[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.]