The land of the Hittites

by John Garstang

Section D.—Monuments of the West.

ANGORA, GIAOUR-KALESI, YARRE (CHESME KEUPRU); DOGHANLU, BEY-KEUI; SIPYLUS, KARA-BEL; ILGÎN (KÖLIT-OGHLU YAILA), (EFLATOUN-BUNAR, FASSILER).

It has already been indicated that the Hittite works in the west are few in number and of somewhat special character, and that they are disposed for the most part seemingly along a single line of road.[358] They betoken a line of conquest rather than a period of settlement. Nevertheless, if we may permit ourselves to take into consideration certain sculptures which, though uninscribed, are of strongly Hittite character, we shall find reason to feel the presence of Hittite influence, or close contact with Hittite artistic feeling, in Galatia north-east from Phrygia. In view of the fact which has been established[359] that the Halys River formed a boundary between peoples of different racial customs, this evidence, if it may be accepted, assumes definite importance, inasmuch as such influence was less likely, under the circumstances, to be the result of neighbourly assimilation. It would argue, in short, for a definite occupation or suzerainty.

Of such uninscribed works we may single out three in the immediate vicinity of Angora, the one at Kalaba,[360] which is just eastward of the town, the others at Amaksiz and Yalanjak,[361] which lie to the west and south-west respectively. These are uniform slabs of stone, suitable for the façade of a building, decorated with reliefs of lions.[362] It is not merely the analogy of motive and of subject, but certain details of treatment, which give them a Hittite character. The beasts are in each case represented as advancing, with wide open mouths. The farther legs are advanced and the tail curls over the back. On the lion from Kalaba the body is seemingly hairy below the belly and the collar is suggested. Most characteristic of all is the treatment of the shoulder muscles, which are drawn in conventional outline, as at Eyuk, Sinjerli, and elsewhere. (At Chesme Keupru, also, exposed to the weather on the western side of the bridge, there is a lion sculptured completely in the round. This is in itself a fashion unknown to Hittite art, and added to that there must be noticed the seated posture of the animal and uncouth treatment of the subject. We cannot see in this any semblance of Hittite influence.)

The sculptures of Giaour-Kalesi, however, are of unmistakably Hittite origin, even though no inscription seems to have been noticed with them. Here the subjects are godlike figures, in familiar Hittite guise.[363] They are carved in relief upon the living rock, and their situation is particularly noteworthy. A rocky knoll overlooks, indeed partly overhangs, a narrow pass: upon the summit is a fortress, rectangular in shape, about eighteen yards by thirty-seven, and supported by an outer and lower wall at a distance of twelve to thirty yards. The masonry of the inner wall is rough dry-walling, while the outer is built in the style of the fortress on Beuyuk Kaleh at Boghaz-Keui,[364] of stones roughly pentagonal in shape, irregular in size, fitted to one another, and laid without mortar. In its shape this fortress corresponds to that of Yenije Kaleh at Boghaz-Keui;[365] in its double wall and rough inner masonry to that on Kizil Dagh;[366] and in the position of the monuments near its entrance to that on Kizil Dagh just mentioned, and to another at Karaburna.[367]

PLATE L

ANGORA: THE ACROPOLIS (See also [p. 36].)

The sculptures represent two male figures: the one bearded, the other beardless. Both are clad in the short tunic, tip-tilted shoes, and conical hat familiar in the god-figures at Boghaz-Keui.[368] A dagger with crescental hilt is stuck into the belt of each. They are of gigantic size, seemingly about ten or twelve feet high, and both are posed in the same way facing in the same direction. They turn to the observer’s left; their right hands are advanced, as though pointing down the pass, while their left arms are drawn back. Obedient to convention, the right legs are advanced, and the shoulders are seen almost in full view. Something hangs down from the hat of each, falling behind the neck;[369] and upon the front of the hat worn by the bearded figure there may be traced a curving object, but whether the upturned brim familiar on the sculptures at Sinjerli and Boghaz-Keui,[370] or some other emblem, is not determinable.

There can be little doubt as to the identification of these two figures, as they are portrayed, with the father-god and the son-god (the two forms of Attis of later times), seen in exact correspondence on the sculptured walls of the sanctuary at Boghaz-Keui.[371] Is it merely a coincidence that, while being a link in the great westerly route from Boghaz-Keui towards Kara-Bel and Sipylus, they are pointing down the pass which is thought by many to have led also directly to Pessinus or Pessinous, the chief sanctuary of the Mother-goddess[372] in this part of Asia Minor?

Whatever may have been the direction of the Royal Road eastward of Giaour-Kalesi, it would seem to have passed west by way of Yarre, which is found near a bridge over the Sangarius called Karanji Keupru. Here a sculptured slab has been found[373] decorated with a relief representing a ceremonial feast. This is an important link, for this class of subject has a wide distribution, as we have seen,[374] throughout Hittite lands on both sides of the Taurus. Its appearance west of the Halys betrays the influence not only of Hittite art but of a common religious institution.

PLATE LI

AYAZÎN: ROCK-HEWN TOMBS AND EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Cf. [p. 60].

The church may be recognised on the right by its rounded exterior, corresponding to the apse.

The slab is almost exactly thirty inches square and twelve inches thick. The back is rough, and on the upper side is carved a tongue or ‘joggle,’ for attaching another slab: clearly it formed part of the façade of a building like the slabs of Angora, Sinjerli, and Sakje-Geuzi. The drawing of the scene is more angular and less free than is seen on most Hittite works, but there are several intrinsic Hittite peculiarities. Two figures are seated, their feet on footstools, at opposite sides of a narrow table or altar. The head and back of the left-hand figure are missing. The shoes of both turn upwards at the toes, and their garments seem to be long, reaching to their ankles. The end of a toga-like garment is conspicuous on the right-hand figure, falling over the right shoulder and reaching almost to the seat. The head-dress of this figure resembles a skull-cap with expanding front, and a short hood or veil falls behind the neck. The features are sharp, the nose and chin being particularly prominent. The figure is seated on a stool with two straight legs which cross. In the left hand (which, as at Sinjerli and elsewhere, is inaccurately represented with the palm instead of the knuckles towards the observer) there is grasped a small round-topped object; and in the right hand, which is partly raised, there seems to be a cup. The opposite figure is clad alike, so far as it can be seen, and similarly raises a cup towards the lips. The object between them resembles in form the narrow tapering altars seen on the sculptures of Fraktin. Upon it there seem to be a bird, and possibly some other offerings not clearly defined. In the background between the two heads, and above the ‘altar,’ there appear certain marks, in relief, which may be the remains of hieroglyphic signs. It is unfortunate that the whole of this sculpture is not preserved, a circumstance which makes us hesitate to attempt to explain its meaning. It is probable, however, that the persons, being both seated, are in this case on an equality, and both share in the feast, as at Marash,[375] Boghaz-Keui,[376] and Sinjerli.[377] We infer that they are man and woman, but that is not clear. The figure on the right, clad in the toga and long robe, wears also an earring. The seat on the left is not a stool of the same kind as that on the right, but rather a square-shaped chair, though, being broken in two, we have only a portion remaining from which to judge.

In the Phrygian country the rock sculptures of non-Phrygian character near the Midas-tomb at Doghanlu[378] may be thought to carry on the line of Hittite highway to the west. These are found on a plateau above the valley in which are the Phrygian monuments, and they seem to have been anciently reached by means of a road ascending in a gentle curve, now partly hidden at the bottom by accumulated earth. There are several figures of gigantic size carved in relief upon the rocks, but that which has attracted most attention is a small one in the series, two feet four inches high, described by the discoverer as a figure of ‘Hermes.’ The person stands, facing left, his left foot and arm advanced. His hair is dressed close, or it may be covered by a skull-cap, and a curl is visible behind the neck. In the left hand a caduceus is held upright, the head of which is seen like a small disk with horn-like objects projecting from the top and turned towards one another. Beyond the staff are certain picture-signs, amidst which a bird[379] may be recognised, with a small triangular sign below. These signs, in the opinion of the discoverer, are not the same as the Hittite hieroglyphs. None the less, the monument is accepted as Hittite by Dr. Messerschmidt[380] and M. Perrot.[381] We consider their interpretation of the origin of the sculpture to be extremely doubtful. We do not feel so strongly as Professor Ramsay that the Phrygians obviously learned this type from the Hittites of Pteria, as may be seen from a comparison with the youthful god in the sanctuary of that place. On the other hand, the caduceus, the picture-signs, and the short robe of the figure, are not really those familiar in Hittite art. We are told, however, that other sculptures of the series with which the ‘Hermes’ is associated have more in common. The theory of Hittite influence, though not of Hittite origin, is perhaps easiest reconciled with history, and we may accept it tentatively as a working hypothesis explaining their presence, but not as independent evidence.

PLATE LII

AYAZÎN: ROCK-HEWN ROOF OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH

Notice the dome and capitals. (See [Pl. LI.] and [p. 60].)

The same doubt does not exist, however, in regard to an inscription from Bey-Keui, which is a definite trace of the Hittites in the west. The monument is a dressed block of limestone, dug by Professor Ramsay[382] out of a mound at the entrance to a glen. The hieroglyphs are in relief, and on the portion of the stone preserved were arranged in rows, of which two partly remain. The whole was surrounded by a plain border.[383] From the published copy two or three of the signs may be readily recognised as distinctively Hittite. The position of the monument has thus a great interest amid the paucity of evidence in the west.

Those monuments which tell of the Hittite influence in the extreme west are found on the mountains of Sipylus and Tmolus, not far in either case from Smyrna. The river Hermus before entering the sea flows about a mile distant on the northern side of Mount Sipylus. On the other bank there stretches out a considerable expanse of highly fertile plain. The road and railway pass between the river and the mountain, and from them the famous sculpture may be plainly seen. It is several hundred feet up the slope, involving a sharp climb up the accumulated débris and soil at the foot of the cliff. Above, the cliffs rise sheer and almost precipitous.[384]

The monument occupies a recess specially prepared, about forty feet in height, while the figure itself is over thirty feet high. This gigantic sculpture, perhaps on account of its accessibility, has been more noticed in writings, ancient and modern, than any other. Its present condition,[385] however, leaves us no chance of forming any new opinion as to its original meaning and character. Fortunately on both points there remains little doubt, in spite of a considerable controversy, which is, however, now no longer of interest. As to its meaning, we are guided by the studied words of Pausanias,[386] read in the light of modern information, to believe that it was a rock image of the Mother-goddess; and as to its character, we may see in its present weathered state the indications of a sculpture in very high relief, almost indeed in the round, though not disengaged from the rock, which once represented a female seated, with her feet presumably upon a stool. The head of the figure is seemingly inclined forward, and the form of the female bust may still be recognised. Those who previously may have thought the carving to represent a bust upon a pedestal were deceived by its present appearance, for certain hieroglyphs[387] in the recess near the head attest its Hittite origin: the motive of bust and pedestal finds no place in the category of Hittite art, while the seated figure of the Mother-goddess has its counterpart in the Hittite sculptures at Eyuk[388] and Fraktin.[389] The inscription in question is very fragmentary, though certain characteristic symbols can be recognised, notably the tip-tilted shoe and the horned (ram’s) head. ‘It contains,’ writes Professor Sayce, ‘the name of the Mother-goddess, with her title “Queen of the Rock,” all of which signs recur in an inscription from Emir-Ghazi.’[390]

PLATE LIII

MT. SIPYLUS: GIANT IMAGE OF THE MOTHER-GODDESS

It would seem that classical writers, following generally in the footsteps of Homer, confounded this image with another object, a natural rock on the same mountain, which tradition associated with Niobe, and would seem indeed to have conveyed a suggestion of her weeping form. Thus Homer[391] sings that ‘Niobe, turned to stone, upon arid Sipylus broods o’er her sorrows’; and so again Ovid:[392] ‘Fastened to the rock she weeps, and the marble sheds tears.’ Fortunately Pausanias, himself probably a native of this country, ascertained the facts and showed how the confusion had arisen. ‘This Niobe,’ he says,[393] ‘I myself saw when I ascended Mount Sipylus; close at hand it is merely a rock and a cliff, with no resemblance to a woman, mourning or otherwise; but if you stand farther off, you will think you see a weeping woman bowed with grief.’ This is clearly the Niobe of Homer, Ovid, and Sophocles, and clearly also the smoothed appearance of the rock above the image of the Mother-goddess (which is not, it seems, due at all to the action of the water), was one of the reasons accounting for the confusion. As to the identity of the image, Pausanias leaves us in no doubt where he says,[394] ‘Here (at Aeriae) there is a temple of the Mother of the Gods, with a stone image of her: both are worth seeing. The people of Aeriae say that it is the most ancient sanctuary of this goddess in the Peloponnese. The oldest of all her images,[395] however, is on the rock of Coddinus at Magnesia, to the north of Sipylus: the Magnesians say it was made by Broteas, son of Tantalus.’ Finally the same writer makes his distinction apparent by showing that he was aware of the passage in Homer referring to the story of Niobe.[396]

As in other cases, we do not dwell upon the religious symbolism of the monument. That the Mother-goddess (Ma) was the prototype of Kybele remains undisputed, and all that is of interest in the cult of the great Phrygian goddess has been pointed out by Sir William Ramsay[397] and others. But the attributes of the goddess in the minds of the Hittites remain indefinite, and are to be inferred from the rites represented with her at Boghaz-Keui, Eyuk, and Fraktin, from the ritual described by Strabo and Herodotus, as surviving at Comana, Tyana, Pessinus, and elsewhere, and from the inherited attributes of Kybele herself.[398]

The other Hittite monuments of the west on the pass of Kara-Bel are comparatively near at hand. A stream which feeds the Hermus, flowing around the foot of Mount Sipylus on the east, comes down from the valley which separates that mountain on the south from the opposite slopes of Olympus. The bed of another small tributary leads up these southern slopes to a narrow wooded glen upon the ridge, in which are the sources of the Kara Su. Through this glen there passes a track, now not much used, connecting Ephesus to the south with Sardis or Smyrna by the northern valley. About seventy feet above this track, in the perpendicular face of the cliff, a niche of rock encloses a sculpture in relief. The niche is about six feet wide at the base and nine feet high, being considerably narrower at the top.[399] The figure within is that of a warrior, similar to those of Giaour-Kalesi, and resembling the god-figures at Boghaz-Keui. He stands facing to his left, his left leg and arm advanced, and his shoulders squared to the observer. He wears a short tunic and short-sleeved vest and high boots, which in some early drawings are shown as turning up at the toes.[400] The conical Hittite hat completes his costume. A triangular-shaped bow is carried over his right shoulder, and his extended left hand seems to grasp a long staff or spear.[401] The sculpture, being on the east side of the ravine, is turned towards Ephesus. There is another similar sculpture on a detached block of stone some two hundred and fifty yards farther up the pass. This stone seems to have fallen from the rocks above, and it now lies on the west side near the stream, about twelve yards below the level of the path. As it lies the sculptured face is towards the east, and the figure being turned as in the former case, towards the left, looks to the north. It is probable, however, from the similarity of the two subjects, that they originally looked in the same direction.

It is curious that there is no mention of these sculptures by Pausanias. Herodotus, however, describes them as images of Sesostris,[402] ‘the one on the way from Ephesus to Phocaea, the other from Sardis to Smyrna. In both places a man is carved, four and a half cubits high, bearing a spear in his right hand, and in his left a bow; and the rest of his equipment is in unison, for it is partly Egyptian and partly Ethiopian. From one shoulder to the other there extend across the breast sacred Egyptian characters, incised, which read as follows: “I acquired this region by my own shoulders.” Who or whence he is he does not here show.’ It is clear that Herodotus was writing from hearsay: there is just enough general accuracy in his account to identify the monuments, and enough discrepancy to make it apparent that he had not visited them himself. The details as to position we have already noticed; and Professor Sayce has shown[403] that the inscription, so far from being across the breast of the figure and in Egyptian characters, is found in the characteristic place, between the spear and the head of the figure, and consists of a group of Hittite hieroglyphs, in which certain symbols can be recognised. On the fallen block no trace of inscription remains, as the sculpture has suffered mutilation; in fact, a Yuruk’s tent was at one time pitched against it, and the niche used as a fireplace. But sufficient remains to make it demonstrable that no Egyptian inscription ran across the breast. We can hardly hesitate to identify this figure with one of the two forms of the Hittite national deity, and if the suggested absence of beard be a guide, he will be in this case the son-god of Boghaz-Keui, the Sandon of Tarsus, the prototype of Attis the consort of Kybele. We are inclined to see him here, as at Giaour-Kalesi, in the aspect of a God of Arms. We may notice once more, and ask, as in a previous case, whether it can be mere coincidence that the only Hittite monuments surviving in the extreme west are representations of the Mother-goddess and of the chief male deity of the Hittite peoples.

PLATE LIV

KARA-BEL: THE HITTITE GOD OF ARMS

With these monuments of the west we classify also one definitely Hittite inscription from near Iconium, and two instructive monuments reflecting Hittite influence, found near the Lake Beyshehr. The inscription was found near Ilgîn, at a place called Kölit-oghlu Yaila,[404] about three miles from the latter and eight miles eastward from the former, and about three hundred yards off the road from Ilgîn to Kadyn Khan. Actually the spot is about fifty miles north-westward from Iconium. Here there are traces of an ancient site in a slight eminence upon the plain, and the ruins of a wall running in a curve for a long distance. It is possible, Professor Ramsay thinks, that these indications may mark the site of pre-Hellenic Tyriaion,[405] which was one of the three chief cities of the Phrygio-Lycaonian frontier lands. In Roman times, however, Tyriaion was placed without doubt at Ilgîn. It is more probable that the mound indicates a site of antiquity that fell for some reason into neglect as Tyriaion came into prominence. Out of the top of this there was dug up a block of limestone, about two feet eight inches high and six feet long. It is not quite complete; but upon it there may be made out with some certainty three rows of Hittite hieroglyphs in relief, the inscription commencing with the right-hand side at the top. The position of the monument is of special importance, for it seems clearly to have been found near to its original position, and is the sole witness of Hittite handiwork in this part of the tableland. And though it stands alone, it does not seem to be of that class, the isolation of which may be accounted for and is in itself instructive, like the sculptures of Sipylus and Kara-Bel. It seems, on the other hand, to be the product of settled conditions, and its presence implies a whole field and period of Hittite influence which would otherwise have remained in obscurity.

There are two monuments south-west of Konia which, though not inscribed nor demonstrably of Hittite handiwork, reflect clearly Hittite influence and feeling in art. One of them is ‘Plato’s Spring’ at Eflatoun-Bunar,[406] nine miles northwards from Beyshehr. This consists of two walls of an unexplained structure, of which about two-thirds has been destroyed. The façade, which is decorated with sculptures, is about twelve feet in height and twenty feet in length. It is washed by a stream which has been partly dammed by stones taken from the building. The stones are large, almost gigantic, and dressed with care: they are decorated with human figures in relief, which vary in size with the stones, though forming a symmetrical group, and each posed with hands raised, in full view; several of them wear the conical Hittite hat. Two pairs of wings, enclosing disks, are carved upon a single stone which spans all but the corner-stones, while a great slab which covers the whole retains the decoration of a single pair of wings and part of a central disc. In the side view some of the stones are dressed with a panel; other stones are lying about, and Professor Ramsay has detected one on which a lion seemed to have been carved.

There is another remarkable but equally problematical monument at Fassiler,[407] near the route from Beyshehr to Iconium. It is a gigantic stela, about eight yards in height, and nearly a yard thick. At the bottom its width is nearly three yards, narrowing at the top to nearly two yards. The subject represented upon it is carved in very high relief. It shows two lions side by side separated only by a figure, clad in a long robe, with hands folded before the breast. Upon the shoulders[408] there is posed a greater figure, wearing the short tunic and conical hat of peculiar form. The right hand is raised, while the left arm is bent, and some indistinct object is grasped by the hand. Meagre as is our information about this monument, we do not hesitate to see in it a reflection of an idea which we see carried out in the Hittite sanctuary of Boghaz-Keui. The theme seems to us to represent the statue of the god borne upon the shoulders of his priest; and the lions, as emblems or guardians of the god, suggest a derived form of the son-god or Attis, which we discuss in a later chapter.[409] The character of the lions flanking the monument, with their heads projecting boldly in front, is also in keeping with Hittite tradition;[410] and the position of the sculpture between the lions has its counterpart in a monument, equally of post-Hittite times, which has been brought to light at Sinjerli.[411] Finally the whole appearance of the monument suggests a columnar figure upon a lion-base,[412] of which this is a clumsy and ill-carved substitute. A wonderful gulf separates the drawing and execution of this monument from the sculptures of Boghaz-Keui.