The land of the Hittites

by John Garstang

From the foundations preserved it would seem that each tower was designed with chambers. Two other strong oblong chambers or vaults may be noted in the thickness of the wall, and there seems to be indication in the plan of a continuation to the series. The excavators were troubled by the fact that no door openings were found to these rooms.[590] As no section is given by them to show the relative levels of the different walls, it is not possible to form an opinion as to whether they are at all preserved above the lower courses. It is in any case interesting to observe that in military Roman forts of later days (in the earlier system of the first and second centuries) the chambers on the lower floors of such guard-rooms were often merely vaults or cellars, gained from the upper floor (which was nearly level with the sentry-go upon the wall) by means of an internal ladder.

There is a still more important fact revealed by this recent excavation, the full significance of which does not seem to have been noted. This is the discovery, on the left hand, of a lower frontage wall or foundation (X, Y), upon which the upper one partly rests. Now between these upper and lower walls there is, according to the plan, a clear angle of deviation amounting to five degrees. The masonry of the lower wall corresponds with the roughly ‘polygonal’ system of walling illustrated on Beuyuk Kaleh at Boghaz-Keui and elsewhere, while that of the upper consists entirely of large square blocks of granite, nearly uniform in height and mostly five or six feet in length, bound together by means of ‘joggles,’ and backed by a revetment of rough stones, making the whole about two metres thick. So far as one can judge from the published evidence, there is clear suggestion of two different building periods, as we noted in regard to the lower palace at Boghaz-Keui. The earlier one is seen in a stout military wall of polygonal type, the later in the line of sculptured blocks which was built partly over the remains of the other. The monoliths and other sculptures, and the visible remains in general, belong to this later series.

Before passing on to a consideration of the sculptures there are two or three architectural points to be noted. In the large cubes for the frontage wall, it is noticeable, particularly in the interior, that their faces are dressed only for a width of five or six inches around the edges, while the rest of the face projects considerably beyond this dressed line. This seems to have been a regular mason’s method of treatment, for the same may be noticed in the smaller stones in the main wall at the approach to the Lion-gate at Boghaz-Keui ([Pl. LX.]). It is clear that in the latter case no sculptures were contemplated, hence this feature does not necessarily imply that such stones were left by the mason for the sculptor, and remained for some reason unfinished, nor even that the sculptures were wont to be carved after the stones had been placed in position.[591] If the latter was true, it must be proved from other evidence; the contrary conclusion seems to be more probable prima facie, and to be borne out to some extent by the general completeness of the group of sculptures upon each stone individually, and by the care with which the bottom-most details of the reliefs are executed, features which would have tended to be neglected had the stone been already in position on the ground. Another point is the reconstruction of the doorway, whether as a cantilever archway, as at Boghaz-Keui, or by a single massive lintel. The great size of the granite block which marks the threshold shows that the latter method was possible to the engineers, and part of the lintel may perhaps be seen in a huge square-cut mass of granite (i), with a few hieroglyphs upon it, which lies, unclaimed for any other purpose, in front of the gateway, where it might easily have fallen. On the other hand, the clear space between the jambs is nearly twelve feet in length, and it may be thought that the jambs are not designed of sufficient relative proportions to support a mass and weight so great as would have been required of a single stone that spanned them. In the preserved upper part of the left-hand monolith also (B) it may be seen that the horizontal portion declines a little as though to form the offspring of an arch, while the vertical stop is inclined slightly outwards, as though designed to receive the direct thrust of an arch, whether of two large stones or of many small ones. The thrust would be further taken by a backing of masonry behind the monoliths, which may be seen from the plan to have been included in the original design. Notwithstanding these considerations, the material evidence in this case is in favour of a great stone lintel, of strength and size proportionate to the width of its span.

A third point is the reconstruction of the upper courses of the building, and this involves a consideration of the mutual relation of the upper and lower walls of the frontage (EF and XY). With regard to the upper wall (EF), a dressed block of the second course remains seemingly not much out of its original position.[592] This prepares us for the restoration of the whole course in stone, and possibly another fallen block (lying just in front of that marked f) might be fitted into place to the left hand of the former. This creates for itself a precedent, for in other sculptured walls that are known, as at Sinjerli and Sakje-Geuzi, the wall was carried up in brick. In those cases, however, the sculptures were carved on facing slabs merely, not on cubical building blocks, so that for architectural analogy we must look rather to the palace at Boghaz-Keui. The latter, however, furnishes no direct evidence on the point, though M. Perrot suspected that it was carried up on a timber frame. We must, then, accept the suggestion of this single stone in situ; but we must hesitate to accept without clear proof the theory that there were sculptures also on the second tier,[593] a feature for which we have no analogy in Hittite works. The two sculptured blocks (x, y) recently found at a lower level, in front of the lower wall (XY), represent subjects entirely different to those in situ, and seem from the published photographs[594] to illustrate a phase of art as different as the early and later reliefs of Sinjerli. Measurements taken of stones irregular in outline are apt to be deceptive, and not until these, when tried, are found to fit accurately into the position suggested, alongside that which is in situ, on the second course of the upper wall, can we believe that such was their original position. It has been noted that these blocks were found in the excavation which disclosed the lower wall. Now there is clear suggestion, in plan and photograph, that the lower wall was antecedent to the upper, and bearing in mind the later level, which is best seen in the threshold between the sphinxes, it is highly improbable that the lower wall remained exposed to view at the time when the upper one was in use. It was probably already hidden by débris and ruins. The analogy of the palaces of Boghaz-Keui is entirely accordant. We are inclined, therefore, to believe that the two sculptured blocks in question (x, y), representing scenes of the chase, belong to the earlier period coeval with the lower wall. However that may be, the evidence before us tells of two distinct phases in the history of the Hittite Eyuk: the first when the site was surrounded by a town wall, possibly with a decorated gateway;[595] the second after the earlier works had been ruined (like the neighbouring palace of the Hatti at Boghaz-Keui), and in their place a palace was constructed with its entrance over the remains of the older gateway. Later in this chapter we shall find indication in an unplaced corner-stone (p) of still a third building period, to which alternatively the newly found blocks (x, y) may possibly be assigned.

PLATE LXXII

EYUK: SCULPTURES DECORATING LEFT FRONTAGE OF PALACE ENTRANCE

(See pp. [253-261].)

The sculptures decorating this palatial entrance are of two classes: there are the great monoliths forming the jambs of the gateway, fashioned like sphinxes (A, B, C, D), and there are the reliefs with which the walls of the frontage and the approach-way are adorned. The outer sphinxes (A, B) are almost identical: each is over seven feet in height, while the blocks of which they form a part are about ten feet high in all. The inner sphinxes must have been similar but smaller.[596] Only the forepart of the sphinx is represented, and that is in bold relief. The breast and fore legs are those of a large animal; this is generally supposed to represent a bull,[597] though that on the left has five toes or claws. There is a bagginess as of pendent flesh between the legs. The upper part is a human face, surrounded with a wig or head-dress of sorts, which has the shape of a horse-shoe, ending in front of the shoulders in a completed outward curve within which is an inner concentric circle. At the sides of the head this feature comes outwards and forwards like a hood to protect the ears and neck. It is fitted to the head by a broad band around the brow; from this there descend in front of the ears two long attachments to support a collar which forms a band under the chin. That on the left is plain; but that on the right is ornamented with three rosettes, each with six hollow loop-like petals. The ears are human, but large and too low down. The eye-sockets are hollowed as for insetting the eyes separately. The face is too weathered to preserve much character; it may be judged to have been full and round, especially in the upper part of the cheeks. The photograph speaks more clearly than any length of description.[598]

It has been supposed by early writers,[599] and repeated by many, that these sphinxes are of Egyptian suggestion. But the sphinx in general is not necessarily Egyptian: no one has traced any indigenous development of it as an artistic motive or as a religious symbol. It is much commoner in the Euphrates valley, where also it is found in greater variety of form. Its meaning in those more life-like representations becomes clearer. There the strength and dominion of the monarch are symbolised by the movement and force of the noble beast upon which his features are portrayed. But in Egypt the Sphinx is, for the most part, conventional and lifeless, an adaptation to the religious after-death symbolism which is the dominant motive of surviving Egyptian art. The familiar posture in early examples is sitting, and even the face is represented with so much conventionality and death-like mystery that it has given rise to an adjective in our language in the word ‘sphinx-like,’ implying an unvarying aspect of potential and mysterious serenity. Finally, no example of this class of sphinx, where the body is that of a bull, seems to have been found in Egypt, which could then hardly have provided the model for these standing ponderous bull-sphinxes of Eyuk.