Our real knowledge of them goes back only to the Persian

conquest in the middle of the sixth century. It was

included in the third satrapy of Darius’s empire, although

the satraps succeeded in making themselves virtually

independent. =Ariarathes I= maintained himself on the

throne after the conquest of Alexander. But at the latter’s

death Perdiccas took him prisoner and put him to death. His

son regained the throne, and his descendants ruled more

or less in full possession of the kingdom. They fought

against the Romans and afterwards with them, taking part

in the struggles in Bithynia and Pontus. On the death of

=Archelaus= (17 A.D.) the kingdom of Cappadocia was reduced

to a Roman province.

CILICIA

The Cilicians, like the Cappadocians, were a Semitic or

Aramæan people, ruled by a king with the title of Syennesis

as early as the time of Alyattes of Lydia (about 600 B.C.).

Cilicia passed successively into the Persian and Macedonian

empires and formed part of the Seleucid dominions. Owing

to loose government the western portion of Cilicia became

the stronghold of a great pirate confederation which was

stamped out by Pompey in 66 B.C. Cicero governed the country

as proconsul 51-50 B.C., but it did not formally become a

province until the time of Vespasian.

PAMPHYLIA AND PISIDIA

The peoples of these countries first appear in history in

Xenophon’s _Anabasis_. In fact, Cyrus the Younger gave as

his excuse for raising the army with which he tried to seize

his brother’s throne the necessity of putting down the

Pisidians, who were constantly harrying their neighbours.

At the time of Alexander the Great they made a determined

but unsuccessful resistance to the progress of the great

conqueror. They passed tranquilly to Roman dominion, though

they continued to be governed by their petty chiefs.

CARIA

Of the origin and early history of the Carians there

is practically nothing known. They passed with little

resistance under the Persian yoke, but joined the Ionic

revolt, and were only reduced again with difficulty. Until

the Macedonian conquest, although subject to Persia, the

country had rulers of its own at Halicarnassus, who came

strongly under the influence of Hellenic civilisation. The

last native prince was =Pexodarus=, and after his death

=Orontobates=, a Persian, seized the throne and offered a

vigorous resistance to Alexander. The latter bestowed the

country upon =Ada=, a native princess, but it soon became

a portion of the Macedonian empire, ruled by Syria and

Pergamus. At the extinction of the Pergamanian kingdom,

Caria became a part of the Roman province of Asia.

BITHYNIA

Bithynia was first populated by a tribe of Thracian origin,

first subdued by Crœsus, and then taken into the Persian

empire when the country formed part of the satrapy of

Phrygia. When the Seleucid monarchy fell into decay, the

kingdom of Bithynia arose. =Nicomedes I=, the first king,

founded Nicomedia during his long reign (278-250 B.C.).

His successors were =Prusias I=, =Prusias II=, =Nicomedes

II=, and =Nicomedes III=. This last king was unable to hold

out against Pontus, and was sustained on his throne by the

Romans. At his death (74 B.C.) he bequeathed his kingdom to

Rome.

PAPHLAGONIA

The Paphlagonians play little part in history, although they

were one of the most ancient nations of Asia Minor, and in

all probability belonged to the same Semitic race as the

Cappadocians. Under the Persian dominion they are said to

have had a prince of their own, and were not dependent upon

the Satraps. At Alexander’s death the country was assigned

with Cappadocia to Eumenes, but was still governed by native

rulers until it was absorbed by Pontus (183 B.C.).

GALATIA

The original Galatians were a body of Gauls that invaded

Asia Minor about 277 B.C. It had formed part of Brennus’

army, but separated from him, crossed into Asia Minor, and

ravaged its western portion. Attalus of Pergamus defeated

this people in 239 and compelled them to settle in Galatia,

where they maintained an independent existence and gave

the Romans much trouble in the wars against Antiochus.

But an army was sent directly against them, and they were

completely subjected to Rome, 189 B.C. At first the native

chiefs held power under tetrarchs. This system did not

hold, and soon there was only one ruler. One of the single

tetrarchs, Deiotarus, was styled King by the Roman Senate

for the assistance given in the Mithridatic wars. Galatia

was afterwards united with Lycaonia, Isauria, and their

adjoining districts under a king named =Amyntas=, and when

he died (25 B.C.) the country became a Roman province.

LYCAONIA

The Lycaonian tribes inhabited the interior of Asia Minor in

a district bounded by Galatia, Cappadocia, Cilicia, Phrygia,

and Pisidia. The country is first mentioned by Xenophon.

The people seem to have been a wild and lawless race of

freebooters, practically independent of the Persian and

Macedonian empires. They became, however, subjects of the

king, Amyntas, who ruled in Galatia, and at his death passed

with the latter country into the Roman Empire.

ISAURIA

Isauria lay to the west of Lycaonia. It does not appear

in the early history of Asia Minor, but its people

were undoubtedly similar in manners and customs to the

Lycaonians. Their sole prominence in ancient history is due

to the fact that they took so active a part in the war of

Rome against the Cilician pirates that P. Servilius, the

proconsul, found it necessary to pursue them into their own

country and reduce them to submission, which earned him the

title of Isauricus.

PONTUS

Pontus lay in the northeast corner of Asia Minor, bordering

on Armenia and Colchis. It was originally that part of

Cappadocia known as “Cappadocia on the Pontus,” and its

existence as a separate territory did not begin probably

until after the time of Alexander the Great. Under the

Persian empire the province was governed as a satrapy,

although virtually independent. Finally the satraps began

to call themselves kings. The first was =Ariobarzanes=,

about the middle of the fourth century B.C. His successor,

=Mithridates II=, the first really independent monarch,

began his reign 337 B.C. Then came a line of kings mostly

called Mithridates, who managed to rule independent of the

Macedonian monarchs, and extended their dominions along

the shores of the Euxine or Black Sea. When Sinope fell

(183 B.C.), captured by =Pharnaces I=, Bithynia became the

western boundary of the land, and under =Mithridates VI=

“the Great” nearly the whole of Asia Minor acknowledged

the sceptre of the powerful monarch. Pontus plays a part

in world history only in the wars of Mithridates and Rome,

a full account of which struggle will be found in the

history of the latter country. When Pompey finally subdued

Mithridates (65 B.C.), Pontus was confined to its original

limits, and afterwards united with Bithynia as a Roman

province. Mark Antony placed the government of a portion

of the province in the hands of a Greek rhetorician named

=Polemon=, whose descendants continued to rule until the

time of Nero, when it was finally annexed to the empire.

ARMENIA

This was the Urartu of the Assyrian inscriptions, the Ararat

of the Bible. It seems originally to have been one of the

countries of Nairi, and gradually gained superiority over

the others. It extended northward from Lake Van, between

the Upper Euphrates and Media. The Assyrians began their

assaults on Urartu at the time of Tiglathpileser I (_ca._

1100 B.C.). Asshurnazirpal marched through its southern

districts, but made no attempt to annex it to his dominions.

Shalmaneser II laid the first plan for conquest. In 860 and

857 he invaded Urartu while =Arame= was king, defeating that

monarch and bringing his dynasty to an end. A new house came

to the throne, founded by =Sarduris I=, son of Lutipris.

He immediately extended his borders by conquest and

strengthened his kingdom, so, when the Assyrians came again

in 850, 833, and 829, they went home without making any real

progress in the north and west. Shalmaneser III (782-773)

made six ineffectual campaigns against Urartu, which was

now a real menace to the Assyrian empire. =Argistis= of

Urartu wrested considerable territory from the Assyrians,

and his successor, =Sarduris II=, continued the conquest of

adjacent territory, and, forming a coalition of northern

princes, started on a conquest of Syria. At this moment the

prospects of Armenia becoming a great world-power were very

bright, but Tiglathpileser III, of Assyria, having the same

ambitions, encountered Sarduris and badly defeated him.

The boundaries of Urartu were gradually narrowed to their

original limits by the Assyrian conqueror about 735 B.C.

The capital, Turuspa (Van), was besieged, but not taken;

the spirit of Urartu was now completely broken. =Ursa= or

=Rusas= succeeded Sarduris. Sargon II, of Assyria, had many

conflicts with him, and when his son, =Argistis II=, came

to the throne, he had only a small territory around Lake

Van left to rule over. =Tigranes I= was the contemporary of

Cyrus. After the fall of Assyria Armenia became a portion

of the Persian empire. Alexander the Great conquered it

with the defeat of King =Vahi=, but the Macedonian yoke

was thrown off in 317 B.C. =Ardvates= was chosen king, but

at his death the Seleucidæ again gained possession. When

Antiochus the Great was defeated by the Romans, =Artaxias=,

the governor of Greater Armenia, made himself independent.

It was with this prince that the exiled Hannibal found

refuge. =Zadriades=, in Lesser Armenia, followed the example

of Artaxias, and his descendants maintained their position

until the time of Tigranes II, when this country was annexed

to Greater Armenia.

About 150 B.C. the Parthians stepped in, and Mithridates I

established his brother =Valarsaces= in Armenia. Thus a new

branch of the Asarcid dynasty was founded.

=Tigranes II= gave promise of making a great empire, but

his father-in-law, Mithridates of Pontus, brought him in

collision with the Romans. Pompey allowed him to keep

Armenia, and made a new kingdom of Sophene and Gordyene, but

another son, =Artavasdes=, tried to free himself from Rome,

and Mark Antony carried him prisoner to Alexandria, where he

was beheaded by Cleopatra (30 B.C.).

THE LYDIANS

The territory of Lydia was originally confined to the

Plain of Sardis at the foot of Tmolus and Sipylus. Later

it extended to include the Troad and became a maritime as

well as an inland power. The coast of Ionia came under its

dominion and at the time of Crœsus all Asia Minor west of

the Halys, with the exception of Lycia, composed the Lydian

kingdom.

B.C. The Lydian rulers traced their origin back to the sun-god

Hercules, but there was an earlier dynasty which, however,

is purely mythical, founded by Attys, another form of the

sun-god. The Heraclid Dynasty shows Hittite or perhaps

Semitic influence, and was founded by a son of Ninus and a

descendant of Hercules and Omphale. About the end of the

thirteenth century B.C. Lydia was conquered by the Hittites,

and the Heraclid Dynasty seems to have arisen with the decline

of the Hittite rule. It is said to have lasted 505 years and

690 come to an end with =Sadyattes=--the =Candaules= of

Herodotus--who is slain by one of his herdsmen, Gyges,

with the connivance of the queen. =Gyges= founds the

dynasty of the Mermnadæ.

660 The kingdom is overrun by the Cimmerians. They capture

Sardis. Gyges appeals to Asshurbanapal for aid. The latter

beseeches the gods Asshur and Ishtar to aid Gyges, who gains

a great victory over the invaders. But Gyges turns against

Asshurbanapal. He sends aid to Psamthek against the

Assyrians (655 B.C.).

652 The Cimmerians return, retake Sardis, and Gyges is

slain in battle. His son =Ardys= succeeds. He at once gives

allegiance to Assyria.

617 =Sadyattes= succeeds his father Ardys. He ends an eleven

years’ war with Miletus.

612 =Alyattes= succeeds his father Sadyattes. Under him

Phrygia is conquered, and the Greek cities of the coast are

taken. The latter pay heavy duties to the Lydian king, and

he thus becomes the richest monarch of the time.

585 Treaty with the Phrygians fixing boundaries of the two

countries. Lydia is now threatened with the growing power of

the Manda or eastern Scythians, and a six years’ struggle

is ended by the marriage of Alyattes’ daughter, Aryenis,

to Astyages, king of the Manda. The two kingdoms become

friendly.

560 =Crœsus= ascends the throne on the death of his father

Alyattes. He makes friends with Miltiades, the tyrant of the

Thracian Chersonesus.

546 Crœsus heads an alliance with Aahmes II of Egypt,

Nabonidus of Babylon, and the Spartans against Cyrus of

Elam, who has overthrown his suzerain Astyages of the Manda.

He enters Cappadocia on his way to meet Cyrus, is defeated

in two battles and retires to Sardis. The allies do not

send aid and the city falls. Lydia is absorbed into the

Persian empire and then into the Greek. At Alexander’s death

Lydia passed to Antigonus; then Achæus made himself king of

Sardis, but Antiochus put him to death. Eumenes presented

the country to the Romans, and subsequently it formed part

of the province of Asia.

FOOTNOTES

[10] [There still exists an uncertainty as to the chronological order

of these two kings. Meyer places Mari first, although the Biblical

narrative would indicate the reverse to be the true order.]

CHAPTER I. THE HITTITES

When we pass to the north and west from Syria and Mesopotamia, we enter

a region by no means so well known as the home of the Semites. The

peninsula of Asia Minor is so situated, geographically, that it is the

only highway between Asia and Europe, much as Palestine is the highway

between Asia and Africa. The peoples which inhabited it were therefore

necessarily, in some sense, a buffer between the great nations of the

two continents. For the most part, the rôle they played, at any rate in

later history, was a comparatively insignificant one. It is becoming

more and more evident, however, that there was a time in ancient

history,--using the term in the ordinary or relative sense,--when the

people who inhabited Asia Minor took a foremost rank among the nations

of their time as a warlike and conquering race.

This people is known as the Hittite race: just who they were, or

whence they came, we have no present means of ascertaining. They are

vaguely referred to in the Bible records as descendants of Heth, son

of Canaan, the son of Ham, and they are even mentioned as one of the

seven Canaanite tribes, but no one nowadays ascribes great historical

importance to these Hebrew records.

It is only recently that the students of ancient history have come to

recognise the importance of the tribe bearing the name of Hittite;

indeed, in so far as the Bible records throw any light upon them at

all, it would now appear that the impression it conveyed was quite a

faulty one, for the Hittites were represented as a people over whom the

Hebrews were able to gain an advantage with great ease. It now appears

that they were in point of fact one of the most powerful and warlike of

ancient nations. There is one Bible narrative, familiar to every one,

which would lead one to suppose that the Hittites were at times allies

or subordinates of the Hebrews. It will be recalled that Bathsheba,

the mother of Solomon, was the wife of a man designated as Uriah the

Hittite, at the time when she was seduced by David, and the further

details of this shameful history, in which David shielded himself from

the consequences of his misdeed by arranging what was substantially

the assassination of Uriah, are only too clearly known to all readers

of Biblical history. If, however, this Uriah were really a Hittite, it

is quite clear that he must have been a man of some distinction, and

in any event it is probable that the presence of a Hittite in the army

of David was a quite exceptional circumstance, for at this time the

Hittites were still a powerful nation, at least the equals, if not the

superiors, of the Hebrews themselves.

The time of the greatest power of the Hittites, however, was some

centuries earlier, for it is now known that this people is to be

identified with the Kheta of the Egyptians and the Khatti of the

Assyrians. It will be recalled that the Egyptians under Tehutimes

III waged war against the Kheta, as did Seti in a later succeeding

generation. But in particular the Kheta are memorable in Egyptian

annals because of the great battle at Kadesh, their city on the

Orontes, in which Ramses II so distinguished himself. It was this

battle, it will be recalled, which is celebrated in that famous

description still extant--a description which represents Ramses as

combating single-handed against hosts of the enemy, and himself

personally destroying the hundred thousand of his assailants. Making

all due allowance for the manifest exaggeration usual in oriental

inscriptions, it is conceded that Ramses actually gained the victory

on this occasion; but it is also clear from the inscriptions that the

people against whom this war was waged was regarded as one of the most

powerful, if not the very most important, of contemporary nations.

At a slightly later period, when the new Assyrian empire was

waxing strong, the Hittites found an enemy on the other side in

Tiglathpileser, who defeated them in a memorable battle, as also a few

centuries later did Ashurnazirpal. The latter prince, it would appear,

completely subjected them and carried their princes into captivity. Yet

they waxed strong again, and took up arms in alliance with Ben-Hadad

of Syria against Shalmaneser II in the year 855; and though again

defeated, their power was not entirely broken until the year 717 B.C.,

when Sargon utterly subjected them and deported the inhabitants of

their city of Carchemish to a city of Assyria, repeopling it with his

own subjects.

All these details of the contests of the Hittites against the Egyptians

on the one hand and Assyrians on the other were quite unknown until

the records of the monuments of Egypt and Assyria were made accessible

through the efforts of recent scholars. But it now appears, judged

only by the records of their enemies, that the Hittites were a very

powerful and important nation for many centuries, and more recent

explorations of Asia Minor have brought to light various monuments,

which are believed to be records made by the Hittites themselves. To

the delight and mystification of oriental scholars it was found that

these monuments contained inscriptions in hieroglyphic characters of a

kind quite different from any hitherto known. These inscriptions have

been carefully studied, in particular by Professor Sayce who has made

himself the greatest authority on the subject. As yet, however, very

little progress has been made toward the decipherment of this new form

of writing. It would appear, however,--at least, such is the opinion of

Professor Sayce and others best competent to judge,--that this Hittite

script is quite independent of any other form of writing of which we

have any knowledge.

It has long been the opinion of scholars that the art of writing

originated quite independently in at least four different centres;

namely, China, Central America, Egypt, and Mesopotamia; but the

discovery of the Hittite monuments seems to add a fifth form. It

would be going much beyond the secure footing of present knowledge to

assert positively that these five hieroglyphic scripts were really

of absolutely independent origin. What we have already said of the

vagueness of our knowledge of the early history of man applies with

full force here, but with this qualification, it is held that the

Hittite hieroglyphics are a thing utterly apart, and if, perchance, at

some very remote period, they had the same point of departure as any

of the other scripts, there are no present means of proving the fact.

It is believed by Professor Sayce and others that the hieroglyphic

syllabary found on the monuments of Cyprus is based on this Hittite

system of hieroglyphics, and not upon those of Egypt and Mesopotamia.

Aside from their mystifying hieroglyphics, the recently discovered

monuments of the Hittites have a peculiar interest because of their

rude sculptures which, notwithstanding their primitive character as

works of art, are quite unique and very individual. The figures of

these sculptures are always represented as wearing a peculiar form of

shoe with upturned toe; their headdress is also very typical, usually

consisting of a high conical cap. These features, along with the other

less marked ones, serve to show that the artist had in mind always to

represent a characteristic ethnic type.

It is held by scholars that their language was equally characteristic

and more sharply differentiated from any known contemporary tongue, and

though the point is not yet as fully established as might be wished,

it is thought that the evidence in hand justifies the conclusion that

the Hittites were not a Semitic race. It has been even suggested that

they had Mongoloid affinities. If such was the case, the Hittites

were related rather to the people of the north and northeast--to the

Scythians, perhaps even to the Chinese--than to their neighbours of

the south. But all these questions must await the results of future

investigations. For the moment the Hittites are only just beginning to

be revealed to us as a great conquering nation of Western Asia, who at

one time rivalled the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians, but the memory

of whose deeds had almost altogether faded from the minds of later

generations.[a]

RECENT HITTITE RESEARCH

The results of recent Hittite research have been summarised by

Charles W. Super. In essence, he says that during the past two

decades no problems of antiquity have received more careful study and

thorough investigation than have those connected with the history

and civilisation of the people now known as the Hittites; and yet no

historical data have been determined with sufficient certainty for a

cautious student to draw conclusions even fairly definite. Something

like order has been brought out of the pre-existing chaos of that

nation’s history, and a few simple facts established; but the results

of all this study have been largely conjectural, and the details of the

researches, fascinating though they may be to the historian and the

antiquarian, have but little interest or value to other students. What

is known in a historical sense of this ancient people can be briefly

outlined.

We are quite certain that several centuries before our era the Hittites

founded a powerful empire in Western Asia, probably with outlying

provinces in Africa, and even in Europe as far west as Italy. The

greatness of this nation we are able to conjecture from the numerous

references made to it in the Bible and Egyptian history, and from the

mighty monuments of its power that still exist. The carved figures

on these monuments and the representations given by the Egyptians,

prove the Hittites to have been of an altogether different physical

type from the Semites, and, therefore, of a different race; but their

origin has not been clearly determined. The burden of proof appears

to favour a Mongol ancestry, and is supported by physical and lingual

characteristics common to both races.

Their primitive home is thought to have been in that part of Armenia

where the Euphrates, the Halys, and Lycus approach nearest to one

another; and it is even asserted that the modern Armenians are

descendants of the old Hittites. From this point they began their

career of conquests, probably under the leadership of some able and

vigorous chief, whose ambition overleaped his native boundaries.

One conquest led to another. Their leaders acquired great armies,

and subdued many nations, until the Hittites became one of the

most powerful peoples of ancient times, and their kings were able

successfully to defy even Egypt, at that time the strongest nation on

the globe. Then began their decline. They came in conflict with the

more progressive Semitic race, and finally were subdued or exterminated

by them.

This, in brief, gives the meagre results of modern Hittite research;

but the details of the conjecture and theories evolved by the

antiquarians concerning this remarkable people would fill many volumes,

and be of interest only to historians and antiquarians. A few of the

more important facts may be stated however.[ab]

Traces of Hittite influence have been discovered all over Asia Minor,

and the oldest inhabitants of the peninsula seem to have been closely

allied both by race and language with this non-Semitic people of

northern Syria. Rather more than two thousand years before Christ the

Hittites were, as the cuneiform inscriptions testify, the northwestern

neighbours of the territory of the Euphrates. The great astrological

work of the old king Sargon of Agade contains this entry:

“On the 16th (of the month of Abu) there was an eclipse; the king of

Agade died; the god Nergal (_i.e._, war) devoured the land.

“On the 20th (of the month Abu) there was an eclipse; the king of the

land of the Khatti made an attack (?) and gained possession of the

throne.”

THE HITTITES AND THE EGYPTIANS

We do not again hear of the Hittites until near the close of the

seventeenth century before Christ, but then it is from contemporary

Egyptian records. Ramses I had made an offensive and defensive treaty

with them, which a sense of their power encouraged them to break and

thus involve themselves in a war with Seti I, in which the latter was

successful.

In the fifth year of the reign of Ramses the Great a great war broke

out between the Kheta and the Egyptians, and the king of the enemy,

Kheta-sar, assembled his troops and auxiliaries at Kadesh. Various

texts, amongst which is the famous heroic poem once credited to a

copyist, Pentaur, have commemorated the great battle of Kadesh; in this

way we may easily read between the lines that the triumph which Ramses

gained there was a Pyrrhic victory.

It was followed by a peace between Ramses and Kheta-sar, a copy of

which is still preserved on a stele of a southern wall of the great

hypostyle of Karnak. This highly interesting document “compels,” as

Ebers says, the greatest “respect for the high state of civilisation

in the Asiatic kingdom and the advanced political organisation of the

two nations bound by this document.” This treaty, which in Brugsch’s

translation fills seven large octavo pages, emanated from the Kheta

king who had a draft of it on a silver tablet submitted to Ramses

in the twenty-first year of the latter’s reign. In the centre of

this tablet was a portrait in relief of the chief god of the Kheta,

“Sutekh, king of heaven and earth.” Ramses was glad to be able to end

the long war in so honourable a fashion, and most willingly accepted

the proposal of the great king of the Kheta, the “powerful.” We even

know the nature of the characters which are engraved on that silver

tablet, and can obtain, from a crowd of proper names, a clew to the

family to which the Hittite language did, or, what is almost as good,

to that to which it did not belong. We learn that it cannot in any

case have been a Semitic tongue, and finally we are in a position to

form a good idea from the representations on the walls of the Egyptian

temples, as well as from recently discovered Hittite monuments, of the

dress and even the colour of the skin of this ancient civilised nation.

But first let us briefly outline the remainder of its history.

[Illustration: THE HITTITE LION, BEARING AN INSCRIPTION

(Now in British Museum)]

We now come to the oldest inscription of the Assyrian kings, and there,

on the stone-tablet of Adad-nirari I (_ca._ 1340 B.C.), we find that

ruler at war with the people of the Lulumi and Shubari, two tribes in

northern Syria. These northern countries are directly connected with

the Hittites in the great royal annals of Tiglathpileser I (_ca._

1100 B.C.), where Column ii. 89 runs, “The land of the Shubari the

refractory, the insubordinate, I subdued; on the land of Alzi and the

land of Purukhumi which had refused their tribute, I laid the yoke of

my lordship; … four thousand inhabitants of Kashka, of Uruma, people

of the land of Khatti, the insubordinate who in the pride of their

strength had taken towns of the land of Shubartu which were subject to

my lord Asshur; they heard of my march against Shubartu, the splendour

of my strength overthrew them; they avoided a battle and embraced my

feet.”

Further, in Column v. line 48, etc., “[The territory] of the region

of the land of Sukhi to Kargamisch [the spelling here indicates the

Bible Carchemish] in the land of the Khatti, I plundered in one day,”

and finally by way of recapitulation in Column vi. 39, etc., “From

the beginning of my rule to the fifth year of my reign my hand has

conquered in the whole forty-two countries and defeated their princes

from beyond the Lower Zab as far as to beyond the Euphrates and the

land of Khatti and the Upper Sea towards the sunset (_i.e._, Phœnicia).”

From these inscriptions it seems that the term Shubartu (land of the

Shubari) had a general significance, and denoted the whole of the

mountainous territory in the north of Mesopotamia proper, that is

east of Kummukh and on the hither side of the Euphrates. Thus neither

Asshur-uballit nor Adad-nirari I penetrated to the narrower sphere of

Hittite rule, and it was only towards the end of the twelfth century

B.C. that Tiglathpileser I made war against it directly and with

success.

This again confirms the view that the most flourishing period of the

powerful kingdom of the Hittites and of its civilisation was in the

fourteenth and perhaps also in the thirteenth century before Christ.

THE HITTITES AND THE HEBREWS

The Hebrew literature furnishes us with further information. From this

we learn that in the year 1000 B.C. and later (in the time of David

and Solomon) the Hittites were Israel’s neighbours on the northern

frontier, and that intermarriages even took place between the Hittites

and the Israelites. For Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite, was

an Israelitish woman of good family. So far south then did the power

of the Hittites extend in the most ancient period of the Israelite

kingdom, though the former had been already much endangered by the

invasion of a new people, the Aramæans, who had probably wandered there

as nomads from the eastern bank of the Euphrates.

In brief, those Hittites whom we had hitherto looked upon as more or

less dim figures have suddenly revealed themselves to us in a new

character, and it is almost impossible to say in what department of the

science of antiquity they will not prove of pre-eminent importance.

As regards Semitic antiquity in particular, they possibly possess the

same value for a correct estimate of the relics of the civilisation

of the northern Canaanites and the western Syrians as the Sumerians

and Accadians have in respect to the civilisation of the Semitic

Babylonians and Assyrians and of the Hebrews. Further inquiry, and

certainly rich accessions of material, will clear up many points at

which it is at present only permissible to guess; and perhaps the

immediate future may bring the most interesting conclusion, especially

regarding their linguistic position and also in respect to their

religious history.[c]

HITTITE ART

There is no originality in the Hittite art of Syria. It is Assyrian

art, interpreted by barbarians and debased in the process. With the

exception of one rude torso, found in Cilicia, and the inscribed statue

of a lion from Marash, it is all in low relief, according to Assyrian

precedent, and the costumes and attitudes of the figures have evidently

been copied from the Assyrian, though we remark some difference of

detail. For example, the Hittite Astarte, corresponding to the Istar

of Babylon and similarly represented, has the special peculiarities of

being winged and wearing a conical tiara.

The debasement of the art in Hittite hands is exhibited by a series

of bas-reliefs found at Sindjerli, and another in a mound in the

same district. The latter of these represents a lion hunt, evidently

copied from some Ninevite model, but without any of the vigour which

the Assyrians put into their sculptures. The animal appears to be

submitting with perfect tranquillity, while he is stabbed to death with

javelots.

Farther west, and especially in Cilicia, the sculptures become more

original, but also more rude. The special attributes of the Hittites,

as shown in these monuments, are the diadem, the women’s tall cap

with a long veil, and the pointed shoes. The latter, however, are the

ordinary wear of the modern populations of Asia Minor.

One canton of Cappadocia, the Pteria of Herodotus, contains many

Hittite ruins. The village of Boghaz-Keui, its ancient capital,

possesses bas-reliefs cut in the rock, and the remains of a royal

palace having many points in common with those of Assyria. The same is

true of the palace of Euiuk; but a sphinx, placed at the door, betrays

an Egyptian influence, though details of its sculpture have been

borrowed from Assyria.

Both influences are also apparent in the rock sculpture of Boghaz-Keui,

called Iasili-Kaïa, “the written stone,” and with these the sculptures

of the palace of Euiuk have much in common. But while the Assyrian

monuments are in honour of the sovereigns, these of the Hittites all

have a religious significance and refer to the worship of the god Men

or the goddess Ma or Enio, who corresponds to Anaïtis or Astarte.

The tombs of Gherdek-Kaïasi, not far from Boghaz-Keui and Euiuk,

seem also to belong to this Cappadocian civilisation. The façade of

the principal vault has a portico with three short columns, somewhat

suggestive of the Doric style. These tombs perhaps belong to a period

not earlier than 549 B.C., the year when Crœsus ravaged Pteria.

To sum up, we may conclude with M. Perrot that the monuments of

Boghaz-Keui and Euiuk, which bear witness to the primitive Cappadocian

civilisation, have all, like those of northern Syria, come under the

Assyrian influence. The palaces are like “a reduced copy of the great

royal edifices of the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates.” The winged

figures, the monsters with eagles’ or lions’ heads, are Assyrian, as

are also the divinities carried on the backs of different quadrupeds,

the flowers in the hands of the persons represented, and the winged

globe, the image of Asshur.

Certain features of the Cappadocian sculptures appear on as good

evidence to be borrowed from Egypt, Persia, and even from the Greeks of

Asia Minor; but this is the exception. In any case there is nothing in

the Hittite art of Pteria that is original or shows individuality, if

we except the two-headed eagle, which is evidently connected with the

oldest Asiatic forms of worship and reminds us of the Sirens; and if we

also except the long curved _lituus_, the dress cut in the shape of a

chasuble, the pointed tiara, and the peaked shoes: details of costume

more interesting from the point of view of fashion than from that of

art.

As to the relations between the sculptures of Pteria and those of

Hittite Syria they are obvious: we have the same hieroglyphics,

the same short tunic, the same long robe, the same foot-gear, the

same pointed tiara, and the same round cap. The female dress is

almost identical at Marash and Iasili-Kaïa; the divinities have

like attributes; the lion and the bull are animals which figure by

preference in either place.

We may conclude that the same semi-barbarous nation, lacking the power

to free itself, either artistically or politically, from the yoke of

Egypt and Assyria, inhabited the two slopes of the Taurus.

HITTITE MONUMENTS IN ASIA MINOR

North of the Taurus and beyond the Halys, the monuments connected

with Hittite civilisation are, as in Cappadocia, bas-reliefs carved

on the sides of rocks or elsewhere. At Ivris, in Lycaonia, there is

an inscription in Hittite hieroglyphics and also two colossal figures

with unmistakably Assyrian characteristics, and at Iflatun, also

in Lycaonia, the winged globe, the divine symbol both in Egypt and

Assyria, can still be discerned on the fragment of a ruined building.

Farther west the Hittite monuments become more rare. Two bas-reliefs,

which Herodotus mentions as having been carved by order of Ramses II,

have been discovered in Lydia. They represent a warrior wearing the

conical tiara, the short tunic and the peaked shoe. He is armed with

a spear and bow. The style is the same as that of the bas-reliefs of

Cilicia, Lycaonia, Cappadocia, and Syria.

The serpentine moulds which were used for manufacturing metal ornaments

or charms are superior in workmanship, though here also the ideas

represented are evidently Assyrian. But the best Hittite work was

lavished on the glyptic art, as is shown by their seals and cylinders.

A cylinder found at Aidin in Lydia even exhibits some originality in

its ornamental border, though the scene represented is Assyrian.[e]

The districts of Asia Minor were repeatedly attacked and probably

subjugated for considerable periods by the Hittite kings. Everywhere

in Asia Minor they left monuments of their campaigns which exactly

correspond in style with the monuments of Jerabis, and in part also

bear remains of Hamathite inscriptions. Since the discovery of

Jerabis there can be no further doubt as to their origin. Among their

characteristic peculiarities is the costume, with a high pointed

cap and pointed shoes; the figures are usually cut in profile, with

widespread legs.

The first of these monuments is an inscribed relief at Ivris on the

northern slope of the Taurus, which represents a prince in rich

Assyrian costume worshipping a god who is standing and bearing grapes

and ears of corn.

Then there are sculptures on the wall of an ancient building at Iflatun

on Lake Karaliti in Isauria, and the figure of a warrior in Iconium.

From here the Hittites penetrated into Phrygia and to the coast of

the Ægean Sea. On a cliff below the ancient fortress Giaurkalesi in

Phrygia (southwest of Ancyra) are the figures of two Hittite warriors

wearing a modification of the Egyptian _uræus_ serpent on the front of

their caps. The two famous reliefs of Nymphæum on the cliffs of Sipylus

which are mentioned in Herodotus and on which remains of Hamathite

inscriptions have been preserved, are quite similar. There is also on

Sipylus, near Magnesia, a rude rock-sculpture with symbols of the same

alphabet, which perhaps represents a goddess, and was looked upon by

the Greeks as Niobe.

But the ruins and sculptures found at Euiuk and Boghaz-Keui, east

of the Halys, in Cappadocian territory, are the most important and

extensive. At the former place are the ruins of a great palace, with an

entrance guarded by two sphinxes; on the walls are numerous sculptures

of gods and men, lions, bulls, and beings of mixed form, among them

a double-headed eagle. At Boghaz-Keui are the ruins of an ancient

fortress (the Pteria of Herodotus?), and the walls of a rocky gorge

show a long procession, presumably of a religious character. The most

important symbols on all these monuments are modifications of the

winged sun-disk.

These monuments enable us to perceive clearly the extent of the

Hittite conquests. From now on Carchemish, instead of the valley of

the Orontes, forms the centre of the Hittite realm, and evidently

becomes the residence of the kings. Aside from this, however, only very

uncertain reports of these wars have come down to us.

One passage in the _Odyssey_ says that Neoptolemus killed Eurypylus,

the son of Telephus, prince of the Κήτειοι, who is later always called

prince of Teuthrania; evidently a trace of the name of the Hittites has

been preserved here.

Perhaps we may also detect a reminiscence of their campaigns in the

Greek legend of the Ethiopian Memnon, son of the dawn, who undertook

great campaigns and hastened to the aid of Priam. Herodotus (II, 106)

says that the reliefs of Nymphæum, which he claims for Sesostris,

were declared by others to be portraits of Memnon. In other respects,

however, the dim tradition that the Greeks preserved of these conquests

was transferred to the Egyptians (expeditions of Sesostris to Asia

Minor and Thrace) and the Assyrians. Moreover, when Lydian tradition

connects the royal family of the Heraclidæ with Ninus the son of Belus,

the legendary representatives of the Assyrians have perhaps here taken

the place of the Hittites, for the Assyrians did not come into direct

contact with the Lydians until the seventh century.

A further reminiscence of the wars of the Lydians and the Hittites is

perhaps contained in two fragments of the Lydian Xanthus, which refer

to the expeditions of the Lydian hero Mopsus (Moxos?) and Askalus,

brother of Tantalus, to Syria and especially to Askalon.

The effects of the Syrian conquest upon Asia Minor were permanent in

an unusual degree. It has long been recognised that the names of the

Lydian kings Sadyattes and Alyattes, and also Myattes, are Semitic

forms; now we may perhaps venture the conjecture that the Lydian royal

family of the Heraclidæ was of Hittite origin. Furthermore, we can now

identify the god Attes (Attys) of Asia Minor directly with the Syrian

Ate and ascribe to him a foreign origin. In fact, the religion of Asia

Minor shows a very intimate connection with that of the Semites, which,

however, could not hitherto be explained with certainty.[d]

[Illustration: HITTITE BAS-RELIEF AT IBREEZ, LYCAONIA]

CHAPTER II. SCYTHIANS AND CIMMERIANS

THE SCYTHIANS

Scythian is a word of somewhat vague application, designating the

barbaric tribes of middle Asia and northern Europe, who from time to

time invaded the territories of their more civilised neighbours of

the south. They are most prominently noticed in Asiatic history with

the conquests of Darius I, who made a memorable invasion of Scythia,

as recorded by Herodotus a few centuries later. The Scythians were so

powerful as to demand the attention of Alexander the Great before he

could feel free to undertake his Asiatic invasion. At a still later

period the Scythian hordes invaded Greece itself and even captured

Athens. In a word we must recall that at almost every historic period

of antiquity the Scythian hordes were hovering about the northern

bounds of the oriental civilised world, and from time to time harassing

even such powerful nations as the Assyrians and Persians.

Yet if we strive to place the Scythian in the ethnic scale, we find

ourselves quite unable to do so. The Scythians were barbarians, and

barbarians have no history in the narrower sense of the word. That

these same barbarians were the progenitors, in the direct line, of

nations that were to make themselves felt at later periods of history

can hardly be in question, but the fact is not susceptible of proof.

For our present purpose it will suffice, after a brief citation of

two modern authorities, to view the Scythians through the eyes of the

ancient Greeks, chiefly Herodotus, recognising that their rôle was

a subordinate one in the scheme of Ancient history, and remembering

that modern historians have been able to do little but paraphrase

the ancient accounts, and to criticise them from various personal

standpoints.

The Scythians in their emigration into Asia were careful to avoid

the powerful country of Assyria. The stream parted at the northern

frontier, one branch passing to the east, the other to the west. The

eastern branch will come into prominence later, when we treat of the

Manda, under the history of Persia.[a]

_Scythian Influences in Asia Minor_

The powerful invasion of Scythian influence into historical life and

historical development, and its great influence on the intellectual

life of the peoples of Asia Minor (which may be traced in the

so-called Hittite monuments, in the Amazonian myths, in the worship of

the Chalybian Jupiter or Ares, and in the transformation of the Greek

hero, Hercules, into the hero of Asia Minor, confused with the sun-god

of the Scythians and the peninsula) cannot be without its influence

in the domain of true history. It is impossible to think of the

Chalybian-Cimmerian or the Amazonian expeditions as achieving momentary

destruction but leaving no trace in the historical life of the nations.

On the contrary, everything points to the conclusion that over and

above these warlike expeditions a permanent state of affairs was called

into being in Asia Minor.

The new conditions form the life and character of the post-Homeric

section of the ancient history of Asia Minor before the Persian

empire. And in regard to these new conditions in the eastern half

of the peninsula, we find there the powerful kingdoms of Moschi and

Tubal, which stretched from Pontus as far as Cilicia and Mesopotamia,

and for centuries obstinately vindicated their independence against

the overwhelming power of Assyria. Still more important, though also

more complicated, are the ethnological, political, and the general

historical conditions of the post-Homeric world in the western half of

Asia Minor.

Not to mention the changes introduced into the countries along the

coast by the founding of numerous Greek colonies, we see that the

Homeric Asia Minor of the ancient Pelasgian peoples, the Trojans,

Ascanians, Mæonians, Esionians, and the pre-Homeric or Homeric

Phrygians, shows in the post-Homeric world a shape which differs from

the former in many aspects. Thus we come across new names of peoples

and countries, as the Lydians, Thynians, Bithynians, Lasonians,

Chalybians, Hygennes; names of new dynasties, as the Sandonids

(Heraclids) and Mermnadæ of Lydia; new names of kingdoms and towns, as

Lydia, Sardis, Smyrna, Ephesus, and new names of gods, new cults, new

names of demon-gods or of priests. The “man-equalling” Amazons, who are

referred to in Homer as a host dwelling beyond Phrygia and inimical

to the peoples of western Asia Minor, now appear as native to western

Asia Minor, as allies of Troy and founders of towns in that part of the

peninsula.

This new post-Homeric world of western Asia Minor at last finds its

centre and culmination on the soil of true history, in the founding

and development of the Lydian empire. In this world the Scythian

expeditions play much the same part as the Doric immigration in the

post-Homeric Greece; and as there that immigration ends with the

creation of new states, so also the Scythian immigrations into Asia

Minor have an important result in the foundation of a great kingdom in

the west of that peninsula, namely the Lydian kingdom.[b]

_Scythian Movements_

The Scythians formed for several centuries an important section of the

Grecian contemporary world. Their name, unnoticed by Homer, occurs for

the first time in the Hesiodic poems. When the Homeric Zeus in the

_Iliad_ turns his eye away from Troy toward Thrace, he sees, besides

the Thracians and Mysians, other tribes whose names cannot be made

out, but whom the poet knows as milk-eaters and mare-milkers; and the

same characteristic attributes, coupled with that of “having wagons

for their dwelling-houses,” appear in Hesiod connected with the name

of the Scythians: and the earliest proof which we find of Scythia,

as a territory familiar to Grecian ideas and feeling, is found in a

fragment of the poet Alcæus (_ca._ 600 B.C.), wherein he addresses

Achilles as “sovereign of Scythia.” There were, besides, several other

Milesian foundations on or near the Tauric Chersonesus (Crimea) which

brought the Greeks into conjunction with the Scythians--Heraclea,

Chersonesus, and Theodosia, on the southern coast and the southwestern

corner of the peninsula--Panticapæum and the Teian colony of Phanagoria

(these two on the European and Asiatic sides of the Cimmerian Bosporus

respectively), and Cepi, Hermonassa, etc., not far from Phanagoria, on

the Asiatic coast of the Euxine: last of all, there was, even at the

extremity of the Palus Mæotis (Sea of Azov), the Grecian settlement of

Tanais.

All or most of these seem to have been founded during the course of the

sixth century B.C., though the precise dates of most of them cannot be

named; probably several of them anterior to the time of the mystic poet

Aristeas of Proconnesus, about 540 B.C. His long voyage from the Palus

Mæotis (Sea of Azov) into the interior of Asia as far as the country of

the Issedones (described in the poem, now lost, called the Arimaspian

verses), implies an habitual intercourse between Scythians and Greeks

which could not well have existed without Grecian establishments on the

Cimmerian Bosporus.

Hecatæus of Miletus appears to have given much geographical information

respecting the Scythian tribes; but Herodotus, who personally visited

the town of Olbia, together with the inland regions adjoining to it,

and probably other Grecian settlements in the Euxine (at a time which

we may presume to have been about 450-440 B.C.)--and who conversed

with both Scythians and Greeks competent to give him information--has

left us far more valuable statements respecting the Scythian people,

dominion, and manners, as they stood in his day. His conception

of the Scythians, as well as that of Hippocrates, is precise and

well-defined--very different from that of the later authors, who use

the word almost indiscriminately to denote all barbarous nomads. His

territory called Scythia is a square area, twenty days’ journey or

four thousand stadia (somewhat less than five hundred English miles)

in each direction--bounded by the Danube (the course of which river

he conceives in a direction from N. W. to S. E.), the Euxine, and the

Palus Mæotis with the river Tanais, on three sides respectively--and

on the fourth or north side by the nations called Agathyrsi, Neuri,

Androphagi, and Melanchlæni. However imperfect his idea of the figure

of this territory may be found, if we compare it with a good modern

map, the limits which he gives us are beyond all dispute: from the

Lower Danube and the mountains eastward of Transylvania to the Lower

Tanais, the whole area was either occupied by or subject to the

Scythians. And this name comprised tribes differing materially in

habits and civilisation. The great mass of the people who bore it,

strictly nomadic in their habits,--neither sowing nor planting, but

living only on food derived from animals, especially mare’s milk and

cheese--moved from place to place, carrying their families in wagons

covered with wicker and leather, themselves always on horseback with

their flocks and herds, between the Borysthenes and the Palus Mæotis.

They hardly even reached so far westward as the Borysthenes, since

a river (not easily identified) which Herodotus calls Panticapes,

flowing into the Borysthenes from the eastward, formed their boundary.

These nomads were the genuine Scythians, possessing the marked

attributes of the race, and including among their number the Regal

Scythians--hordes so much more populous and more effective in war than

the rest, as to maintain undisputed ascendency, and to account all

other Scythians no better than their slaves. It was to these that the

Scythian kings belonged, by whom the religious and political unity

of the name was maintained--each horde having its separate chief and

to a certain extent separate worship and customs. But besides these

nomads, there were also agricultural Scythians, with fixed abodes,

living more or less upon bread, and raising corn for exportation,

along the banks of the Borysthenes and the Hypanis. And such had been

the influence of the Grecian settlement of Olbia at the mouth of the

latter river in creating new tastes and habits, that two tribes on its

western banks, the Callipidæ and the Alazones, had become completely

accustomed both to tillage and to vegetable food, and had in other

respects so much departed from their Scythian rudeness as to be called

Hellenic-Scythians, many Greeks being seemingly domiciled among them.

Northward of the Alazones lay those called the agricultural Scythians,

who sowed corn, not for food, but for sale.

Such stationary cultivators were doubtless regarded by the predominant

mass of the Scythians as degenerate brethren. Some historians

even maintain that they belonged to a foreign race, standing to

the Scythians merely in the relation of subjects--an hypothesis

contradicted implicitly, if not directly, by the words of Herodotus,

and no way necessary in the present case. It is not from them, however,

that Herodotus draws his vivid picture of the people, with their

inhuman rites and repulsive personal features. It is the purely nomadic

Scythians whom he depicts, the earliest specimens of the Mongolian race

(so it seems probable) known to history, and prototypes of the Huns and

Bulgarians of later centuries. The Sword, in the literal sense of the

word, was their chief god--an iron scimitar solemnly elevated upon a

wide and lofty platform, which was supported on masses of fagots piled

underneath--to whom sheep, horses, and a portion of their prisoners

taken in war, were offered up in sacrifice: Herodotus treats this sword

as the image of the god Ares, thus putting an Hellenic interpretation

upon that which he describes literally as a barbaric rite. The scalps

and the skins of slain enemies, and sometimes the skull formed into

a drinking-cup, constituted the decoration of a Scythian warrior:

whoever had not slain an enemy, was excluded from participation in the

annual festival and bowl of wine prepared by the chief of each separate

horde. The ceremonies which took place during the sickness and funeral

obsequies of the Scythian kings (who were buried at Gerrhi at the

extreme point to which navigation extended up the Borysthenes) partook

of the same sanguinary disposition. It was the Scythian practice to put

out the eyes of all their slaves; and the awkwardness of the Scythian

frame, often overloaded with fat, together with extreme dirt of body,

and the absence of all discriminating feature between one man and

another, complete the brutish portrait. Mare’s milk (with cheese made

from it) seems to have been their chief luxury, and probably served the

same purpose of procuring the intoxicating drink called _kumiss_, as at

present among the Bashkirs and the Calmucks.

If the habits of the Scythians were such as to create in the near

observer no other feeling than repugnance, their force at least

inspired terror. They appeared in the eyes of Thucydides so numerous

and so formidable, that he pronounces them irresistible, if they could

but unite, by any other nation within his knowledge. [He says of them,

to quote Hobbes’ translation (1676): “For there’s no nation, not to say

of Europe, but neither of Asia, that are comparable to this, or that,

as long as they agree, are able, one nation to one, to stand against

the Scythians: and yet in matters of Counsel and Wisdom in the present

occasions of life, they are not like to other men.”]

Herodotus, too, conceived the same idea of a race among whom every man

was a warrior and a practised horse-bowman, and who were placed by

their mode of life out of all reach of an enemy’s attack. Moreover,

Herodotus does not speak meanly of their intelligence, contrasting them

in favourable terms with the general stupidity of the other nations

bordering on the Euxine. In this respect Thucydides seems to differ

from him.[c]

HERODOTUS ON THE CUSTOMS OF THE SCYTHIANS

The Scythians affirm of their country that it was of all others the

last formed, which happened in this manner: When this region was in its

original and desert state, the first inhabitant was named Targitaus, a

son, as they say (but which to me seems incredible) of Jupiter, by a

daughter of the Borysthenes. This Targitaus had three sons, Lipoxais,

Arpoxais, and lastly Colaxais. Whilst they possessed the country, there

fell from heaven into the Scythian district a plough, a yoke, an axe,

and a goblet, all of gold. The eldest of the brothers was the first

who saw them; who, running to take them, was burnt by the gold. On his

retiring, the second brother approached, and was burnt also. When these

two had been repelled by the burning gold, last of all the youngest

brother advanced; upon him the gold had no effect, and he carried it

to his house. The two elder brothers, observing what had happened,

resigned all authority to the youngest.

From Lipoxais those Scythians were descended who are termed the

Auchatæ; from Arpoxais, the second brother, those who are called the

Catiari and the Traspies; from the youngest, who was king, came the

Paralatæ. Generally speaking, these people are named Scoloti, from a

surname of their king, but the Greeks call them Scythians.

This is the account which the Scythians give of their origin; and they

add, that from their first king Targitaus, to the invasion of their

country by Darius, is a period of a thousand years, and no more. The

sacred gold is preserved by their kings with the greatest care; and

every year there are solemn sacrifices, at which the prince assists.

They have a tradition, that if the person who has the custody of this

gold, sleeps in the open air during the time of their annual festival,

he dies before the end of the year; for this reason they give him as

much land as he can pass over on horseback in the course of a day. As

this region is extensive, king Colaxais divided the country into three

parts, which he gave to three sons, making that portion the largest in

which the gold was deposited. As to the district which lies farther

to the north, and beyond the extreme inhabitants of the country, they

say that it neither can be passed, nor yet discerned with the eye, on

account of the feathers which are continually falling: with these both

the earth and the air are so filled, as effectually to obstruct the

view.

Such is the manner in which the Scythians describe themselves and the

country beyond them. The Greeks who inhabit Pontus speak of both as

follows: Hercules, when he was driving away the heifers of Geryon, came

to this region, now inhabited by the Scythians, but which then was a

desert. This Geryon lived beyond Pontus, in an island which the Greeks

call Erythia, near Gades (Cadiz) which is situate in the ocean, and

beyond the Columns of Hercules. The ocean, they say, commencing at the

east, flows round all the earth; this, however, they affirm without

proving it. Hercules coming from thence arrived at this country, now

called Scythia, where, finding himself overtaken by a severe storm, and

being exceedingly cold, he wrapped himself up in his lion’s skin and

went to sleep. They add, that his mares, which he had detached from his

chariot to feed, by some divine interposition disappeared during his

sleep.

As soon as he awoke, he wandered over all the country in search of

his mares, till at length he came to the district which is called

Hylæa: there in a cave he discovered a female of most unnatural

appearance, resembling a woman as far as the thighs, but whose lower

parts were like a serpent. Hercules beheld her with astonishment, but

he was not deterred from asking her whether she had seen his mares?

She made answer that they were in her custody; she refused, however,

to restore them, but upon condition of his cohabiting with her. The

terms proposed, induced Hercules to consent; but she still deferred

restoring his mares, from the wish of retaining him longer with her,

whilst Hercules was equally anxious to obtain them and depart. After a

while she restored them with these words: “Your mares, which wandered

here, I have preserved; you have paid what was due to my care, I have

conceived by you three sons; I wish you to say how I shall dispose of

them hereafter; whether I shall detain them here, where I am the sole

sovereign, or whether I shall send them to you.” The reply of Hercules

was to this effect: “As soon as they shall be grown up to man’s estate,

observe this, and you cannot err; whichever of them you shall see bend

this bow, and wear this belt as I do, him detain in this country: the

others, who shall not be able to do this, you may send away. By minding

what I say, you will have pleasure yourself, and will satisfy my

wishes.”

Having said this, Hercules took one of his bows, for thus far he had

carried two, and showing her also his belt, at the end of which a

golden cup was suspended, he gave her them, and departed. As soon as

the boys of whom she was delivered grew up, she called the eldest

Agathyrsus, the second Gelonus, and the youngest Scytha. She remembered

also the injunctions she had received; and two of her sons, Agathyrsus

and Gelonus, who were incompetent to the trial which was proposed, were

sent away by their mother from this country. Scytha the youngest was

successful in his exertions, and remained. From this Scytha, the son of

Hercules, the Scythian monarchs are descended; and from the golden cup

the Scythians to this day have a cup at the end of their belts.

This is the story which the Greek inhabitants of Pontus relate; but

there is also another, to which I am more inclined to assent: the

Scythian Nomades of Asia, having been harassed by the Massagetæ in war,

passed the Araxes and settled in Cimmeria; for it is to be observed,

that the country now possessed by the Scythians belonged formerly

to the Cimmerians. This people, when attacked by the Scythians,

deliberated what it was most adviseable to do against the inroad of so

vast a multitude. Their sentiments were divided; both were violent,

but that of the kings appears preferable. The people were of opinion

that it would be better not to hazard an engagement, but to retreat

in security; the kings were, at all events, for resisting the enemy.

Neither party would recede from their opinions, the people and the

princes mutually refusing to yield; the people wished to retire before

the invaders, the princes determined rather to die where they were,

reflecting upon what they had enjoyed before, and alarmed by the fears

of future calamities. From verbal disputes they soon came to actual

engagement, and they happened to be nearly equal in number. All those

who perished by the hands of their countrymen were buried by the

Cimmerians near the river Tyras, where their monuments may still be

seen. The survivors fled from their country, which in its abandoned

state was seized and occupied by the Scythians.

There are still to be found in Scythia walls and bridges which are

termed Cimmerian; the same name is also given to a whole district, as

well as to a narrow sea. It is certain that when the Cimmerians were

expelled their country by the Scythians, they fled to the Asiatic

Chersonesus, where the Greek city of Sinope is at present situated.

It is also apparent that whilst engaged in the pursuit the Scythians

deviated from their proper course and entered Media. The Cimmerians in

their flight kept uniformly by the seacoast; but the Scythians, having

Mount Caucasus to their right, continued the pursuit, till by following

an inland direction they entered Media.

The Scythians have the advantage of all these celebrated rivers [the

Danube, Don, Tyras, Hypanis, Borysthenes, etc.] The grass which this

country produces is, of all that we know, the fullest of moisture,

which evidently appears from the dissection of their cattle.

We have shown that this people possess the greatest abundance; their

particular laws and observances are these: of their divinities, Vesta

is without competition the first, then Jupiter, and Tellus, whom they

believe to be the wife of Jupiter; next to these are Apollo, the

Cœlestial Venus, Hercules, and Mars. All the Scythians revere these as

deities, but the Royal Scythians pay divine rites also to Neptune. In

the Scythian tongue Vesta is called Tabiti; Jupiter, and, as I think

very properly, Papæus; Tellus, Apia; Apollo, Œtosyrus; the Cœlestial

Venus, Artimpasa; and Neptune, Thamimasadas. Among all these deities

Mars is the only one to whom they think it proper to erect altars,

shrines, and temples.

Their mode of sacrifice in every place appointed for the purpose is

precisely the same, and it is this: the victim is secured with a rope

by its two fore feet; the person who offers the sacrifice, standing

behind, throws the animal down by means of this rope; as it falls, he

invokes the name of the divinity to whom the sacrifice is offered; he

then fastens a cord round the neck of the victim and strangles it, by

winding the cord round a stick; all this is done without fire, without

libations, or without any of the ceremonies in use amongst us. When the

beast is strangled, the sacrificer takes off its skin and prepares to

dress it.

As Scythia is very barren of wood, they have the following contrivance

to dress the flesh of the victim: having flayed the animal, they strip

the flesh from the bones, and if they have them at hand, they throw it

into certain pots made in Scythia, and resembling the Lesbian caldrons,

though somewhat larger; under these a fire is made with the bones. If

these pots cannot be procured, they enclose the flesh with a certain

quantity of water in the paunch of the victim, and make a fire with

the bones as before. The bones being very inflammable, and the paunch

without difficulty made to contain the flesh separated from the bone,

the ox is thus made to dress itself, which is also the case with the

other victims. When the whole is ready, he who sacrifices throws down

with some solemnity before him the entrails and the more choice pieces.

They sacrifice different animals, but horses in particular.

Such are the sacrifices and ceremonies observed with respect to their

other deities; but to the god Mars, the particular rites which are paid

are these: in every district they construct a temple to this divinity

of this kind; bundles of small wood are heaped together, to the length

of three stadia, and quite as broad, but not so high; the top is a

regular square, three of the sides are steep and broken, but the fourth

is an inclined plane forming the ascent. To this place are every year

brought one hundred and fifty wagons full of these bundles of wood,

to repair the structure which the severity of the climate is apt to

destroy. Upon the summit of such a pile each Scythian tribe places an

ancient scimetar, which is considered as the shrine of Mars, and is

annually honoured by the sacrifice of sheep and horses; indeed, more

victims are offered to this deity than to all the other divinities.

It is their custom also to sacrifice every hundredth captive, but in

a different manner from their other victims. Having poured libations

upon their heads, they cut their throats into a vessel placed for that

purpose. With this, carried to the summit of the pile, they besmear the

above-mentioned scimetar. Whilst this is doing above, the following

ceremony is observed below: from these human victims they cut off the

right arms close to the shoulder, and throw them up into the air. This

ceremony being performed on each victim severally, they depart; the

arms remain where they happen to fall, the bodies elsewhere.

The above is a description of their sacrifices. Swine are never used

for this purpose, nor will they suffer them to be kept in their country.

Their military customs are these: every Scythian drinks the blood of

the first person he slays; the heads of all the enemies who fall by

his hand in battle he presents to his king: this offering entitles him

to a share of the plunder, which he could not otherwise claim. Their

mode of stripping the skin from the head is this: they make a circular

incision behind the ears, then, taking hold of the head at the top,

they gradually flay it, drawing it towards them. They next soften it

in their hands, removing every fleshy part which may remain by rubbing

it with an ox’s hide; they afterwards suspend it, thus prepared, from

the bridles of their horses, when they both use it as a napkin, and

are proud of it as a trophy. Whoever possesses the greater number of

these, is deemed the most illustrious. Some there are who sew together

several of these portions of human skin and convert them into a kind

of shepherd’s garment. There are others who preserve the skins of

the right arms, nails and all, of such enemies as they kill, and use

them as a covering for their quivers. The human skin is of all others

certainly the whitest, and of a very firm texture; many Scythians will

take the whole skin of a man, and having stretched it upon wood, use it

as a covering to their horses.

Such are the customs of this people: this treatment, however, of their

enemies’ heads, is not universal; it is only perpetrated on those whom

they most detest. They cut off the skull below the eye-brows, and

having cleansed it thoroughly, if they are poor, they merely cover it

with a piece of leather; if they are rich, in addition to this, they

decorate the inside with gold; it is afterwards used as a drinking cup.

They do the same with respect to their nearest connections, if any

dissensions have arisen, and they overcome them in combat before the

king. If any stranger whom they deem of consequence happen to visit

them, they make a display of these heads, and relate every circumstance

of the previous connection, the provocations received, and their

subsequent victory: this they consider as a testimony of their valour.

Once a year the prince or ruler of every district mixes a goblet of

wine, of which those Scythians drink who have destroyed a public enemy.

But of this they who have not done such a thing are not permitted

to taste; these are obliged to sit apart by themselves, which is

considered as a mark of the greatest ignominy. They who have killed a

number of enemies, are permitted on this occasion to drink from two

cups joined together.

They have amongst them a great number who practise the art of

divination; for this purpose they use a number of willow twigs, in this

manner: they bring large bundles of these together, and having untied

them, dispose them one by one on the ground, each bundle at a distance

from the rest. This done, they pretend to foretell the future, during

which they take up the bundles separately and tie them again together.

This mode of divination is hereditary among them. The enaries, or

“effeminate men,” affirm that the art of divination was taught them by

the goddess Venus. They take also the leaves of the lime-tree, which

dividing into three parts they twine round their fingers; they then

unbind it, and exercise the art to which they pretend.

Whenever the Scythian monarch happens to be indisposed, he sends for

three of the most celebrated of these diviners. When the Scythians

desire to use the most solemn kind of oath, they swear by the king’s

throne: these diviners, therefore, make no scruple of affirming that

such or such individual, pointing him out by name, has forsworn himself

by the royal throne. Immediately the person thus marked out is seized,

and informed that by their art of divination, which is infallible,

he has been indirectly the occasion of the king’s illness by having

violated the oath which we have mentioned. If the accused not only

denies the charge, but expresses himself enraged at the imputation, the

king convokes a double number of diviners, who, examining into the mode

which has been pursued in criminating him, decide accordingly. If he be

found guilty, he immediately loses his head, and the three diviners who

were first consulted share his effects. If these last diviners acquit

the accused, others are at hand, of whom if the greater number absolve

him, the first diviners are put to death.

The manner in which they are executed is this: some oxen are yoked to

a wagon filled with fagots, in the midst of which, with their feet

tied, their hands fastened behind, and their mouths gagged, these

diviners are placed; fire is then set to the wood, and the oxen are

terrified to make them run violently away. It sometimes happens that

the oxen themselves are burned; and often when the wagon is consumed,

the oxen escape severely scorched. This is the method by which for the

above-mentioned or similar offences they put to death those whom they

call false diviners.

Of those whom the king condemns to death, he constantly destroys the

male children, leaving the females unmolested. Whenever the Scythians

form alliances, they observe these ceremonies: a large earthen vessel

is filled with wine; into this is poured some of the blood of the

contracting parties, obtained by a slight incision of a knife or a

sword; in this cup they dip a scimetar, some arrows, a hatchet, and a

spear. After this they pronounce some solemn prayers, and the parties

who form the contract, with such of their friends as are of superior

dignity, finally drink the contents of the vessel.

The sepulchres of the kings are in the district of the Gerrhi. As soon

as the king dies, a large trench of a quadrangular form is sunk, near

where the Borysthenes begins to be navigable. When this has been done,

the body is enclosed in wax, after it has been thoroughly cleansed,

and the entrails taken out; before it is sewn up, they fill it with

anise, parsley seed, bruised cypress, and various aromatics. They then

place it on a carriage, and remove it to another district, where the

persons who receive it, like the royal Scythians, cut off a part of

their ear, shave their heads in a circular form, take a round piece

of flesh from their arm, wound their foreheads and noses, and pierce

their left hands with arrows. The body is again carried to another

province of the deceased king’s realms, the inhabitants of the former

district accompanying the procession. After thus transporting the dead

body through the different provinces of the kingdom, they come at last

to the Gerrhi, who live in the remotest parts of Scythia, and amongst

whom the sepulchres are. Here the corpse is placed upon a couch, round

which, at different distances, daggers are fixed; upon the whole are

disposed pieces of wood, covered with branches of willow. In some other

part of this trench they bury one of the deceased’s concubines, whom

they previously strangle, together with the baker, the cook, the groom,

his most confidential servant, his horses, the choicest of his effects,

and, finally, some golden goblets, for they possess neither silver nor

brass: to conclude all, they fill up the trench with earth, and seem to

be emulous in their endeavours to raise as high a mound as possible.

The ceremony does not terminate here. They select such of the deceased

king’s attendants, in the following year, as have been most about his

person; these are all native Scythians, for in Scythia there are no

purchased slaves, the king selecting such to attend him as he thinks

proper: fifty of these they strangle, with an equal number of his best

horses. They open and cleanse the bodies of them all, which, having

filled with straw, they sew up again: then upon two pieces of wood they

place a third, of a semicircular form, with its concave side uppermost,

a second is disposed in like manner, then the third, and so on, till

a sufficient number have been erected. Upon these semicircular pieces

of wood they place the horses, after passing large poles through them,

from the feet to the neck. One part of the structure, formed as we

have described, supports the shoulders of the horse, the other his

hinder parts, whilst the legs are left to project upwards. The horses

are then bridled, and the reins fastened to the legs; upon each of

these they afterwards place one of the youths who have been strangled,

in the following manner: a pole is passed through each, quite to the

neck, through the back, the extremity of which is fixed to the piece

of timber with which the horse has been spitted; having done this with

each, they so leave them.

The above are the ceremonies observed in the interment of their

kings: as to the people in general, when any one dies, the neighbours

place the body on a carriage, and carry it about to the different

acquaintance of the deceased; these prepare some entertainment for

those who accompany the corpse, placing the same before the body, as

before the rest. Private persons, after being thus carried about for

the space of forty days, are then buried. They who have been engaged in

the performance of these rites, afterwards use the following mode of

purgation: after thoroughly washing the head, and then drying it, they

do thus with regard to the body; they place in the ground three stakes,

inclining towards each other; round these they bind fleeces of wool as

thickly as possible, and finally, into the space betwixt the stakes

they throw red-hot stones.

They have among them a species of hemp resembling flax, except that

it is both thicker and larger; it is indeed superior to flax, whether

it is cultivated or grows spontaneously. Of this the Thracians make

themselves garments, which so nearly resemble those of flax as to

require a skilful eye to distinguish them: they who had never seen this

hemp, would conclude these vests to be made of flax.

The Scythians take the seed of this hemp, and placing it beneath the

woollen fleeces which we have before described, they throw it upon the

red-hot stones, when immediately a perfumed vapour ascends stronger

than from any Grecian stove. This, to the Scythians, is in the place

of a bath, and it excites from them cries of exultation. It is to be

observed, that they never bathe themselves: the Scythian women bruise

under a stone, some wood of the cypress, cedar, and frankincense;

upon this they pour a quantity of water, till it becomes of a certain

consistency, with which they anoint the body and the face; this at the

time imparts an agreeable odour, and when removed on the following day,

gives the skin a soft and beautiful appearance.

The Scythians have not only a great abhorrence of all foreign customs,

but each province seems unalterably tenacious of its own.[d]

THE CIMMERIANS

The Cimmerians belong partly to legend, partly to history. We know

even less of them than of the Scythians. The name Cimmerians appears

in the _Odyssey_--the fable describes them as dwelling beyond the

ocean-stream, immersed in darkness and unblest by the rays of Helios.

Of this people as existent we can render no account, for they had

passed away, or lost their identity and become subject, previous to

the commencement of trustworthy authorities; but they seem to have

been the chief occupants of the Tauric Chersonesus (Crimea) and of the

territory between that peninsula and the river Tyras (Dniester), at the

time when the Greeks first commenced their permanent settlements on

those coasts in the seventh century B.C. The numerous localities which

bore their name, even in the time of Herodotus, after they had ceased

to exist as a nation--as well as the tombs of the Cimmerian kings then

shown near the Tyras--sufficiently attest this fact; and there is

reason to believe that they were (like their conquerors and successors

the Scythians) a nomadic people, mare-milkers, moving about with their

tents and herds, suitably to the nature of those unbroken steppes which

their territory presented, and which offered little except herbage in

profusion. Strabo tells us (on what authority we do not know) that

they, as well as the Treres and other Thracians, had desolated Asia

Minor more than once before the time of Ardys, and even earlier than

Homer.[c] Historical knowledge of the Cimmerians may be briefly summed

up:

About 660 B.C. the Assyrian empire was mightier than ever. A brother

of the king ruled in Babylon; the host of petty princes in Egypt were

tributary; Syria, Mesopotamia, the eastern mountain lands, and even the

frontiers of Armenia and Asia Minor had been directly incorporated with

the empire. There seemed to be no reason to fear a dangerous uprising

anywhere. A few decades later the proud structure had disappeared from

the earth. Though the conquered nations had contributed in part to its

fall, both the first impulse and the decisive blows were given from

without by a great migration of nations. We find the evident effects of

them everywhere; but their course in detail is almost completely veiled

in darkness.

The first great wandering started from the northern coast of the Black

Sea. About the eighth century the Scythian Scoloti, one of the Iranian

nomadic tribes, ostensibly themselves crowded out by the Massagetæ,

crossed the Volga and the Don, and drove the Cimmerians out of their

abode. Apparently a remnant of the original population remained in the

Crimea (this name is itself derived from that of the Cimmerians); but

the great mass left home with wives and children. In all probability

they went over the Danube into Thrace, being joined by Thracian tribes

on the way; and the passage of the Thynians and Bithynians across

the Bosporus, and their settlement in the ancient territory of the

Bebrykians (as far as the Sangarius), are also connected with these

movements.

About 700 B.C. the Cimmerians, together with the Thracian tribes that

had joined them, invaded Asia Minor, devastating and plundering the

land far and wide. It was a migration like that of the northern tribes

which passed through Syria in the twelfth century, and that of the

Galatians into Asia Minor in the third century, who ravaged there just

as the Cimmerians did. The invading tribes were doubtless accompanied

by wives and children, and carried all their possessions with them.

The isolated notices of the invasion which are all that we possess

cannot be determined chronologically. Aristotle records that Antandrus,

the Lelegian city on the southern slope of Mount Ida, was in the

possession of the Cimmerians for a hundred years. Thracians are also

said to have occupied Abydos before its colonisation from Miletus.

They also made their way farther to the east. Sinope is called the

principal seat of the Cimmerians; they are said to have slain here the

leader of the Milesian settlement, Abrondas (?). When they entered

Phrygia, it is said, the last king, Midas, the son of Gordius, killed

himself by drinking the blood of a bull. After that the Phrygian

kingdom disappears from history.

From here, then, they presumably first came into contact with the

Assyrians. King Esarhaddon tells, before his Cilician campaign, of a

fight in the unknown district of Khubushna with “the Teuspa of Gimir

[Hebrew Gomer], … whose dwelling is far.” This battle, the scene of

which can only be sought in Cappadocia, must be put about 675 B.C.

The movements were directed toward Lydia as well as Phrygia. Here

at this time the last of the Heraclids, Candaules or Sadyattes, had

fallen a victim to a palace revolution, and his murderer, Gyges, son of

Dascylus, of the distinguished family of the Mermnadæ, which had been

for generations at feud with the Heraclids, had taken possession of

the throne. The Delphian oracle having decided in his favour, he had

been acknowledged by the Lydians. The new ruler seems to have been a

capable warrior. According to Strabo, the whole Troad was subject to

him; consequently, he must also have possessed the coast of Teuthrania.

That the districts of Caria were under his rule, if not that of his

predecessors, appears certain. The Greek coast cities were also

attacked by him, and Colophon was taken. In order to defend himself

against the Cimmerians, he swore allegiance to the Assyrian king,

Asshurbanapal, who records that Gyges (Assyrian Gugu), in consequence,

won a great victory over the Cimmerians, and sent two of their chiefs

captive to Nineveh.

The allegiance rendered to the Assyrian king was nothing more than a

temporary expedient. As soon as he felt safe from the Cimmerians, Gyges

began preparations to attack the Assyrian supremacy, which was likely

to become dangerous to the hitherto unassailed countries of Asia Minor.

With this end in view, he made an alliance with Psamthek of Saïs, who

had revolted against Assyria, and sent Greek and Carian mercenaries to

his aid. Asshurbanapal, who was fully occupied by his Elamite wars,

could take no steps against him.

But soon afterwards the Cimmerians appeared again in Lydia; Gyges

himself fell in battle; the whole land was overrun by the wild hordes

and Sardis taken. Then they attacked the Greek coast cities. In Ephesus

the poet Callinus inspired a resistance that successfully repulsed the

attack of the Cimmerian prince Lygdamis;[11] but the temple of Artemis

outside the city was burned. On the other hand, the flourishing

city of Magnesia, on the Mæander, was taken and destroyed. However,

the savage hordes were no more able to hold the plundered territory

permanently than to lay regular siege to the fortified cities. Ardys,

the son of Gyges, finally restored the power of his father’s kingdom;

and as we are told that he attacked the Greeks, he must first have

repulsed the Cimmerians and covered his rear. Asshurbanapal tells that

he repented the sins of his father, and sent an embassy to renew his

allegiance (646 B.C.); however, this certainly means nothing more than

the restoration of friendly relations with Assyria.[e]

FOOTNOTES

[11] [It is possible that this Lygdamis is the “Tuktammu of the Manda,”

for whose defeat, according to a recently deciphered inscription,

Asshurbanapal returned thanks to the Assyrian gods.]

CHAPTER III. SOME PEOPLES OF SYRIA, ASIA MINOR, AND ARMENIA

THE ARAMÆANS

Next to the Hittites the Aramæans were the people who held the most

important towns of Syria, gradually advancing until at last they

occupied the whole country. Of the Aramæan stocks named in Genesis

x. 23; xxii. 21 _sq._ very little is known, but it is certain that

Aramæans at an early period had their abode close to the northern

border of Palestine (in Maachah). A great part was played in the

history of Israel by the state of Aram Dammesek, _i.e._, the territory

of the ancient city of Damascus; it was brought into subjection for a

short time under David. The main object of the century-long dispute

between the two kingdoms was the possession of the land to the east of

the Jordan (Hauran, and especially Gilead). Another Aramæan state often

mentioned in the Bible is that of Aram Zobah. That Zobah was situated

within Syria is certain, though how far to the west or north of

Damascus is not known; in any case it was not far from Hamath. Hamath

in the valley of the Orontes, at the mouth of the Beka valley, was from

an early period one of the most important places in Syria; according

to the Bible, its original inhabitants were Canaanites. The district

belonging to it, including amongst other places Riblah (of importance

on account of its situation), was not very extensive. In 733 B.C.

Tiglathpileser III compassed the overthrow of the kingdom of Damascus;

he also took Arpad (Tel-Arfad), an important place three hours to the

north of Aleppo. Hamath was taken by Sargon in 720. Henceforth the

petty states of Syria were at all times subject to one or other of

the great world empires, even if in some cases a certain degree of

independence was preserved.[c]

Definite knowledge concerning the smaller peoples of Asia Minor is so

limited and vague, the intermixture of small tribes and ruling houses

so chaotic, and the literature remaining so meagre and uncertain, that

we can do little better than make a brief summary of the fortunes of

each of these lesser communities.

PHRYGIA

Phrygia is a country of many mountains and numerous river valleys. The

fertility of the latter was always remarkable, and on the northern

boundary, at the sources of the river Sangarius, wide stretches

of pasture land afforded nourishment for sheep. Grapes were also

extensively cultivated.

The ancient Phrygians were an agricultural people, and the strange

rites of their religious worship all had reference to the renewal and

decay of nature. The “Phrygian mother,” who was called by the Greeks

Rhea, or Cybele, and whose name in the Phrygian language is said

to have been Amma, had her temple at the foot of Mount Agdus, near

Pessinus, where she was served by hosts of priests. She was worshipped

in the temple under the guise of a formless stone, said to have fallen

from heaven, and was conceived of as driving over the mountains in

a chariot, and wearing a crown of towers upon her head. The beloved

of Cybele was Attys, and the festivals of his birth and death were

celebrated with wild grief and frantic joy and accompanied by barbarous

and unlovely rites, much like those of the worship of Adonis at Byblus.

Cybele represents nature, or nature as the producer of life, and the

birth and death of Attys typify the spring and autumn of the year.

The sovereigns of Phrygia are said to have come from the agricultural

class. Gordius, the first king, was called from following his wagon to

rule over Phrygia. His son Midas was the hero of many Greek legends.

The story of his receiving the gift of turning everything he touched

into gold indicates the possession of enormous wealth. This name occurs

in various connections, and it appears that the kings of the ancient

Phrygian dynasty bore alternately the names of Gordius and Midas. Their

tombs are still visible in the Doghanlu valley and exhibit inscriptions

in Greek writing, but in the Phrygian language. The dynasty came to

an end in face of an invasion of the Cimmerians, about 675 B.C., and

on the expulsion of the latter about a century later the kingdom was

annexed by Lydia.

A story told by Herodotus shows that the Egyptians regarded the

Phrygians as the oldest people of the world. The Greeks thought that

they came from Thrace and were originally called Brigians, but the

Phrygians, while owning the relationship to the Brigians of Thrace,

declared themselves to be the older people. Modern writers are disposed

to attribute an Armenian origin to both races. There are indications

which serve to show that the Phrygians once extended their rule over a

much wider area than that assigned to their country in our maps of the

ancient world; that they held command of the seaboard and were even

found beyond the Ægean. But these indications do not amount to proof.

The people of Phrygia once inhabited rock-dwellings which still

exist, ranged in rows and one above another. They subsequently built

towns,--several were ascribed to the first Gordius and Midas,--and

developed an advanced type of civilisation. They are credited with the

invention of embroidery, and from the wool of their numerous flocks

of sheep they manufactured fine cloths. Cotiæum in Phrygia is one of

the towns which claims to be the birthplace of Æsop, and though the

Greeks affected to despise the Phrygian music, as is shown by the story

of Apollo and Marsyas, it is nevertheless a fact that the Hellenes

borrowed the Phrygian flute and shepherd’s pipe as well as a Phrygian

form of poetry. In the art of sculpture, though they did not invent

a school of their own, the Phrygians must have brought considerable

originality into play, for they have impressed a distinctly national

stamp on their monuments, though the general style was borrowed from

abroad.

THE CAPPADOCIANS

The chief point of interest furnished by this people is to be found in

their religious worship. Its principal centres were the two cities of

Comana, the one situated on the river Iris, which flows north into the

Euxine, and the other in the southern part of the country on the slopes

of Anti-Taurus, near the river Sarus. The high priests were generally

of royal blood and enjoyed great consideration, even wearing a royal

diadem at the great religious festival, and their importance does not

seem to have been diminished by the Persian conquest.

The Cappadocians had the reputation of being brave but untrustworthy,

characteristics appropriate to a people who worshipped a warrior

moon-goddess. For besides the moon-god Men, they adored Ma, or Mene,

identified with Enio, or Bellona, as well as with Artemis. Ma was

waited on by numerous priests and temple servants, who constituted the

main population of the southern Comana, while hosts of maidens, clad in

warlike dress and wearing the same weapons as their divine mistress,

participated in her wild rites. It is thought that it was the existence

of these women which gave rise to the legend of the Amazons, or nation

of female warriors, whom the Greeks supposed to have had their home in

the mythical town of Themiscyra on the banks of the Thermodon in Pontus.

The chief festival was that known as the “Exodus” of the goddess, and

was attended by many pilgrims from far and near. The worshippers gashed

their own bodies and took part in the wildest sensual excesses. These,

and the personal sacrifices required from the votaries of Ma, reveal

the Semitic origin of the race which practised them, and resemble those

belonging to the service of the “Phrygian mother.”

The Greek name for the Cappadocians was “Leuco-Syrians,” _i.e._,

white Syrians, and the myth traced their descent from Syros, son of

Apollo. The original Semitic population received a foreign admixture

in the eighth century B.C., when some of the Cimmerians, who invaded

Asia Minor, settled amongst them and became entirely absorbed in the

population. The Cataonians, who inhabited a district in the southeast

of the country, were said to be a distinct race, but the personal

observations of Strabo in the century before Christ could detect no

differences between the two peoples. A further evidence of Semitic

origin is found in coins of northern Cappadocia, which date from the

fourth century B.C. and bear the image of the Syrian god Baal, with

legends inscribed in Aramæan.

The southern part of Cappadocia covers the highest plateau of Asia

Minor, and its cold climate is a reason why it can never have been very

productive, though wine and oil were grown in certain districts. It

furnished, however, ample pasturage for sheep and horses, but the chief

wealth of the people seems to have consisted in slaves. Silver, iron,

and steel were to be obtained in ancient times from the northeastern

districts bordering on Armenia, where dwelt the Tibareni, the Chalybes,

and other wild tribes of unknown origin. The mineral products of their

territory were turned to account by the Greeks, who had established

colonies all along the Cappadocian coast.

Our real knowledge of Cappadocian history goes no farther back than

the Persian conquest, and the name of Cappadocians is a Persian

appellation--Katapatuka. The Persians divided the country into the

two provinces of Cappadocia on the Pontus (afterwards called simply

Pontus) and Great Cappadocia, stretching from the Taurus range on the

south and including the country on the upper reaches of the Halys.

Each constituted a separate satrapy whose governors enjoyed practical

independence and royal titles.

THE CILICIANS

Between the Taurus Mountains and that ridge which the ancients called

Amanus, lies a fertile and isolated plain which formed the principal

part of the ancient kingdom of Cilicia. Xenophon describes it as “a

large and beautiful plain, well watered, and full of all sorts of trees

and vines, abounding in sesame, panic, millet, wheat, and barley,” and

“surrounded with a strong and high ridge of hills from sea to sea.”

This plain was by no means the whole of the territory occupied by the

Cilicians, which stretched far west among the wild Taurus Mountains as

far as Coracesium on the borders of Pamphylia, and appears, from the

statements of Herodotus, to have reached to the Euphrates and to have

also included a large part of Cappadocia.

The Cilicians were a Semitic race and, like the Cappadocians, nearly

related to the Syrians. They evidently worshipped the Syrian gods, for

the latter are represented on Cilician coins belonging to the Persian

epoch, especially the sun-god Baal, seated on a throne and holding

grapes and ears of corn in his hand. But we also find representations

of Hercules on these coins, and Greek as well as Aramæan inscriptions,

showing that this Semitic race passed under the influence of the

Hellenes, who had indeed many settlements in the west of Cilicia.

The Cilician cities of Tarsus and Anchiale were said to have been

built in a single day by Sardanapalus, king of Assyria. The Assyrian

monuments know of no sovereign of that name, but they make mention of

several invasions by Assyria, apparently of the destructive nature

common to such expeditions. Sargon conferred the sovereignty of

Cilicia on Ambris, king of Tubal, whom he afterwards deposed. Cilicia

continued, however, to have her own kings, and they rebelled against

Assyria on several occasions, finally recovering their complete

independence on the fall of the empire. We hear of more than one king

of Cilicia in Persian times, all styled Syennesis, which, therefore,

seems to have been rather a title than a name. Xenophon describes the

passage of Cyrus the Younger through Cilicia, whose king did homage to

him, and was subsequently punished for his disloyalty by being deprived

of his power, after which the country was ruled by Persian governors.

Alexander passed through Cilicia on his way to his great battle of

Issus just beyond the Amanus range, and the country then passed under

Macedonian rule; but in the confused years which followed the death

of the great conqueror we find the wild country of Cilicia Trachæ,

successfully maintained in independence by hordes of Cilician pirates.

PAMPHYLIA AND PISIDIA

Cilicia Trachæ was the western section of the country; it bordered on

Pamphylia and Pisidia, and the Cilician pirates were joined in their

predatory expeditions by the two neighbouring peoples, of whom the

Pamphylians possessed a convenient harbour, that of Side, which seems

to have been their great centre. The Pisidians inhabited a country to

the north of Pamphylia, and had no coast line of their own. They were a

brave and hardy nation, who dwelt in towns built for the most part on

high ridges, and who had opposed an obstinate resistance to Alexander.

We know nothing of their origin or language, but from the imposing

ruins of their cities it is evident that, in spite of being notorious

robbers, they had arrived at an advanced stage of civilisation.

THE CARIANS

When the Dorian Greeks settled on the coast of Caria about the year

1000 B.C., they displaced an ancient people who considered themselves

to have been settled in the country from the beginning of time. The

Greeks, however, believed that these Carians had originally been called

Leleges, and had been the subjects of Minos of Crete, whom they served

as sailors. Whether they originally came from the Ægean Islands or no,

it seems that they had sent out colonies to the Cyclades, Samos, etc.,

but had been expelled from them by the Phœnicians some centuries before

the Dorians invaded their own continental home.

Though they were now forced to abandon the coast and take refuge in the

mountains of the interior, the Carians were nevertheless a peculiarly

warlike people. The Greeks imitated their fashion of wearing crested

helmets and devices on their shields, as well as their method of

carrying the shield itself, and they were much employed as mercenaries.

From the middle of the eighth well on into the seventh century B.C.,

the Carian pirates were the terror of the seas, and their god was a

warrior god, the Zeus with a battle-axe, whose image is represented on

their coins. In harmony with their connection with the sea, we also

find that they regarded Zeus as lord of both the ocean and the heavens,

and in this character he was honoured at Mylasa in a temple where

Lydians and Mysians had the right to worship with the Carians, a fact

which the latter cited as a proof of the affinity of the three peoples.

The Carian nation in its mountain home was not ruled by a single king;

the different towns under their aristocratic rulers were united in a

kind of federative union, a form of government which was continued even

after their conquest by the Persians. The common council met under the

protection of the Zeus of Chrysaoris at “the white pillars” on the

river Marsyas. Sometimes one town and sometimes another would assume

a position of pre-eminence. The most famous of the towns of Caria is

Halicarnassus, the city of Herodotus, originally a Greek town, and

belonging to a Dorian hexapolis of which Cos, Cnidus, Lindus, Camirus,

and Ialysus were the other members. After she had become alienated

from the league, Halicarnassus incorporated the Carian city Salmacis.

Several of her sovereigns are notable figures in history. Artemisia,

queen of Halicarnassus, was with Xerxes at Salamis, and Herodotus

represents her in the character of a valued counsellor to the Persian

sovereign. Another Artemisia was the wife of Mausolus, who lived in the

fourth century B.C. Though a Persian satrap, his power was practically

that of an independent monarch and was inherited by his widow. The tomb

which she erected to his memory is still regarded as one of the most

wonderful monuments of the world.

THE LYCIANS

Southeast of Caria is a mountainous peninsula which was occupied by

a nation whom the Greeks named Lycians, but who called themselves

Tramilians, or according to Herodotus, Termilians. In the northeast

of the peninsula there existed a tribe who bore the name of Milyans.

Herodotus declares that these Milyans were formerly called Solymi,

and that they were the original inhabitants of the country. Herodotus

further states that the Termilians were driven from Crete with their

leader Sarpedon, in consequence of the latter’s quarrel with his

brother, Minos. Modern historians, however, reject the idea of a Cretan

origin, as also the derivation which Herodotus gives for the name

Lycians. The ancient writer said that it came from the name of Lycus,

an Athenian exile who took refuge with Sarpedon; but it is considered

more likely that it was derived from Apollo Lyceus, and if this is

really the case the Lycians probably worshipped a god of light. Another

statement of Herodotus; namely, that the Lycians reckoned descent

through their mothers, is not confirmed by the monuments.

These have been found in great numbers, and show that this people

developed a peculiar architecture of their own, but that they

subsequently submitted to the artistic influence of Greece, though

they never copied their models slavishly. The Lycian tombs are very

numerous; most of them are built in the sides or carved in isolated

fragments and pinnacles of the rocks. It is evident that the utmost

reverence was shown to the dead, and their resting places were often

placed in close proximity to the houses of the living. The inscriptions

are in a language peculiar to the country, and in a writing resembling

that used in the Peloponnesus, but distinct from it. None of very

ancient date has as yet been deciphered.

The independence of the Lycian character was not only shown in the

peculiarly national stamp they gave to everything which they borrowed

from the Greek, but when the Lydian kingdom extended its borders so as

to include most of the surrounding nations, the Lycians still preserved

their own liberties, and Herodotus records the valiant resistance of

the inhabitants of Xanthus to the overwhelming forces of the Persian,

Harpagus. Though greatly outnumbered, they faced him in battle, but in

spite of their heroic efforts he at last succeeded in overpowering them

and driving them within their city of Xanthus; whereupon they first

collected their families and all their treasures within the walls of

the citadel and then burnt it to the ground. After which they sallied

forth against the enemy and were all slain, fighting to the last.

The city of Xanthus was afterwards rebuilt and received a population

of foreigners, to which, Herodotus asserts, there were added eighty

families of Xanthians who had chanced to be abroad at the time of the

disaster. The vast ruins of Xanthus proclaim it as the chief city of

the Lycians, but many others existed. Pliny even asserts that they were

once seventy in number. Strabo speaks of the twenty-three towns of the

Lycian League. They were for the most part built on high ridges, and

were governed by a senate and a general assembly of the people. The

different towns had each a certain number of votes in the federative

assembly, the number of votes being determined by the importance of the

individual town. The supreme authority was vested in the Lyciarch, an

official chosen by the assembly. This form of government survived after

the Persian conquest, and, though the country was afterwards conquered

by Alexander, and subsequently passed under the dominion alternately of

the Ptolemies and Seleucids, its institutions were not destroyed, but

continued to exist even under the suzerainty of Rome and down to the

time of Claudius.

Lycia was the scene of the devastations of the legendary Chimæra,

whom Bellerophon slew; and the latter was also said to have conquered

the Solymi for the Lycian king. The Chimæra is a favourite subject of

representation in the Lycian sculptures, and it has been supposed that

the origin of the legend may be found in the streams of inflammable gas

which issue from the side of a mountain of the Solyma range, in the

neighbourhood of Deliktash.

THE MYSIANS

The Carians said that Mysus, ancestor of the Mysian nation, was the

brother of Car and Lydus, and that this was the reason why the Mysians

and Lydians had the privilege of worshipping in the temple of the

Carian Jove. Xanthus of Lydia declared that they spoke a language

composed of Phrygian and Lydian. As we only possess one specimen of the

Mysian language, and that a somewhat doubtful one, our means of testing

the question are somewhat inadequate, nor is our knowledge of Mysian

early history much more satisfactory. Some ancient writers said that

they came from Thrace, and a connection was supposed to exist between

them and the Mœsians on the Danube, the latter being regarded as

emigrants from Asia by those who believed in the relationship between

the Mysians and Lydians.

The Mysians seem to have been driven into the interior by the Greek

settlers who had established themselves all along their shores, and in

this mountainous region they remained, having apparently made little

progress in civilisation even in Persian times.

In the Homeric catalogue the Mysians appear as the allies of Troy, and

we hear of their being conquered by Lydia. Their subsequent fate was

the usual one of submission to the successive monarchs of the ancient

world. They formed part of the Syrian monarchy and after 190 B.C. their

country was added to the territory of the king of Pergamus. In 130 B.C.

they were included in the Roman province of Asia, after which we hear

no more of them as a nation.

THE BITHYNIANS AND THE PAPHLAGONIANS

Between the Olympus Mountains on the northeast of Mysia and the river

Halys, which formed the western boundary of Cappadocia on the Pontus,

lay the territory of the Bithynians and Paphlagonians. We know little

of the early history of either nation.

The Paphlagonians are mentioned in Homer as the allies of the Trojans.

Herodotus includes them among the nations conquered by Crœsus and

describes the equipment of the Paphlagonians in Xerxes’ army, while

Xenophon also speaks of the numerous soldiers they were able to put

into the field. Like the other nations of Asia Minor, the Paphlagonians

passed successively under the dominion of Persia and Macedonia and they

were included with Cappadocia in the territory of Eumenes; but it was

only when their country was annexed to the kingdom of Pontus that they

ceased to be ruled by native princes. (Third century B.C.)

Bithynia takes its name from the tribe of the Bithyni who, with the

Thyni, are said to have originally crossed from Thrace. There was an

older population which they expelled, but the tribe of the Maryandini

continued to maintain themselves in the northeastern mountains.

Bithynia shared the fate of its neighbour in being conquered by

both Lydians and Persians, but in the fourth century B.C. we find

the beginning of a native monarchy which increased in power, until,

under Nicomedes I, the founder of the city of Nicomedia, it became

an important kingdom. This kingdom continued to exist till the

encroaching strength of that of Pontus drove its sovereign to seek

protection from the Roman power. It then became a Roman province and as

such was for a time united with Paphlagonia.

The greater part of both these countries is wild and mountainous,

and they possess extensive forests, but in many districts the rugged

country gives place to fertile plains and valleys. The Greeks founded

cities all along the coast, of which Sinope in Paphlagonia was the most

important and the last place in that country to submit to the rule of

Pontus (183 B.C.).

ARMENIA

In the native language Armenia is called Haik, and accordingly in the

native legend we find the name of Haik ascribed to the founder of

the first Armenian kingdom. This hero was said to be the fourth in

descent from Japhet, and to have fled with a band of followers into the

mountains of Ararat in consequence of the tyranny of Belus, king of

Babylon, whom he afterwards defeated in a battle on the shores of Lake

Van. The inscriptions reveal a close resemblance between the Babylonian

writing and that used by the people of Urartu, the name employed in

the Assyrian inscriptions for the country of Ararat. A distinction is

however to be drawn between two races, the Armenians proper, who are of

Aryan origin, and probably first appeared about the sixth century B.C.,

and the Alarodians, who were previously settled in the country and were

eventually completely absorbed by the new-comers. It is the Alarodians,

mentioned only by Herodotus, who seem to have possessed an affinity

with the Babylonians.

A descendant of Haik is said to have extended his power even as far as

Syria and Cappadocia and to have entered into alliance with Ninus of

Assyria. The legend further states that Semiramis (Shamiram), queen of

Assyria, made war on Araj of Armenia who had refused her love, and that

she defeated and slew him in battle, after which she gave Armenia to

Cardus. But Cardus rebelled against her and suffered the same fate as

his predecessor, though his descendants were permitted to retain the

throne as vassals to Assyria, till on the dissolution of the empire

they recovered their independence. A later king, Tigranes, appears

as the ally of Cyrus and the slayer of his rival Astyages. Tigranes

is mentioned by Xenophon, but the value of the rest of the legendary

history is extremely doubtful. The Assyrian inscriptions make frequent

mention of expeditions into the Armenian territory. It was divided into

various principalities. The Haikian dynasty had its seat at Armavir

beyond the Araxes, and Van on the lake of the same name was a very

ancient capital. The Haikian dynasty continued to reign till Alexander

the Great defeated Vahi in 317 B.C. The eastern portion of Armenia was

constituted an independent kingdom by Artaxias in 190 B.C., and under a

later dynasty, the Arsacid, it seemed likely to become the centre of a

great empire. The Romans, however, stepped in and its king Artavasdes,

having been taken prisoner by Antony, was beheaded in the year 30

B.C. at the command of Cleopatra, while the country was split up into

numerous rival principalities.[a]

CHAPTER IV. THE LYDIANS

Of the somewhat numerous nations that inhabited Asia Minor after the

disappearance of the Hittites, the Lydians were the only ones who

attained a degree of prominence that makes them an object of particular

interest to the present day student of ancient history. And even these

have an interest of a somewhat negative kind through their associations

with the Greeks on the one hand and the Persians on the other.

As to the origin of the Lydians and their early history, all is utterly

obscure. It is not even very clearly known whether they are to be

regarded as a Semitic, Aryan, or a Turanian stock; most likely they

were a mixed race and owed to this fact the relative power which they

attained. Tradition, which here does service for history, ascribes to

them three dynasties of kings, which are commonly spoken of as the

Attyadæ, Heraclidæ, and the Mermnadæ. The first of these dynasties

is altogether mythical, and the second very largely so. There are,

however, some half dozen kings of the later period of the second

dynasty whose names are known to us; these are Alyattes I, Ardys I,

Alyattes II, Meles, Myrsus, and Candaules, and they ruled from about

the year 814 B.C. to the year 691 B.C. The last of these kings,

Candaules by name, is known to fame through the pages of Herodotus and

other writers, and with his overthrow by Gyges, the third and last and

the only truly historic dynasty of Lydia was ushered in.

The story of the overthrow of Candaules, as told by Herodotus, is one

of the most stirring and famous of that author’s narratives. That it

must be regarded as half mythical, however, is evident from the fact

that other Greeks had different traditions as to the same event. Thus

Plato tells a fabulous tale of the finding by Gyges of a ring which

had the property of rendering him invisible at pleasure, which ring

became the means through which he succeeded in winning the favour of

the wife of Candaules, and ultimately in overthrowing that monarch. All

these tales, taking thus the characteristic cast of ancient narratives,

agree, however, in the one essential point, namely, the overthrow of

the dynasty by Gyges and the establishing of himself and his successors

on the throne.

If tradition is to be credited, Gyges was a man of no small merit as

an administrator; in particular, it is believed that he first invented

a system of coinage. The alleged fact rests on somewhat insecure

evidence; still, in default of another claimant, it is usually accepted

by modern historians, and this alone should be sufficient to preserve

the name of Gyges, to the remotest posterity.

The name of Gyges, however, has attained no such popular notoriety as

that of his successor, Crœsus, of about a century later. It is, indeed,

the story of Crœsus and his overthrow by Cyrus, as told by Herodotus,

that has done more than anything else to preserve the name of Lydia.

Thanks to the father of history, the name of Crœsus has stood as a

synonym of wealth through all the centuries since that monarch lived,

and the tragic story of the overthrow of the mighty autocrat through

overweening confidence in himself and an underestimate of his enemy

will continue, no doubt, to point a moral for successive generations of

readers so long as history is read.

Among all the names of antiquity there is, perhaps, no other more

widely and popularly known than that of Crœsus, and there is certainly

no other name in ancient or modern history so famous, whose possessor

achieved so little. The wealth of Crœsus was largely a heritage from

his predecessors, and his share in the only important Lydian war

of which we have record, was far from a glorious one. The place of

this famous monarch in history is, therefore, as unique as it is

interesting.[a]

THE LAND

It is difficult to fix the boundaries of Lydia very exactly, partly

because they varied at different times, partly because we are still but

imperfectly acquainted with the geography of western Asia Minor.