law-giver who dwelt within the palace which they guarded, or it may
be a conventional type; upon that point there is no evidence. We have
disclaimed any Egyptian motive in these sphinxes on general grounds,
but there are found two curious and unexplained resemblances when we
come to consider the facial type portrayed and the manner in which it is
adorned. The one is in the portrait-statue[600] of Nefret, a queen of
Egypt in the middle of the twelfth dynasty (before or about 2000 B.C.)
a sculpture which represents a type exceptional, indeed almost unique,
in Egyptian art. There is something to be borne in mind, however, in
making a comparison, namely, that this statue may have been carved in the
Delta, and that ancient monuments of Lower Egypt are so rare that their
standard character is little known. Hence it is not certain whether this
peculiar monument merely reproduces a type of which no other examples
have survived, or whether it was itself worked from a model strange even
to the Delta. In the latter case the interesting explanation offers
itself, that perhaps as early as the twelfth dynasty the Egyptian kings
intermarried with Mesopotamian or Hittite princesses, as was done during
the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties. The other resemblance is found
in an Etruscan monument,[601] which presents a general similarity in
subject and treatment at once striking and noteworthy.
Turning now to the reliefs that adorn the frontage-walls, it is seen
that, as at Iasily Kaya, two main series are opposed to one another in
the composition of the whole. In both the main themes are religious. On
the left-hand side the shrine of a Bull is represented, with priest and
priestess and attendants bringing up smaller animals to be sacrificed.
On the right-hand side the centre of worship appears as an enthroned
goddess, twice depicted; and other stones in the row are decorated with
a bull and lion of magnificent proportions. The cult-deity occupies in
each case the naturally prominent place, namely, the front face of the
corner-stones on either side, facing towards the worshippers and others
who follow in their train.
The bull (_a_), the object of adoration on the left, stands on a panelled
pedestal with projecting cornice. His dewlap, hair, full chest, and
heavy shoulders are delineated, and he seems to bear some special marks
upon his flank and quarter. His generative organs are represented, but
not in exaggeration when allowance is made for the tendency of old-time
sculptors to enlarge on details. He stands the emblem of earthly strength
and virility; and it is reasonable to infer from his counter-position
to the Mother-goddess, that he here separately embodies the essentially
masculine powers of her divine consort, with whom indeed he seems to have
been originally identified.[602]
In front of the bull, the nearest object, on the next stone, may be taken
for an altar, the precise form of which, however, is not apparent. It was
presumably round. Its pedestal narrows towards the top, and is crossed
by lateral bands, the alternate ones being decorated by transverse lines
in alternating series.[603] The figure who leads the worshippers is
the priest-king, a type familiar in the sculptures of Boghaz-Keui and
Malatia, only here he lacks the winged emblem which seems in the former
case to denote his sovereignty. Here, however, his dignity at the head
of the procession is apparent. He wears the same skull-cap, toga-like
robe, earrings, and shoes with upturned toes. In his right hand is the
reversed lituus, while his left, with the thumb prominent, is stretched
out towards the altar. He is followed or accompanied by a female, the
chief priestess, his queen. We do not hesitate in this identification,
derived from general considerations, because this office is associated
with the queen in the description of the seal of the treaty concluded
between the Hittite and Egyptian kings[604] to which we have previously
alluded. Her dress is interesting. She wears a skirt with oblique curving
pleats, and tightly fitting vest. Her hair seems to descend behind as a
pigtail almost to the ground, though some stray plaits may be seen also
falling over the ear. The earring is plain: so too are the turned-up
points of her shoes. The arms are in a curious position, and not easy to
trace upon the stone: it seems probable, however, that the left one is
folded under the right, and that it rests near the elbow upon a staff,
which may be seen to be inclined thence obliquely towards the left foot,
which is advanced. The head of this staff is not visible, and it cannot
be said, therefore, whether it resembles those used similarly by the
priestesses in the right-hand series of sculptures at Iasily Kaya;[605]
it may be seen, however, to be decorated by a series of short transverse
parallel lines down its whole length. The head-dress is broken away. The
face of this figure also is not well preserved, but it may be seen to
resemble that of the leader in the straightness of the nose, which is in
line with the receding forehead, a feature repeated too deliberately and
too often to be accounted for merely as a defect in drawing.[606]
Then here follows a gap from which a smaller stone is missing; to have
escaped from the joggles that fixed it in position it must have been
broken, and has so disappeared.[607] The third stone (_c_) is well
filled by a scene representing a ram and three sheep led forward by a
man as to the sacrifice. The latter holds the ram by the horns, and two
of the sheep appear as an upper register, in the usual convention which
was intended to convey the impression of distance; by this arrangement
it is possible that a flock of sheep is symbolised, as suggested by M.
Perrot, but it is noticeable that the number of animals is the same
as the number of priest-shepherds (or attendants), of whom three more
are shown following this group on the next stone (_d_). These are clad
uniformly in similar fashion to their leader, and the only feature in
this respect that distinguishes them from the chief priest is the fall of
their cloaks, which ends almost in a point behind the foot. One hand of
each is raised before the face, but the other is employed differently in
each case. The leading attendant, it was noted, grasps the horn of one
of the animals. The first figure of the group that follows (_d_) seems
to be holding a cord or whip, the continuation of which cannot, however,
be traced on the stone in front. The second holds up an object which
is worn away at the top, but ends below, level with his elbow, in an
outward curl. The last is represented similarly with both hands raised,
but nothing can now be seen to have been held by them. The head of this
figure, too, is almost wholly obliterated.
Then follows, on the fourth stone, one of the most curious
representations of the series. This consists of two small figures of
men, one of whom is mounting a ladder of twenty rungs, which rises
obliquely from the ground-level and ends at two-thirds of the height
of the stone. M. Perrot suggests that these were clowns, which seems
to be an unnecessary complication: it is more natural to suppose that
there is here commemorated some scene familiar in the rites, or in the
representation of them. The men are clad in short tunics, and other
details noticeable in their dress are the helmet-like hat[608] of the man
upon the ladder, the skull-cap and earrings of the other, the girdle-knot
of both. The position of their hands is very curious and interesting, and
enables us to divine with some certainty the real meaning of the group.
In the several photographs before us,[609] taken from different points of
view in different lights, we get (as is commonly the case) a comparative
effect of great assistance in eliminating the unessential features on
the stone. It may be seen[610] that the man upon the ladder is not
holding the ladder in order to climb up higher. There is plain to careful
scrutiny of the photograph a small thin implement projecting below the
clenched hand, which is just clear of the ladder near the top. The right
hand is raised aloft and grasps a rounded implement (more clearly seen
in another picture), in a natural attitude of striking a blow. He is
working with a chisel and mason’s hammer; it must be the simplicity of
the interpretation that has so long deferred it. Now the courses of this
wall are about four feet in height,[611] so that a ladder of ordinary
tread with twenty rungs would rest approximately against the fourth
course or the fifth. If the man stood about the middle of the ladder,
which was nearly twice his own height, as is suggested in the picture,
he would be working on the third or fourth course, or at the equivalent
height. In either case it is implied that he is dressing the wall face,
as was commonly done after the blocks had been fitted, and this being a
last stage of the building, the completion of the palace is commemorated
by the sculpture. The possibility that the sculptor here represents
himself at work, as was not unknown in Oriental mural decorations, seems
to be excluded by several considerations, the first being the use of a
long ladder, which would have been unnecessary even for a second course
of sculptures, and the second the absence of any design on that part
of the stone where the chisel is at work. The figure standing on the
ground-level is seen to be at work in similar fashion upon the lowest
courses; he is represented in the act of striking his blow, the hammer
being in contact with the chisel.[612]
[Illustration: PLATE LXXIII
EYUK: SHRINE OF THE MOTHER-GODDESS
Sculpture decorating right frontage of palace entrance. (_See p. 262._)
EYUK: MUSICIANS WITH BAGPIPE AND GUITAR]
On the same block there is depicted one of three musicians, all of whom
face in the reverse direction, towards the left. They are presumably
taking part in another scene, not connected at any rate with the groups
of worshippers. The one in question is a trumpeter, his instrument being
a plain straight trumpet with expanding end.[613] His dress is the
short tunic, skull-cap, and tip-tilted shoe. He wears an earring, and
the pigtail is thick and conspicuous, ending in a curl well below the
shoulder. The other musicians are found on the next block (_e_). The
middle one is clad like the former, but his instrument is different. It
is an inflated skin, into which he is clearly blowing, but no pipe is
represented: we must suspect a drone effect, the invariable accompaniment
of Oriental music.[614] The third instrument is again different, being a
fine specimen of guitar, twanged, it would seem, by the fingers. It is
attached by a cord to the waistbelt of the operator, and is decorated by
loose ribbons which flutter from the end.
On the last block (_f_) an ox is represented in outline facing the
original direction. Two round objects accompany the scene, the one
hollowed in the centre, the other a plain disk. Upon the back of the
animal there is a load, the top of which projects. It is impossible to
say what the motive of this sculpture was, but being prepared for a
non-religious interpretation by the scenes which precede it, it may be
explained as a beast of burden, bringing a load towards the building of
the palace. Possibly the round objects represent the wheels of a wagon
which could not be introduced owing to lack of space upon the wall, which
here comes to an end.
The series of sculptures on the right hand, which corresponds with those
we have just described, opens with the representation of a religious
rite. In this case it is a female deity, enthroned, that is the object
of adoration; but we miss any distinctive features among those who
worship. The goddess is presumably to be recognised here, again, as
the prototype of Kybele, the same who is similarly enshrined on Mount
Sipylus,[615] and described by Pausanias as the Mother-goddess. We have
been able to identify her in the representations of Iasily Kaya,[616]
and on the rocks at Fraktin;[617] and on the other side of Taurus she
is found in Hittite mythology at Carchemish. She was plainly a deity
acceptable to all branches of the Hittite peoples, indeed under other
names and guises her worship was almost general throughout the ancient
east. In this case (_l_) we find her seated, facing right, upon a
low-backed chair. Her dress is a long robe reaching to the ankles, and
beneath it, upon a low stone, her feet may be seen, the left advanced,
clad in shoes, the toes of which turn up and back in a completed curve—a
unique instance. She wears a threefold collar, and her hair falls in a
long pigtail reaching to the seat of the chair between its back and her
body. The nose is angular and in line with the receding forehead, but the
head-dress is broken away. With her right hand she holds something to her
mouth, and with her left she holds aloft a drinking-cup in the form of
a goblet, the stem of which is partly hidden by the hand, and not drawn
straight. The chair on which she sits has four legs, the feet of which
turn forward: the seat is slightly curved, and the frame is supported by
a spindle.
The worshippers (_m_) are three in number, and seem to be all similar
to one another; unfortunately their faces are obliterated. They stand
with one foot forward, which is probably the right, as they are turned
to the left towards the goddess. They seem to be clad in the toga-like
garment, as worn by the priest and his attendants in the corresponding
scene on the opposite side. The front edge of this garment, however, is
bordered in some way and so prominently displayed that it has misled
many observers. The right arms of these figures are advanced with
hands uplifted.[618] The left elbow is by the side and bent, and the
hand, opposite the middle of the chest, clasps a straight staff about
its middle, with the upper end resting upon the shoulder in a natural
position. The top end does not curve (as suggested by M. Guillaume’s
drawing), and if there was any embellishment it was in the addition
near the middle of the crescental object seen better on a sculpture
(_a_²) in the left hand of the approach, which is described below. The
feature is not clear in this case, however. This block is followed by a
third (_n_) still _in situ_, on which there may be faintly made out the
representations of three other figures similar to those which precede.
The next block (_o_) is out of place, and somewhat lower than those of
this façade: none the less it is sufficiently near in position and in
size for it to be probable that it followed next in the series. Upon it
there is depicted with magnificent realism a bull,[619] with lowered
head, as in the act of charging or preparing to toss. Another stone
(_p_), though at hand, is separated from its neighbours, and standing now
on end, does duty as the jamb of a doorway into the public wash-house of
the village. This is carved with equally vigorous realism, the subject
being a lion holding down a ram with his forefeet; the hind legs, too,
are outstretched as though he had not recovered from his spring. The
tail is down and curls outwards. The lion faces left, and the ram is
transverse to the latter’s profile. This block must have served as
corner-stone, from the analogy of similar monuments at Sakje-Geuzi[620]
and elsewhere, in which the body of the lion is carved in relief, with
the head and forepart in the round. Upon his back there is to be seen
a squared surface for the reception of the upper corner-stone. In this
case the ram also is in high relief, with head in the round, as the
length of its body corresponds with the thickness of the stone.[621] The
treatment of detail on the flank and quarters of the ram obeys a definite
Hittite convention, which is further illustrated by the two loose stones
recently discovered. These were found[622] below and in front of the
lower frontage-wall on the left (_x_, _y_). Each is carved in an upper
and lower register. On the one, in the upper part, a man is represented
kneeling, taking aim with bow and arrow against a wild boar which is
charging him. His dress is the short tunic and skull-cap; the bow is only
medium length, but the arrow is long and barbed. The animal is depicted
with considerable realism, especially the snout and bristles: the tail
ends in a treble point. In the register below, a stag, facing left, is
nibbling at some herbage; the artist has been short of space in height,
and has squeezed his subject so that the animal seems to crouch. It is
followed in series by another huntsman figure, who was represented in the
same attitude as the one above, but the stone at this place is very much
worn, and only the arrow point and outline can be distinguished. The
second stone is in sequence to the left; in the upper row only a tree can
be plainly made out towards the left, but the remainder may be believed
to have been a continuation of the scene of chase. In the lower register
the herbage (remarkably like gentian) appears to be continued on the
right, and facing it is another standing stag. Two smaller but similar
animals face the other way, and in the distance (shown high in the scene
and small in size) there may be seen another, running left but with head
turned back.
In the treatment of these animals the same peculiar conventions are
observed, particularly in the delineation of the shoulder muscles,
that we have noticed on the small animal under the lion’s paws (_p_)
described above: the three sculptures are not, however, necessarily
contemporary.[623] As stated previously, it seems probable that the newly
found reliefs (_x_, _y_) belong to the earlier building period,[624] by
reason of the circumstances of their discovery and the scenes depicted
upon them. Moreover, the lion block (_p_) is a corner-stone, and fits no
visible position in the palace entrance that we have been considering;
so that there is indication of still a third building period, which was
presumably the latest.[625]
Two sculptured blocks have been displaced from the walls that line
the approach leading to the sphinx-gate (EB, GA), but they have been
recognised from their dimensions among those lying loose about the
entrance.[626] There are only two blocks on either side, whereof the
corner-stones remain _in situ_, with their ends to the line of frontage
(_a_¹ and _l_ in the plan); so that the loose stones fall into place
between the corner-stone and the sphinx on each side (_h_, _k_ in the
plan). On the left hand the faces of both stones are sculptured (_a_²,
_h_). The nearer one is the corner-stone, on the end of which there
appears, as we have seen, the image of the bull upon a pedestal. On the
short side, however, the subject is quite different; and we see two pairs
of male figures, the members of each pair facing towards one another.
On the left each member grasps a staff: the one figure is taller than
the other, so that his hand is found above the other, the staff resting
on the ground and rising vertically between them. Each figure is clad
in a short tunic, but little else can be made out except the earring
and prominent receding nose of the taller. As in the case of the bull
last described (_g_), the carving does not seem to have been executed
in anything but outline, though that is fairly deep, and the background
has been cut away. The smaller figure, which is to the left, has partly
disappeared with the broken corner of the stone, and the upper part has
also been considerably damaged.[627] The group on the right of the same
stone is not quite the same. The taller figure faces left in this case
also, but he is clad in the long toga-like garment, with skull-cap,
earring, and tip-tilted shoes, and he alone touches the staff which he
holds aloft with both hands, the right above the left. Projecting from
the middle of the staff, and at the very place where the left hand grasps
it, there is a crescental object, with interior peak, resembling in the
drawing a certain kind of axe-head found in Egypt, which was affixed
at three points to the staff. It is difficult to form any opinion as to
what this really is intended to represent; an axe-head would hardly be
fixed to the middle of a staff, even though only for ceremonial purposes;
while, on the other hand, by the old conventions of perspective, the
curving outer edge may really represent some solid object that was round
in the plane perpendicular to the surface of the stone, as seen for
example in the trumpet depicted on the outer façade (_d_). The smaller
figure in this case is very indistinct, and is represented as standing
some distance beyond the greater, though facing it (his feet being shown,
that is, on a higher level than the rest).
The next block (_h_) shows six figures.[628] These sculptures are in a
poor state, but some details may be gleaned. The men are in procession or
in line, all turned towards the right, facing, that is, the sphinx and
the entrance to the palace. They seem to be clad in short tunics, and
they wear tip-tilted shoes. Their head-dress is possibly helmet-like,
as worn by the mason on the ladder described above. The knot of their
girdle-rope is seen in some cases. The left hands seem all to be held up
in symmetry, with their right hands near the middle of the waist, and
their right elbows bent.
The counterpart to this group on the opposite side (_k_) is of special
interest, but was not published by M. Perrot. As pointed out by Professor
Ramsay,[629] who first rolled this block over and so found the sculpture,
there is on the right hand of the picture the clear outline of a seated
goddess, resembling in most respects the goddess adored in the front
group (_l_), which we have described and identified with Kybele. In
this case the stone is broken, and only the knees and hands are seen,
with part of the stool, but the analogy is sufficient. Any object that
may have been held in her hand is no longer visible, and a row of points
has been drilled at some time across the stone as though to sever that
end from the block. The next feature of interest is the reappearance of
the chief priest and priestess, whom we suppose to have been the local
king and queen, and whose figures we have seen previously, on the left
front (_b_), conducting the rites at the shrine of the Bull. Only in
this case an oblation scene is represented, such as we have noticed at
Malatia and at Fraktin.[630] In the restored scene the priest pours out
the liquid offering with his left hand into a vase held by the goddess;
while the priestess poises some large object like a pomegranate aloft.
Unfortunately in this case again the head-dress of the queen cannot be
made out. She is followed by two weathered figures, who resemble the
attendants in the previous instance, wearing the same toga-like garment
with prominent front edge.
The inner face of the corner-stone (_l_) on this side is not sculptured
at all; but on the side of the great sphinxes (A, B) that flank the
entrance, there have been considerable reliefs, among which that which
remains on the right hand (_q_) is of special interest. Here we find a
repetition of the double eagle which we last met with in the sculptures
of Iasily Kaya.[631] In this case the talons of the bird are fixed on two
hares, the faces of which turn outwards. There was apparently only one
figure represented upon his back; whether this was male or female it is
difficult to say. The form of the skirt trailing behind would well agree
with those of Iasily Kaya; but there are no vertical pleats. On the other
hand, a scrutiny of the photograph suggests that there may be detected
traces of the loose end of a toga and of the curved end of a reversed
lituus, features which suggest a male figure clad like the priest-king
now familiar in these sculptures. One detail is quite clear, namely the
turned-up toe of the shoe, and this may be seen upon the corresponding
side of the opposite sphinx, together with traces of an eagle’s head.
The inner ends of these monoliths (removed, that is, from the front of
the sphinxes) are too broken to detect any sculptures upon them, but in
the corresponding places on the inner sphinxes (_s_, _t_) there may be
found deep down the feet of a man wearing the tip-tilted shoe, and turned
towards the gateway. There seems to be an analogy to the warrior figures
recently found adorning a gateway at Boghaz-Keui.[632]
There are no other carvings found _in situ_: of those lying about we
may mention a large block with a few hieroglyphic signs[633] upon it,
lying near the threshold (_i_ in Plan); another stone with a border on
two sides, and a figure in high relief upon it, which seems to us to be
possibly the body of a seated goddess, though in another sense it looks
like a crude crouching lion.[634] It lies in a garden not far from the
gateway.[635] There are also a pair of large stones that seem to have
formed part of the local series, but are now irrecognisable.[636] They
lie a mile away on the rising ground, where they have been arranged at
some forgotten date to serve as the jambs of an entrance which may be
still traced below the soil.
PART II.—THE TOWN AND SCULPTURES OF SINJERLI.
Excavations conducted during three seasons at Sinjerli by the German
Orient Committee[637] have thrown a flood of light upon the archæology
of Northern Syria. They have also contributed a great series of
monuments to our list of Hittite works; and the later history of the
city and neighbourhood are further illuminated by the discovery of
several inscribed monuments, which though not dealing with the period of
Hittite domination, nevertheless establish for us definite historical
landmarks from which to work backwards in our argument. The monuments and
architectural remains discovered belong to three main periods, which may
be distinguished, terminologically at any rate, as the Hittite, Aramæan,
and Phœnician. With the monuments of the two later phases[638] we are
not concerned, except so far as they throw light upon the story of the
Hittite occupation of the site: yet even in them the dominant feeling is
derived from the Hittite prototypes.
[Illustration: PLATE LXXIV
COAST ROUTE ROUND THE GULF OF ISSUS TOWARDS ALEXANDRETTA: THE AMANUS
RANGE IN THE BACKGROUND, BEYOND WHICH ARE SINJERLI AND SAKJE-GEUZI]
Many of the buildings, indeed a whole series of sculptures as well as
historical documents, belong to the so-called Aramæan period. At this
time the place was the seat of a principality identified with Samaal
(or Samalla), which in the eighth century B.C. was ruled at different
times by local kings, named Panammu and Barrekub, under the suzerainty of
Assyria. Formerly it had possibly formed part of the Hittite feudal state
of Hattina,[639] which included also Iaudi and Unki; and it was absorbed
by the growing power of Assyria under Tiglath-Pileser III., as would
appear from the name of Panammu, Prince of Samaal, amongst his tribute
lists of B.C. 738 to 735. In the next century, 670 B.C., Esarhaddon seems
to have made the place a temporary residence during his warfare with
Egypt and with Tyre, and he set up there a stela recording victories that
were probably imaginary, showing the kings of Egypt and of Tyre held
captive by a cord.
The ruins unearthed in the course of these excavations disclose to us
a walled citadel or acropolis, enclosing several palaces and other
buildings, and surrounded upon the plain below by a double wall which
marks the limits of the township. There was considerable difference of
opinion, it would seem, amongst the excavators themselves as to the dates
to be assigned to the various features of the site. It is well then to
recognise that the ground for this difference of opinion existed in the
insufficiency of dated materials. This is no criticism of the excavators
themselves, who admirably conducted their pioneer work without the aid of
established local criteria to help in solving the various minor problems
which arise daily in the course of an excavation. One criticism which
may be made is that no systematic record of the finding of the pottery
fragments seems to have been kept, such as might conceivably have helped
to establish the relationship of one part of the site to another, and
more particularly would have been serviceable in future excavations
in the north of Syria, or indeed anywhere in Hittite lands. Such an
investigation, however, would have been one demanding great foresight,
for the buildings were found to have been destroyed and reconstructed at
various times, and to this cause probably must be attributed the fact
that this investigation was not made.
The excavators seem to have been in agreement, however, as to the general
growth of the site from a group of shepherds’ huts into a walled town.
They recognised three different building periods, the first of which may
belong to the latter part of the second millennium B.C., when the site of
the city was wholly confined to the mound which later became the citadel.
In this village the houses were closely packed together, and their outer
walls, being continuous and without windows, presented a line of defence
around the knoll. The foundations of several houses were partly traced
under the sites of the palaces of later times, and though marked as
unimportant, these may really be the ruins of the chieftains’ residences
during the early Hittite period. The entrance to this citadel was to the
south, but the excavators believed it had not yet assumed its final plan,
nor had it yet been decorated with the sculptures that later rendered it
so remarkable.
The next great period is not clearly separated from the first, from
which it may have been derived in our judgment by natural growth: it is
characterised by the laying out of the whole city and township on much
the same lines as it preserved through the succeeding centuries. During
this phase there sprang up a wall surrounding the whole township, an
outer and inner defensive wall to the citadel, a cross-wall which seemed
to have marked some period of renovation, as well as the foundations of
an older palace and several other minor features of rearrangement. The
buildings of this time are characterised by rows of timber with stone
layers between. This phase must be dated in the opinion of the excavators
to twelfth century B.C.; and it is noticeable that the Assyrian king,
Tiglath-Pileser I., is found to have copied the plan of a Hittite palace
(called _Hilâni_),[640] which corresponds exactly with the plans of the
palaces built upon the citadel during the next period.
The third phase is assigned to about the eighth century B.C. The city
was now fully established. On its walls rose eight hundred towers. The
south gate of the citadel was finally built and adorned with sculptures
like the older gateway of the city, but in more elaborate fashion. The
corner-stones of the palaces were architectural lions, and their porticos
were supported by columns placed upon the backs of sphinxes. Of these
palaces there were three in chief, and they conformed to a standard type,
which is distinguished by wing-towers on either side of the portico,
and was approached by steps leading beyond to a hall around which were
several chambers.[641] Thereafter, from about 750 B.C., a date which the
documentary evidence supplies, houses sprang up between the palaces.
There was a departure from the former strict type of the Hilâni, to
admit of greater accommodation, and the purely Hittite character of the
buildings was greatly modified. The city seems to have been burned about
680 B.C., corresponding with the date of Esarhaddon’s stela.
In the absence of more precise historical data, our interest is centred
upon the several series of sculptures which adorned the gateways and
palaces. Those which the excavators believe to be the oldest were found
at the southern gateway of the city. The stones themselves are weathered,
but the subjects upon them have been carefully studied and reproduced.
They are carved in relief upon blocks of dolerite. The drawing is for the
most part crude, but they illustrate to us the standard conventions in
such Hittite works with some interesting variations. Being numerous, we
shall confine ourselves to a brief description of the subjects, noting
here and there details which help us in our comparative study.[642]
Firstly, there is an eagle-headed winged creature with human body and
limbs, clad in a short Hittite tunic, holding up both hands, and standing
with his left foot advanced in the direction towards which he faces.
Though no shoes are visible, the toes upon the sculpture are upturned in
conformity with the Hittite pattern. A lock of hair descending by the
side of the eagle’s head ends in an outward curl, which is a mark of
the earlier Hittite style. A tassel also hangs from the middle of the
girdle. On another block the same representation appears with little
modification. A third stone shows, in crude fashion, a horse-rider; he
holds up with his left hand a mask, the features upon which resemble his
own, being of the usual Hittite character, with straight nose and large
eye seen in profile. He rides with his heels drawn up as though clutching
the horse’s side, for he has no stirrups. He is clad in a short tunic and
short-sleeved vest, and upon his head there is the conical hat, though
not so high as those now familiar in the sculptures of Boghaz-Keui,
while the curling lock or pigtail is prominent behind his neck. By his
left side there is suspended a long knife or dagger, and he holds with
his right hand a diminutive looped object which may be intended for his
bow. The drawing of the horse is even more crude. The head might be taken
for that of a zebra, but in the treatment of the shoulder muscles and the
haunches there is a certain obedience to the Hittite conventions. There
is another stone on which a horse-rider is portrayed in a style which is
very similar, but the details are almost obliterated.
We then come to two monstrous mythological creatures, carved upon a
single stone, the one above the other, to be imagined therefore as side
by side. The lower one has the body of a lion on which the shoulder
muscles are suggested, while the face is that of a human being, and
the curling pigtail is clear behind the neck. The head-dress is a
modification of the conical hat, with a sort of knob upon the top, and
the brim is upturned in front and behind. One wing only is shown, being
that upon the further side. The tail is upright, and ends in the head of
a bird.[643] The upper monster is the same in all respects except the
head, which is purely a product of the artist’s imagination, though from
the hooked bill it may be supposed to be intended for that of a bird.
Both creatures are walking with the left forefoot advanced and in the
air. Curiously, it is the right hind leg of the lower animal that is
advanced, while the corresponding leg of the upper animal is behind. This
monument is perhaps the crudest of the series.
Upon the sixth block of stone there appear two male figures facing
one another: each is clad in a long robe, the hem of which is visible;
each advances the further leg towards that of the other; each grasps
in his nearer hand a short staff, and with his further hand approaches
a cup-like object to his lips. They are distinguished only in that the
right-hand figure has a tassel[644] descending from his girdle. They seem
to wear skull-caps, and the curling pigtail is seen on the left-hand
figure, while the corresponding portion of the stone on the other side is
broken away. The next sculpture is somewhat broader, and shows a hunting
scene in which a bowman is seen in the act of discharging his arrow.
He is clad in a very short fringed tunic; the toes are upturned, and a
pigtail curls away from his neck. A knife hangs, point forward, from the
girdle on the further side, but the detail is obscure. Behind him, poised
in the air head downwards, is an animal resembling a hare, which he may
be supposed to have shot. His aim is probably directed, however, against
a stag seen in the sculpture which precedes. This again is a drawing so
crude as to be almost quaint. The animal stands with his head turned
back towards his pursuer. An arrow has pierced his neck, and the barbs
are visible beyond, while an ill-drawn dog is joining in the chase. In
front of this again two other animals, represented upon a single stone,
are obviously intended to suggest further quarry for the sport. The one
is a stag, drawn in this case in full profile (including his antlers);
while in the lower register there is seen a lion which, though it can be
identified, lacks in the drawing any character that invites comment.
A more interesting, though in part less ancient, series of sculptures
decorated the main door of the citadel. This was placed at the southern
bend of the wall, and, as it appears in its final form, resembled closely
in general plan the gateways of the palace at Eyuk and of the citadel of
Boghaz-Keui, which we have previously described.[645] The approach to
this entrance is protected, as in those other cases, with wing-towers
on either hand.[646] The width at this point of the entrance is about
twelve yards, and the depth of these extra-mural towers before reaching
the first doorway is six yards. The first doorway is met with almost
in alignment with the contour of the wall. Its broad pilasters project
eleven feet, leaving the space between them rather more; this was filled,
as the excavators found reason to believe, by a double door. The space
beyond—lying, that is to say, between the two doorways—forms a separate
chamber the same width as the entrance and with a depth of sixteen feet,
bounded on the inner or northern end by the pilasters which supported
the second doorway. These are almost in alignment with the main inner
walls of the entrance-towers, which thus have a total depth of fifty-five
feet; their breadth is about ten yards. The main wall of the enclosure,
to which they return on either side, has a thickness estimated at about
fifteen feet.
The whole of the face of this entrance, both along the façade of the
towers and around the bases of the pilasters, was decorated with
sculptured slabs. The carving in all cases is in relief; the subjects
represented are various, including deities, mythological emblems, and
scenes of the chase, the treatment of which in all cases corresponds to
the established Hittite motives and presents in other details traces
of Hittite handiwork. The date of this gateway is at least as early
as, indeed probably earlier than, the stela which Esarhaddon set up in
the space between the two doors in B.C. 681. Indeed, the origin of the
gateway was traced by the excavators to the second great building period,
though its final structure and some of its decorations belong to the
later phase. We may assume that its latest sculptures were the work of
the eighth century B.C.
[Illustration: SINJERLI: SKETCH PLAN OF THE GATEWAY, SHOWING BY NUMERALS
THE POSITION OF THE SCULPTURES DESCRIBED IN THE TEXT.]
The sculptures in this case are so numerous that we find it convenient to
attach numbers to them for reference. We begin with the outer approach
to the gateway from the southern end, and describe the sculptures on
each face of the wall east and west, before proceeding to the next
return.[647] At the approach of the doorway and facing south the series
of sculptures begins on the left hand (to the west) with
No. i. Two slabs upon which the subject of decoration is a horse
and chariot. The general scheme recalls the chariots which we have
previously found among the sculptures of Malatia and Sakje-Geuzi,[648]
but there are about this one certain details unique in Hittite art,
while other features previously difficult to explain are now made
clear. The chariot is small and mounted upon a six-spoked wheel.[649]
The two objects upon the panel of the chariot, crossing one another,
are clearly in this case quivers to hold the arrows for the warrior who
stands within. As in the other examples we have noticed, a spear is
placed with point upwards in the back of the car, and leaning backwards.
Outside, on the back of the chariot, there is seen in profile the head
of a small lion, an emblem probably of the royal rank of the owner. As
before, there are two men standing inside, and we see their features
in this case more plainly because the driver is represented somewhat
in advance of the other, who occupies the nearer part of the car, and
in characteristic fashion is bending his bow with the arrow ready for
its flight. This personage, although we must take him for the chief or
prince of the city, wears the national Hittite dress, a short tunic
belted at the waist, and a vest with short sleeves. His head-dress is
more peculiar, but unfortunately it is too weathered for much detail to
be gathered: there may be seen, however, a curling lock of hair upon the
near side, continuous possibly with a wig upon his head, and coming to an
end behind the neck. The figure in the background is similarly clad, but
on his head there is a plain cap which fits tightly to the skull. Both
figures are bearded, but in the latter instance the ringlets of his beard
are not trimmed square. He stands with his arms outstretched, holding
two pairs of reins, which leads us to infer that a pair of horses is
being driven, though, as in previous cases, only one is represented.
This animal bears a jaunty trapping on his head, and just behind the
neck (hence presumably an ornament upon the collar) there is an emblem
which is taken by the excavators to resemble the head of a long-necked
griffin. The trappings of the horse are plainly defined and resemble a
halter firmly fixed behind the ears, though possibly from the position of
the reins a bit also is employed. This point, however, is not certain.
The drawing of the animal as usual is crude; it obeys certain ordinary
rules in that the muscles of the shoulder and the haunch are shown in
outline. Unique, however, in Hittite representations is the picture of a
man prostrate between the fore and hind legs of the animal and pierced by
two arrows, obviously shot by the warrior in the car. With one hand the
victim tries to pluck an arrow from his thigh. The picture is almost a
counterpart to those so familiar upon the walls of Egyptian temples, in
which the Pharaoh may be seen slaying with his arrows his fleeing Hittite
enemies. Here, however, it is not a foreign enemy that is represented.
The prostrate man conforms in general character to the North Syrian
type, such as may be seen even in the charioteer within the car. He is
apparently without clothing except for his cap, which is close-fitting;
the curl of hair behind his neck is shown in outline, and even the toes
of his shoeless feet are represented by the habit of the sculptor as
being upturned.
[Illustration: PLATE LXXV
SCULPTURES FROM SINJERLI (_See p. 284_)
1. CEREMONIAL FEAST
2. WARRIOR]
No. ii. The corresponding sculpture on the opposite face of this
entrance—that is to say, on the eastern side, but still facing south,
is the upright figure of a warrior armed with spear and shield as well
as the customary long dagger or sword.[650] Curiously enough, he faces
in the same direction as the chariot, namely, towards his left, looking
therefore in this instance away from the gateway. The warrior stands with
his left foot and left arm advanced; his body and face shown in profile,
and his shoulders in full view, in obedience to the ordinary conventions
of Oriental art. He is dressed in the familiar short tunic which is
fringed at the bottom, and the overlap of the garment is seen falling
obliquely in front; the upper part of his body is lightly covered with
a short-sleeved vest. A broad girdle passes around the waist, and the
long dagger hanging from his left side seems to have a special attachment
which passes over the right shoulder. His head-dress is the conical hat
of the Hittite peoples with the brim upturned, but with the top expanding
like a ball. On his feet are shoes the points of which are extravagantly
upturned, while around the ankles there is a suggestion of ornaments or
of attachments, for binding on the shoes.[651] The features of the man,
though conventional, are represented with boldness. The long straight
nose in line with the forehead is drawn with deliberation. From the chin
there falls a square-cut beard, and a moustache also is represented. The
eye is shown in full profile, and is also too large in proportion. The
conventional lock of hair, like the survival of a pigtail, falling from
the crown of the head, ends in a broad curl behind the neck. The shield
which he holds up is obviously intended to be of the figure-of-eight
shape,[652] though the perspective of the picture has given the artist
trouble. The spear, which he holds transversely with the point down, is
longer than himself. The shaft is not drawn straight, possibly suggesting
the natural shape of the branch of a tree. The blade is long and pointed,
with indication of a midrib. His short weapon is probably a dagger,
though represented of such length that it might also be a sword. The hilt
is crescental,[653] with a notch on either side of the handle,[654] and
is doubtless enclosed in a sheath; the midrib is well defined along its
entire length.
From the outer face we pass to the sculptures which decorate the flanking
walls of the pilasters in the first doorway.
No. iii. The decoration on the left, facing therefore to the east,
comprises two subjects: the one a large lion, which occupies two slabs,
with its head upon the corner-stone,[655] and the other a monstrous
creature holding up a rabbit. The lion[656] faces to the left, looking
out therefore from the gateway. The picture is poorly drawn; there is
no vigour and little life in the animal, and the artist’s conventions
are exaggerated so as to be no longer artistic. The beast’s mouth is
open. His further legs are advanced, and his tail falls between the two
hind legs as in the standard types. The shoulder muscles are shown by a
border line, which reaches in a broad curve to the back of his neck, and
a collar, whether of hair or what not, is suggested behind the ears. The
claws are curved and prolonged so as to be ridiculous. The body, which is
found on the second stone, is elongated and narrow, and hardly seems to
fit on to the heavy forequarters.
No. iv. The monstrous figure which is his companion faces to the right.
It is called by the excavators the God of the Chase. His body is that of
a human being, clad in a short tunic, vest, and upturning shoes; while
his head is that of a lion, with wide-open mouth and long exaggerated
neck. A slender dagger hangs from his left side. With his outstretched
left arm he holds up a rabbit by the back legs; while borne upon that
hand there is a bird, which cannot be readily described, though its
hooked beak suggests a vulture or a falcon. The right arm is held
aloft behind the head, wielding some short curving implement like a
throwing-stick, and behind that there is seen another bird with open beak.
Nos. v.-vi. The counterpart to these representations, on the opposite
side of the doorway, is practically a repetition of the subject just
described, only that in this case both creatures face to the right,
looking out from the doorway. The leader is a lion represented even
more crudely than in the last instance, and with no further instructive
detail; while the only variation in the upright monster that follows is
in the position of the two birds, which in the former instance were seen
upon his hands, and are now perched upon his arms.
No. vii. We now come to the inner wall of the chamber, which is found
between the doorways. We commence as before on the left-hand side, with
the sculptures that face to the east, continuing subsequently with those
on the return facing south. The first part comprises five sculptured
blocks.[657] The first of these is the picture of a man facing left,
clad in a short tunic and upturned shoes. He wears a close skull-cap,
and behind this the Hittite curl is represented. His beard is long and
square-cut. His arms are aloft, and he bears a kid upon his shoulders,
the head of which is turned as though looking backwards.
No. viii. The next block is filled with the scene of a Ceremonial
Feast.[658] Two figures, clearly man and woman, are seated facing one
another on opposite sides of a low table filled with provisions. The
man is on the left, and his seat is a square-framed chair, with high
back. He wears a close round skull-cap, and the Hittite lock falls
behind his neck. He is represented with both beard and moustache; his
nose is prominent and straight. His dress is a long robe reaching to his
ankles, and the toes of his shoes are upturned as usual. His right arm
is by his side and holds a long crooked staff, while with his left he is
raising some object to his mouth. The figure opposite presents several
differences. Her hat is cylindrical, and is covered with a long slender
wavy object reaching down behind her back almost to the ground; this may
be taken for a veil pushed back from before the face. Her dress also
is a long robe, and her girdle, like that worn by the man, is broad,
and composed of six or more strands, as of cord. Her hair is dressed
in the usual curling lock or pigtail. Her features are sharp, but not
so prominent as in her counterpart. Like him, with her right hand she
holds up some object towards her mouth, and in her left hand, which is
by her side, she holds two seemingly edible objects on stalks. She has
bracelets on both her wrists. Her seat is a low stool, which, in contrast
to that of the man, is seemingly without a back. For want of space
the table between them is set back from the picture. Only two legs are
seen, and these are curved as usual. The top of the table also is curved
downwards, suggesting that it was round; so too are the provisions piled
upon it, which cannot, however, be identified.[659] We have previously
described several sculptures of like kind, and to some extent discussed
their character. The closest analogy to the present instance is one from
Malatia,[660] and here as there we take the subject to be a feast on the
part of the royal pair. In spite of the incongruous scenes around, the
religious origin of this class of sculpture seems to be perpetuated in
the priestly dress in which the male figure is clad.
No. ix. Upon the next stone there are two figures represented, both
facing to the left. The leader is smaller than the other. He is clad in
the usual Hittite fashion, with short tunic and skull-cap. His long,
straight nose, and the curl of hair, are equally characteristic. His
left arm is by his side, and his right, which is seen only in outline,
is advanced, but no further details are distinguishable. The figure
which follows him, facing in the same direction, is somewhat taller.
He is clad differently; his dress being a long robe reaching to his
ankles and ending in a fringe. The usual belt, with upper and lower
border-lines, encircles the waist. The sleeves are short, and the toes
of his shoes upturned. In place of a hat he clearly wears a wig, from
which the Hittite curl descends behind his neck. His beard is long and
conventional, and he is seemingly without moustache. His nose is straight
and exaggerated in length, and the features are poorly drawn. His right
hand is extended, but the left is drawn back, holding a long curving
object, which rests on and reaches beyond his left shoulder. He wears
also a dagger on the further side of his belt.
No. x. A third man follows upon the next stone, clad like the foregoing
in a long robe, which however is not fringed. This is an interesting
figure, for in the place of turning-up shoes he clearly wears
sandals,[661] the straps of which may be traced. His head-dress too is
different: whereas in the sculpture which precedes him the hair or wig
is arranged in conventional concentric bands and curls, or short plaits,
the cap worn by this man is covered with plain ribs passing over from one
side to the other. The Hittite curl descends, however, behind the neck,
and the beard, though receding, is conventionally represented. The face
of this man is striking, even though the drawing is ill done. The long
nose in line with the forehead is represented more deliberately than in
any other instance. The chin is receding, and the lips, though thin, are
prominent and protruding. From his belt there hangs a tassel, which may
be seen to consist of a loop and two loose ends, like a loop of cord
doubled. Among other distinguishing features, a dagger with crescental
hilt is held in his left hand, while his right hand outstretched holds an
upright staff.[662]
[Illustration: PLATE LXXVI
SINJERLI: SCULPTURED BLOCKS (IX.-XV.) OF GATEWAY _in situ_ PREVIOUS TO
EXCAVATION]
No. xi. The stone which follows is small, and the figure upon it faces
to the right. It is the representation of an archer with bent bow. He is
shown with all the common features of male attire—the tunic, turned-up
shoes, skull-cap, curl, girdle, and dagger. He stands upon his left leg
with the right knee bent, in the act of shooting. This stone is set
upon another below it, in order to bring it up to the required height,
and it brings the inner wall of this recess to an end. The adjoining
wall advances eastward, and consists of five stones decorated with four
subjects.
Nos. xii.-xiii. A stag facing to the right occupies the first two
stones. It is badly drawn. The head and neck are utterly mis-shaped; the
conventions of animal representations are exaggerated, and a lifeless
picture is the result. It is preceded on the third stone by a kid looking
backwards, the carving of which is perhaps more successful, though still
displaying little artistic feeling or application. The muscles are
outlined in the usual fashion.
No. xiv. A different picture, better drawn and better carved, fills the
whole height of the block which follows. The subject here is a winged
lion rampant, whose left paw claws the air, while the right paw is
depressed. A wing rises from his near shoulder and passes behind the
neck. The tail is erect behind the back, ending in a stiff curl. The
muscles of his haunches are suggested with some vitality, but the claws
are exaggerated.
No. xv. The next stone brings this series to an end, the corner having
been rearranged in antiquity by the inclusion of a pedestal. Upon the
face we are considering there is the figure of a man carrying over his
right shoulder what seems to be a large double-headed stone hammer, or
a double axe. He is clad in a short tunic, fringed, shoes with upturned
toes, and a skull-cap so high as to be almost conical. The Hittite curl
is prominent behind his neck; the strong nose may be traced, and a
square-cut beard falls from his chin. He is armed also with a long dagger
shown with the hilt behind the girdle and the blade or sheath projecting
forwards. His legs are bare as usual, and his figure is perhaps unusually
powerful and muscular.
No. xvi. Passing across now to the eastern side of this recess, the wall
corresponding to that which we have last described[663] is similarly
adorned with four sculptured blocks, whereof the first is a repetition
in detail of that which we have last described, and needs little further
description. There may be noticed, however, two slight variations in
the treatment of the subject. Firstly, the dagger is now suspended in
the usual fashion, with the hilt shown in front of the body; and the
headgear seems to be higher, more like the conical hat of the Hittites,
with expanding top.[664] It may be noted also that the double axe or
hammer is somewhat broader and shorter, and is marked with four short
lateral lines, while the long handle is somewhat bent as though formed
of the branch of a tree. This handle he grasps with both hands, the left
one holding the end. There is an error of drawing in the delineation of
the left hand; for though the left elbow is advanced and the hand drawn
back towards the body, the palm of that hand is turned outwards, while
the thumb is uppermost, and the fingers are also represented in full,
pressing into the palm, instead of which the mere knuckles should be
shown in front of the handle. This is an error of a kind not uncommon in
oriental drawing.
No. xvii. The next block of stone is larger than the others, bearing two
figures upon it, both facing as in the previous case to the observer’s
right. In front there is a winged sphinx walking, followed by a warrior
with spear and shield in much the same style as that which we have
previously described.[665] In this case the figure is so small and the
surface of the stone so much decayed that no new details can be added,
but with the exception of the dagger or sword, all the features of the
earlier stone seem to be suggested. The upturned brim of the hat in front
is perhaps more prominent. The sphinx is an interesting representation.
The body is that of a lion, and the face, which is somewhat delicate, is
that of a human being. A wing rises from behind the shoulder, sloping
backwards. The muscles of the animal are shown in outline, and the claws
or talons are exaggerated as usual. The tail is erect in the air and
seems to end in the head of a bird,[666] though possibly this appearance
is illusory. The face is beardless and of clear-cut Hittite type; the
head-dress is a skull-cap with brim, the front peak of which upturns.
A double plait falls from under it behind the head, turning upwards
behind the neck and completely round, forming a prominent curl. A second
double plait of hair seems to fall from behind the ear, in front of the
breast of the animal, and halfway to the ground, where it ends in a curl.
The delineation of the wing is unusual, the curving ribs being drawn
together in the middle towards the upper part, as though that were a new
starting-point for a series of feathers.
No. xviii. Another monstrous figure precedes the sphinx, in this case
a griffin, with the body of the lion and the head of an eagle. A wing
rises from the junction of the long neck and the body; the muscles are
shown in outline; the head is ill drawn, and provided with ears; the tail
hangs down behind the body. A double plait falling from behind the right
ear of the animal, as in the previous case, ends in a curl to the left
part of the breast. The drawing, on the whole, is lacking in spirit and
vitality.
No. xix. The last sculpture in this length of wall seems to represent a
man, but the carving has not been carried out in detail, and except that
he is facing to his right, with both arms held backwards, the outline
of his figure conveys little other suggestion than the ordinary Hittite
type. The wall now turns parallel with the opposite face, running north
and south, the sculptures therefore facing westward. There are four of
these;[667] all face towards the right, as in the previous section.
No. xx. The first is an upright monstrous figure with depressed wings;
the body is that of a man, the head that of an eagle. His dress is a
short tunic. His arms are raised aloft as in adoration. Behind the ear,
with which the bird’s head is adorned as in the last instance, there
falls a similar double plait, ending in a curl upon the throat.[668]
No. xxi. In front there is a worn representation of a seated figure,
in which little detail can be discerned. The head-dress seems to be
cylindrical in form, with a long veil falling as usual behind. A curling
lock of hair is suggested beside the neck of the figure. The right arm
is held up by the side. The chair is low and square shaped, and its high
back ends in an outward curl. The general appearance of this stone bears
such a marked contrast to the sharp carving of those on either side of
it, that it seems probable that it was already old when the doorway was
constructed in its present form, and that it formed at one time the
left-hand part of a Ceremonial Feast similar to that which we previously
described (No. viii.), to which it would thus form the counterpart.[669]
No. xxii. It is preceded by a splendid sculpture of the Hittite storm-god
Tessup, or by whatever name he should be called.[670] He wears the
characteristic short tunic and upturned shoes of the Hittite people. His
head-dress is the tall conical hat with expanding top. His beard is long,
square-cut, and depicted as usual in successive bands of short curls or
plaits. The nose is long and straight, and the eyes are large. A long
curling plait of hair, resembling a pigtail, falls behind his neck and
shoulder, and is seen below the right elbow, which is held up. A long
dagger with crescental hilt, and the midrib clearly shown, is slung from
the farther side of the belt, the handle backwards. In his left hand he
holds up an emblem, like a three-pronged trident, representing, it is
supposed, forked lightning, while in his right hand he wields aloft an
axe-hammer with short handle, to which it is bound by threads.
No. xxiii. The next sculpture fills one side of the corner-stone. It
is the representation of a woman, and though broken at the top several
new features may be discerned in it, while other details are more
plainly seen than in cases previously described. Her dress is a long
robe reaching to the ankles, bound at the waist with a rope-girdle of
six strands. This garment seems to be wrapped round the body, joining
down the right side, where it is fringed or bordered in some way. Behind
the figure there is the suggestion of a long veil or cloak, which, from
the numerous serrations in the drawing, may also have been fringed
or embroidered. The top of the hat is not clear, but the front peak
is turned upwards. A double plait and curl are seen as usual behind
the neck, and a necklace also is shown. In her right hand she seems to
grasp something like a feather, while with her left hand she holds up a
round mirror, with handle similar to those frequently found in Egyptian
tombs.[671] The drawing of the right hand, which is in front of the body,
exhibits the same fault as we indicated in a recent instance, where, with
thumb upwards, the palm of the hand is also turned outwards—an impossible
position.
We have now reached the return of the wall, on the inner side of the
pilaster to the outer gateway. This, like the corresponding wall on
the opposite side to the left, was left blank, probably because it did
not strike the eye of any one entering the gateway, and it was also in
comparative darkness to any one going out. We proceed then to describe
the remaining sculptures decorating the pilasters of the inner doorway,
and, in the first place, those which flank the position of the doorway on
either side: the corresponding walls of the outer doorway were decorated
with representations of lions facing outwards.
Nos. xxiv.-xxv. In this case bulls form the leading motive of the
decoration: on the left hand two stones are filled with a representation
of this animal.[672] The drawing, as in the case of the lions, is too
much elongated, and the sculptor has not carried out his work with
realism, obeying only established conventions. The horns of the animal
are both drawn forward; his shoulder muscles are shown in exaggerated
outline, and just above his hoof on each leg there seems to be a ring
or ornament of some kind. The third block of stone bears a new design,
being that of a rider facing in the same direction. The horse is small
and ill-drawn; the trappings seem to be somewhat like a halter, as in the
case of the chariot horses, and the rider holds a pair of reins or ropes,
both of which pass on the near side of the neck. No saddle or stirrup
is visible. The features of the man are not clearly preserved. His
head-dress, however, is plainly the simple conical helmet or hat, and the
Hittite curl may be seen falling behind. Upon his left arm, and covering
his body from our view, there is borne a large round shield. Rising from
behind his back, at a level with his shoulder, is an object which may be
taken for a large quiver.
[Illustration: PLATE LXXVII
1. HITTITE GOD OF THE SKIES WITH LIGHTNING AND A HAMMER IN HIS HANDS
(_See p. 291._)
2. HITTITE GOD OF THE DOUBLE AXE (CF. THE SCULPTURES OF BOGHAZ-KEUI, PL.
LXIV.) (_See p. 283._)]
Nos. xxvi.-xxvii. Corresponding to these sculptures on the opposite
side, the right-hand flanking wall to the inner doorway is decorated by
a similar representation of a bull, facing outwards, and occupying two
stones, and of a man on the left-hand side who faces in the opposite
direction. The latter representation (No. xxvii.) is new. The man
stands, it is evident, with his back to the animal, and probably the two
subjects are distinct. He is clad in a long-fringed skirt and vest with
short sleeves. A close-fitting skull-cap and the Hittite shoes complete
his costume. His beard projects somewhat forward, and the Hittite lock
is seen behind his neck. A long dagger or sword hangs from behind his
girdle, the handle forward. He carries two objects which seem to be
similar to one another, resembling clubs in outline. In his right hand he
holds out one of these, which he grasps just above the level of his head;
in his left hand, however, he holds the other at the end of the handle
which rests in a natural way upon his left shoulder.
Nos. xxviii.-xxix. There remain the sculptures which decorate the inner
frontage-wall of this doorway, that is, the first wall confronting
any one passing out from the citadel. On the right hand, the nearest
sculptures are a pair of deer drawn only in outline, one upon each of
two blocks of stone. The animals are turned towards one another, but the
nearer one is looking backwards, so that both their faces are looking
towards the entrance. On the opposite side, that is to the east, there
are three sculptures on separate blocks of stone.
No. xxx. Of these three the first,[673] which is carved on the same
block as the man with clubs (No. xxvii.) just described, is a complex
monstrous figure. The body is apparently that of a lion, with mouth
open and tail erect. A wing rises from behind the shoulder, and in the
drawing is continuous with the conventional outline of the shoulder
muscles. Upon the neck there rises the head of a human-being wearing
the close skull-cap, the front brim of which upturns. The features are
those familiar in the preceding sculptures, and the Hittite curl behind
the neck is not omitted. A broad band, decorated in three rows, is
shown around the neck. It is unfortunate that the stone shows signs of
weathering, and little detail can be made out, for the representation is
unique; and though the drawing is crude, it is not altogether inelegant.
No. xxxi. The next stone is not decorated, but upon the second from the
corner is the picture of a warrior, with shield and spear similar to
those two previously described (Nos. iii. and xvii.). The only detail
which may be added is the appearance of a tassel hanging from the peak
of his conical hat.
No. xxxii. After a similar interval there appears the last sculpture of
this wall, in which, though much weathered and hardly traceable, we seem
to see the picture of a hunter holding up a rabbit with his left hand and
brandishing a long spear in his right. He seems to wear a tall helmet,
but other details are obscure.
Having now completed a survey of the sculptures decorating the inner
walls of this entrance on either side of the doorway, we pass outside,
where there were found several interesting carvings which seem to
have decorated the outer flanking walls, and were seen therefore in
approaching the entrance to the citadel from the south. On the right hand
side, that closest the corner was decorated with an animal figure now
no longer visible, while on a small stone (No. xxxiii.) placed above it
there seems to be the picture of a dog, which is equally destroyed. The
next four, however, are more plain.
No. xxxiv. The first is the picture of a musician seated upon a stool.
He wears a long skirt with waistband, but the details of his dress and
features call for no special comment. The instrument which he plays,
however, is of interest, being[674] ‘a Tambur of pronounced Assyrian
type, exactly similar to one of the time of Assur-nazir-pal,’ _cir._ 880
B.C.[675] There is a cord for attachment to the shoulder. It has been
suggested, alternatively, that an instrument like a harp seen from the
side is intended; the position of the musician’s hands, however, does not
support this view, as with his left he clasps the stem of the instrument
which he plays[676] with his right. On a small stone placed above this
one there is the outline of an eagle or vulture.[677]
No. xxxv. The sculpture on the next stone shows a man who seems to be in
relation to the musician towards whom he is turned. His dress is a short
skirt, and he seems to have worn, in addition to the upturned shoes,
some prominent ornament around his ankle. The hat is close-fitting and
ribbed laterally. The beard and curl are as usual. His left arm is bent,
and with his fingers he seems to touch his beard; the right hand is
obliterated.
Nos. xxxvi.-xxxvii. The last two sculptures of this side may be taken
together, for they represent the familiar oriental scene of a pair of
goats standing upon their hind legs in order to reach the upper green
shoots of a shrub at which they are nibbling.
The left-hand flanking wall to the approach of this main gateway seems
to have been destroyed previous to excavation, and no sculptures are
on record to form the counterpart to the group last described. In our
description we have endeavoured to record the actual find-spot of
each stone, but we are convinced, from an examination of the original
monuments, and of the excavators’ photographs, that very few of them
were found in the positions for which they were originally intended.
Their varying sizes, the medley and lack of sequence of the subjects
they represent, all contribute to support this point of view. Nor do
we share with the excavators the opinion that all the sculptures of
the outer gate of the town, which we described first, are necessarily
older than those of the gate of the citadel; the former are more
weathered, for they have been more exposed, and the latter are not, in
our opinion, all contemporary with one another. We can distinguish three
or four groups of subjects, which were probably ranged together, as at
Eyuk and Sakje-Geuzi. Among these are the procession of mythological
creatures and representations of the deities (possibly the king himself
impersonating the gods[678]), the scenes of the chase, the musicians,
and the Ceremonial Feast, all of which appear for the most part to be
intermingled haphazard. It seems to us that the warrior-figure (No. ii.)
might be as old as any sculpture of Boghaz-Keui, while others again might
be as late as history sanctions. We believe them to be in the main the
work of the tenth century B.C., and we regard the rearrangement to be due
to one of the later restorations of the site, such as the local documents
show must have been not infrequent, and possibly to the preparation of
the buildings as summer palace of Esarhaddon in the seventh century B.C.
There are several further sculptures of considerable interest, including
two pairs of massive lions which must have served as corner-jambs of
doorways, like those of Sakje-Geuzi.[679] In this case, however, the
lions are of enormous size. One pair is carved only in outline, while
the work of the other is carried out in detail of admirable quality.
Most striking of all, however, are two stone busts in relief, found near
to the lions last mentioned.[680] Here we are face to face with that
remarkable facial type and head-dress which characterises the sphinxes
of Eyuk.[681] The stones are very weathered, but there can be little
doubt, from the front and profile views which have been published, that
they are each decorated with the bust and head of a woman. There can
be distinguished the roundness of face, the high cheek-bones, the band
across the forehead, the curving wig over the head, and finally (but
faintly) the outward curl of the ends of the wig on each side of the
throat, which are plain on the sculptures of Eyuk. The nature of the
sphinx-bases, another series of sculptures of striking character, will
become apparent in the description of the palace-portico at Sakje-Geuzi
which follows.
PART III.—THE MOUNDS AND PALACE-PORTICO AT SAKJE-GEUZI.
We have already described the situation of the neighbouring site of
Sakje-Geuzi, and the nature of some of its surface monuments. There are
several prominent mounds in this locality: the sculptures mentioned and
the palace ruins lately discovered[682] are connected with the smallest
of these. Soundings made in the other mounds have made it clear that
their nature is similar, and their growth collateral: in all probability
they contain inscribed and sculptured monuments, the careful uncovering
of which would contribute new pages, if not volumes, to our knowledge of
oriental history. So far as excavation has proceeded on this site, it
has been sufficient to determine the nature of the main fortifications,
and to disclose within the walls the portico of a palace decorated
with a frieze of sculptured slabs in their original positions and in
fresh unweathered state. It is also demonstrated that here, at any
rate, long ages of local development preceded the period which these
striking monuments have rendered more conspicuous, though historically
not more important. In the story of the decline and fall of the Hittite
power, however, nothing could be more interesting than these sculptured
monuments, with the increasing signs of Assyrian influence upon them, and
the study of them becomes endowed with wider significance by comparison
with those elsewhere. Not only can we measure, by the local differences
and similarities to be seen in the works of Sinjerli and Sakje-Geuzi, the
depth to which Assyrian feeling had already permeated the Hittite arts
in the early centuries of the first millennium B.C.; but by comparing
these again with those of Eyuk, we may realise how far certain features
of architecture and religious symbolism were originally Hittite, and
though here modified by close contact with the all-absorbing Assyrian
power, remained on the farther side of the Taurus free from recognisable
intrusion to the end.
In the small mound excavated at Sakje-Geuzi, the form of the main
enclosure was found to be practically rectangular and four-sided,
enclosing an area about a hundred feet long and eighty feet wide. A
slight modification in form seems to have been made, either at the
time of building the whole wall or later, where the north-western wall
skirts the steep edge of the mound as it approaches the northern corner.
No gateway was found, the lower side of the mound opposite the palace
being almost denuded even to the foundations of the wall, which was
found, in other places, six or eight feet below the surface. Nor did
any outer rampart on the lower level correspond to the wide enclosure
at Sinjerli. The wall was built of small stones revetted together by
stouter facing blocks; these, though laid approximately in courses,
were fitted together without much shaping and without mortar, as in
Beuyuk Kaleh at Boghaz-Keui, and in the fortifications of Sinjerli.
The wall was supported by external buttresses or mural towers, about
thirteen feet wide, and projecting about three feet; these occur at
intervals which decrease considerably around the steeper edge of the
mound. The corners were similarly strengthened by rectangular turrets
of the same projection. The wall was nearly twelve feet thick, and its
foundations were proportionately deep and massive, as though destined
to sustain a height of twenty feet or more, of which some thirteen feet
remained preserved where the soil was deepest. The lowest courses of the
foundations were built of large stones, suggestive of the masonry on
Beuyuk Kaleh at Boghaz-Keui.[683]
Within the enclosure a series of superposed buildings on the higher
ground gave token of successive ages of occupation, and partially
covered the site of a palace, which was found at a depth of seven or
eight feet below the surface. This has not been completely uncovered,
but the details of the portico and the sculptures which adorned its
façade, show that it was generally similar to the chief Hittite palace
(of Aramaic times) at Sinjerli, which was still in use in the eighth
century B.C. Probably most of the construction had been made in unburnt
brick, which had largely been reduced to mud, leaving, as usual, little
trace of original arrangement; but the sculptured slabs which had
adorned the entrance remained standing in position, and enable the plan
of the building to be traced. The doorway seems to have been divided
and supported in the middle by a round column,[684] and to have been
flanked on either hand by a square wing-tower, distantly suggestive of
the Egyptian pylon. It was approached by two broad steps reaching from
side to side, leading up to a platform or threshold paved with large
flagstones. This formed the main threshold, twenty-four feet in width and
seven feet in depth. The pavement was continuous in the wings only far
enough to serve as foundations for the facing slabs of the corner towers:
the ornamental pedestal just mentioned was also set upon it.
[Illustration: PLATE LXXVIII
SAKJE-GEUZI: ENTRANCE TO A PALACE, WITH SCULPTURES _in situ_]
Turning to the scheme of decoration,[685] the main feature is found in
two life-size and realistic representations of lions, one on either
side, guarding as it were the entrance to the building of which they
formed the corner-stones. The forequarters and heads of the animals are
carved in the round, and project beyond the frontage of the wall, while
the body and hindquarters are in high relief, being continuous with the
other sculptures that adorn the flanking walls. In detail of execution
these beasts are fashioned after the models already familiar from earlier
descriptions.[686] The forepaws are side by side and slightly advanced;
the further hind leg is advanced, and the tail droops down and forward,
ending in a curl between the feet. The mane is full, with a ruffle round
the throat, and the hair is specially thick upon the shoulders and below
the belly, as in other instances. That which is striking about these
and, indeed, the other sculptures of this series, is their sharpness
and preservation, which enables us to look upon them with renewed
interest and refreshment, especially after contemplation of the weathered
reliefs from which Hittite art has previously been almost wholly known
and judged. Though ‘provincial’ work, the snarling defiant realism of
these lions has never been surpassed in any specimen of oriental art.
Architecturally, it has been noticed, they formed the corner-stones of
the building, and the line of the front wall is indicated by the stops
across the dressed horizontal surface of the stone above their backs,
upon which they must have seemed to bear the chief weight of the towers,
if not of the door-jambs themselves. The blocks out of which they were
carved were proportionately more massive than the other stones of the
series, in order to bear a superimposed weight as well as to enable the
forepart of the animals to be represented in the round.
[Illustration: PLATE LXXIX
SAKJE-GEUZI: LION CORNER-STONE (LEFT SIDE)]
The subjects depicted on the slabs adjoining the lions, both those by
the side along the frontage and those which immediately follow along the
flanking walls of the portico, were reproduced in duplicate on either
side. The nearest, along the side, shows in each case an eagle-headed
winged deity with human body (a familiar Assyrian design); he stands
erect, with bare feet, facing towards the lion; he proffers with the
extended further hand a seed, and carries a basket in the near hand,
which is held up with elbow bent. His dress is a plain skirt reaching
hardly to the knees. The muscles of the legs are shown with some amount
of detail. The wings are four in number, of which one pair rise up from
the shoulders, while the others are depressed. The head-dress ends upon
the shoulder in a conspicuous curling plait. The next slab is much wider,
but the height remains the same, namely about three feet. On this two
figures, standing and facing towards one another, are represented in the
act of fertilising the sacred tree. The further hand of each holds a seed
aloft, while the near one grasps a curving knife with upturning blade.
The tree is shown conventionally with three pairs of curling branches,
while the stem (but not the foliage) suggests the scaly date-palm.[687]
The figures are clad alike, in a short skirt reaching just to the knee,
covered by a sleeveless cloak cut away in front and falling behind to
the ankles. The lower part is fringed. Their hats are like the fez of
modern times, with a knob in the middle on the top (in the Assyrian
fashion) and a horn upon the sides. Their feet seem (but not clearly) to
be shod with shoes with upturning toes. The features, beard and hair, are
in a conventional Assyrian style. Above the figures, and reaching from
side to side of the slab, is the emblem consisting of a winged rosette
and crescent. There are twelve petals to the rosette, and the crescent
is immediately below it: in these two features we may have a prototype
of the star and crescent of the Turkish peoples.[688] The legs of the
bird[689] survive in the composition of this emblem only as decorative
features, and the talons give place to outward curves or circles, like
those seen on the head-dress of the sphinxes at Eyuk.[690] From these,
slender pistillate objects, with divided or cup-like ends, hang down to
touch the seeds within the uplifted hands of the men. Other objects like
cords, but undefined, hang down from the same place, falling behind their
wrists. It is suggested that possibly the fertilisation of the pistil is
the subject of the scene. However that may be, we notice that, as in the
previous case, the muscles of the arms and legs are strongly shown; the
figures, too, are stolid, and the drawing, treatment, and subject are
alike strongly Assyrian in feeling, with the exception of the peculiar
and distinctive feature of the rosette and crescent. This representation
completes the series of sculptures decorating the frontage of the palace,
but there are others flanking the entrance on either side. Of these the
lion corner-stones come first, and the details of these we have already
examined.
[Illustration: PLATE LXXX
SAKJE-GEUZI: LION AND ADJOINING SCULPTURES (RIGHT SIDE)]
The Lions are followed on each side by representations of winged
sphinxes, the two sculptures, as in the other cases examined, being
practically duplicates of one another. The creatures may be supposed
to have the body of a lion, though the general pose is stiff, and the
position of the front legs even suggests a bird, corresponding to the
wings above; the further details of the monster, however, do not bear out
this suggestion. The treatment of the head and details of this sculpture
again fails to suggest anything distinctively Hittite, but only here
and there the survival of Hittite feeling and tradition. Probably this
art corresponds to an early phase of Semitic influence, such as was
illustrated with more completeness in the excavations of Sinjerli. The
first criterion is to be found in the treatment of the hair, which falls
all around the back of the head in ringlets, and does not curl backward
in a single bunch, in the fashion characteristic of the Hittite figures
of Marash, Carchemish, and Bor. The beard is treated in similar fashion,
while upon the cheeks it is represented by little coils or concentric
circles. The features of the man are also much softer and less pronounced
than those with which we are familiar in Hittite works of Asia Minor. The
head-dress is a sort of helmet, a close-fitting rounded hat with a knob
on the top. The wings of this creature are folded by the side, extending
beyond the tail, and the whole of the breast is covered as it were with
down. The hindquarters of the animal are strongly delineated, and the
treatment here certainly suggests a lion’s body. The tail is held aloft
and comes to an end in the shape of a bird’s head, but whether of a swan
or goose is not clear. Though we fail to comprehend the full meaning
of the symbolism involved in this detail, it is full of interesting
suggestions.[691] This feature is found on each sphinx; and there may
also be traced, more clearly on the right than on the left, the design of
a horn upon the helmet. On the right-hand side the series of sculptures
now terminates, the corner having been disarranged at some time. Two or
three loose slabs, with traces of sculpture upon them, were found in the
neighbourhood, and obviously had completed the decoration of the inner
corner. The sculptures seem to represent men, two of them clad in long
robes with fringed border, and a third presumably clad in a short tunic.
On one of the former, the figure is preserved below the shoulders, and
there may be seen the outline of a long dagger, or knife, in its sheath,
with a fringed tassel[692] probably in attachment with its handle. Owing
to the condition of the stone, it cannot be seen whether this tassel
was attached to a girdle or whether it was independent; nor indeed is
it clear that it hangs actually from the handle of the dirk. The other
stones of this corner are too much weathered and broken for further
instructive details to be made out with certainty.
[Illustration: PLATE LXXXI
1. SCULPTURES DECORATING LEFT-HAND FLANKING WALL
2. SCULPTURES ON THE RETURN WALL CONTINUING THE SERIES]
Upon the left-hand side, however, the series is complete, and remains
in good condition in its original position. Following the sphinx there
comes the figure of a man who, from his position, is the most important
human being of the series, and must be deemed therefore to be the
priest-dynast of the locality. The figure itself faces naturally to our
left, following the direction of the leading sculptures, looking, that
is, towards the outside of the palace. In the treatment of this sculpture
there is revealed an interesting mixture of original Hittite motive
with the change brought about, as we suppose, by Semitic infusion. The
robe in which he is clad is a survival of the toga so familiar in the
sculptures of Asia Minor.[693] The loose folds pass from behind over
the right shoulder and are clasped by his left hand. The garment seems
to hang quite loosely, and numerous folds in it are shown, following
the direction in which it is wrapped around him. The sleeves of the
undervest may also be seen, coming to an end as usual at the elbow.
His feet are shod with sandals, and there are large bracelets upon his
wrists. His hair is dressed in a series of wavy curls, arranged from
side to side across the top of the head, and bound by a narrow fillet,
which is decorated at intervals with concentric circles. The features of
this personage are crudely represented: the eye is shown in full, and
exaggerated in size; the nose, in contradistinction to the usual Hittite
representations, is small and almost Mongoloid; the lips are heavy. The
beard, both upon the cheek and where it hangs freely, is in the style
illustrated by the sphinx figure which precedes, but the hair obeys the
older convention to a certain extent, being bunched together behind the
neck and curling backwards. In his right hand the king-priest holds out
something like a cup with a long stem, the precise nature of which is
not evident. It can hardly be thought that he is offering to either of
the creatures that precede him, inasmuch as they are facing away from
him. It seems more likely, from the sculptures which follow, that he is
simply refreshing himself with wine. The series is continued, but not
upon the same face of the wall; for the stone upon which the priest-king
is carved proved to be the corner-stone, marking the return of the inner
wall of the wing-tower on that side. On this inner wall two further
sculptures are found on two separate slabs. With these the series comes
to an end, though it is not clear that the actual corner of the tower is
indicated by this discontinuity. Both figures are those of men: both are
carved with noticeable skill, and remarkably preserved. They seem to be
attendants in the palace or personal servants of the king, for they are
clad alike and carry in their hands objects for the king’s use. Their
dress is a long robe with a fringe-like band some little way above the
hem. Their feet are shod with sandals, the toes of which are slightly
upturned. They wear no ornaments, and round their heads there is only a
plain fillet ending in a fringed bow. Both stand facing to their right,
following their leader, with their right feet advanced, their right arms
extended, and the left arms held up by the side of the body. The leader
holds up in his right hand what seems to be a fly-whisk, while with
his left he holds a pendent object like a piece of leather or ribbon
ending in a fringe. This probably explains the representation on the
corresponding stone on the opposite side, and it is significant that it
seems to have no connection with the dagger, which is suspended from his
waist by an attachment passing over the right shoulder. It is interesting
to note also that this stone seems to have been carved _in situ_, for
part of the whisk is found upon the corner-stone which precedes it,
while the end of the dagger is found in like manner on the stone which
follows. The second figure holds aloft a bird carved like a vulture, but
from its size and the general nature of the subject it must be taken for
a falcon.[694] In his left hand the falconer holds the ‘lure,’ a sling,
to which there was generally attached a bell or similar object, to be
thrown after the bird to attract it to return. This person also carries a
dagger, suspended in like manner by an attachment which passes over the
right shoulder, and is connected with the sheath appropriately at two
points. The handle of this dagger is peculiar, suggesting a small notch
in the metal between the hilt and the blade.
There remains to be mentioned one striking sculptured object, placed as
we have mentioned in the middle of the portico between the wing-towers,
and clearly defined as the base of an architectural column to support the
doorway. The design, in brief, suggests that the weight of the drum was
borne upon the backs of two sphinxes standing side by side. All round
the top edge the pedestal is decorated with a design of numerous fingers
placed side by side, the nails upwards; a similar object was found, as
we have seen, at Sinjerli, upon which this detail also was clear. The
rest of the sculpture is more simple, but equally striking, not merely
from the nature of the design, but from the beautiful quality of its
execution. The body of each sphinx seems to be that of an elongated lion.
Two paws are seen in front, three from the side and two from behind, so
that we have a new convention illustrated, which seems to be peculiar to
Hittite art. It recalls that of Assyrian art, but nevertheless differs
essentially. In both cases such animals are represented with five legs,
in order to give a realistic effect to each of the three points of view.
But in Assyrian art the front leg on the remote side would have been
repeated in the side view; whereas here it is the hind leg which is
duplicated. The human portrait upon this animal is remarkable, recalling
to a striking degree the head of the sphinx at Eyuk, and to a certain
extent the portrait statue of the Egyptian queen Nefret, to which we have
alluded.[695] It seems without doubt to represent a female. The face is
full, the lips are firm and somewhat severe, the eyes are hollowed as for
the reception of inlaid precious stones. The hair hangs in two ringlets
on either side, between which the ear can be seen. Upon the head there
is placed a close-fitting wig, or head-dress of that character, made, as
we may suspect, of plaited hair or of fine ropework, the strands of which
run from front to back. It ends with the shoulders in a triple border,
and is decorated on either side of the head with horn-like emblems.[696]
As in the case of the sphinx upon the flanking wall, the breast of
this creature is covered with down as though partaking of the scheme
completed by the wings, which as in the former case are folded by the
side. These cover the upper half of the body only, below which the belly
and hindquarters of the animal may be seen, strongly though somewhat
conventionally delineated. As in the former cases of lion sculptures
there is copious hair under the belly, which in this instance recurs
also behind the forepaws and on the hinderquarters. The tail descends
between the hind legs, curling forward towards the ground, where with a
short backward curl its bushy end may be traced. The two sphinxes are
similar in all respects to one another, but the head of one was found
to have been broken away. The whole composition of this sculpture is so
complex that it may be readily believed that it was not designed from
an architectural point of view alone, as the mere support for a plain
column. The excavators indeed found reason to believe that in some
secondary use of the site, after the upper walling of this palace had
been destroyed, the flat top of this pedestal had served as an altar or
its equivalent, and by the side of it they found numerous burnt bones
and cinders. It is clear, however, that in its original inception the
palace doorway must have required a column to help the broad span between
the wing-towers, which amounted to more than twenty-three feet. We are
inclined to believe that possibly such a column, in conformity with the
general design of the building, may have been in the form of a great
statue, similar for example to that of Panammu found at Gerdschein near
to Sinjerli,[697] and more particularly to the round column-figure found
at Palanga.[698] This conclusion is, however, merely hypothetical, based
purely on the elaborate nature of the pedestal, and on the rounded nature
of the statues in question. It would however, be well accordant with the
phase of oriental art to which the sculptures pertain.
[Illustration: PLATE LXXXII
SAKJE-GEUZI: SPHINX-PEDESTAL TO CENTRAL COLUMN OF PORTICO]
Before passing from the subject of this portico, we must mention also
two broad steps which obviously formed part of the same building. They
are decorated chiefly with rosettes, and seem to have given access to
an inner chamber, the connection of which with the threshold is not yet
clear.
In regard to the art illustrated by these subjects in general they lead
us, after careful comparison with other Hittite monuments and with
the ‘Aramaic’ monuments of Sinjerli,[699] to the conclusion that they
represent an intermediate stage between the one and the other.[700] We
cannot, from the internal evidence, decide whether this appearance is
due to the influence of Hittite dominion over an Aramæan population, or
to the supersession of a Hittite stronghold by Semitic rulers.
The excavations which have been made at Sakje-Geuzi have not as yet been
rewarded by any documentary evidence. An effort was made to obtain some
material basis for chronology by cutting a section of the mound down to
the undisturbed ground upon which it had grown. It was found that the
whole mound was artificial, being the accumulated rubbish of continuous
or successive settlements. It began in remote antiquity with the middens
and other traces of a primitive neolithic population, whose flint and
obsidian fragments and black pottery formed a distinct deposit, in
which the excavators thought they detected three strata. That age was
succeeded by two others, during which the neolithic culture remained
predominant. Towards the end of this phase a new style of painted
pottery began to make its appearance, and thereafter for two long ages
painted motives typify the Ceramic art of the locality. The main wall
of the mound was built at the close of the last of these periods, and
it seems to have been contemporary with the construction of the palace
within. Subsequently painted pottery appears only sporadically, and such
fragments as were found are more definitely related to late Ægean art,
while the commoner pottery was the hard burnt brick-like ware familiar on
Assyrian sites.[701]
There can be no doubt that in this record of two thousand fragments of
pottery in their original stratification, there is valuable material for
future comparative study. For the present, however, that which prevents
the immediate application of this material to the problem of chronology
is the remarkable fact that nearly all the early painted fabrics,[702]
which constitute by far the larger portion of objects found in the course
of this section, seem to be local, or at any rate unlike any others upon
record. In the course of future excavations in this and other localities,
doubtless relations will be established which will enable archæologists
to connect the growth of this site with the established chronology of
some civilisation like that of Egypt or Assyria. For the present the only
relations suggested, and these are not clearly established, are firstly,
in regard to the black pottery, sometimes decorated with a white incised
pattern, which resembles in general character that found sparsely in
the Troad by Schliemann[703] and by Dr. Arthur Evans in the neolithic
and earliest ‘Minoan’ strata of Crete;[704] secondly, a few fragments
of a peculiar fabric with black pattern on yellow base, belonging at
Sakje-Geuzi to the neolithic epoch, and corresponding closely to some of
the age of Naram-Sin, found freely by M. de Morgan in his excavations
at Susa;[705] and, thirdly, some general resemblance between individual
fragments of the painted fabrics and those found by Dr. Pumpelly in
Turkestan,[706] by Professor Petrie in the Royal Tombs of the First
Dynasty at Abydos,[707] and more especially by Dr. Evans in the early
Minoan strata of Crete.[708] The precise nature of these suggested
relations is not yet made clear, but for our purpose it is of interest to
realise that it is so remote. So far as its Ceramic art is concerned, the
Hittite civilisation for many ages developed independently. Further, it
is established that the growth of that civilisation may be traced back in
the locality for several thousand years, a fact which these excavations
have for the first time demonstrated.
VI
THE STORY OF THE HITTITES
In this concluding chapter we shall endeavour to relate the material
evidences of Hittite handiwork to the story of their doings. The
monuments have been described, their disposition noted, and in some cases
the materials for dating them have been defined; but the outline of
Hittite history as sketched in the second chapter remains to be filled
in with such details as can be gleaned from the literary sources both
old and new. The old sources are well known. They include the letters
found at Tell el Amarna,[709] the decorative scenes and inscriptions on
the walls of Egyptian temples,[710] and the archives of the Babylonian
and Assyrian kings. In our use of these we must rely on the published
translations and critical discussions of philologists,[711] which we can
do with more reliance in that this branch of investigation is associated
with such names as Maspero, Meyer, Müller, Sayce, Winckler, Hommel,
Knudtzon, Reinach. The new sources are the archives of the Hatti kings,
the first dynasty of the Hittites yet visible to history, discovered
recently amid the ruins of their capital at Boghaz-Keui.[712] These
documents are at the beginning contemporary with the Tell el Amarna
letters, which they supplement and substantiate, and they range in date
practically as far as the Egyptian references, by the side of which they
provide a series of important synchronisms. These new archives have not
yet been published in full, so that we do not reap the advantage of
others’ criticisms in this case. But Dr. Winckler has given the world
the first fruits of his labours,[713] which embody the materials for
many long-lost pages of oriental history. These we have endeavoured to
analyse, for they are difficult and obscurely put forward, and we shall
express them in what appears to us to be their historical sequence and
relationship.
As usual, however, in these investigations, the purely archæological
evidences throw light on the settlement of the Hittites long before
the earliest literary allusions. The mound of Sakje-Geuzi,[714] at the
southern foot of Taurus, illustrates the development of local culture
during a continuous occupation of the site throughout a period which
is not overestimated as beginning before 3000 B.C. and lasting down to
the time of Assyrian domination. We have already seen that the earliest
settlers shared some features of their neolithic culture in common with
Susa on the one hand and the Troad and even Crete on the other.[715] Was
all western Asia and the Ægean infused with a common germ of civilisation
in those days, or was this settlement in remote antiquity an incident
in a migration from one point to the other? Unfortunately we have no
collateral evidence as to the plateau of Asia Minor to help in answering
these questions; yet if the Hittite culture had taken root in the north
of Syria before the second millennium B.C., it may readily be believed
that it had been planted equally long upon the tableland, where in
historic times its chief power is found. The high standard of Hittite
culture, as revealed by their own archives and monuments at the dawn of
their history in the fourteenth century B.C., argues in itself a long
period of settlement and development under civilised conditions; while
a long contact with the culture of the Euphrates valley is indicated
also by the fact that their earliest international correspondence was
conducted in the Assyro-Babylonian language, while their scribes had
sufficient intimacy with the cuneiform system of writing to be able to
apply it to their own language, which was radically different. The great
deities of the Hittite pantheon also have their prototypes in Babylonia.
Of what stock, then, were these early settlers, and whence did they
come? Did they form part of a great migration from the East, like the
Turks in modern history, according to an old school of thought? were
they Semitic? or did they pass like the Phrygian conquerors, from
Europe into Asia, absorbing and adopting Eastern thought and habits, a
veritable _mirage orientale_? That the Hittites were not autochthonous,
if such a term has any meaning, is apparent already, and will become
more clear as we proceed, from the complexity of their pantheon and
the mingled elements of their peoples. We must from the outset beware
also of the pitfall of inconsistent terminology. The name Hittite is
commonly employed in three senses which we must distinguish: it may be
used in reference to the whole confederacy of peoples as depicted in the
Egyptian scenes, or to the smaller and more homogeneous band of Hittite
tribes, or to the dominant tribe of Hatti within the Halys, which seems
to have given its name in antiquity to the whole. The Egyptian artists
indeed recognised the mixed character of the confederates in their day,
and noted some of their peculiarities, but did not distinguish between
them with sufficient clearness or consistency for our purpose. Two types
which we reproduce[716] will serve to illustrate the wide difference of
racial character among the Hittite allies obvious to the Egyptians in
the time of Rameses the Great. The one is Mongoloid, characterised by
a definite pigtail,[717] oblique eyes, high cheek-bones; in short, a
recognisable Tartar type. We are inclined to place it in the vicinity
of Carchemish, if not beyond the Euphrates, upon the main trade route
with the East. The other is a clean-cut proto-Greek type, with a special
form of shield, which we are tempted to assign to Lydia or some part of
western Asia Minor. The Amorites, an Aramæan (Semitic) people, are also
conspicuous among the allies of these times, being distinguished by a
projecting beard, receding forehead, and other features.[718] These vast
differences among the peoples united under the Hatti leadership in the
thirteenth century B.C. are now explained historically, as will become
evident later in this chapter. They reveal to us a population of the
Hittite lands no less mixed than that of Turkey in Asia to-day. They do
not, however, throw any light upon the question of the original race of
the Hittite tribes. These are commonly identified with another type with
a long head, long nose, and receding forehead, deep-set eyes somewhat
obliquely placed, and yellow, wrinkled skin. A sharp, firm line runs down
from beside the nostril on either side of the lips.[719] On the walls
of the Ramesseum, where it is best seen, this type is associated with
Aleppo, and we must recognise in it an element of the Hittite peoples;
but on comparing it with the Hittite sculptures of Sinjerli, Boghaz-Keui,
and elsewhere, we must regard it as still hypothetical whether even
the central Hittite states were strictly homogeneous in race. The
Hatti themselves, indeed, we look on as a dominant conquering element,
differing again, maybe, considerably from other Hittite peoples[720] in a
manner best explained by considering the dominance of the Seljûks or the
Osmanlis in later times, or most analogous perhaps to the position of the
Phrygian rulers in antiquity amongst other peoples of kindred race who
had preceded them.
[Illustration: PLATE LXXXIII
TYPES OF HITTITE ALLIES.
i. Mongoloid.
ii. Proto-Greek.
Temple of Rameses II. at Abydos.]
Though we fail to identify the Hittite race,[721] there is some general
indication of the direction whence they came. We have dismissed the
direct evidence of the pigtailed element amongst the Hittite peoples,
in spite of the temptation of the pigtails on the sculptures of
Boghaz-Keui,[722] and the description of a pigtailed leader as a royal
Hittite, lest we should push the argument there—from further than might
be warranted. We may regard these facts, however, as a general indication
of relationship with the East. The contact with Babylonia has been
already argued, and we must recall the singular relations between the
painted pottery of Sakje-Geuzi with that of Turkestan, extending over a
long range of post-neolithic culture.[723] Another link, not previously
mentioned, is the early employment by the Hittites of the horse, dating
from at least the beginning of the second millennium B.C.,[724] and
the antiquity of the remains of horses found equally in the mounds of
Turkestan.[725] Another item of evidence on this question may be found in
the footgear of the Hittites, which, except in the later sculptures of
North Syria, is always represented, as we have seen, as a shoe or boot
with upturned toe.[726] This feature is now specially characteristic of
the Tartar peoples, and hence another eastward connection is suggested.
But it is not so exclusively; the Arabs (who borrowed it in the Middle
Ages from the Turks) employ it in the desert sands, and in the more
special form in question it may be found in many mountain countries,
for example Greece, and it has long been used in Crete. It is commonly
supposed to be the natural form of snow-shoe for highland regions,
though the shepherds of the Pyrenees, who also use it, believe it to be
specially adapted to walking upon broken and stony ground. However that
may be, most scholars are agreed that it argues a mountain origin for its
Hittite wearers,[727] and this suggestion is borne out by the mountain
cults found in the Hittite pantheon.[728] The mountains by which the
Hittites reached the plateau of Asia Minor are not far to seek; they lie
eastward, in Armenia, the Caucasus, and the Taurus.
[Illustration: PLATE LXXXIV
1. A LIVING AMORITE. (_See pp. 12, 318._)
2. SURVIVING HITTITE TYPE.
From a sketch by Mr. Horst Schliephack. (_See p. 16, note 2, and cf. p.
48._)]
We do not press the argument of these suggestions, but only regret the
paucity of evidence available. For the present we must be content that we
have been able to find some evidence as to the antiquity of the Hittite
settlement. We cannot suppose that the mounds of Sakje-Geuzi stand alone:
indeed a myriad others, that remain unexamined,[729] are evidence to the
contrary, and considerable inference may be made with these as basis from
the disposition of the Hittite tribes as revealed by the first light
of history. One powerful branch must have early seized the position of
Carchemish, while others settled in the plains that lie westward of the
Euphrates. Others again found their homes in the valleys of the Kara
Su and the Orontes, while some branches passed the Lebanon and mingled
with the aboriginal people of southern Syria, where they were gradually
submerged. If we are right in our argument, the habitable valleys of the
Taurus and anti-Taurus regions must have been earlier peopled; and to
judge from the relationship we have indicated, the western extension
of these tribes in Asia Minor must have been considerable even as early
as neolithic times. Whether the Hatti rulers themselves were part of a
later immigration is still open to consideration; upon that point we
await further evidence. The Hittites would seem to have brought with them
(sooner or later) a new cycle of deities, with Babylonian prototypes,
including their national Sandes or Sandan, lord of heaven, a god of
the skies with lightning in his hand, in one of his various forms; and
they seem to have absorbed into their pantheon a number of acceptable
nature-cults, like the worship of mountains and streams and of the
mother-goddess of earth, already practised by an earlier population whom
they overlaid. The sun-god they seem to have received from contact with
the Semite, and to have identified him with their own chief god. With
regard to other aspects of their primitive culture, we can argue from the
one site of Sakje-Geuzi alone, and from the reflected witness of later
times. There is only one general assumption, therefore, that we make,
that once settled in a metal-producing country, in contact with the rich
mines of the Caucasus,[730] and the copper sources in Cyprus and the
Taurus, their civilisation would share to the full in the stimulus of the
copper and bronze ages as these arose. It is at the latter stage that
they emerge into the full light of history[731] in the fourteenth century
B.C.
[Illustration: PLATE LXXXV
THE WESTWARD DRIFT: NOMADS PASSING INTO ASIA MINOR THROUGH THE CILICIAN
GATES.]
The earliest allusions to the Hittites, however, in oriental records
take us back to the period of the great movements in western Asia some
five or six centuries before. These references are naturally scanty,
but they occur in the records of three different peoples, and are in a
sense parallel to one another, so that the main facts bear the stamp
of historical accuracy. From the Babylonian archives it appears that
about 1800 B.C., or before, the Hittites were chiefly responsible for
the overthrow of the first dynasty that ruled at Babylon;[732] while
of even earlier date in the same dynasty are references to the king of
the Hittites and his doings, contained in the great Babylonian work
on astrology,[733] and there is an allusion of possibly much older
date.[734] The mention of the Hittites at the beginning of the second
millennium is almost synchronous with the earliest dated reference
from Egyptian sources, in an inscription of the twelfth dynasty,[735]
from which it would appear that settlements of the Hittites had been
established in southern Syria, and that these were among the objectives
of a military expedition. The historical setting of this record is
apparent, and it is confirmed and amplified by the references in Hebrew
history, which claim our consideration no less than the inscriptions
carved by loyal subjects of the Pharaoh. These passages show us that in
local tradition of the time of the Patriarchs the Hittite settlements
were no matter for special comment.[736] On the other hand, their name
was practically synonymous with that of Canaanites,[737] and, like the
Amorites, they were long looked upon as one of the settled peoples of the
land.[738] For some centuries, however, we are without dated records,
nor is there any direct evidence as to the history and doings of the
Hittites until the eighteenth Egyptian dynasty. One thing, however, is
clear, that the ‘Hyksos’ peoples who overran Egypt in the meanwhile were
deeply imbued with the elements of a culture which, if not purely Hittite
nor directly traceable to them at this date, was still largely shared by
the Hittites in historic times.[739] The people that had overthrown the
dynasty of Babylon was clearly an established power already organised.
Though the earliest kings[740] and dynasties of the Hittites remain
unknown, the nature of the Hittite organisation in the thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries B.C. is now made clear by the archives recently
discovered at Boghaz-Keui. These cover the reigns of six generations of
the Hatti dynasty of kings, making allusion in all to eight of their
sovereigns. They include treaties with internal states in Syria and
elsewhere, with Mitanni, with the Amorites, and with Egypt, most of them
prefaced by historical notes of events leading up to the conclusion of
the treaty in question. There is also correspondence of a diplomatic
character with the courts of Thebes, of Babylonia and of Mitanni, and
other documents of varied sorts. These are written in cuneiform, and the
language employed in foreign affairs is the Assyro-Babylonian: only in
some internal matters the Hittite language is used. Though the documents
have not yet disclosed the full nature of their contents, the archives as
a whole[741] have already thrown as much light upon the history of the
Hittites at this period as did the Tell el Amarna tablets, with which
they are in part contemporary, on the foreign affairs of Egypt during the
eighteenth dynasty.
The story opens with a bid for empire under the Hatti leadership in the
person of Subbi-luliuma.[742] This ruler (known in Egyptian records as
Sapalulu) had inherited only the kingship of his city-state of Kû-sar
[or Sû-sar], which was possibly at Boghaz-Keui itself, from his father,
Hattusil I.; but so well were his plans laid, and so accomplished his
military leadership, that before his death he had won for himself the
title of Great King.[743] We cannot follow the story of his doings in
Asia Minor, for unfortunately the names of the places mentioned in
Hittite in this and the succeeding reign cannot yet be identified; but
it will be clear from what follows that his western frontiers, if not
already peopled by Hittite tribes and subject to his authority, must have
claimed his first attention. In other directions his policy and movements
are revealed more clearly. Among his own peoples he seems to have
arranged a series of alliances; other lands which he overran he parcelled
out among his followers, while to some non-Hittite tribes he granted
terms of vassalage.
Though we have no clear allusion to the kingdoms in the Taurus regions at
this time, we may infer that the two great Hittite states of Arzawa[744]
and Khali-rabbat,[745] which lay on either side of his pathway, were
already allied with him in one or other of these ways, before he
descended to the north of Syria, and ventured to enter the political
arena of western Asia, where the older powers were stationed to resist
his oncoming. The whole of Syria as far northward as Aleppo had indeed
for something like a century been within the sphere of influence of the
Pharaohs. It is claimed for the Egyptian monarch Thothmes I. that before
the close of the sixteenth century B.C. he had set up the boundary of
his empire somewhere near Carchemish on the Euphrates, in the ‘land of
Naharain.’ Three of his successors by occasional expeditions, beginning
with that of Thothmes III. about 1469 B.C.,[746] had sought to retain
this boundary, and had come into conflict with the Hittite tribes already
settled in these regions. These seem to have submitted like other
northern states, nominally at any rate, to the Egyptian supremacy, and to
have regularly sent their tribute to the Pharaoh. But though Amenhetep
III. inherited the full power and dominion of his predecessors, he seems
to have found it necessary to send an expedition at the beginning of his
reign to maintain his suzerainty.
These frontier states indeed occupied at this time a position of
considerable difficulty, where all the diplomacy of their chieftains
was required to maintain the security of their inheritance. The reins
held by the Pharaoh on his distant throne at Thebes may, it is true,
have been only lightly felt: an occasional present or diplomatic letter
to the court would generally secure respite from that direction; but
their anxieties were not thereby ended, for in the East a nearer power
claimed their allegiance also, before the arrival of the Hatti leader
added to their perplexities. This power was the kingdom of Mitanni,
which was firmly established in northern Mesopotamia, from the Euphrates
to the Tigris. Tushratta, who now occupied the throne, represented the
fourth generation of his illustrious house,[747] the authority of which
had been strengthened through the foresight of his predecessors by
intermarriage with the royal family of Thebes. His father’s sister had
been wife of Thothmes IV., and his own sister was married to the ruling
Pharaoh. He clearly realised that the continued support of Egypt would
be necessary to him if he was to save his kingdom from being crushed by
the increasing pressure of Assyria on the one hand and of the Hittite on
the other; so that with some alacrity on his part[748] his daughter was
sent to Egypt to become the wife of the heir-apparent. Propped up in this
manner, the Mitannians had not only established a formidable barrier at
the Euphrates against Hittite expansion eastward, but had even extended
their own influence westward of that landmark, so much so that some of
the princes of northern Syria first encountered by the Hittites hardly
knew to whom they owed their allegiance, and were conquered as vassals
of Mitanni while professing in their letters to be loyal subjects of the
Pharaoh.[749]
TABLE SHOWING CONTEMPORARY RULERS AND ROYAL ALLIANCES
_Compiled from the Hittite Archives and the Tell el-Amarna Letters._
HITTITE
[Hatti.]
B.C. Hattusil I.
1400 |
|
SUBBI-LULIUMA.
|
1350 +------------+----------+
| |
Arandas. MURSIL.
|
+---------------+-----------------+-----+----------+
| | | |
1300 Khalpu- MUTALLU. HATTUSIL II. A daughter.³
Sulubi(s). | _m._ Putukhipa. [_Ilani-irina._]
Urkhi-tessub. |
+------------------+------+------------+
| | |
1250 DUDKHALIA. Nerigga-Shems.² A daughter.³
_m._ Tawâssi (?) [_Gashuliawi._]
|
+------------------+-------------------+
| | |
1200 ARNUANTA. Eldest daughter (?) A daughter.
_m._ Munidan. [Maat-neferu-Ra.]⁷ [Name lost.]
AMORITE
[E. of Lebanon]
B.C. Ebed-Asherah.
1400 |
Aziru.
|
+------+-------+
| |
1350 [Abu-Martu.] Du-Tessub.
|
+-------------+
|
Abbi-Tessub.
|
1300 Put-Akhi³
[_Banti-shinni._]
|
+------+-----------+
| |
1250 Shabilis. A daughter.²
MITANNI
[N. Mesopotamia]
Sa-us-sa-tar.
|
B.C. ARTATAMA I.
1400 |
+------------+-------------+
| |
SUTARNA I. A DAUGHTER.⁴
|
1350 +----------+---------+--------------------------+
| | |
TUSHRATTA. GILUKHIPA.⁵ ARTATAMA II.
| |
+---+------------------------+ |
| | |
1300 MATTIUAZA.¹ TADUKHIPA.⁶ SUTARNA II.
[Sutatarra.]
EGYPT
[Thebes.]
Amenhetep II.
B.C. { B.C.
1400 ⁴THOTHMES IV. { 1420
{ 1411
{
⁵AMENHETEP III. {
{
{ 1375
1350 ⁶AMENHETEP IV. { 1350
[_Akhenaten._] {
Horemheb.
Rameses I.
{ 1313
1300 SETY I. {
{ 1292
1250 ⁷RAMESES II. {
{ 1225
{
MERENPTAH. { 1215
1200 Five Rulers.
Rameses III. 1198-1167
NOTE.—The numerals indicate the marriages.
With these two allied powers arrayed against him, Subbi-luliuma must
have had confidence in the unity and valour of his forces when he
crossed the Taurus to throw down the challenge. We cannot tell whether
he employed any new method or weapon of war that encouraged him in his
aspirations. As seen by us now, in unravelling the tangled record of his
rapid movements and effective victories,[750] his successes appear to
be attributable to the hardihood and mobility of his troops and to his
own able generalship. As to his forces, we may assume from the absence
of contrary evidence, that the whole region behind him, northwards and
westwards from Marash, as well as the states round Carchemish and in the
valley of the Kara Su, already acknowledged his supremacy, and united
with him in this enterprise.
His first operations were thus directed against Nukhasse, a region which
we suppose to have extended northwards of Aleppo as far as Killiz,
including some of the ancient cities of the plain. He took all the lands
of the several states[751] that were included in this district. The king,
Sarrupsi, fled, but his relatives were made prisoners, and a servant of
the dethroned king was set up in his stead, doubtless as a vassal. The
conqueror was turning his attention to the district of Abîna, being
disposed to leave Kinza unmolested, when the king of the latter district,
Sutatarra, and his son Aitakama, with their war chariots, bore down
upon him and gave battle. Though he had been prepared to respect these
adversaries, Subbi-luliuma was not slow to respond to and punish this
provocation: the king and his son, together with many of the chiefs,
were taken prisoners and sent in triumph to the capital. The fate of
Sutatarra is unknown, but Aitakama reappeared later, reinstated in his
kingdom, and a faithful ally of the Hittite, who entrusted him with
the command of the Syrian armies.[752] The land of Kinza is unplaced,
but it seems to have lain westward, possibly on the lower Orontes,
corresponding with the district of Hamath or the kingdom of the Hattina
in later times. It was probably peopled with a Hittite tribe, to judge
from the nature of these chieftains’ names and the position subsequently
accorded to Aitakama. Realising in these incidents the constant influence
of Mitanni, and attributing them to the hostile attitude of Tushratta,
Subbi-luliuma now deemed it desirable to establish his prestige, and so
turned eastward, ready, if necessary, to join issue with Tushratta. In
a single year he added to his territory the whole region of the plains
lying between the mountains and the Euphrates.[753] In this campaign he
seems to have overrun the Aramæan district of Am (or Amma), and with the
aid of his allies to have captured several cities.[754] But the real
objective of the Hittite leader was the destruction of the Mitannian
supremacy and power. Therefore crossing the Euphrates[755] he ‘went forth
against the might of the king Tushratta,’ and marched against the lands
of Isuwa, which are supposed to have bordered on the Tigris, bringing its
people into subjection, as it would appear his father had done in some
previous campaign hitherto unrecorded.[756] This record is difficult to
understand, but we are led to infer that Tushratta did not actually give
battle to him on this expedition, and even when the conqueror made his
way northwards into the mountainous region of Alshe, the Mitannian king
still hesitated to join issue with him.[757] The newly acquired territory
was handed over to a confederate, Antaraki, ‘as a present.’
The power of Tushratta would seem, indeed, to have been crushed by these
irresistible exploits;[758] the kingdom fell into anarchy, and the king
himself was shortly afterwards murdered, giving the Hittite a further
occasion for interference in its affairs, an opportunity which we shall
find he was not slow to seize. Meanwhile, however, disaffection had shown
itself in the North of Syria, seemingly as a result of the overtures
of Pharaoh’s emissaries.[759] ‘Wheeling about,’ the record says,[760]
Subbi-luliuma recrossed the Euphrates and descended on Aleppo. His route
lay probably from Malatia by way of Samsat or Marash, and the absence
of comment at this stage confirms our impression that this region was
already subject to him, though there is a suggestion that a generation
previously it had been for a time in the hands of the Mitannians.[761]
The subjection of Aleppo[762] and the neighbouring lands and cities of
Nî and Katna[763] was swiftly effected, and at first these districts
were placed under the rule of one Akia, king of Arakhti; but on the
disaffection of this chief they were reduced to direct government by
Hittite officials and became a province of the kingdom. A chieftain who
remained loyal to Egypt made an effort about this time to recover the
land of Am for the Pharaoh, but he was repulsed by Aitakama with the
Hatti.[764] Aitakama thus reappears on the scene, and from the same
record it is clear that he had been reinstated in his father’s kingdom.
He now appears as the most influential agent of the Hittite king in the
north of Syria, entrusted with the conduct of missions and command of
troops, even while protesting to the Pharaoh[765] that he was maligned by
those who accused him of infidelity. His attempts to seduce the frontier
states from their old allegiance had been reported to the Pharaoh by
Akizzi,[766] who wrote from Katna, apparently on the eve of the events
we have just recorded, appealing at the same time in despair for help
against the catastrophe that threatened. To Aitakama’s proposals Akizzi
replied that though he should die he would not go over to the king of
the Hatti. With him there remained faithful the kings of Nukhasse, of Nî,
of Zinzar, and of Tunanat, all city-states near Aleppo, while with the
Hittite there were leagued the kings of Rukhizi and Lapana, whose names
were Arzawia and Teuwatti. We have seen that Akizzi’s appeal and his
fidelity were alike in vain. The Pharaoh was powerless or unwilling to
interpose; resistance unsupported was impossible; and Subbi-luliuma with
his generals easily made good his victories. Akizzi himself seems to have
escaped from Katna before that city fell,[767] but the king of Nî, by
name Takua,[768] and his brother Aki-tessub were among the prisoners.
[Illustration: PLATE LXXXVI
CÆSAREA: TYPES OF SEMITIC SETTLERS. (_See pp. 12, 23, 33._)]
The triumph of the Hittite arms in these, and doubtless other minor
expeditions, had now established the authority of the Hittite king
throughout the region of northern Syria, and had extended his frontier
until it bordered on that of the Amorites, hitherto professed allies
of the Pharaoh. These early settlers have recently been recognised as
of Aramaic (Semitic) stock; in records of Babylonia as old as the time
of Hammurabi, from which this inference is made, they are described as
living in the western deserts, and now appear to have pushed gradually
northward, until they had occupied, like Bedouin, all the habitable
fringe of the tongue of desert lying between Mesopotamia and the Lebanon.
Their patriarch, Ebed-Asherah, now found himself in the same dilemma as
Aitakama and other northern chieftains had before him, but the rapid
advance of the Hittite power left him little time for hesitation.[769]
He and his sons were the recognised leaders of the Amorite tribes in
peace and policy and war. They had watched with anxiety the approach of
the Hittite leader on Tunip from Nukhasse,[770] and the failure of the
Pharaoh to send them support could not but have added to their concern.
Quick by instinct to read the signs of the times, they covertly came
to an understanding with the chief of Kadesh, a city already under the
Hittite suzerainty, if not actually within the domain of Aitakama. At
the same time Aziru, the most active of the sons of Ebed-Asherah, making
pretence of still serving his old master, cast his eye upon the city of
Sumur as his nearest prize. The change of attitude and subtle dealings
of the Amorites did not escape the notice of the Pharaoh’s emissary,
who reported Sumur to be in great danger though not yet fallen, and
Ebed-Asherah’s sons as minions of the new northern power.[771] The
Egyptian sovereign was grieved but inactive. In a letter addressed to
the Amorite chief[772] he charged them with their duplicity, and ordered
the appearance of Aziru as a hostage at his court. The latter, however,
evaded the command. He would seem to have already brought about the
downfall of Sumur and other cities, and felt some natural hesitation
in accepting his sovereign’s invitation. He found also a pretext for
postponing the rebuilding of Sumur as commanded,[773] and still protested
his fidelity. In response, however, to a more peremptory summons, in
spite of shifts and subterfuges, Aziru appeared ultimately at Thebes[774]
for the judgment of his case. But the Amorites had influence at court, as
appears from a letter of their patriarch to one of the officials asking
for his son’s release.[775] Amon ‘passed sentence’ on Aziru and ‘granted
him his life.’[776] The mercy extended to Aziru, however, was unavailing;
and further allegiance to the Pharaoh could only have proved fatal to the
best interests of his people. The Hittite cause was clearly triumphing,
indeed the Egyptian made no apparent effort to resist his oncoming; in
any case the Amorite hastened to take the winning side. Betaking himself
to the Hittite, Aziru ‘cast himself under the feet of Subbi-luliuma,’ who
‘granted him grace.’[777] The price of the Amorite vassalage appears in
another record as three hundred shekels of gold paid yearly.[778]
With the Amorites on his side it would appear that the Hittite leader
might now have swept onwards to the frontiers of Egypt, but at this stage
the southerly progress of the Hittite arms seems to have been stayed.
Occupied probably with other campaigns of similar character for the
expansion of his power in Asia Minor, Subbi-luliuma had been obliged
to entrust the conduct of much of his Syrian wars to Aitagama, and
possibly he found that the region of the Lebanon was a frontier already
distant enough for effective control. However that may be, he found it
desirable to come to terms with the Pharaoh, and concluded with him an
alliance,[779] which brought their struggle for some time to an end.
Some of the events which we have described seem to have happened with
a swiftness surprising even in oriental history, but the Great King
probably foresaw that a sterner task lay before him in the consolidation
of his empire. Here again fortune proved to be on his side, by removing
the two chief sources of inquietude on his Asiatic frontiers. In Egypt,
Amenhetep IV., who had succeeded to the throne about 1375 B.C., was
too young or too busily occupied with home affairs to take any active
interest in the possession of Syria, and was only too glad to renew
the Hittite treaty in due course.[780] Babylonia, where the kings of
Karduniash sat upon the throne, was too distant to give occasion for
anxiety, and in addition the broad tract subject to the Amorite régime
was wedged between their respective spheres of influence. In the East
the tragic development of affairs among the Mitannians,[781] the murder
of Tushratta, the flight of the heir-apparent from the usurper and
patricide, Sutatarra, and the invasion of the land by the Assyrians and
by the mountaineers of Alshe, were a series of events all favourable to
the Hittite cause. The armies of Subbi-luliuma crossed the Euphrates
to make good his claim to a portion of the disintegrated kingdom, and
when he realised the distressful condition which the anarchy of these
times had brought about, he even sent his administrators with cattle,
sheep, and horses to re-establish the population.[782] Finally, when the
fugitive Mattiuaza, after a vain appeal to the court of Babylon,[783]
turned to him for protection, he saw and grasped his opportunity. The
oracle was consulted, and ‘the Hittite god gave judgment in favour
of Mattiuaza, Tushratta’s son’ (as against Sutatarra, whom he had
previously supported). Taking, therefore, the unhappy prince by the
hand, Subbi-luliuma gave him one of his daughters to wife, and set him
upon the remnants of his father’s throne. Terms of allegiance were
defined, and the new but reduced kingdom of Mitanni was created a special
Protectorate.[784] The gods of both peoples were invoked as guardians
of the treaty. The frontier of Subbi-luliuma on the Euphrates was amply
secured by the gratitude of the re-established king.
The empire of the Hittites beyond Taurus had now reached, under
Subbi-luliuma, its furthest historical extent; and in Asia Minor, though
direct evidence is not yet available, we may infer that his sway had
been extended westward far beyond the confines of the Halys, even if his
arms had not already penetrated to the Lydian coast.[785] We thus see
in Subbi-luliuma the founder of the Hittite empire under the dynasty of
the Hatti, which for nearly two hundred years continued to hold its own
amid the constant tremblings of the balance of oriental power throughout
this time. Relieved for the present from their frontier campaigns, the
Great King and his allies seem to have reaped the reward of their good
fortune and prosperity. In the capital at Boghaz-Keui, ‘the city of the
Hatti,’ the royal palace seems to have stood on the northern crest of
Beuyuk Kaleh.[786] At Malatia, the palace of his vassal or ally, the king
of Khali-rabbat (the _Milid_ of later Assyrian records), was decorated
with sculptured blocks showing the ruler and his consort as high priest
and high priestess, making oblations before Sandes (the Hittite national
deity), and to the winged deity who seems to have been the guardian of
the tribe.[787] To the same phase of art, though not necessarily the
work of this generation, we must assign the similar oblation scenes of
Eyuk[788] and Fraktin[789]; in the former case, moreover, the forms of
the sacred vessels are the same as those seen at Malatia. It is true that
such vases may have continued in use for ceremonial purposes after their
common vogue had passed; but in any case the lower buildings at Eyuk,
the existence of which we have pointed out,[790] must be as old as these
times; while in the rock-sculptures of Fraktin we recognise a phase of
art and motive as early as that of any recorded Hittite works.
It is a singular fact that notwithstanding the great deeds of
Subbi-luliuma and his successors, no sculpture of any kind has come
down to perpetuate the Hittite triumphs. The Hittite monuments of Asia
Minor are all of primarily religious signification. The royal palaces
were decorated with religious scenes, while even the warrior deities of
Giaour-Kalesi and Kara-Bel are identified with forms of the national god
Sandes. The king is always spoken of as The Sun, and this fact may be
reflected in the terms of address to the Pharaoh by his Syrian subjects
at this time,[791] who otherwise is invariably styled the Horus. At
Malatia the local king and queen are already seen as high priest and high
priestess of the gods.[792] In these early suggestions we see the first
traces of ideals so clear in later history, namely, priest-kingship and
the high status of the woman,[793] with all the ramifications which the
maintenance of these principles involved.
The nature of the Hittite constitution as a whole becomes more clear
in later reigns, but we have already seen something of the nature of
the kingdom and confederacy in watching the tying of its bonds. Three
distinct grades of allegiance can be recognised already:[794] the allies,
the vassals under tribute, and the conquered states administered by
the crown. The special protectorate of Mitanni may be classed with the
first of these. Each subject state would seem to have been bound to the
Great King by special treaty: that with the Amorites has been already
mentioned, while even the petty kingdom of Nukhasse seems to have its
special firman granted when first conquered, previous to the disaffection
of its chief.[795]
[Illustration: PLATE LXXXVII
YENI HAN, NEAR SEKKELI: GROUP OF NOMAD WOMEN. (_See p. 29._)]
Subbi-luliuma died,[796] and ‘mounted the hill,’[797] where on the
sacred high place he was gathered to his god. Thereafter for over a
century and a half, notwithstanding the constant development of new
historical situations, the dynasty of the Hatti sat firmly on the
throne, throughout the greatest visible period of Hittite power. His
son Arandas, who nominally succeeded after a short interregnum, seems
to have been without effective power, and was shortly replaced by his
brother Mursil, the _Maurasar_ of the Egyptian texts. During the earlier
part of an apparently long reign, this monarch seems to have had leisure
and tranquillity to enjoy the empire which he had inherited from his
father. During the first ten years at any rate, the annals of which
are preserved, there seems to have been no incident of foreign affairs
more noteworthy than a series of minor troubles on the frontiers. His
relations with a number of states are mentioned, but the Hittite names
of these are not yet recognisable.[798] The governorship of various
frontier lands was apportioned, or possibly these were now for the first
time brought under Hittite rule. One _Barkhu-izuwa_ was appointed to the
land of Mira, _Manapa-Tessub_[799] to Amaskhe-haku, and _Targâs-nâli_
to Happalama. The terms of the Amorite vassalage were renewed in a
special treaty with Abbi-Tessub, who now appears as chieftain of that
people.[800] In the period of apparent calm in the early part of this
reign, we may see historically the opportunity when in the security of
his kingdom the monarch built a new royal palace at Boghaz-Keui on the
lower ground to the north of the acropolis, outside the main line of the
defences.[801]
But inactivity in these empires of the sword was always fraught with
danger. Towards the close of his reign, if we read the somewhat obscure
chronology of this period rightly, the eastern frontiers of his empire
suffered several shocks. The Assyrian kingdom had been steadily
gathering strength, and soon after 1320 B.C. Shalmaneser I. seems to
have dispossessed the Hittite entirely of his suzerainty eastward of
the Euphrates, ravaging all the kingless country of Mitanni as far as
Carchemish.[802] Further north he even crossed the Euphrates and entered
Khali-rabbat, capturing Malatia, just as a previous Assyrian monarch
had done a hundred years before. In this campaign the Hittite forces
sent against him seem to have been definitely defeated, and Shalmaneser
penetrated as far as Muzri,[803] while his successor also invaded the
district of Kummukh, which lay on the Hittite side of the Euphrates
around Samsat. Egypt also, rejoicing in the re-establishment of a strong
line of kings, was not long in taking advantage of this temporary
weakening. Sety I. had hardly ascended the throne of the Pharaohs when
he initiated a series of campaigns in the south of Syria, and erelong
found himself able to beat back the Hittite forces, and to penetrate
northwards as far as Tunip and the land of Naharain,[804] reaching
possibly to the Euphrates. The early operations of his successor, Rameses
II., however, seem to have extended only as far as the Lebanon,[805]
where the Hittites were encountered; hence we may conclude that the
latter had been able to regain their ascendency in northern Syria. In
these critical times, with a great struggle inevitable and even imminent,
Mursil died, and his son Mutallu succeeded to the Hittite throne.[806]
The new monarch was not slow to realise the critical state of affairs
that had arisen on his eastern frontiers. Assyria, indeed, seems to have
withdrawn temporarily, through internal reasons, from her efforts to
obtain a footing in the Hittite lands, but the repeated incursions of
the Egyptian armies, and the evident intention of the Pharaoh to regain
his dominion over Syria, called forth a mighty effort on the part of
Mutallu to retain the empire which his great ancestor, Subbi-luliuma,
had established, if not even to extend its boundaries. The call to arms
was sounded through the Hittite lands, and the response from every
side showed how deeply and widely the power of the Great King had been
established. Practically all parts of Asia Minor are represented in
this splendid rally round the Hittite leader. United in this common
enterprise, the states of the centre, like the Hatti (_Kheta_), Arinna,
Pisidia, were joined by Dardanians and Mysians from the furthest portions
of the peninsula, as well as by Lycians of the southern coast, and
Kataonians from the anti-Taurus.[807] Northern Syria, from Carchemish
to Kadesh, sent also its contingents, for the Hittite leader ‘left no
people on his road. Their number was endless, nothing like it had ever
been seen before. They covered the mountains and hills like grasshoppers
for their number.’ The Pharaoh valiantly went out to meet this formidable
enemy before it entered his own dominions, and the fateful battle was
joined not far from Kadesh. The opening stages were favourable to the
Hittite, who made a strategic and unforeseen onslaught on the enemy’s
flank, and for a time disorganised the Egyptian forces. The Pharaoh’s
position, indeed, at one moment seems to have been almost desperate,
but in the issue he managed to recover his formation and claims to have
pursued the Hittites from the field.[808] The Egyptian losses were so
great that they were unable to follow up their advantage: even Kadesh
remained unassailed, though the Hittite king had taken refuge within
its walls; so that the battle must be regarded as indecisive. The moral
effect, however, on both sides was sufficient. Mutallu made overtures for
a truce, which the Pharaoh readily accepted,[809] and the Egyptian forces
were withdrawn.
[Illustration: PLATE LXXXVIII
BATTLE OF KADESH: HITTITE CHARIOTRY CHARGING A HILL.
Temple of Rameses II. at Abydos.]
The result of this battle proved indeed an effective rebuke to the
ambitions of the leaders on both sides. Thereafter Rameses confined
his military operations to southern Syria. With the Hittites the issue
was more serious, and the consequences more immediate. Two princes of
the royal blood, Sipa-zar (? Subbi-sil) and Mazarima, several chiefs,
soldiers, and charioteers had been counted among the slain. The Kataonian
chief also perished in the battle, and the king of Aleppo was drowned
while attempting to cross the moat and marshes that protected Kadesh.
The great army had to be disbanded, dismayed and disappointed, when
victory had been so nearly within their grasp. The Amorites, whose home
lands had suffered perhaps most of all in this warfare, and who were
at all times watchful of the balance, threw off their allegiance.[810]
Their chief, Put-akhi,[811] was deposed, but escaped the punishment of
his offence. The disaffection spread among the troops: a mutiny took
place, in which the chief general figures conspicuously, and Mutallu was
assassinated.[812] The zenith of Hittite power was passed; the Hittite
Sun had reached its highest point, and the shadows at that same moment
began to lengthen. Never again, it would seem, could the Hittite leaders
call up in their special enterprise so many allies drawn from such varied
peoples.
The dynasty of the Hatti none the less retained the throne; Hattusil,
brother of the ill-starred leader, whose end we have described, now
became Great King, and Putukhipa, Princess of Qizwadna, was his queen. As
daughter of the city of Arinna, the home of the sun-god, this lady was
probably the foremost of the land, and her union with the Prince of the
Hatti was one of the events that contributed to restore the prestige of
his house. As Khetasar this monarch looms big in the pages of Egyptian
history, and indeed his reign was one of considerable importance and
duration. But, as with his compeer upon the throne of Egypt, the actual
tendency of events throughout this reign shows signs of weakening in
the Hittite power and the gradual dismemberment of their empire.[813]
As with Egypt also from this date, this reign was free from serious
conflict or disturbance in Syria. Assyria had fallen temporarily behind
in the bid for empire, the Mitannians were utterly submerged, and neither
of the other two powers was yet disposed to resume hostilities. One of
Hattusil’s first acts contributed indeed to secure the tranquillity of
his frontier in this direction, by the reinstatement of Put-akhi as Chief
of the Amorites, under the same terms of vassalage as of old.[814] It
was indeed to Hattusil’s intervention that the Amorite prince owed his
life at the time of his disaffection; and now, with a Hittite princess
(Gashuliawi) for wife, Put-akhi was united in his allegiance by a double
bond.