SECTION D.—MONUMENTS OF THE WEST.

ANGORA, GIAOUR-KALESI, YARRE (CHESME KEUPRU); DOGHANLU, BEY-KEUI;

SIPYLUS, KARA-BEL; ILGÎN (KÖLIT-OGHLU YAILA), (EFLATOUN-BUNAR, FASSILER).

It has already been indicated that the Hittite works in the west

are few in number and of somewhat special character, and that they

are disposed for the most part seemingly along a single line of

road.[358] They betoken a line of conquest rather than a period of

settlement. Nevertheless, if we may permit ourselves to take into

consideration certain sculptures which, though uninscribed, are of

strongly Hittite character, we shall find reason to feel the presence

of Hittite influence, or close contact with Hittite artistic feeling,

in Galatia north-east from Phrygia. In view of the fact which has been

established[359] that the Halys River formed a boundary between peoples

of different racial customs, this evidence, if it may be accepted,

assumes definite importance, inasmuch as such influence was less likely,

under the circumstances, to be the result of neighbourly assimilation. It

would argue, in short, for a definite occupation or suzerainty.

Of such uninscribed works we may single out three in the immediate

vicinity of Angora, the one at Kalaba,[360] which is just eastward of

the town, the others at Amaksiz and Yalanjak,[361] which lie to the west

and south-west respectively. These are uniform slabs of stone, suitable

for the façade of a building, decorated with reliefs of lions.[362] It

is not merely the analogy of motive and of subject, but certain details

of treatment, which give them a Hittite character. The beasts are in

each case represented as advancing, with wide open mouths. The farther

legs are advanced and the tail curls over the back. On the lion from

Kalaba the body is seemingly hairy below the belly and the collar is

suggested. Most characteristic of all is the treatment of the shoulder

muscles, which are drawn in conventional outline, as at Eyuk, Sinjerli,

and elsewhere. (At Chesme Keupru, also, exposed to the weather on the

western side of the bridge, there is a lion sculptured completely in the

round. This is in itself a fashion unknown to Hittite art, and added to

that there must be noticed the seated posture of the animal and uncouth

treatment of the subject. We cannot see in this any semblance of Hittite

influence.)

The sculptures of Giaour-Kalesi, however, are of unmistakably Hittite

origin, even though no inscription seems to have been noticed with them.

Here the subjects are godlike figures, in familiar Hittite guise.[363]

They are carved in relief upon the living rock, and their situation

is particularly noteworthy. A rocky knoll overlooks, indeed partly

overhangs, a narrow pass: upon the summit is a fortress, rectangular in

shape, about eighteen yards by thirty-seven, and supported by an outer

and lower wall at a distance of twelve to thirty yards. The masonry of

the inner wall is rough dry-walling, while the outer is built in the

style of the fortress on Beuyuk Kaleh at Boghaz-Keui,[364] of stones

roughly pentagonal in shape, irregular in size, fitted to one another,

and laid without mortar. In its shape this fortress corresponds to that

of Yenije Kaleh at Boghaz-Keui;[365] in its double wall and rough inner

masonry to that on Kizil Dagh;[366] and in the position of the monuments

near its entrance to that on Kizil Dagh just mentioned, and to another at

Karaburna.[367]

[Illustration: PLATE L

ANGORA: THE ACROPOLIS (_See also p. 36._)]

The sculptures represent two male figures: the one bearded, the other

beardless. Both are clad in the short tunic, tip-tilted shoes, and

conical hat familiar in the god-figures at Boghaz-Keui.[368] A dagger

with crescental hilt is stuck into the belt of each. They are of gigantic

size, seemingly about ten or twelve feet high, and both are posed in

the same way facing in the same direction. They turn to the observer’s

left; their right hands are advanced, as though pointing down the pass,

while their left arms are drawn back. Obedient to convention, the right

legs are advanced, and the shoulders are seen almost in full view.

Something hangs down from the hat of each, falling behind the neck;[369]

and upon the front of the hat worn by the bearded figure there may be

traced a curving object, but whether the upturned brim familiar on the

sculptures at Sinjerli and Boghaz-Keui,[370] or some other emblem, is not

determinable.

There can be little doubt as to the identification of these two figures,

as they are portrayed, with the father-god and the son-god (the two forms

of Attis of later times), seen in exact correspondence on the sculptured

walls of the sanctuary at Boghaz-Keui.[371] Is it merely a coincidence

that, while being a link in the great westerly route from Boghaz-Keui

towards Kara-Bel and Sipylus, they are pointing down the pass which is

thought by many to have led also directly to Pessinus or Pessinous, the

chief sanctuary of the Mother-goddess[372] in this part of Asia Minor?

Whatever may have been the direction of the Royal Road eastward of

Giaour-Kalesi, it would seem to have passed west by way of Yarre, which

is found near a bridge over the Sangarius called _Karanji Keupru_. Here a

sculptured slab has been found[373] decorated with a relief representing

a ceremonial feast. This is an important link, for this class of subject

has a wide distribution, as we have seen,[374] throughout Hittite lands

on both sides of the Taurus. Its appearance west of the Halys betrays the

influence not only of Hittite art but of a common religious institution.

[Illustration: PLATE LI

AYAZÎN: ROCK-HEWN TOMBS AND EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Cf. p. 60.

The church may be recognised on the right by its rounded exterior,

corresponding to the apse.]

The slab is almost exactly thirty inches square and twelve inches thick.

The back is rough, and on the upper side is carved a tongue or ‘joggle,’

for attaching another slab: clearly it formed part of the façade of a

building like the slabs of Angora, Sinjerli, and Sakje-Geuzi. The drawing

of the scene is more angular and less free than is seen on most Hittite

works, but there are several intrinsic Hittite peculiarities. Two figures

are seated, their feet on footstools, at opposite sides of a narrow

table or altar. The head and back of the left-hand figure are missing.

The shoes of both turn upwards at the toes, and their garments seem to

be long, reaching to their ankles. The end of a toga-like garment is

conspicuous on the right-hand figure, falling over the right shoulder

and reaching almost to the seat. The head-dress of this figure resembles

a skull-cap with expanding front, and a short hood or veil falls behind

the neck. The features are sharp, the nose and chin being particularly

prominent. The figure is seated on a stool with two straight legs

which cross. In the left hand (which, as at Sinjerli and elsewhere, is

inaccurately represented with the palm instead of the knuckles towards

the observer) there is grasped a small round-topped object; and in the

right hand, which is partly raised, there seems to be a cup. The opposite

figure is clad alike, so far as it can be seen, and similarly raises

a cup towards the lips. The object between them resembles in form the

narrow tapering altars seen on the sculptures of Fraktin. Upon it there

seem to be a bird, and possibly some other offerings not clearly defined.

In the background between the two heads, and above the ‘altar,’ there

appear certain marks, in relief, which may be the remains of hieroglyphic

signs. It is unfortunate that the whole of this sculpture is not

preserved, a circumstance which makes us hesitate to attempt to explain

its meaning. It is probable, however, that the persons, being both

seated, are in this case on an equality, and both share in the feast,

as at Marash,[375] Boghaz-Keui,[376] and Sinjerli.[377] We infer that

they are man and woman, but that is not clear. The figure on the right,

clad in the toga and long robe, wears also an earring. The seat on the

left is not a stool of the same kind as that on the right, but rather a

square-shaped chair, though, being broken in two, we have only a portion

remaining from which to judge.

In the Phrygian country the rock sculptures of non-Phrygian character

near the Midas-tomb at Doghanlu[378] may be thought to carry on the

line of Hittite highway to the west. These are found on a plateau above

the valley in which are the Phrygian monuments, and they seem to have

been anciently reached by means of a road ascending in a gentle curve,

now partly hidden at the bottom by accumulated earth. There are several

figures of gigantic size carved in relief upon the rocks, but that which

has attracted most attention is a small one in the series, two feet four

inches high, described by the discoverer as a figure of ‘Hermes.’ The

person stands, facing left, his left foot and arm advanced. His hair is

dressed close, or it may be covered by a skull-cap, and a curl is visible

behind the neck. In the left hand a _caduceus_ is held upright, the head

of which is seen like a small disk with horn-like objects projecting from

the top and turned towards one another. Beyond the staff are certain

picture-signs, amidst which a bird[379] may be recognised, with a small

triangular sign below. These signs, in the opinion of the discoverer,

are not the same as the Hittite hieroglyphs. None the less, the monument

is accepted as Hittite by Dr. Messerschmidt[380] and M. Perrot.[381]

We consider their interpretation of the origin of the sculpture to be

extremely doubtful. We do not feel so strongly as Professor Ramsay that

the Phrygians obviously learned this type from the Hittites of Pteria,

as may be seen from a comparison with the youthful god in the sanctuary

of that place. On the other hand, the _caduceus_, the picture-signs, and

the short robe of the figure, are not really those familiar in Hittite

art. We are told, however, that other sculptures of the series with which

the ‘Hermes’ is associated have more in common. The theory of Hittite

influence, though not of Hittite origin, is perhaps easiest reconciled

with history, and we may accept it tentatively as a working hypothesis

explaining their presence, but not as independent evidence.

[Illustration: PLATE LII

AYAZÎN: ROCK-HEWN ROOF OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH

Notice the dome and capitals. (_See Pl. LI. and p. 60._)]

The same doubt does not exist, however, in regard to an inscription from

Bey-Keui, which is a definite trace of the Hittites in the west. The

monument is a dressed block of limestone, dug by Professor Ramsay[382]

out of a mound at the entrance to a glen. The hieroglyphs are in relief,

and on the portion of the stone preserved were arranged in rows, of which

two partly remain. The whole was surrounded by a plain border.[383] From

the published copy two or three of the signs may be readily recognised

as distinctively Hittite. The position of the monument has thus a great

interest amid the paucity of evidence in the west.

Those monuments which tell of the Hittite influence in the extreme west

are found on the mountains of Sipylus and Tmolus, not far in either

case from Smyrna. The river Hermus before entering the sea flows about

a mile distant on the northern side of Mount Sipylus. On the other bank

there stretches out a considerable expanse of highly fertile plain. The

road and railway pass between the river and the mountain, and from them

the famous sculpture may be plainly seen. It is several hundred feet

up the slope, involving a sharp climb up the accumulated débris and

soil at the foot of the cliff. Above, the cliffs rise sheer and almost

precipitous.[384]

The monument occupies a recess specially prepared, about forty feet in

height, while the figure itself is over thirty feet high. This gigantic

sculpture, perhaps on account of its accessibility, has been more

noticed in writings, ancient and modern, than any other. Its present

condition,[385] however, leaves us no chance of forming any new opinion

as to its original meaning and character. Fortunately on both points

there remains little doubt, in spite of a considerable controversy, which

is, however, now no longer of interest. As to its meaning, we are guided

by the studied words of Pausanias,[386] read in the light of modern

information, to believe that it was a rock image of the Mother-goddess;

and as to its character, we may see in its present weathered state the

indications of a sculpture in very high relief, almost indeed in the

round, though not disengaged from the rock, which once represented a

female seated, with her feet presumably upon a stool. The head of the

figure is seemingly inclined forward, and the form of the female bust

may still be recognised. Those who previously may have thought the

carving to represent a bust upon a pedestal were deceived by its present

appearance, for certain hieroglyphs[387] in the recess near the head

attest its Hittite origin: the motive of bust and pedestal finds no

place in the category of Hittite art, while the seated figure of the

Mother-goddess has its counterpart in the Hittite sculptures at Eyuk[388]

and Fraktin.[389] The inscription in question is very fragmentary, though

certain characteristic symbols can be recognised, notably the tip-tilted

shoe and the horned (ram’s) head. ‘It contains,’ writes Professor Sayce,

‘the name of the Mother-goddess, with her title “Queen of the Rock,” all

of which signs recur in an inscription from Emir-Ghazi.’[390]

[Illustration: PLATE LIII

MT. SIPYLUS: GIANT IMAGE OF THE MOTHER-GODDESS]

It would seem that classical writers, following generally in the

footsteps of Homer, confounded this image with another object, a natural

rock on the same mountain, which tradition associated with Niobe, and

would seem indeed to have conveyed a suggestion of her weeping form.

Thus Homer[391] sings that ‘Niobe, turned to stone, upon arid Sipylus

broods o’er her sorrows’; and so again Ovid:[392] ‘Fastened to the rock

she weeps, and the marble sheds tears.’ Fortunately Pausanias, himself

probably a native of this country, ascertained the facts and showed how

the confusion had arisen. ‘This Niobe,’ he says,[393] ‘I myself saw

when I ascended Mount Sipylus; close at hand it is merely a rock and a

cliff, with no resemblance to a woman, mourning or otherwise; but if

you stand farther off, you will think you see a weeping woman bowed

with grief.’ This is clearly the Niobe of Homer, Ovid, and Sophocles,

and clearly also the smoothed appearance of the rock above the image

of the Mother-goddess (which is not, it seems, due at all to the action

of the water), was one of the reasons accounting for the confusion. As

to the identity of the image, Pausanias leaves us in no doubt where he

says,[394] ‘Here (at Aeriae) there is a temple of the Mother of the

Gods, with a stone image of her: both are worth seeing. The people of

Aeriae say that it is the most ancient sanctuary of this goddess in the

Peloponnese. The oldest of all her images,[395] however, is on the rock

of Coddinus at Magnesia, to the north of Sipylus: the Magnesians say it

was made by Broteas, son of Tantalus.’ Finally the same writer makes his

distinction apparent by showing that he was aware of the passage in Homer

referring to the story of Niobe.[396]

As in other cases, we do not dwell upon the religious symbolism of the

monument. That the Mother-goddess (Ma) was the prototype of Kybele

remains undisputed, and all that is of interest in the cult of the great

Phrygian goddess has been pointed out by Sir William Ramsay[397] and

others. But the attributes of the goddess in the minds of the Hittites

remain indefinite, and are to be inferred from the rites represented

with her at Boghaz-Keui, Eyuk, and Fraktin, from the ritual described

by Strabo and Herodotus, as surviving at Comana, Tyana, Pessinus, and

elsewhere, and from the inherited attributes of Kybele herself.[398]

The other Hittite monuments of the west on the pass of Kara-Bel are

comparatively near at hand. A stream which feeds the Hermus, flowing

around the foot of Mount Sipylus on the east, comes down from the

valley which separates that mountain on the south from the opposite

slopes of Olympus. The bed of another small tributary leads up these

southern slopes to a narrow wooded glen upon the ridge, in which are

the sources of the Kara Su. Through this glen there passes a track, now

not much used, connecting Ephesus to the south with Sardis or Smyrna

by the northern valley. About seventy feet above this track, in the

perpendicular face of the cliff, a niche of rock encloses a sculpture

in relief. The niche is about six feet wide at the base and nine feet

high, being considerably narrower at the top.[399] The figure within is

that of a warrior, similar to those of Giaour-Kalesi, and resembling the

god-figures at Boghaz-Keui. He stands facing to his left, his left leg

and arm advanced, and his shoulders squared to the observer. He wears a

short tunic and short-sleeved vest and high boots, which in some early

drawings are shown as turning up at the toes.[400] The conical Hittite

hat completes his costume. A triangular-shaped bow is carried over his

right shoulder, and his extended left hand seems to grasp a long staff

or spear.[401] The sculpture, being on the east side of the ravine, is

turned towards Ephesus. There is another similar sculpture on a detached

block of stone some two hundred and fifty yards farther up the pass. This

stone seems to have fallen from the rocks above, and it now lies on the

west side near the stream, about twelve yards below the level of the

path. As it lies the sculptured face is towards the east, and the figure

being turned as in the former case, towards the left, looks to the north.

It is probable, however, from the similarity of the two subjects, that

they originally looked in the same direction.

It is curious that there is no mention of these sculptures by Pausanias.

Herodotus, however, describes them as images of Sesostris,[402] ‘the one

on the way from Ephesus to Phocaea, the other from Sardis to Smyrna. In

both places a man is carved, four and a half cubits high, bearing a spear

in his right hand, and in his left a bow; and the rest of his equipment

is in unison, for it is partly Egyptian and partly Ethiopian. From one

shoulder to the other there extend across the breast sacred Egyptian

characters, incised, which read as follows: “I acquired this region by my

own shoulders.” Who or whence he is he does not here show.’ It is clear

that Herodotus was writing from hearsay: there is just enough general

accuracy in his account to identify the monuments, and enough discrepancy

to make it apparent that he had not visited them himself. The details as

to position we have already noticed; and Professor Sayce has shown[403]

that the inscription, so far from being across the breast of the figure

and in Egyptian characters, is found in the characteristic place, between

the spear and the head of the figure, and consists of a group of Hittite

hieroglyphs, in which certain symbols can be recognised. On the fallen

block no trace of inscription remains, as the sculpture has suffered

mutilation; in fact, a Yuruk’s tent was at one time pitched against

it, and the niche used as a fireplace. But sufficient remains to make

it demonstrable that no Egyptian inscription ran across the breast. We

can hardly hesitate to identify this figure with one of the two forms of

the Hittite national deity, and if the suggested absence of beard be a

guide, he will be in this case the son-god of Boghaz-Keui, the Sandon of

Tarsus, the prototype of Attis the consort of Kybele. We are inclined to

see him here, as at Giaour-Kalesi, in the aspect of a God of Arms. We may

notice once more, and ask, as in a previous case, whether it can be mere

coincidence that the only Hittite monuments surviving in the extreme west

are representations of the Mother-goddess and of the chief male deity of

the Hittite peoples.

[Illustration: PLATE LIV

KARA-BEL: THE HITTITE GOD OF ARMS]

With these monuments of the west we classify also one definitely Hittite

inscription from near Iconium, and two instructive monuments reflecting

Hittite influence, found near the Lake Beyshehr. The inscription was

found near Ilgîn, at a place called Kölit-oghlu Yaila,[404] about three

miles from the latter and eight miles eastward from the former, and about

three hundred yards off the road from Ilgîn to Kadyn Khan. Actually the

spot is about fifty miles north-westward from Iconium. Here there are

traces of an ancient site in a slight eminence upon the plain, and the

ruins of a wall running in a curve for a long distance. It is possible,

Professor Ramsay thinks, that these indications may mark the site of

pre-Hellenic _Tyriaion_,[405] which was one of the three chief cities

of the Phrygio-Lycaonian frontier lands. In Roman times, however,

Tyriaion was placed without doubt at Ilgîn. It is more probable that

the mound indicates a site of antiquity that fell for some reason into

neglect as Tyriaion came into prominence. Out of the top of this there

was dug up a block of limestone, about two feet eight inches high and

six feet long. It is not quite complete; but upon it there may be made

out with some certainty three rows of Hittite hieroglyphs in relief, the

inscription commencing with the right-hand side at the top. The position

of the monument is of special importance, for it seems clearly to have

been found near to its original position, and is the sole witness of

Hittite handiwork in this part of the tableland. And though it stands

alone, it does not seem to be of that class, the isolation of which may

be accounted for and is in itself instructive, like the sculptures of

Sipylus and Kara-Bel. It seems, on the other hand, to be the product of

settled conditions, and its presence implies a whole field and period of

Hittite influence which would otherwise have remained in obscurity.

There are two monuments south-west of Konia which, though not inscribed

nor demonstrably of Hittite handiwork, reflect clearly Hittite

influence and feeling in art. One of them is ‘Plato’s Spring’ at

Eflatoun-Bunar,[406] nine miles northwards from Beyshehr. This consists

of two walls of an unexplained structure, of which about two-thirds

has been destroyed. The façade, which is decorated with sculptures, is

about twelve feet in height and twenty feet in length. It is washed by a

stream which has been partly dammed by stones taken from the building.

The stones are large, almost gigantic, and dressed with care: they are

decorated with human figures in relief, which vary in size with the

stones, though forming a symmetrical group, and each posed with hands

raised, in full view; several of them wear the conical Hittite hat. Two

pairs of wings, enclosing disks, are carved upon a single stone which

spans all but the corner-stones, while a great slab which covers the

whole retains the decoration of a single pair of wings and part of a

central disc. In the side view some of the stones are dressed with a

panel; other stones are lying about, and Professor Ramsay has detected

one on which a lion seemed to have been carved.

There is another remarkable but equally problematical monument at

Fassiler,[407] near the route from Beyshehr to Iconium. It is a gigantic

stela, about eight yards in height, and nearly a yard thick. At the

bottom its width is nearly three yards, narrowing at the top to nearly

two yards. The subject represented upon it is carved in very high relief.

It shows two lions side by side separated only by a figure, clad in a

long robe, with hands folded before the breast. Upon the shoulders[408]

there is posed a greater figure, wearing the short tunic and conical

hat of peculiar form. The right hand is raised, while the left arm is

bent, and some indistinct object is grasped by the hand. Meagre as is

our information about this monument, we do not hesitate to see in it a

reflection of an idea which we see carried out in the Hittite sanctuary

of Boghaz-Keui. The theme seems to us to represent the statue of the

god borne upon the shoulders of his priest; and the lions, as emblems or

guardians of the god, suggest a derived form of the son-god or Attis,

which we discuss in a later chapter.[409] The character of the lions

flanking the monument, with their heads projecting boldly in front, is

also in keeping with Hittite tradition;[410] and the position of the

sculpture between the lions has its counterpart in a monument, equally

of post-Hittite times, which has been brought to light at Sinjerli.[411]

Finally the whole appearance of the monument suggests a columnar

figure upon a lion-base,[412] of which this is a clumsy and ill-carved

substitute. A wonderful gulf separates the drawing and execution of this

monument from the sculptures of Boghaz-Keui.

SECTION E.—MONUMENTS IN THE SOUTH-EAST OF THE TABLELAND.

KARA DAGH, EMIR-GHAZI, TYANA (BOR, NIGDEH, ANDAVAL), BULGHAR-MADÊN, IVRÎZ.

We turn in fine to the south-eastern corner of the tableland, now a

desert tract fringed by the northern slopes and outlying ridges of the

Taurus mountains. Our comparatively intimate knowledge of the monuments

and historical geography of this region is due almost entirely to the

consistent researches of Professor Sir Wm. Ramsay and his school.

We come firstly to the Kara Dagh (Black Mountain), an outlying ridge of

Taurus,[413] which rises three or four thousand feet above the plain,

to a height of seven thousand feet above the sea. At the foot of the

mountain, on the north, the little village of Maden-Shehr marks the

classical site of BARATA, better known, perhaps, as _Bin Bir Kilisse_,

‘the thousand and one churches.’ Professor Ramsay tells[414] of the

great changes that time has wrought in this locality. Here there ‘must

have been in ancient time the summer sanatorium of the Lycaonian plain.

The soil is very fertile, and being volcanic, is specially suitable for

vines. Many kinds of fruit trees also were cultivated. Water is not

plentiful, but there are several springs of remarkably good water. The

needs of agriculture and viticulture were met by a wonderfully elaborate

system of storing the rain and the melted snows of winter.’ But now

‘the site of this ancient city is the most inhospitable in the whole of

Lycaonia. There is no water except filthy half-poisonous puddles stored

in the ancient cisterns. The vines have almost entirely disappeared,

the orchards remain only in a few trees run wild. There is hardly any

cultivation. The water runs rapidly off the steep slopes of the mountain,

and is of no benefit to agriculture except in the lowest parts of the

little sheltered valley where the city was built.’

That the life, and possibly the sanctity, of the place dates back

to remote antiquity is shown by the discovery[415] of two Hittite

inscriptions on the summit of the mountain. The spot called _Mahalich_

is marked by a Byzantine Church, which seems to preserve the ancient

sanctity of a high place of older times.[416] The church is supported on

the north side by rocks in which a passage can now be traced, though it

would seem to have been partly hidden at least by the Byzantine walls.

This passage was to some extent artificial, and on its rock-walls are

two inscriptions, a short one in relief upon the north, and a longer one

incised on the south. The shorter inscription consists of four groups

of signs only, translated by Professor Sayce[417] to mean ‘Tarkyanas,

the supreme king.’ The other inscription is longer, comprising twelve

groups of signs in a row, in addition to the same royal name, which

in the middle recurs with little variation in its hieroglyphic form,

though surmounted in this case by a winged emblem. There appears in this

inscription[418] a hieroglyphic sign otherwise unknown, resembling a

horned altar.

In the same neighbourhood, about eight miles to the north-west, there is

an outlying rocky hill called Kizil Dagh, which rises sharply from the

plain to a height of nearly four hundred feet. The summit of this knoll

is crowned with a fortress, the early character of which is betokened,

says the discoverer,[419] by its style and by three hieroglyphic

inscriptions found near by. We are not yet told the precise nature

of the ramparts, but the position of the fortress recalls those of

Giaour-Kalesi, Boghaz-Keui, and Karaburna. Near a gate in the western

wall, on the right-hand side, the longest inscription of the series is to

be seen upon a sort of rock altar. The hieroglyphs are carved in relief,

and arranged in two rows. As with the inscription on the Kizil-Dagh, the

same royal name appears in the middle of the group of signs, surmounted,

it would seem, by a winged disk. Lower down on the hill, but still upon

the shoulder, there rises a sharp rock, roughly hewn into the form of a

high-backed seat or throne, and on the back of this a bearded figure has

been engraved. The personage is represented as seated on a square-shaped

throne, his feet upon a stool; but the details of the design are unlike

anything else that has been recorded.[420] Much of its peculiarity

may be attributed to the unskilled hand that carved it, but there are

certain features rendered with deliberation that are worthy of note. The

left arm is outstretched, and the hand grasps towards the top a staff

with crescental knob, which is held vertically. The lower end of the

staff stops short above the stool, possibly in obedience to the general

convention of perspective in Hittite art. Were the drawing completed,

indeed, in our own convention, with the vanishing point suitably chosen,

it would be found that the staff seemed to rest upon the stool. In the

right hand, which is just in front of the body, there seems to be a cup

of some kind.[421] The dress is not clearly drawn, but there is the

suggestion, by a simple oblique line, of a loose fold or possibly the

loose end of a toga across the body. The hem of the skirt is fringed. No

footgear is apparent, and the head-dress is apparently a degradation of

the familiar conical hat, reduced in this case to an inverted V-shape

by unskilled drawing. The hair falls straight and backwards upon the

shoulders. The seat is curious, and plainly simulates a substantial

chair of wood. The back is a solid upright piece, square cut, and the

side-pieces which form the arms are lateral strips, connecting the front

legs with the back. The footstool is similar in style. Without other

evidence it would have been difficult to support an argument of Hittite

origins for this carving; but that question does not arise, owing to

the presence of a group of hieroglyphs appearing characteristically

between the top of the staff and the face, and these signs are at once

recognisable as forming the same group which we have met with three

times previously in the same vicinity, namely, the royal name read by

Professor Sayce _Tarkyanas_.[422] The same name appears in two other

places on the same rock. In the one case it is followed by two short

lines of inscription, incised like the rest, and the spelling of the name

seems to illustrate an interchangeability of two hieroglyphic signs.

Surmounting the whole there is a winged emblem, in which the central

portion seems to be composed of two crescents underneath a disk (which is

also divided like a crescent). Above the emblem there appear the symbol

of sanctity (the divided oval) and the hieroglyph which Professor Sayce

interprets as the name of the god Sandes.[423] The same arrangement, with

slight variations, is repeated with the other occurrence of the name,

which in this case, however, is spelt as in the earlier instances. The

centre of the winged emblem may be seen to be a rosette, with a curious

spreading object below. Above, two dots follow the name of Sandes, and

the picture-sign of a human arm bent ‘in adoration’ is by the side.

These two groups of inscriptions, and the carving which accompanies them,

awaken several interesting thoughts. The most important point is one

which might be easiest lost sight of, namely, that these sacred places

are sought on rocky points or hilltops, bearing out the suggestion of

the sculptures near Boghaz-Keui,[424] in which there may be reasonably

suspected the surviving traces of mountain-cults, or cults of mountain

deities, underlying the newer religious symbolism. There the idea is

conveyed in the drawings, here in fact. Who this deity was, in his local

guise at any rate, we do not learn. It would seem, however, that he was

identified at some time or other with Sandes, just as at Boghaz-Keui

most of the various local deities seem to be identified with the chief

national god of the age. The monuments before us, then, probably belong

to the time when the cult of this god was dominant, as under the Hatti

rulers, or during the ascendency of Greater Cilicia (possibly _Kas_ in

the inscriptions) as head-state of the Hittite confederacy. As for the

name repeated in each inscription, the fact that the winged rosette,

or winged emblem of sorts, overspreads it in four instances, leads us

to infer from the analogy of similar Hittite monuments,[425] that the

name is that of the king-priest of the locality. We recognise then in

our _Tarkyanas_ (by whatever name he may have been called) the local

dynast of the period of the sculptures, who was the chief minister and

representative of the local god.

Who, then, is the seated figure? It may be naturally thought that the

group of hieroglyphs repeating the same name decide that fact, but we

are led on further consideration to incline to another conclusion. For

there is no single example in Hittite art where the king is represented

seated or enthroned. On the other hand, it is the god who is found to be

enthroned, and the king appears in such scenes by virtue of his priestly

office. In this case the winged emblem does not accompany the writing of

the name between the figure and his staff; hence it is conceivable that

we have here a representation of the deity called by a name which was

that used also by the priest; if this be so, then it may be assumed that

the priest has really adopted to himself a name similar to, or compounded

of, that by which the god was known in the locality.[426]

There is one further point of importance which these inscriptions

illuminate. It is hardly to be doubted but that they are all

contemporary, especially as we have reason to believe that they each

contain the name of the same living person. Yet the different styles

in which they are carved—some in relief, others incised, some badly

drawn, others outlined with more care—would have otherwise given scope

for argument as to different periods of origin. We may dismiss, at any

rate for the future, the arguments as to period based merely upon the

difference between relief-work and incision, irrespective of style and

details.[427]

The plain is broken between Iconium and Tyana by a low ridge called

the Karaja Dagh. On the northern side of this, an isolated mass of

rocks rises from the plain, and is known as the Arissama Dagh. On one

of its highest peaks an ancient fortress, called naturally Arissama

Kaleh, commands a track which skirts the northern shoulder of the ridge

and looks down on the remains of a village called Eski Kishla (Old

Winter Quarters), about four miles distant to the west. The place is

now hardly inhabited, save for a few half-starving nomads; but there

are considerable traces of an ancient site in the squared stones to be

found among the débris. Here there has been found[428] a remarkable

stone altar of mushroom shape, and inscribed in the Hittite hieroglyphs.

Some three miles south-east is the village of Emir-Ghazi, placed upon

the slope of a considerable mound, where also old worked stones are

excavated in quantity. Here Professor and Lady Ramsay discovered two

further monuments, also inscribed; the one was a fragment of a second

altar of the same form, but the original character of the other object

remains uncertain, as it had been converted into a water-trough and so

considerably damaged.

These three monuments[429] are an important contribution to Hittite

archæology, and their position throws considerable light upon the changed

conditions and economy of the past. The altar is unique and perfect. It

is forty-two inches high, cylindrical in shape, with an expanding top,

the diameter of which is twenty-four and a half inches. The material

is black basalt. The pedestal tapers somewhat from the base upwards,

and the top spreads out sharply like a table. The Hittite hieroglyphs

upon it are in relief, and form a seemingly continuous inscription,

arranged around the top edge and around the shaft in six parallel rows. A

conspicuous feature of the inscription[430] is the _Ædicula_ (so called),

being the grouping of the royal or priestly emblems in the form of a

shrine (or _naiskos_) under the outspread wings attached to a rosette,

and recalling closely the emblems of the priest-king at Boghaz-Keui.[431]

From the second altar, the tray and bottom of which are broken away, one

line of inscription is entirely missing, while the ends of the other

lines (of which there were five originally) are also wanting. As in the

former case the hieroglyphs are carved in relief. This form of altar,

though not found elsewhere in the round, is suggested by the rock carving

of Fraktin,[432] and is clearly and elaborately represented on the

dromos-decorations at Eyuk.[433] In the latter case the altar is placed

before the enthroned bull, and towards it the priests and priestess lead

up rams to the sacrifice.

The remaining monument is so imperfect that but little can be made out

as to its original nature. That it was a corner-stone is certain from

the arrangement of the inscription, and we may compare it with the

monuments from Aintab[434] and from Marash.[435] Dr. Messerschmidt is

inclined to give it the same form as a corner-stone with recessed angle

from Carchemish.[436] However that may be, five lines of hieroglyphs in

relief are partly preserved upon the two inscribed faces, the rest being

cut or broken away; the height is about twenty-five inches, and the width

of the sides seventeen and fifteen inches respectively.

[Illustration: PLATE LV

TYANA: THE RUINED AQUEDUCTS OF ROMAN PERIOD (_See pp. 42, 70._)]

At the eastern limits of the great plains we reach Kilisse Hissar, the

site of the old-time TYANA.[437] It is shut in on three sides by ridges

and low outlying hills, but is open to the plain, and accessible from

Eregli and from Bulghar-Madên. It can hardly be doubted that this was

the chief city for the region we are considering, even in Hittite times,

to judge from its importance in the minds of classical writers and from

the extensive nature of its mounds and ruins. Strabo[438] describes it

as ‘built upon the mound of Semiramis’ which was ‘fortified with good

walls.’ Here, curiously enough, no Hittite monument has been brought

to light, probably because haphazard excavation in the mound is hardly

possible, owing to the fact that it is almost covered by the modern

houses. None the less, a Phrygian inscription of Midas[439] attests the

antiquity of the site; and three separate Hittite inscriptions seen in

the neighbouring places of Bor, Nigdeh, and Andaval may be reasonably

believed, as is supposed, to have come from the same source.

The most instructive and interesting of these monuments is that from Bor,

which is a monumental stela, recovered in two main portions at different

times at an interval of twelve years or more.[440] Even now the stone is

not complete; as may be seen from our illustration the fitted edges do

not quite correspond, so that a small portion is missing from the height,

while the left-hand edge is entirely broken away. The upper part measures

thirty inches by sixteen, with a thickness of eight inches. The lower

part is five inches taller, so that the whole must have been six feet or

more in height. Fortunately, on the fragments that have survived, there

is to be seen nearly the whole figure and face of a man, clearly the

priest-king, as well as an indication of the nature and arrangement of

the inscription. The figure is carved in high relief, with a projection

amounting in places to three inches, while the hieroglyphs are incised

upon the background. The figure occupied a height equivalent to eleven

bands of the hieroglyphs, of which fourteen are indicated. We have no

means of judging how wide the stone was originally, as the bottom is

fractured and the top has plainly been re-dressed since it was broken,

to correspond with the narrower width. We are inclined to think that the

larger and more important portion of the stone is still lacking. For the

attitude of the figure is that of adoration or of a suppliant. The man is

depicted with his back near the edge of the stone, and his hands raised

before his chin, exactly as on the rock monument of Ivrîz.[441] Now on

the stelæ in which one figure alone appears, like those of Carchemish and

Marash,[442] the personage, be he priest or king, occupies the central

position on the stone, and almost its whole height. He stands in those

cases with one arm outstretched grasping his staff, while the other arm

is close to his side; on the one he faces to the left, on the other to

the right, but the pose is the same. In this case the details are all

changed. To judge by certain faint indications on the stone, and by

comparison with the monument of Ivrîz described below, it may be inferred

that the hands are clasped in front of the face; it is at any rate clear

in the photograph that one hand at least is raised before the mouth. He

does not occupy the centre of the stone but the side of it, as may be

judged from the short lines of inscription beginning just opposite the

face. He does not fill the whole monument in accordance with the idea

of ‘exclusive majesty’ so common and so dominant in Oriental art; on

the other hand there are three lines of inscription above his head, and

at least one below. We are inclined from these considerations to regard

these fragments as forming part of a much larger whole, on which the

theme was one of adoration, not much unlike that carved on the rocks at

Ivrîz.[443] The resemblance may well be extended, for on comparing the

two priestly or kingly figures many striking features will be found in

common. The most apparent difference is the arrangement of the cloak,

which on the Bor stone is fastened below the throat, while on the Ivrîz

sculpture it is shown to hang more loosely, so that the front edge of the

fringed border trails on the ground. Otherwise the details correspond

closely; in each case the cloak is embroidered in three bands, and

bordered with a fringe. Even the patterns are similar, the _svastika_

appearing on the stone before us in the middle band between two bands

decorated with _diamond_ pattern (or ‘continuous squares’). The skirt

below is even more sumptuously embroidered; in each case the _svastika_

fills the lowest band, and from this hangs a fringe. On the Bor fragment

other elaborate devices are introduced, including the double or quadruple

Ionic curve, and the rosette; an embroidered waistbelt, collar, and shoes

complete the treatment. Other features, less exceptional, conform to the

old conventions: the turning-up points to the shoes, the bunched curl of

hair behind the neck, the skull-cap, and the straightness of the nose.

The beard is full and curly.

[Illustration: PLATE LVI

BOR: HITTITE INSCRIPTION AND RELIEF

The subject is the King-Priest in adoration of a deity whose figure is

missing. Cf. Pl. LVII.]

The inscription commences with two groups of hieroglyphs which may be

read _Ay-mi-ny-a-s of the land of Tyana_.[444] An earlier reading[445] by

the same decipherer suggested _Ai-m-gal-a-s_, corresponding to the royal

name Αινγαλος occurring in Greek inscriptions of Cilicia. However that

may be, and whatever may be the precise values to be assigned to these

hieroglyphs, the initial group which contains the royal name[446] will be

found to recur on the two famous monuments of Bulghar-Madên and Ivrîz.

On the latter, the name appears in one place written exactly in this

instance, and in another place, as at Bulghar-Madên, with a slight and

evidently grammatical variation. This fact throws a welcome light upon

the local history of the period.

Of the other monuments of the locality, the fragment from Andaval—now

hidden in the Greek church of that place—seems from the description given

of it to have been part of a similar monument, or at any rate of a stone

decorated with human figure and inscription.[447] The stone is broken

and rounded, measuring about thirteen inches across. It shows only

the top and back of the head of the figure, with two lines of incised

hieroglyphs above and the beginnings of two lines behind. The hair on

the head is shown by small curls, while behind the neck it falls in the

characteristic bunch. The eye is seen as usual in full upon the profile

of the figure, which is turned to the observer’s right.

The third monument has been found[448] in late years at Nigdeh, where

it was dug out of the foundations of a house. It is round and moulded,

and in all probability formed part of the base of a column or of a

built-up pedestal of some kind. At the bottom there is a protrusion of

stone for attachment, and in the top there is a square-cut socket hole,

of a width equal to about a third of the whole diameter. The mouldings,

which run around the upper edge only, look almost Roman in style. The

inscription[449] upon it is short, occupying a space only twelve inches

by four, and the letters are incised.

The monument of Bulghar-Madên is an inscription in five lines of incised

hieroglyphs.[450] It may be reached by crossing the outlying ridges of

Taurus between Tyana and Bulghar-Madên (a distance of thirty miles), or

by turning from the main road up the valley of the stream which flows at

the foot of the Bulghar Dagh.[451] In either case the monument is found

near the small village of _Ali Hodje_, two miles below Bulghar-Madên, on

the left (or north) bank of the stream; and it is to be reached only by

a sharp climb up the steep side of the valley, a little way above the

village. A guide is necessary, for the inscription is inconspicuous,

and it is carved on an outcrop of brown rock similar to many others in

the locality. The rock overhangs slightly, and is fairly smooth, though

its rough granitic nature renders it difficult to work with ease. The

inscription is in fair preservation, but it has probably never been

deeply or clearly incised. It occupies a space about four feet high and

rather more than six feet wide, and it is divided off from the rock

around by a border-line incised to about the same depth as those which

separate the rows of hieroglyphs. These rows are not all of the same

length, for the two uppermost are shorter on the left hand than the

others, probably on account of a considerable flaw in the stone which

they thus avoid. The top of the inscription is about ten feet from the

ground, so a ladder is desirable in order to study it closely.

It is generally thought that the vicinity of the silver-mines explains

the presence of this inscription. Yet the mines are some four miles

distant, and a more appropriate spot near the entrance to them could

have been readily found. It seems much more probable that this monument,

like the stone upon a pedestal near to Bogche, marks the boundary to a

territory or state, which in this case, for the reason we have indicated,

would be that ruled from Tyana. The general tendency of the reading

given by Professor Sayce,[452] which is remarkably instructive, seems to

confirm this opinion. Thus ‘A prince am I who has fixed the boundaries,’

and again, ‘This is the prince-god’s sacred stone for the land, set up

here, belonging to the boundary.’ It is only fair to say that Professor

Sayce regards his reading in this case as tentative; he also reads the

name of the prince in this case as a ‘son of Ayminyas’ of Tyana; and

there is another compound form of the word which may be taken for ‘the

land of Ayminyas.’

We come, in conclusion, to the monument of Ivrîz,[453] which is best

approached from Tyana or Iconium by way of Eregli,[454] but is also

accessible to the adventurous traveller from Bulghar-Madên by traversing

the rocky snow-flecked ridge that lies between. From Eregli following up

the bed of the Kodja Su the dreary barren plains are left behind, and a

verdant though neglected valley is unfolded. The pathway lies through

old gardens and vineyards and reaches of corn-land; willows line the

waterside, and the country is cheered by a profusion of trees in which

the hazel and chestnut abound, with here and there a great walnut or a

row of poplars. The valley with its singular fertility and beauty is

in marked contrast to the arid tracts beyond, and the change is only

intensified where, leaving the main stream, the pathway follows up,

on the left bank, a richly wooded vale that trends towards the south.

This new valley leads into the mountain, and after a distance of nearly

three miles it comes to an abrupt end where the wall of Taurus is met,

rising almost precipitously, and encircling the head of the glen where

the hamlet of Ivrîz is found. At the foot of the rock a stream of water,

clear and cool, bursts out in tremendous volume, and, supplemented by

other similar sources, becomes in a hundred yards a raging and impassable

torrent, roaring with a wonderful noise as it foams and leaps over the

rocks in its course. Before joining the main stream of the valley it

washes at a bend the foot of a bare rock, upon which from the opposite

side there may be seen the famous sculptures,[455] the most striking of

all known Hittite works, and one of the most imposing monuments of the

ancient East.

The treatment of these sculptures is all in relief. In composition there

are two persons represented: the Peasant-god, a gigantic figure fourteen

feet in height, distinguished by the bunches of grapes and bearded wheat

which he holds, and the King-priest, an heroic figure eight feet in

height, facing towards the god, with clasped hands raised in adoration or

thanksgiving for his bounty.

The god is clad in the short tunic, short-sleeved vest, pointed cap,

and shoes with turned-up toes, characteristic of the godlike figures on

all Hittite sculptures. But here the sculptor has elaborated his theme,

and has worked into it ideas or conceptions which we may reasonably

suspect were derived ultimately from the East through the intermediary

of Cilicia.[456] The figure is squat and stolid, and the face almost

Semitic. The nose, while straight and prominent, is treated with unusual

fulness. The hair is arranged in ringlets, so too the beard, except

upon the face where it is represented by curls.[457] The left hand is

advanced, holding up the ears of corn; while the right one is by the

body, grasping the vine-branch with pendent clusters. The drawing of

the body obeys the ordinary convention; the left leg is advanced, the

head is seen in profile to the left, while the shoulders are squared to

the observer. There are bracelets on the wrists, and the suggestion of

something undetermined upon the right forearm. The belt is decorated

as if of worked leather, and ends in a curl before the body, possibly

suggesting an attachment on the further side. The boots are high, with a

front flap bound to the ankle by a lace wrapped around, like the boots

of the peasantry of the district and of Cilicia in modern times. Perhaps

the most peculiar and Oriental detail is to be found in the horns which

decorate the helmet, of which four pairs are visible. In front of the

right foot is the suggestion of a bolted implement, possibly a plough.

[Illustration: PLATE LVII

IVRÎZ: GIANT SCULPTURES ON THE ROCK

The subject is the King-Priest in adoration of the Hittite god of

cultivation.

From a plaster cast in the Berlin Museum.]

Facing the god, and posed at a higher level (possibly, as in other

examples of eastern art, so that the relative smallness of the figure

would be less apparent), is the figure of the priest-king, who, if we

mistake not the group of hieroglyphs that denote him, is the same that we

have previously met with near Tyana.[458] In general style and in some

details, the treatment of this figure is similar; but the dress differs

in several ways. The priestly skull-cap is surrounded by three decorated

fillets with a knotted ornament of jewels upon the brow. The long skirt

is a richly woven garment, on which the pattern is chiefly a series of

punctuated squares in parallel rows, with a _svastika_ border edged with

a fringe. Over the shoulders there is thrown an embroidered mantle, with

ample collar, attached in front with a jewelled clasp or brooch. It falls

behind to below the knees, while in front the tasselled or fringed ends

trail on the ground. The pattern is arranged in three bands of continuous

squares or double zigzags. There is a substantial necklace and bracelet.

The boots and features and hair are treated as in the god-figure

opposite; perhaps the hair is bunched in this case a little more thickly

behind the neck. The right leg is advanced, and the two raised hands are

clearly clasped before the face, the fingers and nails of the further

hand being carefully represented.

There are three short inscriptions accompanying these figures. In that

which is carved before the face of the god, Professors Sayce[459] and

Jensen both find the name of Sandes in the first line (the W-like sign

below the divided oval that signifies divinity). In the next line, as in

the overlap of the first and second lines of inscription behind the king,

we find the same name (read Ayminyas)[460] as we have previously seen in

the inscriptions of Bor and of Bulghar-Madên. This point is of importance

in considering the history of the Hittite peoples when, as it seems, the

central authority was no longer at Boghaz-Keui. For the date of these

sculptures, if only from their close analogy in treatment to those of

Sakje-Geuzi, may be put down to the tenth or ninth century B.C. It would

seem indeed that we are here drawn into relation with the kingdom of

(Greater) Cilicia, which, with Tyana probably as capital, took the place

of the Hatti-state within the Halys, as the dominant Hittite state at the

beginning of the first millennium B.C.[461]

This point becomes more probable as we dwell upon the religious symbolism

of the monument. As Professor Ramsay has shown, in the muscular toiling

peasant-god who by his hoe and plough reclaims an arid waste and

makes it bounteous, we have a conception of Hercules, and that he was

the recognised chief deity of the district is evident from the name

_Herakleia_ given by the Greeks to Eregli. Professor Frazer also has put

it beyond doubt that the attributes of this Hercules are to be found

in Sandon of Tarsus. Now the prototype of Sandon we shall find in the

national Son-god (later Attis) portrayed in the sculpture gallery of

Boghaz-Keui,[462] and in this way we are linked at once with the older

Hittite mythology through the intermediary of the Cilician.

IV

THE NORTHERN CAPITAL

A DESCRIPTION OF PTERIA, THE ANCIENT CITY AT BOGHAZ-KEUI, AND THE

SCULPTURES CALLED IASILY KAYA.

PART I.

Fundamental though they are to our inquiry, the isolated monuments which

have been reviewed in the preceding chapter illustrate only certain

aspects of Hittite art, and disclose only incidentally a few details

of features, dress, and armour, with some suggestion of religious

observances and customs. Their disposition, it is true, helps us to

determine the confines of the land we have set forth to examine; but

their _provenance_ tells us little or nothing of where and how the people

lived who fashioned them. Nevertheless, just as these were the first

materials from which scholars have little by little created a science of

Hittite studies, so we may employ them most fittingly as the criteria for

our further investigation; that we may examine, with minds prepared, the

more coherent evidences of the Hittite civilisation, as disclosed by the

ruins of their cities and fortifications, their sanctuaries, and their

palaces adorned with mystic sculptures.

Such places are few indeed; but our knowledge of them is chiefly the

result of recent scientific expeditions, and is therefore the surer and

more precise.[463] The published accounts enable us to select four

sites, which happily afford material for a comparative study. Two of

these, Eyuk and Boghaz-Keui, are towards the north of Asia Minor,[464]

within the wide circuit of the Halys; while the other two are found below

the Taurus at Sinjerli and Sakje-Geuzi in the north of Syria.[465] Three

of these, moreover, are sites superficially similar, being small walled

towns placed on considerable mounds, which contain also the remains of

palace buildings decorated with peculiar sculptures. The fourth, which

covers the hilltop above the village of Boghaz-Keui, is of vastly greater

extent, and includes in its remains many peculiarities not represented

by the others. It has with some certainty been identified[466] with the

Pteria (or Ptara) across the Halys which, according to Herodotus,[467]

fell about 550 B.C. before Crœsus of Lydia, who found it in possession

of a ‘Syro-Cappadocian’ population whom he reduced to servitude.[468]

It has also for some time been linked with the Hittites in the minds of

scholars, both by the nature of the art its ruins illustrate, and by the

doubtful hieroglyphic inscription on the rock called Nishan Tash,[469]

and more particularly by the clear hieroglyphs associated with the

neighbouring sculptures of Iasily Kaya. Recently Dr. Winckler has added

to these links two building-stones decorated with sculptures and with

hieroglyphs[470] in the familiar Hittite style; and has finally riveted

the chain of evidence by the discovery in the ruins of an early palace of

numerous inscribed tablets of brick inscribed in cuneiform characters,

which prove to be from the archives of Hatti kings, including fragments

of diplomatic correspondence with the Pharaohs of Egypt and other

Oriental potentates in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries B.C. It

seems clear, then, that for several centuries at least the ancient city

of this place was the centre of Hittite power and civilisation. In an

earlier chapter[471] we have shown reason to believe that the decline

of this power is traceable to an early movement of a people akin to the

Phrygians, in the twelfth century B.C. We do not know as yet to what

extent the city suffered at their hands, if at all, or indeed during the

later struggles with Assyria. The palace of the fourteenth century B.C.,

however, would seem to have been in ruins some two or three hundred years

later when it was rebuilt.[472] The visible remains of the city, some of

which possibly belong to this period of revival, present no evidence of

any striking changes in the art they typify, and we may assume that they

represent to us the Hittite handiwork, or at least the direct survival

of Hittite art, down to the period of Phrygian domination in the eighth

century B.C., if not to the final overthrow and depopulation of the city

at the hands of Crœsus. These ruins thus claim our first consideration.

Fortunately for the preservation of these remains the village of

Boghaz-Keui lies just below the boundaries of the ancient site, and is

also a day’s journey from the nearest modern towns of any importance,

namely, Yuzghat and Sungurlu. In ancient times, however, the place

seems to have been connected by a system of engineered roads with other

portions of the country. The royal road which traversed Phrygia,[473]

linking, it is supposed, by the Hermus valley with Sardis and the

west, held on towards the Halys[474] without other apparent objective

than to approach this city. To the south also a similar royal road has

been traced for miles,[475] scouring the surface rocks northwards from

Injesu (near Cæsarea), leading towards a ford of the Halys near to

Bogche. The Persian posts from east to west are credited with having

followed this northern route, although the direct road from Carchemish

to Ephesus or Smyrna, whether by way of the Cilician Gates or by one

of the passes leading down on Cæsarea, did not need to approach, much

less to cross, the Halys river at all. It is indeed possible that the

earliest continuation of the route passed eastward by the valley of the

Tochma Su,[476] while a northern objective may be found in the old-time

importance of Sinope as seaport. These considerations however, only

increase the importance of Boghaz-Keui as the focus of the system.

Nowadays, as we have seen,[477] the main routes run differently,

adapting themselves to changed conditions, and the place which was once

the apparent centre of all activities in the interior is now without

economic interest, a wonderful memorial of the past.

The position chosen for this city was one of considerable natural

strength. Its walls surround the broad top of an outlying hill which is

connected with the watershed lying to the south only by the high ground

in that direction. On either side it is cut off by the steep valleys of

two mountain-streams flowing northward, which meet just below the modern

village. These in turn are fed by small tributaries from just behind the

hill, which is thus almost enclosed. From the point where these rise

the fall is about a thousand feet to the confluence of the main streams

two miles away; and though the descent of the latter is necessarily

more gradual, they are still very rapid, and in the winter are foaming

torrents. That on the eastern side in particular, the Beuyuk Kayanin,

has by its force worn down its rocky bed so deeply that where it passes

by the eastern knoll of the citadel, called Beuyuk Kaleh, its banks have

become precipitous cliffs requiring little or no artificial defence.[478]

The Yazîr Daresi, on the western side, flows through more alluvial

ground, and has there scooped for itself a gorge, in the steep bank of

which the harder rocks are left protruding, thus rendering an assault

uninviting on that side also. The engineers who planned the defence

utilised the natural advantages of the position, banking up the slopes,

and bringing their wall wherever practicable to the edges of the rocks,

in which all possible footholds were filled up with masonry.

[Illustration: PLATE LVIII

BOGHAZ-KEUI: SITE OF PTERIA, THE NORTHERN CAPITAL OF THE HITTITES

Beuyuk Kaleh. Sary Kaleh. Yenije Kaleh. The Maiden’s Rock. B. Kayanin

Daresi. The Lower Palace.

The Acropolis covered the whole hill; the line of ancient ramparts forms

the horizon on the right. (_See pp. 32, 200._)]

On the north side, where the line of defence is less clear, the ground

is broken by a third small stream, the Kizlar Kaya Daresi, which rises

within the circuit of the wall in the high ground of the acropolis, and

now joins the Yazîr in the modern village at its foot. On the level

ground, near this junction, there are the traces of an ancient rampart;

but the line of natural defence being somewhat higher, it may reasonably

be suspected that the enclosure was at some time extended in this

direction, possibly in order to include the Lower Palace. However that

may be, the really vulnerable point would seem to have been by way of

the higher ground to the south, and here the artificial protection was

stronger in proportion. The wall seems to have been built on this side

upon a rampart revetted with stone, which in its turn followed the line

of a natural ridge in the ground, giving an almost impregnable appearance

to the enormous mass of the defensive works. So high is this mound that a

narrow subterranean way was constructed through it, giving access to the

interior.

The ground within, which we call the acropolis, is the flat top of the

hill, around which the wall forms approximately three sides of a hexagon

(omitting the northern portion which descends, as we have seen, to a

lower level). The length of the wall upon the acropolis is about one and

a half miles, and the greatest width across from east to west is about

three-quarters of a mile. The whole circuit of the defences, including

the lower portion, is about three miles and a half; while the greatest

length from north to south upon the plan is about one mile and a quarter,

of which about half lies on the upper level.

The city wall, though built without mortar, was constructed in such a

way that it is still traceable continuously around the acropolis, and

is preserved in many places to a height of twelve feet or more. It has

an average thickness of about fourteen feet, made up of an inner and

outer facing each about four feet thick, padded with a core of stone

between. The outer face was especially strong, consisting of large

stones sometimes as much as five feet in length (but averaging from two

feet six inches at the bottom to one foot towards the top), dressed

so as to fit cleanly together, with a preference for an approximately

rectangular or five-sided form. The masonry was laid in courses as far

as practicable with such material, but was liable to be interrupted

by a stone larger than usual, or from other cause. Indeed, in some of

the inner walls, where the masonry is less massive though similar in

character, large stones have been inserted at intervals as a bond and to

give general stability. The contour of the wall was further strengthened

by buttresses or extra-mural towers, placed at intervals which varied

according to the situation, averaging about a hundred feet apart. These

do not seem to have been designed from principles of defence, but solely

as architectural supports.[479]

[Illustration: PLATE LIX

BOGHAZ-KEUI: GORGE OF THE BEUYUK KAYANIN DARESI

On the left, Beuyuk Kaleh. (_See p. 200._)]

Some of the original doorways leading through the wall seem to have been

extremely small, not more than three feet in width. The subway under

the southern rampart is also very narrow, but this was possibly a later

addition. Its exit is a plain doorway, four feet wide, built of three

granite blocks arranged as jambs and lintel; inside, the passage has

a width of about five feet at the bottom, and is lined with stones in

triangular arrangement, with the apex six feet from the floor. It is of

interest to compare the principle of vaulting under pressure illustrated

by its construction with the system of counterpoise employed in the

arches of the larger gateways. These again may have been added since the

original inception of the wall. In the vicinity of the Lion-gate, at any

rate, the regular courses of the outer masonry give way at the corners,

and in their place an arrangement of fitted stones, shaped to receive

the corners and eccentricities of their neighbours, recalls the bonding

of the palace walls in the lower portion of the interior. This may of

course have been a deliberate original variation designed to strengthen

the corners where the recess for the gate intervenes; and it is also

obvious that some gateway wide enough to admit a cart or chariot must

have been necessary at the beginning. Such, however, we are inclined to

see in the unsculptured entrance, of similar character but smaller size,

called Eshuk Tash, on the south-east of the town. The architectural

principle, however, is in each case much the same, and maybe studied

in the photograph of the Lion-gate itself.[480] This entrance is set

back thirteen feet from the road, with an approach twenty feet across,

narrowing to a clear space of thirteen feet between the jambs of the

gateway. These main supports are of great size and weight; and while

tending towards one another in a gentle curve as they rise, are so shaped

and bonded to the wall that they stand in solid equilibrium. The height

of these single stones is about twelve feet, and in the other gate

mentioned about eleven feet. The latter illustrates more clearly the

upper structure, in which the pointed arch was brought to its completion

by repetition of the same principle of counterpoise. Each of the upper

stones projected towards the other, while overhanging sufficiently in

the opposite direction to retain its balance singly. Further details are

not preserved, but the faces of these also must have been dressed to

the curve of the arch, and if they did not approach one another close

enough to touch, then the arch must have been completed by a fifth stone

placed over all, as is indeed suggested in the case of the Eshuk Tash. In

this way we gain a minimum height for the gateway, without superficial

structure, of fifteen or sixteen feet. As the arch was repeated within

at a distance of twenty-five feet, it is probable that the two spans

supported a chamber or sentry-walk continuous with the parapet. Probably

the mass of masonry to left and right indicates a guard-chamber flanking

the approach on either side, in the well-known style later adopted by

Roman engineers and finally transmitted to mediæval architecture.

We have dealt somewhat lengthily with the elementary details of this

stronghold, but none the less deliberately; for the contemplation of

this mass of masonry and the details of its execution is rewarded by an

insight, which perhaps no other monument discloses, into the solidarity,

power, skill and resource of the people whom it has so long survived.

The famous Lions which guard this entrance are further witness to the

standard of their civilisation, and are among the brightest products of

their art. That on the right hand, which is almost perfectly preserved,

illustrates a wealth of detail which the somewhat distant photograph does

not show. The appropriate boldness and realism of the design, however,

are manifest. This fashion of adorning the gateways, particularly

with lions, as also at Sinjerli, Marash, and Sakje-Geuzi, is further

paralleled by the sphinxes of Eyuk, and to some extent by the monstrous

emblems in relief warding off trespassers from the inner gallery at

Iasily Kaya.[481] In another gateway of the same character on this

acropolis, Professor Winckler’s excavations have disclosed a high relief

of a being clad in the Hittite tunic, shoes and hat, supposed at the time

to represent a king,[482] but since recognised as a female warrior or

Amazon.

[Illustration: PLATE LX

BOGHAZ-KEUI: THE LION GATE]

The outer wall was not the only defensive work which the advantages

of the site afforded. Across the enclosure are a series of prominent

crags overlooking the lower ground to the north, and marking by their

alignment the edge of the acropolis which gives access to them.[483] One

may be tempted to presuppose, as indeed we have already suggested, that

these indicate a line of earlier defences and the natural limits of an

earlier city situated entirely upon the hill. They were crowned with

rectangular forts, built of square blocks of masonry arranged in courses,

and constituted in any case a formidable second line of defence against

attack from below. That which is called Yenije Kaleh is illustrated by

our photograph:[484] its position is not naturally so strong, however, as

that of the middle of the three forts of this series, which presents a

precipitous face to the northern side. The largest of these knolls—hence

called Beuyuk Kaleh—is to the east, and overlooks the gorge of the river

on that side.[485] To the north, however, where the slope descends to the

lower part of the enclosure on which lie the famous palace ruins, it is

less abrupt, and it has been fronted accordingly with a stout buttressed

wall, built of large stones roughly pentagonal or squared, the lowest

courses of which are from two to three feet in height.

Hereabouts, in the dip between the two forts last described, is the

weathered rock inscription known as Nishan Tash.[486] Descending thence

to the lower ground, following the course of the stream which flows

through the middle of the enclosure, two further rocks arrest attention

by the fact that they have been worked by hand. The first of these is

called the Maiden’s Rock, and has given its Turkish name of Kizlar

Kaya to the stream which passes just below it. Though of considerable

dimensions, this rock, besides being dressed around the sides and

worked down squarely in two places in the body, has been cleanly cut

across the top with the exception of a small table-like protuberance

remaining towards one end. The other, which lies still further down

and nearer to the Lower Palace, has been cleft in two, to form as it

were a passage through it from side to side. It would be unsafe without

evidence to suggest any definite use for these rocks in ancient times,

and it is possible that their peculiarities may have resulted only from

the quarrying of the stone blocks used for the Lower Palace or other

buildings of the site.

[Illustration: PLATE LXI

BOGHAZ-KEUI: THE FORTRESS CALLED YENIJE-KALEH (_See p. 205._)

BOGHAZ-KEUI: REMAINS OF THE LOWER PALACE]

We use the term Lower Palace to designate the foundations made famous

by the visit of Texier,[487] and the later descriptions of Professor

Perrot,[488] in distinction to those more recently discovered by Dr.

Winckler on the Upper Acropolis, where the ruins of four such buildings

were found, of which three were probably palaces and the fourth a

temple.[489] The lower courses of the first-mentioned palace, however,

are visible above the ground, so that its plan may be readily traced

out; and whether to be identified as palace or as a temple, it presents

an interesting study, and a peculiar link between the architecture of

the East and West.[490] As may be seen in our photograph,[491] that

which remains of it is built in large single blocks of stone about four

feet in thickness and averaging twice that measure in length. Its form

is rectangular, with a length just over two hundred and ten feet down

the main axis, and a width of one hundred and twenty-eight feet. Its

chief entrance is in the middle of the southern side, and, passing small

guard-rooms on either hand, it leads into a large central court, around

which are chambers, a double series at the ends and a single series at

the sides. To the north and to the west a passage or corridor intervenes

between the court and the rooms: that on the north seems to have been

entered by an opening opposite the main entrance, and one chamber (across

the passage and to the left) is filled by a large tank or bath of stone.

These portions of the building may be judged to have been residential,

while the front and east wings were devoted to offices of the palace.

There are few further features of the interior obvious to the eye except

the size and arrangement of the rooms, on which we do not need to dwell.

The central court is paved with rough stones[492] at a depth of three

feet below the present surface, a depth which probably accords with the

foundations of the walls and with the ancient level.

The sloping ground to the north was prepared for this building by a stone

revetment mounting in steps; and special precautions were taken against

slipping in the bonding of the masonry on that side. Not only are the

stones of the upper courses shaped to fit into one another in a scheme

of ‘joggles,’ resembling ‘tongues and grooves,’ to borrow a term better

known, but the lower course is provided with a ridge rising along its

front edges, which further prevented any general movement of the whole in

that direction. As for the upper part of this structure, it is for the

excavators to decide whether it was carried up in masonry, of which there

remains no visible trace, or whether it was of wood and brick, as in the

Hittite palaces across the Taurus. The level nature of the preserved

masonry, and certain features pointed out by Perrot,[493] suggest that

the latter method was employed here also, as is indeed supported by

observations made by Dr. Curtius in one of the upper buildings recently

discovered in the acropolis.[494]

To judge by the foundations disclosed at a greater depth by Dr.

Winckler’s expedition, the palace which we have just described seems to

mark the site of an earlier and somewhat similar building, in the ruins

of which were found numerous precious tablets inscribed in the cuneiform

script. These are long-lost pages in the history of monarchs, of empires

and principalities in Western Asia, and as such their relevance lies with

a later chapter of our work. That which is important for the moment is

the fundamental date they give, overlapping in part the eighteenth and

nineteenth dynasties of Egypt, and coming to an end shortly after the

reign of Rameses II. in the thirteenth century B.C.

[Illustration: PLATE LXII

BOGHAZ-KEUI: BIRD’S-EYE VIEW OF THE LOWER PALACE

With the modern village beyond.]

We have no published means of estimating, from this source or otherwise,

the history of the development of this ancient capital. But some

conjectures, as a working hypothesis, may be made from the probabilities

of the case with this date as a basis, awaiting meanwhile further

illumination from Dr. Winckler and his colleagues. In the first place,

as to the date of the main fortifications, though the period of empire

is not often the time of building home defences, yet in this case the

deliberate and vast nature of the outer walls conveys no impression

of a stricken people hastening to defend themselves, nor even of

precipitation. The scheme and details are carried out with dignity,

thoroughness, and elaboration. It was the product of a prosperous age,

dictated by prudence rather than immediate conscious necessity. Yet

the pride of Hittite power soon passed; even while treating on equal

terms with the courts of Thebes and Babylon, the shadow of the Assyrian

armies already clouded the eastern horizon; and the menace of barbarian

northern hordes was probably ever present, particularly as their

offensive powers weakened. It may safely be supposed that their city

must have been prepared against assault at any rate before the inroads

of the Phrygian Muski, in the twelfth century B.C. And secondly, with

regard to the palace just considered, built as it is upon the ruins of

one which flourished in the time of Rameses the Great, it represents

a reconstruction and re-establishment of royal state at some time

subsequent. As to the date of this revival there is little evidence. From

the plan of the palace it may be conjectured to have preceded any wide

spreading of Assyrian influences; and from our own observations it was

probably contemporary with a certain class of coloured pottery, which at

Sakje-Geuzi[495] was already passing out of vogue at the beginning of the

first millennium B.C. Upon this point it is interesting to notice that

the difference of axial direction between this and the buried palace,

namely, 2½°, would, if astronomically dictated, suggest a difference of

date amounting to about two hundred and thirty years,[496] assigning the

period of restoration to the eleventh century B.C.

Doubtless some clear evidence will be forthcoming with the progress of

excavations; for the present we can only pay due regard to the few items

of circumstantial evidence that are available. The absence of visible

sculptures on the façade of the building, in contrast with the buildings

of Eyuk, Sinjerli, and Sakje-Geuzi, is curiously significant. That phase

of motive seems to be reflected rather in the two sculptured stones

already mentioned as recently found somewhat further up the slope of

Beuyuk Kaleh, at the foot of which the palace stands.[497] Two sculptured

lions indeed are found lying in close proximity to the lower palace,

those which were supposed by Texier and Perrot[498] to be the arms of a

throne, but are now shown[499] to be the end ornaments of a tank, with

a similar pair on the opposite side. These correspond both in style

and in details of art with the lions guarding the palace entrance at

Sakje-Geuzi,[500] which may be dated with some security to the tenth or

ninth century B.C. If then the lions of Boghaz-Keui can be shown to have

organic relation to the palace in the precincts of which they lie, then a

basis for solution to the problem is obtained, and the date depends upon

the range of time during which such sculptures were in vogue. But if, on

the other hand, this tank was an addition to the palace, and of later

date, as its partly exposed situation, above the level of the palace

floor, suggests, then the palace is of earlier date, preceding the period

when such sculptured lions were in fashion, a conclusion which our other

considerations seem to justify. Incidentally we arrive at a possible date

for certain sculptures of like kind, as the lion of Eyuk, and possibly

the Lion Gateway of the acropolis.

[Illustration: PLATE LXIII

BOGHAZ-KEUI: CAMP AT THE FOOT OF BEUYUK KALEH

BOGHAZ-KEUI: THE SANCTUARY OF IASILY KAYA

View of the sculptures on the left side from within.]

In conclusion we tentatively summarise the present possibilities of local

development, which any new item of evidence may profoundly modify:

1350-1300 B.C. Period of the earlier lower palace.

1300-1200 ” Main fortifications built, _temp._ Hattusil.

1200-1100 ” First Phrygian invasions.

1100-1000 ” Lower palace reconstructed.

1000-850 ” Period of Lion-sculptures.

850-700 ” Phrygian domination.

700-600 ” Cimmerians.

_Circa_ 550 ” Fall before Crœsus.

PART II.—THE ROCK SCULPTURES CALLED IASILY KAYA.

The far-famed sculptures named by the Turks simply ‘Inscribed Rock’

are at a distance of about two miles eastward from the village of

Boghaz-Keui. They are not easy to locate. After leaving the village and

crossing the river opposite the lower palace, a footpath rises steeply

to the plateau about six hundred feet above, meeting the roadway, which

skirts the base of this knoll on its northern side, about a mile further

on, where it turns southwards towards Yuzghat. The ancient city is no

longer visible, and there are few landmarks of special character. To

the north-west a number of rolling valleys unfold themselves, while the

gently rising ground to the north-east is partly corn-land and partly

green pasture, splashed as it rises to its crest with dark scrub, and

broken here and there with bare limestone rocks; a typical view of an

Asiatic highland.

The sculptures are found in one of these masses of rock, which is not

the largest or most conspicuous of the series, nor distinguishable in

any general way. Its chief attraction of old was probably the natural

facility which certain irregularities in its formation afforded to the

purpose in view. Towards its west side there is a recess about thirty

yards deep, which opens towards the south-west on to a broad grassy

terrace. The entrance to this rocky chamber, so far as it concerns us,

may be reckoned about seventeen yards wide. Its walls are irregular

with projections, especially on the right hand, but on the whole they

draw gradually together until separated by only six or seven yards at a

distance of about six yards from the end. The farther portion is more

regular in shape, widening slightly, so that the inner face opposite the

entrance is about eight yards in width. This being the largest plane

surface and placed suitably in the depth of the recess, it was prepared

for the central group of sculptures, which are on a scale proportionate

to the relative dignity of the personages they represent. For the rest,

the sides were dressed in short lengths of two or three yards, following

the windings of the rock, in a more or less continuous band about three

feet high. Though the stone was prepared, the smooth surface must have

been fashioned in clearing away the backgrounds of the sculptures, which

are throughout in relief and in the peculiar Hittite style.

[Illustration: PLATE LXIV

BOGHAZ-KEUI: GENERAL VIEW OF THE LARGER RECESS IN THE SANCTUARY OF IASILY

KAYA

Notice on the corner of projecting rock to the right the traces of the

representation of a Ceremonial Feast. (_See p. 226._)]

At the outset it may be noticed that the motive of these sculptures

seems to be commemorative or emblematic rather than decorative: they are

also extremely weathered, being protected only from the violence of the

wind from certain quarters, and not at all from the rain; so that little

need be said as to the artistic composition of the whole, or the details

of its execution. The design, in brief, represents two processions of

beings which meet in the middle (on the inner wall facing the entrance

south). On the right the figures, with two exceptions, are those of robed

females. On the left the persons represented are chiefly male,[501] but

include two females, and are interspersed with certain winged beings of

mythological character, and a group of two monstrosities which have not

been explained. Hittite hieroglyphs and emblems accompany many of the

figures, which are further identified by certain recognisable details of

dress and weapons.

Our chief interest centres naturally in the significance or symbolism

of the leading figures of these processions—those which are carved on

the short wall opposite to the opening: the relative importance of these

is made clearer by a preliminary glance at those which follow in their

trains.[502] The main figures on the left hand are forty-three in number,

of which the first stands upon the shoulders of two others, bringing the

total number on that side to forty-five. The leader is a godlike figure

nearly seven feet high, clad in short tunic and shoes with turned-up

toes. His left leg is forward and his left arm is advanced; the right

arm is drawn back, and, the face being in profile to the left, we have

here an illustration of the convention familiar also in Egyptian drawing,

whereby the front view of the upper part of the body is seen, while the

head and limbs are reproduced in profile. Only in the sculptures before

us we see, whether as an illusion caused by the softening hand of Time,

or whether by the deliberate treatment of the Hittite sculptor, an

infinitely greater freedom, fulness, and suggestion of life imparted to

the figure than we are wont to find in Egyptian funereal sculptures and

temple decorations, notwithstanding the masterly skill with which the

latter may have been executed. The right hand of this figure grasps the

handle of a large round mace which rests upon his shoulder, and a dirk

with crescent-shaped handle hangs at his left side, presumably from a

girdle. Upon his head there is the tall conical head-dress of the Hittite

peoples, though differing slightly from the ordinary representations in

that the vertical ribs or flutings of this hat are connected by rings,

in suggestion of metal work.[503] In the treatment of this feature the

sculptor has realised our own convention of perspective, never adopted

by the Egyptians, in the diminishing distances between the ribs receding

round the sides. The hair at the back was dressed in a long pigtail, the

curling end of which is seen behind the elbow. The face seems to have

been bearded, and it is suggested, but not clear, that a large earring

hung from the lower lobe of the ear. The outstretched left hand holds a

three-pronged emblem and sign towards the advancing figure to which it is

opposed, the two figures being balanced in the composition of the group.

Behind each is a small horned animal, presumably a goat, capped with the

plain conical hat upon its head, and with the forepart and legs advancing

beyond the body of the main figure. The two beings which support the

figure just described wear long robes, bound by a girdle at the waist,

and seemingly fringed or bordered round the bottom of the skirt. Their

clasped hands are raised before their bearded chins, and their heads are

slightly bowed in a natural pose of reverence or adoration. Their hats

are similar to that just described, but seem to be flexible, bending

forwards towards the tip in response to the inclination of the heads;

while lower down there is something projecting, possibly the brim of the

hat upturned, but rather more suggestive of the royal _uraeus_ as in the

crown of ancient Egypt.[504]

[Illustration: PLATE LXV

BOGHAZ-KEUI: THE CENTRAL SCULPTURES IN THE LARGE RECESS AT IASILY KAYA

God with sword. Chief god with lightning-emblem. Mother-goddess.

Son-god. Twin goddesses of the double eagle.]

The figure which follows, though somewhat smaller in stature, would seem

to have considerable importance, being raised on two tall flat-topped

pinnacles, so that his head is on a level with the others of this group.

In details of pose, costume, and armour, this figure resembles that which

precedes it, except that in the left hand a long sword with flat hilt is

held aloft, and the emblems which denote his rank are placed between the

sword and hat. The girdle also is plain in this instance, and the left

elbow seems to rest upon a staff. A third figure follows, on this wall,

but is not shown in our photograph. It is in an exposed corner, and most

of the detail is lost, but it may be seen to resemble the foregoing,

though the emblem held in the left hand seems to differ considerably,

being of feather-like appearance. The right leg also, which is behind as

in all other cases in this scene, may be designedly hidden by the fold of

a cloak descending to the ankle.

Turning now to the left-hand wall, the fourth figure resembles again the

leader of the procession, though on the smaller scale, being only three

feet in height. The fifth is altogether different in character. The

shoes, pigtail, and earrings are repeated; the hat also is the common

one without the rings; but the long shirt or cloak has curious oblique

curving folds, and it trains somewhat behind the right leg. The left toe

alone is visible, and the front edge of the robe is seen as far forward

as the elbow, obviously descending from the shoulder. Most conspicuous

of all are a pair of narrow wings rising from behind the shoulders well

above the top of the head.[505] The objects held by the hands cannot now

be recognised.

Then follow two female figures, clad in long pleated skirts like the

figures in the opposite procession. A belt encircles the waist of each,

but it is not clear whether the upper part of the body is bare or clad

in a tight-fitting garment; the breasts in any case are visible. The

head-dress is not plain; if a cap is worn it must fit closely, while the

hair or wig ends in large distinct curls above the shoulder. The left

hands are not visible, but the right hands fall by the side, holding

by their handles in a reversed position a curved object not very clear,

but which in the rear figure forms a complete disk, suggestive of the

Egyptian mirror.[506] The eighth figure, like the fifth, is winged; and

horns, or a crescent, are conspicuous in the hat, but other details are

obscure. The ninth is clearer and of great interest. The robe, however,

is like a toga, with a tight sleeve to the right arm, and the loose end

flung over the left shoulder, as on certain figures at Eyuk. A dirk is

by the side as before, but in the right hand there appears a new object

in the long curving lituus held reversed. Above the outstretched left

hand is a group of three signs, which may be recognised as a crescent,

a feather or star-like object, and above them the divided oval which

accompanies all such devices.[507] The face is beardless, and the cap

is close-fitting to the skull. Above the head is a composite emblem, in

which the main elements are a rosette surrounded by a horseshoe-shaped

device recalling the shape of the wig on the Eyuk Sphinx,[508] and

reminiscent of the so-called Hathor head-dress of the Egyptian monuments.

The whole is supported by large outspread wings, bound at intervals,

and turning slightly upwards at the ends. This figure closely resembles

the larger one opposite to it, the isolated twenty-second figure on the

right,[509] which is described below.

The six figures just described fill the left-hand wall of the inner

part of the enclosure. The rock now breaks away somewhat sharply, and

the next length is decorated with nine figures on a somewhat smaller

scale. Five of these are similar to one another.[510] Their costume

includes the short-belted tunic, the conical ribbed hat with rings, and

the shoe with upturned toe; and the pose of figures is as previously

detailed. The pigtail is suggested in some cases, though the chins are

beardless. No weapons are discernible, but each carries in his right hand

an object like a sickle or scimitar, which is supported by the right

shoulder. A group of emblems or signs precedes each figure, varying

in each case. Two other figures of the nine differ only slightly from

this model; the one[511] in having apparently a long cloak which partly

covers the right leg, in addition to the tunic; and the other[512] in

the appearance of a wing rising from the left shoulder, a cap of closer

fit, and no object over the right shoulder; but these three distinctions

may be illusions due to the weathering of the stone. With regard to the

remaining pair,[513] however, there is an utterly different _motif_.

These two are nearly alike, and together form a group of monstrous

character. The arms and body of each are human, the legs are those of a

quadruped, and the head, with feline ears, is also that of an animal. To

the right-hand figure a tail is added, while each is represented with a

pigtail. The left-hand figure wears a short plain skirt. The arms of both

are upraised, and bracelets may be detected on the wrists; they support

an object of crescental form, near the lower edge of which are folds or

ridges. The pair are placed symmetrically upon an object (possibly a

wine-press[514]) oblong in form with two rod-like handles projecting from

each side, equally difficult to describe as to explain. It is possible

that monkeys are intended by this group, but if so, the animal was

unfamiliar to the artist; it is more probable that they represent some

composite mythological creature of the imagination.

[Illustration: PLATE LXVI

BOGHAZ-KEUI: GROUP OF TWO MONSTROUS FIGURES STANDING POSSIBLY ON A

WINE-PRESS

In the large recess at Iasily Kaya.]

The three figures following this pair have been described, and with

them the second straight length of wall comes to an end. The next bend

is inwards, and the wall becomes nearly parallel to the axis of the

chamber, containing in this length nine further figures. The leaders[515]

are similar in general appearance to those which precede them, though

the object carried on the shoulder may be thought to resemble rather

the mace carried by the head of the whole procession. The same may be

said of two others[516] of this series, but the condition of the stone

is too bad to enable much detail to be gathered. In regard to the pair

between these,[517] no objects are now visible in their hands, while

their costumes also show some difference of detail. The one seems to have

a long cloak, or possibly a staff, hanging from the arm, while the robe

of the other is striped horizontally over the left leg. The third figure

of the group[518] is peculiar; the arms seem to be thrown forward, with

a cloak or long staff hanging down from below the shoulder, while the

hat also is inclined slightly forward. A horn or peak to the hat is also

traceable. The two last of this series[519] resemble rather the type of

the figures supporting the leader of the procession, both as regards

costume, position of the hands, and the curving forward of the hat, even

though the heads are not inclined as in the earlier instance quoted.

There next follow, on a short return of the wall, three figures[520]

which we found too weathered to describe, though two of them have been

represented by earlier visitors as bearded and wearing embroidered

robes. The next and last turn of the wall, which now resumes its main

parallel direction, is occupied by thirteen figures, of which the

first[521] seems to be a robed and bearded figure of the kind indicated

by those two which precede it. It stands apart from those which follow;

so too do the next two, though not so far, while the remaining ten

figures[522] are close together. These twelve figures are all alike, clad

in tunics, conical hats, and tip-tilted shoes. They carry no weapons, and

their right feet are partly raised, touching the ground only with the

toes, as in the act of running, which is suggested also by the position

of the arms, drawn up at the double, and to some extent by the poise of

the bodies. These figures also, unlike the rest, are not in procession

but in line, for the right elbows and right feet of the more advanced

are hidden by those which are shown behind them, and the left hands of

the latter partly hide the former—a convention of perspective adopted

freely by Egyptian artists also, and repeated in an inner gallery which

has yet to be described. This completes the series of sculptures on the

left.[523]

[Illustration: BOGHAZ-KEUI: PLAN OF THE ROCK SANCTUARY CALLED IASILY

KAYA, WITH THE POSITIONS OF THE SCULPTURES NUMBERED.]

This series of sculptures finds its counterpart in those upon the

opposite side of the recess, which being less numerous, and for the

most part like one another, are more readily described. The figures are

twenty-two in number, of which only two are male; they are represented

likewise in procession, but approaching in the opposite direction with

their faces turned consequently to the observer’s left. The leading

figure, which is opposed to the godlike figure just described, is

likewise of majestic stature. She stands upon the back of a panther,

which in turn is poised upon four low flat-topped pedestals (or

‘mountains’). She is clad in a long pleated skirt with train and

waistbelt; the upper part of the body seems to be bare or clothed in a

tight-fitting garment, and the female breast is suggested in the fulness

of the bust below the outstretched arm. Her head-dress is the ‘mural

crown,’ an upright flat-topped bonnet with vertical supports.[524] Her

long plait of hair and turned-up shoes are conspicuous. Both arms are

forward; with her left hand she holds a long staff on which she partly

leans, and with her right she proffers certain special emblems,[525]

which almost touch those held out by the male figure which meets her.

To complete the balance of composition, the forepart of a goat with a

conical cap upon his head, protrudes from behind her dress also.

[Illustration: PLATE LXVII

BOGHAZ-KEUI: ONE OF THE FEMALE FIGURES OF THE RIGHT-HAND SERIES IN THE

LARGE RECESS AT IASILY KAYA (_See p. 224._)]

The figure that follows, though smaller, is none the less striking and

important. It represents a boy or beardless man, with curling pigtail,

in the now familiar costume, consisting of short tunic, shoes with toes

upturned, and a conical fluted hat. He also stands upon the back of a

panther, which differs only from the former in the position of its tail,

which is held up while the other is kept low.[526] With his outstretched

right hand he clasps the upper end of a staff, and in his left he holds

an axe with double head,[527] the offensive edges of which are curved.

A short dagger with semicircular handle hangs by the belt, but worn in

this case on the right side, doubtless at the discretion of the artist,

so as to avoid breaking the contour of the figure. The symbol which seems

to denote his name is the lower part of the body and legs of a small

being clad in the same fashion as the figure itself, under the usual oval

emblem.

Behind are two female figures, which in all respects resemble that which

heads this series, except that they are smaller, and the emblems above

their right hands are different. These sculptures are comparatively

well preserved, being in a corner sheltered somewhat from the weather.

Their headgear, staves, long plaits (or shawls) down their backs, and

turned-up shoes, are particularly clear. They form a pair, standing as

though supported by a double-headed eagle with outspread wings.[528] The

heads of the eagle face in opposite directions, and the wings, which are

turned upwards towards the tips, are represented, as in a previous case,

by lateral lines bound by vertical bands on each side. An interesting

addition to the design is in the horseshoe-shaped device,[529] the ends

of which only, however, are seen, as though placed over the back behind

the wings: they descend as a thin line on each side of the body and curl

outwards at the level of the top of the legs. The legs of the eagle are

wide apart, and the talons are in the position of resting on something

flat which is not represented.[530] This completes the sculptures on the

main frontage. The figures which follow, as far as the twenty-first, are

nearly alike, and closely resemble the female figures just described.

They all stand, however, on the level; their left hands are upraised

towards the face, and the staff which seems to be held by their right

hands is clearly seen to curve away towards the top. The eighteenth

figure is distinguished by obliquity of the pleats in the skirt, but

it falls none the less naturally into the series. It may be said also

that in not one of these figures is there clear proof preserved that

earrings were worn, though the suggestion is present in several cases.

Their height averages two feet eight inches. Two are found in the recess

formed by the return of the wall to the right, and there is space for

a third on the weathered surface of the rock. Seven others follow in a

somewhat irregular line, which is broken by a small gap in which one more

is found. Two follow on a slight projection, and seven others along the

receding wall bring the series to an end.

[Illustration: PLATE LXVIII

BOGHAZ-KEUI: THE CHIEF PRIEST, POSSIBLY THE KING

Last sculpture on the right in the large recess at Iasily Kaya.]

The twenty-second figure is quite different, and worthy of special study.

It is of much greater size, being eight feet high, and it stands alone

on the inner face of a projection in the rock, thus facing the innermost

portion of the enclosure where the two processions meet. In it we see

again upon a larger scale the details of costume, with toga, skull-cap,

and tip-tilted shoes, which we have already noticed in connection

with the ninth figure on the left, only in this case the figure faces

to the observer’s left; the left arm is thus the one that is sleeved,

and the loose end of the robe hangs over the right shoulder, reaching

almost to the ground and ending possibly in a tassel. The dirk is by

the right side, and the reversed lituus is grasped in the left hand,

which is raised to hold it. The cap has three bands round the edge; a

pigtail is possible but doubtful. The feet rest on two rounded pedestals

with scale-like surfaces;[531] and the extended right hand supports a

series of emblems.[532] These form a somewhat complicated group; in the

middle of it there is a small bearded figure wearing a conical ribbed

hat which tilts forward at the top, and clad in a long robe decorated

with scale-like pattern. At the sides are three protrusions which are

difficult to explain.[533] This little figure rests upon what resembles a

Hittite shoe, the toe of which is prominently upturned. Its left hand is

upraised above the head, and the right arm is outstretched. The outside

elements of this emblem are tapering columns of three flutes capped by

Ionic volutes; between these and the figure a third device intervenes

on each side, consisting possibly of a dirk with its point resting in a

quiver. The whole is covered by a device in which two rosettes form the

central features, the lower one encircled by a horseshoe-shaped object,

and borne on a pair of outspread wings as previously described. This

figure, we shall find, recurs once more in a group in the adjoining

gallery, to which we shall shortly pass.

On the opposite side of the same projection of rock, and therefore

facing to the south, exactly where we have defined the entrance, there

is a group of two figures[534] which have not been previously described,

but are characteristic and of special interest. These are very difficult

to trace on the weather-beaten rock, and to make out the details it is

necessary to examine them in various lights, particularly in the early

morning and again in the early afternoon. By this means it is possible to

make out that the group consists of two females or robed figures seated

at opposite sides of a table in the characteristic attitude seen on the

slabs representing ceremonial feasts, from Marash, Sinjerli, Yarre, and

elsewhere.[535] One of the figures at least has the appearance of a

plait of hair or shawl thrown back; the chair on which she sits seems

to be solid. Certain emblems accompanied each figure, but these cannot

now be identified, except the oval emblem of sanctity or divinity which

surmounts each group.

On the next bend of the wall, some six yards distant, and thus really

outside the main chamber, there are two monstrous winged figures just

over three feet high. They face one another on opposite sides of a narrow

rift in the rock, which seems to have been the ancient approach to an

inner sanctuary adorned also with a series of sculptures. That on the

left hand[536] presents most detail. The body and limbs are human, but

the head is that of a lion, and two short wings are added behind, of

which the right is slightly raised and the left hangs down. The hands are

raised one on each side of the head, and the fingers are extended like

claws, adding menace to the threatening aspect of the jaws, as in warning

to those who dared to approach the entrance over which it watched. A

short tunic tied across the waist reaches barely to the knees, and around

the lower edges a broad fringe may be traced. The upper part of the body

seems also to be clad in a garment fastened down the front. The carving

of the companion figure,[537] on the opposite side, seems hardly to have

been completed in detail, though it reproduces in general the design and

appearance of the former.

[Illustration: PLATE LXIX

BOGHAZ-KEUI: THE SMALL GALLERY AT IASILY KAYA

BOGHAZ-KEUI: HITTITE PORTRAITS

Three figures from the group on the left in the small gallery at Iasily

Kaya.]

The entrance which these creatures guard is now closed by fallen

stones, and access to the interior is gained further to the right by

climbing over stones and rubbish at a place which would seem to have

been originally closed. On entering from this end we find ourselves in a

narrow gallery between vertical walls of rock, which open out slightly

as we advance. By the original entrance, however, the approach would

be from the broader end.[538] On the west side there are carved twelve

male figures[539] side by side, resembling the similar group in the main

chamber already described.[540] In this case, however, the group is low

down, and until recent times was partly or wholly covered with earth, so

that the sculptures are in excellent preservation.[541] The action and

attitude of the figures suggests a quick march in line. The costume and

details in each case are the same, and have already become familiar. Each

wears a short tunic with a fold in front, a belt around the waist, shoes

with upturned toes, conical ribbed hats with brim, and a horn-like emblem

attached to the front. The earring is plain in several cases. The left

arm is forward and turned up at the elbow, the hand being empty. The

right hand holds a weapon like a sickle, which rests upon the shoulder,

the curved part of the blade being upwards. The form is very nearly that

of the sacred _khopesh_ of Egypt.[542] The figures are not unnaturally

stolid, but the faces are heavy and the nose and lips thick, though not

protrusive.

On the opposite wall are two important sculptures, facing in the same

sense. The front one[543] is generally regarded as an heraldic figure. It

is very tall, being about eleven feet in height. The upper part is the

body of a man, face right, wearing the conical hat with ribs and rings.

He is represented as clad in lion-skins, two of which hang from the

shoulders, the heads facing outwards and replacing the arms, which are

not visible or suggested. The other pair hang downwards from the waist,

each suspended by one foot, their other hindlegs being drawn under the

bodies and approaching close to one another. The heads of the lions reach

with the forepaws to the approximate level of knees. The whole design

may be alternatively regarded as composed of lions in this combination,

replacing altogether the body of the man, while reproducing the same

form. Below the knees the legs are replaced by a device which may be

taken for the tapering point of a great dagger or dirk with midrib. The

figure has no visible frame.

[Illustration: PLATE LXX

BOGHAZ-KEUI: THE DIRK-DEITY, CLAD IN LION-SKINS

In the small gallery at Iasily Kaya.]

We come now to the last sculptures of the series, which form a group of

two figures.[544] The one is great and majestic, resembling on a large

scale in all details the youthful figure that stands upon the lioness

in the main series.[545] Only in this case the rings in the conical hat

are prominent, and seem not to lie wholly between the ribs, but to be

bisected by them. The left hand also, which in the other figure holds

the double-headed axe, here grasps the upraised right wrist of a smaller

figure, which his left arm enfolds about the neck. This smaller figure is

in all respects similar to that which we have met with twice previously

in the outer chamber,[546] clad in the toga as before, and carrying the

lituus reversed in the hand which is free. The curled end of a pigtail is

seen behind his shoulder, but this may be judged to belong to the larger

figure, on account both of its large scale and position, and because the

bare neck of the smaller figure is visible. Both figures are identified

by the emblems which accompany them: the greater by the device of a

small body and legs, held up as in its counterpart by the outstretched

right hand; the smaller one by the composite group placed in the bare

space above his head to the right. This is the same as that accompanying

the figure mentioned,[547] except for the small central figure which is

here replaced by a different symbol, thought by some to be a phallus.

The symbols on either side give the impression of _uraei_ crowned with a

disk, seen in full face, but the real motive is doubtful.

* * * * *

So many and so various are the hypotheses that have been put forward

as to the meaning of these sculptures,[548] that it will prove less

confusing perhaps to regard them entirely _de novo_. We are the more

constrained to do so, in that the attention of scholars has been largely

focussed on the identification of the deities in the central group,

without much consideration of the series as a whole, or its relation

to Boghaz-Keui and the Hittite peoples. It seems to us that the whole

series must from its composition illustrate one central idea, on which

any explanation of individual figures should throw some light. Looking

then broadly at the sculptures, it is clear that certain of the figures,

notably those with wings, are of divine aspect, representing gods or

minor deities.[549] The exalted figures which lead the procession must

then be those of gods or of persons held in highest reverence. These are,

on the left, firstly, the great male figure borne on the shoulders of two

ministers, and behind him two other male figures of like kind but lesser

magnitude. On the right are the leading female figure and the youth

borne on the backs of lionesses or panthers. Behind these is a pair of

female figures, clad like their leader, standing upon the emblem of the

two-headed eagle. These two groups are parallel; if the leading figures

are those of gods, as we are led to infer, the pair of figures which

follow on each side should equally be gods or personages of divine rank.

Casting our eyes left and right we find numerous figures clad in like

fashion to their leaders, and we conclude that the gods of the Hittites

at this stage of their art are represented in their national costumes as

they are in human form.[550] The train which follows the goddess and

her youthful companion and the female divinities of the double eagle is

composed of females, many of whom are denoted by special symbols.[551]

In these we see the priestesses of the cult or cults, wearing the dress

and simulating the persons of the goddesses.[552] The common costume on

the left, excluding certain special figures,[553] is the short tunic

characteristic of the Hittite soldiery and people. In these male figures

we readily recognise two classes. First, those who mingle with the main

procession, and are often denoted by special symbols. These seem to

be the priests, though some of the foremost may be demi-gods. Second,

those who form a group of twelve at the end of the procession. These may

represent the populace[554] taking part in the rites represented.

Where now is the king under whose direction these sculptures were made,

and whose figure on the analogy of all the commemorative sculptures

of the ancient East should occupy a place and rank second only to the

gods? On the main façade he finds no place, for the attendant figures

in each case are in pairs, and the youth who follows the leading

goddess to the right shows no insignia of royalty, but seems to be

grouped naturally with his leader. Looking around, we find facing this

scene the majestic figure clad in a toga,[555] accompanied by a whole

group of emblems which indicate his rank. He stands alone, exalted and

distinguished, yet following as it were in the train of the goddess. In

the other procession, to the left,[556] he follows the figures of the

lesser gods. In the inner gallery he is embraced by the godlike figure

of the same youthful deity who, in the outer gallery, accompanies the

goddess; and we are reminded of the Egyptian text[557] which describes

the representation of the god of the Hittites embracing their king as the

design upon the royal signet which was attached to a treaty.[558] Now

this figure is that which is generally regarded as representing the high

priest, and not without reason; it reappears without insignia as leading

in the act of sacrifice before the bull-shrine at Eyuk,[559] and on two

sculptured blocks recently discovered at Boghaz-Keui, we find the same

again ministering before the altar.[560] It mattered little what was the

object of the cult; the costume was evidently that of the priesthood. Now

the same treaty informs us that the great king of the Hittites was also

chief priest of the god. The king-priest indeed was a feature of Hittite

national life, and in this light we are able to interpret their monuments

across the Taurus also.[561] We are led to conclude that such is the

explanation of these sculptures, and that in the figures before us we

have both chief priest and king. The problem is now much simplified. The

kingly figure accompanies both processions: that in which his majesty is

most clear is that of the great goddess and her consort; while on the

other side he seems to embrace or at least to sanction by his presence

the worship of the other deities.

[Illustration: PLATE LXXI

BOGHAZ-KEUI: HITTITE GOD EMBRACING THE PRIEST

In the small gallery at Iasily Kaya Sutekh of the Hittites embracing the

great King. (_See also p. 228._)]

It is possible, however, that when the minutiæ of the royal insignia, the

winged rosette, shall be more thoroughly understood, it will be found

that these two kings are not one and the same person. Who then can they

be? Why are they associated here together with so many different deities?

Who are these deities? What can be the meaning of the whole series of

representations?

Before attempting to answer any of these questions, let us pause

to remind ourselves of several fundamental considerations. Recent

discoveries have made it clear that in the fourteenth century B.C. the

organising centre of the Hatti power—the capital, in short, of the

Hittite peoples—was at Boghaz-Keui. So far as we can see, this was the

greatest period of the Hittite empire, when their arms were not only

contesting the possession of Syria with the Pharaohs, on the one hand,

but had penetrated through Lydia to the Ægean on the other. We are

prepared to believe that the great sanctuary of Iasily Kaya was also the

product of this age, if only from the fact that it is the most imposing

monument which has survived. The intimate correspondence, moreover, in

the nature and treatment of the chief male figures with those which from

their position beyond the Halys must belong to the period of empire,

like the sculptures of Kara-Bel and Giaour-Kalesi, points also to this

period. We are indeed already prepared in our minds for this suggestion

by the clear correspondence of the seal impressed upon the treaty between

Hattusil and Rameses the Great with the design of the sculpture in the

inner sanctuary described above. Now the constitution of the Hittite

power at this period was clearly a confederacy, an alliance of petty

states, the traces of which may be found on both sides of the Taurus. The

‘kings’ of those states were the ‘allies’ or vassals of the great king

who directed their military operations, and whose seat at this time was

at Boghaz-Keui. The archives of the site itself confirm the point, which

was already suggested by the Egyptian monuments, and especially from

the intrinsic evidence of the treaty (which has now, in view of recent

discoveries, become authenticated material for our use).

We have made this digression to establish certain facts, the appreciation

of which seems to us fundamental to a right consideration of the problem

of the sculptures. Briefly put, these are: that Boghaz-Keui marks the

site of the Hittite capital at the time of the greatest Hittite extension

(in the xivth and xiiith centuries B.C.); that the constitution of the

Hittite power at this time was a confederacy of states from both sides

of the Taurus; and that the sanctuary of Iasily Kaya was contemporary

with this period. We may expect then to find the national deities most

prominent in the sculptures. Again, having due regard to the nature of

the states, each ruled by its own king or priest-king, each separated

from its neighbour by the broken nature of the country, developing its

own customs, ritual, and religion, it is not to be supposed that any

common national cult could supplant or greatly change the local worships.

The definite history of later times leads us to infer the contrary; and

we are again confirmed in this conclusion by the evidence of the treaty,

to the sacredness of which the numerous gods of states were called as

witness.[562] With some of the states the national deity, or the national

word for a deity (Sutekh), is associated; others mention their separate

deities by name.

Let us return now to the sculptures. The first two figures on the right

hand, the female and the youth who ride the backs of lionesses, are

recognised almost unanimously by scholars as prototypes of the great

Mother-goddess (MA) of Asia Minor and her Lover-son, identified on

the one hand with Cybele and Attis, as with Istar and Tammuz on the

other. This identification, while it helps us to conjecture the local

attributes of the deities, enables us also to recognise at once the

national character of the leaders in the procession, for the cult of

the Nature goddess was world-wide. Her association with the lioness

is familiar in her many guises, as for instance in Phrygia, where she

rides in a lion-drawn car. Doubtless in the Lion-goddess accompanied

by the Lion-son there is a reminiscence of some primitive worship, the

origins of which perhaps were already lost to view, and which we must

seek somewhere in the hilly borders of the Euphrates valley. The Lion

pair is followed by the twin deities of the Double Eagle, goddesses

both.[563] The significance of the double-headed eagle is unknown. But

that there was a local worship associated with the eagle is indicated

alike by the discovery at Boghaz-Keui of a sculptured head of this

bird, in black stone, larger than natural size,[564] and by a newly

deciphered cuneiform fragment from the same site, on which mention is

made in ideographic writing of the house or temple of the eagle.[565]

That such a cult was general within the circuit of the Halys is suggested

by the great monument which now lies prone in a wild spot overlooking

the river near to Yamoola,[566] and by various smaller objects. At Eyuk

also there is a conspicuous though partly defaced representation of a

priest of the Double Eagle, on a sphinx-jamb of the palace gateway,[567]

a symbolism which we read to imply that the occupant of the palace was

chief priest of the cult. This palace, however, at so short a distance

from the capital, probably marks the site of a royal estate rather than

an independent kingdom. Now we have already come to the conclusion

that the sculptures on the right-hand procession pertain particularly

to the locality of Boghaz-Keui, inasmuch as the chief representation

of the king-priest is associated with this group. Hence we conclude

that, following the images of the national deities on this side (the

Mother-goddess and her Son, the Lion deities), there come the images of

the local cult of this part of Cappadocia, namely, the twin goddesses of

the Double Eagle. The other female figures of this side distinguished by

separate symbols represent probably the priestesses of the cults, which

may have been to some extent allied; while the continued procession of

nameless women recalls to mind the rite of self-dedication practised in

the temples of Istar at Babylon.[568]

The left-hand series of sculptures is more complex, but open to

explanation in general terms on the same line of argument. The leading

figure clearly represents the Father-God (in contraposition to the

Mother-Goddess), the Zeus of the Greeks, the Baal of Tarsus, the

‘Sutekh,’ or national deity of the Hittites. This is shown supported upon

the shoulders of two priestly attendants, who, like the lions opposite,

seem to stand upon the tops of mountains. There is in this detail a

lurking reminiscence or absorption of a mountain-cult, which becomes

clearer in the two figures which follow. These deities we take to be the

local forms of ‘Sutekh’ pertaining to different Hittite states[569] other

than Cappadocian; the first is distinguished by the unsheathed sword,

the second by a detail of his dress, but both are almost identical with

the leader, while both stand upon mountain-tops. It is significant that

the peoples whom we suspect from their dress to have descended from the

mountains should preserve also in this way the unconscious memory of

their ancestral deity. Another figure of like kind follows, but it is

the two winged figures that particularly attract our notice.[570] Here

in Hittite art we have clearly deities from across the Taurus,[571]

claiming place in the ceremony here depicted just as they claim separate

mention in the list of Hittite deities in the Egyptian treaty.[572] There

follows the image of a priest-king; but whether that of the great king

seen on the opposite side, or of a vassal king from beyond the Taurus

similarly accompanying his deities, is not determined. The star-like

emblem and crescent which he bears must be a clue, if only it could be

interpreted. At this point we suspect the list of divine beings gives way

to the sacred; but it may be that the gods of minor states (in all cases

identified with the great god) continue to occur, accompanied in several

cases by their local retinue. Finally there comes the group of moving

beings, which alone tells us that the scene which we are looking on is

the picture of a rite, and not a mere commemoration of an alliance.

What then is this rite? There is little direct evidence to answer

us. In the central group are the images of male and female deities,

accompanied by a youth, Nature’s divine Triad. We cannot hope at this

stage of our knowledge to penetrate the mystery of the symbolism seen

in the mountains, the lions, and the goats. But from what is known of

the cult of Cybele in her various forms, and of Attis, her lover-son,

whose attributes are distinguished yet identified in the separate cults

of Baal and Sandon of Tarsus, there can be little doubt as to the main

object of the ceremony.[573] The rejuvenescence of Nature, symbolised by

the divine nuptials of the Goddess of Earth with the God of Fertility,

is the central motive; and the fruits of the earth are the issue. But

though we recognise the nature of the cult, we do not feel justified in

presupposing anything but a general resemblance between the local worship

and the rites practised elsewhere in later times. That which we do see

in this monument is a national religious ceremony of the Hittites, at

which the local deities of the chief states, or the divine personages

representing them, were present. In this ceremony the image of the

national god was borne upon the shoulders of his priests[574] to the

shrine of the Mother-Goddess, which was found in the local sanctuary

of the capital. The objective was that the earth should be fertile and

yield her produce, that the fruits should ripen and the ears of corn grow

fat. As to the season when this ceremony took place, there is little

suggestion. The spring-time is that which seems to us appropriate; but

if the grotesque figures in the left-hand series[575] really stand upon

a wine-press, and if the group of men[576] on the same side really hold

sickles in their hands, then the harvest-time is indicated. On the other

hand, the ceremony may have been seasonal or irregular, or adapted to

some great date of the Hittite calendar. Speculation on the point is

useless. As to the further nature of the rites we remain likewise in

ignorance, realising only the dance or march of the men and the presence

of the women, and having only the knowledge which has been handed to us

of rites practised at the shrine of the goddess in other places.

If we pass to the inner sanctuary we only find ourselves face to face

with new mysteries. The group of figures on the left is clearly a

counterpart to those depicted in the outer chamber, suggesting the

ceremonies in the act. But on the opposite side the two separate

sculptures are of new and independent character. In the one is seen the

dirk-deity enfolded in lion-skins; in the other the youthful god, now

assuming a greater dignity, embraces the king. It has been suggested,

with much apparent reason,[577] that the symbolism may be interpreted

to mean that the priest-king or his representative is gently guided by

the deity ‘through the valley of the shadow of death’ to sacrifice. But

we know of no parallel for such symbolism in Oriental sculptures, and we

prefer to see in this inner chamber merely a special sanctuary of the

god, with images pertaining to his cult. In the one the king is received

as high priest into the presence and embrace of the god. We have already

seen that such an action in itself was deemed of so great moment that it

formed the subject of the royal signet. Thereby, maybe, the king became

invested with sanctity of person; in any case, his privilege of access

to the god is recognised. In the other sculpture, in our opinion, we see

the god once more, but in another guise, and identified with another

cult, which from its widespread vogue and influence must have been

almost national—namely, that of a sacred dirk.[578] A first attribute

of the kingship, indicating, it would seem, his priestly office, was

the guardianship of the sacred dirk, just as one might say ‘Defender of

the Faith.’ That such a dirk has some original reference to sacrifice

we cannot doubt. Here we find it forming the lower part of a composite

divine figure. The face of the deity may be thought to suggest the

Son-god: we are tempted to believe in this identification by a somewhat

venturesome analogy. For this god is clearly to be identified with the

Sandon of Tarsus, Hercules son of Zeus; and in his early character

Hercules is represented clad in lion-skins, much as we see the deity

before us. Hence it is possible that the sculpture which decorates the

wall of the inner sanctuary commemorates some rite of investiture of the

king with the insignia of his office as high priest of the god. We see,

then, in the inner chamber a separate shrine of the Son-god, to which the

king had access, by virtue of his office as high priest. The outer recess

we regard as a shrine of the Mother-goddess, adorned on the one side with

the symbolism of her cult, and on the other with the representation of

the rite we have described. The further consideration of the historical

aspect of these sculptures belongs to a later chapter.

V

WALLED TOWNS AND PALACES

PART I.—THE PALACE AND SCULPTURES OF EYUK.

In the foregoing chapter it has incidentally become apparent that

the northern capital arose to greatness as the centre of a military

organisation rather than as the geographical or economic focus of a

country. The alliance between the states, though seen to us mainly as

a confederacy in arms, cannot have been without effect in tending to

some extent to unify, if not to nationalise, the local customs and

institutions. On the other hand, they were separated in many cases by

physical boundaries that must otherwise have fostered and emphasised

their natural differences. In passing then to examine such of these

minor capitals as have been sufficiently disclosed to us by excavation,

it will be a special and constant interest to note how far a common

or mutual influence in art and architecture can be traced among their

ruins. The result is, on the whole, surprising. We can only single out

for comparison one site from Asia Minor and two neighbouring sites in

the North of Syria; and though the inquiry is rendered difficult through

insufficient chronological material, and the result complicated by the

intrusion of other influences more potent on the one side than the other,

nevertheless we shall find a correspondence in general features and in

some detail which is sufficient at any rate to stamp them as products

of the same civilisation, all dominated by a common motive, even though

separated by some generations or maybe centuries in point of time.

We begin with the site of Eyuk, a village situated some twenty miles

northwards from Boghaz-Keui, sufficiently near to have been closely

in touch with the activities and culture-progress of the capital,

albeit sufficiently far to have maintained some local peculiarities.

Here the ruins which we now know to be Hittite were lighted upon by

Hamilton,[579] ‘the prince of travellers,’ in 1835; subsequently they

were visited by Barth[580] and Van Lennep.[581] The account of them given

by the last-named, who was for thirty years a missionary in Turkey, was

the first attempt to hand down a reliable and complete description,

accompanied by a rough plan of a building and sketches of the sculptures

which adorned its portico. Then came Professor Ramsay, in 1881, and

in the record[582] of his visit to these monuments we have the first

scholar’s impression of their meaning and significance. M. Perrot visited

the site and incorporated his notes in his great work on _Exploration

Archéologique_,[583] and many inquirers have followed in his wake. The

Liverpool Expedition of 1907 called here and secured a complete series

of photographs and a measured plan;[584] and subsequently in the same

year the Ottoman Government was enabled to make some useful clearances

in front of the now famous portico of sphinxes, adding considerable

information, and bringing to light two interesting sculptures which had

lain previously buried.[585] The accounts of these various writers,

though in the main agreed as to the nature of the ruins, differ to some

extent in their description of details, and very considerably in their

interpretation of the meaning of the sculptures. This being so, we shall

use our own notes and plans as the basis of our description, indicating

so far as possible the places where we differ in our interpretation

from one or other of the more recent investigators. In the plan, also,

we shall omit the present position of those sculptured blocks no longer

_in situ_, but whose original position is known, because they have

been considerably moved in recent years, leading to discrepancies in

successive published plans. We shall also for the same reason use letters

instead of figures to denote the blocks, in order to avoid further

confusion with the various classifications and enumerations that have

been published.

The mound which the little hamlet of Eyuk just covers is more or less

quadrangular in shape with rounding corners; its length from north

to south is about 250 yards, and its width a little more. It is not

prominent as one approaches from Boghaz-Keui, as it rises gently from

the plain on that side, attaining its greatest height of forty to

forty-five feet towards its northern limits, whence it gives way again

somewhat steeply to the level ground. The background on this side is a

range of low hills, from which, however, the mound is quite distinct

and separated. Traces of a wall enclosing the top of the mound may be

seen here and there, and would be readily followed out by excavation.

Near the northern brink the masonry is visible inside a stable with a

low-lying floor; in fact, the new wall has partly used the old one for

a foundation. It is generally similar in construction to some of the

roughly polygonal masonry seen in some interior walls at Boghaz-Keui,

like that which surrounds Beuyuk Kaleh. Hereabouts also a postern-way

is reported, constructed entirely like that on the south slope of the

acropolis at Boghaz-Keui, roofed with corbelled masonry, and sufficiently

high for a man to walk through it upright. It can be followed in a

southerly direction for some fifteen yards, when it turns abruptly

westwards and continues for six or seven yards further.[586] In the ridge

of the roof there may be noted a flat slab of stone perforated with a

circular hole, as for the admission of light, or the drainage of water

from above. We are not told to what depth the roof is now buried beneath

the surface. About twenty yards westward from this spot, on the mound,

there are a number of dressed blocks of stone, one of which at least has

a rounded hole in one face, a feature noticeable in several instances at

Boghaz-Keui.

From these general indications of an ancient walled town[587] we pass to

the more famous sculptures, which are found on the lowest part of the

mound towards the south-east, about twenty yards only from the cultivated

plain. These decorated the lowest course of the façade of a gateway

which in plan resembles closely that of the Lion-gate on the acropolis

at Boghaz-Keui. This plan is shown to scale on the opposite page, so

that we do not need to give detailed measurements of the blocks where

the arrangement involves no reconstruction. Fortunately, though exposed

for long ages, the alignment of the stones remains almost intact, so

that the plan of this interesting gateway may be determined without much

difficulty. It remains also unique hitherto among Hittite works of Asia

Minor.

As in the Lion-gate at Boghaz-Keui this entrance has an outer and an

inner doorway. The nearer one lies back from the frontage of the main

wall a distance of just over thirteen feet. The width between the corners

of the approach (E, G), making allowance for a slight displacement of the

corner-stones, is almost exactly twenty feet: this is reduced between

the great monoliths which form the jambs to a few inches over eleven

feet. The interval between the faces of the outer and inner monoliths on

either side is about twenty-six feet, which must have been approximately

the distance from one door to the other. Between the two gateways the

space widens out to the same width as the approach outside; but inside

the inner gate the walls return at once on either side (II, KK) without

any approach on that side corresponding to that from without. Thus the

projection of the walls flanking the approach beyond the gates becomes

by comparison with the Lion-gate at Boghaz-Keui an established feature

of Hittite military architecture, designed to protect the gateway by

enfilading fire from above.[588]

[Illustration: PLAN OF THE SPHINX-GATE AT EYUK.

References—A, B, C, D, sculptured monoliths forming the jambs of the

two gates; E, F, G, H, line of the outer wall; II, KK, line of the inner

return; X, Y, ends of a lower wall; _a-g_, _l-n_, sculptured blocks

forming the lowest course of the wall on either side of the approach;

_h_, _i_, _k_, _o_, _p_, sculptured blocks not _in situ_, of which the

place of _h_ and _k_ is ascertained; _q_, _r_, sculptures on the sides of

the sphinx-monoliths A, B; _x_, _y_, two sculptured blocks recently found

in excavation.]

The recent excavations conducted by Macridy Bey have thrown light on

several important features not previously determined. From the plan which

he publishes[589] it would seem that the frontage to the approach, on the

left side at any rate (E, F), is really the outer wall of the gate tower

and external to the main wall. We are thus confirmed in our conclusion

that the entrance was flanked on either side by extra-mural towers, as

later well known in Roman military forts and mediæval architecture of

Europe. Unfortunately the excavators did not carry on their inquiry to

ascertain (as might have been done with little difficulty) the line

of frontage of the main wall of the whole building or enclosure. This

we suspect would be in line with the nearer monoliths, though from a

suggestion upon the plan it may have been a little nearer the interior—a

position which from several reasons would not be probable—and, indeed,

such a wall must have been much stouter than anything marked upon the

plan.

From the foundations preserved it would seem that each tower was designed

with chambers. Two other strong oblong chambers or vaults may be noted in

the thickness of the wall, and there seems to be indication in the plan

of a continuation to the series. The excavators were troubled by the fact

that no door openings were found to these rooms.[590] As no section is

given by them to show the relative levels of the different walls, it is

not possible to form an opinion as to whether they are at all preserved

above the lower courses. It is in any case interesting to observe that

in military Roman forts of later days (in the earlier system of the

first and second centuries) the chambers on the lower floors of such

guard-rooms were often merely vaults or cellars, gained from the upper

floor (which was nearly level with the sentry-go upon the wall) by means

of an internal ladder.

There is a still more important fact revealed by this recent excavation,

the full significance of which does not seem to have been noted. This is

the discovery, on the left hand, of a lower frontage wall or foundation

(X, Y), upon which the upper one partly rests. Now between these upper

and lower walls there is, according to the plan, a clear angle of

deviation amounting to five degrees. The masonry of the lower wall

corresponds with the roughly ‘polygonal’ system of walling illustrated

on Beuyuk Kaleh at Boghaz-Keui and elsewhere, while that of the upper

consists entirely of large square blocks of granite, nearly uniform in

height and mostly five or six feet in length, bound together by means

of ‘joggles,’ and backed by a revetment of rough stones, making the

whole about two metres thick. So far as one can judge from the published

evidence, there is clear suggestion of two different building periods, as

we noted in regard to the lower palace at Boghaz-Keui. The earlier one is

seen in a stout military wall of polygonal type, the later in the line of

sculptured blocks which was built partly over the remains of the other.

The monoliths and other sculptures, and the visible remains in general,

belong to this later series.

Before passing on to a consideration of the sculptures there are two

or three architectural points to be noted. In the large cubes for the

frontage wall, it is noticeable, particularly in the interior, that

their faces are dressed only for a width of five or six inches around

the edges, while the rest of the face projects considerably beyond

this dressed line. This seems to have been a regular mason’s method of

treatment, for the same may be noticed in the smaller stones in the

main wall at the approach to the Lion-gate at Boghaz-Keui (Pl. LX.). It

is clear that in the latter case no sculptures were contemplated, hence

this feature does not necessarily imply that such stones were left by

the mason for the sculptor, and remained for some reason unfinished, nor

even that the sculptures were wont to be carved after the stones had been

placed in position.[591] If the latter was true, it must be proved from

other evidence; the contrary conclusion seems to be more probable _prima

facie_, and to be borne out to some extent by the general completeness

of the group of sculptures upon each stone individually, and by the care

with which the bottom-most details of the reliefs are executed, features

which would have tended to be neglected had the stone been already in

position on the ground. Another point is the reconstruction of the

doorway, whether as a cantilever archway, as at Boghaz-Keui, or by a

single massive lintel. The great size of the granite block which marks

the threshold shows that the latter method was possible to the engineers,

and part of the lintel may perhaps be seen in a huge square-cut mass of

granite (_i_), with a few hieroglyphs upon it, which lies, unclaimed for

any other purpose, in front of the gateway, where it might easily have

fallen. On the other hand, the clear space between the jambs is nearly

twelve feet in length, and it may be thought that the jambs are not

designed of sufficient relative proportions to support a mass and weight

so great as would have been required of a single stone that spanned them.

In the preserved upper part of the left-hand monolith also (B) it may

be seen that the horizontal portion declines a little as though to form

the offspring of an arch, while the vertical stop is inclined slightly

outwards, as though designed to receive the direct thrust of an arch,

whether of two large stones or of many small ones. The thrust would be

further taken by a backing of masonry behind the monoliths, which may

be seen from the plan to have been included in the original design.

Notwithstanding these considerations, the material evidence in this case

is in favour of a great stone lintel, of strength and size proportionate

to the width of its span.

A third point is the reconstruction of the upper courses of the building,

and this involves a consideration of the mutual relation of the upper and

lower walls of the frontage (EF and XY). With regard to the upper wall

(EF), a dressed block of the second course remains seemingly not much

out of its original position.[592] This prepares us for the restoration

of the whole course in stone, and possibly another fallen block (lying

just in front of that marked _f_) might be fitted into place to the left

hand of the former. This creates for itself a precedent, for in other

sculptured walls that are known, as at Sinjerli and Sakje-Geuzi, the

wall was carried up in brick. In those cases, however, the sculptures

were carved on facing slabs merely, not on cubical building blocks, so

that for architectural analogy we must look rather to the palace at

Boghaz-Keui. The latter, however, furnishes no direct evidence on the

point, though M. Perrot suspected that it was carried up on a timber

frame. We must, then, accept the suggestion of this single stone _in

situ_; but we must hesitate to accept without clear proof the theory

that there were sculptures also on the second tier,[593] a feature for

which we have no analogy in Hittite works. The two sculptured blocks

(_x_, _y_) recently found at a lower level, in front of the lower wall

(XY), represent subjects entirely different to those _in situ_, and

seem from the published photographs[594] to illustrate a phase of art

as different as the early and later reliefs of Sinjerli. Measurements

taken of stones irregular in outline are apt to be deceptive, and not

until these, when tried, are found to fit accurately into the position

suggested, alongside that which is _in situ_, on the second course of

the upper wall, can we believe that such was their original position.

It has been noted that these blocks were found in the excavation which

disclosed the lower wall. Now there is clear suggestion, in plan and

photograph, that the lower wall was antecedent to the upper, and bearing

in mind the later level, which is best seen in the threshold between the

sphinxes, it is highly improbable that the lower wall remained exposed to

view at the time when the upper one was in use. It was probably already

hidden by débris and ruins. The analogy of the palaces of Boghaz-Keui

is entirely accordant. We are inclined, therefore, to believe that the

two sculptured blocks in question (_x_, _y_), representing scenes of the

chase, belong to the earlier period coeval with the lower wall. However

that may be, the evidence before us tells of two distinct phases in the

history of the Hittite Eyuk: the first when the site was surrounded by a

town wall, possibly with a decorated gateway;[595] the second after the

earlier works had been ruined (like the neighbouring palace of the Hatti

at Boghaz-Keui), and in their place a palace was constructed with its

entrance over the remains of the older gateway. Later in this chapter we

shall find indication in an unplaced corner-stone (_p_) of still a third

building period, to which alternatively the newly found blocks (_x_, _y_)

may possibly be assigned.

[Illustration: PLATE LXXII

EYUK: SCULPTURES DECORATING LEFT FRONTAGE OF PALACE ENTRANCE

(_See pp. 253-261._)]

The sculptures decorating this palatial entrance are of two classes:

there are the great monoliths forming the jambs of the gateway, fashioned

like sphinxes (A, B, C, D), and there are the reliefs with which the

walls of the frontage and the approach-way are adorned. The outer

sphinxes (A, B) are almost identical: each is over seven feet in height,

while the blocks of which they form a part are about ten feet high in

all. The inner sphinxes must have been similar but smaller.[596] Only

the forepart of the sphinx is represented, and that is in bold relief.

The breast and fore legs are those of a large animal; this is generally

supposed to represent a bull,[597] though that on the left has five toes

or claws. There is a bagginess as of pendent flesh between the legs. The

upper part is a human face, surrounded with a wig or head-dress of sorts,

which has the shape of a horse-shoe, ending in front of the shoulders in

a completed outward curve within which is an inner concentric circle. At

the sides of the head this feature comes outwards and forwards like a

hood to protect the ears and neck. It is fitted to the head by a broad

band around the brow; from this there descend in front of the ears two

long attachments to support a collar which forms a band under the chin.

That on the left is plain; but that on the right is ornamented with

three rosettes, each with six hollow loop-like petals. The ears are

human, but large and too low down. The eye-sockets are hollowed as for

insetting the eyes separately. The face is too weathered to preserve much

character; it may be judged to have been full and round, especially in

the upper part of the cheeks. The photograph speaks more clearly than any

length of description.[598]

It has been supposed by early writers,[599] and repeated by many, that

these sphinxes are of Egyptian suggestion. But the sphinx in general is

not necessarily Egyptian: no one has traced any indigenous development of

it as an artistic motive or as a religious symbol. It is much commoner

in the Euphrates valley, where also it is found in greater variety

of form. Its meaning in those more life-like representations becomes

clearer. There the strength and dominion of the monarch are symbolised

by the movement and force of the noble beast upon which his features are

portrayed. But in Egypt the Sphinx is, for the most part, conventional

and lifeless, an adaptation to the religious after-death symbolism which

is the dominant motive of surviving Egyptian art. The familiar posture

in early examples is sitting, and even the face is represented with

so much conventionality and death-like mystery that it has given rise

to an adjective in our language in the word ‘sphinx-like,’ implying

an unvarying aspect of potential and mysterious serenity. Finally, no

example of this class of sphinx, where the body is that of a bull, seems

to have been found in Egypt, which could then hardly have provided the

model for these standing ponderous bull-sphinxes of Eyuk.