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.
[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].
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.]
[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].
[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.
[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....
[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].
[339] Liverpool Annals of Archæology, vol. i., No. 1, p. 6, and Pls. VIII. and IX. (i.).
[341] Hans Rott, Kleinasiatische Denkmäler (Messerschmidt in the same), pp. 175-179 and figs. 1, 2.
[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.
[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.]
[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).
[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.
[365] See [Pl. LXI. (i).]
[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).]
[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.
[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.
[410] Cf. especially the lions and sphinx-base of Sakje-Geuzi, Pls. [LXXIX.], [LXXXII.]
[411] See [p. 142 above, note 4].
[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.]
[438] xii. 2-7.
[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].
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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].
[474] Herodotus, v. 52.
[476] As suggested by Kiepert, cf. pp. [143], [366].
[478] See [Pl. LIX.]
[479] Cf. however the mural towers so characteristic of the Syrian fortresses, infra, pp. [273], [300].
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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].
[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. | ⎫ | [Pl. LXIII. (ii).] |
| ⎨ | 6, 7. | Two females as a group. | ⎬ | |
| ⎪ | 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.
[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.]
[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.
[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).
[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).
[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.
[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.
[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.]
[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.]
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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]).
[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]).
[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].
[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.
[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).]
[876] Cf. Boghaz-Keui, [Pl. LXV.], No. 2 L., and Kara-Bel, [Pl. LIV.], [p. 171, note 3].
[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.
[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].
[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].
[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.
[902] See [p. 339, note 2].
[903] [P. 298], and Liv. Annals of Arch., i. Pl. XXXIII.
[906] See pp. [7], [97], and [Pl. XXXVIII.]
[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.
[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.
[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.]
[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].
[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.