Hissar, 12.
Kulakly, 33.
Kullani, 388.
Kammanu, 376.
Kummukh, 342, 368.
Kundashpi, 376.
Kurds in Syria, 6, 8.
Kurman Su, 146.
Kurts-oghlu, 76, 80 _n._, 86, 98, 112.
Kuru-Bel, 24, 45, 80 _n._, 87, 146.
Kuru Chai, 148.
Kû-sar (Sû-sar), 326.
Kush Dagh, 28.
Kushtashpi, 376.
Kybele, 128, 151, 238, 268.
—— in Hittite mythology, 262.
—— in Phrygia, rites of, 355.
Kyrrhus, ruins of, 71.
Lake Beyshehr, monuments reflecting Hittite influence, found near,
173.
—— Van, 378.
Lalle, 376.
Lamas, monument probably not Hittite, 49 _n._
Lance, 263.
Language of the Hittites, 319.
Latakia, seal and bronze figure from, 16 _n._
Lebanon, 2.
Lepsius, 351.
Leuco-Syrians of Strabo, 22, 245 _n._
Lightning emblem, 357.
—— trident, 361.
Lion, 146.
—— at Cheshme Keupru, 162.
—— seated, 156.
—— -base, columnar figure upon, 176.
—— -gate, 203.
—— -tank, 210, 372.
—— of Eyuk, 211.
—— corner-stone of Eyuk, 372, 380.
—— -goddess and son, 235.
Lions at Amaksiz and Yalanjak, 162.
—— at Boghaz-Keui, 380.
—— at Sinjerli, 380.
—— on monuments at Fassiler, 175.
Lituus, 217, 229.
Lubarna king of the Hattina, 376, 377, 383.
Lycaonia, 69.
—— local sculptures in, 76.
—— Western, 93.
Lycaonian structure, 40.
Lycians, 344.
Lycus, 35.
Lydia, coast of, 2 _n._
—— empire, 21 _n._
—— history of, 56, 58, 60, 63 ff.
—— under the Hittites, 53, 66.
Lyre, the, in Egypt, 118 _n._
Ma, Mother-goddess, prototype of Kybele, 170, 235.
—— at Comana, rites of, 355.
—— the Mother-goddess, 151.
Mace, 214.
Maden-Shehr marks the classical site of Barata, or Bin Bir Kilisse,
177.
Mæander, 37.
—— route by, 67.
Magic hammer, 361.
Magnesia, 69.
Mahalich, Hittite site, 40, 41, 90.
—— marked by a Byzantine church, 177.
Maiden’s Rock, 206.
Malatia, 4, 5, 53, 54, 57, 80 _n._, 84, 86, 87 _n._, 88, 107, 339.
—— monuments at, 132 ff.
—— sculptures of, 279.
Manapa-Sanda, 341.
—— -Tessub, 341.
Marash, 4, 5, 6, 14, 24, 25, 53, 54, 80 _n._, 86, 87, 99 _n._, 101
_n._, 102 _n._, 105 _n._, 106, 184, 205, 276 _n._, 279, 282
_n._, 292 _n._, 296 _n._, 301 _n._, 308 _n._, 330, 333.
Marash, inscribed objects at, 118 ff.
—— royal stela at, 113, 114-118.
—— sculptured fragments, 121.
—— statue at, 113.
Marcus Aurelius, 46.
Marghasi, 80 _n._
Markhasi, 111.
Masonry, pentagonal in shape, 163.
Matîlu of Agusi, 387.
Matriarchal system in Asia Minor, 59.
Matti, 61 _n._
Matti of Atuna or Tuna, 388.
Mattiuaza, 325, 338.
Mazaca (Old Cæsarea), 22 ff., 54, 366, 375, etc.
Mazarima, Hittite prince, 345.
Medes, appearance in Asia Minor, 56, 64.
Median empire, 21 _n._
Medinet Habu, temple of, 368.
Menuas drives back the Assyrians, 385.
Merenptah, 2.
Mermnad dynasty, 65.
Mersina, 49.
Meshech, 390.
Midas, in history, 55, 61, 62.
—— monument of, 38.
—— Phrygian inscription of, 42, 91, 185.
—— so-called tomb of, 60, 166.
Mikhri, bordering on the Pyramus, 376.
Milid (Miliddu), 376.
‘Mita of Muski,’ the Phrygian Midas, 62, 389.
Mitanni, 7 _n._, 58 _n._, 328.
—— created a special protectorate, 338.
Mithraic type of face at Jerablus, 128.
Mithridates, 69.
Mohammed, flight of, 57.
Mongol invasions, 57.
—— type of face, 307.
Mongoloid Hittite allies, 318.
Monstrous figures, pair of, 218.
Monstrous winged figures, 226.
Mother-goddess, 164, 322, 353, 354.
—— ‘Queen of the Rock,’ 169.
Mouldings in Roman style, 189.
Mount Amanus, 371, etc.
—— Bishri, 369.
—— Tala, 370.
Mountain cult, 321, 327.
Mugallu, 376.
Mujelibeh, 100 _n._
Mural crown, 222.
Mursil replaced his brother Arandas, 341, 366.
Muski, 53, 54, 57, 368.
—— -Phrygians, 377.
Muzri, 342, 370, 383.
Mutallu, 326, 341, 343, 345, 376.
Mutiny of the Amorites, 345.
Myrsos, Lydian king, 60 _n._
Mysians, 344.
Nabonidus, stele of, 100 _n._
Nahr-el-Kelb, 370.
Naram-Sin, 313, 323.
National deity (Sutekh), 235.
Nature-cults, 322.
—— -goddess, cult of the, 152.
Nefez-Keui, description of, 30-32.
Nefret, queen of Egypt, 255, 309.
Nerab, stele of, 102 _n._
Nî, 333.
Nigdeh, altar at, 91.
—— Hittite inscriptions at, 41, 80 _n._, 185.
—— monuments at, 189.
—— Seljûk sculptures at, 73.
Nineveh, 3 _n._
—— fall of, 64.
Niobe, 89.
—— confused with figure on Mount Sipylus, 169.
Nishan Tash, inscription at, 88, 158, 206.
Nukhasse, 330, 340.
Obelisk, 145.
Oblation vases, 339.
Olba, priest-kings of, 69, 70.
Old Malatia, Hittite site at, 132 ff.
Ordasu, mound near, 132.
Orontes, 8, 14, 15, 16, 93, 321, 370, 377.
Osmaniyeh, 14.
Osmanli Turks, 57, 72, 319.
Oval, the emblem of sanctity, 150.
Ovid, 169.
Painted pottery of Sakje-Geuzi, 320.
Palace at Beuyuk Kaleh, 206, 207.
Palanga, 80 _n._, 87, 311.
—— monuments at, 141 ff.
Palmyra, 16.
Panammu, king of Samaal, 271, 311.
—— II., a Semitic ruler, 388.
Pantheon, Hittite, 317.
Panther and eagle, probably cult objects, 230.
Paul of Tarsus, 45.
Pausanias, 168, 170.
Peasant-god, 192.
—— the patron of agriculture, 379.
Pentaur, poem of, 345.
Pergamum, kingdom of, 57.
Persian Empire, under Cyrus, 56.
—— Gulf, 3.
—— posts, 199.
Perspective convention, 214.
Pessinus, 110 _n._, 164.
Pharaoh, 323.
Phœnician monuments at Sinjerli, 270 ff.
Phrygia, 24, 39, 93.
—— boundaries of, 36, 37.
—— local sculptures in, 76.
—— monuments, 37.
—— pine-woods of, 19, 20.
—— Seljûks in, 72.
—— under Hittites, 53.
Phrygian conquerors, 317.
—— history of the, 57.
—— power at its height, 56.
Pig’s Head, cape, 15.
Pigtail, 216, 218, 222, 229, 318, 379.
Pisidia, 343.
Pisiris, 61, 371, 389.
Plan of the Rock Sanctuary called Iasily Kaya, 221.
Plato’s Spring, 40, 174.
Pontus, kingdom of, 57, 69.
—— Roman province, 69.
Pottery, coloured, 210.
Priest, 100.
—— -king, 186, 237, 340, 378.
—— -kings of Lydia, 64.
Proto-Greek type of Hittite allies, 318.
Psamtek of Egypt, 65.
Pteria, 9, 25, 32, 60, 60 _n._, 66, 196, 197.
—— destruction of, 55.
—— overthrow by Crœsus, 38.
Ptolemy, 388.
Put-akhi, chief of the Amorites, 345, 346.
Putukhipa, Princess of Qizwadna, 340, 346.
Putu-khipa, mentioned as co-ruler, 353.
Pylæ Syriæ et Ciliciæ, 15 _n._
Pyramus, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 49.
—— River, 86.
—— valley of the, 145, 365.
—— ——, route via, 143.
Pyrenees, 321.
Qarqar, battle of, 384.
Qizwadna, 346, 348.
Quë, 375, 382, etc.
Qurt Dagh, 7, 13, 14, 106.
Qurts-oghlu. See Kurts-oghlu.
Racial character, wide difference of, 318.
Rafts of skin, 381.
Rameses, 77 _n._
Rameses the Great, 209, 351.
Rameses, Hittite ambassador, 348.
Rameses II., 2, 12 _n._, 136, 281 _n._, 343.
—— III., 77 _n._
Ramesseum, 319.
Ras El Khanzîr, 15.
Renaissance of the Hittite kingdoms, 373.
Records of the Assyrians, 375.
Restan, 16, 85.
Rites of Comana, 239.
—— of Istar at Babylon, 236.
Rock carving of Fraktin, 184.
—— carvings, 148.
—— —— of Ivrîz, 378.
—— image of the Mother-goddess, 168.
—— sculptures called Iasily Kaya, 211.
Roman province of Asia, 69.
—— provinces in Asia Minor, 69, 70.
Romans in Asia Minor, 57, 69 ff.
Romanus Diogenes, 72.
Rosette device on stela at Bor, 188.
—— surrounded by horseshoe-shaped device, 217.
Rosettes, 148.
Rowanduz, 9.
Royal insignia, 233.
—— Road, 24, 25, 89, 199, 366.
Rum Kale, monument at, 130.
Sayce, 190, 194.
Sacred dirk, 240.
Sakaria (Sangarius), 35.
Sakje-Geuzi, 13, 14, 77, 80 _n._, 86, 100, 101 _n._, 102, 103, 106,
109, 264, 276 _n._, 282 _n._, 286 _n._, 289 _n._, 290 _n._, 297.
—— column bases of, 142 _n._
—— mounds and palace-portico at, 298 ff.
—— sphinx at, 275.
—— technique of walls, 251.
—— the Berlin relief, 103 ff.
Salamis, terra-cotta figures from, 142.
Samalla (Samaal), identified with Sinjerli, 270, 367, 376, 377.
Samosata (Samsat), 366.
Samsat, 4, 84, 85, 100 _n._, 333, 342, 369.
—— monument at, 130-131.
Samsun, 28, 34.
Sanctuary of Iasily Kaya, 226, 234.
Sandes, or Sandan, 160, 322, 339, 348, 358.
Sandon of Tarsus, the prototype of Attis, 173, 235, 238.
Sangarius, 21, 35, 36, 37, 38, 59.
Saracens, 72.
—— besiege Constantinople, 57.
Sardis, 2, 38, 64, 67, 84, 89, 199.
Sargon, 60, 61, 62, 77 _n._, 273 _n._, 323, 388.
—— conquers Hittite country, 55.
Sarisu, possibly the classical Sareisa, 348.
Sarrupsi, king of Nukhasse, 330.
Sarus, 5, 42.
Satraps of Persia, 66, 67.
Sculpture on Mount Sipylus, 168.
—— of non-Phrygian character, 166.
Sculptures of Iasily Kaya, 357.
—— of Boghaz-Keui, 319.
—— of Sinjerli, 319.
Scythians, invasion of, 62.
Seal of the Hittite god of the skies, 349.
—— of Sutekh, Prince of Heaven, 349.
Seals inscribed in Hittite hieroglyph and cuneiform, 352.
—— of treaty, 349.
Seated figure on throne near Kizil Dagh, 179.
Seleucid kings, 57, 68, 69.
Seljûk Turks, 50, 57, 72 ff., 319.
Sesostris, images of, described by Herodotus, 172.
Sety I., 342.
Shahr, 5, 146.
Shalmaneser I., 77 _n._, 342, 382.
—— II., 381, 384.
Shahr, Comana, 370.
Shangara (or Sangar), 371.
—— king of Carchemish, 381, 382.
Shapalulme, 377.
—— king of the Hattina, 382.
Sharduris, 386, 387.
Shinukhta, 376.
Shoe with upturned toe, 320.
Shugab, 378.
Sickle, or scimitar, 218.
Silver mines near Bulghar-Madên, 190.
Silver and salt recorded as tribute in Assyrian records, 383.
Sinjerli, site of, 13, 80 _n._, 86, 88, 99 ff., 100, 101, 102, 106,
108, 109, 122.
—— column bases of, 142 _n._
—— gateways of, 246 _n._, 252 _n._
—— god-figure at, 117.
—— technique of walls, 251.
—— town and sculptures of, 270 ff., 300, 301 _n._, 309, 310 _n._,
311.
Sinope, 199, 365.
Sipa-zar, 345.
Sipylene Mother, 65.
Sipylus, Mount, 2 _n._, 37, 63, 66, 84, 89, 93, 167, 262, 366.
—— —— sculpture on, 168.
Sites, Hittite. See App. B.
Sivas, 5, 26, 29, 34, 36, 66, 365.
—— road to, 23.
Skull-cap surrounded by three decorated fillets, 193.
Smyrna, 37, 65, 66, 84.
Socket-hole in granite blocks, 159.
Soghan Dagh, 147.
Solinus, 373.
Son-god, 105, 235, 210, 241, 360.
Sophocles, 169.
Sphinx, 230.
Sphinxes of Eyuk, 204, 253 ff.
Square shield, 318, 364.
Staff with crescental knob, 179.
Stela, C. 1, Musée du Louvre, 323.
—— at Bor, 185.
—— at Fassiler, 175.
Stool with straight legs, 165.
Storm-god, the Hittite, 138 _n._
Strabo, 23, 185, 231, 239.
—— ritual of Mother-goddess described by, 170.
Suasa, inscriptions at, 88, 153.
Subbi-luliuma of Hatti, 315, 325, 326, 330, 331, 334, 367.
Subbi-sil (Sipa-zar), 345.
Sultan Han, 24, 39.
Sumur, 335.
Sun-god, 322.
—— invoked on Hittite treaty, 348.
Sungurlu, 34.
—— road to, 88.
Susa, 67.
—— excavations at, 313.
Sutatarra, king of Kinza, 331.
Sutekh, 359.
—— national deity of the Hittites, 237.
Sutekh cycle of the nine states in the Egyptian treaty, 358.
Svastika, 187.
Sword, long, 215.
Syria, 4, 14, 19, 55, 67, 68.
—— Assyrian influence in, 79.
—— desert, 6.
—— early Hittite settlements in, 52.
—— geography of, 6 ff.
Syrian villages, 10, 11.
—— wars, 336.
Syrians, 66.
Syro-Cappadocians, 22.
Tabal, 375, 390.
—— kingdom of, invaded in 858 B.C., 384.
Tablets of brick, 198.
—— inscribed in cuneiform script, 208.
Taharqa, 390.
Tal-tisebu, 348.
Targâs-nâli, 341.
Tarkhunazi of Malatia, 376, 389.
Tarku, a Hittite form of Sandes, 358.
Tarkhulara, 380, 389.
Tarkundaraus writes to Amenhetep III., 326.
Tarqu or Tarkhu, tutelary deity of Arzawa, 326 _n._
Tarsus, 46, 48.
—— falls into Assyrian hands, 384.
—— taken from Saracens, 72.
Tartar peoples, 320.
Tashji, 5, 148.
—— figures and inscription on rock, 87.
Taurus Mountains, 2, 3, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 41, 42, 44, 49, 68,
78, 84, 86, 92, 262, 330.
—— —— copper sources in, 322.
Tavium, 30.
Teiria, 245 _n._
Tell-Ahmar, 7 _n._, 85, 129-130, 378.
Tell el Amarna letters, 315, 316, 330.
Tell-Halaf, 7 _n._
Temple of the eagle, 236.
Ten Thousand, march of, 67.
Tessup, Hittite storm-god, 291.
Texier, 206.
Thebes, 53, 209, 328.
Thermodon River, 35.
Thothmes I., 327.
—— III., 77 _n._, 327.
Thracian immigrants, 369.
Throne hewn out of the rock near Kizil Dagh, 179.
Throw-stick, 363.
Tiglath-Pileser I., 77 _n._, 273, 369, 371.
—— III., 78, 271, 386, 388.
Tigris, 3, 332.
Timber used for building, 159.
Tynne, capital of Shinukhta, 376.
—— identified by Ramsay with Faustinopolis, 376.
Tmolus, mountain, 167.
Tochma Su, 4, 5, 25, 45, 86, 143, 146, 327, 365, 371.
—— route by the, 199.
Toga, 160, 217, 232.
Tope Nefezi, 152.
Track connecting Ephesus with Sardis or Smyrna, 171.
Transport wagon, 365.
Treaties with internal states in Syria, 325.
Treaty between Hattusil and Rameses the Great, 234.
Treaty, Hittite copy of, presented to the Pharaoh, 348.
—— with Mitanni, 338.
Triangular bow, 318.
Tribal totems, 356.
Tripolis, 16.
Triumph of Assyrian conqueror, 383.
Troad, white incised pottery of, 313, 316.
Tubal, kingdom of, 54, 61.
Tul Barsip, chief stronghold of the Bit Adini, 381.
Tuna, 61 _n._
Tunip, 343.
Turkestan, mounds of, 320.
Turkey in Asia, 319.
Turkomans at Kartal, 11.
—— in Halys Valley, 29.
—— at Nefez-Keui, 31.
Tushratta, 328, 337, 351.
—— of Mitanni, 315.
Tutammu, 376.
Tuz Geul, 24, 28, 40.
Twin goddesses of the Double Eagle, 236.
Two-headed eagle, 230.
Tyana, 19, 21, 24, 39, 40, 42, 45 _n._, 54, 60, 61, 62 _n._, 80 _n._,
90, 91, 155, 221, 366, 373.
—— centre of second Hittite kingdom, 25.
—— Phrygian inscription from, 25, 56.
—— stele at, 113.
Types of faces, various, 33 _n._
—— of Hittites, 318.
Tyre, war of Esarhaddon with, 271.
Tyriaion, 173, 174.
Uassarmi, chief of Tabal, 389.
Umman Manda or Nations of the North, 324.
Underground passage, 154.
Unki, 271, 376, 386, 387.
Urartians exact tribute from Malatia, 385.
Urartu, 62, 378, 382, 390.
Urfa, seal from, 7 _n._
Van, Lake, 54.
Vannic inscriptions, 62, 381, 385, 388.
—— monuments, 3 _n._
Vassalage of the Amorite to the Hittite, 324.
—— granted to non-Hittite tribes, 326.
Venasa, 70.
Vine-culture, 177.
Walled townships, 367.
Wan, monuments at, 98.
War-chariot, 363.
Warrior deities of Giaour-Kalesi, 340.
—— statue of, 171.
Weapon resembling a sickle, 228.
White Syrians, 60.
Winged animal, 153.
—— deity, 339.
—— disk on inscription found at Kizil Dagh, 187.
—— rosette, 233.
Worship of mountains and streams, 322.
Xenophon, 67.
Yamoola, 27, 236.
—— sculptures at, 88, 155.
Yapalak, 145.
Yarre, 36, 38, 84, 89, 100.
Yazîr Daresi, 32, 200.
Yeni Keui, monuments near, 144.
Yenije Kala, 205.
Yeshil Irmak, 35.
Yuzgat, road to, 23, 24, 30, 34, 35, 36, 106 _n._
Zamanti Su, 5, 87, 148.
Zeus, 237.
Printed by T. and A. CONSTABLE, Printers to His Majesty
at the Edinburgh University Press
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The land of the Hittites: An account of recent explorations and discoveries in Asia Minor, with descriptions of the Hittite monuments" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.