[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.