[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.